tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29036931221180737422024-02-22T08:01:51.151-08:00Sustainable ThoughtsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-49500157179023854862011-01-23T13:34:00.000-08:002011-01-23T13:34:24.251-08:00New Home for Sustainable Thoughts<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Please check out my new blog and website: <a href="http://www.sustainablethoughts.org/">www.SustainableThoughts.org</a><br />
<br />
This new site allows me to highlight my presentation, The American Dream: The World's Nightmare while continuing to blog. <br />
<br />
I am working to transfer all of my email subscribers to this new site so you won't have to sign up again....stay tuned, I will let you know if it worked.<br />
<br />
Here is a screen shot of the new site:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUIW0_6b6UTFuy41OJ6kfv6YzIvJph3WiF4884S7zfr0j9BeetBV9V4Como8es_WgdjJRSIShUhe7ysUS3VlwbK0pqgsD_azq2QrzX0I0hustWJRsx56VEjEbgoTulbNRBNmcK2SXD366m/s1600/New+Site+Image2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUIW0_6b6UTFuy41OJ6kfv6YzIvJph3WiF4884S7zfr0j9BeetBV9V4Como8es_WgdjJRSIShUhe7ysUS3VlwbK0pqgsD_azq2QrzX0I0hustWJRsx56VEjEbgoTulbNRBNmcK2SXD366m/s320/New+Site+Image2.PNG" width="280" /></a></div> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-89286081619494657902010-12-14T04:11:00.000-08:002010-12-14T04:13:07.715-08:00A Win-Win from Erica<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Today, i thought i would share a great idea from Sustainable Thoughts follower, Erica. First some background. In July 2010 I wrote about some interesting challenges out there to prompt people to be mindful about the tremendous amount of time, money, resources, mental energy, and space that we often waste on clothing. Many of us have closets that are overflowing yet we keep buying more. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In the first challenge, the "<a href="http://sixitemsorless.com/">6 Item Challenge</a>" people try to live for a month using only the same 6 items of clothing (undergarments not included). In the second, the "<a href="http://www.thegreatamericanappareldiet.com/about/">Great American Apparel Diet</a>" participants try to go for an entire year without buying any new clothing. To catch up on all the details, check out the original post:<a href="http://sustainablethoughtsmd.blogspot.com/2010/07/nothing-to-wear-try-this-challenge.html"> Nothing to Wear? Try this Challenge</a>.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
From Erica:</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hi Michael, thanks for this article. I just spent 3 weeks traveling in Europe and had a wardrobe of about 15 items that could be mixed and matched to fit every occasion from the opera to bike riding. I like the idea of a compact closet partly because it simplifies getting dressed and partly because I don’t like shopping particularly. However, I do like to use fashion to express myself so, for about 11 years now, I get together twice a year with a small group of girlfriends (7 total) and we swap clothes. Sometimes it’s clothes we just don’t want to wear anymore and sometimes it’s clothes that we spent money on and so feel guilty throwing out. The swap lets us get things off our hands guilt-free and our items often look more fabulous on our girlfriends – which is another gift! Plus – it’s become a tradition and our favorite days of the year…we make a whole event out of it! Maybe you can start a men's swap club??</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Good luck at the thrift shops!</span></div><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">A brilliant idea - the clothing swap. It intertwines <u>sustainability</u> (consuming less by sharing/reusing clothing) and <u>community</u> (making time to spend with friends). </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Thanks again to Erica for sharing. Keep the good ideas coming in folks.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-50027795414986663722010-12-01T18:24:00.000-08:002010-12-02T03:55:00.204-08:00The Siren call<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In Greek mythology <a href="http://www.blogger.com/">Sirens</a> would call out from their island to passing sailors with music and song. Heeding the irresistible calls the seamen would sail to their death as they became shipwrecked on the rocky coast.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOcRSApH1UAohFW4SmRRF0Cdl12XupL34_8wOOfDQHhbePWvGbb8gdcw4A6NOQphz_Fc1alkBSPwaWAel_QHLAceAIsKQa3V0ECDd-PSzy_SV2DU5r2xlAIGzedqewZAPwqO-8rSR-dgDy/s1600/sirens_cove.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOcRSApH1UAohFW4SmRRF0Cdl12XupL34_8wOOfDQHhbePWvGbb8gdcw4A6NOQphz_Fc1alkBSPwaWAel_QHLAceAIsKQa3V0ECDd-PSzy_SV2DU5r2xlAIGzedqewZAPwqO-8rSR-dgDy/s320/sirens_cove.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The tradition of the Siren is alive and well in our modern world. With each day we are bombarded with the enchanting sounds of fantasy -- that our economy can continue to grow forever. This intoxicating delusion of an infinite world where we expect our every expectation and desire to be fulfilled runs through every facet of our popular culture. It is broadcast endlessly across our media. It permeates our value system and is part of our belief system. It is taught at the highest levels of our education system. It is espoused as dogma in our political system.<br />
<br />
It is the defining fiber that makes up the fabric of our society.<br />
<br />
As more and more societies around the world heed the siren call towards capitalism and consumerism humanity veers closer and closer to the metaphorical cliffs and true disaster. The allure is so strong that, like the sailors of old, we seem oblivious to the clear signs of danger.<br />
<br />
<ul><li>The climate is reeling out of control and within a lifetime may be unlivable for much of humanity.</li>
<li>Other forms of life are disappearing from the planet 1000 times faster than normal </li>
<li>Alienation, depression, and other emotional maladies are chronic, and growing more severe in consumer societies</li>
<li>The earth is reaching its limit in absorbing the pollution and toxic waste produced by exponentially growing consumer societies. The level and number of toxins in our bodies grows with each new day</li>
</ul>So, I have to confess that my heart sank when i saw these two headlines in the New York Times Magazine:<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/magazine/28China-t.html">In China, Cultivating the Urge to Splurge</a></span> (November 24, 2010)<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/magazine/28ChinaPortfolio-t.html?ref=magazine">Shop, China, Shop</a></span> (November 30, 2010)<br />
<br />
In these stories the writers continue the suicidal mantra -- if we are to prosper the world must encourage China to continue to grow and create millions, many, many more millions of people who consume like we do in America.<br />
<br />
As soon as I saw the headlines I knew that I would have to write a blog posting on this. I was heartened to see that even Joe Romm, who normally focuses on climate issues (Blog: <a href="http://climateprogress.org/">Climate Progress</a>), felt compelled to attack this lunacy. <br />
<br />
I will close with a copy of his post here:<br />
_______________________________________________________________________ <br />
<h2 class="permalink-head"><a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/30/and-so-the-word-sustainable-dies/">And so the word “sustainable” dies</a></h2><br />
<h3>Killed by the NY Times magazine.</h3><span class="date" title="Tuesday, November 30th, 2010, 12:34 pm">November 30, 2010</span> <br />
<blockquote><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/magazine/28China-t.html?ref=magazine"><b>The larger idea is to build a more sustainable economy</b></a>, or what Chinese leaders have called a balanced and harmonious society. In that economy, families would not have to save 20 percent of their income in order to pay for schooling and medical care, as many do now. They would instead be able to afford more of the comforts of modern life — better housing, clothing, transportation and communication. In time, <b>China would become the world’s next great consumer society.</b></blockquote>Maybe you thought that the word ’sustainable’ was already dead, but really it was only ill — ill-defined by overuse. But thanks to the <i>NYT </i>magazine and economics columnist David Leonhardt, it has now been officially defined out of existence.<br />
<br />
Maybe you thought ’sustainable’ meant something <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sustainable">like</a> “capable of being continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment.” How wrong you were. Apparently, to the <i>Times</i>, ’sustainable’ means being the biggest consumers in the world. George Orwell would be proud.<br />
<br />
Special props to the <i>NYT</i> and Leonhardt for running a piece that uses the words sustainable, sustain, and sustainability six times — without once mentioning global warming or China’s unsustainable contribution to it — on the day before the big international climate conference in Cancun, a day their op-ed page ran three pieces on global warming, including one explaining the dangers of our unsustainable path (see <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/28/farmer-climate-change-pose-existential-threat-to-my-way-of-life-extreme-weathe/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Farmer in the Times: “Climate change, I believe, may eventually pose an existential threat to my way of life.”">Farmer in the <i>Times</i>: “Climate change, I believe, may eventually pose an existential threat to my way of life”</a>).<br />
<br />
And extra bonus credit to the <i>Times</i> for this head-exploding cover:<br />
<span id="more-37683"></span><br />
<a href="http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Shop-china.gif"><img alt="Shop china" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-37715" height="892" src="http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Shop-china.gif" title="Shop china" width="600" /></a><br />
<br />
Yes, the “health of the world economy depends on” China learning to spend “more like Americans.” As if (see “<a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/08/ponzi-scheme-madoff-friedman-natural-capital-renewable-resources/" id="destacado_5015" title="Is the global economy a Ponzi scheme?">Is the global economy a Ponzi scheme?</a>“)<br />
<br />
The article is a masterpiece of tortured logic and magical thinking. Here’s the paragraph that follows the one quoted above:<br />
<blockquote>That term may have negative connotations in the United States, particularly after the last decade of debt excess. But the term means something very different for China. A Chinese consumer society would improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The benefits of the industrial boom that began in the 1980s would spread more rapidly beyond the country’s eastern coast. The service sector would grow, and the economy would no longer be quite so dependent on smoke-spewing factories.</blockquote>So the only negative connotation the <i>NYT</i> is aware of for the phrase “world’s next great consumer society” is debt excess. No treehuggers at the <i>Times</i> magazine.<br />
<br />
And somehow the benefits of the industrial boom would spread rapidly beyond the country’s east coast, but smoke-spewing factories wouldn’t? How exactly are all those mass consumer goods bought by all those new Chinese shopaholics going to be manufactured? By magic?<br />
<br />
Note to NYT: If you make a bunch of stuff for hundreds of millions of people, you’re gonna have to build a lot of smoke-spewing factories.<br />
<br />
Finally, I’m all for improving the lives of hundreds of millions of people — but somehow I imagine it can be done without “cultivating the urge to splurge” of Americans. Indeed, I am reminded of a piece I wrote two years ago — <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/07/chinese-premier-rich-nations-should-ditch-unsustainable-lifestyles-and-stop-buying-all-the-crap-we-make/">Chinese Premier: Rich nations should ditch ‘unsustainable’ lifestyles … and stop buying all the crap we make</a>. I cited an AFP <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/30/and-so-the-word-sustainable-dies/Is%20the%20global%20economy%20a%20Ponzi%20scheme?">story</a>:<br />
<blockquote>BEIJING (AFP) — Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said Friday that rich nations should alter their lifestyles to help tackle global warming, at the start of a two-day meeting on climate change, state media reported.<br />
“The developed countries have a responsibility and an obligation to respond to global climate change by altering their unsustainable way of life,” Wen was quoted as saying by Xinhua news agency.</blockquote>Not exactly a view that the NYT felt needed to be part of its piece.<br />
<br />
That said, the first thing that popped into my head when I read Wen Jiabao’s admonition was this <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31049"><i>Onion</i></a> story: <b><span style="color: red;">(Note from Sustainable Thoughts: If you are not familiar with the Onion, this "article" is a spoof/parody)</span></b><br />
<blockquote><b>Chinese Factory Worker Can’t Believe The Shit He Makes For Americans</b><br />
FENGHUA, CHINA–Chen Hsien, an employee of Fenghua Ningbo Plastic Works Ltd., a plastics factory that manufactures lightweight household items for Western markets, expressed his disbelief Monday over the “sheer amount of shit Americans will buy.”</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>“Often, when we’re assigned a new order for, say, ’salad shooters,’ I will say to myself, ‘There’s no way that anyone will ever buy these,’ …. One month later, we will receive an order for the same product, but three times the quantity. How can anyone have a need for such useless shit?”</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>… “I hear that Americans can buy anything they want, and I believe it, judging from the things I’ve made for them,” Chen said….</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Among the items that Chen has helped create are plastic-bag dispensers, microwave omelet cookers, glow-in-the-dark page magnifiers, Christmas-themed file baskets, animal-shaped contact-lens cases, and adhesive-backed wall hooks.<br />
“Sometimes, an item the factory produces resembles nothing I’ve ever seen,” Chen said. “One time, we made something that looked like a ladle, but it had holes in its cup and a handle that bent down 90 degrees. The foreman told us that it was a soda-can holder for an automobile. If you are lucky enough to own a car, sit back and enjoy the journey. Save the soda beverage for later.”</blockquote><blockquote>… Chen expressed similar confusion over the tens of thousands of pineapple corers, plastic eyeshades, toothpick dispensers, and dog pull-toys that he has helped manufacture.</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>“Why the demand for so many kitchen gadgets?” Chen said. “I can understand having a good wok, a rice cooker, a tea kettle, a hot plate, some utensils, good china, a teapot with a strainer, and maybe a thermos. But all these extra things–where do the Americans put them? How many times will you use a taco-shell holder? ‘Oh, I really need this silverware-drawer sorter or I will have fits.’ Shut up, stupid American.”</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Chen added that many of the items break after only a few uses.</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>“None are built to last very long,” Chen said. “That is probably so the Americans can return to buy more. Not even the badly translated assembly instructions deter them. If I bought a kitchen item that came with such poor Mandarin instructions, I would return the item immediately.”</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>May Gao of the Hong Kong-based labor-advocacy group China Labour Bulletin said complaints like Chen’s are common among workers in China’s bustling industrial cities.</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>“Last week, I took testimony from several young female workers from Shenzhen who said they were locked in a work room for 18 straight hours making inflatable Frisbees,” Gao said. “Finally, the girls joined hands on the factory floor and began to chant, ‘No more insane flying toys for Western pigs!’ They quickly lost their jobs and were ostracized by their families, but the incident was a testament to China’s growing disillusionment with producing needless crap for fat-ass foreigners.”</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Continued Gao: “As Chinese manufacturing and foreign investment continue to grow, and more silly novelty products are invented, we can expect to see more of these protests.”</blockquote>And if the <i>NYT</i> magazine has their way, the Chinese can look forward to making their own crap too!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-4716500955791965572010-11-07T09:33:00.000-08:002010-11-07T14:14:51.347-08:00Wild Words<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Yes, it has been a long time. Been having a hard time finding that "life-balance" thing. My life has been consumed by work -- little time to read, ponder, or write......</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For a while there I was really in a groove. I was reading quite bit on sustainability and I had lots of ideas for the blog and messages that I wanted to share. I haven't picked up a book in three months. I haven't written a thing in two months. It is so easy to get caught up in the day-to-day routine. The days pass. </div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Each night as my head hit the pillow I would feel disappointed in myself for failing again to make any progress on the blog. For failing to learn more. Failing to share more. As I would drift off to sleep I would promise that tomorrow I would get up early and do some research and some writing. Didn't happen. At home each night I would be too tired and would find ways to avoid "thinking."</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
The months pass and little has changed. Our society is hurtling toward disaster and still no real discussion. No serious re-evaluation of who we are, of what we are becoming, and of what we could be. There is system failure all around us (environmental, political, economic, social) but people hang on tighter and tighter to beliefs, ideologies, and values that are simply not valid in the world we now live in. (The increasing "shrillness" of our political system is a clean indicator of this)</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">There are thousands of people out there creating a new reality. Creating the world of what could be. I will be writing about some of them and their "movements" in the weeks to come. I will be encouraging you to find the one(s) that resonate and figure out how you can make your mark.</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But for today, I will leave you with some "wild words." Every day I rack my brain trying to figure out what is the statistic, the turn of phrase, which image, which vision is the one that will enable someone to finally have that "Aha" moment. Do I paint the apocalypse or sketch the milk and honey? What will it take to inspire someone?</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Every day more and more people "get it" but that number is still far too small to change the system. So today, an attempt to jar some consciousness:</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Herman Daly and John Cobb wrote this in 1994 (15 years ago!) </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span></div><blockquote><div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 5.28pt; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #0b5394; font-family: Arial; font-size: 22pt;"><span style="font-size: small;">But at a deep level of our being we find it hard to suppress the cry of anguish, the scream of h</span><span style="font-size: small;">orror—the wild words required to express wild realities. We human beings are being led to a dead end---all too literally. We are living by an ideology of death and accordingly we are destroying our own humanity and killing the planet… </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #0b5394; font-family: Arial;">Even the one great success of the program that has governed us, the attainment of material affluence, is now giving way to poverty. …<span style="color: red;">The United States is just now gaining a foretaste of the suffering that global economic policies, so enthusiastically embraced, have inflicted on hundreds of millions of others.</span> If we continue on our present paths, future generations, if there are to be any, are condemned to misery. The fact that many people of good will do not see this dead end is undeniably true, very regrettable, and it is our main reason for writing this book</span>;<br />
</span></div></blockquote><br />
(<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Common-Good-Redirecting-Environment-Sustainable/dp/0807047058">For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future</a>) <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">This is a great book and one of the first that I ever read on ideas around sustainability. Herman Daly was a World Bank economist who realized that mainstream economic thought was flawed and ultimately unsustainable. He shows why most of what we were taught in Econ 101 is wrong. But this book is much more than economics. Cobb is a theologian. Together they write a fascinating book that maps out what a sustainable society could look like, and they were some of the first to look at the economic and spiritual and philosophical changes needed to create a sustainable society. Pick it up at your library!</span><br />
<div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I am going to leave you with some selected thoughts from <a href="http://www.grist.org/people/Adam+Sacks">Adam Sacks</a>. In this blog post (shown in blue text) Adam writes a long critique on the environmental movement and its failure to properly communicate the problem of climate change to society. His critique challenges the very core of our history, and challenges how we define ourselves as humans. You can read the full blog post <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/">here</a>. </span></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>I've already shortened his piece, but if you are really in a hurry, read the selections I highlighted in</b> <span style="color: red;">RED</span></u><br />
</span></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: blue; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In the 20 years since we climate activists began our work in earnest, the state of the climate has become dramatically worse, and the change is accelerating -- this despite all of our best efforts. Clearly something is deeply wrong with this picture. What is it that we do not yet know? What do we have to think and do differently to arrive at urgently different outcomes?<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn1"><sup>[1]</sup></a></span></div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: red;">The answers lie not with science, but with culture.</div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;">Climate activists are obsessed with greenhouse-gas emissions and concentrations. Since global climate disruption is an effect of greenhouse gases, and a disastrous one, this is understandable. But it is also a mistake.</div><br />
<div style="color: blue;">Such is the fallacy of climate activism<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn2"><sup>[2]</sup></a>: We insist that global warming is merely a consequence of greenhouse-gas emissions. Since it is not, we fail to tell the truth to the public. I think that there are two serious errors in our perspectives on greenhouse gases:</div><br />
<div style="color: red;"><b>Global Warming as Symptom</b></div>The first error is our failure to understand that greenhouse gases are not a cause but a symptom, and addressing the symptom will do little but leave us with a devil's sack full of many other symptoms, possibly somewhat less rapidly lethal but lethal nonetheless.<br />
<br />
<div style="color: red;">The root cause, the source of the symptoms, is 300 years of our relentlessly exploitative, extractive, and exponentially growing technoculture, against the background of ten millennia of hierarchical and colonial civilizations.<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> This should be no news flash, but the seductive promise of endless growth has grasped all of us civilized folk by the collective throat, led us to expand our population in numbers beyond all reason and to commit genocide of indigenous cultures and destruction of other life on Earth.</div><div style="color: red;"><br />
</div><div style="color: red;">To be sure, global climate disruption is the No. 1 symptom. But if planetary warming were to vanish tomorrow, we would still be left with ample catastrophic potential to extinguish many life forms in fairly short order: deforestation; desertification; poisoning of soil, water, air; habitat destruction; overfishing and general decimation of oceans; nuclear waste, depleted uranium, and nuclear weaponry -- to name just a few. (While these symptoms exist independently, many are intensified by global warming.)</div><br />
<div style="color: red;">We will not change course by addressing each of these as separate issues; we have to address root cultural cause.</div><br />
[MD: long section on climate science, let's skip that and get to the good stuff]<br />
<br />
<div style="color: red;">Bitter climate truths are fundamentally bitter cultural truths. Endless growth is an impossibility in the physical world, always -- <i>but always</i> -- ending in overshot and collapse. Collapse: with a bang or a whimper, most likely both. We are already witnessing it, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.</div><div style="color: red;"><br />
</div><div style="color: red;">Because of this civilization's obsession with growth, its demise is 100 percent predictable. We simply cannot go on living this way. Our version of life on earth has come to an end. Moreover, there are no "free market" or "economic" solutions. And since corporations must have physically impossible endless growth in order to survive, corporate social responsibility is a myth. The only socially responsible act that corporations can take is to dissolve.</div><div style="color: red;"><br />
</div><div style="color: red;">We can't bargain with the forces of nature, trading slightly less harmful trinkets for a fantasied reprieve. Geophysical processes care not one whit for our politics, our economics, our evening meals, our theologies, our love for our children, our plaintive cries of innocence and error.</div><br />
<div style="color: red;">We can either try to plan the transition, even at this late hour, or the physical forces of the world will do it for us -- indeed, they already are. As Alfred Crosby stated in his remarkable book, <i>Ecological Imperialism</i>, mother nature's ministrations are never gentle.<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn5"><sup>[5]</sup></a></div><div style="color: red;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;"><b>Telling the Truth</b></div><div style="color: blue;">If we climate activists don't tell the truth as well as we know it -- which we have been loathe to do because we ourselves are frightened to speak the words -- the public will not respond, notwithstanding all our protestations of urgency.</div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;">And contrary to current mainstream climate-activist opinion, contrary to all the pointless "focus groups," contrary to the endless speculation on "correct framing," the only way to tell the truth is to tell it. All of it, no matter how terrifying it may be.<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn6"><sup>[6]</sup></a></div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;">It is offensive and condescending for activists to assume that people can't handle the truth without environmentalists finding a way to make it more palatable. <span style="color: red;"> The public is concerned, we vaguely know that something is desperately wrong, and we want to know more so we can try to figure out what to do</span>. The response to <i>An Inconvenient Truth</i>, as tame as that film was in retrospect, should have made it clear that we want to know the truth.</div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: red;">And finally, denial requires a great deal of energy, is emotionally exhausting, fraught with conflict and confusion. Pretending we can save our current way of life derails us and sends us in directions that lead us astray. The sooner we embrace the truth, the sooner we can begin the real work.</div><br />
<div style="color: blue;">Let's just tell it.</div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;"><b>Stating the Problem</b></div><div style="color: red;">After we tell the truth, then what can we do? Is it hopeless? Perhaps. But before we can have the slightest chance of meaningful action, having told the truth, we have to face the climate reality, fully and unflinchingly. If we base our planning on false premises -- such as the oft-stated stutter that reducing our greenhouse-gas emissions will forestall "the worst effects of global warming" -- we can only come up with false solutions. "Solutions" that will make us feel better as we tumble toward the end, but will make no ultimate difference whatsoever.</div><br />
<div style="color: blue;">Furthermore, we can and must pose the problem without necessarily providing the "solutions."<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn7"><sup>[7]</sup></a> I can't tell you how many climate activists have scolded me, "You can't state a problem like that without providing some solutions." If we accept that premise, all of scientific inquiry as well as many other kinds of problem-solving would come to a screeching halt. The whole point of stating a problem is to clarify questions, confusions, and unknowns, so that the problem statement can be mulled, chewed, and clarified to lead to some meaningful answers, even though the answers may seem to be out of reach.</div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;">Some of our most important thinking happens while developing the problem statement, and the better the problem statement the richer our responses. That's why framing the global warming problem as greenhouse-gas concentrations has proved to be such a dead end.</div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;">Here is the problem statement as it is beginning to unfold for me. We are all a part of struggling to develop this thinking together:</div><br />
<div style="color: red;">We must leave behind 10,000 years of civilization; this may be the hardest collective task we've ever faced. It has given us the intoxicating power to create planetary changes in 200 years that under natural cycles require hundreds of thousands or millions of years -- but none of the wisdom necessary to keep this Pandora's Box tightly shut. We have to discover and re-discover other ways of living on earth.</div><div style="color: red;"><br />
</div><div style="color: red;">We love our cars, our electricity, our iPods, our theme parks, our bananas, our Nikes, and our nukes, but we behave as if we understand nothing of the land and water and air that gives us life. It is past time to think and act differently.</div><div style="color: red;"><br />
</div><div style="color: red;">If we live at all, we will have to figure out how to live locally and sustainably. Living locally means we are able get everything we need within walking (or animal riding) distance. We may eventually figure out sustainable ways of moving beyond those small circles to bring things home, but our track record isn't good and we'd better think it through very carefully.</div><div style="color: red;"><br />
</div><div style="color: red;">Likewise, any technology has to be locally based, using local resources and accessible tools, renewable and non-toxic. We have much re-thinking to do, and re-learning from our hunter-gatherer forebears who managed to survive for a couple of hundred thousand years in ways that we with our civilized blinders we can barely imagine or understand.<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn8"><sup>[8]</sup></a></div><br />
<div style="color: blue;">Living sustainably means, in Derrick Jensen's elegantly simple definition, that whatever we do, we can do it indefinitely.<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn9"><sup>[9]</sup></a> We cannot use up anything more or faster than nature provides, we don't poison the air, water, or soil, and we respect the web of life of which we are an intricate part. <span style="color: red;">We are not separate from nature, or above it, or in any way qualified to supervise it.</span><a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn10" style="color: red;"><sup>[10]</sup></a><span style="color: red;"> The evidence is ample and overwhelming; all we have to do is be brave enough to look.</span></div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;">How do we survive in a world that will probably turn -- is already turning, for many humans and non-humans alike -- into a living hell? How do we even grow or gather food or find clean water or stay warm or cool while assaulted by biblical floods, storms, rising seas, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, snow, and hail?</div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;">It is crystal clear that we cannot leave it to the technophiliacs. It is human technology coupled with our inability to comprehend, predict, and prevent unintended consequences that have brought us global catastrophe, culminating in climate disruption, in the first place. <span style="color: red;">Desperate hopes notwithstanding, there are no high-tech solutions here, only wishful thinking--the tools that got us into this mess are incapable of getting us out</span>.<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn11"><sup>[11]</sup></a></div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;">All that being said, we needn't discard all that we've learned, far from it.<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-23-the-fallacy-of-climate-activism/#edn12"><sup>[12]</sup></a> But we must use our knowledge with great discretion, and lock much of it away as so much nuclear weaponry and waste.</div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;">Time is running very short, but the forgiveness of this little blue orb in a vast lonely universe will continue to astonish and nourish us--if we only give it the chance.</div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;">Our obligation as activists, the first step, the essence, is to part the cultural veil at long last, and to tell the truth.</div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-79066658102551582872010-09-10T06:59:00.000-07:002010-09-10T07:04:35.777-07:00What could be...<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">An exciting day here at Sustainable Thoughts: our first guest blogger. <a href="http://www.ccap.org/index.php?component=pages&id=46">Josh Foster</a>, a friend and former colleague traveled to Europe over the summer and was amazed at how easy it was to get around, mostly without the need for a vehicle. I asked him to share his experience with us.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Josh is a self-described policy wonk and climate science "groupie" with over 15 years working on adaptation to climate change (working on how to deal with the changes caused by our rapidly changing climate; learn the basics <a href="http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-Adaptation-Jan09.pdf">here</a>). He spent 13 years at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (<a href="http://www.noaa.gov/">NOAA</a>) improving the communication of climate information to decision makers and the public. He now works with local governments to enhance their resilience to climate change impacts and to ensure adaptation is on the national policy agenda.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u>First, my little prologue:</u></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For most of us in the U.S. it is hard to imagine life without a car. The car is wrapped up in our country's history, our popular culture, and for many, it makes up part of our personal identity. Owning a car is a national birth right. Our landscape is defined by the privately owned vehicle. Thousands of miles of highways. Shopping centers located miles from where we live with massive parking lots. Zoning laws that require us to drive to go from work, to school, to find a loaf of bread. Mile after mile of strip malls and low density development. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This reality did not happen overnight. Our government has invested many billions of dollars since the 1950s to subsidize road building around the country. Our taxation system encourages the discovery and use of massive amouts of oil needed to fuel this system. The military is used with greater frequency to protect oil supply lines.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you live anywhere outside of a large city in America your life would be very hard without a vehicle. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Using a 1.5 ton piece of machinary to move one person around is stunningly unsustainable. The carbon emissions that are destroying the climate. The pollution that kills thousands each year. Thousands more who die in accidents. The material use. The mining. The toxic chemicals.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Any proposition to reduce the use of cars is seen as an attack on the American way of life. Many can only imagine a life of extreme inconvenience and suffering. A loss of independence and freedom. It is easy to understand why -- public transportation in the US is typically woeful and unreliable. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It doesn't have to be that way. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Many societies have created public transporation systems that are clean, efficient and useful. People get to where they need to go with minimal delay and discomfort. These systems are many times more efficient than the one we have in America. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Cars are not part of a sustainable future. It is that simple. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Below is a view to world that could be. That already is. When do we catch up?</span><br />
_____________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">From Josh Foster:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">It’s mid-afternoon on the Thursday before the Memorial Day weekend May 2010. I am crawling along in pre-Holiday bumper-to-bumper Beltway traffic on my way to Washington Dulles International Airport. My goal is to fly to Bonn, Germany to speak at the Resilient Cities 2010 - 1st World Congress on Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change. The Congress is a first ever, global gathering dedicated to sharing the latest scientific findings, effective approaches and state-of-the-art programs on climate change adaptation and resilience-building in cities and urbanized areas. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">I had left my condo in Cleveland Park, DC three hours before my flight for the 45 minute drive to Dulles Airport—ostensibly to “beat the traffic”, but found my fellow drivers had the same idea regarding their long-weekend vacations—2 days in advance! Reaching the Dulles access road running 17 miles to the airport traffic continues to crawl along behind trucks hauling dirt for the future Silver Metro Line connecting Falls Church to Dulles…hints of a better future. Arriving at the airport I park in the sprawling satellite economy lot full of cars…and board my first public transportation…the shuttle bus to the terminal. On the bus I reflect that it’s still overall cheaper, faster, and more convenient to drive to an airport 35 miles from downtown Washington, DC, park, and fly internationally than to take a cab or bus to Dulles, or Metro to Washington National---the “downtown” DC airport—and connect to Europe via another domestic airport. Essentially the incentives embedded in the design of my hometown’s urban system encourages my less sustainable behavior…and here I am one who has dedicated my career to encouraging better.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Arriving at the check-in line I find 500 of my fellow travelers also waiting to enter the airport system. Needless to say, I missed my flight…reason given, “traffic congestion,” resulting in a sage nod from the rebooking agent -- and the need to return home for the night and do it all again the next day with associated expenditure of time and resources.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">The next day, as we are in the glide path into Frankfurt Airport, and I am looking across green farm fields around the city studded with the iconic towers of windmills, blades turning lazily in the available breeze. After clearing customs, I follow signs over a foot bridge directly into the adjacent train station to catch the high-speed rail to Bonn. In about 20 minutes I am cruising along at 232 mph past the same farm fields and windmills I saw from the plane. Near Bonn, some obstruction in the track sends us back to Frankfurt—but redundancy in the dense track system allows an alternate scenic route along the Rhine River -- beautiful towns, castles, and water but also working cargo barges plying their trade. From the train I also notice the ubiquity of individual and community gardens growing vegetables in almost every yard and town. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Arriving at Bonn Station, I exit within a stones throw of dense light tram-rail and bus lines. Running late, I grab a cab to the conference center where food, lodging, and facilities are all centralized around an open-air garden and pond. A nearby 700-acre park allows space for early morning jogs overlooking the Rhine intersecting a miles long foot-path along the river that doubles as a bicycle commuter route. Going downtown for the evening we walk to the nearby subway station for a 20-minute ride. After a fun evening of fine food, drink, and fellowship we return to the conference center in a mini-van taxi that fits our entire group of 8. Upon leaving Bonn, I take a taxi to the nearby city of Cologne to visit a friend, and then a train to the airport…flying to Vienna, Austria. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">On the glide path into the airport in Vienna, I again see the green farmland around the city studded with windmills. I am staying with a friend in a suburb surrounded by vineyards and walking trails…each vineyard with it’s own local restaurant. Groceries and many other amenities line the local dense network of streets and houses. An urgent trip to his daughters school to deliver a science project means a 5-minute walk to a light rail-tram, followed by a bus ride, and a short walk to the school. His kids ride public transit to school daily and children as young as 5 ride unsupervised. Going downtown from the school we board a bus, to a subway station, and exit in the heart of the city. Adjacent to the subway exit is a trash to energy incinerator that is high-tech, clean, and a local icon having been designed as a work of art. Walking around the Viennese “old city” it is nearly carless…and I notice that parking necessitates a special permit at $10s per hour. We return home hopping a bus, to tram, and walk in the door a few minutes later. When we go hiking the next day a bus that passes every 10 minutes takes us to the top of a nearby range of hills with great views and networks of trails through miles of parkland that are all still inside the city limits.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">My next stop is Helsinki, Finland. Exiting the airport terminal I board a bus (leaving twice per hour) for the 50-minute ride downtown. The bus arrives at the center city train station surrounded by light tram-lines and bike paths with streets sparsely crowded with cars. After a fine dinner near the train station we hop a frequent bus out to his apartment in the suburb. He does not have a car. His apartment complex is near the ocean and surrounded by forest. It has a grocery store, a child-care center, and a health-care clinic -- most apartment complexes have these facilities. And these are the “cheap” apartments. My friend’s wife was in the hospital for 2 months—and they only paid $500 out of pocket. In the morning, I notice numerous pedestrian bridges over roads and bike paths in and around the complex. Buses passing through leave for downtown every 10 minutes. A short walk takes us to nature trails threading through woods, across cliffs with great views of the ocean, and through estuaries full of waterfowl. He rides the bus to work—an office building overlooking the water. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">Upon leaving my friend’s on the way home to the US, I continue on downtown by bus. I kill time at a sidewalk café in the sun with a coffee and pastry overlooking a parkland running between main thouroughfaries. I reflect that skillful urban design, public transportation, and a willingness to pay collectively to provide for the common good are a real kind of security. It is also gratifying to know that there are countries in the world that are seeking a path toward sustainability while also providing a high quality of life. There are those in the US that would call it Socialism as if it was a pejorative…but as I board the bus to the airport, I think it feels like freedom…and that there is a different way to live…</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-44505833758441943902010-08-29T03:15:00.000-07:002010-08-29T03:28:51.003-07:00Disconnect to reconnectWhen you wake up in the morning, what is the first thing you do? <br />
<br />
Can you remember the last time you were not even a little bit tired?<br />
<br />
I thought I would share this article that I read a few days ago -- it really resonated with me. As we find more and more ways to "stay connected" or be entertained we have less and less time for ourselves and our own thoughts. Last year I used to take the metro into work each day. I always took an issue of Newsweek magazine along so I could do some of my "current events" reading. Heaven forbid I should waste the 40 minute one-way ride. After a while I decided to not do any reading during the morning ride -- I "allowed" myself the luxury of just sitting and thinking. I loved it. I have so many things I feel that I should be doing, reading this, writing that, working on something else, I grant myself very little time to do nothing. In our culture, that is wasted time. I feel that stress every day, to not <em><strong>waste</strong></em> a minute. I am working hard to move away from technology and more towards nature and flesh and blood people. I highly recommend it.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: magenta; font-size: large;"><em>Despite what our culture says, doing more, does not equal living more.</em></span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">New York Times</span></strong><br />
August 24, 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/technology/25brain.html?_r=1&ref=your_brain_on_computers"><span style="font-size: large;">Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime</span></a><br />
<br />
By MATT RICHTEL<br />
<br />
SAN FRANCISCO — It’s 1 p.m. on a Thursday and Dianne Bates, 40, juggles three screens. She listens to a few songs on her iPod, then taps out a quick e-mail on her iPhone and turns her attention to the high-definition television.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgydr2jJ8QQGWaCxdjKgM1cryjpo3xNMPOWJ6YWoxQUFz2oXxlx4Ys_Tln1Niu6HH_r3RvKNq_2H-xbFLLN-qj4Mm-kWasg4h67M1bXaCMtfSsWmKT7iLFKM7lpDdd8dpiSsnqL8plwuTWo/s1600/25brainspan-cnd-articleLarge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="352" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgydr2jJ8QQGWaCxdjKgM1cryjpo3xNMPOWJ6YWoxQUFz2oXxlx4Ys_Tln1Niu6HH_r3RvKNq_2H-xbFLLN-qj4Mm-kWasg4h67M1bXaCMtfSsWmKT7iLFKM7lpDdd8dpiSsnqL8plwuTWo/s640/25brainspan-cnd-articleLarge.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
Just another day at the gym.<br />
<br />
As Ms. Bates multitasks, she is also churning her legs in fast loops on an elliptical machine in a downtown fitness center. She is in good company. In gyms and elsewhere, people use phones and other electronic devices to get work done — and as a reliable antidote to boredom.<br />
<br />
Cellphones, which in the last few years have become full-fledged computers with high-speed Internet connections, let people relieve the tedium of exercising, the grocery store line, stoplights or lulls in the dinner conversation.<br />
<br />
The technology makes the tiniest windows of time entertaining, and potentially productive. But scientists point to an unanticipated side effect: when people keep their brains busy with digital input, they are forfeiting downtime that could allow them to better learn and remember information, or come up with new ideas.<br />
<br />
Ms. Bates, for example, might be clearer-headed if she went for a run outside, away from her devices, research suggests.<br />
<br />
At the University of California, San Francisco, scientists have found that when rats have a new experience, like exploring an unfamiliar area, their brains show new patterns of activity. But only when the rats take a break from their exploration do they process those patterns in a way that seems to create a persistent memory of the experience.<br />
<br />
The researchers suspect that the findings also apply to how humans learn.<br />
<br />
“Almost certainly, downtime lets the brain go over experiences it’s had, solidify them and turn them into permanent long-term memories,” said Loren Frank, assistant professor in the department of physiology at the university, where he specializes in learning and memory. He said he believed that when the brain was constantly stimulated, “you prevent this learning process.”<br />
<br />
At the University of Michigan, a study found that people learned significantly better after a walk in nature than after a walk in a dense urban environment, suggesting that processing a barrage of information leaves people fatigued.<br />
<br />
Even though people feel entertained, even relaxed, when they multitask while exercising, or pass a moment at the bus stop by catching a quick video clip, they might be taxing their brains, scientists say.<br />
<br />
“People think they’re refreshing themselves, but they’re fatiguing themselves,” said Marc Berman, a University of Michigan neuroscientist.<br />
<br />
Regardless, there is now a whole industry of mobile software developers competing to help people scratch the entertainment itch. Flurry, a company that tracks the use of apps, has found that mobile games are typically played for 6.3 minutes, but that many are played for much shorter intervals. One popular game that involves stacking blocks gets played for 2.2 minutes on average.<br />
<br />
Today’s game makers are trying to fill small bits of free time, said Sebastien de Halleux, a co-founder of PlayFish, a game company owned by the industry giant Electronic Arts.<br />
<br />
“Instead of having long relaxing breaks, like taking two hours for lunch, we have a lot of these micro-moments,” he said. Game makers like Electronic Arts, he added, “have reinvented the game experience to fit into micro-moments.”<br />
<br />
Many business people, of course, have good reason to be constantly checking their phones. But this can take a mental toll. Henry Chen, 26, a self-employed auto mechanic in San Francisco, has mixed feelings about his BlackBerry habits.<br />
<br />
“I check it a lot, whenever there is downtime,” Mr. Chen said. Moments earlier, he was texting with a friend while he stood in line at a bagel shop; he stopped only when the woman behind the counter interrupted him to ask for his order.<br />
<br />
Mr. Chen, who recently started his business, doesn’t want to miss a potential customer. Yet he says that since he upgraded his phone a year ago to a feature-rich BlackBerry, he can feel stressed out by what he described as internal pressure to constantly stay in contact.<br />
<br />
“It’s become a demand. Not necessarily a demand of the customer, but a demand of my head,” he said. “I told my girlfriend that I’m more tired since I got this thing.”<br />
<br />
In the parking lot outside the bagel shop, others were filling up moments with their phones. While Eddie Umadhay, 59, a construction inspector, sat in his car waiting for his wife to grocery shop, he deleted old e-mail while listening to news on the radio. On a bench outside a coffee house, Ossie Gabriel, 44, a nurse practitioner, waited for a friend and checked e-mail “to kill time.”<br />
<br />
Crossing the street from the grocery store to his car, David Alvarado pushed his 2-year-old daughter in a cart filled with shopping bags, his phone pressed to his ear.<br />
<br />
He was talking to a colleague about work scheduling, noting that he wanted to steal a moment to make the call between paying for the groceries and driving.<br />
<br />
“I wanted to take advantage of the little gap,” said Mr. Alvarado, 30, a facilities manager at a community center.<br />
<br />
For many such people, the little digital asides come on top of heavy use of computers during the day. Take Ms. Bates, the exercising multitasker at the expansive Bakar Fitness and Recreation Center. She wakes up and peeks at her iPhone before she gets out of bed. At her job in advertising, she spends all day in front of her laptop.<br />
<br />
But, far from wanting a break from screens when she exercises, she says she couldn’t possibly spend 55 minutes on the elliptical machine without “lots of things to do.” This includes relentless channel surfing.<br />
<br />
“I switch constantly,” she said. “I can’t stand commercials. I have to flip around unless I’m watching ‘Project Runway’ or something I’m really into.”<br />
<br />
Some researchers say that whatever downside there is to not resting the brain, it pales in comparison to the benefits technology can bring in motivating people to sweat.<br />
<br />
“Exercise needs to be part of our lives in the sedentary world we’re immersed in. Anything that helps us move is beneficial,” said John J. Ratey, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School and author of “Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain.”<br />
<br />
But all things being equal, Mr. Ratey said, he would prefer to see people do their workouts away from their devices: “There is more bang for your buck doing it outside, for your mood and working memory.”<br />
<br />
Of the 70 cardio machines on the main floor at Bakar Fitness, 67 have televisions attached. Most of them also have iPod docks and displays showing workout performance, and a few have games, like a rope-climbing machine that shows an animated character climbing the rope while the live human does so too.<br />
<br />
A few months ago, the cable TV went out and some patrons were apoplectic. “It was an uproar. People said: ‘That’s what we’re paying for,’ ” said Leeane Jensen, 28, the fitness manager.<br />
<br />
At least one exerciser has a different take. Two stories up from the main floor, Peter Colley, 23, churns away on one of the several dozen elliptical machines without a TV. Instead, they are bathed in sunlight, looking out onto the pool and palm trees.<br />
<br />
“I look at the wind on the trees. I watch the swimmers go back and forth,” Mr. Colley said. “I usually come here to clear my head.” <br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
Some of my favorite comments on this article:<br />
<br />
Rob New York August 24th, 2010 4:06 pm<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">I was out to dinner with some current and former colleagues. I had put the evening together hoping for some interesting conversation. The only participant in those conversations seemed to be me. The others kept glancing (nervously) at their phones. They missed out on a lovely evening and I vowed never to dine with such idiots again.</span></strong> <br />
<br />
Rage Baby NYC August 24th, 2010 4:06 pm<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">I click on things to avoid the pain of thinking</span></strong><br />
<br />
Steve St-Laurent Vancouver, BC August 24th, 2010 4:06 pm <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">The end result of this self-absorbption is that everyone else becomes, well, just traffic – stuff that distracts you or gets in your way. Then we</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: blue;">wonder about the epidemic decline in empathy. What a sorry state and pathetic waste of our humanity!</span></strong><br />
<br />
T.R. New York August 24th, 2010 3:35 pm <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">I do not find this news surprising. As a high school English teacher, I blame this lifestyle on my students' inability to think. I see it among adults as well. Nobody discusses ideas because nobody has any. </span></strong><br />
<br />
Matt New York City August 24th, 2010 3:35 pm<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Yes, our passion for connectivity is disconnecting us from ourselves.</span></strong><br />
<br />
jesus.<span style="color: black;">christ Newark</span>, NJ August 24th, 2010 4:57 pm <br />
<strong><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: blue;">Ball-and-Chain nation. That's what I tell my students who can't seem to let go of their cell phones.</span> Slot machine mentality, they await for some event that will change their lowly lives. That event won't come from a cell phone though, yet they continue to fixate on this little device. </span><span style="color: blue;">It's all they need, and in many ways I must agree that many of these minions will die waiting to live their lives. Such is youth</span></strong><br />
<br />
MT Rhode Island August 24th, 2010 4:57 pm <br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Articles like this inspire me to remove myself from my digital devices. I myself turn on my itouch and check my email before I put on my glasses in the morning, listen to my ipod while working out, and spend more time on the computer daily than I do reading a book. From now on,I will make a pledge to myself to use less of my digital devices, and spend more time living in the present, appreciating and acknowledging my surroundings and the natural world. Thank you for motivating me to live my life! :) </span></strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-7878908985891871092010-08-08T11:33:00.000-07:002010-08-11T19:59:38.577-07:00Walking Lightly (er)I thought I would share some of the changes and/or choices we (me and my partner) have made to try and reduce our impact on the planet. We are always looking for new ways to reduce the amount of energy that we consume, to reduce the amount of materials that we use and for ways to extend the life of the goods we already have.<br />
<br />
Why is this important? Well, if everyone on the planet consumed the way we do in the United States we <b>would need FIVE earth</b>s. We have one (for those of you keeping score). We use up materials as if trees, water, and minerals were unlimited. In just 100 years we have wiped out much of the earth's stocks of natural resources. <br />
<br />
In order to avoid catastrophe we must fundamentally change how we live our lives. Few people are prepared for this message. It challenges everything we think we know about life. It challenges and calls into question the very core of our national and personal identities'. Some very heavy emotional and intellectual lifting indeed, but for today, let's focus on the "easy" stuff. Let's focus on reducing energy use, consuming less, and looking at diet.<br />
<br />
<b style="color: red;">There are LOT's of links in this posting. Take your time and work through them if you can. Lot's of good information and ideas to be explored.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Reduce Energy Use</b><br />
<blockquote><b>Drive Less:</b> In America 30-40% of all energy use, and climate change inducing carbon emissions, come from the transportation sector. That is because our society is so dependent on the private automobile. Do everything you can to drive less. </blockquote><b><span style="color: #38761d;">Car: We have made a commitment to being, at most, a one-car family. We have a small car which at times is inconvenient and we have considered getting a larger second-hand car for those times when more space is needed. In the end we decided that if a larger car is needed, we will trade in the first car. If and when public transportation improves in this country I would love to have no car and just rent a vehicle from time to time.</span></b><br />
<div style="color: #38761d;"><br />
<b>Location: When we moved to Washington DC we very consciously chose an apartment that is within walking distance of a metro station. This allows us to use public transportation to go to work each day and for any excursions into the city (In fact, with my new job, I can actually walk to work - even better!). Our apartment is within walking distance to two grocery stores (Giant and Whole Foods). We have a cart that we use to carry our groceries back and forth. We get some exercise and we don't use the car. Love it.</b></div><div style="color: #38761d;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Facilities: We also specifically chose an apartment complex that has tennis courts and a gym. Finding tennis courts in this semi-urban area can be difficult and can require driving 5 to 45 minutes to public courts depending on the location and time of day. I save a tremendous amount of time and fuel by having courts that I can walk to. We can go weeks at a time without using the car.</b></div><blockquote><b>Promote Integrated Communities: </b> In many communities across the U.S. we passed zoning laws that separate our schools from our homes and from our work place. We spend much of our lives cut off from the world as we drive from one errand to the next. Get involved in your local political scene and get those zoning laws changed to create a move livable environment. Arlington Virginia did just this and it is thriving. (Read about it <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/transitoriented_development_in.html">here</a> and <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/transitoriented_development_in_1.html">here</a>.) If you are looking to move to a new area use<a href="http://www.walkscore.com/"> this site</a> to find a "walkable" community.</blockquote><blockquote><b><a href="http://www.therenewableplanet.com/green/reduceenergy/">Reduce Home Energy Use</a>: (here is a <a href="http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2007/03/23/10-no-cost-ways-to-reduce-energy-use-in-your-home/">good list</a> also)</b></blockquote><ol><ol><li><b>Choose a smaller home</b>: A smaller space requires less energy to heat and keep cool.</li>
<li><b>Get an <a href="http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/energy_audits/index.cfm/mytopic=11160">Energy Audit</a>:</b> The best way to find out where you are losing energy (and money). Focus on the biggest energy hogs in your home (good <a href="http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/2010050301-the-nine-biggest-energy-hogs-in-your-house.aspx">list here</a>)"</li>
<ol><li>Insulate your home</li>
<li>Get triple pane windows</li>
<li>Get a more efficient Refrigerator (the fridge is a major energy hog)</li>
<li>Get a more efficient water heater</li>
<li>Get <a href="http://greenhomeguide.com/know-how/article/5-tips-for-choosing-a-low-flow-toilet">low flush toilets</a></li>
</ol>
<li><b>Use Efficient Technology</b>:</li>
<ol><li>Use <b>compact fluorescent bulbs</b>. They can reduce your energy use by 80%.</li>
<li>Only use appliances with the<b> Energy Star symbo</b>l. Energy Star approved products can use <b>2 to 10 times less energy</b> than non-approved models! (Find energy star appliances <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_find_es_products">here</a>)</li>
<li>Use smart power strips that cut off power to appliances when not be used. Many appliances drain energy even when off ("Energy Vampires"). Anywhere from 5-10% of all energy use in the U.S. is from these vampires. Unplug!!</li>
</ol></ol></ol><div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Appliances: Although our rent includes the cost of electricity and water we do as much as we can to reduce our use of these resources.</b></div><ol style="color: #38761d;"><li><b>All light bulbs are low energy.</b></li>
<li><b>We use power strips that cut off the current to appliances when not in use. We unplug appliances not on power strips.</b></li>
<li><b>When buying appliances we make to purchase the most energy efficient model currently available.</b></li>
<li><b>Laundry: We wash all our clothes in cold water.</b></li>
<li><b>Dish washer: If used properly a dish washer can save in water and energy. We fill the machine to the maximum before each load is started.</b></li>
</ol><b>Consume Less</b><br />
Our entire society is set up to promote consumption. We are bombarded by messages every day that create the "need" to buy, buy, buy.<br />
<blockquote><b>Reduce the Temptation</b></blockquote><blockquote><b>Turn off the TV</b> ( research shows that for each extra hour of TV watched, a person spends an extra $220/year).</blockquote><blockquote><b>Stop Mail Order Catalogs</b></blockquote><div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Over the years I ended up on the mailing list of many mail order shopping catalogs (LL Bean, Eddie Bauer, etc). I rarely needed anything but I would just page through them for the fun of it. Invariably, from time to time I would find something that caught my eye and I would buy it. I have stopped all the catalogs and save all that paper and avoid impulse buying. I don’t miss it. You can stop catalogs by calling the company directly or by <a href="http://www.catalogchoice.org/">using this free website</a>.</b></div><blockquote><b>Stop/Reduce Paper use</b></blockquote><ol><ol><li>Stop using paper towels</li>
<li>Use tissues from recycled paper</li>
<li>Use toilet paper from recycled paper</li>
</ol></ol><div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Paper Towels: I love the convenience of paper towels but <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/tissue.asp">cutting down virgin forests</a> for such convenience is too high a price to pay. We now have a collection of dish towels that do the same job and can just be thrown in the wash.</b></div> <br />
<div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Paper Napkins: Same idea. We have cloth napkins that we wash and reuse.</b></div><div style="color: #38761d;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Toilet Paper: Only from recycled paper.</b></div><br />
<div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Water bottle: We each have a durable water bottle that we take with us everywhere. We never need to buy bottled water. We use a water filter at home. Watch this fun <a href="http://storyofstuff.org/bottledwater/">video</a> on bottled water.</b></div><br />
<div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Tailor: We take clothes when they have small tears or don't fit so well to the tailor and for $1 to $10 we can extend the life our otherwise perfectly fine clothes.</b></div><br />
<div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Paper: We normally print on both sides of paper. We reuse all single side printed sheets. I also save all paper from work (I get a lot of memos, handouts, draft documents, etc. that are printed single sided) and reuse them at home.</b></div><br />
<div style="color: #38761d;"><b>E-statements: I have converted all my financial statements (bank, credit cards, mutual funds, etc) to electronic statements. It has cut down significantly on the amount of mail I receive. I used to have binders and binders of all these statements that I never looked at. Saves me time in filing and saves trees.</b></div><br />
<div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Receipts: I have boxes and boxes of receipts that I never used. If you buy online or use a credit card then you already have an electronic receipt. I no longer ask for receipts at the gas station. When I have choice, I normally decline getting a receipt.</b></div><div style="color: #38761d;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Recycle: We separate our trash and recycle as much as we can.</b></div><blockquote><b>Avoid Plastic</b>: Every piece of plastic ever made still exists. In the US we buy about 30 Billion plastic water bottles each year!! Most end up land fills. Not to mention all that other plastic we consume every day as packing materials for the stuff we buy, Ziploc bags, shopping bags, etc, etc. Plastic doesn't go away easily -- it can take 500 to 1000 years for plastic to break down. Nobody knows for sure. And every day we learn of more risks associated with the chemicals that leach out of these plastic products. Plastic burned in incinerators emit carcinogenic fumes into the air. <a href="http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/plastic_bottles.htm">Plastic is evil</a>. Do everything you can to remove plastic from your life.</blockquote><div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Plastic shopping bags: We have a collection of canvas bags that we use for all shopping. We keep a set in the car. We have <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Chico-Bag-Reusable-Shopping-Ounces/dp/B000OOJPJE">small portable ones</a> that we keep in our backpacks or travel bags. It took us a while to get in the habit of remembering to take the bags with us but now it is second nature and now we never use plastic bags. </b></div><br />
<b style="color: #38761d;">Ziploc bags: We try and use as little as possible and if we must, we gently wash and reuse to extend their life. To replace ziploc bags we have purchased small Pyrex containers to protect our food. Works great.</b><br />
<blockquote><b>Reduce exposure to chemicals</b></blockquote><div style="color: #38761d;"><b>Cleaning Products: We have experimented with a range of “Green” cleaning products. After trial and error we have managed to find products that get the job done using less toxic chemicals. We like<a href="http://www.methodhome.com/products-home.aspx"> Method</a> products for:</b></div><div style="color: #38761d;"></div><ol><li style="color: #38761d;"><b><a href="http://www.methodhome.com/product.aspx?page=524">toilet cleaner</a></b></li>
<li style="color: #38761d;"> <b><a href="http://www.methodhome.com/product.aspx?page=525">bathroom tile cleaner</a></b></li>
<li style="color: #38761d;"><b><a href="http://www.methodhome.com/product.aspx?page=615">floor cleaner</a></b></li>
<li style="color: #38761d;"> <b><a href="http://www.methodhome.com/product.aspx?page=512">window and glass cleaner</a></b></li>
<li style="color: #38761d;"> <b><a href="http://www.methodhome.com/product.aspx?page=553">dishwasher soap</a></b></li>
<li><b style="color: #38761d;"><a href="http://www.methodhome.com/all-products/citrus/pink-grapefruit/smarty-dish.aspx">dish washing machine soap</a></b></li>
</ol><blockquote><b>Diet</b><br />
The nature of our diet has a tremendous impact on the planet. Our industrial food system is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and is unsustainable on many levels. Watch the great documentary "<a href="http://www.foodincmovie.com/">Food Inc</a>" to learn about how our food system fails us. The American diet is rich in meat, a very inefficient way to feed a growing population. It takes 2,500 gallons of water to make a one-pound steak in the U.S.! More than 50% of the entire corn harvested in the U.S. is fed to cows to make beef. Fast food is also becoming a staple of the American diet with disastrous effects on our personal and planetary health. Read more on this <a href="http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142">here</a>.</blockquote><blockquote><b>Eat less Meat</b>: </blockquote><ol style="color: #38761d;"><li><b>We eat red meat very rarely and when we do we buy only organic, grass fed beef or grass fed buffalo meat. </b></li>
<li><b>We try and have at least a few "meat free" days each week. </b></li>
<li><b>We buy eggs that are free-range and organic and endorsed by the Humane Society</b></li>
<li><b>We buy organic chicken (free range) and pork</b></li>
<li><b>We buy fish according to <a href="http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1521">environmentally friendly list</a> (printable version <a href="http://www.edf.org/documents/1980_pocket_seafood_selector.pdf">here</a>) - avoiding sea bass, farmed salmon etc... focusing on tilapia, wild salmon....</b></li>
</ol><blockquote><b> Buy Local</b></blockquote><div style="color: #38761d;"><b>We buy as much of our vegetables from local farmers and we go to the farmers market regularly. We buy organic vegetables and fruits as much as possible.</b></div><br />
Well, that is a start. Drop me a line if you have some other good ideas or examples of steps that you have taken to reduce your footprint.<br />
<br />
The longest journey begins with a single step....Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-17764372004102962282010-07-28T20:27:00.000-07:002010-07-28T20:27:53.479-07:00Shameful, Part 2<span style="font-size: large;">At the risk of being tiresome I will continue my </span><a href="http://sustainablethoughtsmd.blogspot.com/2010/07/shameful.html"><span style="font-size: large;">rant from Tuesday (July 27, 2010)</span></a><span style="font-size: large;">. On Thursday the US Senate decided that it will not debate the climate bill sitting in its docket this year. So our society again takes no action on the greatest threat to life on the planet. I, like Thomas Friedman, am left speechless as to how to understand our indefensible intellectual, ethical, and moral failure. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Proud to be an American?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Thomas Friedman's take on it all:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">July 24, 2010</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25friedman.html">We’re Gonna Be Sorry</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">When I first heard on Thursday that Senate Democrats were abandoning the effort to pass an energy/climate bill that would begin to cap greenhouse gases that cause global warming and promote renewable energy that could diminish our addiction to oil, I remembered something that Joe Romm, the climateprogress.org blogger, once said: The best thing about improvements in health care is that all the climate-change deniers are now going to live long enough to see how wrong they were. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Alas, so are the rest of us. I could blame Republicans for the fact that not one G.O.P. senator indicated a willingness to vote for a bill that would put the slightest price on carbon. I could blame the Democratic senators who were also waffling. I could blame President Obama for his disappearing act on energy and spending more time reading the polls than changing the polls. I could blame the Chamber of Commerce and the fossil-fuel lobby for spending bags of money to subvert this bill. But the truth is, the public, confused and stressed by the last two years, never got mobilized to press for this legislation. We will regret it. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">We’ve basically decided to keep pumping greenhouse gases into Mother Nature’s operating system and take our chances that the results will be benign — even though a vast majority of scientists warn that this will not be so. Fasten your seat belts. As the environmentalist Rob Watson likes to say: “Mother Nature is just chemistry, biology and physics. That’s all she is.” You cannot sweet-talk her. You cannot spin her. You cannot tell her that the oil companies say climate change is a hoax. No, Mother Nature is going to do whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate, and “Mother Nature always bats last, and she always bats 1.000,” says Watson. Do not mess with Mother Nature. But that is just what we’re doing. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Since I don’t have anything else to say, I will just fill out this column with a few news stories and e-mails that came across my desk in the past few days: </span><br />
<br />
<ul><li><span style="font-size: large;">Just as the U.S. Senate was abandoning plans for a U.S. cap-and-trade system, this article ran in The China Daily: “BEIJING — The country is set to begin domestic carbon trading programs during its 12th Five-Year Plan period (2011-2015) to help it meet its 2020 carbon intensity target. The decision was made at a closed-door meeting chaired by Xie Zhenhua, deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission ... Putting a price on carbon is a crucial step for the country to employ the market to reduce its carbon emissions and genuinely shift to a low-carbon economy, industry analysts said.” </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">As we East Coasters know, it’s been extremely hot here this summer, with records broken. But, hey, you could be living in Russia, where ABC News recently reported that a “heat wave, which has lasted for weeks, has Russia suffering its worst drought in 130 years. In some parts of the country, temperatures have reached 105 degrees.” Moscow’s high the other day was 93 degrees. The average temperature in July for the city is 76 degrees. The BBC reported that to keep cool “at lakes and rivers around Moscow, groups of revelers can be seen knocking back vodka and then plunging into the water. The result is predictable — 233 people have drowned in the last week alone.” </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">A day before the climate bill went down, Lew Hay, the C.E.O. of NextEra Energy, which owns Florida Power & Light, one of the nation’s biggest utilities, e-mailed to say that if the Senate would set a price on carbon and requirements for renewal energy, utilities like his would have the price certainty they need to make the big next-generation investments, including nuclear. “If we invest an additional $3 billion a year or so on clean energy, that’s roughly 50,000 jobs over the next five years,” said Hay. (Say goodbye to that.) </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">Making our country more energy efficient is not some green feel-good thing. Retired Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson, who was Gen. David Petraeus’s senior logistician in Iraq, e-mailed to say that “over 1,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan hauling fuel to air-condition tents and buildings. If our military would simply insulate their structures, it would save billions of dollars and, more importantly, save lives of truck drivers and escorts. ... And will take lots of big fuel trucks (a k a Taliban Targets) off the road, expediting the end of the conflict.” </span></li>
</ul><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The last word goes to the contrarian hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham, who in his July letter to investors, noted: “Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for ... what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? I have a much simpler but plausible ‘conspiracy theory’: the fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?” </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-5967917032556945062010-07-27T06:56:00.000-07:002010-07-27T06:59:48.172-07:00Shameful<span style="font-size: large;">On Thursday, July 22, 2010 the Senate decided to not move forward on climate change legislation this year.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Shame on our leaders for failing to lead. Shame on us for not making them lead. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">this </span><a href="http://www.sindark.com/2010/07/23/us-senate-fails-again-on-climate/"><span style="font-size: large;">blogger </span></a><span style="font-size: large;">captures it best for me:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote><strong><span style="color: #38761d; font-size: large;">...if the current generation fails to take action to prevent dangerous or catastrophic climate change, that failure is what history will remember us by. We will be remembered as the people who had all the necessary information, but who were so selfish and dysfunctional that they couldn’t step up and take even the first small step.</span></strong></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">Wise words from Paul Krugman on our failure:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">July 25, 2010</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Who Cooked the Planet?</span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">By PAUL KRUGMAN</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they’re still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 — the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died — the hottest such stretch on record. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Of course, you can’t infer trends in global temperatures from one year’s experience. But ignoring that fact has long been one of the favorite tricks of climate-change deniers: they point to an unusually warm year in the past, and say “See, the planet has been cooling, not warming, since 1998!” Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date — but the point is that the record-breaking temperatures we’re currently experiencing have made a nonsense argument even more nonsensical; at this point it doesn’t work even on its own terms. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">But will any of the deniers say “O.K., I guess I was wrong,” and support climate action? No. And the planet will continue to cook. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">So why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? Let’s talk first about what didn’t cause the failure, because there have been many attempts to blame the wrong people. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">First of all, we didn’t fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence — long-term temperature averages that smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, Arctic sea ice volume, melting of glaciers, the ratio of record highs to record lows — points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don’t believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation block action? No. It has always been funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, to watch conservatives who laud the limitless power and flexibility of markets turn around and insist that the economy would collapse if we were to put a price on carbon. All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy’s growth rate. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">So it wasn’t the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn’t be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you’ll find that they’re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">By itself, however, greed wouldn’t have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in particular: Senator John McCain. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in the White House. But he didn’t — and it’s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and humanity’s future, for the sake of a few years added to his political career. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Alas, Mr. McCain wasn’t alone; and there will be no climate bill. Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75; font-size: large;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-31150449323822352232010-07-25T11:11:00.000-07:002010-07-25T11:47:56.134-07:00Nothing to Wear? Try this Challenge<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As i push myself to lead a more sustainable lifestyle I try to buy less stuff. For example, on the clothing front I try to see how many months I can go without buying any new clothing. The next phase of the experiment for me is to explore second-hand stores and see how much of my wardrobe that I can buy there. I am also using a tailor more to extend the life of clothes I currently have. What percentage of the clothes in our closets do we actually wear? How much mental energy and time do we spend each day pondering what to wear? Is this really how we want live our lives?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Below is an interesting article on two clothing related challenges that really promotes mindfulness on this issue. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Check out this </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/07/21/fashion/20100722-sixitems.html?ref=fashion"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">slide show</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> of people who tried the 6 Items challenge. And the observations and testimonials from the <a href="http://www.thegreatamericanappareldiet.com/">Great American Apparel Diet</a> (no new clothes for a year) are thought provoking. An example:</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;"><strong>By KatherineS</strong></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><strong>I just found this program through a story that ran in the New York Times-- which I think goes well with this program. . I actually started my own “diet” in May (didn’t realize there was a program). I had set out to do 6 months with no new clothes, beauty products, accessories for both me and my 2 year old daughter, but I fell off the wagon after a month when I was on vacation in Hawaii and discovered my bikini top was useless for surfing. I need a support group and glad to have found one now! Why does the diet makes me feel liberated? I realize how much more is less. A few perfect pieces is Nirvana. An over-stuffed closet is soul-crushing. My husband has had the right balance since I’ve known him: A uniform of black pants and shirts for work, and a uniform of jeans and t-shirts for play: he expresses himself creatively with hats, belts and sunglasses, but rarely adds anything to his basics. I have always been secretly jealous, but couldn’t put my finger on how to do it myself until I learn about the 6 items for a month plan. I realize more and more, that the more clothes I buy, the harder it is to value what I already have, and the more I want to buy to find something even better, and then what I already have starts looking pretty worthless or I can’t even see it in my closet..let’s end this vicious cycle !</strong> </span></blockquote><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you try either of the challenges please let me know -- I would love to hear your insights. Perhaps you could be a guest blogger and tell us about your experience! </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">New York Times,</span></strong> <span style="font-size: large;"><strong>July 21, 2010</strong></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/fashion/22SIXERS.html">Shoppers on a ‘Diet’ Tame the Urge to Buy</a></span></strong><br />
<br />
By ERIC WILSON<br />
<br />
IMAGINE that horrible though all-too-familiar feeling: You are standing before a fully stuffed closet and yet have nothing to wear. <br />
<br />
Now, imagine something worse: Your closet contains only six items, and you are restricted to wearing only those six items for an entire month. <br />
<br />
Now, if you can bear it, imagine something unspeakable: <br />
<br />
No one notices. <br />
<br />
Nearly a month into what amounted to just such a self-inflicted fast of fashion, Stella Brennan, 31, an insurance sales executive from Kenosha, Wis., realized last week that not even her husband, Kelly, a machinist, had yet figured out that she had been wearing the same six items, over and over, since June 21. The sad punch line is that Mr. Brennan is the one who actually does the laundry in the family. <br />
<br />
During her experiment — something called a “shopping diet,” actually — which ended on Wednesday, Ms. Brennan made do with the following: a black blazer and pants from H & M; two button-down shirts, one black and one pink; a pair of Old Navy jeans; and one well-worn pink T-shirt. <br />
<br />
How she settled on those items was complicated by the fact that she has two young children, a golden retriever and three cats, and that she was starting a new job last month with an hourlong commute. She said she needed “six items that are animal-hair-, kid-, food- and wrinkle-resistant. I need these items to be professional, but also work for playing football with my son and tea parties.” <br />
<br />
She agonized the longest over the T-shirt — the button-down shirts and suit separates were for work, but the right T-shirt could be worn casually with jeans or dressed up with the blazer. Her revelation at the end of 31 days, after her husband still had not noticed, even when she wore her floral-printed pajamas to do yard work: “Obviously, I didn’t need all of these clothes.” <br />
<br />
This self-imposed exercise in frugality was prompted by a Web challenge called <a href="http://sixitemsorless.com/">Six Items or Less</a> (sixitemsorless.com). The premise was to go an entire month wearing only six items already found in your closet (not counting shoes, underwear or accessories). Nearly 100 people around the country, and in faraway places like Dubai and Bangalore, India, were also taking part in the regimen, with motives including a way to trim back on spending, an outright rejection of fashion, and a concern that the mass production and global transportation of increasingly cheap clothing was damaging the environment. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, an even stricter program, the <a href="http://www.thegreatamericanappareldiet.com/">Great American Apparel Diet,</a> which began on Sept. 1, has attracted pledges by more than 150 women and two men to abstain from buying for an entire year. (Again, undies don’t count.) And next month, Gallery Books will publish a self-help guide, called “The Shopping Diet,” by the red-carpet stylist Phillip Bloch. (“Step 1: Admit You’re an Overshopper”... “Step 9: Practice Safe, Responsible Shopping”... “Step 10: Make the Diet a Way of Life.”) <br />
<br />
Though their numbers may be small, and their diets extreme, these self-deniers of fashion are representative, in perhaps a notable way, of a broader reckoning of consumers’ spending habits. As the economy begins to improve, shoppers of every income appear to be wrestling with the same questions: Is it safe to go back to our old, pre-recession ways? Or should we? The authors of these diets — including some fashion marketing and advertising executives, interestingly enough — seem to think not. <br />
<br />
Sally Bjornsen, the founder of the Great American Apparel Diet (thegreatamericanappareldiet.com), said she was prompted to stop buying clothes for a simple reason: “I was sick and tired of consumerism,” she said. <br />
<br />
Last summer, Ms. Bjornsen, 47, said she was thinking about how years of easy credit had led to overspending on cars, homes and luxury goods. Then, looking in her own closet, she realized that she was part of the problem, she said. For her job, as a representative of commercial photographers in Seattle and before that as a marketing executive at fashion companies like Nike and Nordstrom, she’d spent $5,000 to $10,000 a year on clothes. <br />
<br />
“I was buying in an egregious way,” Ms. Bjornsen said. “I was just kind of grossed out by the whole thing.” <br />
<br />
Independently, the “six items” experiment was conceived by two friends, Heidi Hackemer, 31, a strategic business director at the New York advertising agency BBH, and Tamsin Davies, 34, the head of innovation at Fallon London, after an informal discussion about their desires to pare down their wardrobes. The idea snowballed into a creative challenge, Six Items or Less. <br />
<br />
The rules were not hard and fast. If a person owned, for example, several similar black blazers — as Ms. Brennan, the Wisconsin executive, did — she could count them as one item. <br />
<br />
“Our whole thing was not to put a philosophy behind it, and not be too preachy,” Ms. Hackemer said. The challenge has proved so popular that she said it would be repeated this fall. <br />
<br />
Her six items were a black dress, a pair of black jeggings (a jeans-leggings hybrid), a black tank top, a black blazer, a gray skirt and denim shorts. The combinations she came up with were surprisingly diverse enough to get her through the month, “but once you hit Week 3, you think, You’ve got to be kidding me.” <br />
<br />
Sixers, as Six Items or Less enthusiasts call themselves, have formed something of an online fashion support network, especially when they feel tempted to fall off the wagon. <br />
<br />
Ms. Brennan did sound ripe for some kind of fashion intervention. In a recent interview, she spoke of a rack of clothes in the back of her closet that still had the tags on them, and clothes that she has not worn in 15 years but that she cannot stand to part with, and her 72 pairs of “active” shoes (meaning those that she actively wears, not the ones still in the boxes), and a closet full of clothes for her 3-year-old daughter, and, lest she forget, a wardrobe of clothes for her dog. <br />
<br />
“My daughter doesn’t care what she wears, and I’m turning her into a monster,” Ms. Brennan said. “We’re ruining the next generation of girls with fashion.” <br />
<br />
THE dieters’ comments reflect the complicated and sometimes confused relationships between consumers and their closets — which perhaps was to be expected in a nation where women, on average, own seven pairs of jeans but wear only four regularly, according to the September issue of Consumer Reports’ ShopSmart magazine. One in four women asked by the magazine said she owned 10 pairs or more. <br />
<br />
Still, the month has been grueling. One Sixer from Venice, Calif., confessed online to splurging on T-shirts at a James Perse sample sale. Addy, from Milwaukee, wrote that she had become so bored with her six items “that I don’t even have a desire to get up in the morning,” and she complained of mood swings. <br />
<br />
But others describe a life-changing experience. Sneha Lakshman, 32, a founder of Dig Design, a Web and mobile products company in Bangalore, said by phone that she had decided, “That’s it, I’m going to wear only black from now on.” <br />
<br />
Kelli Bauman, 24, a visual communications student from Indianapolis, said she was facing up to her compulsive-shopping habits. She described herself as the type who gets excited about buying cleaning products; a thrice-weekly shopper at Target. “I feel like I am programmed to want to buy new things,” she said. “When my jeans got a hole in them, I wanted to buy new jeans that instant.” <br />
<br />
Just look at how far she has come. “I’ve only been to Target twice this whole time.” On one visit, she bought wasp spray and toothpaste for herself, but splurged on gifts for a bride-to-be — buying for someone else was like a “gateway drug,” she said. <br />
<br />
Another Sixer, Dean Kakridas, 42, the director of business development at Frog Design, an innovation firm in Austin, Tex., said that he was obsessed with efficiency. “I kind of question everything,” he said, including why he was spending 20 minutes every morning figuring out what to wear. <br />
<br />
He wanted to identify the clothes that made him happiest and fit his lifestyle. He chose a pair of G-Star jeans, two button-down shirts, two short-sleeve polo shirts and, cleverly, a pair of shorts from Life After Denim that are reversible (one side is solid charcoal; the other is plaid). Speaking like a programmer, he said: “Anything that removes complexity or cycles from your day is really valuable. I have freed a lot of bandwidth in my head.” (After three weeks on the program, however, he was quoting Coco Chanel: “I don’t do fashion. I am fashion.”) <br />
<br />
The most interesting thing to many of the Sixers was how few people noticed what they were doing. Except, that is, for those who did. Mr. Kakridas said that his wife disapproved. <br />
<br />
“My wife jabs at me almost on a daily basis,” he said. “She tries to get me to waver from the commitment and get me to cheat. She hid my Febreze from me.” <br />
<br />
As with any diet, abstinence is not for everyone. <br />
<br />
Of the 150-plus-people who signed up for the Great American Apparel Diet, about half have given up. Ms. Bjornsen’s own sister quit after four weeks. And she has herself cheated twice, once when she realized she had forgotten to bring her workout clothes to the gym, a second time when her husband told her that her pajamas looked worn out and gross. Though she said she feels no guilt about those indulgences, Ms. Bjornsen said that she was looking forward to the end of the diet on Aug. 31. <br />
<br />
She had thought about ways to make money off the diet, she said, but instead she plans to pass on the management of the Web site to continuing and future participants. <br />
<br />
“It’s taken about 10 to 20 years to build up the idea that nothing is good unless it is new,” Ms. Bjornsen said. “Five years from now, if the diet is still going, it would be interesting to see how that changes.”Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-23359963074944455292010-07-21T08:32:00.000-07:002010-07-21T08:32:38.617-07:00When your tooth hurts, who do you listen to?Recently a reader sent me a note explaining that they don't believe in climate change. I responded and tried to enter into a <i>discussion</i> on the issue -- you know where two people exchange ideas and offer evidence for their respective position. The reader took ombrage at this. From their perspective we were each entitled to our point of view and the other should respect that. I tried to make the case that climate change is about science, and not all opinions are created equal. If your tooth hurts, who are you going to listen to? Your dentist or your cousin Larry who is handy with a pair of pliers? <br />
<br />
And then just a few days later I came across this interview of Stephen Schneider on <a href="http://climateprogress.org/">Climate Progress</a> who does a great job of making the same point but by using good science. It gets a bit geeky at times, but give it a shot as his insights are exceptional.<br />
<br />
Here is the short version: The scientists who most strongly support the theory of man-made climate change are also the researchers that have produced the largest body of credible, peer-reviewed studies on the topic. The people who speak out most against climate change have virtually no scientific standing; they have produced few to no peer reviewed studies on climate related topics.<br />
<br />
If nothing else skim down to the end of the interview. Schneider does a nice job of explaining the role of scientists and where opinion fits in. I highlighted this paragraph in <span style="color: red;">red</span> for easy finding.<br />
And a couple of terms that appear below that you may not be familiar with:<br />
<br />
ACC = Anthropogenic Climate Change (man-made climate change)<br />
<br />
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">IPCC</a> is a body created by the UN (at the request of the United States and other members) to study climate change. The IPCC issues a summary report about each 7 years. The most <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm">recent report</a> was in 2007. The IPCC report is considered <i>THE</i> defining word of the scientific community's view on climate change. ( A great, easy to read summary about the IPCC can be found <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html">here</a>.)<br />
<br />
The remainder of this posting is from Joe Romm at Climate Progress:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/14/stephen-schneider-pnas-climate-science-expert-study/"></a><br />
<h2><a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/14/stephen-schneider-pnas-climate-science-expert-study/">Interview with scientist Stephen Schneider on his “Expert Credibility in Climate Change” study</a></h2><span class="date" title="Wednesday, July 14th,
2010, 10:36 am">July 14, 2010</span> Last month I wrote about the <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/21/pnas-study-climate-science-media-balance-deniers/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to New
study reaffirms broad scientific understanding of climate change,
questions media’s reliance on tiny group of less-credibile scientists
for “balance”">new study that reaffirmed the broad scientific understanding of climate change and questioned the media’s reliance on a tiny group of less-credibile scientists for “balance.”</a> The <i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</i> study “<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract">Expert credibility in climate change</a>,” was predictably attacked and misrepresented by the disinformers as part of their ongoing efforts to promote their fringe anti-science views.<br />
To set the record straight, <a href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/schneider-interview-climate-expert-credibility/">ClimateScienceWatch.org</a> talked with one of the article’s coauthors, Stanford University Prof. Stephen Schneider. The video and transcript of the interview are below. First, let me repost the study’s main conclusion:<span id="more-29734"></span><br />
<blockquote><b>Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 1) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and 2) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.</b><br />
That is the conclusion of an important first-of-its-kind study published today in the</blockquote>Here is the CSW interview with Stephen H. Schneider, Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor, Department of Biology, and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, at Stanford University<br />
Note: The transcript “contains more extended text from the interview, in addition to what is included in the video.”<br />
<object height="385" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3IFGTBuT43w&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3IFGTBuT43w&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>CSW</i>: The article on climate science expert credibility that you co-authored, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) – what prompted this study?<br />
<i>Schneider</i>: There are so many claims out there from all kinds of interests, about how climate change is ‘the end of the world,’ or ‘good for you,’ and people – policymakers and media – are understandably confused. Part of the problem is that over time the media has fired so many of its specialists that there aren’t a lot of people left to sort out the relative credibility of all the claims. So, since a lot of those people who deny that humans have any impact on climate are claiming that they have scientific expertise, we said let’s just put it to a test.<br />
There’s a very well-known and widely used independent index, which is: how many papers have you published and how many times have people cited them in the scientific literature? Those people who chose to put themselves on lists and petitions denying that there was a human impact on climate, let’s see how many papers they’ve published, and how many citations they have. Those people associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), let’s check them and see if there’s a difference.<br />
<i>CSW</i>: In terms of how you defined the groups in the study, you have one category that you refer to as “convinced by the evidence” – convinced by the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. The other group is the “unconvinced by the evidence.” Are you defining them by scientific perspective, or are you defining them by policy positions?<br />
<i>Schneider</i>: It’s a bit controversial how you define anyone in categories like “convinced” and “unconvinced” since none of us – I hope – are 100% convinced of anything, or 100% unconvinced, but we can have a vast preponderance of evidence. There are lists where groups have organized themselves into pro, basically, and con human impacts on climate. Most of the ‘pros’ work on the IPCC, mainstream science, and most of the ‘cons’ do not. Only two or three are in common. They wrote petitions saying they didn’t think there was much likelihood of anthropogenic change, and we put them in the unconvinced category. That is, they put themselves in the unconvinced category. As far as those who spent much of their life working at IPCC, there’s a very high probability they are convinced this problem is real or they wouldn’t be putting in all this time. The bottom line is that we let people self-define and then we let the numbers fall where they were, in terms of the relative credibility of each of those groups – and the credibility was vastly different. Not surprisingly, those people who do work daily in climate science have a much, much higher citation count and more published papers than those who just claim it isn’t true but really, for the most part, are not prime workers in climate change.<br />
<i>CSW</i>: Well then, what about the charge that the study, in effect, is creating a ‘blacklist’ of certain scientists? It’s saying that these are the skeptics, the unconvinced by the evidence, but they don’t have any credibility and so you shouldn’t pay any attention to them.<br />
<i>Schneider</i>: Well <b>it’s laughable that it’s a blacklist</b>. A blacklist is what somebody like Joe McCarthy did back in the 50’s, or Senator Inhofe is doing now, when we all know it’s the senator who is deliberately distorting. How could we be doing a blacklist when we’re using the names that they gave? All we did was test it. The fact that they don’t publish very much is not our issue. This is a fact check.<br />
It really matters what your credentials are. If you have a heart arrhythmia as I do, and I also have a cardiologist, and you also have an oncological problem as I do, I’m not going to my cancer doc to ask him about my heart medicine and my cardiologist to ask about my chemo, I’m going to the experts. Who’s an expert really matters. People with no expertise, their opinion frankly does not matter on complex issues. And in my opinion shouldn’t even be quoted when we’re talking about the details of the science.<br />
When we’re talking about what to do about it, then every citizen’s opinion is just as important as anybody else’s, and everybody should be quoted. But not about how many degrees of warming there is – that takes a lot of knowledge, to be able to know what you’re talking about. That knowledge is very well reflected in the counts of the number of times people’s scientific papers have been cited by their colleagues. That’s where the mainstream climate scientists have a major advantage over those who are unconvinced. We feel that’s a robust conclusion, that most of the claimants that there’s no anthropogenic climate change are very weak scientists – by and large – and most of their comments are really not very scientifically credible.<br />
<i>CSW</i>: I believe Judith Curry argued that, on your various lists, under “convinced of the evidence” you were including people who are ecologists and biologists, and who aren’t really experts in the climate change detection and attribution research. So that somehow skews your notion of how to sort people out in terms of credibility. What’s your response to that?<br />
<i>Schneider</i>: Well, there are two responses. First of all, there are a couple dozen people in the world that work in ecology – that includes people like Terry Root, Camille Parmesan, and myself, among others – who actually look at the bloom dates of roses in your grandmother’s back yard and when birds come back. We do detection and attribution studies. Those people are in the IPCC and they are legitimate experts and they have published research in <i>Science</i> and <i>Nature</i> and <i>PNAS</i> and places like that. There was an entire chapter on it in [IPCC] Working Group II and those people, again, like Cynthia Rosenzweig, were included in the IPCC database.<br />
But she does have a point, that not everyone in IPCC is an expert in detection and attribution. That’s certainly true. <b>But when she said that the IPCC group that we used in our PNAS study should be cut down to something like 20% of the original. That’s hundreds of people, that’s still quite a lot of people. If you look at the “unconvinced of evidence” group, virtually nobody in it has ever published a paper on detection and attribution. So, by Judy’s own logic, that means it’s virtually a null set. That means there’s almost nobody in the unconvinced category who has any expertise whatsoever in detection and attribution. So, if you take her logic, and apply it symmetrically to the “convinced” and “unconvinced” you narrow the “convinced” group down to a smaller but still clear and robust population and the “unconvinced” has virtually no expertise, and their opinion becomes completely irrelevant.</b><br />
<i>CSW</i>: What about the argument that some of the people critical of the study have made, that there’s something wrong with the metric of counting numbers of publications and counting how often your work is cited by other scientists. Some people will say that just the number of your publications doesn’t necessarily tell what the quality of your science is, and of course people of similar viewpoints will cite each other, or some articles have 10 or 12 authors and that racks up a lot of totals for some people, so using the publication and citation metrics doesn’t necessarily represent a scientifically correct perspective. Rather, it’s an elitist appeal to authority claiming that one group is more credible on the basis of these questionable metrics.<br />
<i>Schneider</i>: Well, first of all, there’s no perfect metric. What we’re trying to do is find out, in the spirit of risk management, where is the preponderance of evidence? Where is the preponderance of skill? We didn’t make [these metrics] up, which is the number of papers people publish and the number of times colleagues cite them. There is a very widespread belief, built on evidence, that those people with stronger publication records, getting themselves published many more times in peer reviewed literature – which is not easy – and the number of times you’re cited, the number of times other people are quoting you, is a very good metric as to whether you just published a meaningless paper about something irrelevant, or whether that paper has real clout.<br />
The only way you can get citation and not have quality is if you have made a big error. In fact, one of the things we did to try to eliminate that is we didn’t just look at the average number of cites, we looked at the top four or five papers each person published, and then we tried to check and see whether one of them was massively cited. We’d cut that out, saying either that was their one brilliant shining star or they made so many mistakes that everybody caught them. As it turns out it made almost no difference in the statistics. We feel that these statistics are pretty robust in giving you the strong preponderance of evidence that those people who publish more and have more citations are much more scientifically credible.<br />
About the ‘elitist’ part: <i>Scientists are really stuck. It’s exactly the same thing in medicine, it’s the same thing with pilot’s licenses and driver’s licenses: We don’t let just anyone go out there and make any claim that they’re an expert, do anything they want, without checking their credibility. Is it elitist to license pilots and doctors? Is it elitist to have pilots tested every year by the FAA to make sure that their skills are maintained? Is it elitist to have board certification on specialities in various health professions? I don’t think so. I think it’s the way we have safety. We have an FDA, which analyzes food and drugs.</i><br />
We’re talking about planetary life support. People who are special interests in making money in the fossil fuel industry, who are ideologues, who are so deeply opposed to government regulation or international agreements, will just make any wild claim to support their ideology or special interest. They’ll find some hired gun PhD, or they’ll pick weak scientists for the most part – and should they really be afforded as much credibility? Can you tell me that a hundred institutions around the world, that have been working for 40 years, that have had dozens and dozens of carefully reviewed assessments, are somehow no more credible – even if they’re more elitist – than petroleum geologists funded by an oil company? They’re as knowledgeable about climate science as I would be about how to fix the leak in the Deepwatergate problem. I mean, they’re really not experts, and it really does matter what people know. If we do not do the due diligence of letting people understand the relative credibility of claimants of truth, then all we do is have a confused public who hears claim and counter-claim.<br />
That’s why there’s a National Academy of Sciences: it has to sort out the relative credibility of claims. Why is there an IPCC? Because the average person is not trained in what cloud feedback is, nor is the average geologist, just as the average climate scientist is not trained in how to find oil! So, let’s stay where we have our expertise. Science is a meritocracy. You have to have evidence. When somebody says I don’t believe in global warming, I ask, “Do you believe in evidence? Do you believe in a preponderance of evidence?”<br />
<i>CSW</i>: What about the charge that there is a sort of commingling of science expertise with policy prescription here, in that, to say “convinced by the evidence for anthropogenic climate change,” that takes in most of the science community but it would also incorporate people who have a range of views on what kind of a climate policy would be desirable. There may be people who accept anthropogenic climate change but don’t support legislation for a strong mitigation policy. Or don’t support strong government regulation to limit greenhouse gases. Does it seem to you that real credible expertise in climate science points in the direction of a particular type of policy prescription, that we need a strong mitigation policy? Can you disconnect the two – and should we?<br />
Schneider: I think it’s very difficult to disentangle them, without looking up every statement everyone has ever made. But most of people that signed the petitions saying they do not believe anthropogenic global warming is very likely, and they’re not convinced, are also making very strong statements that we shouldn’t have climate policy. Actually, very often people who say they aren’t convinced by the climate science are saying that simply because they do not want regulations, because they are anti-regulation ideologues, or special interest in the fossil fuel industry, or have a world view about private rights being more important than collective protection. Now, we aren’t going to be able to specifically separate them one by one unless you can find petitions that separate them – and those petitions don’t exist. But there’s a very, very high correlation between people who are convinced that there’s anthropogenic climate change and their argument that something should be done to slow it down to protect the planetary life support system. And there’s a very very high correlation between those who are unconvinced and saying “why should we have climate policy if we aren’t even convinced this is going on?” So, I think our conclusions are quite robust, though I have no doubt there could be 10 or 20% exceptions.<br />
We have a database of over 1,000 people. Only a small number of them are going to fit into those ambiguous categories, and therefore do almost nothing to the statistics. So these are nitpicks, designed to discredit the overall preponderance of evidence we found. So while we feel that it is not a perfect measure, it’s a very close fit to the basic preponderance of thinking of the convinced and unconvinced. And if they don’t believe that, let them do their own study.<br />
They also make a claim, which we haven’t discussed yet, that the reason the mainstream scientists have more papers and citations is because the “unconvinced” scientists have been systematically blocked by the peer review system, which is a cabal of government-funded scientists who are trying to eliminate the opinion of the contrarians. Now, this is pure assertion. They have absolutely no data. Have they ever shown us how many papers they’ve submitted, relative to the others?<br />
I edit a journal called <i>Climatic Change</i> and I can tell you that the number of submissions I get from people with completely unconventional views is trivial, a tiny fraction of the hundreds and hundreds of submissions where people are not convinced of every detail, but they’re convinced the problem is real enough that it has to be studied and looked at and we have to take a look at the implications. So there are very few of them that are submitting. Now, they could come back and say, well that’s because we know that we’ll never get through the peer review process. Now they’re imputing that we’re some dishonest community who’s not going to give them a fair shake. When I get those papers, I often publish them, but I publish them with editorials that have opposite points of view. Just as, if I get a new radical idea in saying that climate change is going to be worse than the mainstream now thinks, I’ll probably publish it in <i>Climatic Change</i>, but then I’ll get an editorial from someone who is a little more conservative.<br />
So they make this assertion that they’re being systematically excluded, because they have no other argument, they no have evidence for the assertion. Let them do a study. Let them show us the letters of all the papers that have been rejected. What we did is look at real evidence, independently collected: How many papers, and how many citations. That’s independent, and the only way you can claim it isn’t true is to invoke some massive conspiracy that is frankly laughable.<br />
<i>CSW</i>: One critic, I believe it was Roy Spencer, called attention to your use of the term “tenets” –“the basic tenets of anthropogenic climate change,” or “the basic tenets of the IPCC.” He said that the term tenets belongs in religion, not science.<br />
<i>Schneider</i>: Roy Spencer ought to know about religion since he publishes on creationist blog sites and I don’t, so I’ll give him expertise on religion that I don’t have. However, the word tenet has been used since I can remember being in 8th grade referring to a set of conditions and beliefs and criteria. So, in the sense that it’s criteria, or underlying aspects of a problem, I don’t have any difficulty using that word. I mean the tenets of those people who are unconvinced about climate change is that as long as there are loose ends anywhere, they don’t accept it.<br />
The tenets on the side of the IPCC? Well it’s that greenhouse gases have increased. They trap heat. A significant fraction, almost all recent increases, are from human activities. And so forth. Each one of those is a component of the knowledge base. ‘Tenet’ is perfectly legitimate, it’s a standard word. The religion does not come from the side of the mostly convinced.<br />
<i>CSW</i>: Last thoughts to leave us with?<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;"><i>Schneider</i>: The main thing I want people to remember is that when we’re talking about expertise, we’re not talking about expertise in what to do about a problem. That is a social judgment and every person has the same right to their opinion as any person in climate. However, we are talking about the relative likelihood that there could be serious or even dangerous changes. Because before you even decide how you want to deploy resources as a hedge against a wide range of important social problems, you have to know how serious the problems are. All we’re trying to do in science is give the best estimate that honest people with a lot of evidence can, about the relative risks, so they can make wise decisions in their own lives and in who they elect about how we should deal with it.</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">If you have no idea about the risk, it’s very hard to rationally do risk management. And we feel that there many people deliberately muddying the risk waters because of a combination of ideology and special interest. We have every right to point out that they have weaker credentials in science than those who are convinced on the basis of the forty year record and longer that the scientific community has been successively examining, year after year after year. That is how we make decisions in medical, in health, or in business. We operate on the basis of preponderance of evidence. The same thing must be done for the planetary life support system. That’s why it’s so important to understand who’s credible.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract" title=""Expert Credibility in Climate Change"">“Expert Credibility in Climate Change”</a> (<i>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</i>, published online before print, June 21, 2010)</blockquote><blockquote><a href="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/" title="Stephen Schneider's website">Stephen Schneider’s website</a></blockquote><blockquote><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1426205406?tag=thepatientfro-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1426205406&adid=034KVS7P75A73BJMNRD4&" title="Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle
to Save Earth's Climate">Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate</a></blockquote>I’ll repeat what I wrote a month ago: The disinformers are upset with this study since it exposes just how phony the entire disinformation campaign is.<br />
Ironically, the best defense that some of the disinformers seem to have is, “I am not a skeptic.” But that label was originally pushed by the disinformers themselves — in fact, all serious scientists are skeptics. The issue is <b>not</b> whether someone is skeptical of the supposed ‘consensus’ — another ill-defined term that is it not terribly useful (see “<a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/16/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-climate-science/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Disputing the
‘consensus’ on global warming">Disputing the ‘consensus’ on global warming</a>“). The issue is whether folks are actively spreading disinformation, especially disinformation that has been long debunked in the scientific literature. As I’ve said for many years now, it is time for the media to stop listening to, quoting, and enabling those who spread anti-science and anti-scientist disinformation.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-33082192699012218712010-07-17T09:11:00.000-07:002010-07-17T09:11:41.273-07:00Check Out Melibee GlobalI was recently interviewed by a friend of mine who runs a great blog on International Education: <a href="http://melibeeglobal.com/">Melibee Global</a><br />
<br />
See the full interview <a href="http://melibeeglobal.com/2010/07/sustainability-in-international-education-interview-with-michael-despines/">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-81076142129220123572010-07-12T15:08:00.000-07:002010-07-12T15:08:31.659-07:00This is all you need to know. (Between a Rock and a Hard Place)<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Here it is. This all you really all you really need to know:</span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF0Y5WP-kS0T9D7VdJDXVT4ekS1WV2nPboAau4GryJ9ElCd3egD7mufCnLk1TSTvxgBJqIRhwTc-LyHkD0ZhkNtke9OPO7z6QC_1Kw5PKu47sRBXw4F3x0iaNf-Qk9xCcgrDo0cLDQs2sD/s1600/between+a+rock+and+hard+place.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF0Y5WP-kS0T9D7VdJDXVT4ekS1WV2nPboAau4GryJ9ElCd3egD7mufCnLk1TSTvxgBJqIRhwTc-LyHkD0ZhkNtke9OPO7z6QC_1Kw5PKu47sRBXw4F3x0iaNf-Qk9xCcgrDo0cLDQs2sD/s640/between+a+rock+and+hard+place.png" width="640" /></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Humanity is facing two megatrends, the impacts of Peak Oil, and the limits imposed by Exponential Growth on a finite planet. How we respond to these challenges during the next 20 years will define the quality of life for your family tree over the next millennium. </span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Peak Oil</span></b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Within the next ten years the world as we know will change forever. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Such a statement doesn't carry much of a punch these days in our era of 24 hour news cycles where we hear bombastic headlines on a daily basis. Real issues, like this one are rarely discussed and when they are they slip under the surface quietly, drowned out amongst the din and clamor of banality (American Idol update, anyone?). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Why should you care? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If you are reading this blog you, like me, have existed during the unique era of human history defined by cheap oil. We have never experienced a day when the supply of oil was insufficient to meet the demand. For the last 150 years we have acted as if we had an infinite supply of the stuff. It took hundreds of <i>millions </i>of years for the planet to produce the oil that is in the ground -- it has taken humanity less than two<i> hundred</i> years to use up 1/2 of that amount. (try graphing that statistic if you want to get a sense of the magnitude of that last sentence)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Cheap oil defines every fiber of the American society. We created a transportation system based on the privately-owned automobile -- thousands of pounds of steel to move, typically, one person around. We built suburbs further and further from where people work. We passed zoning laws that separate our homes from where we work, from our schools, and from our stores. You must drive to do everything. On average Americans drive about 1 hour a day back and forth to work (does this<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/24/sunday/main2849455.shtml"> article</a> ring true?). The shopping malls are far from where we live. We created a network of large department stores with acres of parking lots that can only be reached by car. How will people in the suburbs survive when it costs $10/gallon for gasoline?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Our industrial food system is drenched in oil -- we burn about <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html">10 calories of energy in fossil fuels for every 1 calorie we produce in food</a>. Think about those huge combines, the tractors, and all the equipment used in the creation, storage, and movement of food. Don't forget the massive amounts of fossil fuel based fertilizers that are sprayed on the fields each year. Much of the food on our plates travel an <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/foodtravel112202.cfm">average of 1,500 miles</a> before we dine on it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Remember the impact of the "high" fuel prices experienced in 2008? Food prices also shot through the roof in the US and around the world. Remember the images of food riots from around the world? Now, think bigger, much, much bigger. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">A mere 5% decrease in oil production in 1970 caused fuel prices to rise 400%. Think about the impact such a price jump would have now as it rippled through our economy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">E-v-e-r-y facet of our lives is based on cheap fuel. How much plastic do you have in your life? How much plastic is there in you car? TV? House? In the products you use day in and day out? All made from oil. Most of our consumer products are made in factories many thousands of miles from here (China, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, etc.) Forget 12,000 mile product supply chains once Peak Oil hits. The foundation of the global financial system is based on a growing supply of readily available cheap energy. Banks create new money in our economy by giving loans to new businesses or to existing business to expand. That debt, when paid back in the form of the interest rate paid on the loan, allows the economy to grow. All that new economic activity is based on a growing supply of cheap energy. The system most grow every day or it collapses. Yes, our financial system is a massive ponzi scheme -- watch it fail the day there is not enough oil to fund new economic growth to pay back all those loans. Think house mortgage bubble crash that we recently had, plus the bank collapse, now multiply by 1000. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I could go on and on but I can see your eyes glazing over. The demand for oil is growing exponentially while the supply is flat and will soon be decreasing. Oil is one of the most energy dense substances on the planet and is unique. Our world will change very soon. What are we doing to prepare for this new reality?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">Exponential Growth</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If Peak Oil is the "Rock" then Exponential Growth is the "Hard Place." (See the title of this posting if you are confused) </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">We live on a finite planet. The number of people on the planet is growing exponentially. The amount of resources each person is using is also growing exponentially. The amount of water we have is fixed. Trees can be replaced only at a certain rate. Fish can reproduce only so quickly. The earth can absorb pollution and clean the air and water at a certain speed. Our demands for the earth's resources are growing exponentially and will soon reach their limits. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Read my post <a href="http://sustainablethoughtsmd.blogspot.com/2010/05/dying-to-grow.html">here</a> to see more details.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This graph summarizes the situation (<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/99/14/9266/F1.expansion.html">source</a>):</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV93aPT8lCR9xQtyNnHLoBw6-KPXkIjYnrEsJui9YrUrQDkSIgO2NSuBngmzOodDzap6fo399lFlL9vQeP5blFnXEIStLtsbJW_304DFwXM4HLVndHlufG0nzKLEZDNybAEo3foN9YvS0s/s1600/Human+Ecological+Footprint.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV93aPT8lCR9xQtyNnHLoBw6-KPXkIjYnrEsJui9YrUrQDkSIgO2NSuBngmzOodDzap6fo399lFlL9vQeP5blFnXEIStLtsbJW_304DFwXM4HLVndHlufG0nzKLEZDNybAEo3foN9YvS0s/s320/Human+Ecological+Footprint.jpg" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In the late 1970s humanity's demand surpassed the earths ecological capacity. This means that we are currently living as if we have 2 planets. Every day we stay above that horizontal line we are eating way the earth's natural capital. With each day we reduce the earth's capacity to support life on the planet. The impacts of this are becoming more and more apparent with each day at fish stocks collapse around the world, as water tables go dry, as the forests disappear, as the temperature rises, and so forth and so on.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So you can stop reading the news. Can certainly stop watching the "news." Stop reading the magazines. Background noise. Soon there will be wild accusations, emergency actions, demands for investigations, military actions to protect the national interest, a rush to invest in research and magical technology to solve our problems. It will all be for naught unless the debates and calls for action are to address the root causes, and not the symptoms. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">What are you doing to ensure a livable future for your children? Grandchildren? Nieces? Nephews? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Learn the issues.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Teach others.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Take action.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> <br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If you don't, who will?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">More Information can be found here:</span><br />
</span></span><br />
<ol><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;">Great list of sources on peak oil <a href="http://www.dynamiclist.com/?worldview/peakoil">here</a>.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;">Good website dedicated to peak oil <a href="http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/">here</a>.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302456.html">Wake up, America. We're Driving Toward Disaster</a> (Washington Post) </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/06peak.html?_r=1">Imagining Life Without Oil, and Being Ready</a> (New York Times, June 10, 2010)</span></li>
</span></span></ol><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Note:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This is posting was inspired, and based on a speech I heard <a href="http://www.billmckibben.com/index.html">Bill Mikibben </a>give at a <a href="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/">Slow Money</a> conference held in Vermont in June 2010. I liked the way he framed the idea so much that I thought I would try and share the main ideas here. </span></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-89975225069324227242010-07-06T05:37:00.000-07:002010-07-06T05:37:50.758-07:00Wanna Play the Lottery? (Risk Analysis and Climate Change)Have your doubts about climate change? Know some friends or family members that are still skeptical? Given the overwhelming scientific evidence (see my blog post on this <a href="http://sustainablethoughtsmd.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-al-gore-doesnt-matter.html">here</a>) I find this mind blowing, but let's forget the science for a moment.<br />
<br />
Let's talk about risk management. What are the potential risks if we take action to mitigate against global warming? What are the risks if we do nothing? What would a prudent/reasonable person then do?<br />
<br />
Watch this video and then ask your skeptic friend/family member to rationalize how we should not take action. <br />
<br />
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mF_anaVcCXg&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mF_anaVcCXg&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-95469745088498222010-06-21T12:59:00.000-07:002010-06-21T13:11:32.590-07:00Let the Revolution Begin....in Detroit?Today I am off to Detroit to attend the U.S. Social Forum. What's that? It is more or less a regional version of the World Social Forum. Not very helpful, huh? Try this (from Wikipedia):<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">The World Social Forum</span></strong><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue; font-size: small;">The World Social Forum (WSF) is an annual meeting, based in Brazil, that defines itself as "an opened space – plural, diverse, non-governmental and non-partisan – that stimulates the decentralized debate, reflection, proposals building, experiences exchange and alliances among movements and organizations engaged in concrete actions towards a more solidary, democratic and fair world....a permanent space and process to build alternatives to neoliberalism".[1] </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: small;">It is held by members of the alter-globalization movement (also referred to as the global justice movement) who come together to coordinate world campaigns, share and refine organizing strategies, and inform each other about movements from around the world and their issues. It tends to meet in January at the same time as its "great capitalist rival", the World Economic Forum's meeting in Davos, Switzerland. This date is usually picked in hopes that having a meeting that promotes alternative answers to world economic problems opposite the World Economic Forum will help the WSF's ideas get better coverage in the news media.</span></blockquote>Seth Freed Wessler gives a nice summary of what it will look like (full article <a href="http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=737">here</a>):<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #741b47;">as many as 20,000 of these progressives—lefties, radicals, liberals, agnostic independents and the rest—are expected to arrive in Detroit this week for the second U.S. Social Forum. It’s the domestic outgrowth of the the World Social Forum, which can be understood as Davos for those not convinced that markets alone can solve the globe’s problems. </span></blockquote><span style="color: #741b47;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #741b47;">The gathering will run all week and will consist of panels, workshops, marches, mixers and work on the ground in Detroit. It promises to pull people from across movements, generations and regions and will be about as multiracial as the country it’s about. It’s raison d’être: To “declare what we want our world to look like and … start planning the path to get there.”</span> </blockquote><br />
<div>More on the US Social Forum (from their website):<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #38761d;">The purpose of the USSF is to effectively and affirmatively articulate the values and strategies of a growing and vibrant movement for justice in the United States. Those who build towards and participate in the USSF are no longer interested in simply stating what social justice movements “stand-against,” rather we see ourselves as part of new movements that reach beyond national borders, that practice democracy at all levels, and understand that neo-liberalism abroad and here in the US is not the solution. The USSF provides a first major step towards such articulation of what we stand for.</span></blockquote></div><span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<div><strong><span style="color: #38761d;"></span></strong><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #38761d;">Why Detroit?</span></blockquote><span style="color: #38761d;"></span><span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="color: #38761d;"></span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #38761d;">To win nationally, we must win in places like Detroit. The Midwest site of the USSF marks a fierce resistance movement for social, racial, gender, and economic justice. Detroit has the highest unemployment of any major city in the country—23.2% (March 2009)—with nearly one in four Detroiters unable to find work. Michigan has had the highest number of unemployed people in all 50 states for nearly four years. Thousands of living wage jobs have been permanently lost in the automotive industry and related sectors. Some think that it will take at least until 2025 for Michigan to recover from the economic collapse and social dislocation. </span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #38761d;"><span style="color: #38761d;">What is happening in Detroit and in Michigan is happening all across the United States. Detroit is a harbinger for what we must do in our communities! As grassroots activists and organizers, we work to address the indignities against working families and low-income people, and protect our human right to the basic necessities of life. In Detroit, we can make change happen!</span></span><span style="color: #38761d;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">The US Social Forum provides this space—drawing participants from different regions, ethnicities, sectors and ages across the U.S. and its colonies. Community-based organizations, Indigenous nations, immigrants, independent workers organizations, unions, unemployed, youth, children, elders, queers, differently-abled, international allies, academics, and advocacy organizations will be able to come together in Detroit for dialogues, reflection and to define future strategies.</span></blockquote><br />
This is my first time attending a social forum gathering. It brings togethers the leaders of movements from all around the world as people begin to organize to create a different world. A world where peopole do not abdicate all reasoning to "market forces." A world beyond capitalism. A world where people have equal rights, true political power....basically the world that we all dream about but the one that most of us gave up as fantasy upon reaching adulthood. These are the people out there standing up to the corporations, fighting unfair economic and political systems, and fightring for environmental, economic, and political justice one community at a time.<br />
<br />
I imagine that I won't find to many Tea Party members at these sessions, unless they are there to protest against them.<br />
<br />
My beret is packed; let the revolution begin!<br />
<br />
Learn more about the US Social Forum <a href="http://www.ussf2010.org/node">Here</a><br />
<br />
Here is the <a href="http://www.ussf2010.org/workshop-tracks">Program</a> that will be explored during the 5 day event: ( A detailed summary can be found <a href="http://www.ussf2010.org/programbook">here</a>)<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">USSF 2010 - 14 Major Program Tracks</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">1. CAPITALISM IN CRISIS: TEARING DOWN POVERTY, BUILDING ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES & A SOLIDARITY ECONOMY</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Poverty on the rise: Un- and Under-employed, Underpaid, and Underground</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Privatization and Failures of Public Goods: Health Care, Education, Water, Electricity</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Debt-based Economy: Foreclosures and Credit</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. What is a Solidarity Economy? Bringing together international and domestic economic strategies to create models based on solidarity, equity, and justice.</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">e. Fighting for New Economic Practices: Green Jobs, Living Wage, Fair Trade, Community Land Trusts, and Cooperative Solutions</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">f. 21st Century Socialism, the Commons Movement, and others</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">2. CLIMATE JUSTICE: SUSTAINABILITY, RESOURCES AND LAND</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Building Power, Resiliency and Sustainability through Ecological, Social, Energy and Environmental Justice Movement</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Transition from Oil and Fossil Fuel Economy towards Ecologically Clean, Renewable and Sustainable Alternative Energy.</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Food security, Agriculture & Small Farms</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Water Rights & Access</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">e. Waste and Toxics/ Corporate Polluting & Regulations</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">f. Exploitation of Natural Resources, Climate Change and Environmental & Community Destruction (disaster and loss of biological and cultural diversity)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">3. INDIGENOUS SOVEREIGNTY</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Domestic and International Movements for the Rights of Indigenous People’s, Self-Determination, Treaty Rights and Sovereignty.</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Struggles for land, forests, water, and economic, social and environmental justice.</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Indigenous movement and leadership in social movements.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">4. DISPLACEMENT, MIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Gentrification and Housing</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Displaced Peoples: Internal Domestic Displacement (i.e. as a result of crises liek Katrina), People without citizenship and Environmental Refugees</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Detention, Deportation and Sanctuary</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Forced Migration: Human Trafficking, Migrant Work, Sex Slavery</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">e. Domestic and International Movements for Reparations and Landless Peoples</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">5. DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Relationship between social movements and electoral politics</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Rebuilding Society: current experiments and future alternatives</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Federal and state takeover of local governance</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Radical Democracy</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">6. TO THE RIGHT: INTERNATIONALLY AND DOMESTICALLY</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Exposing Right wing strategies, diverse interests, and structure; use of Left tactics and racist responses</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Dividing communities with a Moral Agenda: Against LGBT rights, Reproductive Rights and Gender Justice</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Attacks on the Left domestically and internationally</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Right-wing on the rise internationally: electing fascist leaders and parties</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">e. President Obama: What it means & what it doesn’t; what does Center forces mean for social movements</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">7. TO THE LEFT: BUILDING A MOVEMENT FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE: INTERSECTIONS AND ALLIANCES ACROSS RACE, CLASS, GENDER, SEXUALITY, AGE, ABILITY</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Building Alliances and Leadership in all generations, culture, race, genders and other differences</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Confronting & Undoing Systemic Oppression: Racism, White Supremacy, Patriarchy, Class Oppression, Heterosexism, Ableism and other systems</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Building alliances across locations and political borders (local, national, rural, urban, nations, Indigenous Nations)</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Creating healthier relationships between people, inside organizations and in movements</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">8. STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING POWER & ENSURING COMMUNITY NEEDS (Housing, Education, Jobs, Clean Air…)</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Non violent Direct Action</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Grassroots organizing</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Electoral organizing</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Left/revolutionary organization building</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">e. Education Organizing, Popular Education and Consciousness Raising</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">f. Using Human Rights framework</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">g. Self determination struggles</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">h. Faith based organizing</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">i. Advocacy, Legal Strategies, Policy</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">9. ORGANIZING A LABOR MOVEMENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: CRISIS AND OPPORTUNITIES</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. U.S. Workforce: Job Elimination, Cutbacks and Layoffs</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. State of Organized Labor Movement</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Independent Worker’s Movements, Centers & Radical Labor Organizing</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Building A Movement for All Workers: Alliance Building amongst Organized Labor, Workers Excluded from Labor Protections, Unorganized Labor, Immigrant Workers, Undocumented Workers, and others.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">10. MEDIA JUSTICE, COMMUNICATIONS, & CULTURE</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Culture as resistance and resilience</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Art Activism and Cultural Events</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Generating our own media, sharing our stories, popularizing our messages</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Corporate Media and Media Consolidation</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">e. Communications and organizing</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">11. TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE, HEALING, AND ORGANIZING</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Liberatory approaches to ending violence</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Converging personal and political transformation in social movements</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Creating effective organizing models based in transformative values</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Prison and abolition: alternatives to prison, transformation of communities most impacted by prison industry, and building political power of ex-offenders</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">e. Spirituality and healing for renewal and resistance</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">12. ENDLESS WAR: MILITARIZATION, CRIMINALIZATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Prisons, policing and military recruitment of poor communities & young people</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Homeland security: detention, rollback of civil rights, and repression of social movements</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. War and Occupation and US Intervention</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Mobilizing Fear to Justify Endless War & Intervention: Islamophobia, sanctions, red-baiting, moral values</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">e. Building a strong anti-war movement</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">13. INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY AND RESPONSIBILITY: BUILDING A UNIFIED RESPONSE TO GLOBAL CRISES</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. From Detroit to Dakar, 2011 – Building Solidarity and Movement Nationally and Internationally</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Palestine: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Building Alternative Poles of Power (for example, Latin America bloc or other alliances in countries & continents)</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Global Justice versus Free Trade</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">e. Challenging US roles in international bodies (i.e. United Nations, NATO, WTO, G20 and others)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">14. DETROIT AND THE RUST BELT</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">a. Race and Class Oppression in Detroit</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">b. Technology and the Decline of the Manufacturing Industry</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">c. Community and Labor responses: labor organizing, converting condemned manufacturing facilities</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">d. Revitalization of Detroit and other communities</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">e. Take Action: work brigades, solidarity projects</span><br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-22129005876634864422010-06-17T19:41:00.000-07:002010-06-17T19:54:49.981-07:00Time to get off the bench...<span style="font-size: large;">Many of us have been captivated as the largest ecological disaster in our history slowly unfolds in the Gulf of Mexico. The days pass as man struggles to put the cork back in the bottle and ebb the eruption of oil from the ocean floor. The images are heartbreaking.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq4fUEOXW7Ss5hyphenhyphenUCdiGg_LUki4iZpjJdRUHjIbt9dIkIrwRiVSRG2N05_3d9mml0vFrYPPsqBu-_b0QJExG5ItvAmkcD8iherVH2cGKL9QYa3Ln_ak-jLRqQ48AMK4MJoHJJucIu2qJ45/s1600/Pelican+oil+covered.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq4fUEOXW7Ss5hyphenhyphenUCdiGg_LUki4iZpjJdRUHjIbt9dIkIrwRiVSRG2N05_3d9mml0vFrYPPsqBu-_b0QJExG5ItvAmkcD8iherVH2cGKL9QYa3Ln_ak-jLRqQ48AMK4MJoHJJucIu2qJ45/s400/Pelican+oil+covered.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;">The reality is that fossil fuels have been wiping out life in the Gulf of Mexico for many years. Our industrial food production system is heavily reliant on fertilizers that are produced from fossil fuels. Most of the fertilizer used in the Midwest washes off the crops and fields and eventually is deposited in the Mississippi River which empties out into the Gulf of Mexico. (here is a <a href="http://www.smm.org/deadzone/top.html">animated explanation</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-yiAkwuYfGWjYctgOjZIL070zjYL0wh820JN8_MTsy6218j0_B9N9RzulVd33z1eoKQ3RdjShlcyTdmH_ur_WnS-moE0oSZqTF4siLMmm05zMlaJRNCViHE2U3UHri9eEXoN5eVacBQh1/s1600/photo_deadzone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="460" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-yiAkwuYfGWjYctgOjZIL070zjYL0wh820JN8_MTsy6218j0_B9N9RzulVd33z1eoKQ3RdjShlcyTdmH_ur_WnS-moE0oSZqTF4siLMmm05zMlaJRNCViHE2U3UHri9eEXoN5eVacBQh1/s640/photo_deadzone.jpg" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The nitrogen in the fertilizer spurs the rampant growth of algae in the water which eventually sucks the oxygen out of the water -- no oxygen, no life.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJnOZc_7sRv_NSD8XUgnWxLrpv0JqKQpB4eR2topFWt-x8rgIkO8t3iid4hbrshyphenhyphen8VtQ_pQhcKwUprLUZLuoJSjsEI6JRvePwUd8hh8au7sk4DQEhPWivORMWlka1e3ZmCeSe8zCbqh2Th/s1600/deadzone_map061007.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJnOZc_7sRv_NSD8XUgnWxLrpv0JqKQpB4eR2topFWt-x8rgIkO8t3iid4hbrshyphenhyphen8VtQ_pQhcKwUprLUZLuoJSjsEI6JRvePwUd8hh8au7sk4DQEhPWivORMWlka1e3ZmCeSe8zCbqh2Th/s640/deadzone_map061007.gif" width="500" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The size of the dead zone varies but it can be as large as the state of New Jersey, or about 7,000 square miles. (<a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/november03/findings/images/photo_deadzone.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/november03/findings/deadzone.htm&usg=__QOjUI1F1XCgtYmFkJmd-H_o1f34=&h=216&w=300&sz=22&hl=en&start=1&sig2=ezUwq7chDYfnuAesrF0ZMQ&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=MVrOdZq3zZSpDM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgulf%2Bof%2Bmexico%2Bdead%2Bzone%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1B3GGLL_enUS369US369%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=emwXTJaEFIGglAe6m8ivCw">more here</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">We have simply added a killing zone to the dead zone.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">While the anger towards BP is warranted the opportunity presented by this catastrophe will be wasted if yet again we only focus on the symptoms. Or worse, if we simply do nothing.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The use of coal causes a myriad of health problems and <a href="http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coals-assault-executive.pdf">thousands of deaths</a> across the country. Thousands of US soldiers are continually put in harm's way to ensure adequate access to oil fields. <a href="http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/the-12-largest-oil-spills-in-history-0"> Contamination by leaks</a> from oil tankers and oil wells destroy entire </span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">ecosystems around the world every year</span><span style="font-size: large;">. The burning of fossils fuels are the driving force behind climate change that threatens to create an unlivable planet.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">When do we start acting like adults and acknowledge the simple facts? When do we start to make changes in our society? Want a livable planet? Want a few other life forms to survive with us? Want to revive the American economy? Then do the following:</span><br />
<ol><li><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="color: black;">Write/Call your senator (Yes, really):</span> </span></b> Demand that we put a price on carbon. Demand that they take action to stop global warming. The true cost to society of burning coal and oil is not yet reflected in the prices we pay. Once costs rise for these dirty fuels, industry will rapidly shift to renewable energy. Renewable energy is LOCAL energy....local jobs, local manufacturing....what's not to like? <br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">You can find your senator's contact information<a href="http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=IL"> here</a>.<br />
<br />
</span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Live a sustainable life style</b>: Each week look for a new way to reduce the amount of energy you use. Drive less. Get an energy audit for your home. Weatherize your home. Install some solar power on your roof. Buying a new appliance? Do your homework and get the most energy efficient model you can. Buy less stuff. Avoid plastics. Re-use. Recycle. </span> </li>
</ol><br />
<div style="color: blue;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"> Life is not a spectator sport.</span></b><br />
</div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT13RSQdU9inozucBtGAAHZqMYvO_MPOBsZhTyiy-2UgKXMKUZ_HjLZs885JCmbthm6VXRYxgwLcKTBCulJEPzcy-APMoERv6y7_5T8SGqXGiUC5TLou_thLVTxvqynAzrX6UCGmZIKKUy/s1600/tumblr_l3ccldxFjN1qbb5axo1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="466" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT13RSQdU9inozucBtGAAHZqMYvO_MPOBsZhTyiy-2UgKXMKUZ_HjLZs885JCmbthm6VXRYxgwLcKTBCulJEPzcy-APMoERv6y7_5T8SGqXGiUC5TLou_thLVTxvqynAzrX6UCGmZIKKUy/s640/tumblr_l3ccldxFjN1qbb5axo1_500.jpg" width="640" /></a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-70962992518780691652010-06-11T04:14:00.000-07:002010-06-11T04:22:31.209-07:00Food for Thought<div id="date2">It was an amazing day at the<a href="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/"> Slow Money</a> National Gathering today here in Burlington, VT. This movement is about creating an alternative to our unsustainable industrial food system. The presenters were humble, good-natured, and stunningly intelligent and pragmatic. I challenge anyone to not be inspired by the stories of their efforts to create healthy food in a way that is both profitable and ecologically sound. Their efforts to figure out how to allow people like you and me to invest in our local communities and support our local farmers and artisans. Or current legal system actually makes it very hard to do this. Despite all the odds people are making it happen. It is real. An odd mix of financial gurus, social entrepreneurs, and farmers are working together to create this new future. What's all the fuss about? Well, here is a great article that was in Time Magazine about our current food system and its trappings. </div><div id="date2"></div><div id="date2"></div><div id="date2">Friday, Aug. 21, 2009</div><h1><a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458,00.html">Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food</a></h1><div class="byline">By Bryan Walsh</div><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Correction Appended: Aug. 20, 2009</span><br />
Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won't bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He's fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. When the pig is slaughtered, at about 5 months of age, he'll become sausage or bacon that will sell cheap, feeding an American addiction to meat that has contributed to an obesity epidemic currently afflicting more than two-thirds of the population. And when the rains come, the excess fertilizer that coaxed so much corn from the ground will be washed into the Mississippi River and down into the Gulf of Mexico, where it will help kill fish for miles and miles around. That's the state of your bacon — circa 2009. <span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1917925,00.html" target="_blank">(See TIME's photo-essay "From Farm to Fork.")</a></span><br />
Horror stories about the food industry have long been with us — ever since 1906, when Upton Sinclair's landmark novel <i>The Jungle</i> told some ugly truths about how America produces its meat. In the century that followed, things got much better, and in some ways much worse. The U.S. agricultural industry can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals and humans. Those hidden prices are the creeping erosion of our fertile farmland, cages for egg-laying chickens so packed that the birds can't even raise their wings and the scary rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria among farm animals. Add to the price tag the acceleration of global warming — our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels, more than any other sector of the economy. <br />
And perhaps worst of all, our food is increasingly bad for us, even dangerous. A series of recalls involving contaminated foods this year — including an outbreak of salmonella from tainted peanuts that killed at least eight people and sickened 600 — has consumers rightly worried about the safety of their meals. A food system — from seed to 7‑Eleven — that generates cheap, filling food at the literal expense of healthier produce is also a principal cause of America's obesity epidemic. At a time when the nation is close to a civil war over health-care reform, obesity adds $147 billion a year to our doctor bills. "The way we farm now is destructive of the soil, the environment and us," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). <span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1626519,00.html" target="_blank">(See pictures of what the world eats.)</a></span><br />
Some Americans are heeding such warnings and working to transform the way the country eats — ranchers and farmers who are raising sustainable food in ways that don't bankrupt the earth. Documentaries like the scathing <a href="http://www.foodincmovie.com/"><i>Food Inc.</i></a> and the work of investigative journalists like Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan are reprising Sinclair's work, awakening a sleeping public to the uncomfortable realities of how we eat. Change is also coming from the very top. First Lady Michelle Obama's White House garden has so far yielded more than 225 lb. of organic produce — and tons of powerful symbolism. But hers is still a losing battle. Despite increasing public awareness, sustainable agriculture, while the fastest-growing sector of the food industry, remains a tiny enterprise: according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), less than 1% of American cropland is farmed organically. Sustainable food is also pricier than conventional food and harder to find. And while large companies like General Mills have opened organic divisions, purists worry that the very definition of <i>sustainability</i> will be co-opted as a result. <span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1913033,00.html" target="_blank">(See pictures of urban farming around the world.)</a></span><br />
But we don't have the luxury of philosophizing about food. With the exhaustion of the soil, the impact of global warming and the inevitably rising price of oil — which will affect everything from fertilizer to supermarket electricity bills — our industrial style of food production will end sooner or later. As the developing world grows richer, hundreds of millions of people will want to shift to the same calorie-heavy, protein-rich diet that has made Americans so unhealthy — demand for meat and poultry worldwide is set to rise 25% by 2015 — but the earth can no longer deliver. Unless Americans radically rethink the way they grow and consume food, they face a future of eroded farmland, hollowed-out countryside, scarier germs, higher health costs — and bland taste. Sustainable food has an élitist reputation, but each of us depends on the soil, animals and plants — and as every farmer knows, if you don't take care of your land, it can't take care of you.<br />
<span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1891519_1891520,00.html" target="_blank">See 10 things to buy during the recession.</a></span> <br />
<span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1864255,00.html" target="_blank">See the top 10 food trends of 2008.</a></span> <br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">The Downside of Cheap</span><br />
For all the grumbling you do about your weekly grocery bill, the fact is you've never had it so good, at least in terms of what you pay for every calorie you eat. According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966. Those savings begin with the remarkable success of one crop: corn. Corn is king on the American farm, with production passing 12 billion bu. annually, up from 4 billion bu. as recently as 1970. When we eat a cheeseburger, a Chicken McNugget, or drink soda, we're eating the corn that grows on vast, monocrop fields in Midwestern states like Iowa.<br />
But cheap food is not free food, and corn comes with hidden costs. The crop is heavily fertilized — both with chemicals like nitrogen and with subsidies from Washington. Over the past decade, the Federal Government has poured more than $50 billion into the corn industry, keeping prices for the crop — at least until corn ethanol skewed the market — artificially low. That's why McDonald's can sell you a Big Mac, fries and a Coke for around $5 — a bargain, given that the meal contains nearly 1,200 calories, more than half the daily recommended requirement for adults. "Taxpayer subsidies basically underwrite cheap grain, and that's what the factory-farming system for meat is entirely dependent on," says Gurian-Sherman. <span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1905549_1905546,00.html" target="_blank">(See the 10 worst fast food meals.)</a></span><br />
So what's wrong with cheap food and cheap meat — especially in a world in which more than 1 billion people go hungry? A lot. For one thing, not all food is equally inexpensive; fruits and vegetables don't receive the same price supports as grains. A study in the <i>American Journal of Clinical Nutrition</i> found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit. With the backing of the government, farmers are producing more calories — some 500 more per person per day since the 1970s — but too many are unhealthy calories. Given that, it's no surprise we're so fat; it simply costs too much to be thin. <br />
Our expanding girth is just one consequence of mainstream farming. Another is chemicals. No one doubts the power of chemical fertilizer to pull more crop from a field. American farmers now produce an astounding 153 bu. of corn per acre, up from 118 as recently as 1990. But the quantity of that fertilizer is flat-out scary: more than 10 million tons for corn alone — and nearly 23 million for all crops. When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal, approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and therefore almost no sea life. Because of the dead zone, the $2.8 billion Gulf of Mexico fishing industry loses 212,000 metric tons of seafood a year, and around the world, there are nearly 400 similar dead zones. Even as we produce more high-fat, high-calorie foods, we destroy one of our leanest and healthiest sources of protein. <span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,1824402,00.html" target="_blank">(See nine kid foods to avoid.)</a></span><br />
The food industry's degradation of animal life, of course, isn't limited to fish. Though we might still like to imagine our food being raised by Old MacDonald, chances are your burger or your sausage came from what are called concentrated-animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are every bit as industrial as they sound. In CAFOs, large numbers of animals — 1,000 or more in the case of cattle and tens of thousands for chicken and pigs — are kept in close, concentrated conditions and fattened up for slaughter as fast as possible, contributing to efficiencies of scale and thus lower prices. But animals aren't widgets with legs. They're living creatures, and there are consequences to packing them in prison-like conditions. For instance: Where does all that manure go?<br />
Pound for pound, a pig produces approximately four times the amount of waste a human does, and what factory farms do with that mess gets comparatively little oversight. Most hog waste is disposed of in open-air lagoons, which can overflow in heavy rain and contaminate nearby streams and rivers. "This creek that we used to wade in, that creek that our parents could drink out of, our kids can't even play in anymore," says Jayne Clampitt, a farmer in Independence, Iowa, who lives near a number of hog farms. <br />
To stay alive and grow in such conditions, farm animals need pharmaceutical help, which can have further damaging consequences for humans. Overuse of antibiotics on farm animals leads, inevitably, to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the same bugs that infect animals can infect us too. The UCS estimates that about 70% of antimicrobial drugs used in America are given not to people but to animals, which means we're breeding more of those deadly organisms every day. The Institute of Medicine estimated in 1998 that antibiotic resistance cost the public-health system $4 billion to $5 billion a year — a figure that's almost certainly higher now. "I don't think CAFOs would be able to function as they do now without the widespread use of antibiotics," says Robert Martin, who was the executive director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.<br />
<span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1645016,00.html" target="_blank">See more pictures of what the world eats.</a></span><br />
<span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1891675,00.html" target="_blank">See photos from a grocery store auction.</a></span><br />
The livestock industry argues that estimates of antibiotics in food production are significantly overblown. Resistance "is the result of human use and not related to veterinary use," according to Kristina Butts, the manager of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. But with wonder drugs losing their effectiveness, it makes sense to preserve them for as long as we can, and that means limiting them to human use as much as possible. "These antibiotics are not given to sick animals," says Representative Louise Slaughter, who is sponsoring a bill to limit antibiotic use on farms. "It's a preventive measure because they are kept in pretty unspeakable conditions."<br />
Such a measure would get at a symptom of the problem but not at the source. Just as the burning of fossil fuels that is causing global warming requires more than a tweaking of mileage standards, the manifold problems of our food system require a comprehensive solution. "There should be a recognition that what we are doing is unsustainable," says Martin. And yet, still we must eat. So what can we do? <span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1914584,00.html" target="_blank">(See pictures of an apartment outfitted for goat-milking.)</a></span><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Getting It Right</span><br />
If a factory farm is hell for an animal, then Bill Niman's seaside ranch in Bolinas, Calif., an hour north of San Francisco, must be heaven. The property's cliffside view over the Pacific Ocean is worth millions, but the black Angus cattle that Niman and his wife Nicolette Hahn Niman raise keep their eyes on the ground, chewing contentedly on the pasture. Grass — and a trail of hay that Niman spreads from his truck periodically — is all the animals will eat during the nearly three years they'll spend on the ranch. That all-natural, noncorn diet — along with the intensive, individual care that the Nimans provide their animals — produces beef that many connoisseurs consider to be among the best in the world. But for Niman, there is more at stake than just a good steak. He believes that his way of raising farm animals — in the open air, with no chemicals or drugs and with maximum care — is the only truly sustainable method and could be a model for a better food system. "What we need in this country is a completely different way of raising animals for food," says Hahn Niman, a former attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice. "This needs to be done in the right way." <br />
The Nimans like to call what they do "beyond organic," and there are some signs that consumers are beginning to catch up. This November, California voters approved a ballot proposition that guarantees farm animals enough space to lie down, stand up and turn around. Worldwide, organic food — a sometimes slippery term but on the whole a practice more sustainable than conventional food — is worth more than $46 billion. That's still a small slice of the overall food pie, but it's growing, even in a global recession. "There is more pent-up demand for organic than there is production," says Bill Wolf, a co-founder of the organic-food consultancy Wolf DiMatteo and Associates. <span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,19853953001_1892513,00.html" target="_blank">(Watch TIME's video "The New Frugality: The Organic Gardener.")</a></span><br />
So what will it take for sustainable food production to spread? It's clear that scaling up must begin with a sort of scaling down — a distributed system of many local or regional food producers as opposed to just a few massive ones. Since 1935, consolidation and industrialization have seen the number of U.S. farms decline from 6.8 million to fewer than 2 million — with the average farmer now feeding 129 Americans, compared with 19 people in 1940. <br />
It's that very efficiency that's led to the problems and is in turn spurring a backlash, reflected not just in the growth of farmers' markets or the growing involvement of big corporations in organics but also in the local-food movement, in which restaurants and large catering services buy from suppliers in their areas, thereby improving freshness, supporting small-scale agriculture and reducing the so-called food miles between field and plate. That in turn slashes transportation costs and reduces the industry's carbon footprint.<br />
A transition to more sustainable, smaller-scale production methods could even be possible without a loss in overall yield, as one survey from the University of Michigan suggested, but it would require far more farmworkers than we have today. With unemployment approaching double digits — and things especially grim in impoverished rural areas that have seen populations collapse over the past several decades — that's hardly a bad thing. Work in a CAFO is monotonous and soul-killing, while too many ordinary farmers struggle to make ends meet even as the rest of us pay less for food. Farmers aren't the enemy — and they deserve real help. We've transformed the essential human profession — growing food — into an industry like any other. "We're hurting for job creation, and industrial food has pushed people off the farm," says Hahn Niman. "We need to make farming real employment, because if you do it right, it's enjoyable work." <br />
<span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1731280,00.html" target="_blank">See pictures of the global food crisis.</a></span><br />
<span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028,00.html" target="_blank">See pictures of the world's most polluted places.</a></span> <br />
One model for how the new paradigm could work is Niman Ranch, a larger operation that Bill Niman founded in the 1990s, before he left in 2007. (By his own admission, he's a better farmer than he is a businessman.) The company has knitted together hundreds of small-scale farmers into a network that sells all-natural pork, beef and lamb to retailers and restaurants. In doing so, it leverages economies of scale while letting the farmers take proper care of their land and animals. "We like to think of ourselves as a force for a local-farming community, not as a large corporation," says Jeff Swain, Niman Ranch's CEO.<br />
Other examples include the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1663721,00.html" target="_blank">Mexican-fast-food chain Chipotle</a>, which now sources its pork from Niman Ranch and gets its other meats and much of its beans from natural and organic sources. It's part of a commitment that Chipotle <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1663316_1684619_1663337,00.html" target="_blank">founder Steve Ells</a> made years ago, not just because sustainable ingredients were better for the planet but because they tasted better too — a philosophy he calls Food with Integrity. It's not cheap for Chipotle — food makes up more than 32% of its costs, the highest in the fast-food industry. But to Ells, the taste more than compensates, and Chipotle's higher prices haven't stopped the company's rapid growth, from 16 stores in 1998 to over 900 today. "We put a lot of energy into finding farmers who are committed to raising better food," says Ells. <span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1726292_1556601,00.html" target="_blank">(See pictures of the effects of global warming.)</a></span><br />
<a href="http://www.bamco.com/" target="_blank">Bon Appétit Management Company</a>, a caterer based in Palo Alto, Calif., takes that commitment even further. The company sources as much of its produce as possible from within 150 miles of its kitchens and gets its meat from farmers who eschew antibiotics. Bon Appétit also tries to influence its customers' habits by nudging them toward greener choices. That includes campaigns to reduce food waste, in part by encouraging servers at its kitchens to offer smaller, more manageable portions. (The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up in the garbage.) And Bon Appétit supports a low-carbon diet, one that uses less meat and dairy, since both have a greater carbon footprint than fruit, vegetables and grain. The success of the overall operation demonstrates that sustainable food can work at an institutional scale bigger than an élite restaurant, a small market or a gourmet's kitchen — provided customers support it. "Ultimately it's going to be consumer demand that will cause change, not Washington," says Fedele Bauccio, Bon Appétit's co-founder. <span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1678503,00.html" target="_blank">(See pictures of two farms in Nebraska.)</a></span><br />
How willing are consumers to rethink the way they shop for — and eat — food? For most people, price will remain the biggest obstacle. Organic food continues to cost on average several times more than its conventional counterparts, and no one goes to farmers' markets for bargains. But not all costs can be measured by a price tag. Once you factor in crop subsidies, ecological damage and what we pay in health-care bills after our fatty, sugary diet makes us sick, conventionally produced food looks a lot pricier. <br />
What we really need to do is something Americans have never done well, and that's to quit thinking big. We already eat four times as much meat and dairy as the rest of the world, and there's not a nutritionist on the planet who would argue that 24‑oz. steaks and mounds of buttery mashed potatoes are what any person needs to stay alive. "The idea is that healthy and good-tasting food should be available to everyone," says Hahn Niman. "The food system should be geared toward that."<br />
Whether that happens will ultimately come down to all of us, since we have the chance to choose better food three times a day (or more often, if we're particularly hungry). It's true that most of us would prefer not to think too much about where our food comes from or what it's doing to the planet — after all, as Chipotle's Ells points out, eating is not exactly a "heady intellectual event." But if there's one difference between industrial agriculture and the emerging alternative, it's that very thing: consciousness. Niman takes care with each of his cattle, just as an organic farmer takes care of his produce and smart shoppers take care with what they put in their shopping cart and on the family dinner table. The industrial food system fills us up but leaves us empty — it's based on selective forgetting. But what we eat — how it's raised and how it gets to us — has consequences that can't be ignored any longer. <br />
— <i>With reporting by Rebecca Kaplan / New York</i><br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">The original version of this article mistakenly referred to the Bon Appétit Management Company as the Bon Appétit Food Management Company</span><br />
<span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1863706,00.html" target="_blank">See the top 10 green ideas of 2008.</a></span> <br />
<span class="see"><a href="http://www.time.com/time/picturesoftheweek" target="_blank">See TIME's Pictures of the Week.</a></span> <br />
<b>The Tale of Two Cattle</b><br />
How did your hamburger get to your plate — and what did it eat along the way? The journey of beef illustrates the great American food chain<br />
<b>ORGANIC</b> (<i>1% of all cattle</i>)<br />
This is the way all beef used to be raised — and how some people still imagine it is. Bill Niman tends a small herd with one of the lightest hands in the business and produces what Bay Area chefs swear is unparalleled beef <br />
<b>Diet:</b> Grass <br />
Niman's cows eat only grass, along with a smattering of hay. That's the normal diet for cattle. Their rumen, a digestive organ, can break down grasses we'd find inedible <br />
<b>Supplements:</b> None<br />
Niman gives no supplements whatsoever to his cattle — no drugs, no hormones, no additives. That's not ironclad for organic beef — some companies might use antimicrobials — but generally the animals are supplement-free <br />
<b>Environmental Impact:</b> Living with the Land<br />
To prevent his ranch from becoming overgrazed, Niman shifts his cattle around the land, ensuring that the grass has time to recover between feedings. The result is a surprisingly low-impact hamburger, since grass doesn't need chemical fertilizer to grow and its presence helps prevent soil erosion. There's no need to clean up manure — with Niman's low cattle density, the waste just fertilizes the land <br />
<b>Human Impact:</b> The Omega Effect<br />
Beef has a bad rep among nutritionists, but that might be partly unfair for grass-fed steaks. According to research from the University of California, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acids than conventional beef <br />
<b>CONVENTIONAL</b> (<i>99% of all cattle</i>)<br />
The vast majority of all American cattle start off on open ranges, but that's where the similarity to their organic cousins ends. They're shifted after a few months to the tight quarters of an industrial feedlot, to be fattened up as fast as possible <br />
<b>Diet: </b>Grass and corn<br />
Conventional cattle feed off grass pasture for the first several months, but at the feedlot, they're switched to a heavily corn-based diet, which makes them gain weight faster but also makes them get sick more easily <br />
<b>Supplements: </b>Chemicals<br />
In part to help them survive the crowded conditions of feedlots, where infections can spread fast, conventional cattle are given antibiotics in their feed, and sometimes growth hormones, bloods and fats <br />
<b>Environmental Impact:</b> Waste<br />
A 1,000-head feedlot produces up to 280 tons of manure a week, and the smell can be powerful. All that feed corn requires millions of tons of fertilizer and, ultimately, a lot of petroleum <br />
<b>Human Impact:</b> Fat Attack<br />
Feeding corn to cattle for the last several months of their lives doesn't just get them fatter faster; it also changes the quality of the beef. Corn helps produce that marbled taste many of us love, but it can result in beef that is higher in fat — helping to fuel the obesity epidemicUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-55904786490548378142010-06-09T19:35:00.000-07:002010-06-09T19:58:13.928-07:00Slow Money....<i>* What would the world be like if we invested 50% of our assets within 50 miles of where we live? <br />
* What if there were a new generation of companies that gave away 50% of their profits? <br />
* What if there were 50% more organic matter in our soil 50 years from now?</i><br />
<br />
Yeah, I don't know either. But I hope to have a better sense of the answers to these questions by the end of the week. I just took a 12.5 hour train ride to Burlington, VT to attend a "Slow Money" conference on Thursday and Friday. (I figured the train was better for the planet than driving, plus I could use all that time productively)<br />
<br />
What is the Slow Money movement all about? From their website:<br />
-----------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #8a6b4d;">About Slow Money</span></span> <br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">BusinessWeek</span> calls Slow Money "one of the big ideas of 2010." <span style="font-style: italic;">NPR</span> calls us "a movement." <span style="font-style: italic;">ACRES USA</span> calls us "a revolution."<br />
<br />
Founded by <a href="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/management.html">Woody Tasch</a>, a pioneer in merging investing and philanthropy, Slow Money's mission is to build local and national networks, and develop new financial products and services, dedicated to:<br />
<ul><li>investing in small food enterprises and local food systems;</li>
<li>connecting investors to their local economies; and,</li>
<li>building the nurture capital industry.</li>
</ul>Soil fertility, carrying capacity, sense of place, care of the commons, cultural, ecological and economic health and diversity, nonviolence -- these are the fundamentals of nurture capital, a new financial sector supporting the emergence of a restorative economy. And these are the fundamentals of the Slow Money Principles.<br />
<br />
Slow Money's goal is:<b> a million Americans investing 1% of their assets in local food systems within a decade</b>.<br />
<br />
Because the first step is a fundamentally new way of thinking about money, our first step is a campaign to obtain signatories to the <a href="http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6351/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1637">Slow Money Principles</a>. Our next step is growing the <a href="http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6351/t/8919/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1736">Slow Money Alliance</a> into a major national network that provides strategic and financial assistance to local initiatives around the country. The <a href="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/founding-members.html">Founding Members</a> of the Slow Money Alliance includes many recognized leaders in organic food, sustainable agriculture, philanthropy and social investing.<br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
I am excited because they have a great list of speakers. One of them I have met in person, a few were highlighted in <a href="http://www.foodincmovie.com/">Food Inc</a> (if you have not seen this film, go rent it NOW), and/or a few have inspired me with their writing or speaking. <br />
<br />
Learn more about Slow Money <a href="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/">here</a>. And the program for the gathering can be found <a href="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/slow_money_national_gathering_agenda.pdf">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Confirmed Speakers</h2><div><div class="weebly-splitpane-2" id="532846582782652-parent" style="width: 100%;"><div class="column" id="532846582782652-lhs" style="float: left; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-right: 5px;"><div><div class="weebly-splitpane-2" id="828639957337769-parent" style="width: 100%;"><div class="column" id="828639957337769-lhs" style="float: left; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-right: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/7551355.jpg?135" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Alisa Gravitz, Executive Director, Green America</div></div></div></div></div><div class="column" id="828639957337769-rhs" style="float: left; left: 49.5%; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-left: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/1626397.jpg?137" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Eliot Coleman, Founder, Four Season Farm and Author of The New Organic Grower</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="column" id="532846582782652-rhs" style="float: left; left: 49.5%; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-left: 5px;"><div><div class="weebly-splitpane-2" id="721567482961991-parent" style="width: 100%;"><div class="column" id="721567482961991-lhs" style="float: left; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-right: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/2265896.jpg?136" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Joel Salatin, Owner, Polyface Farm</div></div></div></div></div><div class="column" id="721567482961991-rhs" style="float: left; left: 49.5%; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-left: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/1873306.jpg?138" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Bill McKibben, Founder, 350.org and Author of Deep Economy</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div class="weebly-splitpane-2" id="805600451907599618-parent" style="width: 100%;"><div class="column" id="805600451907599618-lhs" style="float: left; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-right: 5px;"><div><div class="weebly-splitpane-2" id="183171381554942570-parent" style="width: 100%;"><div class="column" id="183171381554942570-lhs" style="float: left; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-right: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/6206705.jpg?139" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Gary Hirshberg, CEO, Stonyfield Farm</div></div></div></div></div><div class="column" id="183171381554942570-rhs" style="float: left; left: 49.5%; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-left: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/8878923.jpg?138" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Will Raap, Founder, Gardener’s Supply </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="column" id="805600451907599618-rhs" style="float: left; left: 49.5%; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-left: 5px;"><div><div class="weebly-splitpane-2" id="411793021739324306-parent" style="width: 100%;"><div class="column" id="411793021739324306-lhs" style="float: left; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-right: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/8720221.jpg?137" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Erika Allen, Chicago Project Manager, Growing Power</div></div></div></div></div><div class="column" id="411793021739324306-rhs" style="float: left; left: 49.5%; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-left: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/6864038.jpg?140" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Robert Zevin, President, Robert Brooke Zevin Associates</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="column" id="478698778834230108-lhs" style="float: left; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-right: 5px;"><div><div class="weebly-splitpane-2" id="516941048506543616-parent" style="width: 100%;"><div class="column" id="516941048506543616-lhs" style="float: left; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-right: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/5015228.jpg?139" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Tom Stearns, Founder, High Mowing Seeds</div></div></div></div></div><div class="column" id="516941048506543616-rhs" style="float: left; left: 49.5%; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-left: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/6361473.jpg?141" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Michelle Long, Executive Director, BALLE</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="weebly-splitpane-2" id="800092876801450128-parent" style="width: 100%;"><div class="column" id="800092876801450128-lhs" style="float: left; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-right: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/8326999.jpg?141" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Chris Martenson, Founder, The Crash Course</div></div></div></div></div><div class="column" id="800092876801450128-rhs" style="float: left; left: 49.5%; margin: 0pt; overflow: visible; padding: 0pt; width: 49.5%;"><div class="columnlistp" style="padding-left: 5px;"><div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2903693122118073742&postID=5590478649054837814"><img alt="Picture" class="galleryImageBorder" src="http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/uploads/1/3/6/7/1367341/3875535.jpg?141" style="border-width: 1px; margin: 10px; padding: 3px;" /></a><br />
<div style="display: block; font-size: 90%; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: -10px;">Woody Tasch, Founder, Slow Money<br />
<br />
</div></div></div></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-86349690905510444172010-06-08T09:52:00.000-07:002010-06-08T11:58:37.388-07:00A Timely ThoughtIt has been over a week since my last blog posting. Hopefully, you noticed and perhaps even lamented the omission. So, what kept me from writing? Did I run out of things to say? Been traveling? Bed-ridden with illness?<br />
<br />
Alas, nothing so major -- I just didn't have time. I recently started a new job so that has greatly cut into my blogging time. On Wednesday I traveled to New York do a talk on sustainability ("The American Dream, The World's Nightmare") for an organization. Most of my nights leading up to this event were spent working on adding new slides and revamping the presentation. So, just not much time.<br />
<br />
In our current society most of us are asset rich and time poor. We have so much stuff in fact that the self-storage industry is one the<a href="http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveMoney/TheHighPriceOfTooMuchStuff.aspx"> fastest growing sectors in America</a>. You know the places, those little sheds that many of us rent each month to hold all the extra stuff that doesn't fit in our current home. This is especially ironic given the<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283"> average house size has grown dramatically</a> during the same time period while average household size has <a href="http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveMoney/TheHighPriceOfTooMuchStuff.aspx">shrunk</a>! (so bigger and bigger houses, with fewer and fewer people in those houses, and we still don't have enough space for all our stuff)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjydi95CuuXNvS7sAcTjgJUxTa2MAh0IzABHLWO7GsQnKxxIgle-LRTJSEL-tHFODlBITbKkbXft7gusPMpyzJ6jmZ-bHDZPT1igkbBXkLE4NmbuuL0KIlTuFeONVDiKxB9zZEKu0vgEBcS/s1600/Growth+in+House+Size.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjydi95CuuXNvS7sAcTjgJUxTa2MAh0IzABHLWO7GsQnKxxIgle-LRTJSEL-tHFODlBITbKkbXft7gusPMpyzJ6jmZ-bHDZPT1igkbBXkLE4NmbuuL0KIlTuFeONVDiKxB9zZEKu0vgEBcS/s320/Growth+in+House+Size.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> To pay for all this stuff Americans work longer hours than workers in just about any other industrialized country.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdOA0KNWGOquF8MfMo9ihlZxQHjkZGRX0yqJmiqBgio24cxLFNNmEzceveooPvbo49_1Ul5BnA9sYVLvzYXK0yQ5qDSgMKTwigKpyr1iXLlx0Sq83-Wwr93Hyn7NUwKfYOsDdOMhJEKtFL/s1600/Hours+worked.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdOA0KNWGOquF8MfMo9ihlZxQHjkZGRX0yqJmiqBgio24cxLFNNmEzceveooPvbo49_1Ul5BnA9sYVLvzYXK0yQ5qDSgMKTwigKpyr1iXLlx0Sq83-Wwr93Hyn7NUwKfYOsDdOMhJEKtFL/s400/Hours+worked.PNG" width="400" /></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We work longer hours than the English, the French, and much more than the Germans and the Norwegians. We take less vacation. We retire later. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The more time we spend working the worse the impact on the planet and our souls. Why?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">With rising incomes we have more and more money to buy things. Bigger homes. Bigger TVs. More TVs. Bigger and fancier cars. Multiple cars. More and more clothes. More gadgets. You know the drill.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">But with all those extra hours at work we have less time for ourselves. Less time to spend with our families. Less time to engage with our communities. Less time for the things that actually make us human. We are are social beings. Our well-being, our happiness is fundamentally rooted in our connection to others. We are becoming more and more isolated, more individualistic, and less connected to others. Depression rates are 10x higher than 50 years ago. We have the highest divorce rate in the world. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Drug use is a constant problem.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">To fill the void we consume more. The buzz is nice, but it soon wears off. That new ipod will never fill the void left by a disenfranchised family, distant friends, and no sense of belonging to community. But we keep trying. "<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=4262371&page=1">Retail Therapy</a>" anyone? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div>In a sustainable world we will be asset poor but time rich. We will work less, perhaps 20 hours a week. Maybe 3 days a week. With less income we will consume much less, reducing our burden on the planet. Imagine living in a place where you now have time. Time to really play with your children. Time to go on a long walk. Time to walk to the store. Time for a bubble bath. Time to actually cook and taste a meal. Time to plant food and harvest it. Time to tinker around the house. Time to read all those books you've wanted to read. Time to, gasp, re-read the same book. Time to learn to play the guitar. Time to spend with your grandmother. Time to improve your tennis serve (I need a lot of time for that one). Time to nap. Time to help your friends. Time to volunteer. Time to sing. Time to dance. Time to walk the dog. Time to write your senator. Time to read great blog posts. Time to write great blog posts. Time to do, well, nothing at all.<br />
<br />
Time to imagine the world we really want. <br />
<br />
It's time to make it happen. Work Less. Buy Less. Live More.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-64605503908482819922010-05-28T04:34:00.000-07:002010-05-28T04:39:35.376-07:00A fun (but serious) take on Drill, Baby, Drill...For the<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70RZzxR8pqU"> cartoon lovers</a>, <br />
<br />
<object height="505" width="853"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/70RZzxR8pqU&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/70RZzxR8pqU&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-63161528191913411992010-05-27T05:24:00.000-07:002010-05-27T05:51:53.083-07:00Good Deed for the Day: Fight CoalPeople often ask me what they can do to create a sustainable society. It all seems so overwhelming at times. The issues and forces are so large what can I do as a single person? Some days I feel that way too, but remember these wise words:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><blockquote style="background-color: white; color: blue;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>"Never doubt that a small group of concerned citizens can<br />
change the world. Indeed it's the only thing that ever has."<br />
- Margaret Mead</b></span></blockquote></div><br />
Each week look for a new way to change your life to make the world a bit more sustainable. Find a way to use a bit less energy. Buy a bit less stuff. Talk to a friend and help spread the word about what we can do. Pick up the phone and call your senator. Sign a petition.<br />
<br />
With email and the internet it is easier than ever to stay connected and learn about issues and spread the word. I have signed up with a range non-profit organizations that are fighting to make the world a better place. Many of these organizations send out action alerts on important issues. They often provide an easy way to send a letter to your elected official or sign a petition that will be used to persuade decision makers.<br />
<br />
One of my favorites is <a href="http://www.greenamericatoday.org/"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: #38761d;">Green America</span></b></span></a>. In their own words:<br />
<div class="Heading2D"><br />
</div><div class="Heading2D">What Makes <a href="http://www.greenamericatoday.org/">Green America</a> Unique </div><ul><li class="bodyCopyNormal">We focus on economic strategies—economic action to solve social and environmental problems. </li>
<li class="bodyCopyNormal">We mobilize people in their economic roles—as consumers, investors, workers, <a href="http://www.greenamericatoday.org/greenbusiness/index.cfm">business leaders</a>.</li>
<li class="bodyCopyNormal">We empower people to take personal <i>and</i> collective action</li>
<li class="bodyCopyNormal">We work on issues of social justice <i>and</i> environmental responsibility. We see these issues as completely linked in the quest for a sustainable world. It’s what we mean when we say “green.”</li>
<li class="bodyCopyNormal">We work to stop abusive practices <i>and </i>to create healthy, just and sustainable practice</li>
</ul>Their current action is on sending letters to the shareholders of Southern Company -- the company that owns the largest, single most-polluting coal plant in the country. <a href="http://www.greenamericatoday.org/takeaction/southern/">Please follow this link</a> to send a letter voicing your concern. Shifting away from the burning of coal should be a national priority as the pollution from this dirty energy source <a href="http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm">kills thousands every year</a> and the carbon dioxide produced from the combustion of coal is the driving force of global warming.<br />
<br />
They make it super easy to allow your voice to be heard. They write the letter for you, though you can personalize the text if you like, and with a few clicks off it goes. Being an activist has never been easier!<br />
Here a few screen shots to give you an idea of what it all looks like:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEdycAwdoi35zzMSaL6gqE4mehi_FFarJ78FGn1n_sGCZnXsZLWcu-OmGRYlwyVQxfcFHKyOtP5S8audhhOloOrxBKbivRT5L4nwkF3SPluZByX304Y9b1umpv6Z3bizNqbtsxNxABBUUq/s1600/Coal1.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="604" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEdycAwdoi35zzMSaL6gqE4mehi_FFarJ78FGn1n_sGCZnXsZLWcu-OmGRYlwyVQxfcFHKyOtP5S8audhhOloOrxBKbivRT5L4nwkF3SPluZByX304Y9b1umpv6Z3bizNqbtsxNxABBUUq/s640/Coal1.PNG" width="640" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQb67_xWlppOb7AVQ0z7trQ8H6SGQQ-5MkOP6Ep_66a4kJEOgWhWhd7MkB-nt5F_QZG-U3S0cgMwD0avmv1FoXkCiWrR8HYfA88Wmn4zfZF4Ia8rZxWPhDvTF3c1V-dtUcuoNt8NJwwXnR/s1600/Coal2.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="585" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQb67_xWlppOb7AVQ0z7trQ8H6SGQQ-5MkOP6Ep_66a4kJEOgWhWhd7MkB-nt5F_QZG-U3S0cgMwD0avmv1FoXkCiWrR8HYfA88Wmn4zfZF4Ia8rZxWPhDvTF3c1V-dtUcuoNt8NJwwXnR/s640/Coal2.PNG" width="640" /></a></div><br />
Find groups that you believe in and let them help you stay informed on key issues. Use them to expand your impact by letting our elected officials and business hear what we expect from them. You don't have to make a contribution to join their action alert lists. (Of course if you believe in the work they do, by all means make a donation -- that is how they survive)<br />
<br />
At least once a week, commit to signing a petition. Sending a letter. Making at least one phone call. Ask 5 of your friends to do the same. Before you know it, we've got a movement going here....<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: blue;">"Never doubt that a small group of concerned citizens can</span></b><br style="color: blue;" /><b><span style="color: blue;"> change the world. Indeed it's the only thing that ever has."</span></b><br style="color: blue;" /><b><span style="color: blue;"> - Margaret Mead</span></b></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-65680673226677545142010-05-24T04:42:00.000-07:002010-05-24T04:48:48.253-07:00A Great, GoodGuideAny life form based on exponential growth on a finite planet is doomed. Most economies around the world are now some form of capitalism. The foundation of capitalism is exponential growth. The driving engine of capitalism is the corporation. Corporations are now the epicenter of economic and political power around the world. The cornerstone of any attempt to create a sustainable society must address the<a href="http://sustainablethoughtsmd.blogspot.com/2010/05/corporate-challenge.html"> anti-social and anti-democratic behavior of these organizations.</a> It will require efforts at the highest level -- revamping corporate law, passing national level legislation, enlightened decision-making by the supreme court, and perhaps even an amendment to the constitution. It will likely require massive public outcry and sustained grassroots action to overcome the corporate center of gravity that currently overwhelms our political system.<br />
<br />
So, yes, sharpen your pens and write your elected officials. Get those protest signs painted and get out on the street. Vote, and vote often.<br />
<br />
There is also much we can do in our daily lives to point corporations in the right direction. Corporations do respond to the demands of consumers. Look at the <a href="http://www.helium.com/items/1837478-healthy-menu-items-at-mcdonalds">morphing menu</a> found at the fast food giant Mcdonald's. Due to rising pressure the chain did away with the "super size me" gimmick given the health implications. Mcdonald's also responded to the public's demand for healthier foods by adding more salads, fruit, smaller sandwiches and oatmeal to the menu. I had stopped going to Micky D's years ago but began going again (occasionally, usually when traveling) since I could now get a decent salad there or at least a lower calorie meal.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7iA7atf_hfiAY3p3HotHSxGUFafLWd3DkU8Q0Is4miPoTdEXHQbY-LPeOZ7I8GfA6dVvJWQVN5Iyye-ixseAMtS_BpBwjf3AA3Fssxp8_wUH-4JPQNaNSkQ6ixiPlOF-2e7QyRqVwb977/s1600/McDonalds.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7iA7atf_hfiAY3p3HotHSxGUFafLWd3DkU8Q0Is4miPoTdEXHQbY-LPeOZ7I8GfA6dVvJWQVN5Iyye-ixseAMtS_BpBwjf3AA3Fssxp8_wUH-4JPQNaNSkQ6ixiPlOF-2e7QyRqVwb977/s640/McDonalds.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<br />
Currently, corporations are rewarded only for providing the lowest price. The success of Walmart is the clearest indicator of this. Many of us buy our clothes there, or our TVs, or our groceries even though we know that <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2003-02-09-wal-mart-cov2_x.htm">walmart treats it employees poorly</a>, and that some (many?) of the products are made by people working <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2008/db2008109_219930.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_companies">under deplorable working conditions</a>. As a consumer it is very hard to know which products were made with safe ingredients, or if they employees were paid a livable wage, or if the product was produced in a way that is damaging to the environment. At the moment there is no easy way to reward companies for good behavior - in fact these companies are often penalized because their products may carry a higher price.<br />
<br />
Well, help is on the way. There is a growing movement afoot to bring this type of information to the consumer at the point of sale. So when you are standing at the store you will instantly, and easily compare products on their social impact, their health impact, and their environmental impact. As a first step in this direction check out the GoodGuide<a href="http://www.goodguide.com/"> here</a>. At this website you can find the social/health/environmental rating on a growing list of products. <br />
<br />
I went to this website and looked up most of the personal hygiene products that I use -- toothpaste, shampoo, soap, etc. My entire life I have used Crest Toothpaste but based on the information I found here I decided to switch.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAjobZFdp08_WSHUNRQYzotm_ObaSoPBGxwwu1-G8lHDn4vtCXLP0FKY0yYLJnNOr4DIlODL87wTpHtP9hroml4ul4BotJSTgE-7Q24WsmKqOzwJNmaX1e6tuh7PbDgWwt0LMWUsq4QxUZ/s1600/Crest.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAjobZFdp08_WSHUNRQYzotm_ObaSoPBGxwwu1-G8lHDn4vtCXLP0FKY0yYLJnNOr4DIlODL87wTpHtP9hroml4ul4BotJSTgE-7Q24WsmKqOzwJNmaX1e6tuh7PbDgWwt0LMWUsq4QxUZ/s640/Crest.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfyzO2Uq5TGCRgezJd3GSpctdmStD4dUXOHhiyKfl6pIwbGKDoCYzpbf174sUFIgfOJlDrK1_ikTZwqbPTvox6JdrgQO822CyefZuhnC_b7hK9XV7-buCqN44LQJkb6LchkLUyo10F9btZ/s1600/Toms+of+Main.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfyzO2Uq5TGCRgezJd3GSpctdmStD4dUXOHhiyKfl6pIwbGKDoCYzpbf174sUFIgfOJlDrK1_ikTZwqbPTvox6JdrgQO822CyefZuhnC_b7hK9XV7-buCqN44LQJkb6LchkLUyo10F9btZ/s640/Toms+of+Main.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />
In these screen shots I only showed the summary. The website has detailed information for each category to indicate how the score was determined.<br />
<br />
After I switched to my new brand of toothpaste I went to the Crest website and sent them a message explaining that I had switched and the reason why. I mentioned that I had used their product most of my life and would be happy to switch back if they could improve their product score. I sent them a link to their product at the GoodGuide website. I explained that I am looking to support companies that produce products that are safe, environmentally responsible, and made by companies that treat their employees well.<br />
<br />
I received a response from a Crest representative who explained that she will pass my concerns on to the management team.<br />
<br />
There is another great website that focuses on cosmetics called <a href="http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/">Deep Skin</a>, that rates skin care, makeup, hair care, nails, eye care, feminine hygiene, dental and oral hygiene, and fragrance products based on their risk to your health.<br />
<br />
Start the revolution today. Don't shop.<br />
<br />
When you must buy, look beyond price, and consider the true cost to society when making a purchase. Use your purchase to reward responsible companies and help create a world we can be proud to live in.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-83598201651803804762010-05-20T10:09:00.000-07:002010-05-20T10:20:32.401-07:00Looking for Leaders<span style="font-size: large;">Sage words from Thomas Friedman. Where is the leadership? Have we forgotten how to be bold? How big of a disaster do we need before we dare to take action?</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><nyt_headline type=" " version="1.0">Obama and the Oil Spill</nyt_headline></b></span><nyt_byline> </nyt_byline><br />
<h6 class="byline">By <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More Articles by Thomas L. Friedman">THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN</a></h6><nyt_text> </nyt_text><br />
<div id="articleBody"><nyt_correction_top> </nyt_correction_top> <span style="font-size: large;">President Obama’s handling of the gulf oil spill has been disappointing.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">I say that not because I endorse the dishonest conservative critique that the gulf oil spill is somehow Obama’s Katrina and that he is displaying the same kind of incompetence that George W. Bush did after that hurricane. To the contrary, Obama’s team has done a good job coordinating the cleanup so far. The president has been on top of it from the start.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">No, the gulf oil spill is not Obama’s Katrina. It’s his 9/11 — and it is disappointing to see him making the same mistake George W. Bush made with his 9/11. Sept. 11, 2001, was one of those rare seismic events that create the possibility to energize the country to do something really important and lasting that is too hard to do in normal times.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">President Bush’s greatest failure was not Iraq, Afghanistan or Katrina. It was his failure of imagination after 9/11 to mobilize the country to get behind a really big initiative for nation-building in America. I suggested a $1-a-gallon “Patriot Tax” on gasoline that could have simultaneously reduced our deficit, funded basic science research, diminished our dependence on oil imported from the very countries whose citizens carried out 9/11, strengthened the dollar, stimulated energy efficiency and renewable power and slowed climate change. It was the Texas oilman’s Nixon-to-China moment — and Bush blew it.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Had we done that on the morning of 9/12 — when gasoline averaged $1.66 a gallon — the majority of Americans would have signed on. They wanted to do something to strengthen the country they love. Instead, Bush told a few of us to go to war and the rest of us to go shopping. So today, gasoline costs twice as much at the pump, with most of that increase going to countries hostile to our values, while China is rapidly becoming the world’s leader in wind, solar, electric cars and high-speed rail. Heck of a job.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Sadly, President Obama seems intent on squandering his environmental 9/11 with a Bush-level failure of imagination. So far, the Obama policy is: “Think small and carry a big stick.” He is rightly hammering the oil company executives. But he is offering no big strategy to end our oil addiction. Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have unveiled their new energy bill, which the president has endorsed but only in a very tepid way. Why tepid? Because Kerry-Lieberman embraces vitally important fees on carbon emissions that the White House is afraid will be exploited by Republicans in the midterm elections. The G.O.P., they fear, will scream carbon “tax” at every Democrat who would support this bill, and Obama, having already asked Democrats to make a hard vote on health care, feels he can’t ask them for another.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">I don’t buy it. In the wake of this historic oil spill, the right policy — a bill to help end our addiction to oil — is also the right politics. The people are ahead of their politicians. So is the U.S. military. There are many conservatives who would embrace a carbon tax or gasoline tax if it was offset by a cut in payroll taxes or corporate taxes, so we could foster new jobs and clean air at the same time. If Republicans label Democrats “gas taxers” then Democrats should label them “Conservatives for OPEC” or “Friends of BP.” Shill, baby, shill.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Why is Obama playing defense? Just how much oil has to spill into the gulf, how much wildlife has to die, how many radical mosques need to be built with our gasoline purchases to produce more Times Square bombers, before it becomes politically “safe” for the president to say he is going to end our oil addiction? Indeed, where is “The Obama End to Oil Addiction Act”? Why does everything have to emerge from the House and Senate? What does <i>he</i> want? What is <i>his</i> vision? What are <i>his</i> redlines? I don’t know. But I do know that without a fixed, long-term price on carbon, none of the president’s important investments in clean power research and development will ever scale.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Obama has assembled a great team that could help him make his case — John Holdren, science adviser; Carol Browner, energy adviser; Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner; and Lisa Jackson, chief of the Environmental Protection Agency. But they have been badly underutilized by the White House. I know endangered species that are seen by the public more often than them.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Obama is not just our super-disaster-coordinator. “He is our leader,” noted Tim Shriver, the chairman of Special Olympics. “And being a leader means telling the rest of us what’s <i>our job</i>, what do <i>we</i> need to do to make this a transformative moment.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Please don’t tell us that our role is just to hate BP or shop in Mississippi or wait for a commission to investigate. We know the problem, and Americans are ready to be enlisted for a solution. Of course we can’t eliminate oil exploration or dependence overnight, but can we finally start? Mr. President, your advisers are wrong: Americans are craving your leadership on this issue. Are you going to channel their good will into something that strengthens our country — “The Obama End to Oil Addiction Act” — or are you going squander your 9/11, too? </span><br />
<nyt_correction_bottom> </nyt_correction_bottom><br />
<div class="articleCorrection"></div><nyt_update_bottom> </nyt_update_bottom> </div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center> </center> <img border="0" height="1" src="http://up.nytimes.com/?d=0/9/&t=&s=0&ui=&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2010%2f05%2f19%2fopinion%2f19friedman%2ehtml%3fsrc%3dme%26ref%3dhomepage&u=www%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2010%2f05%2f19%2fopinion%2f19friedman%2ehtml%3fref%3dhomepage%26src%3dme%26pagewanted%3dprint" width="3" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-66494928939757263902010-05-18T05:53:00.000-07:002010-05-18T13:32:28.976-07:00The Corporate Challenge<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">We will never succeed in creating a sustainable society until we overcome the death-star like power, and evil, represented by the modern corporation. Seem a tad extreme? Let's look at a few facts.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: blue;">Corporations</span> only make up 20% of US firms but they <span style="color: blue;">account for 85% of all US business revenue.</span></span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The economic power of the largest corporations boggles the mind -- <span style="color: blue;">of the100 largest economies in the world, 53 of them are corporations!</span></span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">There are only 10 COUNTRIES that have economies larger than Exxon Mobil. Or to put it another way, Exxon Mobil is economically larger than 180 countries in the world.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">We now have 63,000 multi-national corporations in the world -- huge monoliths that transcend national boundaries and operate beyond the legal jurisdiction of any national legal system.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The massive economic wealth of corporations overwhelms most political systems, including ours, and weakens democracies around the world. Our political process moves, or is blocked, at the whim of corporate sponsors and lobbyists.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">We have no one to blame but ourselves -- we are the mad scientists that have created these economic Frankensteins. How so?</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">First, we made it LAW, that the directors and managers of a corporation have a duty to act in the best interest of the corporation, which has been interpreted as an obligation to do whatever it takes to maximize the wealth of shareholders. This, the "best interest of the corporation" principle is one of the greatest obstacles in allowing corporations to become more socially responsible institutions. </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">If polluting the nearby river maximizes profit, the managers are obliged to do it. If the corporation can maximize dividends by closing a factory and moving to another country, shut her down. If carcinogenic ingredients help keep costs down, and therefore profits up, well, then a bit of cancer is the "price" of doing business.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Under our current system, a corporate manager is being UNETHICAL if they consider policies that would promote positive social, health, or environmental impacts if they would reduce profits. Really. No, really, that is the system that we created.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">If an individual acted this way we would call him or her a sociopath, but if a corporation does it, it is "just business." </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Second, we further encourage such diabolical behavior by limiting the liability of shareholders for the action of their companies. Limited liability is why corporations must be chartered by a government authority -- in the US the states do this. They are supposed to supervise and regulate the corporations but it is rarely done in practice. Shareholders might take more care if they were held financially accountable for the misdeeds of their companies (think BP and the oil disaster for a current example).</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Third, in the US we have granted corporations "personhood" allowing them protection under the constitution just like a flesh-and-blood person. Corporations are now allowed to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?partner=rss&emc=rss">spend as much money as they like to influence elections</a>.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Corporations have become not only the most powerful economic force on the planet, but the dominant political force as well. This concentration of power is increasingly unaccountable to you and me, to our government, or the planet.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">How do we fix this? A few ideas:</span></div><ol style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><span style="font-size: large;">Revoke corporate charters of companies violating the public trust</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">Roll back limited liability</span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">Corporate directors and top managers should be personally liable for gross negligence</span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">Extend liability to shareholders under certain circumstances</span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">Eliminate corporate personhood (Learn more <a href="http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/">here</a>)</span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">Change the legal mandate that requires the corporation to strictly pursue its own self-interest and to give primacy to maximizing shareholder wealth.</span> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="font-size: large;">(Maryland has taken a step in the right direction by creating the legal framework for the "Benefit Corporation." (Learn more <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/running_small_business/archives/2010/04/benefit_corp_bi.html">here</a>)) </span></div></li>
</ol><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Ultimately, we need to rethink the whole nature of the corporation and its role in society. It is clear that the mindless pursuit of short term profits, regardless of consequences, is ultimately doomed to failure -- not only for the company but for society at large.</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2903693122118073742.post-30418321309839608602010-05-13T08:08:00.000-07:002010-05-13T08:10:44.568-07:00What if?<span style="font-size: large;">The nature of our society can often make it difficult to live a lifestyle that is in balance with nature. We develop bad habits. Sometimes we need a jolt to think differently about how we see the world, to imagine a different way. Most of us are inclined to resist change. But if we are open to revisiting our assumptions, open to trying a different way, we can often make positive discoveries about ourselves, and the world. Here is a simple tale, from a real person on the possible.</span><br />
------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Making Do Without the Minivan</b></span><br />
<div class="deck">Why do I love the high price of gas? It's helped my family stop being so dependent on our cars. </div><div class="article-details"><div class="byline"><br />
</div><div class="byline">By <b><a href="http://search.newsweek.com/search?byline=jennifer%20perrow">Jennifer Perrow</a></b> | NEWSWEEK </div><div class="de-em">Published Aug 9, 2008 </div><div class="de-em">Aug. 18-25, 2008 issue</div></div><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The gas pump shuts off automatically when you hit $100, or so my sister-in-law tells me. I'm pleased to report I haven't experienced that problem. However, I hit $66 when I partially filled my Honda Odyssey, and last month our family's gasoline expenses were well over $400. My husband's 2006 Ford Explorer gets 13 miles per gallon; my minivan runs at about 16 miles per gallon around town.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">As transportation expenses rose, I cut back in other ways: fewer indulgences at the grocery store, not as many trips to Starbucks. We decided not to take a family vacation to Disneyland, although explaining this to our two school-age kids was less than pleasant. We're opting instead for an in-state trip to visit relatives, assuming gas prices continue to (finally) decrease.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">In spite of all this, however, I've got to say: I love the high cost of gas. It's forced our family to rethink our spending habits and our carbon footprint, and we're finding we can do much more on much less than we thought.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">As a working mom with a half-time job, two kids and a busy social life, I spend a lot of time in the car. The minivan is truly our "home away from home." In the car we eat meals, do homework, make phone calls, watch movies and even change clothes. Last year I read about a prototype "car of the future" equipped with a microwave and laundry facilities, and wondered how soon I could acquire one. Last month, however, I asked myself a different question: how could we reduce our dependence on the minivan we already own?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">I challenged the kids to join me in a quest to see how long we could go between tanks of gas. They were surprisingly enthusiastic. Right away we realized that while we've always carpooled on the way to school, we've never done so on the way home. When I asked my friend if she'd like to carpool in both directions from now on, she eagerly said yes. One small step.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Next up: I told the kids I was no longer providing car rides to swim practice. Yes, I'd still take them, but from now on it would be on foot or bike. I calculated that each round trip to the pool was costing 50 cents, and we often make two to three trips per day. Although their bikes were handy and ready for use, mine was dusty, and I had lost my helmet years ago. So I borrowed an extra helmet from my husband, and off we went. Added benefits: quality time with the kids, plus a decent workout.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Once we started the challenge, there was no stopping us. Why drive downtown for dinner when we have several great restaurants less than a mile from home? When I needed a book to read last week, I almost drove to the bookstore—until I remembered that my neighbor would probably lend me some books. The dog and I took a pleasant walk down the street and came home with a splendid stack of novels.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The more success we had, the more we wanted. This was getting fun. Why drive to the gym and get on the treadmill when I could go for a run in my own neighborhood? Why drive to meet my friend for coffee on Monday when I would be near her house on Tuesday and could easily stop in to see her? Why take two cars to church when we could all ride together if we coordinated departure times a bit better?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">We're only beginning the adventure, but already the payoff has been huge. Gasoline usage for the minivan is down by 50 percent. I've lost nearly five pounds. The dog is happier and getting more exercise. I'm having great conversations with the kids as we walk and bike together. Perhaps best of all, life feels simpler. All along I thought my car was an essential tool for navigating my busy life; it turns out that hopping in the car every time I wanted something was making my schedule more complicated. Eliminating a few trips around town, and replacing them with a walk or run, has reduced my stress immeasurably.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Do I still need my minivan? Of course. I want to visit my grandmother 10 miles away, and I can't carry a week's worth of groceries on my bike. When the rainy season begins in earnest I'm sure I'll find the car more pleasant than the bike. Still, we're making permanent changes in our transportation habits. The high cost of gas has been nothing but good for our family.</span><br />
<br />
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
<!--
var nw_page_name = "nw - article - 151739 - Making Do Without the Minivan";
var nw_section = "health";
var nw_subsection = "health - my turn";
var nw_content_type = "article";
var nw_source = "newsweek mag";
var nw_search_result_count = "0";
var nw_content_id = "151739";
var nw_headline = "Making Do Without the Minivan";
var nw_author = "jennifer perrow";
var nw_page_num = "print format";
var nw_application = "gutenberg";
var nw_hierarchy = "health|my turn|articles";
var nw_pub_date = "Saturday August 9, 2008";
-->
</script> <i>Perrow lives in Seattle.</i><br />
Find this article at <a class="article-link" href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/151739">http://www.newsweek.com/id/151739</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0