Shoreline Cleanup of Anse-a-L'Orme (22nd of Sept)

On the 22nd, there will be a shoreline cleanup of the Anse-a-l’Orme (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) shoreline happening from 10am to 1pm.

For more information, go to

http://groups.google.com/group/greencoalitionyouth

Walden Warming

MAY 10, 1853, was a warm day outside Concord, Massachusetts—an early spring day when a New Englander outdoors would “begin to think of thin coats,” noted Henry David Thoreau. Walking from Concord towards Saw Mill Brook, Thoreau jotted down what he saw. “The deciduous woods were in their hoary youth,” he wrote, “every expanding bud swaddled with downy webs.” Nodding trillium had flower buds, and hornbeam was about to bloom. Pear trees had blossomed, and the butternut buds were the most pronounced of all the woods’ hickories. He heard the spring’s first veery. “It is remarkable,” wrote Thoreau, “that I saw this morning for the first time the bobolink, gold robin [most likely a northern oriole], and kingbird.”

Remarkable, too, that he kept such meticulous records. In fact, on almost every spring morning between 1851 and 1858, long after his private tenure at Walden Pond, Thoreau explored the ponds and shady woods around Concord, observing nature. For day after day, year after year, he searched for the first blooms of more than 300 plant species and watched for the first arrivals of migrating birds.

Today, nearly 160 years later, Thoreau’s detailed observations form the basis of a long-term study of how climate change is altering the timing of seasonal biological events—or phenology—and how such shifts may in turn impact the wildlife and wild places of an entire region. Researchers from Boston University have assembled a vast array of biological data—arboretum specimens, old photographs and the observations of local citizens, in addition to Thoreau’s journals—to produce a baseline of springtime events for the Concord area. Comparing these data to the results of their own exhaustive, five-year effort to walk, literally, in Thoreau’s footsteps, the scientists can now tell a story that New England’s favorite naturalist-philosopher might never have imagined: As Massachusetts warms, flowers are blooming, trees are leafing out, and birds are arriving as many as three weeks earlier than they did in the mid-nineteenth century. “If Thoreau were alive today, he would be very concerned about this,” says Richard Primack, a biology professor at Boston University and lead researcher on the project.

NOTING NATURE Thoreau, famous for his prodigious note-keeping, recorded his seasonal observations in tables sketched on large sheets of surveyor’s paper. “I take infinite pains to know all of the phenomena of the spring,” he explained in one journal entry. Thoreau intended to publish a book about the unfolding of spring in the woods around Concord, but his death in 1862 derailed the project, and his notes were scattered among library collections across the country.

Four years ago, however, Primack learned that an independent New Hampshire scholar named Brad Dean had spent 10 years tracking down these original sheets, making copies and reassembling the data. By then, Primack, author of A Primer on Conservation Biology, was looking for studies demonstrating physical evidence of global warming. He and graduate student Abraham Miller-Rushing couldn’t believe their good fortune. Still, it took Primack’s team nearly nine months to decipher Thoreau’s famously poor handwriting and archaic species names and plug the information into a usable spreadsheet.

At the same time, the scientists’ sleuthing uncovered a trove of other regional records to augment Thoreau’s notes. At Harvard University’s Arnold Arboretum, one of the oldest public botanical gardens in the United States, they were able to compare the flowering times of 229 plants in 2003 with records of flowering times of the same individual plants going back as far as 1885. In Concord, they found a collection of images from a photographer, Herbert Wendell Gleason, who between 1900 and 1921 took and dated photographs of many of the plants and places mentioned in Thoreau’s journals. From these, the scientists gleaned flowering data on 17 species of wild plants, including pink lady’s slipper, which flowered six weeks earlier in 2005 than in 1917.

Some of the richest sources of data turned out to be citizen-scientists in the mold of Thoreau himself. From 1888 to 1902, a Concord shopkeeper named Alfred Hosmer, inspired by Thoreau’s writings, recorded the first flowering dates of more than 700 plant species in the area. A passionate nature aficionado named Pennie Logemann provided flowering records between 1963 and 1993. And for more than half a century, Middleborough, Massachusetts, resident Kathleen Anderson has kept meticulous track of the timing of bird arrivals, plant flowerings and spring choruses of frogs and toads on her 100-acre farm. “I keep a stack of those desk calendars with one full page for each day of the week,” she explains, “and I was pretty intense about it. I noted weather conditions, temperature, rainfall, and whatever I happened to notice. Were the Canada mayflowers blooming? Were the juncos around? It was for my own enjoyment. It never occurred to me that these records would be of any use or interest to anyone whatsoever”—until she was contacted by Primack and Miller-Rushing, who crunched her observations into their expanding database.

The researchers, meanwhile, were making their own detailed observations. For the past five years, Primack and Miller-Rushing have traveled to Concord three times a week in spring and summer, walking the woods to ask the same questions that Thoreau asked: When do the flowers bloom? When do the birds return? So far, they have amassed another 100,000 data entries about the phenology of springtime plants and birds.

WHAT THE FLOWERS SAY Pooling their data, the researchers have discovered that many plants in the Concord region are flowering more than a week earlier today than when Thoreau made his observations. Highbush blueberry—one of Thoreau’s favorite wild edibles—is blooming some two weeks earlier than it did 150 years ago. Yellow wood sorrel can be found in bloom about a month earlier. During this same period, Primack says, long-term weather data show that the average temperature of a Concord spring has increased by approximately 4.5 degrees F.

Much of the temperature rise in the intensely developed Northeast is due to what’s known as the urban heat island effect—parking lots, streets and buildings absorb heat while vegetation loss lessens the release of cooling water from trees and other plants. But at least some of it can be attributed to global warming, says Primack. And on Anderson’s farm, many of the wild creatures that appear regularly each spring seem to be responding. Wood ducks are arriving about a month earlier than they did 30 years ago, for example, while ruby-throated hummingbirds show up more than 18 days sooner.

Scientists say such changes have the potential to wreak ecological havoc if interdependent species do not shift in concert. Many birds, for example, have evolved to time their spring migrations to take advantage of a flush of food sources. In New England, warbler species such as the black-throated blue warbler and American redstart feed heavily on leaf-eating caterpillars, which peak in abundance after leaf out and before leaves mature and grow tough.

In northern Europe, biologists already have found troubling evidence that one migratory bird, the pied flycatcher, has suffered from getting out of sync with its springtime food source. In the past, flycatchers arrived from their West African wintering grounds just as winter moth caterpillars were hatching. But warmer springs have pushed the caterpillar’s emergence date two weeks earlier—unbeknownst to flycatchers that are still 2,800 miles away. In regions where the timing of caterpillar abundance has shifted the most, researchers have documented a 90 percent decline in flycatcher numbers. In the United States, a similar “potential for mistimed relationships is very real,” says Primack, “but it is understudied.”

A COLD HARD LOOK To increase much needed data on global warming’s impact on U.S. species, some scientists propose identifying and training a network of modern-day Thoreaus. According to Primack, Miller-Rushing and other researchers, there is the potential for a rich interaction between scientists and members of the general public interested in gathering observations on natural phenomena such as plant flowering and the arrival of migratory birds. Countries such as England, Belgium and Canada have long embraced monitoring programs that rely, in part, on observations of nonscientists. Recently, a consortium of U.S. government agencies and academic institutions, with funding from the National Science Foundation, launched just such an effort, the National Phenological Network, to help researchers collect and disseminate information about seasonal changes.

“We desperately need a wall-to-wall, coast-to-coast network of phenological observation points—literally thousands of points on par with what is being done with meteorological observations,” explains Julio Betancourt, a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Desert Laboratory in Tucson, Arizona, and one of the network’s founders. Volunteer observers are an important part of the process. The group’s Project BudBurst, begun as a pilot program in spring 2007, will launch nationally in January 2008. Volunteers from across the country are asked to choose from a long list of plants to watch for signs of a particular phenophase, such as budburst, first leaf or first flower, and to report observations online.

“So much of the discussion about global climate change has centered on numbers—fractions and degrees of fractions,” says biologist Mark D. Schwartz of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is helping to coordinate the network’s startup. “But when you talk about how lilacs are blooming six days earlier than they were 30 years ago, people start relating to the issue. And tell them that they can involve themselves in the process of documenting these changes, and that makes it very real.

”That’s something Kathleen Anderson understands well. “This kind of work should inspire more people to be more observant,” she says. At the age of 84, she still keeps notebooks handy at home, in the car and in the kitchen. “And it really doesn’t matter where you live. If you look closely, you’ll find enough things to interest you in the little bit of land that is around you.”

After all, as Thoreau told his friend and sometime walking companion, Ellery Channing, in 1859, “There is nothing but the seasons.” By which he might have meant that the seasons will tell all, to those who wish to hear.

Writer T. Edward Nickens is based in North Carolina. To find out how to participate in the National Phenological Network, go to www.usanpn.org.

NWF Takes Action: Fighting Global Warming

Combating global warming is a top priority for NWF, which is, among other activities, supporting national legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, publishing reports on warming’s impact on wildlife and collaborating with its state affiliates on a variety of grassroots efforts. For more information, including how you can get involved, visit www.nwf.org/globalwarming.

Stop your Sobbing

Doomsayers like Al Gore and Jared Diamond aren’t doing the environment much good. To save the earth, we need to stop blaming and start celebrating ourselves.

By Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

Rachel Carson opened “Silent Spring,” her 1962 polemic against chemical pesticides in general and DDT in particular, with a terrible prophecy: “Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.”

“Silent Spring” set the template for nearly a half century of environment writing: wrap the latest scientific research about an ecological calamity in a tragic narrative that conjures nostalgia for Nature while prophesying ever worse disasters to come unless human societies repent for their sins against Nature and work for a return to a harmonious relationship with the natural world.

Eco-tragedies are premised on the notion that humankind’s survival depends on understanding that ecological crises are a consequence of human intrusions on Nature, and that humans must let go of their consumer, religious, and ideological fantasies and recognize where their true self-interest lies.

Grounded in a tradition of eco-tragedy begun by Carson and motivated by the lack of progress on the ecological crisis, environmental writers have produced a flood of high-profile books that take the tragic narrative of humankind’s fall from Nature to new heights: Sir Martin Rees’s 2003 “Our Final Hour,” Richard Posner’s 2004 “Catastrophe,” Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s 2004 “One with Nineveh,” James Kunstler’s 2005 “The Long Emergency,” James Lovelock’s 2006 “The Revenge of Gaia,” and Al Gore’s 2006 “An Inconvenient Truth,” to name just a few.

For the most part, these environmentalist cautionary tales have had the opposite of their intended effect, provoking fatalism, conservatism, and survivalism among readers and the lay public, not the rational embrace of environmental policies. Constantly surprised and angered when people fail to behave as environmentalists would like them to, environment writers complain that the public is irrational, in denial, or just plain foolish. They presume that the failure of the public to heed their warnings says something meaningful about human nature itself, attributing humanity’s disregard for Nature to desires like the lust for power and concluding that, in the end, we are all little more than reactive apes, insufficiently evolved to take the long view and understand the complexity and interconnectedness of the natural systems on which we depend.

Kunstler begins “The Long Emergency” by quoting Carl Jung as saying, “People cannot stand too much reality.” In fact, it was T.S. Eliot, not Jung, who said “Humankind cannot bear very much reality.” But the attitude of such doomsayers recalls something Jung actually did say: “If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool.”

Environmental tales of tragedy begin with Nature in harmony and almost always end in a quasi-authoritarian politics. Eco-tragic narratives diagnose human desire, aspiration, and striving to overcome the constraints of our world as illnesses to be cured or sins to be punished. They aim to short-circuit democratic values by establishing Nature as it is understood and interpreted by scientists as the ultimate authority that human societies must obey. And they insist that humanity’s future is a zero-sum proposition—that there is only so much prosperity, material comfort, and modernity to go around. The story told by these eco-tragedies is not that humankind cannot stand too much reality but rather that Nature cannot stand too much humanity.

Carson begins “Silent Spring” by narrating a “Fable for Tomorrow,” describing a bucolic American town “where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings.” She imagines Nature to be something essentially harmonious and in balance. But long before there were humans, volcanoes erupted, asteroids hit Earth, and great extinctions occurred. Throughout the animal kingdom there is murder and gang rape, even among the much beloved and anthropomorphized dolphin. Indigenous peoples, for their part, cleared forests, set massive fires, and overhunted, massively altering their environments. They engaged in agriculture, war, cannibalism, and torture.

To imagine Nature as essentially harmonious is to ignore the obvious and overwhelming evidence of Nature’s disharmony. To posit that human societies should model themselves after living systems that are characterized as Nature, as environmentalists often do, begs the question: which living systems? Even if the Earth heats up to such an extent that every last vestige of humankind disappears, there may still exist living systems, just not ones that can sustain us.

In the Book of Genesis, the Fall from Eden occurs because Adam and Eve eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. In the environmentalist’s telling of our fall, humans are being punished by Nature with ecological crises like global warming for our original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge. Our fall from Nature was triggered by our control of fire, the rise of agriculture, the birth of modern civilization, or by modern science itself—which is ironic, given the privileged role the so-called natural sciences played in inventing the idea of a Nature as separate from humans in the first place.

The eco-tragedy narrative imagines humans as living in a fallen world where wildness no longer exists and a profound sadness pervades a dying Earth. The unstated aspiration is to return to a time when humans lived in harmony with their surroundings. That tragic narrative is tied to an apocalyptic vision of the future—an uncanny parallel to humankind’s Fall from Eden in the Book of Genesis and the end of the world in the final Book of Revelation.

In 1969, the microbiologist René Dubos won the Pulitzer Prize for a book calling for a new eco-religion based on the principle of harmony with nonhuman nature. “Whatever form this religion takes, it will have to be based on harmony with nature as well as man, instead of the drive to mastery,” he wrote.

It is this contrast between living in harmony with Nature and mastering it that unites Carson and Dubos with virtually every strain of contemporary environmentalism. Environmentalists imagine that their values are in opposition to the Western philosophical tradition, which sees humans as separate from and superior to Nature. But rather than dissolving the distinction between humans and Nature, environmentalists reverse the hierarchy, arguing that humans are still separate from but subordinate to Nature.

This reversal is motivated by the view that our perfectly healthy and natural desire to control our environment is a sinful desecration of Nature. But it must be asked: can human societies exist without, in one way or another, controlling Nature? Isn’t that what agriculture is all about? Virtually any attempt to alter one’s surroundings - whether by gathering wood to build a fire, constructing shelter, raising livestock, growing crops, or hunting and gathering - is an effort to control Nature. Nor is doing so uniquely human: beavers build dams, ants farm aphids, and more than a few other animals use tools.

There is nothing wrong with human and nonhuman desires for control over the environment. Indeed, we wouldn’t exist were it not for our ancestors’ will to control. Saving the redwoods and banning DDT were no less acts of controlling Nature than were logging ancient forests or spraying toxic pesticides. The issue is not whether humans should control Nature but rather how humans should control natures—nonhuman and human.

From beginning to end, we humans are as terrestrial as the ground on which we walk. We are neither a cancer on, nor the stewards for, planet Earth. We are neither destined to go extinct nor destined to live in harmony. Rather, we are the first species to have any control whatsoever over how we evolve.

The most sophisticated of recent eco-tragedy books is Jared Diamond’s “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” a catalog of case studies of the deaths of past civilizations, such as the Mayans and Anasazi, as well as contemporary societies, such as Rwanda during the genocide.

Diamond argues that past civilizations collapsed for five reasons: environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbors, friendly trade partners, and societal responses to environmental problems. Diamond wrote “Collapse” believing that once people learned the facts of the ecological crises, they would make the rational choice to change direction.

In the end, though, “Collapse” is an argument against human attempts to control, ignore, or live out of balance with Nature. The stories that Diamond tells - of Greenlanders overgrazing their land and refusing to eat plentiful fish, of Easter Islanders and Maya kings deforesting their landscape in service of false idols - are tales of human hubris, of societies that neglected the laws of Nature in pursuit of human follies and were punished accordingly. But Diamond ignores several decades’ worth of research into political psychology and social values, which offers far more clues to understanding today’s ecological crises than the collapse of relatively tiny premodern societies.

Diamond gave “Collapse” the subtitle “How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” in the belief that societies choose how and whether to adapt to changing circumstances. But neither the Easter Islanders nor the Greenland Norse ever convened tribal councils to choose collective suicide. The Easter Islanders, who Diamond describes as having logged all of their trees in order to erect massive stone faces on their hillsides, and the Greenland Norse, who chose starvation over eating fish, were indeed behaving in ways that were perfectly rational, given their values, their cultures, and their belief systems. Nonetheless, Diamond projects the theological narrative of humanity’s fall from Nature onto the societies that he writes about, asserting that “[as] a result of lust for power, Easter Island chiefs and Maya kings acted so as to accelerate deforestation rather than to prevent it.” Diamond is unaware that he is telling a biblical rather than scientific story, a theological cautionary tale wrapped in the white laboratory coat of Science.

For years, environmentalists have credited their strict and literal adherence to science for their successes, though not, notably, their failures. When environmentalism fails, it is invariably due to industry manipulation, the media’s bias toward superficiality, the cowardice of politicians, public denial, and, most especially, the overall lack of deference in the United States to capital-S Science.

For many environmentalists, Science is and should remain at the center of any politics aiming to overcome ecological crises. It is outside of history, society, and values. It is environmentalism’s touchstone, the central criterion on which the value of environmentalism should be judged. But to believe that the sciences were behind the passage of environmental laws is a faith - a scientism, not a science - one that overlooks the specific historical and social conditions that gave rise to the ecological values.

The conventional wisdom is that environmentalists and global warming deniers like best-selling novelist Michael Crichton disagree over the value of the sciences. But both share most of the same beliefs about Science and the need for it to stay clear of values and politics. This statement - “Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost” - was uttered by Crichton, but it could just as easily have been uttered by most environmental scientists.

This faith in science is often accompanied by the antiquated view that there are facts separate from values and interpretations. But the fact that there is a strong international consensus among scientists that global warming is caused almost entirely by humans does not make it any less of an interpretation. Simply deciding what to study, and what kind of hypotheses to form, is a value judgment. The facts one chooses to give greater weight to in the case of global warming are deeply informed by one’s values. The facts tell us that global temperatures have been rising over the last century. They tell us that human sources of pollution have probably been in some significant part responsible for those temperature increases. They tell us that global climate change and habitat destruction may be leading to the mass die-off of many plant and animal species. But the facts also tell us that global temperatures have fluctuated wildly over the five billion years that the planet has existed; that there have been at least five previous mass extinctions during the history of the planet; that asteroids, comets, volcanoes, and ice ages have dramatically changed the climate and habitat at a planetary level; that the earth will very likely be here for billions of years after all traces of humanity have vanished from its surface; and that some form of humanity and human society will likely survive the ecological crises we face.

The questions before us are centrally about how we will survive, who will survive, and how we will live. These are questions that climatologists and other scientists can inform but not decide. For their important work, scientists deserve our gratitude, not special political authority.

What’s needed today is a politics that seeks authority not from Nature or Science but from a compelling vision of the future that is appropriate for the world we live in and the crises we face. The idea that we should “respect Nature” implies that Nature has a particular single being to be respected. If we define Nature as all things, then it is not at all clear which natures we should respect and which we should overcome.

We are Nature and Nature is us. Nature can neither instruct our actions nor punish them. Whatever actions we choose to take or not to take in the name of the survival of the human species or human societies will be natural.

Many environmentalists imagine overcoming global warming to be about “saving the planet.” But the fate of the planet is not in question. The earth has survived meteorites and ice ages. It will certainly survive us.

Given the status of scientists as the high priests of environmentalism, it should come as little surprise that the biologist and environmentalist Edward O. Wilson invented the concept of biophilia, which he defines as humankind’s “innate tendency to be attracted by other life forms and to affiliate with natural living systems” and which he believes is the key to the salvation of Nature and humankind.

For Wilson, biophilia is something that can be experienced only in nonhuman natures, such as hiking through a forest, paddling a canyon, or sleeping in the desert. It is not something that can be experienced while making love, eating a meal with friends, or singing hymns in church. He refers to biophilia as an innate biological tendency—but what pleasure isn’t? Is the pleasure we get from buying trinkets at the mall any less innate than the pleasure we get from walking through an ancient redwood forest? To be sure, there are differences between sitting in a forest and sitting in a church. But what makes the former more biological than the latter? Are the mystical feelings of transcendence a Brazilian gets while sitting in a church in São Paulo any less natural - or powerfully felt - than those felt by Wilson walking through the Amazon?

Wilson implies that the feelings of awe and mystery we experience while in nature are more politically useful for saving nonhuman natures than those feelings we get when we are not in nature. But why? In his landmark essay on Nature, Science, and environmentalism, the political theorist Bill Chaloupka wrote, “Just because greens have become accustomed to the idea that Nature somehow instructs their political activity, it does not follow that there is no other way to motivate political activity.”

In his book “The Future of Life,” Wilson holds up as a beacon of biophilic politics Julia Butterfly Hill, a woman who, apparently motivated by her biophilia, sat for two years in an ancient redwood tree, free from the messy reality of human society and politics. In the end, Wilson acknowledged, Hill saved only three acres. What he didn’t mention is that, tragically, soon after she descended, somebody skilled with a chain saw, likely an angry local logger, cut and nearly felled the tree.

Notwithstanding the political and cultural efficacy of those who, figuratively if not literally, make it their business to climb up trees and refuse to come down, what is most problematic about biophilia is the presumption that the tree told them to do it. Why do we think Nature was speaking to Hill any more than to the logger who cut down the tree? What use is there in referring to what Nature wants, other than as a strategy to short-circuit democratic politics by asserting authority from a higher power?

Frustrated by the public’s unwillingness to defer to the higher aesthetic of Nature and Science, environmentalists increasingly shake their fists at “human nature.” In his 2003 book “Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals,” the British philosopher and environmentalist John Gray of the London School of Economics reduces the infinite complexity of human natures to self-destruction: “The mass of mankind is ruled not by its intermittent moral sensations, still less by self-interest, but by the needs of the moment. It seems fated to wreck the balance of life on Earth—and thereby to be the agent of its own destruction.”

Gray wrote “Straw Dogs” not as a call for political action to overcome the crises but as a call for humans - whom Gray dubs “Homo rapines” - to snap out of our denial and “simply see” that we have little control over our future. Humans are so destructive, he believes, that the earth will be better off when we are gone. “It is not of becoming the planet’s wise stewards that Earth-lovers dream, but of a time when humans have ceased to matter.”

It’s one thing for Gray to give up on the species. It is quite another for him to claim on behalf of Earth-lovers that humans have no way of controlling our behavior or shaping our future.

It is true that we cannot excise our reactive, opportunistic, violent, and cruel natures. But neither can we excise our strategic, empathic, and altruistic ones. The “frailty of human nature” Gray describes is, from one perspective, insoluble. But in other contexts and from other perspectives, our frailties can be our strengths and our solutions. We do not need to solve the problem of our sins against Gaia, nor should we repent of our all-too-natural will to power; what we need now is to overcome destructive hatreds of who we are and antiquated prejudices about what we can become. There is a very different story that can be told about human history, one that embraces our agency, and that is the story of constant human overcoming. Whereas the tragic story imagines that humans have fallen, the narrative of overcoming imagines that we have risen.

Consider how much our ancestors - human and nonhuman - overcame for us to become what we are today. For beginners, they were prey. Given how quickly and efficiently humans are driving the extinction of nonhuman animal species, the notion that our ancestors were food seems preposterous. And yet, understanding that we evolved from being prey goes a long way to understanding some of the feelings and motivations that drive us into suicidal wars and equally suicidal ecological collapses.

Against the happy accounts of harmonious premodern human societies at one with Nature, there is the reality that life was exceedingly short and difficult. Of course, life could also be wonderful and joyous. But it was hunger, not obesity, oppression, not depression, and violence, not loneliness, that were humankind’s primary concerns.

Just as the past offers plenty of stories of humanity’s failure, it also offers plenty of stories of human overcoming. Indeed, we can only speak of past collapses because we have survived them. There are billions more people on earth than there were when the tiny societies of the Anasazi in the North American southwest and the Norse in Greenland collapsed in the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, respectively. That there are nearly seven billion of us alive today is a sign of our success, not failure.

Perhaps the most powerful indictment of environmentalism is that environmentalists almost uniformly consider our long life spans and large numbers terrible tragedies rather than extraordinary achievements. The narrative of overpopulation voiced almost entirely by some of the richest humans ever to roam the earth is utterly lacking in gratitude for the astonishing labors of our ancestors.

Of course, none of this is to say that human civilizations won’t collapse again in the future. They almost certainly will. Indeed, some already are. But to focus on these collapses is to miss the larger picture of rising prosperity and longer life spans. Not only have we survived, we’ve thrived. Today more and more of us are “free at last”—free to say what we want to say, love whom we want to love, and live within a far larger universe of possibilities than any other generation of humans on earth.

At the very moment that we humans are close to overcoming hunger and ancient diseases like polio and malaria, we face ecological crises of our own making, ones that could trigger drought, hunger, and the resurgence of ancient diseases.

The narrative of overcoming helps us to imagine and thus create a brighter future. Human societies will continue to stumble. Many will fall. But we have overcome starvation, disease, deprivation, oppression, and war. We can overcome ecological crisis.

A new politics requires a new mood, one appropriate for the world we hope to create. It should be a mood of gratitude, joy, and pride, not sadness, fear, and regret. A politics of overcoming will trigger feelings of joy rather than sadness, control rather than fatalism, and gratitude rather than resentment. If we are grateful to be alive, then we must also be grateful that our ancestors overcame. It is thanks to them and the world that made them possible that we live.

In “The Enchantment of Modern Life,” the political theorist Jane Bennett writes, “This life provokes moments of joy, and that joy can propel ethics.” Bennett’s book is a happy deconstruction of the belief that the modern life objectifies and disenchants the world, robbing it of its mystery, ineffability, magic, and connectedness. Bennett insists that the world never lost its capacity to surprise and inspire. She argues for an ethics that begins with a commitment to affirming life in all of its joys and sufferings:

“If popular psychological wisdom has it that you have to love yourself before you can love another, my story suggests that you have to love life before you can care about anything. The wager is that, to some small but irreducible extent, one must be enamored with existence and occasionally even enchanted in the face of it in order to be capable of donating some of one’s scarce mortal resources to the service of others.”

The ethics, and politics, born from joy, mystery, and gratitude of overcoming adversity will be radically different from the ethics born of the sadness of living in a fallen world pervaded by fears of the eco-apocalypse to come. The truth is, there are still ancient redwoods to behold and great rivers to swim in. There is still the Amazon and the Boreal. There are still seven billion wondrous human animals, each one of us capable of making ourselves into something utterly unique. And there is still great wildness abounding inside and outside of ourselves.

Excerpted from “Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility” by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. Copyright 2007 by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Co. All rights reserved.

Down with EcoElitism

About four months ago, I started my blog. Determined to subject the public to my rantings, rather than keeping it a personal journal type of blog, I’ve been promoting it rather vigorously, partly by participating in conversations on other blogs and forums. And in doing so, I’ve noticed a very disturbing trend: militant and elitist environmentalism.

I have yet to come across a forum that doesn’t have a thread to the effect of “What did you do for the environment today,” and invariably these threads go something like this:

“I put a water saver in my toilet.”

“I decided only to flush (my already low-flow toilet) when I do a number two.”

“I do my number two right in the compost pile.”

“I haven’t bought a new shirt in 10 years.”

“I haven’t washed my shirt in 10 years.”

“I haven’t washed myself in 10 years.”

Seriously? Come on people. Does anyone think this one-upmanship really gets us anywhere? It is possible to be an EcoCrusader without subjecting one’s neighbours to body-odour.

Or probably the best example I have is from a blog called “How do I Recycle This?” One woman wrote in that she was out for dinner with some friends and someone at the table ordered mussels. When they were finished, there was a bowl full of shells, and she was wondering if there was a way to reuse them, if she was ever in that situation again. One oh so helpful “eco-elitist” replied that, if she actually cared about the environment, she wouldn’t have eaten them in the first place.

Now, what did he think he was going to accomplish with this attitude? Here was a person who had not only considered recycling something that most people wouldn’t look at twice, she had actually followed up the thought by actively researching a solution to the problem. She was being proactive. She deserved a big fat high-five. Not a snarky ‘you-should-be-doing-more’ reply.

Because really, we could all be doing more. We could all forsake electricity entirely. We could move to caves and eat the organic lichen off the walls. We could hold in our farts to save the methane. We could do many things. But the one thing we absolutely MUST do, is support each other.

Being the eco-minded woman that I am, I love to imagine waking up in the morning to a world with six billion people who choose smaller cars, eat only in-season food, buy wind power, and keep a composter. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen until the physical evidence of what is happening to our planet blatantly stares all six billion of its inhabitants in the face. And that might not happen until it’s too late.

In the mean time, the future of the world essentially rests on our shoulders. It rests with those of us who educate ourselves, share our knowledge with others, and make better choices every day. But some (in fact, I fear many) of us, are determined to be EcoZealots, and in so being are systematically destroying the work the others do.

This behaviour accomplishes nothing but to guarantee that environmentalism never truly gains mainstream status. It guarantees the continuation of the “crazy hippie” stereotype. It guarantees the alienation of anyone not yet committed to mitigating the dangerous changes that our planet is undergoing.

Until my dreams come true and all six billion of us are on board, we can’t afford to lose anyone who signs up; no matter how small a registration fee they pay. We have to applaud every CFL, every roll of recycled toilet paper, every mussel shell recycled, because we have an infinitely better chance of getting this planet back in shape with millions making these meager changes, than if a select few of us move back to the lichen caves, live methane-neutral and lament the others not following.

Let’s not forget, it’s about the planet, not bragging rights. Down with EcoElitism!

What are Biofuels all about

Quick guide: Biofuels What are biofuels?

Biofuels are any kind of fuel made from living things, or from the waste they produce.

This is a very long and diverse list, including:

wood, wood chippings and straw pellets or liquids made from wood biogas (methane) from animals’ excrement ethanol, diesel or other liquid fuels made from processing plant material or waste oil In recent years, the term “biofuel” has come to mean the last category – ethanol and diesel, made from crops including corn, sugarcane and rapeseed.

Bio-ethanol, an alcohol, is usually mixed with petrol, while biodiesel is either used on its own or in a mixture.

Pioneers such as Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel designed cars and engines to run on biofuels. Before World War II, the UK and Germany both sold biofuels mixed with petrol or diesel made from crude oil; the availability of cheap oil later ensured market dominance.

Ethanol for fuel is made through fermentation, the same process which produces it in wine and beer. Biodiesel is made through a variety of chemical processes.

There is interest in trying biobutanol, another alcohol, in aviation fuel.

Are biofuels climate-friendly?

In principle, biofuels are a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional transport fuels.

More Quick Guides Burning the fuels releases carbon dioxide; but growing the plants absorbs a comparable amount of the gas from the atmosphere.

However, energy is used in farming and processing the crops, and this can make biofuels as polluting as petroleum-based fuels, depending on what is grown and how it is treated.

A recent UK government publication declared that biofuels reduced emissions “by 50-60% compared to fossil fuels”.

Where are biofuels used?

Production of ethanol doubled globally between 2000 and 2005, with biodiesel output quadrupling.

Brazil leads the world in production and use, making about 16 billion litres per year of ethanol from its sugarcane industry.

Sixty percent of new cars can run on a fuel mix which includes 85% ethanol.

The European Union has a target for 2010 that 5.75% of transport fuels should come from biological sources, but the target is unlikely to be met.

The British government’s Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation requires 5% biofuels sold at the pump by 2010 to be biofuels.

In the US, the Renewable Fuels Standard aims to double the use of biofuels in transport by 2012.

What are the downsides?

From the environmental point of the view, the big issue is biodiversity.

With much of the western world’s farmland already consisting of identikit fields of monocultured crops, the fear is that a major adoption of biofuels will reduce habitat for animals and wild plants still further.

Asian countries may be tempted to replace rainforest with more palm oil plantations, critics say.

If increased proportions of food crops such as corn or soy are used for fuel, that may push prices up, affecting food supplies for less prosperous citizens.

The mixed picture regarding the climate benefit of biofuels leads some observers to say that the priority should be reducing energy use; initiatives on biofuels detract attention from this, they say, and are more of a financial help to politically important farming lobbies than a serious attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

There are few problems technically; engines can generally cope with the new fuels.

But current technologies limit production, because only certain parts of specific plants can be used.

The big hope is the so-called second-generation of biofuels, which will process the cellulose found in many plants. This should lead to far more efficient production using a much greater range of plants and plant waste.

Oil and Climate Change - You Can't Solve One without the Other

Our planes, trains, and automobiles all run on oil. When people think carbon emission, they instinctively think transportation, that to reduce emissions we must stop moving about so much. But oil enables far more than transportation. The fact is, just about everything around us has been made better or possible because of widespread energy availability. Oil use is ubiquitous. Oil is much more than the liquid that makes a car go; it is truly the lifeblood of the world. Transportation accounts for only 20 percent of carbon emissions, the bulk comes from power generation, 35 percent, and the commercial and public sector, 25 percent (Browne 26).We live in an oil-based world economy, it is the energy source for all we do; just as the human body needs certain nutrients to transform into usable energy and operate smoothly, so the world requires energy, and oil is intensely energy-packed, cheap to extract, and thus nearly impossible to stop using.

The supply of oil can only last so long. Every oil-producing region on Earth has peaked, with the exception of the Middle East. With China and India’s oil demands rising along with the United States’ already insatiable appetite, oil reserves will disappear faster and pollution will grow worse. Dr. Richard Smalley, the Nobel Laureate who discovered the “buckyball” which gave rise to the field of nanotechnology, frequently noted that currently mankind can only produce 15 terawatts of energy; by 2050 there will be 10 billion people and a quadrupled energy demand. Dr. Smalley also heavily advocated full use of solar energy, because energy from nuclear, wind, geothermal, biofuels, all simply cannot produce 60 terawatts of energy, so the Sun is the only option that makes sense. However, modern technology does not allow cost-effective use of solar energy. The development of efficient solar use is at the forefront of energy research. Energy is possibly the most essential form of wealth, and if even more widespread conflict is to be avoided the world will need 60 terawatts of energy, a demand far beyond current technological and structural capacity. Thus the need to find an alternative source of energy is mankind’s number one priority – despite anything, “skeptical environmentalist”, Bjorn Lomborg might say.

Greenhouse-gas reduction treaties are wildly different from CFC control treaties, such as the Montreal Protocol, because they get at a deep-seeded issue, the oil-based economy; it’s like asking someone to eat less food – it helps, but one can only eat so little. Finding alternative propellants isn’t the most monumental task, but creating an alternative energy source as effective as oil is a feat greater than setting foot on the moon. So, the United States should participate in reduction treaties, with a clause dictating that a state will contribute to alternative energy resource development at some proportion of oil consumption; this would have to apply to all participant states, not to limit consumption necessarily but to develop the, literally, world-saving technology as soon as possible. This should be the key to any greenhouse reduction treaty; the problem is countries compete with one another for new technology development. International coordination would expedite the process, but the rewards for a country that succeeds alone are absolutely enormous – a monopoly on revolutionary technology is always favorable. However, this technology, if it is to be used to yield its maximum public benefit, must be implemented in every country. Thus a contract for mutual development of alternative energy is in order. The agreement must also carry tangible means to get the developing world up to speed in environmental care by creating environmentally sound wealth, and working to eliminate wealth destroying factors like malaria and HIV/AIDS. Reduction should indeed take place, so an optimal distribution of resources between reduction/efficiency and revolutionary technology development will have to be found.

To carry the human analogy, imagine 60% of a person’s organs failing. A group of 1,300 scientists concluded that 15 of 24 ecosystems necessary for maintaining life as we know it are being exploited at unsustainable levels (Pope/Lomborg 67). Most of the problem comes from the developing world, from outdated energy producing technology, and an increasing need for energy. Priorities would dictate then that the next step would be to focus on enriching the impoverished so they can take care of their own environment, just as the rich countries are attempting to do (Lomborg/Pope 68). While it is certainly true that the impoverished, meaning nearly half the world, should have a greater share of resources, if Lomborg’s system of priorities is enacted ultimately the overriding priority will become mere survival; he can forget his economic priorities analysis. His priorities are too shortsighted because they are based on a faltering energy source. He focuses on indoor pollution, indeed an important issue, but if he wants to discuss priorities, climate-change-causing pollution should dominate his list. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, while flawed, gets at least one thing right – humans need all basic survival tools available before to dealing with any other issue. So, Lomborg is definitely right to say developing countries need more wealth to adequately deal with pollution. But wealth distribution and pollution removal are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact with the need for alternative energy, and more efficient energy use the two almost go hand in hand (Pope/Lomborg 69/73). An effective way to create wealth while simultaneously ensuring proper environmental care for the developing world might be to eliminate a substantial part of its debt to be used towards responsible insulation projects, and alternative sources of energy, like wind turbines and solar panels. This could go a long way in developing a more technologically capable developing world, ready for the 21st century.

It’s clear the economics of technological cooperation have to work out right. That is, the marginal costs must not exceed the marginal benefits. However, an individual country’s marginal benefit for technology production far outweighs the benefits of collective cooperation. Compare revolutionary energy technology to nuclear weapons. The technology could be held as a leverage tool against countries that did not possess the technology, so a monopoly was highly attractive. The same could be said about a viable alternative to oil. Every country knows the supply will run out sooner or later, and that if man is to continue on the technological energy-dependent path on which it is set, a new alternative will have to be implemented. The country that develops this viable alternative will have a patent on the resource that will transition mankind into a new era, and so, the race is on. But imagine a race that must be finished by at least one participant in 2 hours time before all racers are annihilated, and nobody wins. If the racers cooperate they won’t all finish first, but at least someone will within the 2 hours, and everyone will keep their lives. This would be a tough situation, and if no one is willing to abate their pride, everyone will die (pride revealing itself for the deadly sin it is). Ultimately though, it must be realized this is not a conventional race at all. It is not all against all, but all against the clock, pushing the most capable to the finish. So how can a negotiation be reached? First the fastest racer would have to be found, to maximize the odds of survival. This will have to be a realistic, honest process, effectively deciding who would win the race if the insane restrictions were not set. It is assumed that everyone wants to live, so the helpers and the fastest each need each other equally, and have little room to bargain. In this race the winner gets glorious prizes and benefits. Each needing each other equally, they will have to agree to split the winner’s spoils equally. Thus they all forge ahead; someone crosses the finish line in 1 hour and 58 minutes, and all narrowly avoid destruction. The analog to the current situation is obvious. Everyone wants to be the first to develop the world-saving technology, but the world is running out of time, and quite possibly the only way to reach the summit is to all forge ahead together. Luckily, with states, the conditions aren’t as tightly-wound as in the hypothetical death race. Instead of one country being decided as the most capable, the most capable from each country can coalesce and develop the technology. The benefits will of course still be spread equally, because optimal use of the technology occurs when every country implements it. It will be hard for the capable countries, such as the United States, Japan, China, etc. to forgo their individual chances of glory, but if the future is as ominous as predicted, pride must be swallowed. Unlike nuclear weapons, the entire globe benefits from alternative energy proliferation. The world’s nations are too often caught up in competition based on nationalism; this present challenge must be met with internationalism. If the cost of inaction is untold catastrophe, which threatens the continuance of civilization as we know it, then the benefits become contrastingly clear.

Each country should contribute a certain amount to the mutual development fund proportional to oil use. After all, if you go out to dinner and your friends purchase the finest wine and drink it all, it would hardly be fair to split the tab equally. The best route to a solution is suggested by Bell. Powerful NGO’s in India, and laws allowing people to indict polluters in the Philippines, give people effective tools for action (Bell 113). Common citizens must be educated in the costs and benefits regarding them directly and future generations. Polls often show most people like to see international cooperation – if states aren’t willing to cooperate in revolutionary technology development, then the citizenry will have to speak loudly, and armed with the knowledge of possible impending destruction, will have every incentive to push, even shove, for an internationalist approach, that at the very least guarantees the continuation of modern life. Either the United States government will participate on its own, or the populace will have to exercise its democratic rights and force the issue, either way, it is clear the race against the clock is on.

Works Cited Barrett, Scott. 1999. Montreal vs. Kyoto: International Cooperation and the Global Environment. In Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, eds. Inge Kaul, Isabelle

Bell, Ruth Greenspan. 2006. What To Do About Climate Change. Foreign Affairs 85 (3): 105-113.

Browne, John. 2004. Beyond Kyoto. Foreign Affairs 83 (4): 20-32.

Pope, Carl and Bjorn Lomborg. 2005. The State of Nature. Foreign Policy 149: 67-73.

Environmental Justice, Environmental Racism and Social Justice

This evening I decided to whittle down my Rethos “Issues of Passion” tags down to just Environmental Justice, Environmental Racism and Social Justice, after it dawned on me that every other one of the passions I used to have listed could, in one way or another, fall under one of those categories. Biodiversity, for example, is an environmental justice issue, as is access to clean water or urban planning. Corporate social responsibility, over fishing and activism could – all issues that I am seriously concerned about – all fit nicely under the Social Justice umbrella.

This helps me focus my attention somehow much better on the bigger pictures when I am able to put them together with other issues. When I see, for example, that over-fishing, corruption in business and racism are all bed-fellows as a result of consumption, I’ve begun to learn just how much protecting the environment is not just a “save the earth” issue. It is a human rights issue as much as anything, if not more. And that environmental apathy is as bad as being out and out racist, because of those who suffer the most and least across the planet is strikingly imbalanced and color coded.

My only regret is that it has taken me this long to begin connecting the dots.

Biophilia or Biophobia? Let's fall in love with nature... again

Biophilia or Biophobia?

Let’s fall in love with nature… again

That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket ? Gone. Where is the eagle ? Gone. The end of living and beginning of survival.

- Chief Seattle’s speech of 1854 as interpreted by screenwriter Ted Perry

As Chief Seattle cautioned in his address during the sale of native lands, supposed civilized society is in danger of forgetting how to live. Content with dominance over nature we “survive” in an artificial creation built on technology, economics and greed. Our honeymoon with the trees and the sky has ended and we have abandoned our love for the earth. Where we once bathed in fresh water, we now dump toxic waste. Where we found shelter amongst the trees in the hills, we now clear-cut. Where we hunted and grew food, we now genetically modify. It is hard to believe that we ever loved nature at all. However, if we are to live, not just survive, we must find this love again. To rekindle this passion we must abandon our fears in order to fall in love again.

Edward O. Wilson proposed a mechanism called biophilia by which all organisms’ are predisposed to love life and living systems. According to Wilson, this is an instinctual bond to “affiliate with other forms of life”. Our well-being as a species is hinged on our ability to be biophilic. David Suzuki states that, “access to the natural world has been proven to have physical and mental health benefits”. Nevertheless, it is possible to develop an unhealthy fear for that which we no longer understand. Wilson referred to a fear of natural environments as biophobia. The belief in human superiority over other sentient life has made it possible for biophobia to develop. A lack of respect for nature in conjunction with pervasive and destructive technologies has made biophobia the Zeitgeist of our times. People feel more at ease in a concrete parking lot than on a forest trail. As a result we have more parking lots and less forest. In order to stop this downward spiral we must relearn biophilia or perish.

Children are our best hope for rediscovering our love of nature. If we expose our children to untamed nature we can help them develop an affinity for it. If we take our kids to beaches, forests and mountains instead of shopping centers they will begin to cherish these places. This will prevent them, as adults, from destroying the land. A healthy reverence for nature will enable them to protect the earth and the sky. It is difficult to save something that you do not care about. However, it is nearly impossible to save something that you fear. If we love nature then saving it will come naturally. I am not content with mere survival. Are you?

References

Orr, David W. “Love it or lose it: the coming biophilia revolution.” Stephen R., Kellert and Edward O. Wilson. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. 1993.

Suzuki, David. “Get outside – it’s good for you.” Good News Network International.. 2007.

The fates of salmon and hydroelectric production lie in the hands of a federal judge

November 6, 2007 IDAHO STATESMAN: Fate of salmon and hydroelectric production lie in the hands of a federal judge

By Rocky Barker

The struggle over saving Columbia River salmon could reach a climax in 2008.

A federal judge has rejected the past two plans to manage dams and salmon — saying they didn’t do enough to save the endangered fish. If he doesn’t like this one, he has warned that the region and its hydroelectric power system could face “serious consequences.”

Last week, the Bush administration presented new drafts of how it hopes to manage Columbia-Snake river dams and salmon. This time, officials offered more guarantees:

• Hatcheries will be fixed.

• Water will be provided by Idaho farmers.

• Habitat will be restored.

• Congress and federal power customers will pay for it all.

But the plans stopped short of the actions that fisheries biologists say may be necessary for putting the Snake River’s four salmon and steelhead runs on the road to recovery. Most notably — but least surprising — the Bush plan would not breach four dams on the lower Snake River in Washington.

Soon, the fate of those biological opinions, as the plans are called, will fall into the hands of U.S. District Judge James Redden of Portland, who has declared the last plans inadequate and illegal.

Ordering dam breaching itself offers many challenges to Redden. But he could make other far-reaching decisions.

Redden could demand that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers draws down one or more reservoirs on the Columbia River to their “minimum operating pool,” which would reduce hydroelectric production and force expensive modifications to keep barges and irrigation pumps working.

Redden could order more water drained from federal reservoirs in Idaho including Lucky Peak.

All this makes the stakes high in a year when Americans will go to the polls to pick Bush’s successor along with a successor to the federal dams’ biggest defender — Republican Idaho Sen. Larry Craig.

It also comes when not one major political leader in the region supports breaching the four dams.

High hopes

Federal fisheries officials and dam managers say the new plans will not jeopardize the survival of all 13 threatened or endangered salmon and steelhead in the basin, which is the size of France.

They said they hope this time to convince Redden, even though this plan doesn’t consider dam breaching, as the 2001 plan he nixed did.

If federal lawyers succeed, then the pressure is off.

The Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been working with Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and the region’s Indian tribes in a collaborative process they hope will please Redden.

A court victory would give the federal agencies 10 years before they would have to create another plan.

Drawdown scenario

If Redden rules the plan illegal, though, the environmental groups, Indian tribes, fishing groups and state of Oregon that filed the lawsuit are expected to call for immediate permanent actions to save the fish.

Oregon Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski opposes dam breaching, but his representatives have urged federal agencies to study the costs and benefits of lowering the reservoir behind John Day Dam on the Columbia to its minimum operating pool, or MOP.

“If either the judge tells you, or the fish tell you, you’re not doing enough, we always looked at the John Day MOP as a contingency measure,” said Mike Carrier, Kulongoski’s representative in the collaborative talks.

Past studies have shown the costs of drawing down John Day to be high, perhaps as high as breaching the four Snake River dams. It would have little more support than breaching itself.

‘Train wreck’

But salmon advocates have patiently and repeatedly returned to court hoping to repeat history in the region.

U.S. District Judge William Dwyer of Seattle issued a temporary restraining order in 1989 that stopped all old-growth timber sales on national forests in Oregon and Washington to protect the northern spotted owl.

Dwyer’s decision, which political leaders at the time described as a “train wreck” for the Pacific Northwest’s economy, catapulted the owl and the ancient forests into the national spotlight.

The issue was resolved only after President Bill Clinton held an all-day “Forest Summit” in 1993. That led to a $1 billion program to help the region’s timber economy through the painful transition it faced when a legal spotted owl plan was developed.

Salmon advocates hope Redden creates another political train wreck in the region by court order in 2008, said Bill Arthur, a regional representative of the Sierra Club in Seattle.

Then the region’s political leaders, working with what he hopes will be a salmon-friendly administration, can sit down and forge an agreement that will lead to salmon recovery.

“I think the judge is going to drive this train sooner or later,” Arthur said. “It’s going to be obvious that the cost of keeping the dams is going to be more expensive than taking them out.”

‘God Squad’ or Congress

But the Bush administration and its successor have several other alternatives. One is to convene an endangered species committee, called the “God Squad,” which can rule that the costs of saving an endangered species is more expensive than it’s worth.

A second is to have Congress pen its own salmon plan and include language that says the plan is sufficient to meet the Endangered Species Act. This decision will likely lie in the hands of Washington’s two Democratic senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

Both ran past campaigns on promises to fight to keep the four Snake dams in place. Washington Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire also opposes dam removal.

Idaho hopes

For Idaho, the issue is slightly different. Redden had ordered that the separate biological opinion for 12 Upper Snake irrigation dams in Idaho be analyzed along with the Columbia-Snake opinion. That separate document put in place the provisions of the Nez Perce water rights agreement.

Redden could rule the downstream plan illegal and determine the Upper Snake plan passes muster. The Nez Perce Water Rights Agreement includes commitments by farmers to send water downstream to help salmon migrate and habitat restoration by ranchers and forest owners, said Norm Semanko, executive director of the Idaho Water User’s Association.

“We’ve urged the judge to notice that and respect the agreement, and we’re hoping he’ll do that,” Semanko said.

The fates of salmon and hydroelectric production lie in the hands of a federal judge

November 6, 2007 IDAHO STATESMAN: Fate of salmon and hydroelectric production lie in the hands of a federal judge

By Rocky Barker

The struggle over saving Columbia River salmon could reach a climax in 2008.

A federal judge has rejected the past two plans to manage dams and salmon — saying they didn’t do enough to save the endangered fish. If he doesn’t like this one, he has warned that the region and its hydroelectric power system could face “serious consequences.”

Last week, the Bush administration presented new drafts of how it hopes to manage Columbia-Snake river dams and salmon. This time, officials offered more guarantees:

• Hatcheries will be fixed.

• Water will be provided by Idaho farmers.

• Habitat will be restored.

• Congress and federal power customers will pay for it all.

But the plans stopped short of the actions that fisheries biologists say may be necessary for putting the Snake River’s four salmon and steelhead runs on the road to recovery. Most notably — but least surprising — the Bush plan would not breach four dams on the lower Snake River in Washington.

Soon, the fate of those biological opinions, as the plans are called, will fall into the hands of U.S. District Judge James Redden of Portland, who has declared the last plans inadequate and illegal.

Ordering dam breaching itself offers many challenges to Redden. But he could make other far-reaching decisions.

Redden could demand that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers draws down one or more reservoirs on the Columbia River to their “minimum operating pool,” which would reduce hydroelectric production and force expensive modifications to keep barges and irrigation pumps working.

Redden could order more water drained from federal reservoirs in Idaho including Lucky Peak.

All this makes the stakes high in a year when Americans will go to the polls to pick Bush’s successor along with a successor to the federal dams’ biggest defender — Republican Idaho Sen. Larry Craig.

It also comes when not one major political leader in the region supports breaching the four dams.

High hopes

Federal fisheries officials and dam managers say the new plans will not jeopardize the survival of all 13 threatened or endangered salmon and steelhead in the basin, which is the size of France.

They said they hope this time to convince Redden, even though this plan doesn’t consider dam breaching, as the 2001 plan he nixed did.

If federal lawyers succeed, then the pressure is off.

The Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been working with Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and the region’s Indian tribes in a collaborative process they hope will please Redden.

A court victory would give the federal agencies 10 years before they would have to create another plan.

Drawdown scenario

If Redden rules the plan illegal, though, the environmental groups, Indian tribes, fishing groups and state of Oregon that filed the lawsuit are expected to call for immediate permanent actions to save the fish.

Oregon Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski opposes dam breaching, but his representatives have urged federal agencies to study the costs and benefits of lowering the reservoir behind John Day Dam on the Columbia to its minimum operating pool, or MOP.

“If either the judge tells you, or the fish tell you, you’re not doing enough, we always looked at the John Day MOP as a contingency measure,” said Mike Carrier, Kulongoski’s representative in the collaborative talks.

Past studies have shown the costs of drawing down John Day to be high, perhaps as high as breaching the four Snake River dams. It would have little more support than breaching itself.

‘Train wreck’

But salmon advocates have patiently and repeatedly returned to court hoping to repeat history in the region.

U.S. District Judge William Dwyer of Seattle issued a temporary restraining order in 1989 that stopped all old-growth timber sales on national forests in Oregon and Washington to protect the northern spotted owl.

Dwyer’s decision, which political leaders at the time described as a “train wreck” for the Pacific Northwest’s economy, catapulted the owl and the ancient forests into the national spotlight.

The issue was resolved only after President Bill Clinton held an all-day “Forest Summit” in 1993. That led to a $1 billion program to help the region’s timber economy through the painful transition it faced when a legal spotted owl plan was developed.

Salmon advocates hope Redden creates another political train wreck in the region by court order in 2008, said Bill Arthur, a regional representative of the Sierra Club in Seattle.

Then the region’s political leaders, working with what he hopes will be a salmon-friendly administration, can sit down and forge an agreement that will lead to salmon recovery.

“I think the judge is going to drive this train sooner or later,” Arthur said. “It’s going to be obvious that the cost of keeping the dams is going to be more expensive than taking them out.”

‘God Squad’ or Congress

But the Bush administration and its successor have several other alternatives. One is to convene an endangered species committee, called the “God Squad,” which can rule that the costs of saving an endangered species is more expensive than it’s worth.

A second is to have Congress pen its own salmon plan and include language that says the plan is sufficient to meet the Endangered Species Act. This decision will likely lie in the hands of Washington’s two Democratic senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

Both ran past campaigns on promises to fight to keep the four Snake dams in place. Washington Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire also opposes dam removal.

Idaho hopes

For Idaho, the issue is slightly different. Redden had ordered that the separate biological opinion for 12 Upper Snake irrigation dams in Idaho be analyzed along with the Columbia-Snake opinion. That separate document put in place the provisions of the Nez Perce water rights agreement.

Redden could rule the downstream plan illegal and determine the Upper Snake plan passes muster. The Nez Perce Water Rights Agreement includes commitments by farmers to send water downstream to help salmon migrate and habitat restoration by ranchers and forest owners, said Norm Semanko, executive director of the Idaho Water User’s Association.

“We’ve urged the judge to notice that and respect the agreement, and we’re hoping he’ll do that,” Semanko said.

The fates of salmon and hydroelectric production lie in the hands of a federal judge

November 6, 2007 IDAHO STATESMAN: Fate of salmon and hydroelectric production lie in the hands of a federal judge

By Rocky Barker

The struggle over saving Columbia River salmon could reach a climax in 2008.

A federal judge has rejected the past two plans to manage dams and salmon — saying they didn’t do enough to save the endangered fish. If he doesn’t like this one, he has warned that the region and its hydroelectric power system could face “serious consequences.”

Last week, the Bush administration presented new drafts of how it hopes to manage Columbia-Snake river dams and salmon. This time, officials offered more guarantees:

• Hatcheries will be fixed.

• Water will be provided by Idaho farmers.

• Habitat will be restored.

• Congress and federal power customers will pay for it all.

But the plans stopped short of the actions that fisheries biologists say may be necessary for putting the Snake River’s four salmon and steelhead runs on the road to recovery. Most notably — but least surprising — the Bush plan would not breach four dams on the lower Snake River in Washington.

Soon, the fate of those biological opinions, as the plans are called, will fall into the hands of U.S. District Judge James Redden of Portland, who has declared the last plans inadequate and illegal.

Ordering dam breaching itself offers many challenges to Redden. But he could make other far-reaching decisions.

Redden could demand that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers draws down one or more reservoirs on the Columbia River to their “minimum operating pool,” which would reduce hydroelectric production and force expensive modifications to keep barges and irrigation pumps working.

Redden could order more water drained from federal reservoirs in Idaho including Lucky Peak.

All this makes the stakes high in a year when Americans will go to the polls to pick Bush’s successor along with a successor to the federal dams’ biggest defender — Republican Idaho Sen. Larry Craig.

It also comes when not one major political leader in the region supports breaching the four dams.

High hopes

Federal fisheries officials and dam managers say the new plans will not jeopardize the survival of all 13 threatened or endangered salmon and steelhead in the basin, which is the size of France.

They said they hope this time to convince Redden, even though this plan doesn’t consider dam breaching, as the 2001 plan he nixed did.

If federal lawyers succeed, then the pressure is off.

The Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been working with Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and the region’s Indian tribes in a collaborative process they hope will please Redden.

A court victory would give the federal agencies 10 years before they would have to create another plan.

Drawdown scenario

If Redden rules the plan illegal, though, the environmental groups, Indian tribes, fishing groups and state of Oregon that filed the lawsuit are expected to call for immediate permanent actions to save the fish.

Oregon Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski opposes dam breaching, but his representatives have urged federal agencies to study the costs and benefits of lowering the reservoir behind John Day Dam on the Columbia to its minimum operating pool, or MOP.

“If either the judge tells you, or the fish tell you, you’re not doing enough, we always looked at the John Day MOP as a contingency measure,” said Mike Carrier, Kulongoski’s representative in the collaborative talks.

Past studies have shown the costs of drawing down John Day to be high, perhaps as high as breaching the four Snake River dams. It would have little more support than breaching itself.

‘Train wreck’

But salmon advocates have patiently and repeatedly returned to court hoping to repeat history in the region.

U.S. District Judge William Dwyer of Seattle issued a temporary restraining order in 1989 that stopped all old-growth timber sales on national forests in Oregon and Washington to protect the northern spotted owl.

Dwyer’s decision, which political leaders at the time described as a “train wreck” for the Pacific Northwest’s economy, catapulted the owl and the ancient forests into the national spotlight.

The issue was resolved only after President Bill Clinton held an all-day “Forest Summit” in 1993. That led to a $1 billion program to help the region’s timber economy through the painful transition it faced when a legal spotted owl plan was developed.

Salmon advocates hope Redden creates another political train wreck in the region by court order in 2008, said Bill Arthur, a regional representative of the Sierra Club in Seattle.

Then the region’s political leaders, working with what he hopes will be a salmon-friendly administration, can sit down and forge an agreement that will lead to salmon recovery.

“I think the judge is going to drive this train sooner or later,” Arthur said. “It’s going to be obvious that the cost of keeping the dams is going to be more expensive than taking them out.”

‘God Squad’ or Congress

But the Bush administration and its successor have several other alternatives. One is to convene an endangered species committee, called the “God Squad,” which can rule that the costs of saving an endangered species is more expensive than it’s worth.

A second is to have Congress pen its own salmon plan and include language that says the plan is sufficient to meet the Endangered Species Act. This decision will likely lie in the hands of Washington’s two Democratic senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

Both ran past campaigns on promises to fight to keep the four Snake dams in place. Washington Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire also opposes dam removal.

Idaho hopes

For Idaho, the issue is slightly different. Redden had ordered that the separate biological opinion for 12 Upper Snake irrigation dams in Idaho be analyzed along with the Columbia-Snake opinion. That separate document put in place the provisions of the Nez Perce water rights agreement.

Redden could rule the downstream plan illegal and determine the Upper Snake plan passes muster. The Nez Perce Water Rights Agreement includes commitments by farmers to send water downstream to help salmon migrate and habitat restoration by ranchers and forest owners, said Norm Semanko, executive director of the Idaho Water User’s Association.

“We’ve urged the judge to notice that and respect the agreement, and we’re hoping he’ll do that,” Semanko said.

What does it mean to be green?

“Save energy!” “Darfur!” “Life” “You can’t bullshit green.”

This is how students at SUNY-Buffalo State responded to the question, “What does green mean to you?” The question was a part of the campus environmental group’s effort to develop a banner constructed from recycled plastic from plastic bags and cardboard. With the banner two-thirds of the way complete, the responses stretch from the idealistic such as save Darfur to a practical, double meaning “Use-less paper” on a cafeteria receipt.

Green seems to me a convergence of social justice and environmental awareness. The signs of green grow everywhere. Nike was recognized earlier this year as one of Progressive Investors’ Sustainable Business 20, even though they have been cited as supporting sweat shops in Asia currently by Educating for Justice. A Nike PR representative, who is clearly advertised as being on the environmental beat for the BBC in the Dec. 11 podcast of Social Innovations Conversations, states that the corporation is just too big. The forward thinking and looking elements of Nike move much swifter than their supply chains and manufacturers. She is arguing that the corporation’s capacity to handle this issue might take time.

So is green simply a marketing concept as a response to a growing awareness of the ugliness of international corporate capitalism? Not exactly, but this question is addressed whenever a company green washes itself, which at this time Nike appears to be doing quite successfully. However, the shoe giant serves as an example for all of us desiring a green lifestyle that is represented well by the 4 part framework of The Natural Step (TNS).

TNS, an international sustainability education non-profit, advocates a 4 part framework that relies on thermodynamics for its scientific basis. Its framework has been accepted by major corporations that span multiple countries and represent diverse industries. For business advocates, the framework is ambiguous enough for most people to understand and for application in business practices. Critics point that right now that their framework is unachievable. First, the knowledge has not been developed to allow it to be wholy adopted economically. Second and more relevant to the case of Nike, companies must first break the tenants of the framework in order to meet its demands.

The change in our way of life will take time, and unfortunately we, as a collective society, might end up making mistakes along the way. Nike is in the process of handling their issues, and they have their battle wounds on display. For me, green is an active learning process of simply trying to do better with the knowledge and resources we have to meet our individual needs without compromising the lives of others.

A gap in MBA education

According to Beyond Grey Stripes, many MBA programs require inclusion of discussion about environmental and social justice issues, yet they lack the instruction on how business can address the problems.

Also noted, issues of justice seem more important in marketing than CSR and ethics concentrations. Kind of a misfit huh?

Check out beyond grey stripes for more information.

http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/rankings/trends.cfm

USA Slips Behind Ecuador in Environmental Ranking

DAVOS, Switzerland, January 23, 2008 (ENS) – A ranking of 149 countries based on indicators of pollution control and natural resource management released today at the World Economic Forum puts the United States in 39th place, behind Ecuador and Albania.

Compiled every two years since 2002 by the Yale University Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, the 2008 Environmental Performance Index is based on 25 indicators.

These indicators are grouped into six categories – environmental health, air pollution, water resources, biodiversity and habitat, productive natural Resources, and climate change.

Lead author Professor Dan Esty, who directs the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy says, “While the U.S. has high scores on some issues – drinking water, sanitation, forest management – we have very weak results on a number of issues including policies to address climate change, ozone air pollution affecting nature, and sulfur dioxide emissions.”

“In Europe, people are shocked that the U.S. ranks as high as 39th as all they hear about are our poor results on greenhouse gas emissions,” Esty said today. “Within the U.S., people are shocked to hear that we rank as low as 39th as everyone assumes that we are the world’s environmental leaders.”

“The U.S. continues to have a bottom-tier performance in greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.

The top four countries are all European, with Switzerland ranked first and Sweden, Norway and Finland in the next three slots. Other European countries also rank high such as Austria – 6th; Latvia -8th; France – 10th; Iceland – 11th; Germany – 13th; UK -14th; and Slovenia – 15th.

“We are putting more weight on climate change,” said Esty. “Switzerland is the most greenhouse gas efficient economy in the developed world, in part because of its use of hydroelectric power and its transportation system, which relies more on trains than individual cars or trucks.”

Esty says the U.S. ranking of 39th is down from 28th two years ago “reflecting, in part, the lack of priority that the Bush administration has given to environmental protection efforts.”

While “environmental health has a very high correlation with income,” he said, “ecosystem protection is less driven by high GDP than by good governance.”

The data show, richer countries generally do better than poorer ones, especially when it comes to environmental health, Esty said. Investing in environmental infrastructure such as drinking water systems and waste management pays dividends.

But at every income level, some nations do better than expected, suggesting that governance also matters, he points out. Costa Rica’s strong fifth place showing reflects the priority placed on the environment there. By contrast, neighboring Nicaragua where “poor governance has been the rule,” Esty says, ranks 77th.

Esty said because of changes in the method used to compile the rankings, the list this year is not directly comparable to the last one, issued in 2006, in which the United States was ranked 28th.

Still, the United States, with a score of 81.0, he noted, “is slipping down,” both because of low scores on three different analyses of greenhouse gas emissions and a pervasive problem with smog.”

The country’s performance on a new indicator that measures regional smog, he said, “is at the bottom of the world right now.”

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told the “New York Times” that the United States’ low ranking in measures like the amount of carbon dioxide emissions per capita or per unit of electricity – in the bottom 20 percent – is “not surprising” because the United States contributes a quarter of the new releases of greenhouse gas emissions.

The country’s success in cleaning its air and water, Connaughton said, now allows policy makers to focus on improving carbon emissions.

India, China and Australia ranked among the bottom 25 nations in the indicator that combined all the climate change scores; China and Australia ranked below the United States.

Esty said the results of this report are out of the “spin zone” because the rankings are built on “25 carefully crafted datasets, analysis by dozens of leading scientists, and a commitment to being fact-based.”

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.

Buy a Clean Conscience...Carbon Offset

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for balance. I took gymnastics in preschool. I carefully ballet stepped across that tall beam while figuring that if I leaned too much right or left that I would end up on my head. Now as an adult the balance beam has become managing time, the PH levels in my body, and the amount food intake to stay fit. So, It makes perfect sense that innovators would create a positive way to balance the negative effects on the earth’s atmosphere with ‘Carbon Offsetting’ as the new axis.

First I must say…I’m guilty. I used a lot of Aqua Net hairspray throughout my teen years to get that Farrah Fawcett hair style to stay in place while doing a herky as I cheered on the football players, and recently, I did not click ‘Yes’ to ‘Carbon Offset’ my already pricey flight on the British Airways website. It’s not that I don’t care about the environment, but it’s still this notion of paying extra to “feel green” that doesn’t resonate through my intellect.

So how does it work? Am I suppose to keep emitting by traveling and pay extra money and then give myself a pin with a green smiley face to put on my jacket that says, I Am Environmentally Conscious? This is going to take some getting use to and a little research to find out exactly how that works, who is benefiting, and how much of the percentage of guilt I can wipe out from this newly proposed balancing act. Granted it’s a new concept and most of us want to do good green things, but when we break down the layers, it gets just a bit more cloudy with the current infrastructure that is being designed to regulate the ‘Carbon Offsetting’…and one could imagine how this could possibly propagate the rich being able to wipe the slate clean while the poor stay and wash the dishes because they can’t pay for the meal.

So, while I still carry around a tinge of guilt about calling myself environmentally conscious…I still must ask the questions at the heart of the issue.  If I pay more money, will it clear my conscience? How will ‘Carbon Offsetting’ effect the small Mom and Pop stores that can’t just use use use and pay pay pay…and what about this kiwi I just ate from New Zealand that used up more carbon then my flight from Europe? Who is responsible there? And just to throw a nice big curve ball…is my ‘Carbon Offsetting’ donation to that non-profit tax-free? How much of my money goes to the actual stated cause? Hmmm. If I were a white collar business criminal…I just might be able to set up a nice little middle man business to take the donations and pay some salaries and do some events in the name of ‘Green’ and then send it off to Solar in China. You get my point. Of course reducing our emissions is the main objective circling these perfectly shaped loopholes, yet the real concerns hanging over my head concerning this Environmental Revolution are with the ‘Regulators’ that have developed this reward system.

So what do you think? Is the system being set up so that we consumers ‘feel’ that we can buy a clean conscience with ‘Carbon Offsetting’…regardless of how much we tip the scale the other way? How do you think we can we create an infrastructure that rewards the actual “actions” of cutting back use rather then rewarding those that can pay to offset. This is our future. We will see the day when we will become fully responsible for the carbons we emit. It will be regulated and we will be accountable. Think: ‘The GreenTax Man’. The ones that can pay will keep spending and those that cannot will be penalized. It’s our responsibility to understand, research, ask questions and find out how we will be affected. We don’t want this to become an opportunity for the wealthy to clear their conscience with dirty money, but to actually reward the “honest shifts” that individuals and business make to really reduce their share of harm to this earth. Think before you click.

Ecology + Economy = Sustainability

Enter Message / description of files attached:

Ecology + Economy = Sustainability                                   April 2008

 

We did not inherit the planet and all its life from our parents - but we borrowed it from our children!

WE all want to make some money but we must not make it by harming our planet. We have a responsibility to try our best to keep this world of ours going - and it is under threat more than anyone wanted to believe me already in 2003. This is when I started my campaign trying to wake up Municipalities, Government Dept. etc. - all here in South Africa - to undertake or let us do the jobs for them - I can and I will explain a bit further down - to save and/or reconvert as much food producing land, polluted water, effluent, sewage sludge, organic material so that we can still feed at least a part of the people when global warming hits hardest.

I started with this task in 1993 seeing what the chemicals are doing to our soils, rivers, dams, lakes and wet lands. Seeing how the soils became and still become deprived of their natural soil fertility and water retention capacity - due to the chemicals destroying the most important component  - the soil microbial life forms; seeing how deserts grow; knowing about the pollution of our rivers etc. This is a direct result of non organic substances (which cannot be broken down by the self cleansing powers of the water) - these nutrients feed the algae which again deprive the water of oxygen - which increases even more pollution etc. etc.

Global Warming and the slight move of our magnetic poles has changed weather patterns dramatically Some areas drown in water others get no rain anymore and turn into deserts like the Western Cape and the Free State in South Africa - to give just one example.  I could now go on and on giving all the details but let me rather go to the subjects most to my heart:

 

I am taking South Africa as an example but of course same happens in many countries and the solutions can be taken there:

 

Due to global warming - and there is no doubt that we the humans are mainly at fault even though the planet is going into a warming phase as happened before but we with our treatment of the planet are hugely accelerating the whole process - more millions of people will be starving (famine will be wide spread, it started already in many countries - take e.g. Haiti where land erosion is so big that farmers have abandoned the land and now all food has to be imported - where violence, looting even killing of UN officials has happened) - we have to win the land back and we can do it. How? There are always a few microbes left in the soil - with simple inexpensive matters we can accelerate their multiplication (you must leave all old organic matter and dead root stocks on the land), the break down the organic matter, due to their activity get oxygen back into the soil - new humus begins to form - humus means soil fertility, water retention capacity and we can start growing again.   

 

Plants that we grow need to be strong and more resistant to pests - a plant growing in a good soil is strong as it now can again spread its roots and assimilate minerals, vitamins and with a little help of a natural product (100 - 250 g needed per ha) we can strengthen these plants even further. The two most important results will be: no need for chemicals anymore (these will soon become non-affordable anyway as they are derived from oil and that is becoming very short - see the petrol and diesel prices) and the second is that we need lesser food as it contains so much more nutrients. One scientist said that before the

‘chemical revolution’ two peaches were sufficient – but fruit from so called conventional farming we would need 53 of the same type of fruit – just imagine this. I always say we need now 3 times as much salad to get the same amount of nutrients etc. as we would get from more natural grown plants.

And we do not want GM food  - if I eat a tomato I don’t want to have the genes of a deep sea fish in it – and I don’t want total plant life on earth be altered – nature made it perfect for us.  

Compost

As more good living compost (and there I come in again with my expertise) is given to the soils as quicker will they re-generate – so we do two things – we give the soil as it is a boost as described above and we add this wonderful compost – in 3 - 4 years our soils are again what they once were – without the compost this might take 8 years.

This compost does not contain any pathogens, antibiotics and other diseases anymore, it does not attract flies and rodents, it smells like the best soil one can find in indigenes forests or similar. I always have the feeling that had I rheumatism or arthritis all I would have to do is to bury myself in this compost and it would heal me.

 

From what can we make compost?

From all organic matter including sewage sludge. Now, many of you will say – pooh, one can’t take human sludge. Wrong! Think back until not even 150 years ago there were no proper sewage pipes and plants – for thousands of years humans used their excretions

to fertilizer their lands – only when we became ‘so modern  and knowledgeable’ became this ancient method a ‘no go’. Why? I guess it just became fashionable – but in many parts of the world human excretions are still used as fertilizers.

But – it is not without danger using raw manure or sludge or human excretions:

First – no matter from which living being the excretions come  - they will burn the young plants, the fine hair roots (these are the ones which bring the nutrients, minerals and vitamins into the plant) and of course also the so very valuable soil microbes. Nowadays these manures mostly contain also antibiotics (in this country and many others antibiotics are still in use for all young pigs, calves, poultry etc. – they use them as growth hormones) f and other chemical residue which will then go into the soil, cause destruction there, to the plants which we and the animals eat   a n d   one of the biggest health problems worldwide is the growing immunity to antibiotics. Plus the terrible odors, the breeding of flies, the distribution of other diseases like the ascari eggs, swine fever, food and mouth disease and many typical human diseases   - no, no it is dangerous to use raw manure. (Just imagine your mother would have given you from the day you were born antibiotics – you would be a type of a zombie now – living only from medication as your immune system was never allowed to develop properly)

But there is a solution and the greatest source of natural fertilizers – the proper composting of these manures. Proper means using windrows, turning them at regular intervals, using a compost additive that stimulates the break down of all these dangerous residues. All that will take you about 6 weeks – then you have the healthy fertilizing compost I mentioned above, the one you want to lay in to heal yourself and so it health the soil. That’s where I am the expert.

 

Liquid Fertilizer from manure dams

The problem waste of all pig and dairy farms are the manure dams filled with solids. And then they buy chemical fertilizers – see all the above – and contribute daily to global warming, depleting more and more our oil resources, paying ever increasing prices for these fertilizers and thus their revenue is shrinking as there must be a limit to what the markets can charge the people for their food. This can end up in farmers closing down and what then? I will show you how to turn this around – we use the manure and turn it into a homogenous, aerobe (everything we do is aerobe) liquid fertilizer of highest quality – you can spray also over your plants, it is good for them.

  

 

Husbandry   Where does all the medication come from that the farmers have to give to their animals – from the chemical industry(with very few exceptions).  And these medications are quite expensive and the vets visit costs extra.

There is a healthier and much most cost effective way:

Ask me – I will send you the details but let me give you a bit of inside beforehand:

If you would have a natural inexpensive product that you would e.g. mix in the feed (50 - 70g/ton of fodder) and that product would a) cleans the intestines of unwanted bacteria, worms etc., b) thus increase the feed conversion, c) bring the metabolism to the best level,

d) enhance performance and appearance, e) enhance production and f) give stronger and healthier off spring – would you not do that?  Of course you would because it is the cheapest and best way to keep, raise and produce happy and healthy animals, bring better eggs, milk and meat onto the market.

There is another important point: It is all natural, causes neither air nor ground- or surface water pollution   -   and when young piglets or calves suffer from diarrhea you will stop this in a few hours without having to use expensive (chemical) medication. 

 

NOW THE WATERS – in capital letters because it is the most import commodity on our planet and also the most abused one.  It  is our life elexier – water is life and life is water

 

Did you know that 82% of our body consist of water or that only 2,6 % of all the water on earth is so-called sweet water of which about 78 % are fixed in ice. Of the available sweet water 8 million km3 are ground water, 126 000 km3 are lakes, 61 200 km3 are the moisture in the soils and 1 100 km3 are in rivers; 14 400 km3 are suspended as water vapour in the atmosphere. And we are now over 6 billion people on earth plus all the animals. In some regions of our earth water is most scarse and it is predicted that future wars will be about water.

We must stop wasting our precious sweet water.

How do we do that? Of course every household and every industry and farm needs to search for reducing water consumption – I could now talk about many ways of doing that but I want to concentrate on some really big and important issues of how we can save some our land from becoming unsuitable for agriculture because there is no water.

Water must be vital and full of oxygen – it must have no toxins in it and must be suitable for consumption.

For irrigation we do not need potable water – see 2)

For husbandy and the humans water must fulfill the required standards

1)     One can make sure that rivers, dams and lakes become clean again and that without using chemicals, expensive filters, UV (is the worst anyway) or reverse osmosis (very expensive) – we can do that. That water will help everyone from households to farms and industry and not to forget for fish which we might want to eat.

2)      For irrigation a water must be free of pathogens and be below the allowed maximum of heavy metals (just as compost) – but it can have nutrients in it – good for the plants and the soil. It does not have to be potable water. Compost is nutrients en mass. Here we can use all the effluent water from the sewage plants. We treat it that it fulfills the above needs, build pipe lines to the industry and farms and in new developments to the toilets – and with one big bang we save millions of km3 of sweet water and that for a fraction of the costs and totally environmentally safe. The water is then sold to the individual user who has a water meter on his outlet of the pipe line. An example: This pipe line runs along from farm to farm and there suddenly is a farmer who does not grow but has a pig, or dairy or poultry farm and he needs clean water for his animals – no problem – we install the necessary equipment onto his pipe line to the farm and provide him with the water he needs.

Important this equipment needs no external power, does not work with magnets, does not use filters or cartridges, is maintenance free  and lasts for (according to experience) at least 20 years but we expect it to last much longer.

3)     The water from wells and boreholes often contains high amounts of iron and is thus not really suitable fore consumption or irrigation. This can also be solved. The only must is that we get to the water before it is exposed to sun and air because then the iron oxidizes and we can do nothing anymore – except you buy in expensive filter which is also besides the costs for the equipment expensive in maintenance and labor.

4)     Good groundwater can be bottled, especially mineral water. I am at present involved in creating the first energized hexagonal water in bottles. Are you already or would you like to participate in this market and have of know of good water – contact me.

 

I must stop now even though there would be a lot more to write. I hope you enjoy what you have read, get some worthwhile ideas from it and contact me for further info.

 

Yours Helga Dietrich 

On Alliance Politics

Animal Rights Africa (ARA) was launched last month in South Africa, with the One Struggle conference, "ushering in a brand new era of strengthened activism for animals. ARA is committed to the promotion of inclusive justice, showing compassion across species and building a better future through campaigns, research and analysis." Dr. Steve Best was invited to deliver the Keynote, as he has close working ties with the group, and it was the first time someone urged South Africans to see the importance of animal liberation/vegan politics for their own struggles. A diverse panel of human rights/social justice activists attended, along with over 300 people and members of the media (including documentary filmmakers).

Dr. Best's talk was entitled, "Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century." Here's an excerpt:

It is becoming increasingly clear that human, animal, and earth liberation movements are inseparably linked, such that none can be free until all are free. This is not a new insight, but rather a lost wisdom and truth. Recall the words of Pythagoras, the first Western philosopher, who 2500 years ago proclaimed: "For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love."

Given their symbiotic, holistic, and interlocking relationship, it is imperative that we no longer speak of human liberation, animal liberation, or earth liberation as if they were independent struggles; rather, we need to speak of total liberation. Theoretically, we must view these liberation movements in relation to one another and identify commonalities of oppression, such as stem from hierarchy and capitalism. Politically, we need to form alliances against common oppressors, across class, racial, gender, and national boundaries, as we link democracy to ecology and social justice to animal rights.

So, I wish to assert the need for more expansive visions and politics on both sides of the human/animal liberation equation, and to call for new forms of dialogue, learning, and strategic alliances that are all-too rare. The kind of alliance politics one finds in South Africa remains weak and abstract so long as animal liberation and vegan interests are excluded. These can no longer be ignored, marginalized, mocked, and trivialized. Similarly, the animal liberation movement can no longer afford to be single-issue and isolationist, but must link to social justice and environmental movements. Each movement has much to learn from the other, and no movement can achieve its goals apart from the other. It is truly one struggle, one fight.

......................

Largely single-issue in focus, animal rights advocates fail to grasp how the animal abuses they decry result from the profit imperative, and are part and parcel of a social system that needs to be challenged and transformed in radical ways. To the extent that animal rights activists grasp the systemic nature of animal exploitation, they should also realize that animal liberation demands that they work in conjunction with other radical social movements.

Conversely, human rights advocates need to comprehend the myriad social and ecological problems that stem from animal exploitation. When human beings exterminate animals, they devastate habitats and ecosystems necessary for their own lives. When they butcher farmed animals by the billions, they ravage rainforests, turn grasslands into deserts, exacerbate global warming, and spew toxic wastes into the environment. When they construct a global system of factory farming that requires prodigious amounts of land, water, energy, and crops, they squander vital resources and aggravate the problem of world hunger. When humans are violent toward animals, they often are violent toward one another, a tragic truism validated time and time again by serial killers who grow up abusing animals and violent men who beat the women, children, and animals of their home. The connections go far deeper, as evident in the relationship between the domination of human over animal and the hierarchy of sexism and racism.

Animal liberation is the culmination of a vast historical learning process whereby human beings gradually realize that arguments justifying hierarchy, inequality, and discrimination of any kind are arbitrary, baseless, and fallacious. Animal liberation builds on the most progressive ethical and political advances human beings have made in the last 200 years and carries them to their logical conclusions. It takes the struggle for rights, equality, and nonviolence to the next level, beyond the artificial moral and legal boundaries of humanism, in order to challenge all prejudices and hierarchies including speciesism.

Animal liberation requires that the Left transcend the comfortable boundaries of humanism in order to make a qualitative leap in ethical consideration, thereby moving the moral bar from reason and language to sentience and subjectivity. Just as the Left once had to confront ecology, and emerged a far superior theory and politics, so it now has to engage animal liberation. As the confrontation with ecology infinitely deepened and enriched Leftist theory and politics, so should the encounter with animal liberation.

Animal liberation is by no means a sufficient condition for democracy and ecology, but it is for many reasons a necessary condition of economic, social, cultural, and psychological change. Animal rights people promote compassionate relations toward animals, but their general politics and worldview can otherwise be capitalist, exploitative, sexist, racist, or captive to any other psychological fallacy. Uncritical of the capitalist economy and state, they hardly promote the broader kinds of critical consciousness that needs to take root far and wide. Just as Leftists rarely acknowledge their own speciesism, so many animal advocates reproduce capitalist and statist ideologies.

The domination of humans, animals, and the earth stem from the same mindset and institutional forms that promote hierarchy, hostility to otherness, and the will to power. This can only be fully revealed and transformed by a multiperspectival theory and alliance politics broader and deeper than anything yet created.

The human/animal liberation movements have much to learn from one another. A truly revolutionary social theory and movement will not just emancipate members of one species, but rather all species and the earth itself. A future revolutionary movement worthy of its name will overcome instrumentalism and hierarchical thinking in every pernicious form, including that of humans over animals and the earth. It will grasp the incompatibility of capitalism with the most profound values and goals of humanity. It will build on the achievements of democratic, libertarian socialist, and anarchist traditions. It will incorporate radical green, feminist, and indigenous struggles. It will merge animal, earth, and human liberation in a total liberation struggle against global capitalism and domination of all kinds.

The slogan of the future must not be "We are all one race, the human race," but rather, "We are one community, the biocommunity."

These issues are explored in far greater detail in Dr. Best's essay on South Africa and elephant culling, "The Killing Fields of South Africa: Eco-Wars, Species Apartheid, and Total Liberation."

I don't know about you, but I have tiffs with my environmentalist friends now and then--and they're not vegans. They get that factory farming is devastating for the environment, but they're convinced that eating SOLE (sustainable, organic, local and/or ethical) food will solve that. They don't consider it unethical to dominate, control and slaughter nonhuman animals when they don't need to.

My enviro friends are compelled to defend the Earth with passion, but they aren't similarly intense about defending sentient beings, and I don't understand that. They think it's our moral obligation to stop destroying the planet with our selfish practices, but they don't feel a moral obligation toward nonhumans.

Finally, I consider myself a feminist, and I think veganism and feminism are both struggles for nonviolence and social justice, yet most of my friends who call themselves feminists are not vegans, and are in fact insulted by the comparison of domination of women and domination of nonhuman animals.

Where do you stand on alliance politics and a multi-perspective theory?

 

Wellness in the Schools Benefit Party

Come to the Inaugural Benefit of Wellness in the Schools.  Learn about the work we are doing in public schools. Enjoy drinks, appetizers a green auction and lots of fun.  COst is $100.00. For more information go to: wellnessintheschools.org

Urgence-Biscuits- Helping the environment one cookie at a time

Press release

 

Enjoy a freshly baked cookie and help protect our planet!

New partnership between ENvironnement JEUnesse and Monsieur Félix & Mr. Norton.

 

Montreal, May 1, 2008 –

How can eating a freshly baked, warm cookie help the environment? If you buy that cookie from the environmentally friendly Urgence-Biscuits mobile cookie bakery, you’ll be contributing directly to educating people on environmental issues.

That’s because Monsieur Félix & Mr. Norton, Quebec’s most-loved gourmet cookie company, and ENvironnement JEUnesse, a non-profit environmental education organization, have teamed up so that Quebeckers can feel good about helping the planet while they make themselves feel good with a warm cookie.

The two organizations proudly announced their new partnership at a joint press conference today, where the new Urgence-Biscuits mobile cookie bakery was unveiled publicly for the first time.  A recycled delivery truck that was rescued before it hit the scrap yard, the Urgence-Biscuits mobile cookie bakery runs exclusively on clean burning propane and solar energy.  It will visit the sites of many local festivals, corporate parties and other events, serving warm cookies while at the same time raising awareness of environmental issues together with ENvironnement JEUnesse.

 “The new Urgence-Biscuits mobile bakery allows us to create activities and educate the public on environmental issues that are directly related to the innovations incorporated in this vehicle,” says Jérôme Normand, director-general of ENvironnement JEUnesse. “Converting the truck to run on propane significantly reduces the ozone-depleting emissions of its former gasoline engine. Solar energy is used to power a long list of on-board appliances.  New packaging has been developed made with recyclable materials from FSC cardboard. We can demonstrate concrete examples to the public of how we can address environmental issues, and attract their attention to these innovations and to our message with a product that will make them happy. And most importantly, our partnership provides that a portion of all sales made from the environmentally friendly mobile bakery will be contributed to ENvironnement JEUnesse to support our organization’s activities.”

Michael Eskenazi, the founder and President of Monsieur Félix & Mr. Norton, was equally enthusiastic.  “We are thrilled that ENvironnement JEUnesse has agreed to allow us to join forces with them.  We believe that if real change is to occur, it is vital that today’s youth is informed and educated about environmental issues. We are glad to help ENvironnement JEUnesse find new ways to encourage young people to pay more attention to issues that will have a great impact on their future.  There should be a natural association between doing the right thing and things that make you feel good.” Mr. Eskenazi also announced, “We will be approaching the organizer’s of the major festivals in the Montreal area over the next weeks.  We hope that they will welcome us and allow us to share this innovative approach with their festivalgoers, and of course share some warm cookies too!”

ENvironnement JEUnesse, the network of young Quebec environmentalists

ENvironnement JEUnesse was founded in 1979.  It is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to educating the public on environmental issues. Numbering nearly 1,000 members, including more than 100 groups, ENvironnement JEUnesse organizes activities to raise environmental consciousness among Quebec youth, and to stimulate discussion and actions that will bring us all a better future.

Monsieur Félix & Mr. Norton…Pure enjoyment in every bite!

Founded in 1985 in Montreal, Monsieur Félix & Mr. Norton became the most talked about treat across Quebec.  Their decadent chocolate chunk cookies made with all natural ingredients and their creative gift packages made them a household name throughout the 1990’s.  In 1998, overexpansion led to a restructuring and the sale of the stores.  The founder took some time to devote himself to volunteering in the community and to family issues. Building on the foundation of the well-known and well-loved brand, he returns with the launch of the Urgence-Biscuits concept, bringing back the fun of baking and serving warm cookies while remaining implicated in community and youth-oriented causes.

For more information:

www.urgence-biscuits.com

 

Jérôme Normand, ENvironnement JEUnesse

jnormand@enjeu.qc.ca

www.enjeu.qc.ca

Cellular: (514) 577-3016

 

Michael Eskenazi, Monsieur Félix & Mr. Norton

michael@felixandnorton.ca

www.urgence-biscuits.com

Cellular: (514) 570-4118

 

 

Helping the environment with “eco-friendly lunch boxes”

Learn how a caterer made the switch to compostable packaging on ethipedia.net

Summary: 

Founded in 2001, Avec Plaisirs is a corporate catering company with over 60 employees that delivers business meals throughout the greater Montréal area. The company is affiliated with La Maison Traiteurs, a food services business group whose members include Agnus Dei Inc., a special events caterer, and Origine Bistro.

Thanks to owner David Carrier’s concern for environmental issues, Avec Plaisirs has introduced a number of measures to reduce the company’s environmental footprint and do more for the community. One of these measures, launched in 2008, is the “Ecofriendly Lunch Box”, which is made from 100% recycled cardboard and vegetable dyes. Not only is the box itself recyclable, but all utensils and food containers (the latter made from corn starch) can be composted.

The Ecofriendly Lunch box is based on the principles of “eco-design”, whereby the life-cycle of all the box’s components are taken into account: choice of materials, method of manufacture, transport, lifespan, waste disposal, etc. As mentioned above, the lunch box consists of biodegradable containers, dishware and cutlery; furthermore, contrary to most disposable and compostable packaging, the containers furnished by Avec Plaisirs are more solid and last longer. The company also offers biodegradable bags in which to dispose of the box, containers and utensils after the meal is finished.
Hoping to cut down on garbage and avoid wasting food, Avec Plaisirs tries to determine exactly how much food its customers require. In terms of nutrition, the company’s lunch box is aimed at providing healthy and balanced meals. Overall, sustainability is a primary concern for the company, and the lunch box has been designed with the following criteria in mind:
-Social sustainability: high-quality food = better health;
-Environmental sustainability: minimizing the lunch box’s environmental footprint and any waste produced;
-Economic sustainability: the product will help the company move into new markets.

Implementation: 

After months of research and development, Avec Plaisirs was at last able to get its Ecofriendly Lunch Box off the ground. Doing so was difficult, but the company’s employees are proud to have overcome this challenge; if anything, working to make the lunch box a reality has brought them closer together.
When the company decided to move ahead with the project, it hired Pierre Morency of Nova Envirocom, a firm that specializes in environmental programs and waste management.
Avec Plaisirs also worked closely with renowned nutritional expert Isabelle Huot; this partnership has enabled the company to offer a menu full of nutritious and seasonal dishes all year long.

In undertaking its lunch box project, Avec Plaisirs decided to take a gradual approach, without cutting any corners. Carrier speaks of a philosophy that consists of “moving quickly at our own pace”, meaning that environmental initiatives are undertaken in keeping with the company’s rhythm and objectives.

By doing so, Avec Plaisirs has ensured that environmental concerns are integrated into the economic equation. In fact, it is with this philosophy in mind that all of its sustainability initiatives are implemented. Carrier and his team first check to see if a project is feasible and whether it will be beneficial to the environment and society. They also try to determine what returns the company will see on its investment (e.g., costs, employee involvement, improved brand visibility, etc.).

Challenges and Solutions: 

During a presentation to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montréal on June 12, 2009, Carrier highlighted the importance of having sufficient “room for error” when implementing sustainable development initiatives. By this he means that a company planning to introduce a sustainable practice has to develop an organisational structure or corporate culture that allows for flexibility. Given that such practices are often innovative and the first of their kind, it is only through trial and error that a high-value and viable product or service can be developed. This is often easier to do for a company the size of Avec Plaisirs than it is for large corporations or government bodies.

However, this process has not always gone smoothly for Avec Plaisirs, and maintaining “room for error” has been crucial. For example, Carrier says the company at one point failed to meet one of the organic decomposition criteria for a certain certification it was seeking, and was therefore forced to begin all over again. He says it was important for him to obtain sufficient certification to ensure that the project was legitimate. It is likely that this episode was rather costly for the company.

In terms of production expenses, some items (such as utensils) cost approximately the same as those made of plastic or styrofoam, but others may be 10-15% more expensive. Everything depends on the volume ordered. The company says that it did not think customers would be willing to pay more, but it believed that the product would be sufficiently appealing to attract new customers.

Social and Environmental Benefits: 

Avec Plaisirs claims that its practice will prevent tens of thousands of plastic containers being thrown away over the next few years. However, we could find no figures to back up this claim, aside from the publicly available information provided by the company.

Results: 

The lunch box project has created a strong sense of belonging amongst the employees at Avec Plaisirs. The initiative has also bolstered its reputation and that of its sister companies. Customers appreciate being able to purchase a product with a low environmental footprint. Avec Plaisirs says in a press release that this initiative has even become one of its trademark products. The company has also become more prominent in Québec’s environmental community, which will no doubt lead to increased business.

Other Examples: 

It seems that the practice’s component of rigorous life-cycle analysis has not been adopted by other businesses, which will thus allow Avec Plaisirs to position itself in Québec as a true leader in terms of sustainable growth. Other lunch box products on the market are often worthwhile with regard to the products they contain, but not necessarily in terms of packaging or manufacturing.

Other companies in Québec’s food and beverage industry that provide catering services, such as Capital Traiteur (Montréal) and Traiteur Fine Bouche (Estrie), now offer compostable dishware.

Java Green Organic Eco-Café, based in Washington, D.C., offers an “Eco Lunch Box Meal”.

In Vancouver, Savoury City Catering offers a range of services that are environmentally-friendly. The company supplies ceramic serving dishes, wicker baskets and utensils made of birch, the latter of which will biodegrade within 45 to 60 days. The same is true for the utensils provided by Avec Plaisirs, but they are not made of wood, which is more solid and appears to be of better quality than standard plastic cutlery.

Savoury City Catering is a member of Vancouver’s Green Table Network, an association of restaurant professionals working together with food producers to develop practical and concrete environmental strategies.

In response to growing demand from consumers, many caterers are now becoming socially responsible. One example is Buffet Insère-Jeunes Montréal, a catering company and bakery that also provides social and professional reintegration services. A member of the Collectif des Entreprises d’Insertion du Québec (CEIQ), Buffet Insère-Jeunes also offers a lunch box product. Another such company is Cuisine Collective Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, also based in Montréal.