You. Not the government or the automobile companies or the mining companies or the energy companies, but YOU.
This is as much a moral issue as it is a public policy or economic issue.
Each of us has to take personal responsibility as the greatest consumers of resources history has ever known in order to reduce the likelihood of environmental catastrophe. Faith in leadership or technological advances isn't going to cut it. It never does. Neither political leaders nor corporate leaders are driven by morality (though some of the former seem to believe they are), but you are. Whine all you want about Bush pleasuring various industries with lax environmental protection, but you are still driving your SUV and drinking Starbucks out of a disposable cup.
STOP!
Stop driving. Or drive a lot less. Move closer to work. That's a hassle? You like your suburban lifestyle that sucks life from this planet? Tough. YOU will need to start making sacrifices. YOU will need to have fewer children or have none at all (though I believe the act of raising a child, especially if done well, is one of supreme sacrifice, the decision to have one is completely selfish). YOU will need to stop building homes. YOU need to force your government to stop the subsidization of the auto and home building industries by stopping them from building new roads and highways. YOU will need to face the reality that unrestricted economic growth is not only unsustainable, it is destroying everything.
"But I don't want to suffer," YOU say. "This isn't my fault." Yes it is. All of us are as culpable in the destruction of this world as we are in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If enough of us did something about it, it would stop.
So what do we do next? There's lots to do, but mostly it is a change in attitude. You need to start acting as if your behavior matters. Every economic decision no matter how small (taking a plastic bag from your convenience store) or how large (buying a new house) matters.
EVERYTHING you buy or steal has an environmental, social and economic consequence.
Start here:
http://www.treehugger.com/gogreen.php
and here:
http://environment.columbia.edu/docs-wycd/reuse-recycle/reduce.html
and here:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/genergy.asp
There's lots of places to go. You're clever. You're dedicated. You need to start telling everyone else, too. Your parents, your siblings, your children, your friends, the checkout lady at the grocery store, the creepy guy you work with. The government can't legislate morality. It tries, but it can't. Only we can change the world view. Only we can change culture. This is going to be a LONG period of change, generations likely, but we HAVE to start NOW!
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
How much do you owe?
There seems to be a large percentage of Americans and legislators who believe that America should no longer maintain troops in Iraq. Due to the frightening incompetence of the current administration and the American public that put it in power, the quick overthrow of Saddam Hussein has only resulted in chaos, violence and terror in much of Iraq. Only recently has a belated American conscience led to a call for change. Many of those who rightfully opposed a military invasion of Iraq back in 2003 now feel vindicated in the president's inability to "spread democracy" as Stalin had once hoped to spread communism; though this time with corporate sponsorship. Others, those that had been duped or who had chosen in hopefulness to ignore the obvious, now turn their reactionary backs on their once beloved decider. And, of course, there are those who defy reason and intelligence and believe this has been a noble effort all along, who blame the negative media attention for putting our soldiers in danger.
Democratic legislators hope that their late interest in oversight of the executive branch can erase their five year sloth and patriotic knee jerking. By baptizing themselves in the renewing waters of bombastic oratory, they believe, most likely correctly, that the forgetful American public will turn toward them in averting their gaze in embarrassment of the excesses of the least popular presidency since Richard Nixon (no slouch in excesses himself). The voting public will indeed forgive congress' fecklessness in shirking their duty to to preserve democracy in the homeland. And the public will expect these born again legislators to end this war with the same zeal they expected Bush's army to kick ass.
That this was an immoral war carried out with childlike ardor by incompetents there is no question. The premise of the war was a frightening but wholly created fairytale, the ensuing occupation has been a gyre of corruption, hubris, crime, ignorance and profiteering, and it has all been led by an executive smugly dedicated to torture and the elimination of civil liberties and due process.
And yet there are people living in the formerly functioning state of Iraq. A people to whom the American public (all of us, I'm afraid, not just the Bushies) needs to make reparations. It would be easy for the right to claim that tab was paid with the removal of the machinery of the dictatorship that had haunted them more than a generation. And it would be easy for the left (or some of it) to say, "I tried to stop it, I didn't vote for these guys, I protested, I wrote my representatives and senators and they waged war anyway, in spite of my protest, so I am not responsible. Lets get those kids out of there." The argument of the right is easily dismissed in light of their inability to replace said dictatorship with anything resembling order, peace, stability, etc. As for the argument of the left: too bad. This is democracy, and sometimes the deciders aren't chosen by us and sometimes they have the aptitude of a dancing monkey. But they make the decisions that represent us and we have to live with them, and fix them if necessary. The subjects of Louis XIV may not have been responsible for the wars being fought by France, but our guy does not rule by divine right (despite pervasive beliefs). We are all responsible for the mess in Iraq. All of us.
We, the people of the United States of America, have a moral obligation, as well as an incentive, to make every sacrifice necessary to undo the mess the current administration has made of the Mesopotamian state and give the people of Iraq, at the very least, the standard of living and order enjoyed before the destabilizing effects of the invasion and subsequent occupation. Does this mean a continued occupation as well as the expectation that American servicemen and women will continue to give their lives? It may, but I don't think so. If it does, there should be a draft. But it shouldn't. It defies reason to believe that continuing more of the same will produce better results. However the mess is undone, it must be done with oversight. Strong oversight. Perhaps by outsiders. Maybe the French. It will have to be done with skepticism and pragmatism rather than through the lens of ideology. And it will have to paid for with American tax dollars--lots of them (which will mean repealing those tax cuts). It will have to be done with great amounts of diplomacy (even with so called terrorists) and with the help of Iraq's neighbors (even the ones we don't like). And finally, it will take years, maybe decades, of determination. From all of us. Because that, my friends, is what democracy is all about. The deciders fuck up all the time. And sometimes they are down right evil. But they're our deciders, and we've got pick up after them when they are done.
And then put 'em in jail. That would rock.
Democratic legislators hope that their late interest in oversight of the executive branch can erase their five year sloth and patriotic knee jerking. By baptizing themselves in the renewing waters of bombastic oratory, they believe, most likely correctly, that the forgetful American public will turn toward them in averting their gaze in embarrassment of the excesses of the least popular presidency since Richard Nixon (no slouch in excesses himself). The voting public will indeed forgive congress' fecklessness in shirking their duty to to preserve democracy in the homeland. And the public will expect these born again legislators to end this war with the same zeal they expected Bush's army to kick ass.
That this was an immoral war carried out with childlike ardor by incompetents there is no question. The premise of the war was a frightening but wholly created fairytale, the ensuing occupation has been a gyre of corruption, hubris, crime, ignorance and profiteering, and it has all been led by an executive smugly dedicated to torture and the elimination of civil liberties and due process.
And yet there are people living in the formerly functioning state of Iraq. A people to whom the American public (all of us, I'm afraid, not just the Bushies) needs to make reparations. It would be easy for the right to claim that tab was paid with the removal of the machinery of the dictatorship that had haunted them more than a generation. And it would be easy for the left (or some of it) to say, "I tried to stop it, I didn't vote for these guys, I protested, I wrote my representatives and senators and they waged war anyway, in spite of my protest, so I am not responsible. Lets get those kids out of there." The argument of the right is easily dismissed in light of their inability to replace said dictatorship with anything resembling order, peace, stability, etc. As for the argument of the left: too bad. This is democracy, and sometimes the deciders aren't chosen by us and sometimes they have the aptitude of a dancing monkey. But they make the decisions that represent us and we have to live with them, and fix them if necessary. The subjects of Louis XIV may not have been responsible for the wars being fought by France, but our guy does not rule by divine right (despite pervasive beliefs). We are all responsible for the mess in Iraq. All of us.
We, the people of the United States of America, have a moral obligation, as well as an incentive, to make every sacrifice necessary to undo the mess the current administration has made of the Mesopotamian state and give the people of Iraq, at the very least, the standard of living and order enjoyed before the destabilizing effects of the invasion and subsequent occupation. Does this mean a continued occupation as well as the expectation that American servicemen and women will continue to give their lives? It may, but I don't think so. If it does, there should be a draft. But it shouldn't. It defies reason to believe that continuing more of the same will produce better results. However the mess is undone, it must be done with oversight. Strong oversight. Perhaps by outsiders. Maybe the French. It will have to be done with skepticism and pragmatism rather than through the lens of ideology. And it will have to paid for with American tax dollars--lots of them (which will mean repealing those tax cuts). It will have to be done with great amounts of diplomacy (even with so called terrorists) and with the help of Iraq's neighbors (even the ones we don't like). And finally, it will take years, maybe decades, of determination. From all of us. Because that, my friends, is what democracy is all about. The deciders fuck up all the time. And sometimes they are down right evil. But they're our deciders, and we've got pick up after them when they are done.
And then put 'em in jail. That would rock.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Grow Less Corn, Eat Less Beef
There aren't a lot of people in the modern world, let alone America, who think we should grow less food. Population continues to grow at an exponential rate, as Malthus predicted so long ago, we'll need to find ways to increase yields to feed all those babies. Bigger mechanized farms utilizing the latest designer seeds, pesticides and fertilizer are clearly needed to protect our children and all those Chinese and poor African babies, and what about all those Russian orphans. So many babies to feed. Indeed. So we should grow less corn (and fewer babies, too).
What's this, you say? Grow less corn? But the babies! The farmers! You are an unpatriotic baby hating communist!
While all that may be true, growing more corn is keeping people (un-American people) poor, stressing the environment and wasting lots of land to feed cows, pigs, make sweeteners and ethanol. Though that corn is used in lots of products and fed to lots of animals, none of it is used to feed people. In 2005, Iowa alone produced almost 12 million acres of corn producing 2.2 billion bushels of corn.1 That's a whole lot of corn being used for something other than direct human consumption. All that corn is, of course, rotated with beans so as to not deplete the soil, but is also grown using lots of chemicals that end up in the rivers and streams and most of which end up in the Gulf of Mexico and which has produced a "dead zone" the size of New Jersey in which no life, plant, animal or otherwise, can grow.2
Most of that meat you eat is made out of oil. Oil isn't fed to cows, of course, but all the indirect oil usage whether in growing the feed corn or transporting the meat means lots of petroleum is being used for your Big Mac.3 And as our desire for meat and ethanol and other corn based products increases, more people are looking to make a profit off of it. This causes a couple problems: 1. land that is currently under dense rain forest is being burned because of pressure from agriculture and livestock in the Amazon, and 2. the U.S. government is still paying subsidies to American farmers to encourage them to continue growing corn. Of course subsidies allow them to pay their bills and feed their families even when the price of corn is very low. But all these American farmers receiving subsidies are in direct competition with small farmers in other parts of the world (who probably should depend on an export cash crop, but that is a different issue) and the market is saturated with corn and the price is kept down.4 Good for consumers (cows and pigs and their owners, ethanol producers) but bad for unsubsidized producers (poor farmers in the third world).
If we stop subsidizing corn growers in the U.S., if we reduce our demand for corn based products produced with massive amounts of chemicals, we will start to solve some serious issues. Not least of which is the pollution of our creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and even oceans with runoff. We will use that land to diversify our food production so that it is less dependent on oil, and finally the reduced demand will make it less desirable for poor farmers to grow the crop in ecologically fragile areas.
How?
Eat less meat. Or stop eating it all together.5
What's this, you say? Grow less corn? But the babies! The farmers! You are an unpatriotic baby hating communist!
While all that may be true, growing more corn is keeping people (un-American people) poor, stressing the environment and wasting lots of land to feed cows, pigs, make sweeteners and ethanol. Though that corn is used in lots of products and fed to lots of animals, none of it is used to feed people. In 2005, Iowa alone produced almost 12 million acres of corn producing 2.2 billion bushels of corn.1 That's a whole lot of corn being used for something other than direct human consumption. All that corn is, of course, rotated with beans so as to not deplete the soil, but is also grown using lots of chemicals that end up in the rivers and streams and most of which end up in the Gulf of Mexico and which has produced a "dead zone" the size of New Jersey in which no life, plant, animal or otherwise, can grow.2
Most of that meat you eat is made out of oil. Oil isn't fed to cows, of course, but all the indirect oil usage whether in growing the feed corn or transporting the meat means lots of petroleum is being used for your Big Mac.3 And as our desire for meat and ethanol and other corn based products increases, more people are looking to make a profit off of it. This causes a couple problems: 1. land that is currently under dense rain forest is being burned because of pressure from agriculture and livestock in the Amazon, and 2. the U.S. government is still paying subsidies to American farmers to encourage them to continue growing corn. Of course subsidies allow them to pay their bills and feed their families even when the price of corn is very low. But all these American farmers receiving subsidies are in direct competition with small farmers in other parts of the world (who probably should depend on an export cash crop, but that is a different issue) and the market is saturated with corn and the price is kept down.4 Good for consumers (cows and pigs and their owners, ethanol producers) but bad for unsubsidized producers (poor farmers in the third world).
If we stop subsidizing corn growers in the U.S., if we reduce our demand for corn based products produced with massive amounts of chemicals, we will start to solve some serious issues. Not least of which is the pollution of our creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and even oceans with runoff. We will use that land to diversify our food production so that it is less dependent on oil, and finally the reduced demand will make it less desirable for poor farmers to grow the crop in ecologically fragile areas.
How?
Eat less meat. Or stop eating it all together.5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
