Tagged: General

Nature Deficit Disorder

On the first of this month, The New York Times published a piece by Nicholas Kristof called, “How to Lick a Slug”. In it, he talks about how children today are not in tune with the outdoors, unlike children from previous generations beginning with . . .  well, beginning with the beginning.

I used to spend much more time outdoors, and regret that I don’t make the effort to do so more often. Much of my youth was filled with traversing creeks and playing in state parks. I used to love just standing ankle deep in a cold stream, letting the water – and the life it contains – rush by. Hopefully that will change soon. My wife and I have two “outdoorsy” adventures planned in the next month and I hope to do more, especially in the fall when the heat in Missouri has broken.

To appreciate nature I don’t believe people have to “rough” it, they just have to get the hell out of their houses and into the woods. The woods don’t even have to be natural woods for crying out loud. Taking time to navigate man-made parks or local preserves is enough to get in tune with the great outdoors. These types of outings can be a catalyst for more formal trips that require planning, packing and a small shovel. Of course graduating to that level of immersion is not even necessary.

I remember biking the Stinging Nettle trail with some friends in high school through Castlewood State Park just outside of St. Louis. Man alive did we get muddy. The water had risen on the Meramac River and we weren’t even supposed to be in the park. The roads had been closed and we snuck in through an adjoining neighborhood. I’m not sure if it was that time or another I took some pictures of the river. The trees looked like bushes, popping up out of the water. I lost that roll of film before it was ever developed. I guess it’s like writing a poem and then tearing it up. Or not, since I just told you about it.

You’re only hurting yourself by not experiencing what nature has to offer. I’m getting excited about our trips. Staring at a computer all day takes its toll. Hopefully the house we’re renting has the Internet.

The Cost of Meat

I suppose a person has to hear about something a very large number of times before he is willing to change his habits, especially if these habits (religion, diet, biases, etc . . .) were ingrained in him from birth. Hopefully Jane Brody’s piece, Paying a price for loving red meat, has added fuel to the fire.

Meat, if you eat it at all, should be a small part (read: not the entree) of one (read: not two or three) meal a day. If you don’t believe me, ask the FDA. But, American, and much of the rest of the world that has access to it, eats meat like they should be eating fruits and vegetables. What’s the problem with this? Hmmmmm.

First, the health effects. According to Brody’s piece, a recent decade-long study by the National Institutes of Health and the American Association of Retired Persons concluded that over a decade, “the deaths of 1 million men and perhaps half a million women could be prevented just by eating less red and processed meats”. Why? Because excess ingestion of red meat is directly linked to premature death, usually from either cancer or heart disease. This science behind these conclusions is concrete, as concrete as the research that shows smoking causes cancer. Believe both or neither, but you can’t choose just one.

Second, the environmental effects. Also noted in the article is the fact that, “In the United States, livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process, 37 percent of pesticides applied, 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, and a third of total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus to surface water.” We’re tearing up the earth so we can make food that kills us faster. Sweet.

The ethical argument is the one that most falls on deaf ears, but while we can agree to disagree that killing animals for for is wrong, animals should still be treated humanely while they’re alive. This point is not debatable. Caged animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and the abuse of animals by physical means or through the use of drugs is completely unacceptable, and makes us less compassionate as people.

Finally, the social and political aspects of farming animals for food are nearly immeasurable. Deforestation, erosion, contamination and the like, while terrible from an environmental perspective, all rape the land and makes farming for plants virtually impossible. Small farms are being bought up by conglomerates all over the globe, making sustainability for farmers in developing nations difficult. Dictators take land meant for the people and sell it to global corporations so they can cheaply grow feed for cows and pigs and chickens while people starve as the harvest drives by their towns.

We’re all ignorant to some degree, myself included. But, what’s we’re doing to ourselves and to others for the sake of food is disgusting. The more people who realize this, the better off all of us will be.

Red Meat Bad

In shocking news, a recent study proved yet again that all kinds of red meat are bad, and in so many ways. The study gained quite a bit of attention on the Internet and is summarized nicely in one fabulously named article, titled, “Red meat raises risk of all kinds of death – study“. All kinds of death! All kinds! That’s darkly funny, no?

The article starts with three summary points:

  • Heaviest meat-eaters die sooner
  • Effect is independent of smoking, other diet factors
  • Farming animals for meat hurts environment

I’ve written posts of this nature before, but these points require repeating to sink in. Something needs to be read seven times before its remembered, or so they say. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad. Red Meat Bad.

Of course the meat industry called the study flawed, but that was as predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow. Remember when we believed the cigarette companies? Just give it time. Not only does meat have negative health effects (read: cancer) it is also damaging to the environment.

Many studies have shown that people who eat less meat are healthier in many ways, and Sinha’s team noted that meat contains several cancer-causing chemicals, as well as the unhealthiest forms of fat.

The U.S. government now recommends a “plant-based diet” that stresses fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

Barry Popkin, an expert in nutrition and economics at the University of North Carolina, said the study was unusually thorough and careful.

Eating less meat has other benefits, he said, and governments should start promoting this. For instance, farming animals for meat causes greenhouse gas emissions that warm the atmosphere and uses fresh water in excess, he said.

“I was pretty surprised when I checked back and went through the data on emissions from animal food and livestock,” Popkin said in a telephone interview.

“I didn’t expect it to be more than cars.”

More than cars people, more than cars. Another article quoted a man who said he wasn’t necessarily advocating vegetarianism, which of course I do, but that meat should be taking a back seat to fruits and vegetables. The only way to move toward a meat-free society, and thus one with healthier people and a healthier environment, is to take baby steps. Make meat only part of one meal a day and make sure it’s not the biggest thing on the plate.

A Cleaner, Greener Missouri

I (still) work for a bank. Needless to say, the past few weeks have been tumultuous. Onward and upward. 

With only 47 days left until this country elects its first black president or two people who will further marginalize America on a global scale, we must not forget the other candidates up for election and the issues that will be on the ballot. One issue in particular is the focus of this piece, and that is bringing a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) to Missouri.

I won’t say too much besides that if passed, the standard would require Missouri utilities to gradually increase their use of renewable energy over the next 12 years, ramping up to 15% of Missouri’s electricity by the year 2020. And, if passed, would make Missouri the 27th state to implement some type of RES.

Three organizations are involved in the effort to see this standard implemented:

There’s the team, and a darn good one at that. Remember that this will NOT COST CONSUMERS MORE MONEY. A summary of the Consumer Cost Savings Analysis can be found here (.pdf), and the full report can be found here(.pdf).

Vote or die!

Who Turned Out The Lights?

Apparently it was the Bureau of Land Management, which said recently that an extensive study was needed to determined the environmental effects of the construction of large solar plants in the Western U.S. Helping the environment getting in the way of helping the environment. Sucks, doesn’t it?

So, coal plants are being shut down before they open (yeah!) , nuclear is on the hot seat and now solar projects are on hold for up to two years. From where will we get all the energy we need to waste? By the way, you can discover more about the moratorium from Dan Frosch here. A few tidbits from the piece though:

  • The manager of the Bureau of Land Management’s environmental impact study, Linda Resseguie, said that many factors must be considered when deciding whether to allow solar projects on the scale being proposed, among them the impact of construction and transmission lines on native vegetation and wildlife. In California, for example, solar developers often hire environmental experts to assess the effects of construction on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel.
  • While proponents of solar energy agree on the need for a sweeping environmental study, many believe that the freeze is unwarranted. Some, like Ms. Gordon, whose company has two pending proposals for solar plants on public land, say small solar energy businesses could suffer if they are forced to turn to more expensive private land for development.

Clearly there are two positions here, and on the surface both have the planet’s best interest involved, intentionally or not. Of course if I had a contract to produce and sell energy made from the sun I’d be hard pressed to agree with the moratorium. But, I don’t, so thinking a little caution is warranted is easy. Plus, building in the desert has already had enough negative environmental impact; my heart bleeds for the desert tortoise and the Mojave ground squirrel.

So why am I still feeling conflicted? Because, stopping large scale solar installations will have a negative effect on the entire solar industry. The average consumer who is considering the purchase of photovoltaic cells for his house or company will now suffer as well. The benefit to society of large scale technological innovation and implementation is that variations of that technology can be made available to you and me at a fraction of the cost, in a safe and efficient form. Solar technology will only get more efficient and cheaper over time. Stopping the production of solar plants for two years means delaying the small-scale benefits to individual consumers by two years, at least. While solar panels on homes and automobiles and factories won’t stop all greenhouse gas production, their mere presence raises awareness, and a little enlightenment goes a long way.

John McWhatThe . . .

I feel like I’ve been apologizing quite a bit recently for posting sparsely. Well, apologies for all the apologies, and once again for the original apology’s catalyst. The much more steady communicator, Sierra Club’s Carl Pope, sent me (and thousands, if not millions, of others) this email a few hours ago:

The Curious Senator John McCain
June 9, 2008

Richmond, VA — It’s getting harder and harder to understand where John McCain stands on energy. Here’s his story, just this year:

First he was against all subsidies. Then his policy staff told us that solar and wind did, after all, need tax credits even through McCain had voted against these. Then he was against subsidies again, except that there weren’t enough of them for nuclear in the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill, so he couldn’t support it. But he was definitely for renewables, efficiency, and for serious action on global warming. 

Then, today in Richmond, a donor offered him an entirely new version of his position, which McCain promptly embraced. McCain was gung-ho about nuclear power and expanded domestic drilling for oil and natural gas. When a donor in Richmond summed up his advice as “nuclear, and drill wherever we’ve got it,” McCain responded: “You just gave my speech. Thank you, my friend.”

This new position contradicts all previous versions of McCain’s stated energy goals, makes doing anything meaningful about global warming impossible, and puts McCain solidly in the “all-oil, 24/7″ Bush wing of American politics.

What’s clear is that John McCain is not only John “McSame” in regards to the Bush Administration’s economic policies, he is also completely mercurial in regards to effective environmental policy. What’s most frightening is that McCain’s inability to advance a concrete set of ideas related to the environment will hurt not just the planet, but the economy as well. If smart environmental policies are not devised and implemented, America’s energy and economic future will continue to hinge on the decisions of other countries, only some of which are friendly towards the U.S.

I think I’m finally over the high caused by Obama’s yet-to-be-made-final triumph. The real work starts now, and the biggest part of repairing the harm done to this country over the last eight years is to raise the overall awareness of Americans. If the facts can be communicated to the average voter, Obama will win by double digits.

Changing Habits

I received an email from Sierra Club today with a link to a website called 50 Ways to Help the Planet.

The crazy thing is, on the site, “they” give you 50 actual ways to help the planet. Unbelievable!

This isn’t the first published set of green action items, and it won’t be the last, but the lesson to take away from these lists is that they all ask people not to do things differently every now and then. but to change our habits. Only if fundamentally alter our behavior will we change the course we’re on.

The devastating climate change we’re experiencing currently took millions of people and decades to create. Changing to compact fluorescent light bulbs, while helpful, is only a small piece o the puzzle. The 49 others ways to help the planet presented on the list I’ve linked to should also be done by everyone; they must become habits.

Number 8 on the list – Go Vegetarian Once A Week – is the change in lifestyle that can go the furthest, yet is most often ignored by people. The site says, “One less meat-based meal a week helps the planet and your diet. For example: It requires 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. You will also also save some trees. For each hamburger that originated from animals raised on rainforest land, approximately 55 square feet of forest have been destroyed.”

Bill Maher talks about vegetarianism on his show frequently, but no one else in the popular media – if HBO can be considered that - ever mentions it. I’ve talked about it time and time again, most recently in reference to an article written in The New York Times by a freakin’ carnivore of all people. And like Mark Bittman, the author of the NYT piece, a realistic real goal for environmentalists should be to get people to eat meat only once a day, not just be vegetarian once a week.

So go check out the site; it has bitchin’ free wallpapers for download and some great t-shirts for purchase.

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

Mark Bittman does a yeoman’s job of summarizing the meat industry’s impact on the globe in this article. The facts are astonishing, mind-blowing, and will create real shock and awe in your mind if you synthesize them. And in light of the current global food crisis, the idea of reducing our collective meat intake makes even more sense. Please read the article in its entirety – I promiseyou won’t regret it, unless you like to be ignorant that is. Further, Bittman is not a vegetarian, so don’t think he’s predisposed to one side of the argument. His point is that those who choose to eat meat should eat much less to help both the environment and their health. Here are a few teasers from the piece:

  • . . . an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.
  • . . . a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
  • Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.
  • We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources.

I don’t want to repeat the entire article so that’s all I’ll give you. Seriously, go read it. It takes only a few minutes. I’m not telling you to become a vegetarian, though the change would be good for both you and your neighbors. I’m telling you to audit your meat intake and reduce the amount you eat while increasing the quality of it. That change alone, among all of us, will help redirect food sources to the people who need it most while significantly reducing pollution caused by the meat industry. You have to be a real jerk to order a double cheeseburger meal while people all around the globe struggle to find food daily. Throwing money at the problem is a bandage, not a long-term solution.

Renew Missouri

Apologies for the recent absence. While work has taken up some of my free time in the past few weeks, I’ve also been negligent about writing. Primarily due to the lack of motivation but also because I’ve been thinking about refocusing the site. More on that in a future post.

While not writing, I have been doing a fair share of reading, and a bit a volunteering – though not as much as I would like. Volunteering for what cause you ask? Renew Missouri.

Renew Missouri is a nonprofit corporation with the overarching goal of creating highly effective renewable energy policy in Missouri.

Click on the link above to learn more, but the group’s primary objective currently is to get Missouri out of the stone age.

Renew Missouri filed language to put a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) on the November 2008 Presidential election ballot.

The RES will require Missouri utilities to gradually increase their use of renewable energy over the next 12 years, ramping up to 15% of Missouri’s electricity by the year 2020.

I’ve spent some time helping get signatures. Not nearly enough time, but time nonetheless. The group needs more people to help with their time or dollars. So, for those of you who read this, please take a few (dozen?) hours to pound the pavement and get signatures. Or, if you can, donate some money to the cause; Renew Missouri has hired signature gatherers who are paid hourly to collect signatures.

Only 26 days left!

International Embarassment in Bali

More often than not, President Bush makes a mockery of himself and his office domestically. He usually gets on TV and says something so magnanimously stupid that only a childish smirk will abate the rage in viewers’ hearts and minds. It’s a brilliant tactic – make people think you’re seven and they won’t lash out at you. It’s the same tactic used by Puss in Boots in the Shrek films.  And surely, there have been times I thought the only way what I saw was happening could be true is if it were animated . . . but it wasn’t.

Ignoring climate change passively, by not participating in a global effort or by not pushing for new policies, can at least be spun as the prioritization of other objectives – namely blowing up innocent families in the Middle East. But, sending a representative to a climate change summit of epic proportions and having that representative actively negate the efforts being made by smarter and better people from around the world is disgusting. Carl Pope, in his perpetually educational newsletter, “Taking the Initiative“, brings it home.

Yesterday, first at a private breakfast with U.S. environmental groups, and then in a public presentation, James Connaughton, the chairman of the Whitehouse Council on Environmental Quality and head of the U.S. delegation, presented the U.S. analysis, showing that to stabilize the climate by 2050, the world must reduce its carbon emissions below a business-as-usual scenario: by between 25 and 40 gigatons. He laid out a wide variety of policy changes needed to achieve that goal, emphasized the need to understand that carbon pricing alone will not meet the need without regulation and investment, and emphasized repeatedly that while this is tough, “it can be done.”

And then . . .

So the head of the U.S. delegation understands the problem, its urgency, the solutions, and the global politics of getting the world on the same page. What does his delegation then do? Well, about an hour after the PowerPoint presentation, a story shows up in the Washington Post in which the U.S. delegation is quoted as saying that it will leave the problem of global warming for the next Administration to solve, that it refuses to make any commitments not only here but also at its own alternative — the “major emitters meeting.” And as the reports come back from the negotiating sessions on the various “tracks” that make up what Connaughton called “the Bali road map,” it’s clear that the U.S. and its allies have been refusing to permit closure or progress on anything — technology transfer, deforestation, financial incentives, or targets and timetables.

Sweet Baby Jesus! The United States isn’t the only country behaving badly, but its actions hold the most implications. From the Washington Post article referenced in Pope’s quote above:

“The United States once again can’t help itself from playing games, and it’s a high-stakes game,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, who was to meet with Connaughton along with other environmental leaders on Wednesday morning. “They’re going to play this game to the bitter end.”

The U.S. position is expected to hold sway here not only because the United States plays such an important role on the world stage, but because negotiators are fashioning a consensus document that needs to be approved unanimously by the nearly 190 participating countries.

You have to have guts to go to an area of the world where poor, coastal settlements are already having to deal with the effects of global warming and screw with progress. These decisions don’t make any sense, but then again, these morons have irrational behavior perfected.