“WIRED” magazines’ latest headline is as follows, “Attention Environmentalists: Keep your SUV. Forget organics. Go nuclear. Screw the spotted owl.”

Whew! Just wanted to share a few thoughts that might unwire a few of these front cover claims (although the big corp might have won my dollar by buying the magazine, I won’t necessarily buy all the jargon claimed by it).

There are ten instructions to action suggested by the magazine, I will comments on each. There are many great points, ones I am in total agreement with, but in general these are shortsighted, ‘cut carbon at all costs’ solutions that will perhaps benefit the current generations, but may leave the future ones in a jam.

1. Live in Cities

The current suburban model in North America, and many other countries who are following in our footsteps, just does not promote a sustainable way of living. Check out this map representing the amount of CO2 emitted per househould in the greater San Francisco area. I think it paints a pretty clear picture.

I’ll let Alex Steffen use his words to firm up the point, “Billions more people living in suburbs and driving SUV’s to shopping malls is a recipe for planetary suicide. We can’t even afford to continue that way of life ourselves.” Ahh the American Dream. But perhaps if everyone traded their grass lawns for vegatable gardens, and took their grid dependant homes off the grid with sustainable energy technology that is now available, we’d be going in the right direction…the extreme commuting is another story.

2. A/C is OK

This is an interesting analysis, and important to consider. Generally what they are hinting at is that it takes more energy to heat a home than it does to cool one with A/C. Good point, but don’t run with it, be conscious, whether you are heating or cooling; a few degrees either way makes a big difference.

3. Organics are not the answer

After the catchy title above, they go on to wisely say ,“Organic produce can be good for the climate, but not if it’s grown in energy-dependant hothouses and travels long distances to get to your fridge. What matters is eating food that’s locally grown and in season.” The other point under the ‘organic is bad’ heading is that of the cow. First regarding dairy “So it takes 25 organic cows to make as much milk as 23 industrial ones. More cows, more emissions.” It is a valid argument, but many other things must be taken in to consideration. I will still stick to buying local, organic milk sold in glass jars, over drugged up industrially produced milk from far away sold in plastic jugs. The third point is that of beef, again they say organic is worse. Perhaps they are right, but please do the homework for each situation. A local chunk of hamburger is much greener than those industrial patties that are raised on farms where tropical rainforest used to live, then shipped overseas to your belly. Increasingly, I am leaning towards the vegetarian route, not because of the poor little cow, but because of a myriad of environmental reasons; WIRED gave the interesting stat that meat eaters produce 1.5 tons of greenhouse gas per year more than a vegetarian. Hmmm, good healthy food for thought.

4. Farm the Forests

This is the first point that really made me cringe. The basis of the argument is that trees begin to lose the capacity to absorb as much carbon at about 55 years of age. If that fact is taken without any other considerations, then the math seems intriguing. But as Alex Steffen, from World Changing commented, “But even if WIRED’s math were correct, this would still be a crap fix for climate change. Chopping down forests causes massive soil erosion and leads to desertification, making repeated tree plantings a dodgy prospect. As monocultures, tree farms are far more vulnerable to pest infestations. And batches of trees planted at the same time are more susceptible to wildfires, causing the carbon they’re supposed to be sequestering to go up in smoke.” I think the ‘cut carbon at all costs’ attitude needs a little adjustment before all the trees are killed.

5. China is the solution, Not the problem

My knowledge is somewhat limited on this one. Wired states that 35% of the world’s solar cells are manufactured in China, and that they may be banking big on the green energy revolution. My suggestion, is that whatever product you are purchasing, consider a locally produced one over the ‘Made in China’ stamp.

6. Accept Genetic Engineering

Again, my knowledge is too limited to comment on this one.

7. Carbon Trading Doesn’t Work

Tricky one no doubt. First off reduce (by far the most important of the 3 R’s), then if you still pollute from frequent travel, offset using high quality, gold standard offsets. That is the route I will continue to take until the ‘better route’ WIRED suggested is a reality, which is a tax on fossil fuels.

8. Embrace Nuclear Power

Again Steffen said “That’s short term thinking. If we invested the money that we would spend on new nuclear facilities more wisely (and eliminated subsidies on fossil fuels), alternatives like wind, solar, hydroelectric, and wave power could deliver a clean-energy future more cheaply and probably sooner, without any of the security and or health risks of nuclear plants.” Consider Thom Hartmann’s argument in his book, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, “ …power producers have argued that they can label nuclear power as “green,” since, they say, it produces no air pollution. (This overlooks the fact that it takes 18 years of continuous operation before a nuclear plant begins to generate “new” electricity—the first 18 years it’s just producing an amount of energy equal to that used to mine and purify and transport its uranium fuel and to construct and maintain the plant itself.)” He also adds this statement which is the true crux of the situation, “What happens when the oil runs dry—when we no longer have stored up ancient sunlight? Where will the solar cells (or uranium) come from?”…..”This is a problem that environmentalists need to research and examine seriously.”

9. Used Cars, Not Hybrids

“A new Prius would have to travel 100,000 Miles to achieve the carbon savings that come from driving a 1998 Tercel.” The math here in WIRED makes good sense; we unfortunately can’t buy ourselves out of the situation. But be careful, WIRED suggests you should “Keep your SUV”, now that doesn’t mean that you can go run off and buy one!! My worry is that this article will be glanced over by most, and not critically examined enough to make informed decisions.

10. Prepare for the worst

WIRED, “62 years before atmospheric carbon will reach critical levels even if drastic steps are taken now.” Creating fear among the people will never work. I want to finish this post with a quote that is near the beginning of a book I’m reading right now called The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, by Thom Hartmann, “The reason most solutions offered to the world’s crises are impractical is because they arise from the same worldview that caused the problem. As you’ll see in this book, recycling won’t save the world, birth control won’t save the world, and saving what little is left of the rain-forests won’t save the world. Even if all those good things were fully implemented, our fundamental problem would still remain, and will inevitably be repeated. Even cold fusion and the elimination of the need for oil, with free electricity for everybody, will not “save the world.” Nothing but changing our way of seeing and understanding the world can produce real, meaningful, and lasting change…and that change in perspective will naturally lead us to begin to control our populations, save our forests, re-create community, and reduce our wasteful consumption.” At hint at what is involved in this perspective change is suggested in this last quote from Audrey Kitagawa, “…it means that what we must do as global citizens aware of what is going on in the global landscape, and we must turn that searchlight inwards, to do the ceaseless, fearless, self examination to see not only what must be changed, but how we must change.”  (my italics). 

I’d love to hear your comments…everyone has a different point of view, and they’re all important to consider. 

Much love folks…

I just finished reading a book by Frances Moore Lappe called “Getting a Grip - Clarity, creativity, and courage in a world gone mad”. The book talks about the current state of of the US Government right now, which she calls Thin Democracy; she spends much time talking about how as a people we have the power to create ‘living’ democracy. Learn more from her website.

Quotes….

Our ideas about reality determine what we see, what we believe is possible, and therefore what we become.

And when you think about it, how could we ever believe “the world” can change unless we experience ourselves changing?

The four hundred richest americans are all billionaires, with combined wealth of 1.25 trillion, roughly comparable to the total annual income of half the worlds people.

…as well as the need to feel that our lives matter, which for many people means contributing to something grander than our own survival.

Failing to bring meaning. Finally, Thin Democracy is dangerously vulnably because its materialistic premise can’t satisfy our higher selves’ yearning for transcendent meaning….Thin Democracy’s narrow, insulting assumptions about human nature cannot sustain dedication and sacrifice. Many US soldiers now risk their lives in war, believing they’re serving a high calling. But the built in logic of one rule economics mocks their idealism. Since 9/11, thousands of American soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, while executives of US armament corporations have made a killing, doubling their own compensation.

Living Democracy-democracy as a way of life, no longer something done to us or for us but what we ourselves create.

And the most productive hunters share the most.

Worldwide, for example, more than a third of all grain and 90 percent of soy gets fed to livestock. Future generations may well scratch their heads: You mean, in the early twenty first century their feedlot system put 16 pounds of grain and soy in to cattle to produce only one pound of beef on their plates? You mean that with the amount of water they used for that one pound of beef they could bathe for a year?
Similar plenty appears once we drop the scarcity lens surrounding energy. Our sun wind, waves, water, and biomass offer us a “daily dose of energy” 15,000 times greater than in all the planet harming fossil and nuclear power we now use, says German energy expert Hermann Scheer.

We and the butterflies are in this together.

Beneath our awareness, perhaps, we are coming to realize that our acts do matter, all of them, everywhere, all the time.

One Choice We Don’t Have: In fact, we have no choice about whether to be world changers. If we accept ecology’s insight that we exist in densely woven networks, as just noted, then we must also accept that every choice we make sends out ripples, even if we’re not consciously choosing. So the choice we have is not whether, but only how, we change the world.

Monkey See, monkey do, suddenly took on a whole new meaning for me. Since we humans are wired like our close relatives, when we observe someone else, our own brains are simultaneously experiencing at least something of what that person is experiencing.

In private life, when we go to a friend for advice and that friend simply listens, we’re often amazed to discover it is we oursevles who have the answers. We may have had them all along, but formulating our ideas to make ourselves clear to someone else enables us suddenly to “see” those answers for the first time.

Most of us learn to deny that we’re squelching such needs; maybe it is just to painful to acknowledge how much of ourslves we’re giving up. But if these needs aren’t met, most of us don’t just roll over and pretend we don’t have them; we seek their satisfcation in less than ideal ways…unable to safisfy our yearing for connection through common endeavor, we try the next best thing, to feel included because of our outer identities, wearing what’s “in” choosing work we think will please our parents or bring us status…Our yearning for power gets twisted, too. Power, as I’ve said, means our “capacity to act” but if we feel we can’t make a dent positively, we go for control. If we feel put down at work or at home, not heard or seen, we’re temped to try to exert control over something, maybe our child, our spouse. In its extreme form, the response to thwarting our innate need for power is violence.

Sitting deep in the cushioned armchair, his sweet face framed by a stiff white priests collar, Reverend Njoya paused for only a moment. Then he said, “Fear is an energy that comes from insdie us, not outside. It’s neutral. So we can channel it into fear, paranoia, or euphoria, whatever we choose.” He rose out of his chair. “Imagine a lion,” he said, crouching. “When a lion sees prey or predator, it senses fear first. But instead of lunging blindly in defense or in attack, it recoils.” Reverend Njoya moved back, leaning on his left leg and crouching lower. “The lion pauses a moment, targets his energies. Then he springs.”

I’m just a drop in the bucket. My effort might make me feel better, but it can’t do much…..Every time we act, even with fear, we make room for others to do the same. Courage is contagious.

From this premise of lack, we are finished. We end up locked in a belief system that actually creates the very scarcity we fear.

“Seeing is believing” is a charming aphorism, but maybe it’s also wrong. More accurately, when it comes to humans, “believing is seeing.” We must believe another way of living is possible in order to see it actually taking shape around us.

Mare Mead “Big campaign donors aren’t in it for altruism. They don’t consider their money a contribution; they consider it an investment.”

Which head of lettuce you pick up today or where you buy your next T-shirt may not seem like a world-chaning decision. But it is. The Spiral of Powerlessness is generated not only by laws on the books but by norms that our daily acts create. If we buy pesticide sprayed food, we’re saying to the food industry, yes, yes, give me more of that. If we buy organic instead, we are stimulating its production. (Why do you think McDonalds serves organic milk in Sweden but not here?)