Teach Your Children

Part of the responsibility of being a parent is to teach our children what we have learned from our life experiences. And one of the most pressing and difficult yet very necessary lessons that we, as stewards of this planet, need to pass on is how to treat the environment with more respect.

We hear phrases such as ‘green technology’ and ‘green methods’ and ‘green design’ all of which are indeed ‘designed’ to appeal to our general feeling of making positive progress towards becoming a more ‘environmentally friendly’ society. At first blush it appears that we are indeed reversing our past destructive trends and that we are finally on course towards a ‘green society’. But, is this hope warranted? Are we truly becoming green?

One industry leader defines ‘Green’ as “the design, commercialization, and use of processes & products that are feasible & economical while both reducing the generation of pollution at the source and minimizing the risk to human health & the environment”. This definition has its roots in the business model as evidenced by the words ‘feasible & economical’.

The idea of ‘feasible & economical’ underscores the most pressing issue that must be overcome in achieving a balance between the survival of the economy and the survival of the environment. And that is mankind’s propensity towards financial greed. I believe a balance can be struck. Unfortunately, I also believe there is still too much of an emphasis on becoming financially wealthy. And this drive typically leaves all other types of wealth by the wayside. One of those types of wealth is a thriving, sustainable, and richly diverse natural environment.

We need to take bigger steps towards truly becoming environmentally friendly. As long as financial considerations take precedent over environmental concerns we will never attain our goals of protecting the world we all live in. Oil rigs are still being erected despite the damage done, coal mines are still being dug despite the damage they cause and nuclear energy, solar power, wind power, wave energy, etc are still considered cost prohibitive.

Rallying behind a turn of phrase that serves business interests will only carry us so far. The real force behind any meaningful positive progress towards becoming a more environmentally friendly society falls to the actions and decisions made everyday by every individual. The old adage ‘there is power in numbers’ comes true here because in order for this to work we are all going to need to participate. It truly is the little things that add up to make a big difference.

Humans are cunning and just as resilient as nature herself and we will overcome the big environmental questions of the day. Of this I have no doubt. But until we place the well-being and survival of the environment above the business of making money we have to continue to ask ourselves ‘are we green yet?’


We cannot dwell on what we have not done in the past. Sure, we need to examine our mistakes in order to learn from them, but while we are doing this life is still moving on. We need to set an example.

More Doom and Gloom from Global Warming Scientists

We have all become too familiar with the incessant prophecies of how our planet is going to heat up to the point that global geography is going to change. The debate is about what is causing it and when will it happen.

Now scientists have come up with yet another prediction: the earth’s oceans will rise 1-2 feet over the next century instead of the previously predicted 1-4”.

The bottom line is we just don’t know the extent to which melting ice sheets are going to change the face of the earth.

Modern scientists have developed computer models to predict all sorts of outcomes but there still remain too many factors in order to reach a clear conclusion. And this isn’t taking in account a host of unknown factors.

Should we change our lifestyles based on unknowns? Historically, no one but the truly freaked-out alarmists ever has. This situation is becoming too reminiscent of the “chicken little” syndrome which will quite possibly lead many people to ignore these predictions altogether.

I say we rid ourselves of fossil fuel dependency because it is good for the environment and our health.

Global warming has been shown to be a part of the natural cycle throughout planet Earth’s existence. We are either going to experience it within the next 100 years or 1,000 years, but it will happen.

In the meantime, while the finger pointing continues and while scientists gather and calculate new findings, let us all individually concentrate on not contaminating our water, air and land and develop habits to the keep the Earth clean and humming along for the benefit of us and the planet.

Source: Physorg.com

Are We There Yet?

Do we have a grand plan for taking care of this planet or are we just stumbling along trying to make the best of the situation?

Planned communities are pretty popular here in the U.S. for those people who don’t want to take a lot of responsibility for their living environment. They hire homeowners associations to decide on and enforce whatever rules that every inhabitant is forced to live by.

Would this concept work if it were applied to the entire planet?

Perhaps it is something we need to look into. This free-form self-managed method of caring for our environment has left us with many areas of the earth decimated through the free-reign plundering of natural resources. We have created groups and devised plans to clean up afterwards but why don’t we have oversight groups with well thought out usage plans whose permission would have to be attained before the plunder takes place? I know there aren’t any places remaining that this plan could be experimented with but if we began to turn our attention to that line of thinking it would lead to a more conservation conscious public outlook.

We could possibly even learn (retrain ourselves) to put the long-term health of the environment as a high priority right up there with profit making. It just doesn’t seem right that the few people who lay waste to the landscape in search of resources for the implied purpose of benefiting so many should not add the cost of cleanup to the cost of extraction without leaving a mess for someone else to deal with. We all participate in the destruction of our plant and the depletion of its resources every time we participate in wasteful fuel consumption, purchase plastic products, or throw away any still-useable item. Understanding that we must participate in this wantonness in order to survive, why can’t we also understand that our lifestyles can be scaled back to be less resource-wasteful. It can be done, it is practiced every day. The road block to this is of course convincing yourself that you can live just as comfortably with less. Denying the chance to prove it to yourself is putting the responsibility onto someone else.

Just as with homeowners associations we have put the responsibility onto someone else. Only, in the case of the environment, the responsibility is overwhelming and cannot be accomplished by just a handful of groups. Especially since it seems we are at odds about the importance of such groups.

Just because we have organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency or a Department of Conservation or the World Wildlife Fund or a Center for Environmental Law doesn’t mean our responsibility ends with them. We can still do little things to make their jobs easier. And in doing so provide benefits to all of us.

We can do things like pick up trash that some unthinking or uncaring slob has thrown to the ground. We can stop the use of animal parts as jewelry or decoration. We can grow our own food, give away items that are no longer useful to us but may benefit someone else instead of tossing it into the landfill or having sit around collecting dust. This “out of sight out of mind” thinking needs to be put to rest. Just because we throw it away doesn’t mean we are no longer affected by it.

Plastic is killing off large numbers of wildlife and it seems we will never be rid of innovative plastic items that we just cannot live without. So at least we can be more responsible in its use and not just callously throw it on the trash heap. Help reduce the use of plastic if you can with more sustainable items such as reusable cloth or cotton shopping bags, ask fast food restaurants and coffee shops to use your reusable cups instead of their throw away cups, if they refuse then don’t patronize these establishments. Your body could probably use a break from these nutrient-deficient places anyway.

Some magazines are in the habit of including a lot of paper in the form of several subscription cards and other loose-leaf advertising, write to them and ask them to stop this practice. If they don’t want to listen to you then stop subscribing to the magazine.

The excess paper, in the form of advertising, that your credit card companies, cell phone service providers and other monthly billings include amount to a lot of excess useless paper that gets thrown in the trash or shredded. Take the time to ask them to stop this wasteful practice. If enough voices are heard they will have to listen.

We simply must understand the effect that each and every one of us has on our environment. It is a cop out to say ‘I am just one person and cannot possibly have any effect’. If this thinking were true then why is it that we have piles of trash? Each person throws trash out and it accumulates into huge mountains. So please don’t hide behind this lame excuse. Let’s each of us think about how we are part of the picture and each one of us please do something every day.

So, to answer the original question, No, we do not have a master plan. But, all of us collectively working as if there was a master plan to keep this planet healthy wouldn’t that in effect be a master plan? We can make a difference.

A New Environmentalism

We are constantly reminded by environmentalist that we all need to kick in and do our part to make this world a better place in which to live.

We see it in the blogs and websites we visit. We hear about it on radio and television, mainly on the Public Broadcasting stations. There are pockets of environmental activism groups sprouting up here an there but it just seems that there are still so many people who don’t believe their small part can make any real difference.

The underlying inhibiting factor to seeing more local activism is that people feel impotent with regard to politics and public affairs. The feel they have been pushed out of public life and that getting involved makes little difference in their community.

If people could be convinced that what they do would make a difference then they would do more. It is difficult to develop stewardship if it cannot be connected with personal responsibility. Without a clear connection between our actions and individual responsibility to the environment then all of the scenes of marine wildlife choking to death from ingesting our plastic throwaways or the many urgent calls from scientists to lessen our carbon footprint will go unheeded.

Throughout history, society has placed the power of caring for us and the environment in the hands of politicians and we have adopted the idea that it is their problem and therefore it is out of our hands, and with this attitude we have effectively taken ourselves out of the picture. Government models consequently take up the policy of ‘command and control’ through which laws and lawsuits are meant to shape our behavior.

While we cannot legislate responsibility or good judgment, individuals are beginning to recognize a common interest and a common purpose in becoming a more active and responsible citizen through recycling, water conservation, and fuel economy.

People and companies have made great strides in becoming more environmentally responsible. However, these efforts still fall short of what is needed for the long term health of this planet. While the ecosystem has some abilities to correct or heal itself, the limitations on the damage it can sustain are quickly approaching. It is vital that even more people begin to recognize the seriousness of these issues and start taking personal responsibility for what they are doing to the environment.

We can find plenty of sources to tell us what we need to do, and we need to herald the activities of the countless citizen groups and individuals that are participating in the environmental movement in hopes of igniting a more participatory spirit. We don’t need free-market environmentalism that depends entirely on the whims of the individual and the economy, we do need a participatory environmentalism that emphasizes community partnerships between local businesses, local governments, local individuals and stewards who are closest to the resources.

The old environmentalism has developed a loss of local control for citizens and local governments that often find themselves at odds with the Environmental Protection Agency and mired in politics instead of science. This has led to contradictions between what individual property owners believe is best for their own interests vs. what is in the best interest of the community.

Shortly after the creation of the EPA it soon became apparent that a centralized form of ecosystem management was flawed. Only when locals have a say in their own community and environmental civics can we see great strides in protection of our unique ecosystems.

Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959), the great American architect, practiced his own brand of environmental civics by insisting that homes conform with their natural settings.

Aldo Leopold (1887-1948), the great Wisconsin conservationist and author of A Sand County Almanac, believed that conservation is too important to be left to government alone; it is a realm for individual responsibility, good science and economic reality.

Like Leopold, I believe that if we don’t have committed, responsible citizenry then all the efforts in the public sphere will go for naught.

We cannot give up control of our local environments to the ‘one-rule-fits-all’ mentality of the federal or even state governments. Forming constructive partnerships is difficult and sometimes frustrating work but the effort to do so is essential.

To paraphrase Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem In Memoriam 27 ’Tis better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all’.

As always, comments are welcomed and encouraged.

Is global warming a conspiracy

There’s an undertow to global warming today concerning scientists who don’t believe global warming is as big of a threat to humanity as is the general consensus.

In the vast global warming arena, hurricane building is one method scientists use to debate global warming’s impact.

William Gray, the well-known Colorado State University hurricane forecaster, routinely uses the annual National Hurricane Conference as a platform to bash global warming. Gray argues that the scientific consensus on global warming is bogus — and "a mild form of McCarthyism has developed toward those scientists who do not agree" that mankind is in danger.

He basically derides anyone who portrays global warming as a doomsday scenario to be alarmists and charlatans out to brainwash our children.

In the pre-Inconvenient Truth days global warming was a topic discussed mainly among environmental hobbyists and a few scientists. Since then it has become the number one threat to all mankind.

Is global warming the harbinger of Earth’s final days? And does mankind have anything to do with hastening its arrival?

Al Gore is not a scientist, he does however possess the ability to marry climate change science with fears of climate change to produce a very effective piece of documentary film work that has garnered a huge following.

Casting Al Gore as the unchallenged guru of climate change is dangerous and disingenuous to true scientific discipline. It represents the lazy mans way of scientific study.

In this day of quick and easy access to an overwhelming amount of data on any subject, we tend to search for and more readily accept easily digestible packets that best match our view of the world. Access to widespread distribution allows for quicker dissemination of popular ideas which are then, too often, taken for fact. When you invest your belief system in what later turns out to be erroneous facts you begin to question your ability to determine what is real or fiction.

At the risk of being labeled a climate change contrarian, I will state that environmentalist want to believe that mankind is the evil doer in the climate change scenario. Climate change has been taking place since the earth was created. I will not dismiss human-kinds effect on climate change, I just want to go on record that the human connection to climate change has not yet been definitively defined. I am certain there are other mitigating factors of which I am sure humans have some link to but we are not alone in bringing about global warming. Nor do I believe we will come to an end as a result of it.

We need more proof before buying into what amounts to be a conspiracy theory of which every human has unwittingly taken part.

Science has been stumbling through theories about the climate since a Swedish scientist published, in 1896, the new idea that as humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This process was dubbed "greenhouse effect" and was only one of many speculations about climate, and not the most plausible.

In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public awareness of the effects of human activity on the planet. Curiosity soon turned into anxious concern. Alongside the greenhouse effect, some scientists pointed out that human activity was putting dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s. This contradiction in scientific findings led to a division in public opinion, those who believed we were headed toward major flooding of coastal area as the ice caps melted versus the school of thought that the Earth was about to enter a catastrophic new ice age.

Climate is a vastly intricate system that responds to many influences, such as variations in the heat of the sun, volcanoes erupting clouds of smoke, subtle changes in Earth’s orbit, and even the raising and lowering of mountain ranges which divert wind patterns and ocean currents. These changes are subtle and beyond man’s control, but they do have an influence on the climate. To say that mankind’s influence on the climate overshadows any of these naturally occurring phenomena is simply placing too great an importance on mankind’s ability.

We can of course minimize our own influence but that would require a Herculean effort to get everyone to act as one and truly, when has that ever happened? Not a very likely scenario is it? Scientists cannot even get organized enough to give us a single answer to the cause of global warming because there are simply too many influences. How could we possibly come up with a solution to reverse the global warming trend?

So, why do we put so much faith in one man who is not even a scientist or an expert in the field of climatology?

Perhaps if scientists could all pool their money and create a flashy documentary film that would show climate change to be a good thing and tirelessly push it on the talk circuit the rest of us would relax enough to live our lives and not worry so much about that which we truly have so little control over.