The following is an ongoing exchange between myself and a right-wing colleague inspired by an article I had read in the New York Times. I admit that I got nasty at points during the discussion, but I've become completely fed up with trying to play nice with planet-killing Nazis.

Dear S -

Here is the article from the New York Times that I was telling you about. The evidence is now out that a concerted effort was made to deceive the American public about the true dangers of climate change! The ironic thing is that the car industry was actively involved in paying scientists to propagate this deception. And now the bastards have the gall to expect to be bail out by the American taxpayer!

M -
-------------------------------------
Dear M-

Your smoking gun article about the auto and oil industry actually belied your whole conspiratorial mania . . . the scientists were being paid by these industries . . . AND THEY STILL FOLLOWED THE EVIDENCE!

Other scientists do the same thing, and come to different conclusions.

Of course, global warming scientists would never slant their findings to get a grant, endowed chair, or prestigious award.
In your world, corruption only goes in one direction.

Anyhooo, considering that the Sun (you remember the Sun - the Great Global Warmer) is now totally inactive on its surface and seems headed for a long period of calm associated with global cooling trends - I'm sure you'll be willing to revise your stance.
Of course, since it's all really a front for anti-capitalist anti-corporate ideology - that really won't matter, will it? :-)

S -
----------------------------------------
Dear S -

I am interested in objectivity about this issue. I want a rational discussion about the full extent of climate change and what it means for the planet. But objectivity is impossible when multinational corporations use their virtually unlimited funds to create a climate of doubt and uncertainty to serve their own selfish interests. The psychopaths in charge of these companies (and the whores in Washington who continually support them) are not interested in an objective discussion about this topic; their goal is to do everything that they possibly can to prevent ANY kind of environmental regulations from being implemented.

The actions of the people in charge of these corporations have convinced me that coporate--i.e., American--capitalism is fundamentally irrational and needs to be totally undermined in order for the planet to survive. The pursuit of quarterly profits at any expense, which is at the heart of our capitalist ethic, is the ultimate evil in the world today. Thank god we now have a president who at least is intelligent enough to realize that there are a few more important things in life than corporate profits.

I only hope that your Republican buddies keep harping on Obama's "socialist" agenda, the "myth" of global warming and the threat that gay marriage poses to our American way of life. With an agenda like that, liberals will be in charge of the country for the next 100 years!

Warmest regards,
M -
-------------------------------------
What about the environmentalists and socialists who don't care about the evidence - as long as they have a club to beat capitalists with facts are unimportant - aren't they just as unconscionable? Of course they are.

And in terms of "psychopaths" and "whores":

1. You don't actually know any, which makes you seem a bit irrational and hysterical.

2. This hysteria makes you much less convincing, which suggests you're more interested in self-righteousness than effective persuasion of other people - a point I've made may time before.

3. It reeks a bit of communist propaganda about the "bourgeoisie" - and its attendant desire to liquidate them in order to build a better world tomorrow. If that's the case, just front up about it, and stop with the pseudo-Christian, new humanist approach to this issue. You want to destroy capitalism - stop using phony environmentalism to do it.

The rest of your screed proves the point that it's more about capitalism than the environment. I mean honestly, what would you do if the evidence showed that capitalism is good for the environment? Your mind would be cleaved in two for a while, but I know you'd stick with your anti-capitalist ideology.

In terms of the President, I think you'll find American history shall continue apace with its normal tick-tock between Republicans and Democrats, between Conservatism and Progressivism.

Only a communist would really hope the victory is permanent. A conservative knows, this too shall pass.

With Even Warmer Regards,
S -
--------------------------------------------------
Dear S -

I have as little use for eco-progressives (my own term) who are loose with the facts as I do with right-wingers. However, I do believe that the folks on my side have both the correct facts as well as the moral high ground on this issue. Of course, this could simply be a reflection of my own liberal biases.

To answer your objections:

1) You are absolutely correct. I don't know any psychopaths. The term that I should have used is "sociopaths". A sociopath is someone who is capable of causing incredible harm to others for his own selfish ends and with absolutely no remorse for his actions. Given this definition, I would have to argue that the heads of most major American corporations, the former President of the United States, and most of the leadership of the Republican Party qualify as sociopaths. Many Democrats in Congress who did nothing while the Bush administration was raping our natural resources, however, probably do as well.

2) One man's hysteria is another man's passionate articulation of an important issue (e.g., climate change). My violent attacks on the right wing of this country, who continue to do all they can to block any sensible environmental legislation, is intentional. I used to believe that it was possible to reason with rabid right-wingers (I don't include you in this group), but now I think that they simply need to be beaten into complete and total submission and swept into the garbage heap of history. It is the same strategy that conservatives used against liberals for decades, and it worked for a while. Now it is our turn to decimate those who led this country into financial and moral ruin.

3) It is completely and totally Catholic to destroy those who would cause moral, spiritual, or physical harm to the innocent. That was the whole point of the crusades and the inquisition, wasn't it? I agree that my sentiments are not very humanistic however.

By the way, I would not consider myself a communist at all. I don't really think that there are any communists left on the planet- anyway. That's just a smear that conservatives use to try to undermine the arguments of anyone in favor of a sane, well-regulated, ecologically responsible form of capitalism. And that is the only thing that I have been advocating. The fact that conservatives stand in the way of sensible regulations that would protect the environment is the reason that I am now adamant about their utter and complete political demise. This is the one area where I think Obama is incredibly foolish. He thinks that he can convince Republicans to act in a bipartisan way for the good of the country and the plant. I know damn well that this is a naive pipe dream.

I remain, as always...

Respectfully yours,
M -
------------------------------------
Love that e-mail. You gave me a lot to chew over.

I really am an extreme right-wing person - as the definition is normally applied. (Which is why I find the ad hominem, conspiratorial attacks so unconvincing. I know these people, I am one of these people - and we're doing what we think is right and just).

I am fascinated that you think of yourself as a proponent of responsible capitalism. I would not ask you to do it now at this busy time of year, but I would love to hear your defense of capitalism against the communist argument. Would you start spitting up pea soup and speaking ancient Aramaic if you had to do it?

In general though, a thoughtful and reasonable argument.

I leave in you possession of the field sir.

S -
-------------------------------------------------
No, dear sir, I will leave you with the last word. And I do hope that we can continue this discussion at some point over some beer...A much more civilized way to do battle than via email!

M -

A Sign of the Times

.....As Mike correctly pointed out in a previous post, all signs indicate that the consumption level of Americans is being reduced in the face of economic uncertainty. This clearly is welcomed news, considering that we Americans previously had the lowest rate of savings and highest consumption rate in the developed world.

.....I recently paid a visit to my local butcher, and asked if the recession was hurting his business at all. He said that, on the contrary, our rotten economy has actually been helpful to him. As he put it, "Instead of people going out to dinner and spending $100 on steak, they have been coming to me, and for $20 they can get two of the best steaks we have."

.....I use this steak example with no offense intended towards my vegan friends. We all agree that it would be preferable if Americans also simplified their meal choices to include more plant-based foods. But the fact remains that many Americans are choosing to forgo fancy restaurants and buying items they don't really need, because their values are beginning to change as they confront the reality of economic uncertainty.

.....A cultural shift may very well be occurring in which people begin to embrace - or at least are more open to - the ideals of movements like Voluntary Simplicity, Sustainable Economics, and Smart Growth. Yes, there will always be people who choose to drive gas-guzzling vehicles and to live excessive lifestyles, but hopefully, such individuals will become the exception rather than the norm in our society.

So who's hurting, anyway?

I keep hearing about how tough times are for Americans during what many economists are calling the "greatest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression." But I have to confession that here on Long Island--epicenter of the the crudest form of crass consumerism on the planet--I just don't see any evidence at all that people are changing their behavior in the face of economic uncertainty.

I went to the mall the other day to buy some much needed curtains for the house ($29 on sale at J.C. Penny's, in case you were interested). It was a Wednesday morning around 11am and I was amazed to find that the parking lot of the mall was as packed as ever with the usual assortment of over-priced cars and SUVs. As I struggled to find a spot to park my 15 year old Corolla, I couldn't help noticing all the people leaving the mall loaded down with shit that they probably didn't really need. Inside, the mall seemed about as crowded as ever with the typical garish, self-absorbed drones--drinking Starbuck lattes, of course--who have always shopped there.

Am I just living in a land-o-plenty in an otherwise struggling country, or are these people simply incapable of reducing their consumption after so many decades of habitual buying? My guess is that it is the latter. We are so used to deriving our happiness and meaning from what we buy that the idea of reducing consumption is sacrilege to many Americans.

The good part of all this is that those of us who have been living prudently will ultimately benefit from the inability of our neighbors to stop shopping. They may drive their own families into bankruptcy because they must have the latest Ipod or flat screen TV, but this sort of desperate consumption is probably all that stands between us and total economic annihilation. Certainly, if the economy of the United States had to depend exclusively upon cheap bastards like myself, we'd all be in very big trouble. All I can say is, thank god for other people's addictive tendencies!!!

Screw Authority!

While the rest of my friends on EcoBlog are content to sit quietly by while "The Man" decides the fate of this blog, I decided that I would engage in my own act of rebellion by continuing our discussions on my own. After all, there is such a thing as freedom of speech!

So here are a few thoughts that I have had lately...

After eight years of having a cosmically stupid, corrupt, and immoral figure head to rant against, I find myself torn during the first few months of the Obama regime. While I definitely think that Obama is at heart a progressive, I also think that he may just be a tad too centrist in his approach to politics to initiate the kind of policies that this country needs right now. What we need is a truly sustainable version of American capitalism that avoids the kinds of market excesses that we have seen over the past 30 years. This means returning to the kind of highly regulated economy that we had in the 60s, creating a re-energized labor movement that can fight for worker's rights, promoting universal health care for all Americans, providing economic support to develop green technology, and divising a truly progressive tax structure to diminish the gross economic disparities that currently exist within this country.

From what I've seen, there is no support within the Democrat-led Congress or the White House for these kinds of radical changes. Still, the incremental steps that Obama has been taking recently to soften some of the harsh edges of American corporate capitalism are light-years beyond anything Bill Clinton ever would have considered, and are certainly better than the abysmal policies of the Bush years.

--------------

Being the optimist that I am, I still believe that this economic downturn may actually prove to be the best thing that ever happened to the United States. Consumption is down, savings are up, and many Americans are actually beginning to recognize that the future is something worth considering. Who knows: perhaps the lessons that we have learned during this downturn might actually convince Americans to try to live a bit more modestly and sustainably. In the long-run that would definitely be a good thing for the country and for the planet.

So I say...Rock on Recession!!!!

EcoBlog Temporarily Suspended

"Out of clutter ... find simplicity. From discord . . . find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity. "- Albert Einstein

Due to important changes taking place on the Long Island college scene, posting on EcoBlog will be suspended until January 2009. At that time, Molloy College will be establishing a Sustainability Center and hiring new personnel with expertise in ecology, environmental activism, and ecospirituality. It is anticipated that this blog will be managed in the future by one of these individuals.

Those who have faithfully contributed to this blog believe that it is vital to discuss important environmental issues in a forum that allows for the maximum amount of free speech. Libertarians, leftists, communitarians, and social conservatives have all be given the opportunity to voice their opinions on this blog without any censorship whatsoever. At times the debates that have taken place may have been loud, but they were always interesting. We anticipate that this sort of open exchange of ideas will continue in the future.

Many thanks to those individuals who have contributed regularly to this blog--most notably, Dr. Fallon, Mike, Sara, and Narcissus, and BklynDem. We certainly hope that all the readers of and contributors to this blog will return in January when posting will resume once again.

Sustainably yours,
Ecoblogger

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

Number of days until the establishment of the Molloy College Sustainability Center: ????

The Green Choice in 2008?

In recent weeks, we have been having endless debates over which of the candidates in the 2008 presidential election would do a better job advancing a "Green" political agenda than the current President. Thankfully, whoever gets elected in the fall, we are bound to see a dramatic change in the environmental policies of our government, and most of us here at EcoBlog are optimistic that this change will be for the better.

But who really is the optimal Green candidate? The on-line environmental site, Grist, put together a web page that does a fairly good job analyzing the environmental positions of each of the major candidates.

The bottom line seems to be that Ralph Nader, not surprisingly, has the most consistent track-record on the environment. McCain, has been great on issues like global warming in the past, but has changed his tune on many environmental policies since he started running for President again, and has moved firmly to the right on many issues important to environmentalists. Obama has impressed many on the left with his strong environmental policy statements and his refusal to support a suspension of federal taxes on gas during the summer, but who knows if he will actually have the strength to take on the gas, oil, and automobile industries when, and if, he does become President.

My view: Nader is the best choice for anyone supporting a Green agenda, but we all know that he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning this fall. Still, it might send out a strong message to the Democratic Party if environmentalists in solidly-Democractic states, like New York, California and Massachusetts threw their votes behind Nader, rather than Obama, to let those in charge of the Party know that they can't simply continue with business as usual when it comes to environmental legislation. In swing-states, like Florida and Michigan, I would definitely play it safe and go with Obama, who seems preferable to McCain on most of the issues near and dear to the hearts of all ecoprogressives.

What do you think? Does this idea make any sense at all to those of you who would like to see this country move in a more ecologically responsible direction?

Shamelessly Shocking and Stupid...As Usual

I read a fabulous editorial by Thomas Friedman in the NYT (Mr. Bush Lead or Leave) last week and felt compelled to share it along with my own violent rantings to provoke yet another round of vehement reaction from the conservatives and libertarians who regularly comment on this blog.

As Friedmen points out, Bush's solution to the high price of oil that is killing poor and middle-class Americans is--surprise, surprise!--to try to coerce Congress into lifting the ban on drilling off-shore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Forget about the fact that the economic benefits of this short-sighted plan wouldn't be felt for years to come and even then wouldn't make much of a difference in the price of oil. Bush has never been concerned about logic or what is actually in the best interest of working Americans.

What makes matters even worse is that he has decided to blame Democrats for the high price of oil because the leaders in the Democratic party--and their Presidential candidate, Barack Obama--actually have the audacity to want to find other, more sustainable ways out of our current oil crisis. As Bush put it: "I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past. Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If congressional leaders leave for the 4th of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high oil -- how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it."

You have to admire Bush's audacity. Despite having the worst environmental record of any elected official in the Universe, and despite having consistently obstructed efforts of Democrats in Congress to fashion any kind of meaningful environmental policies, and despite having prevented states like California from acting on their own to curb emissions, this pathetic loser instead blames Democrats for his own monumental failings as a President. Talk about chutzpah!

The website "Crooks and Liars" has recently posed a challenge to its readers. It asks, "Can you name one positive legacy of George W. Bush’s presidency?" The responses that the website has received are actually quite funny and definitely worth reading.

When it comes to environmental policy, I think that anyone who is the least bit objective about Bush and his crime family (oops, I guess that leaves me out!) must acknowledge that the past seven years have proven absolutely disastrous for our country and for the planet. Could this lame-ass, moronic whore for the oil industry possibly have done anything less to combat global warming or to reduce its most devastating impacts on future generations? The only people who can possibly be pleased about Bush's incessant opposition to any kind of rational energy plan for this country are the bloated pigs who run our oil companies and who would rather see the planet destroyed than to allow even the most minimal decline in their quarterly earnings. George Bush has got to be the best friend that these greedy bastards have ever had in the White House.

The one consolation that the entire world has after seven years of wasted effort when it comes to energy conservation, the promotion of renewable energy sources, and participation in worldwide efforts to address global warming is that very soon the most immoral, indecent, shockingly stupid human being who has ever held public office will driven out of office to the relief of 70% of the normal people in this country and the thanks of the rest of the world's population.

Although John McCain, like Bush, supports off-shore drilling for oil, were he elected President, he might actually try to work collaboratively with members of Congress to devise a comprehensive energy plan that doesn't completely sell-out to the oil industry. I personally think that Barack Obama would do an even better job at promoting and funding alternative, renewable energy sources and might be a tad less beholden to oil interest. One thing is certain: whoever becomes President in the fall, it will take many years to wipe out the odious stench of corporate cronyism that Bush has left in the White House. I hope that whoever gets elected remembers to bring some heavy-duty disinfectant with them!

The Chinese Conundrum

The Chinese currently have a population of 1.3 billion people. The U.S. has a population of 300 million.

The average ecological footprint of one Chinese citizen in 2006 was approximately 2.0 (a footprint of 2.0 means that that it takes approximately two global acres of resources to sustain each person in China). By comparison, the ecological footprint of the average American in 2006 was 24, which basically means that the typical American was using ten times the Amount of resources as the typical Chinese.

The problem is that the entire planet’s biocapacity is 4-5 global acres per person. This wouldn’t be much of an issue if everyone on earth lived more like the average Chinese rather than the average American. Unfortunately, those 1.3 billion people in China (not to mention their friends in India, Thailand, and the rest of the developing world) have a strange desire to live like we do here in the U.S. Instead of riding bicycles, they want to drive cars or SUVs; instead of eating their traditional, healthy, low-fat, mostly plant-based foods, they want to eat Big Macs and Kentucky Fried Chicken; instead of shopping at stores selling inexpensive locally produced products, the want to buy imported TVs, DCD players and Ipods at suburban-style mega-shopping malls. In short, they want exactly what we have, and, since everyone knows that our American way of life is as close to perfection as one can find in the universe, who can really blame them?

But, if everyone in China actually tried to live like the typical American, our fragile little planet would no longer be able to sustain life as we know it.

So, as I see it, we have two options:

1. We can tell the Chinese that they don’t have the right to live so damned irresponsibly and discourage them from trying to live the kind of lifestyle that we have here in the U.S. This, however, would be a bit hypocritical on our part…rather like telling the Brazilians they shouldn’t clear-cut their forests after we have all but decimated our own.


2. Or, we can try to set a moral example ourselves by taking the steps necessary to reduce our own exorbitant levels of consumption and, in doing so, reduce our ecological footprint to a more reasonable level. Don’t worry. This doesn’t mean that we would have to live like people in Bangladesh. We could, however, try to adopt some of the more ecologically sound practices of Europeans, whose average ecological footprint is only 4.9. Anyone whose ever been to Germany or France will tell you that life is pretty damned good in Europe, even if they do have to recycle and pay a bit more for gas than we do.
   

Perhaps if we did make an effort to get our ecological footprint down to even European levels, we might actually set a positive moral example for the developing world instead of promoting a model of consumption that can only lead to the death of our planet. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Chinese will necessarily follow our example, but, at the very least, for once—just for once—we wouldn’t seem quite so hypocritical when we exhort other nations to behave responsibly.

A Fishy Practice

In this blog we have had some interesting debates about whether it is necessary to go completely vegan if one is really concerned about issues of animal cruelty. While acknowledging that veganism is the ideal diet for all those concerned about the welfare of animals, the well-being of the planet, and their own physical health, I argued that a vegan diet is far too difficult for most people to follow, and that a more viable option for most people would be to follow a low-fat vegetarian diet such as the one recommended by Dr. Dean Ornish that includes limited amounts of low- or non-fat dairy products (milk, egg whites, yogurt, and cheese), ideally from animals that have been raised humanely. I agree, however, that the goal of anyone even remotely concerned with issues of animal ethics would be to eat as much of their food as possible from plant-based sources and to dramatically reduce their consumption of all animals and animal products.

There are some confused individuals, however, who believe that they are following a vegetarian diet, even though they still eat fish regularly (they are technically referred to as pesco-vegetarians). It’s almost as though these people have convinced themselves that salmon, tuna, and Chilean sea bass are not really animals, and that the rules they follow with regard to the humane treatment of other species don’t really need to be applied to marine life. Let’s get this straight: (1) fish are sentient life-forms like all other animals and they feel as much pain as other animals when they are slaughtered, and, (2) if you are concerned about issues of animal cruelty, you will eat fish as regularly as you would a slab of cow flesh…which means not at all.

When one considers the health risks involved in eating fish loaded with mercury (e.g., tuna, swordfish, shark, etc) and other dangerous containments such as lead, industrial chemicals (e.g., PCBs) and pesticides, it becomes evident that—despite all of the propaganda issued by the USDA and their pimps in the corporate fish lobby—the risks involved in eating seafood very well may outweigh the benefits. And when one realizes that our current fishing practices are driving many of the world’s marine populations to extinction, there is even a greater moral argument for eliminating fish from one’s diet.

I would like to hear how our pesco-vegetarian friends justify the consumption of seafood while clearly having moral qualms about eating land-based animals. I may be a bit naïve, but I don’t really understand how it is any more ethical to chow-down on salmon steak than it would be to consume a hunk of cow, pig, or chicken. Could someone explain the logic of this to me?

Tough Luck, Suckers

When I came cack to the United States after several years of studying in Belgium in the early 1990s, I was amazed by the number of Americans who had suddenly taken to driving SUVs. After all, in Europe people were more than content to get around in their small, fuel-efficient cars or to use mass transportation if they had to travel longer distances.

Because of the unsustainably low price of gas, however, Americans wanted to drive huge, gas-guzzling monstrosities that would allow them to dominate other drivers on the road (In some cases, the choice of an excessively large SUV may have also been an attempt by some insecure men to make up for inadequacies in other areas...but we can leave that sort of speculation to mental health professionals). In buying these idiotic vehicles, no one ever bothered to think for one moment about the impact that driving an SUV would have on the planet. Nor did many Americans reflect upon the fact that gas prices would eventually have to rise due to diminishing oil reserves and increasing demand for oil from other parts of the world (i.e., China and India). As in the case of the housing crisis, the shortsighted dolts who needed the drive these planet-killing machines deluded themselves into thinking that they could have it all, and that there were no personal or social consequences to be paid for their sheer stupidity and greed.

But now the hens have come home to roost. With gas prices hovering around $4.00 a gallon, all of a sudden soccer moms and their macho suburban husbands have come to realize that their prize SUVs, which in the past had given them such tremendous feelings of power on the road, are actually financial liabilities, threatening to bankrupt their already financially overextended families. And, try as they might, they can't sell these behemoths, because their less shallow countrymen are looking to buy hybrids and other smaller fuel-efficient vehicles in an age where gas prices can only keep increasing.

The one consolation that SUV owners still have, however, is that they will still have the biggest and most powerful toys on the road. And spending $100 to fill up your tank is a small price to pay to help SUV owners overcome the feelings of inferiority that led them to buy these idiotic vehicles in the first place. Sometimes size does matter. But that will be a small consolation when it comes to choosing between filling up your SUV at the pump and paying your mortgage. Life really is unfair, isn't it!

Continuing Thoughts on Veganism

Yes, adopting a vegan diet can help save the planet, eliminate unnecessary cruelty to animals, aid in feeding the world’s hungry, and reduce the blobs of fat that currently hang on American’s guts and posteriors. The choice to eliminate all animal products from one’s diet is probably one of the most moral decisions that any human being can make in this age of planetary distress. I congratulate anyone able to forsake the flesh and by-products of the beast, whether they do so for moral, health, or aesthetic reasons.

My own little experiment with veganism, however, has convinced me that it is damn difficult to put into practice if you don’t have the luxury to live in more enlightened parts of the country like California, Oregon, or Vermont. Even here in New York—supposedly a bastion of progressivism in the United States—it is extremely difficult to find places to eat suitable for those practicing veganism (good luck trying to find anything even remotely vegan on the menus at Applebees, Friday’s, or Friendy’s!). Vegan meals are also much more labor intensive to prepare and require much more forethought than other kinds of food choices.

That having been said, we Americans can no longer afford to continue to eat the way we have since the 1960s with animal products and fast food making up the bulk of our food choices. In his provocative article in the New York Times, “Unhappy Meals,” Michael Pollen gives the most practical tip on how to eat a healthy—and fairly planet-sustaining—diet:

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Although this may sound a bit simplistic, if more Americans tried to put this advice into practice, the entire planet would ultimately benefit. The key to success seems to be to take incremental steps in reducing one's overall consumption of animal products. There is absolutely no reason why an ecologically conscious person couldn't limit his or her consumption of animal products (dairy, eggs, and cheese for example) to two or three times a week, and perhaps reserve the consumption of animal flesh to the odd special occasion or holiday. This compromise would probably not satisfy a hard-core vegan, but it would be a dramatic improvement to the typical American diet and would significantly reduce the amount of animal cruelty currently practiced.

Is this a reasonable compromise or a cop-out? Let me know what you think.

The Vegetarian Alternative

Two weeks ago I asked a few students, faculty and administrators at Molloy to participate in a little video project called, "The Vegetarian Alternative: Why Our Food Choices Matter." The idea was to see if we could put together a "documentary" on an important social topic using only inexpensive technology (we chose the $139 Flip video recorder) and free video editing software (Microsoft's Moviemaker). The result was not quite a masterpiece, but it does give campus carnivors and vegetarians the opportunity to talk about the significance of their daily food choices.

Many thanks to those students, faculty, and administrators who were generous enough to participate in this project.

The Two Week Vegan

For the next two weeks I am going vegan...completely vegan. No animal products will touch my lips; no animals will have to be harmed to fill my belly.

This two week trial period started out as a little wager in my Ethics class. I had come to the part in the class in which I discuss ethical issues related to animals and had just finished explaining about the horrors of factory farming and the benefits of a vegetarian diet, but was not really making much of an impact with the students (just wait until I show them PETA’s “Meat Your Meat”). As a wager, I told them that, if a few of them would agree to reduce their meat consumption even slightly for the next two weeks, I would adopt a vegan diet during that same period. I had only a few takers, but that was enough to compel me to follow through with my end of the bargain.

I had toyed with vegetarian and vegan diets on and off for the past few years and had always liked the feeling that I got from eating a more sustainable diet. The thing that did me in, believe it or not, was my three-month teaching gig at Rangsit University in Thailand last summer. Although Tai food is usually a good option for vegetarians, I found it very difficult to find a variety of food in the local restaurants to satisfy me; so I reverted to eating meat again and have continued to do so since then. Now it’s time to return to a heart-healthy, planet-loving, animal-friendly diet!

On Saturday night—the night before I had to begin my new vegan diet—I went to Pathmark, my depressing, overcrowded local supermarket, and began to scour the store for products that were animal-free. Although this supermarket chain is definitely not known for its alternative food options, I found a few items that would do the trick: pita and hummus, veggie burgers and buns, assorted fruits and vegetables, oatmeal (Irish Steel Cut), soymilk, veggie bouillon. Sometime this week, I also plan to go to Trader Joe's and Whole Foods, two stores specializing in organic, locally grown, vegetarian, and vegan food items. When I go to these stores I will probably pick up some items that are more difficult to find in regular supermarkets: organic produce, beans, rice and other grains, tofu (firm only), some more vegan veggie burgers, and soy crumbles (great for making chili or “meat” sauce).

Although I recognize that a vegan diet is the most optimal one for personal and planetary health, I don’t plan to continue with it beyond the two-week period agreed upon with my students. Instead, I would like to revert to a mainly low-fat, vegetarian diet, such as the one recommended by Dr. Dean Ornish. I am well aware that, from an ecological perspective, vegetarianism is inferior to veganism and that it doesn’t completely resolve the issue of animal cruelty. It is a starting point to more sustainable living, however.

At the end of the two weeks, I will assess how well I was able to maintain a vegan diet and the benefits—if any—that I experienced as a result of this temporary change in my eating habits. It is my intention to show that, although it requires some thought and planning, it is neither overly difficult nor terribly onerous to live a vegan lifestyle.

The Vegan Food Pyramid

A Surge of Folly

This blog is supposed to be focused on environmental issues. We recognize, however, that environmental concerns cannot be viewed in isolation from other important political issues (war and peace, poverty and inequality, racism and race relations, ect). To allow for a more extensive discussion on these topics--without diluting the real focus of this blog--we will occasionally link to entries posted on the sites of some of our "bloggin' buddies."

"A Surge of Folly" is a pessimistic perspective on the possibilities for success in Iraq. You can read this entry on Dr. Peter Fallon's blog, In the Dark:

A Surge of Folly

American Dream, American Myth

Most of us have grown up with the belief that success in life is to be measured almost entirely in economic terms. Whether we have “made it” or not in life all depends upon factors like how large our home is, what sort of elaborate stuff we possess, and how many exotic vacations we can take in a given year. We have also been taught, directly or indirectly, that the greater our buying power, the more worth we have as human beings. Those who cannot—or will not—strive to become masters of capital are perceived as somehow morally deficient and missing out on what has come to be optimistically known as the “American Dream.” In fact, this dream is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by corporate-owned media to encourage the sort of excessive consumption that has driven the American economy to the point of inevitable collapse.

During the past few years, I have taken several trips to Southern Florida to visit family members living in Fort Lauderdale. Only two years ago, I remember being amazed at how opulent the lifestyle was in places like Palm Beach, Boca Raton, and Ft. Lauderdale, even compared to the excesses of my native Long Island. Skyrocketing real estate prices had encouraged speculation in the housing market, and middle class entrepreneurs were buying up all the homes that they could get their hands on in order to capitalize on what seemed to be a golden ticket to easy riches. Expensive restaurants were filled to capacity, high-end stores in mammoth shopping malls were doing record business, and sales of luxury items like yachts and sporty convertibles (a must for men going through mid-life crises) were booming.

The situation changed dramatically when I returned for this year’s visit. For one thing, due to the inevitable housing crisis housing, prices have plummeted 15-20% and sales of existing homes have dropped 28%. Visiting a colleague in Boca Raton—one of the great meccas of conspicuous consumption in the United States—I was shocked to see foreclosure signs all over the city and million dollar homes sitting vacant with no one to buy them. The situation for middle class homeowners in Florida is even more precarious, since their consumption over the past three decades has been even more inextricably intertwined with the equity in their homes. In a Sun-Sentinel poll conducted on April 4th, one-third of respondents in Broward County, where the poll was conducted, reported being afraid of losing their jobs in the current economic downturn. In short, things are not looking good for the overall health of the economy of southern Florida.

Given all this, one would assume that people--like my dear extravagant sister living in Fort Lauderdale--would begin to dramatically decrease their levels of consumption and try to live a bit more frugally—at least until this current economic storm passes. If this is happening, I have not noticed it. The high priced malls in Boca and Fort Lauderdale seem to be as full of shoppers as ever, the waiting times to get into decent restaurants doesn’t seem to have diminished at all, and the lines for $5.00 frappuccinos at Starbucks hasn’t seemed to have gotten any shorter.

All this “data” is anecdotal, of course, but it is not at all dissimilar from what I have observed elsewhere. The economy is tanking, but Americans seem incapable of doing the logical and prudent thing, which would be to cut back—perhaps dramatically—on their bloated lifestyles. As mentioned earlier, the explanation for this paradox is quite simple: the identities of most Americans are so wrapped up with their ability to consume that any attempt to reduce consumption would create a massive sense of identity-loss (If we are not the stuff that we possess, then who or what are we?).

The corporate-owned media, of course, would like to maintain this link between human identity and consumption, so everything we see on television or in the movies, or read in our daily newspapers and magazines, reinforces the idea that happiness can only be attained by buying into the materialistic lifestyle that has come to dominate American culture. But we really shouldn’t cast all the blame on greedy corporations and their media stooges. The real fault lies primarily in us. We are the ones who refuse to recognize that happiness can’t come from owning a $300 pair of sunglasses or a $500 pocketbook. Until we start to accept this ridiculously simple fact, and to change our lives accordingly, we will continue to be consumed by the very items which we ourselves so lasciviously consume.

Coming Soon to a Blog Near You!

There is little dispute any more that low-fat vegetarian or vegan diets are the healthiest eating programs on the planet. Scientific studies, like the extensive China Study, demonstrate fairly conclusively that, to the extent we remove animal products from our diet, will we also be reducing our risks for heart disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity. All of these problems currently plague Americans—right now we are one of the fattest nations on the planet—and yet we continue to consume animal products at an alarming rate.

This past week, Molloy College students and faculty began shooting and editing a simple documentary illuminating the eating habits of carnivores and vegetarians on campus. The final product will be called, “The Vegetarian Alternative,” and will also showcase the faculty and students who have made the transition from a meat-based to a plant-based diet and the health benefits that they received from this change in eating habits.

I look forward to sharing this documentary with all of you who contribute to this blog, and to starting a discussion about the benefits—and perhaps liabilities—of the vegetarian lifestyle.

Economic Collapse: A Golden Opportunity?

In a bipartisan effort to stem the tide of home foreclosures that are threatening to bring down the American economy, members from both parties in Congress are working on new legislation to assist struggling homeowners. Some ideas being tossed around are:

• 200 million dollars to expand counseling programs for those at risk of foreclosure
• 10 billion dollars in tax-exempt bonds for local housing authorities to refinance subprime loans.
• 4 billion dollars in grants to local governments to buy foreclosed properties.
• 15,000 in tax credits for the purchase of foreclosed homes currently sitting vacant on the market. (NYT 4/2/08].

My basic problem with legislation of this sort is that I question whether it will really help those who deserve assistance the most - poor and working class families that were suckered into taking on mortgages that they really couldn't afford. Instead, it seems like a gift to the irresponsible banks and mortgage companies that pushed subprime loans in the first place, since they are not really being asked to take serious losses for their risky behavior.

With the exception of the first proposal, which has some merits, the legislation being offered will ultimately do nothing more than fuel another round of speculation in the housing market. Haven't we had enough gambling already in the housing market? Do we really need vulturous housing speculators to try to profit yet again from the misery of beleaguered homeowners? Aren't these many of the same people who brought on the housing crisis in the first place?

I have two additional - and prehaps more fundamental - problems with legislation of this sort: first, it makes prudent taxpayers, who have done the right thing by living within their means, foot the bill for those who were reckless and irresponsible in their behavior. Most Americans are hardworking and live fairly frugal lives, usually purchasing homes that they can reasonably afford given their levels of income. Many of these noble creatures probably would have loved to have been able to move into more spacious homes in more attractive communities, but recognized the imprudence of stretching their resources too thin. In short, these people, who ought to be rewarded for their fiscal responsibility, would actually be punished by having to bail out their recklessly selfish neighbors.

Second, the legislation being proposed fails to recognize a basic problem with the American economy that everyone is afraid to acknowledge--namely, that it is fundamentally unsound and needs to be dramatically reformed if it is to survive in the 21st century. The kind of freemarket capitalism that we advocate here in the U.S. is almost exclusively focused on short-term (i.e., quarterly) growth at the expense of long-term economic sustainability. In order to achieve the exorbident levels of growth that corporations have come to expect, Americans since the 1970s have been conned into spending more and more of their disposible income on crap they don't really need. Once Americans went though all of their savings to buy bigger homes, flashier cars, and more stylish refrigerators, multinational corporations had to figure out a way to keep them consuming when the logical thing for Americans to have done would have been to reduce consumption and pay off their debt.

This is where cheap credit came into play - mainly in the form of easily attainable credit cards and home equity loans. But now Americans have been driven into the highest levels of personal debt since the depression, and they can't tap into the equity in their homes because they are worth less than they paid for them.

In short, the "hens have come home to roost," and the result must inevitably be a collapse of our finacial systems, one of the most severe recessions that we have seen in some time, and large-scale suffering for the most vulnerable Americans. The very nature of American free-market capitalism necessitates this end. Pray to whatever gods you worship for deliverance, but nothing short of a miracle will save our economy.

I am convinced that there will be an economic melt-down during the next few years. But that doesn't mean that everyone need suffer equally. Those Americans who have practiced the art of voluntary simplicity already know how to survive in a world where goods become more expensive, jobs more scarce, and earning more meager. Those who know how to live happily with less will do just fine. And one positive thing that could come out of this economic crisis is that even more Americans will come to the realization that the consumptive lifestyle neither brings happiness nor peace. Rather than looking at the housing crisis as an unmitigated disaster, then, we should perhaps begin to see it for what it really is: a golden opportunity for all of us to reconsider how we our living our lives and take the necessary steps to live more simply and sanely.

No Animals Died to Make This Breakfast

Who says that you need to kill a cow, butcher a pig, or abuse a chicken to have a healthy and filling breakfast? Forget the bacon and eggs. There are tons of wonderful breakfasts that you can eat if you follow a vegan diet. Here are just a few of the options:

Muesli -- a really healthy breakfast meal that can be sweetened using assorted dried fruits. I also throw in some almonds, walnuts, sunflower seeds, and ground flax seed to boost the amount of healthy fats and protein.

Homemade Granola -- ususally not as healthy as muslie, because of all the fat and sugar needed to get the oats to stick together, but certainly better than bacon and eggs -- recipe

Multigrain Pancakes -- recipe

Tofu Scramble -- like scrambled eggs, but with...tofu! ChooseVeg has a great video that shows you how to make this great meal.

Vegan French Toast -- You can make traditional or banana vegan french toast, and it tastes just as good without the milk and eggs.

Barley or Wheatberry Porridge. It was a good enough breakfast for folks in the Middle Ages, so it should do the trick for you as well. Just cook the barley or wheat berries according to the instructions on the packet. During the last five minutes of cooking add soymilk, honey (not technically vegan, I know), cinnamon, raisins or other dried fruits and crushed walnuts/almonds.

Eating a healthy breakfast consisting of whole grains, some protein (e.g., tofu or soy milk) and some healthy fats (e.g., nuts or seeds) is a great way to start off your day and give you the energy you need to be productive. Any of the breakfasts described above will be a whole-lot healthier for you than some damned McMuffin, omelettes, or any of the other animal-based breakfasts that many American's eat. You'll be helping your heart and waistline at the same time you are saving the lives of animals. A win-win situation for all involved--except for factory farmers, that is).

For a more extensive list of vegan breakfast options check out ChooseVeg.com's helpful website.

A Libertarian's Take on George Bush

Just about all the commentators in this blog—with the exception of Publius—have repeatedly attacked President Bush for a wide variety of reasons, most of which have little to do with his record on the environment. Their “arguments” do little more than demonstrate their blatant liberal biases and their frustration that their beloved Democratic candidates, Gore and Kerry, were defeated in the previous two presidential elections.

Don’t get me wrong. I have some significant problems with many of Bush’s policies over the past two years. I know that many of my libertarian friends, think that George Bush is a wonderful president simply because he cut taxes—admittedly, mostly for people who already had more than enough disposable income to begin with. I don’t have any problems with George Bush because he is an economic conservative, or because he chose to go to war in Iraq, or even because he has encouraged the use of aggressive methods of interrogation against terrorism suspects. I have consistently supported all these actions.

1) He was right to have cut taxes after September 11th, and his tax cuts kept the American economy going strong for the past six years. The economy is faltering now only because of the fall-out from the subprime mortgage crisis, something that is hardly his fault.

2) He was also right to go to war in Iraq, because, whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, he was a threat to the stability of the Middle East, a region that supplies most of the oil we need to keep the engines of our economy going strong.

3) As for his support of interrogation methods such as waterboarding, just remember that the prime duty of a commander-in-chief is to keep the country safe. So far, there have been absolutely no further attacks on American soil by Islamic fundamentalists. Therefore, we must assume that our government is doing something right.

All libertarians agree that reducing burdensome government regulations that hinder the growth of business, lowering taxes for everyone to the most minimal level possible, and using government primarily to protect the lives of citizens and the economy are all completely sound policies. And Bush in principle has been following the libertarian agenda in these areas almost perfectly.

One could certainly argue that Bush has wedded himself too closely to Christian fanatics in the Republican Party who are nuts about issues like abortion, homosexuality, and prayer in school. Libertarians like myself typically support a woman’s right to control her own body. And we don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own homes whether they are gay or straight. And we want organized religion to stay the hell out of our public institutions. Both liberals and libertarians are right to be dismayed at Bush’s policies in these matters.

I also believe that Bush has mangled the economy by not holding corporations to the same standards that individuals and small businesses have to follow. And he, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice have completely botched the war in Iraq to the point where we will probably have to maintain a presence in the country for the foreseeable future at a tremendous economic cost to our country. Again, liberals, libertarians, and even thinking conservatives are right to be dismayed at Bush’s ineptitude in these matters.

Finally, I have to admit that Bush’s track record on the environment has been spotty at best. There is no reason from a libertarian standpoint why one can’t be for smaller government and still believe that government has some role to play in protecting the environment. I am less concerned if wild salmon or grey wolves become extinct than I am that public lands—lands that are “owned” by all Americans—are being given away to logging and mining companies to do with them what they will. Support for American business does not mean that we should allow these businesses to ride roughshod over the civil liberties of Americans or to harm the environment to the point where the lives and property of citizens are jeopardized.

Despite the problems that I have with W, however, I really do believe that the country is much better off than it would have been under Al Gore or John Kerry. Gore would have been too weak a president to have rallied the country after September 11th and he never would have had the cajones to hit Al Queda where it hurts. Both Gore and Kerry would have tried to raise taxes on the very people who contribute most to the economy and both would have supported regulatory policies that would have crippled the economy of the United States, especially during the vulnerable period after 9/11.

So you see, unlike Ecoblog, or Mike, or Dr. Fallon, we libertarians are able to be critical without the kind of rabid vitriol that one often finds in the writings of bleeding heart liberals. There may be some legitimate problems with the way that Bush has run the country for the past eight years, but, I for one, am not going to crucify him simply because I have a different perspective on what is best for this country. The ability to have differences of opinion without making them personal is what makes this country great. Liberals, like the ones who write most of the comments in this blog, would do well to remember this fact.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

This week scientists from the British Antarctic Survey announced that the Wilkins ice sheet—a body of ice roughly the size of Connecticut—has begun to break up. The collapse of this ice sheet now seems likely within the next few years. Discussing the importance of the break up of this ice sheet, David Wilson, a member of the survey team said, “We predicted it would happen, but it's happened twice as fast as we predicted...The importance of it is it's further south than any ice shelf we've seen retreating before, it's bigger than any ice shelf we've seen retreating before and in the long term it could be a taste of other things to come if climate change continues in the Antarctic. ''

This unfortunate occurrence is hardly surprising, since scientists have been warning for some time that global warming trends are eroding the western ice sheets of Antarctica much faster than was previously expected. Indeed, Antarctica has experience an unprecedented warming over the past thirty years that have caused seven ice sheets—Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf—to collapse completely.

It is probably too late to save the Wilkins ice sheet from collapsing. But this event should be a wakeup call for all of us to start taking the threat of global warming seriously. Although the breakup of the Wilson ice sheet won’t cause sea levels to rise because it is already floating, the melting of land-based glaciers in southern Antarctica and Greenland could have profound consequences for low-lying areas of the world and possibly even for the future climate of Europe.

As I have argued repeatedly, if we want to mitigate the more harmful effects of global warming, we have to start taking dramatic action NOW. This will inevitably mean having to DRAMATICALLY alter our way of living in the United States so that our actions have less of a negative impact on the environment. I will try to spell out in more concrete terms what I think a new model of ecological living might look like in the United States in future blogs.

A Bit of Libertarian Sanity

I would like to thank the folks at EcoBlog for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this blog. Although I am a libertarian at heart, I am also concerned about the state of the environment. Thus, while I like what this blog is basically trying to do, I have some big problems with its emphasis.

My first thought is that far too many of the blog entries here are little more than leftest propaganda. There is too much time spent complaining about George Bush, the war in Iraq, and greedy American corporations. How about talking about solutions to our eco problems rather than simply setting up straw men to bash.

My second thought is that there is no talk at all in this blog about market-based solutions to threats like global warming. We have seen that government regulations and heavy-handed approaches simply don't work. Let capitalism work the way it's supposed to and you will see American businesses embrace green technology. Government, as Ronald Regan said, is the problem, not the solution.

I looking forward to contributing to this blog in the future and adding a sane voice to some of these discussions.

The Iraq War...Five Years Old and Still Going Strong

This blog is supposed to be about environmental issues--sustainable living, development, and economics, voluntary simplicity, vegetarianism, and the like. It is not supposed to be a venue to spew partisan political venom (as Publius so frequently reminds us). Protests around the country, however, commemorating the fifth anniversary of our occupation of Iraq have compelled me to bring up this contentious issue yet again.

Yesterday, in a speech delivered at the Pentagon, President Bush confidently assured the American people that the nation is at the brink of a great "strategic victory in Iraq." If this great victory is anything like the previous "victories" that we have had in this war, then we are in serious trouble indeed. Let's just look at some of the fruits that this war has borne:

• According to recent estimates, the total costs for the Iraq war could be as high as 3 trillion dollars--funds, as we have already seen, that could be put to much better use right here in the United States.
• Almost 4000 American soldiers have been killed since the war began and 29,395 have been wounded.
• Over 1 million Iraqis--many of them children and teenagers--have died as a result of this war. 2.4 million Iraqis (approximately 20% of Iraq's prewar population) are now refugees to more "stable" countries like Jordan and Syria. So much for making life better for the average Iraqi!
• Our failure to succeed in Iraq has emboldened our enemies around the world. Iran now is poised to be a major player in Middle Eastern politics, and Islamic extremist groups are gaining power in Egypt, Palestine, and Pakistan.
• The Bush administration's incompetent prosecution of the war has made us seem like a "paper tiger" to many nations, like Iran, who previously would have been unwilling to thwart our global interests.
• Our all too facile use of torture and "extraordinary rendition" has caused us to lose our credibility and moral standing among our allies in Europe and around the world.

With "successes" like these, I would hate to see what failure in Iraq would look like....

There is another aspect of this war that is rarely discussed. Our tolerance for specific culturally sanctioned types of violence--whether it is the violence of an unjustifiable war in Iraq, the violence of the mass slaughter houses that "produce" our meat, or the environmental violence caused by programs like mountaintop removal--does nothing more than create a climate in our society in which people ultimately become completely desensitized to violence in general. Only by rejecting violence in all its forms, and adopting an ethic of peacefulness--the kind of ethic that comes right out of the Gospels--can we hope to create a world in which human beings can live sanely with one another.

Stopping the war in Iraq would be the first step towards this end. But it is only a first step. As Will Tuttle writes in his new book, The World Peace Diet, we also need to consider the impact of things like our food choices on the levels of violence in our society. If we are willing to cram animals into filthy feeding lots, pump them full of antibiotics and growth hormones, and then brutally butcher them just so we can have the satisfaction of being able to enjoy a juicy steak or piece of chicken, is it any wonder that we have so little trouble killing innocent women and children in Iraq?

...And Let's Not Forget Tibet Either

The crackdown against protestors in Tibet has led to the deaths of over 100 Tibetans, at the same time that the U.S. government has removed China from its list of top 10 human rights violators.

Tibet was illegally invaded and taken over by China in 1951. In 1959, The Dalai Lama, the spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people, was forced to flee to India to escape impending imprisonment. Since then, the Chinese government has systematically closed Tibetan monasteries, pillaged the once pristine Tibetan countryside, and impose its own poiltical, cultural, and economic order upon the country.

What China has been doing in Tibet over the past 50 years is nothing short of cultural genocide. And yet, the world community--and the U.S government in particular--remains strangely silent. When it won the bid to host the 2008 summer Olympics, China made a promise to the world community to improve its human rights record. They clearly have reneged on this promise.

I think that the only thing that could possibly get the Chinese to grant a greater degree of autonomy to the Tibetan people is the threat of a boycott of this year's Olympics. I for one have already contacted my elected officials in Congress and told them that I demand that the U.S. withdraw from the 2008 Olympics unless human rights abuses in Tibet are stopped immediately. If enough of us do this, the U.S. government might eventually be shamed into taking action on this extremely important issue.

Free Tibet Campaign

The Eleventh Commandment

I have recently become convinced that protection of the environment is the most important issue confronting us in the 21st century…more important than the war in Iraq, more important than the sagging global economy, and even more important than world poverty. All these other problems will work themselves out one way or another, but the damage to threatened ecosystems around the world is potentially irreversible. Just today the New York Times reported that the king salmon that run in the Sacramento River have all but disappeared. Although this will be a hardship for the salmon fishing industry in California, it is a disaster for the entire Sacramento River watershed. One California official called the collapse of salmon stocks “unprecedented.” Interestingly, this is the same term that experts have used to describe many of the other ecological problems that we have witnessed in recent years—the severity of hurricanes, regional droughts and forest fires, the bleaching of coral reefs around the world, and the melting of Arctic glaciers. All are unprecedented in their scope and magnitude. And, if we don’t start taking decisive action now to correct these problems, we may very well be dooming ourselves as a species (I know; I’m becoming hysterical again).

The solution to our environmental problems—if there is a solution at this point—is to completely transform our relationship to the natural world. We need to begin taking care of the environment in the same way that we take care of our bank accounts (actually we need to do even better than that when one considers that American savings accounts are all but depleted). We need to begin recognizing—as the Vatican recently did—that ecological callousness is as much of a “deadly sin” as greed or envy. We also need to feel as guilty about wasting water or electricity, using chemical fertilizers on our lawns, buying stuff we don’t need, or throwing recyclable bottles into the garbage as we do about breaking any of the traditional Ten Commandments.

In fact, I would argue that we need to add an eleventh commandment to the list:

"I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not piss me off by destroying my beautiful planet."

Amen!

The Positive Side of Inflation

Over the past ten years prices on consumer goods have increased at a manageable rate of 2-3.5%. This year, however, prices have risen at a rate of 7.4%. With oil at $111.00 a barrel, it is going to become increasingly more difficult for American families to heat their homes, drive their gas-guzzling cars, and still have enough money left to pay their mortgages, taxes, health insurance premiums, and credit card balances.

If wages had also been rising steadily, this wouldn't be a problem, but in fact the wages of working Americans have been declining in real terms since the 1970s. And now many poor and middle-class Americans are faced with stagnant or declining wages at the same time that inflation is on the rise and credit is being tightened. To make matters even worse, Americans have taken on record debt and have the lowest level of savings--the numbers now are in the negative regions--since the Great Depression. In short, things are bad, and they are probably going to get much worse during the next few years.

Although it may not be a comfort to those folks who will lose their jobs and be driven out of their homes during the economic meltdown that we are about to experience, there is something positive that can come out of this economic mess. During the past 35 years, American consumption has exploded thanks to cheap oil and easy credit. We live in bigger homes, drive fancier cars, eat out more often, and take more vacations than any other human beings on the planet. If we are forced to dramatically reduce our levels of consumption, this would actually be a good thing for our souls and for the state of the planet. It would be good for our souls because, as the ancients understood, mindless consumption necessarily leads to misery and discontent. It would be good for the planet because less consumption necessarily means less waste.

The solution, then, to our spiritual malaise and to our ecological crisis is to follow the wisdom of that great philosopher, Paris Hilton, and start living...

This is not as far-fetched as it might sound. For the past thirty years, we Americans have lived like bloated pigs at the trough (the trough, of course, representing the world's resouces, which we have been depleating at an alarming rate). Now circumstance rather than moral wisdom will necessitate that we dramatically reduce our standard of living. Depending upon how bad things get, Americans may have to start getting used to living like our parents did in the 1950s...eating at home more often, using public transportation more frequently, cutting out coupons from the Sunday newspaper to reduce costs at the supermarket, and traveling to the Catskills for vacation rather than to Europe or the Caribbean. For many Americans who have gotten use to the fat life, this sort of existence will represent nothing short of a living hell. There are others, though, who will probably do just fine during, what James Howard Kunstler has prophetically called, "The Long Emergency." Sure, we won't be able to go out for lattes at Starbucks any more, but we may actually start to value those intangible goods that make life worth living--more time with our family and friends, opportunities for personal growth and spiritual enrichment, and a more intimate connection with the natural world.

If that doesn't sound appetizing, you can always find a large building to jump off of. Just make sure that no one is standing beneath you when you take the plunge!

Why even conservatives should be concerned about the state of the planet!

Sure, global warming could be a big hoax...a nasty myth perpetuated by pinko environmentalists who hate capitalism. I am well aware that climate change skeptics—many of whom are funded by the gas and oil industry—continually make the case that the dramatic changes in global climate that we have recently seen are a natural phenomenon and not necessarily the result of human activity.

In reality, however, there is little scientific debate that concentrations of greenhouse gases—mostly in the form of carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of coal, oil and gas—are to blame for the warming trends that we are now seeing. In fact, hundreds of scientific studies point to some alarming trends that should cause us all grave concern:

• During the past decade, as a result of global warming, heat waves have become much more intense. In 2003 an extreme heatwave in Europe took the lives of nearly 35,000 people. In 2005 many cities in the United States broke all-time records for high temperatures and for the number of consecutive days with temperatures of 100 degrees or more. Indeed, the year 2005 was the hottest year recorded since 1860. Just a coincidence?
• Climate change has caused severe droughts throughout the world. It is predicted that 1.8 billion people will face water shortages by 2025.
• The warming of the earth’s oceans has increased the severity of hurricanes, making them much more damaging to humans and property than they were in the past. There is a consensus among scientists that global warming will lead to an increase in the number of hurricanes hitting the United States in the future. Insurance companies have already begun to deny homeowners in costal areas flood insurance because even they are beginning to understand the potential impact of global warming on their "bottom lines."
• Climate change has already caused glaciers to retreat at an unprecedented rate. Simulations project that a 2-3 degree celsius increase in temperature could cause the meltdown of Greenland’s icesheets. Continued melting of glaciers during this century will inevitably cause sea levels to rise, flooding low lying areas such as Bangladesh and causing a potential wave of refugees into neighboring countries. If sea levels rise as significantly as some scientists predict, much of Long Island and lower Manhattan could be covered in water.
• Climate change has the potential to lead to the mass extinction of animal species. In a 2004 issue of Nature, scientists studying the world’s diverse hotspots have predicted that by 2050 a quarter of the world’s species could be on the path to extinction as a result of global warming. Subsequent studies seem to bear out these findings, leading scientists to warn that catastrophic species loss could occur across the planet.

Even if only some of these predictions come true, it would mean that the world our children will inhabit in the future will be significantly less hospitable than it is now. This should inspire us all--whether we are liberals or conservatives--to work together to solve the grave environmental problems currently facing the planet.

One positive trend to note is that the three major candidates running for president--four if you count my hero, Ralph Nader--have fairly solid environmental records. So, even if John McCain becomes the next president, we will probably see some bipartisan efforts to reduce our dependence on oil and stem the tide of global warming. And this, of course, is in everybody's best interest.

- Mike

The Gospel of Consumption

In the New York Times (3/11/08) Bob Herbert reports that, out of a total population of 300 million, 37 million Americans live in poverty. An additional 60 million are just above the poverty line, living with household incomes that range from $20,000-$40,000 annually for a family of four. In the current economic crisis in which we find ourselves, these are the people who are going to suffer most from the rising prices of oil and food, the plummeting housing market, and the decline in jobs that pay a minimum wage.

Of course, the middle class in the United States—those making less than $200,000 a year—are not much less vulnerable during an economic downturn like this one. Many of these Americans, buying into the consumptive mentality that drives our society, have taken on an enormous amount of debt since the 1970s, have virtually no savings, and have seen the equity in their homes plummet like a middle-aged man’s saggy midsection.

Since 70 % of the American economy is consumption driven, the prophets of mass consumerism—led by its head cheerleader, George Bush—have told us time and again to do our patriotic duty and spend, spend, spend. In the past, Americans have duly submitted to this philosophy using easily attainable credit to buy tons of stuff they really didn’t need.

But now the hens have come home to roost. Personal and national debt is the highest it has been since World War II and banks are tightening up on the loans they make. Furthermore, unemployment levels have been increasing and middle class wages have been fairly stagnant at the same time that inflation seems to be on rise. And yet, despite all this Americans continue to drive themselves further into debt through their endless consumption.

The solution to our economic crisis is not to consume more, but to consume less. To live simpler, more ecologically sustainable lives. Americans would certainly benefit if they adopted some of the basic principles of the voluntary simplicity movement...most notably the recognition that human happiness can not be attained through ever-increasing levels of consumption

Of course, if we suddenly stop our mindless consumption, this will make Wall Street and the White House extremely unhappy. But that’s their problem. The job of each individual during an economic meltdown, such as the one that is inevitably coming, is to get his or her own house in order by reducing consumption and increasing savings.

Fortunately, the Voluntary Simplicity movement has a number of web sites available to help overspent and overworked Americans live simpler and more fiscally responsible lives. Here are two of the most popular of these sites:

The Simple Living Network
The Simplicity Resource Guide

Doing well by doing good

Fellow eco bloggers:

As my personal preamble to the larger discussion, I would start by stating that our goal should not merely be to "protect the environment." To successfully accomplish this goal, we must be aware of the economic realities of our society. Let's work toward the goals of making environmentalism profitable, as it is only by creating a profitable industry that we can nullify the useless "tree-hugger vs. big business" spitting match. Let's enlist the captains of industry on our side instead of labeling them.

There are many examples of how this is already being done. Hopefully we can explore more as we go along.

Ed

Reasonable and Humane Enviornmentalism

I was very glad to be asked to contribute to this blog since I am generally an opponent of its goals and tenor. Hopefully, a fair and charitable discussion of the issues at stake can lead to a consensus - on at least some things.

First, some points of disagreement:

The very motto of the site speaks to an excessiveness and apocalypticism that is not only irrational, but by its radicalness, keeps people from wanting to be associated with environmental responsibility. It only preaches to the choir.

"Saving Humanity - One Planet at a Time" is both melodramatic - and nonsensical. Humanity is not in danger of extinction. Claims to the contrary are unscientific and frankly - scaremongering. It would be enough to state that modernization harms the natural world in certain ways. And human beings thrive best in a healthy environment. A beautiful and robust natural world makes life more beautiful and enjoyable.

Instead, environmentalism is always trying to avoid planetary destruction and extinction. It's unserious.

Evidence of this continues here on this blog with calls for vegetarianism, media blackouts, bemoaning the Iraq War - undoubtedly to be followed by cries against capitalism, corporate America, the Republican Party, and apple pie.

Other than my disagreement on some of these matters themselves, I'm disappointed because many people react to this political theatre by throwing the environmental baby out with the left-wing bath water.

People have a good and natural disgust for environmental destruction. Oil slicks on pristine waters, animals covered in crude, hillsides stripped bare, poisoned fish, smog and grime in city air, lakes and rivers and oceans closed to swimmers and fishing, animals extinct forever - all these things repel your average person and the environmental movement can do much if it appeals to sense and common decency.

But people also generally have a disinclination to apocalypticism and conspiracy theory. Human experience and history has shown them that it is usually a kind of hysteria to some real, but manageable problem. They also have a revolutionary hatred of having others opinions imposed upon them by governmental - or non-governmental - force.

The nature of our problem in the modern world is human ingenuity - it is also part of the solution. We have the greatest command of natural fores and productivity in the history of the world. There are more people in the modern age than have even existed for most of history put together. And so we have new problems - one of which is not spoiling the natural world we live in.

I, and many people can get behind that goal. But seeing as how there is a new environmental crisis every few years (nuclear fallout, new ice age, the ozone layer, acid rain, rain forests, whales, global warming, etc. etc) the environmental movement is destroying its credibility year by year. The global cooling trend that emerged in 2007, if it continues, (as scientists who believe solar activity causes global temperature cycles say it will) it could be another deadly blow to the current environmental movement.

An environmental movement tied to general left-wing politics is an environmental movement doomed to spectacular failure. Unless the real goal is left-wing politics and a blind insistence that the two are inseperable, the environmental movement needs to unhitch itself from these other problems.

We need a strong environmental movement. One that has room for all people, with differing opinions. One that puts human beings first. Human beings that need and thrive in a healthy and beautiful natural world.

Simple living and a love and care of nature is an environmental movement that is built for all people.

And built to last for centuries.

Publius

Post-Materialism in a Nutshell

Here is one of the most interesting pieces that I have seen on voluntary simplicity. A bit artsy, perhaps, but it explains in a nutshell exactly why you would want to opt out of the Western materialistic rat race:



Consume less, make art, live free!

The High Cost of Home Heating

I was a bit dismayed when I discovered that my energy bill for the past month was over $300 dollars. I don't know about you, but I can think of many more interesting things to do with my hard-earned money than to contribute it to the already over-flowing coffers of the local utility company.

Then it struck me that I myself was partially to blame for the high costs of my energy bill. While I have made some efforts over the previous two years to make my home more energy efficient, I still have a long way to go. The problem is that, being a rather impractical academic, I really didn't know where to begin to conserve energy in my home.

That's when I came across a government site that provided the opportunity to perform a home energy audit on-line. The site is located at http://hes.lbl.gov/ and I, for one, found it extremely useful.

Like me, if you are seriously interested in living a more sustainable lifestyle, give this site a try. If nothing else, it may save you a few dollars that you can probably put to much better use.

Mike Russo

Why the Networks Won't Let You See This One

Sure I eat meat. Maybe not as much as the guy down the street, but a heck of a lot more than my friends at PETA. That wacky, wild organization put out a commercial starring Casey Affleck that has been banned by TV Networks nationwide. PETA tried to buy time on the air, but Madison Avenue apparently does not want people like you to know what goes into making your tasty Big Macs.

Don't watch this banned commercial if you are squeemish!

"When people ask me why I don’t eat meat or any other animal products, I say, ‘Because they’re unhealthy, and they’re the product of a violent and inhumane industry...Chickens, cows, and pigs in factory farms spend their whole lives in filthy, cramped conditions—only to die a prolonged and painful death. Their bodies are then turned into food products proven to contribute to heart disease and cancer. To eat that is to eat poison."


Mike Russo

Less War, More Cool Eco Stuff

By several estimates, the Iraq War has already cost more than one trillion dollars, or $3,300 for every person in the country. It strikes me that this money could probably be put to much better use than killing folks in the Middle East.

There is no end to the good that intelligent and resourceful people could accomplish if all the money that we are currently squandering in Iraq were suddenly used to solve some of the grave social, enocomic and enviromental problems currently plaguing our society. Imagine if all that money we are spending in Iraq was used instead to develop alternative renewable sources of energy that could reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Or if these funds were used to develop fuel cell technology for automobiles. Or if the trillion dollars was used to provide a finanacial incentive for families to install solar paneling on their homes. Imagine the enormous good that could come from using the precious dollars of the American taxpayers for programs that might actually benefit themselves and their children.

But this is mere speculation. The military industrial complex has always been looking for ways to get the taxpayer to foot the bill for monstrous weapons that can more efficently kill those who are unable to protect themselves against us. And there is nobody in our government who is so much as wispering about this nefarious connection between bloated corporate profits and our need for endless war.

But just in case you were wondering what specifically could be accomplished if the war in Iraq was suddenly to end tomorrow, you may want to check out the fabulous program developed by the National Priorities Program. You will probably cry when you see the possibilities that will never materialize thanks to this war, but perhaps, at least, your tears may ultimately prove redemptive.

And this is what you want to put in your mouth?

Video footage shot by the Humane Society have shown sick cows at the Hallmark Meat Packaging Company in Chino, California being prodded, jabbed with forklift blades, kicked, and sprayed in the face with powerful jets of water. "The attempt was to make them so distressed, to cause them so much suffering that these animals would get up and walk into the slaughterhouse," Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle told CBS News. Meat Industry officials have no way of knowing whether meat from the sick cows enter the food supply.

For an insight into just what kind of horrific practices are routinely enagaged in by the Meat Industry, watch this report from CBS News.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6OjhPVL48Ks

If this doesn't make you think about becoming a vegan, I don't know what will!

Trashing The Planet

According to the EPA, Americans generate 236 million tons of garbage each year. 164 million tons of garbage eventually end up in landfills, including...

26,800,000 tons of food
8,550,000 tons of furniture and furnishings
6,330,000 tons of clothing and footwear
5,190,000 tons of glass beer and soda bottles
4,200,000 tons of plastic wrap and bags
3,650,000 tons of junk mail
3,470,000 tons of diapers
3,160,000 tons of office paper
3,070,000 tons of tires
2,820,000 tons of carpets and rugs
2,230,000 tons of newspapers
2,060,000 tons of appliances
1,520,000 tons of magazines
1,170,000 tons of wine and liquor bottles
970,000 tons of paper plates and cups
840,000 tons of books
830,000 tons of beer and soda cans
780,000 tons of towels, sheets, pillowcases
540,000 tons of telephone directories
450,000 tons of milk cartons
160,000 tons of lead-acid (car) batteries

To find out more about how all this waste is produced and what eventually happens to it, check out The Story of Stuff, a fascinating short film by Annie Leonard. To find out where your local recycling stations are located go to earth911.org.