This last election was beyond divisive, it was cataclysmic in its effect on relationships between people. There are people I never want to speak to again, and people who feel the same about me—and this pattern has played out across America. So I expect there are visitors to this site who would object to my political views and to who’s political views I’d object. But one thing I expect we mostly have in common is our respect and reverence for our Earth, and a desire to keep it healthy. Unfortunately the administration now in power does not share that feeling and is moving, on a number of fronts, to do damage.
They are in the process of:
Place an anti-environmentalist in charge of the EPA;
Trying to gut or even dismantle the EPA;
Rolling back laws such as prohibitions against coal companies dumping waste into streams and rivers;
Pushing through the Dakota and Keystone Pipelines;
Ending supports for alternative energies while ramping up fossil fuel usage.
This administration is “Pro-Business” to the point of utter irresponsibility, seeming to believe that so long as someone is making money at it, no action should be prohibited. They have even floated schemes to privatize or sell our National Parks and other public lands. We must accept the degradation/monetization of our natural world so that a handful of wealthy people can become yet more wealthy—that is the message out of Washington right now.
I urge visitors here to let your Representatives know that you reject irresponsible treatment of the environment. Call/email/write your local, state and national reps. Write to your local newspapers. Post in Facebook. Tweet. Stand up for your planet!
This year’s presidential primary season has been a doozy so far. There’s a lot I could say about it (and plenty of people have, from every side) but the one thing I want to focus on is the concept of “we”.
I don’t think Americans think much about “we” anymore. I don’t think we operate from a perspective of what’s good for society very often. I think there’s a lot of people who don’t even accept the concept of society; rather, they think America is soley a large group of individuals. I understand the appeal of certain aspects of that point of view. People are individuals. People have different needs and wants; happiness is very subjective and “the pursuit of happiness” is pretty foundational to our country.
But there is also something called “the common good”, which includes the recognition that taking care of certain things collectively helps us all. For example, everyone benefits from clean air. Now, depending on where you live, your air might be — at least seemingly — clean enough. Certainly cleaner than in, say, parts of China where children are getting lung cancer and so on. But, while we are a long way from China, air moves. Air pollution moves. We may not be walking around in a literal smog, but we are impacted: China’s Air Pollution Is Blowing Into the United States, Study Finds. So, while this is reaching beyond our borders, it is a good example of a common good: if China improves its air quality, we benefit.
Individualism absolutely has its place and is to be valued. But I think in recent years we’ve done a good exploration of the pros and cons of favoring individual preferences over the needs and benefits of the group and it is time to swing back a bit.
We’ve had another mass shooting. The immediate aftermath of these events automatically initiates a firestorm of accusations, counter-accusations, arguments about gun-control, terrorism, the media, political positioning, etc. More people buy guns, we call each other a new round of names as disagreements get heated and then we settle back into our lives and wait for the next shooting (at which point that whole cycle spins again). Mixed in with the blaming is always the analysis by various folks as to why these things happen and keep happening, and what we might do about it all.
It occurred to me today that, as with many things, we are focusing a bit too granularly on the individuals and their lives, when it might help to take a few steps back. It then occurred to me that we can spin our wheels and spend lots of time and money trying to solve the host of problems/issues of which violent outbreaks are the symptom, or we can get down to root causes.
Many of my friends have children graduating from high school this year. Both parents and children are looking at the future and wondering what the kids should do with respect to education and training. There is a kind of anxiety attached to these decisions that didn’t used to exist in the way it does now.
For many years we shared the idea that a college degree guaranteed a good and secure living. I think, as a society, we shared this idea far longer than we should have. It hasn’t been true for a number of years but such things always take a long time to be generally understood. Now, the combination of high college costs and low entry-level professional employment has become so stark as to be hard to overlook.
It’s a beautifully produced 1-page graphical guide to the differences between Industrial Agriculture and an ecological system of agriculture. It was done, I believe, in 2012.
The introduction: “Currently 1 billion people in the world are hungry and another billion over eat unhealthy foods. One-third of food produced is wasted and the productivity of nearly half of all soil worldwide is decreasing. In order to feed our world without destroying it, a holistic type of agriculture is needed, and we have a choice. Here we compare the current high-input industrial system with a renewed vision for agriculture: the agroecological system.”
“Agroecological strategies can better feed the world, fight climate change and poverty, and protect soil and water while maintaining healthy, livable communities and local economies. Industrial agriculture contributes to climate change, malnutrition and ecosystem degradation around the planet. It has not delivered on its promise to feed the world.“
There is plenty of coverage about fracking available for interested people, with cheerleaders on one side and opposition on the other. I’m in the opposition group.
The major problem bedeviling the issue is the complete disconnect between the pros and cons. The people that support fracking do so because it makes money (for some). The people who oppose it do so because we think it hurts the environment. Both are right. So the question becomes: what’s more important?
Some fracking supporters try to cross the barrier by claiming natural gas is cleaner than coal so using fracking to increase our supply of natural gas leads to less coal-burning, thereby reducing carbon emissions. That may be true, but it’s basically a “lesser of two evils” argument. Especially given the down sides of fracking: toxic wastewater getting into our rivers and groundwater, and earthquakes. What might be a better approach to reducing carbon emissions? A full-scale embrace of Solar and Wind power. If the U.S. put its collective intelligence and resources into serious development of Solar and Wind we could change the world.