CHEVRON Finally Found Guilty of Rainforest Destruction

Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network just announced a major victory for the Amazon rainforest. An Ecuadorean judge today found Chevron guilty of one of the largest environmental crimes in history and ordered the company to pay a whopping $8 billion to clean up its damage in the Amazon. 

Chevron immediately issued a statement condemning the judgment as "illegitimate and unenforceable" and announced plans to appeal.  This ruling clearly has Chevron riled up, as the statement suggests the ruling is "the product of fraud" and included this ominous line: "Chevron intends to see that the perpetrators of this fraud are held accountable for their misconduct."

Chevron apparently fails to see the irony of the phrase "held accountable for their misconduct" since today was a major slapdown of the company's destruction of the Amazon rainforest in Ecuador.

AmazonWatch and Rainforest Action Network have released the following statement in response to the verdict:

“As of today, Chevron’s guilt for extensive oil contamination in the Amazon rainforest is official. It is time Chevron takes responsibility for these environmental and public health damages, which they have fought for the past 18 years.

“Today’s ruling in Ecuador against Chevron proves overwhelmingly that the oil giant is responsible for billions gallons of highly toxic waste sludge deliberately dumped into local streams and rivers, which thousands depend on for drinking, bathing, and fishing.

“Chevron has spent the last 18 years waging unprecedented public relations and lobbying campaigns to avoid cleaning up the environmental and public health catastrophe it left in the Amazon rainforest. Today’s guilty verdict sends a loud and clear message: It is time Chevron clean up its disastrous mess in Ecuador.

“Today’s case is historic and unprecedented. It is the first time Indigenous people have sued a multinational corporation in the country where the crime was committed and won.

“Today’s historic ruling against Chevron is a testament to the strength of the Ecuadorian people who have spent 18 years bringing Chevron to justice while suffering the effects of the company’s extensive oil contamination.”

Background

From 1964 to 1990 Chevron (formerly Texaco) operated a large oil concession in the northeastern region of the Ecuadorian Amazon, reaping billions of dollars in profits before pulling out of Ecuador in 1992.

Chevron has admitted during the long-running trial in both US and Ecuadorian courts that it created a system of oil extraction that led to the deliberate discharge of approximately 18 billion gallons of chemical-laden "water of formation" into the streams and rivers of Ecuador's Amazon, home to six indigenous groups.

Over the course of more than two decades of operations, Chevron abandoned more than 900 unlined waste pits gouged out of the jungle floor that leech toxins into soils and streams; contaminated the air by burning the waste pits; dumped oil along roads; and spilled millions of gallons of pure crude from ruptured pipelines. Internal company documents demonstrate that Chevron officials ordered field workers to destroy records of oil spills. The company refused to develop an environmental response plan or pipeline maintenance program, and Chevron never conducted a single health evaluation or environmental impact study despite the obvious harm it was causing.

Study Finds People Ate Less Sustainable in 2010

What happened? Are we serious about wanting to do more for the environment? Are we discovering that reversing our long term bad habits is just too difficult?

Environmentalism, as we currently know it, has been around since early 1970’s. It has proven to be more than a passing phase and has grown beyond being just the latest trendy fad designed to get people to become more politically active.

Creating and living a sustainable life style takes time, effort and commitment. It exists hand-in-hand with environmentalism.

During the current recession we saw an increase in the number of home gardeners. We listened as these new converts to sustainable living made the pledge that they will reject factory food and take up growing their own and eating locally. Many of us secretly reserved our opinion on just how real this movement is and how long this would last but we all pulled for it to continue.

Now we learn that some of those Americans who joined us have given up the struggle and have reverted to their old ways. Polls show that they were less likely to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors in 2010 than they were in 2009, despite being more likely to identify with eco-friendly terms.

It seems, the fears many of us held in check were confirmed. The recent increases in people claiming to get back to the Earth only did so because times were becoming financially hard.

The poll, which surveyed 2,352 nationally representative adults online, found that fewer Americans said they were likely to buy local foods, down from 39% to 33%, and fewer respondents said they bought organic foods, down from 17 to 15 percent.

What I find most curious about this poll is that there was an increase in the number of people who said they were environmentally conscious. I guess this says they are aware of the condition of the environment and that something needs to be done but were willing to let someone else do it.

I’m sorry, but claiming to be an environmentalist during hard economical times is a sham unless you remain committed long after the economy improves.

If you are serious about remaining or becoming an active environmentalist ask for help and learn how to practice it. We don’t need charlatans and we don’t need lip service. The problems facing us are real and they do face all of us.

At the risk of getting preachy, we need to remember that we all have picked up some bad habits that are detrimental to the well-being of the environment. But we can reverse these effects by being vigilant about adopting a sustainable lifestyle. It’s going to take getting your hands dirty. Growing our own food, buying & using less biodegradable products, finding additional uses for every single thing we buy, these are not over-night propositions. We need to learn how to do it effectively, and there is a ton of help out there. The more food we grow for ourselves the less dependent we will be on factory farms which are, in all honesty, not providing us with the best in healthy food.

Look, our home gardens don’t have to win awards for being the most beautiful or most productive or most organic, but they do need to be created and used.

This poll says that the number of people who still claim to be environmentalist has remained high, I find this encouraging. It also says that the practice of being an environmentalist has fallen due to high prices of organic food and buying what is being labeled as ‘green’ products. My thoughts on this is that perhaps we need to reassess our spending priorities. Redirect spending from electronic devices that are geared more for entertainment and spend that money on healthier food and setting up gardens to grow our own.

Living a sustainable green lifestyle isn't always about large changes, but one of the changes that can make a serious impact on your health and body is making the effort to eat as sustainably as possible. It’s a matter of attitude. It is a mind set that we need to focus on in order for the environment to heal.

Endangered Oceans

West Africa’s coastal dead zone continues to expand. Rising water temperatures, along with the runoff of chemical fertilizers, create large areas of water with low-level oxygen making the area inhospitable to marine life. As fish leave these areas in search of oxygen they are moving into areas with greater fisheries activity where oxygen is more abundant.

There are about 400 of these “hypoxic” regions throughout the world, many caused by human activities. The most notorious dead zone is in the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Mississippi River where oxygen-depleting algae is growing unchecked. Another dead zone was discovered in 2007 off the coast of Texas, where the Brazos river empties into the Gulf.

Three major dead zones are known to have been caused by climate change: one off the coast of Chile and Peru, one off the east coast of Africa, and another off of Africa's west coast. A new dead zone was reported off the US west coast in 2002. It occurs seasonally and is believed to be part of a continuum of South America's dead zone.

The hypoxic zone off West Africa covers virtually all the equatorial waters in the Atlantic Ocean and is roughly the size of the continental United States. The zone is growing every year further reducing the available habitat for fish. Fish that are already experiencing a decline in population due pressures from fisheries are escaping into smaller areas making it appear to fisheries that the population is experiencing a growth spurt when actually they are just being concentrated in a smaller area. This is going to lead to a probable crash in fish harvest.

The only way this die-off of population can be prevented is to stop the practice of polluting our oceans while reversing the trend of climate change. It doesn’t seem either of these possibilities is going to take place. We may very well soon see the end of ocean fish sales.

Environmental News

More than 1,000 dead birds fall from sky in Arkansas The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission said Saturday more than 1,000 dead blackbirds fell from the sky in Beebe.

Reports of sea lion shootings on rise in California Wildlife officials have seen a slight rise in the shooting of ocean mammals in recent years, and investigators often struggle to find a culprit. There are few witnesses to such shootings, making it nearly impossible to bring a case.

Teach Your Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Smithfield Threatens Documentary makers Over ‘Pig Business”

A documentary about Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations-CAFO’s due to be shown this coming Sunday at the Guardian Hay festival in London England is facing legal action by the company it criticizes, Smithfield Foods.

Smithfield denies its alleged responsibility for environmental pollution and health problems among residents near its factories.

The film was due to be broadcast on Channel 4 in February but was cancelled because of legal fears. A planned screening at the Frontline Club in London earlier this year was also called off.

Each cancellation emboldens Smithfield to keep fighting to keep it from the public. Residents near the factories could come forward and either validate or discredit the film.

Pig Business shows the cramped conditions in which pigs are reared, similar to those of battery hens, and claims that waste is inadequately disposed off, leaking into the surrounding environment.

Filmmaker Tracy Worcester, pictured here, interviewed people who live near Smithfield farms in the US, where the company started out, who complain of health problems including asthma and digestive illnesses, and fishermen who report that stocks have been destroyed.

The film documents the company's move to Poland, where locals claim to experience similar health problems.

Worcester, who spent four years making the film, said: "It's crucial that consumers are able to watch this so they know what is being done to their food."

Smithfield's poor environmental record was documented in Felicity Lawrence's book Eat Your Heart Out, where she notes that the company was fined $12.6m for illegally discharging pollutants into the Pagan river in Virginia. There is no reason to believe the company ‘cleaned up its ways’.

Since Smithfield is fighting this so arduously, there is probably some truth to what the documentary is trying to get out to us. The funny thing, those of us who have followed CAFO’s already now how damaging they are to our environment. So why is Smithfield fighting so hard to keep it from us? They think the general public is too easily swayed by whatever someone puts in front of them. They don’t give the public credit for thinking for themselves.

The thing Smithfield needs to learn is that the internet can spread the truth without any of their lawyers interfering.

Facts about CAFO’s:
Facts about CAFOs, Local Control, and Health Ordinances
Facts about CAFOs by Sierra Club, Michigan Chapter
CAFOs – Economics, emotion and passion

Photo credit: Guardian News and Media Limited

Obama gives biofuels the big thumbs up

clipped from www.whitehouse.gov President Obama announced steps to further his Administration’s commitment to advance biofuels research and commercialization a Biofuels Interagency Working Group, to be co-chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency This Working Group will work with the National Science and Technology Council's Biomass Research and Development Board in undertaking its work Develop the nation’s first comprehensive biofuel market development program The President also announced that $786.5 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be provided to accelerate advanced biofuels research and development and expand commercialization by providing additional funding for commercial biorefineries The new categories include: Cellulosic biofuels; Biomass-based diesel; Advanced biofuels; and Total renewable fuel.

On the surface this may seem like a good idea, but the mandate to, by 2022, have up to 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol counted toward the 36 billion gallon biofuel production level will only worsen its effect on food production. We’re at 6-9 billion gallons of corn ethanol now and with all the havoc that has wreaked on agriculture worldwide, the concept of almost tripling that amount over the next 20-odd years is terrifying. What may yet save us is the fact that it will likely prove a simply impossible standard to meet.

And the fact that the administration’s rationale for expanding the use of biofuels continues to be the misplaced desire “to reduce our dependence on foreign oil” is just ludicrous. Addressing climate change WILL reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But simply reducing dependence on foreign oil won’t save the planet—only zeroing out our carbon emissions will do that. So energy policy in this country must be seen through that one, single lens.

Saving the World From Death by Coal

clipped from www.peacefuluprising.org Right in the heart of our nation's capitol is a coal fired power plant which kills. This is not unusual, all coal power plants kill. They are the largest anthropogenic source of the CO2 emissions (over 40%) which have now reached high enough levels of concentration in our atmosphere that many of the world's leading experts in climate change fear the tipping point may have already been reached and catastrophic climate change may now be inevitable. There is no such thing as clean coal The is no such thing as safe coal Coal may very well end life on this planet as we know it. We absolutely must stop burning coal and we must do it yesterday We are now creating a world vastly different from the one which has been so conducive to the biological diversity and global ecosystem which allowed the human species to evolve and human civilization to flourish In the last twelve months the number of climate change lobbyists on the Hill has increased 300% So what's a person to do

I know this is a bit dated, but it bears repeating for those who missed it.

A group of over 2,500 people from all across the country marched on the coal fired power plant in our nation's capitol which for over 100 years has supplied heat and electricity to Congress by burning coal.

More actions in the form of civil disobedience directed against coal power plants are planned in the near future. As the world prepares for the UN COP15 Conference in Copenhagen this December, it is a critical year for, as Bill McKibben said, "creating a political space for a climate treaty to be finalized."

Time's up.

Eat Less, Enjoy Life More

It seems, despite Barack Obama’s best intentions, the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. This means we may have to all tighten our belts a little tighter. But the up side is that we should all come through this a little healthier.

The reason I feel so upbeat about this is that we have to admit we have collectively been eating just a little too much these past few years and eating less is going to have several benefits for us humans as well as for the planet. It might even put people in a frame of mind to find more ways in which we can be a little more considerate of our planet’s needs.

One of the best things we can do for ourselves that always translates to better health for Earth is to eat smaller portions. Not only will you see a decrease in your grocery bill, your body will reward you with better health and you will find that we are throwing less food away. The latest studies confirm that it's not carbs or proteins so much as the number of calories we consume that influences our waist lines most. Slimming down and keeping the weight off relieves all kinds of stress on vital organs, prolonging life.

Eating processed and refined foods also adds not only extra calories but unnecessary chemical additives and industrialized oils that are used for various non-nutrient purposes such as to color foods, making it taste better, and adding shelf life. These extras are not needed by the human body so why consume them? The extras I refer to are corn oil, soybean oil and too much sodium, which all contribute to high blood pressure. Refined grains raise glycemic levels, a cause of diabetes. Despite these health consequences, corporations such as General Mills and Pepsi think of all kinds of ways to persuade you to buy their products. Not because they are such staunch supporters of a healthier life style, but because the extra money you pay for them earns profits for their shareholders.

If at all possible, buy whatever you can in bulk. If you shun processed foods you will already be on your way to lessening the impact that packaging has on the planet. Many processed foods come in individual, or at least smaller, servings. Think about it, how much packaging does it take to wrap individual items to feed ten people as opposed to the amount of packaging required for one package that feeds those same ten people? Also, much of the packaging is made from plastic or plastic coated paper which comes from petroleum, and it all ends up in the landfill. Even if you are one of the conscientious few who recycle everything, it's far more environmentally friendly to purchase foods that don't have any packaging at all. Plus, you pay extra for the packaging.

Another way that will greatly help our physical health as well as financial health is to buy whole foods. The produce section provides the best source of nutrition in any grocery store and yet it is the most expensive. Many people don’t stop to think about how much the federal government subsidizes (with our tax dollars) the growing of corn and soybeans. These two items provide the lease amount of nutrition for the bulk they provide and they are the cheapest. What this means is that we may spend less but we are not getting any real nutrition for our dollar which leads to higher medical costs. Tomatoes, sweet potatoes, broccoli, asparagus, cabbage, carrots and parsnips are all loaded with good nutrition. So are of kinds of whole grains and dried beans. If you can afford it, start buying your produce from the local farmers market. Not only will you know exactly where your food is coming from, you will be helping to support your local agricultural economy, not some giant agribusiness a thousand miles away that uses far too much fuel and time to get your so called ‘fresh’ produce to you.

Anyone who has visited this site regularly knows, this next topic is a favorite rant of mine. I promise I won’t rant this time, but we really do need to eat less meat. The biggest reason is that feeding beef cows, pigs and chickens is expensive, both financially and to the environment. Corn is one of the major sources of food for cows and they are not even built for it. Corn is used because it is more profitable for farmers to grow rather than the grass that cows naturally eat. Corn requires an extremely high amount of nitrogen fertilizer and this comes from chemicals which is based in petroleum. Simply because we have used so much chemically based fertilizers in the past, the natural state of our soils in the Midwest is depleted. Excess nitrogen fertilizer gets washed into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River and is killing off a large portion of the sea life.

In addition to the dangers of using petroleum-based chemical fertilizers to raise the food for these animals, most animals for consumption are now raised on huge feedlots that produce tons of pollution that ends up in our waters and in our air. They and all the fuels used to feed and transport them contribute mightily to global warming.

Hopefully, that rant wasn’t too bad. Trust me, I could go on for pages.

The bottom line is to try to get more of your protein from eggs and beans. Search out eggs produced on pastures instead of giant hen houses. Eggs are still a nutritional bargain, even when they're $4.75 a dozen at the farmers market. Also work more dried beans and whole grains into your diet. Together they make a complete protein and they are much cheaper than meat. The next step up would be chicken. Chickens (look for "pasture raised") are much more efficient producers of protein than cows or pigs.

Fish, while being one my favorite foods, is becoming more and more expensive because there are fewer and fewer fish to be caught. Humans are rapidly destroying the oceans. If you must buy wild-caught fish, check first with a reputable rating agency such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium's "Seafood Watch program to make sure you are buying only fish that has been sustainably harvested. Otherwise, look for fish raised on farms in the U.S., such as catfish, tilapia, striped bass or shrimp. These have the further advantage of being cheaper than most wild-caught fish. Another excellent protein source is farmed shell fish such as clams, oyster and mussels. If you are pregnant, breast feeding or otherwise concerned about having enough Omega 3 in your diet, be assured that there are other sources besides fish.

Bottled water, this is a touchy subject too. If you are fortunate to live in an area of the country where tap water tastes good and is thoroughly tested then by all means don’t buy bottled water. For those of us whose city tap water does not taste good, sorry, but we are going to buy bottled water. End of story. It is true that bottled water is outrageously expensive and Americans throw away something on the order of 80 million plastic water bottles every day, to say nothing of all the fuel being used to make the bottles and transport them from factory to store. But I need water and my tap water is salty.

Stop drinking soft drinks. These drinks, Coca Cola, Pepsi, etc, are loaded with sugar that rots teeth and helps make people (especially children) fat. Americans consume way too much soda. Plus, sodas are a major contributor to our plastic bottle and aluminum can nightmare. Diet sodas are only marginally better, in that you eliminate the sugar. But in the process you consume industrialized chemicals posing as sweeteners. Learn to like water again and watch how everyday foods begin to taste better and your weight begins to drop. I have been there and I know.

Eat out less. Restaurants may not want to hear this but they are a contributing factor to our weight problem. Their portions are way too big. Plus, food from restaurants and especially fast food joints is not particularly good for you. If you are using whole ingredients and healthy oils such as extra-virgin olive oil or canola oil, just about anything you make at home is bound to be more nutritious and likely cheaper than what you get eating out. Making food at home and sitting down to a meal at the dinner table also teaches valuable lessons to children and helps strengthen the family unit. Get your kids out from in front of the TV and into the kitchen helping you make dinner.

The final topic of our discussion today is gardening. There is a rise in the number of people starting their own gardens. At first is was attributed to higher gasoline prices of last summer which lead to higher food prices. Now that we are entering our second year of the economic downturn, your garden should be ready to start producing, provided you added plenty of composted kitchen scraps, animal manure and no chemical fertilizers last year. But it is never too late to get started. Keep feeding the soil and your plants will reward you with a much healthier diet than what you have been eating.

A kitchen garden will solve many of your budget and nutritional issues. Most vegetable seed packets cost less than $3 and typically contains more seeds than the typical home gardener will ever use. There is very little in the produce section or at the farmers market that you cannot grow yourself, including all your most expensive favorites: strawberries, blueberries, asparagus, rhubarb, artichokes. Some of these items will not grow as well in some parts of the country as in others. You need to learn things such as ‘Last Frost Date’, ‘First Frost Date’, your soil type, etc. All of these and many other questions that arise can be answered by following several of the myriad of gardening blogs on the internet. There are many passionate gardeners who are will to answer any question you may have.

It is amazingly easy to grow your own potatoes, beans, peas, and tomatoes. You can fill your pantry and your freezer with enough food for the whole year provided you have the space for enough plants. But even if you can’t grow enough to get through the winter you will have at least added healthful foods to your diet and you will have learned how to grow your own. If you don’t have room to grow anything, there are community gardens in almost any city. And if not in yours, then start one. You will be sure to find neighbors who are just waiting for someone to bring up the possibility.

Global Warming Equals More Snow?

I need new clothes. But first I need to know, do I stock up on shorts, sandals and t-shirts? Or, sweaters, overcoats, mukluks and gloves?

Stories of record snow falls and melting ice-caps. Stories of record droughts. Damn it, I’m confused.

Snow in Las Vegas? Snow in Houston? Snow in New Orleans?

Just a few months ago we were all told that our coast lines will dramatically change due to rapidly melting ice caps. And we are adding more carbon to the atmosphere at a faster rate than ever before thus heating up our planet.

Now we find out Mars is experiencing global warming as well. Has our behavior gotten so bad and far-reaching that we have affected a planets weather patterns over 55 million km away?

Here’s how some scientist try to cover the scientific community’s collective butts, the surprise with which we have greeted the extreme conditions only reinforces how our climate has changed over the years. Huh? They are telling us that such extreme weather as record snowfall in places that always gets snow and snowfall in places that usually never gets snow now only occurs every 20 years. When these occurrences used to occur every 5 years or so.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not buying it. I used to put more faith in science that I have of late. But putting too much stock in that old expression 'too cold to snow' may show a crack in their logic.

In the meantime, while scientist try to figure out what our future is going to look like, my garden is showing new life a full month ahead of schedule. Apparently, I am not the only one confused.

If this Global Warming trend keeps up, we are all going to freeze to death.

Excuse me, I need to shovel some Global Warming snow from my driveway. I wonder if there will be a market for fur-lined t-shirts.



Humor: Snow – Global Warming Alert!
Global Snow Job: Global Warming Plot to Take Over the World?
Global Warming Caused by Shoveling

Danger in the Nursery

Just found this article in Bird Life International and thought it would be interesting to pass along.

The author informs us about strip-mining for tar sands in Canada’s boreal forest. Canada is a part of the northern boreal ecoregion which accounts for about one third of this planet's total forest area. It is comprised of a broad circumpolar band which runs through most of Canada, Russia, Scandinavia and parts of Northern Scotland. Compared to much of the world, this ecoregion enjoys a sparse population and thus one would think, few threats to its immense and majestic beauty. However the reality is quite different.

The search for new oil reserves in tar-sand, a source of low-grade oil, is damaging forest and wetland habitats to the extent that over the next 30 to 50 years up to 300,000 hectares of forest and wetland could be directly affected, while habitat fragmentation, pollution and hydrological changes would affect a much larger area.

The area of north eastern Alberta supports at least 292 species of breeding birds. The only wild, migratory population of Whooping Crane Grus americana (Endangered) nests at Wood Buffalo National Park to the north, and migrates over the tar sands region, occasionally stopping over at boreal wetlands.

Many of the most abundant songbirds and waterbirds of the Americas also breed in the "bird nursery" of the boreal forest, and are already suffering declines because of logging, and degradation of their migration staging sites.

"Canada's boreal forest is an incredibly important area for many breeding neotropical migrant birds, and contains numerous Important Bird Areas", said John Cecil, national IBA program director for Audubon (BirdLife in the USA). "The report details impacts to at least five IBAs, among numerous other impacts".

Site preparation for strip mining requires draining lakes and wetlands, diverting streams and rivers, clear-cutting forests, and removing all vegetation. Hydraulic shovels and trucks are used to dig as deep as 100 meters into the earth. Despite commitments by the oil and mining companies, there is no evidence that lost ecosystems can be restored.

And even they are restored, how long will it take, and will it be in time to halt a devastating loss of wildlife?

How many links in the food chain can we live without? Birds are more than just something to look at and listen to. They eat insects whose numbers could devastate food crops if not kept in check.

Loss of habitat reduces a number of various mammals, reptiles, fish, etc, and each loss brings us closer to our own demise.

But, hey, as long as oil companies keep making money, as long as governments keep making tax money on it and we get to ride around in our personal vehicles, who cares right?

Being green means more than just using alternative energy sources, it also means protecting the planet and all of its inhabitants.

Living a green lifestyle means we don’t destroy any part of our environment to improve our lifestyle, because it does not improve our lifestyle.

Every time one more species is obliterated from this planet, we get one step closer to our own destruction.

Not all of us may not give a hang for birds, or spiders, or ants, or elephants, but without each and every one of them everyone's quality of life is diminished.

Environmental Scorecard

My first post of the year, is it really the 15th already, is going to help me shed some light on how my family does the green thing.

A lot of big talk and good intentions are in the air about the need to save the planet from, well, us basically, so I figured I would throw out a few of the ways in which my family is helping to do our part.

Being environmentally responsible is a lot more than just recycling. It touches almost every aspect of our daily lives, from what we choose to eat, how the products we buy are packaged, how we clean our homes and how we get from point A to point B.

I grow some of the food we eat and put some of that up for the winter via the miracle of canning. I must admit that we could can more but we give a lot of it away to neighbors and family while it is still fresh.

We shred all of our junk mail, except the slick glossy stuff, who knows what goes into the inks on these things. I even shred my bills! Ha! In my dreams. I do pay most of them online but elect to receive the paper bill just in case I lose the use of the computer for whatever reason, like a seriously bad economic down turn. It is terribly satisfying to shred a credit card bill though.

The shredded paper, along with our newspapers get added to the compost pile.

Whatever bit of cardboard that does not find its way into a new planting bed goes into the recycle bin along with cans. But mostly I rip it up and place it on the compost as well.

Our neighborhood stopped collecting glass stating it was becoming too expensive to process it and even without that load our recycling bin is nearly over-flowing when they pick it up every two weeks.

I have canceled magazine subscriptions for insisting on stuffing way too many subscription forms in them as well as all manner of loose leaf ads. The really bad ones put the magazine in a plastic bag so they can throw more ads at us. I have written to these offending companies and told them how unhappy I am with the amount of landfill material they send out with each magazine. If I get a response at all it is nothing more than thanking me for writing. So I just cancel the subscription.

In the matter of those monthly bills that stuff fliers advertising their products and services, I stuff these back into the bill envelope with a note telling them to throw away their own trash.

We throw food scraps on the compost pile.

I collect compost from the city to use in the garden.

We adhere to shopping lists and go to the market once a week and then combine other destinations on the same trip so as not to waste gas.

I see to it that both of our cars are properly maintained in order to get the most fuel efficiency.

My wife works outside the home, I work at home and I have taken up cooking from recipes that use whole foods as opposed to processed foods.

One of the most difficult things to free ourselves of is plastic. We find it in a number of food packing, consumer packaging, even the bags we carry our consumer goods home in. We re-use almost all of the plastic food containers and plastic shopping bags. Anything that can be re-used is.

We take quick showers (baths are so wasteful) and do laundry only one day a week.

We have cut down a lot on eating beef. We mostly eat chicken.

We have installed compact fluorescent lights in every room and lamp in our house for energy efficiency and turn off lights when not in the room. My computer is on all day because that’s is my work tool.

Plastic milk jugs get re-used for a lot of purposes. I use them to start plants in until they are big enough to set out in the garden. I use them as cloches over the tender plants I set out until they are able to take nature on its own.

We feed our lawn and all garden plants (including houseplants) with organic material, i.e., the compost pile and supplement it with seaweed, fish emulsion, cottonseed meal, bone meal, blood meal, etc, instead of using synthetic fertilizer.

We turn the thermostat down to 64 at night and pile extra blankets on the bed. The thermostat itself has four time settings so that the house temperature can be customized for when we are in the house or away from home.

I do still use my gasoline powered lawn mower but use an electric edge trimmer. I prune everything else by hand.

I shovel snow with an actual snow shovel while many people around my neighborhood use a gas powered snow blower.

I am embarrassed to say that we still clean our home with chemical cleaners but I am trying to get my wife converted to using natural products such as vinegar, salt, lemon juice, baking soda, etc. It is a tough uphill battle.

One of the requirements to living a sustainable life is learning how others do it, because there always seems to be an easier or more ingenious way of doing something.

I find that the majority of the people I talk to about it say they would like to or actually do something with the environment in mind. But when I visit their houses I sometimes find recyclable items thrown in the trash can or see someway they do something that could be a little more earth friendly. I am mindful that I cannot be the self-appointed ‘environment police’ and just continually bark at everyone about the error of their ways, so I just have to realize that we are dealing with a lifestyle that cannot be easily unlearned.

I would be tickled pink if a grow-your-own-food/gardening revolution would take place that would knock food prices down, discontinue the use of chemical based fertilizers and pesticides, finally win the war against obesity, and lower our healthcare costs because we would all be eating healthier and visiting the doctor les often. What a slice of paradise that would be.

But the major change is going to have to happen at the corporate level. We are going to have to be forced to stop using plastic bags only when companies stop making them. We are going to have to be taken by the hand to drive vehicles that get 50 mpg or more when the automobile industry stops making cars that get less.

Mass transit is only going to work when we are taxed out of driving our personal vehicles into corporate/commercial zones to work and shop everyday.

Coal-powered power plants are gong to stop fouling our air and water only when alternative energy sources are proven to be more cost effective and these fossil-fuel sucking behemoths are finally put to rest.

We as individuals can only do so much. And as long as we are given the less expensive more environmentally-damaging alternative to live our lives we will sadly do it.

If maybe I can inspire someone through this blog to change a little something about their behavior to stop taking this planet for granted then I feel my time spent has been worthwhile.

Shale Oil Development, robbing Peter to pay Paul

I read this article in the Los Angeles Times and it really hit set me off in several different directions.

Dollar signs fill the heads of oil companies and politicians, while visions of ecological disaster fill the minds of everyone else.

Oil company execs say it would be ‘unconscionable to forgo exploiting oil shale's potential’ while dismissing the ‘unconscionable’ destruction of land and the ‘unconscionable’ pollution and depletion of water resources.

Shell Oil spouts sound bites like ‘safely and responsibly’ ‘getting at’ this hydrocarbon resource simply because it is considered a ‘huge’ resource while at the same time acknowledging that the technology required to ‘get at’ this shale oil is unproven. What is known about this technology is that it would take 10 barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil and that could possibly use all of the remaining water in upper Colorado River Basin.

Where does this leave ranchers who depend on the underground aquifers for their crops and livestock, or the millions of people who would like to drink, bathe and swim in clean water downstream?

Taxpayer Rip Off
It seems congress has already decided how to best use our ‘public lands’. For oil shale development. Despite the proof of past ecological destruction, congress continues to bend to oil company pressure instead of taking the lead to develop renewable energy.

More proof of this decision comes from this industry being included in the $700-billion government bailout package. I was under the impression that the bailout was for financial institutions. Seems we were lied to again. I understand that we didn’t have any say in the first place on how this money was to be spent, but we were told the money was necessary to prevent Wall Street investment firms and banking institutions from going under not for more oil company tax breaks and investment.

No wonder Paulson refuses to allow disclosure on how this money is being spent. Bush and his cronies continue to ride the gravy train of taxpayer handouts.

Groundwater nightmare
It is not a matter of ‘if’ groundwater will be contaminated by this process, but by how much. No matter what ‘assurances’ oil companies give us that they will be ‘safe’ and ‘responsible’, their past and current performance shows they cannot be trusted.

Yet congress and the oil companies want to push forward into the darkness knowing full well they will add to the ecological mess that they have helped bring to our lands, air and water.

As the article says ‘Oil shale is a poor excuse for a fuel’. Why should we destroy even more landscape to further enrich a handful of men while taking away so much from so many?

Progress Toward Addressing Climate Change Fails Again

Are we really committed to combating climate change? We talk a great game. We seem to recognize that something must be done. But when it comes right down to it, there is very little action.

Industrialized and developing countries get together periodically to discuss the problem and toss around ideas on how to deal with it, but in the end any solution is so watered down that it becomes ineffective.

Money is made available for developing countries, through a 2% levy on carbon trading under the UN Clean Development Mechanism, but everyone agrees that the amount raised ($80 million) is far below what is needed to build the necessary flood defenses, to develop much needed drought-resistant crops, and to produce storm warnings. This fund represents the human side of climate change, something that tends to be lost when discussing how much pollution should be cut back by industrialized nations.

The biggest polluters are of course industrialized nations, such as China, India, America, and Japan, who raise the loudest objections to pay more into the fund and consistently fail to reach agreements to make deeper emissions cuts. Understandably, developing nations are disappointed at their position and stubbornness. Everyone is paving a road of good intentions, but good intentions never get anything done.

U.N. projections are that poor nations will need tens of billions of dollars a year by 2030 to cope with climate change. Poland spent 24 million euros ($31.84 million) just to host the Dec. 1-12 conference and the only concrete result was to streamline access by developing nations to the fund while rich nations secured controls to ensure cash was properly spent.

This summit represented the halfway point between Bali in 2007 and Copenhagen in 2009. It was scheduled to reach an agreement to expand the Kyoto Protocol committing industrialized countries to make deeper emission cuts in the short-term and to produce a longer-term agreement encompassing all countries. No discernable progress was made.

EU leaders in Brussels agreed a pact on Friday to cut greenhouse gases by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 -- after making costly concessions to east European countries. Is this going to be another disappointment of more talk and less action?

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions was never expected to be cheap or easy. It requires drastic changes in lifestyles for all of us, rich and poor alike. Everyone knew this before agreeing to get together to create an action plan to overcome our past mistakes. Time passes, pollution levels remain unaltered. The time has come to actually commit to a plan. Industrialized nations, being the biggest polluters should bear the largest financial burden to ease the rest of world of their disproportionate suffering.

This could be our last best chance to make a difference. Let’s make it effective.

Another Lesson in Economics

Airfares are dropping. Gasoline prices are dropping. Instead of thanking your lucky stars for answered prayers, thank yourselves.

These happy reversals of long-standing trends are the result of a very basic factor of economics: lack of demand.

When gas prices began rising sharply we parked our vehicles and took up the mantra of environmentalist everywhere by riding public transportation. Let’s don’t blow it by returning to our old glutinous ways.

I would like to be altruistic and say we did it to save the environment, but no, we did it to save our pocketbooks.

Whatever the reason, we need to improve this trend and take the environmental reasons to heart. And if we continue to save a little money in the process, so much the better.

Of course now airlines are complaining about the lack of revenue, but please keep in mind they are crying for themselves, not for us and definitely not for the environment.

So, while we are still high on this happy news, can home mortgage rates be far behind?

Chevron cries Foul over its environmental damage

Chevron and Texaco (which is owned by Chevron) are dumping toxic oil wastes into Ecuador’s Amazon rain forest’s rivers and streams and are upset because the indigenous people are taking them to court over it.

For the past five years, a group of U.S. trial lawyers, on behalf of thousands of indigenous Indian peasants, have been trying to get Chevron to clean up the mess and admit its responsibility for the many resulting cases of cancer and physical deformities that local Indian tribes are suffering from.

After a court appointed expert recommended Chevron be required to pay between $8 billion and $16 billion to clean up the rain forest, Chevron executives finally decided it was time to disclose the issue to its shareholders. After the initial shock at the prospect of losing their investment money, an army of Chevron lobbyists and trial lawyers descended on Washington DC to try to get the federal government to force Ecuador to drop the case. Isn’t it remarkable that the very people who would sue anyone for dumping toxic sludge on their own lawns are going off screaming and crying to the federal government to prevent having to pay for their part in doing the same thing to someone else?

Chevron, who has profited greatly from being given the rights to extract millions of dollars in oil from Ecuador, has the audacity to ask the U.S. government to yank special trade preferences for Ecuador if that country doesn’t drop the case.

This is the same corporation who recently pushed a new global ‘Human Energy’ advertising campaign. This ad was devised, created and broadcast all during the time that Chevron’s treachery was taking place in Ecuador. This ad campaign, boasting ‘conservation and responsible exploration’ is aimed at engaging people in today’s energy issues and highlighting the steps Chevron is taking to bring more energy supplies to the global marketplace. Funny, but I remember that ad highlight how their extraction practices are poisoning acres of rainforest, polluting miles of river beds, killing countless fish and wildlife and giving cancer to hundreds of Ecuadorian people. All in the name of bringing energy to Americans.

I guess they did not count on their campaign to raise awareness about the major issues to actually raise awareness about their careless and harmful practices.

They have spent millions on trying to convince the public that they are working together with consumers in areas of vital importance, such as supply and demand, energy efficiency and climate change while at the same time spending millions to gag the Ecuadorian government for uncovering its environmental irresponsibility.

Oil companies are only about finding more oil and pulling it out of the ground and moving it using the cheapest method possible, and maximizing their investments in drilling rights and refinery capacity. If the environment gets in the way of either goal, the environment pretty much loses. In this case a country and its citizens are slated to lose because under this current administration oil is king and oil corporations hold the keys to the kingdom. With their high-priced lawyers and such powerhouse lobbyists as former Senate majority leader Trent Lott, former Democratic senator John Breaux and Wayne Berman, a top fund-raiser for John McCain—all with access to Washington's top decision makers the odds are stacked against the lowly native Indian tribes of a third world country, no matter how much wealth Chevron has plundered from them.

Chevron has the low class to argue that it has been victimized by a "corrupt" Ecuadoran court system while the plaintiffs received active support from Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa—an ally of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. It is odd that the fact of this relationship between Ecuador and Chavez did not matter to Chevron as long as they were making a profit. No matter who the Ecudoran people have sided with, basic morality dictates that no corporation or shareholders should profit from the harm they bring to bear on indigenous peoples.

Corporations think that just because they have invested millions in their country, even for the purpose of making many more millions in profit from it without sharing it with the host nation, that they should be free of any harm they bring to that country. Since Chevron and the U.S. government tout globalization, this case should be tried in a world court.

Now, to add a twist to this story, trial lawyers in the case have retained their own high-profile D.C. super lobbyist, Ben Barnes, a major Democratic fund-raiser. And they have tapped a capital connection that may pay off even more. Roughly two years ago, when Attorney Steven Donziger who is coordinating the D.C. opposition to Chevron, first got wind that Chevron might take its case to Washington, he went to see Barack Obama who just happens to have been a schoolmate at Harvard Law School. During the course of several meetings, Donziger showed his old friend graphic photos of toxic oil pits and runoffs. He also argued strongly that Chevron was trying to subvert the "rule of law" by doing an end run on an Ecuadoran legal case. Obama was "offended by that," said Donziger. Obama vetted the issue with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (who has long worked on Latin American human-rights issues), and in February 2006 the two wrote a letter to the then U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman urging the administration to permit the Ecuadoran peasants to have "their day in court."

In light of this, Chevron’s plea for help in Washington has taken on a new urgency because if Obama becomes president this case could remain in Ecuador. But we are no longer naïve enough to believe that you can count on what a President of the United States says he will do and what he actually does.

It is going to come down to whether an American company commands bigger clout than a Central American country with a long standing U.S. bilateral relationship.

The fact that Chevron withheld information from its shareholders concerning an ongoing lawsuit with a foreign country who helps provide profits says very little about the relationship Chevron’s corporate board holds with its shareholders. What else are they hiding?

Chevron and Texaco mow share space on the list of the world’s worst corporations for human and global responsibility along with Citgo which is owned by Venezuela.


Source: Newsweek
Newsweek

Let’s Take That First Step

Being green is more than a state of mind or a catchy political platitude to throw around at parties to show your friends that you are ‘concerned’ abut the environment.

We have to get serious about first reversing the damage that this current short-sighted, corporate robber baron that we call President of the United States has done. Then we need to heal the scars that our drive to profitability has left on this planet.

This incessant need to live and drive in luxury (as if we think we deserve it) is exacting a very high toll on the environment and therefore our future.

Mankind has always arrogantly placed itself above nature with the idea that everything is here for our amusement and pleasure. Resources are finite. Wildlife represents an integral link in the chain of life that helps supports every other link in that chain. We have all heard horror stories and speculations of what would happen if that chain were to fall apart. Respect is what is needed. Now, more than ever we need to respect what nature has to offer us and what we must do to give back and this requires the same thoughtful consideration we would like to bestow upon ourselves.

We don’t need vehicles that have the ability reach speeds above national speed limits that deplete copious amounts of fuel. We do not have to get from one part of the world to another so fast that excess fuel is burned just for the ability to do so.

We will not go hungry if we don’t have out-of-season foods on our dinner table and our health is not dependent on eating animals. Wearing animal parts is not a status symbol.

Living simpler, learning to do without will help ease the pressures we are placing on the environment in the name of making our lives easier. Let’s learn to live with what we have as opposed to using what we have. Let’s turn our attentions to nurturing what is available to us and forego the corporate welfare that is slowly destroying us.

This idea of using what we have available to us is rooted in turning a profit on every thing we see and touch. It has gotten out of hand, it has become wasteful. Free markets properly value raw materials and encourages producers to eliminate waste and pollution, by reducing, reusing, and recycling. Corporate capitalists don’t want free markets, they want dependable profits, and their surest route to profits is to crush competition such as small businesses and local farmers that help anchor local economies and communities. These local merchants are being squashed by the big-box stores who funnel their profits to distant corporate headquarters effectively taking the life-blood out of the backbone of this country. Over 60% of these large corporations don’t pay taxes because they place their headquarters on foreign soil which leaves gaping holes in our inner-city neighborhoods across the country.

Teddy Roosevelt often said that America could only be destroyed by those individuals who hold the greatest wealth when they subvert our political institutions. Well ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly what is going on here today. George W. Bush and his corporate cronies now dominate our political landscape. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the American people of falling under the control of the “military-industrial complex”. Abraham Lincoln lamented “I have the Confederacy before me and the bankers behind me, and for my country I fear the bankers most.” Franklin Roosevelt warned “the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.”

The White House has learned a lot about fascism from the likes of Hitler’s sidekick, Hermann Goering, who once stated “the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for their lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” They have devised a system of terror alert levels that keep us in constant apprehension, required for the people of the U.S. to believe we need to keep our leaders in place to protect us. And while we are kept worrying about our protection, Bush/Cheney have endorsed and subsidized corporations who destroy our public lands and waterways while they search for profit.

These corporations benefit from the largest federal subsidies in history, going to grazing, lumber, mining and agribusiness. We now have oil drilling taking place in our once pristine national forests. The protection of wildlife and flora has become secondary to corporate profit. The latest business receiving abundant federal subsidies is biofuel production despite its connection to increasing food prices and creating a food crisis around the planet which disproportionately affects the world’s poor.

We must hold ourselves responsible for the environment and hold our politicians accountable when they allow corporations to plunder our countryside. The first step in this endeavor is to embrace nature as a complex living organism, not as a thing that can and should be used for our benefit without giving back. We can live with nature comfortably without destroying the very thing we need for our survival. And corporate commercials touting their ‘greenness’ is just BS to keep you buying their products. Don’t be fooled by their crafty corporate-speak when they say they are green. They are using our tax dollars to pay for those well thought out commercials to pat themselves on their corporate-piggy-backs to make themselves look like one of us. They are not one of us.

Further reading:

Park Service Approves Oil Drilling in Florida Preserve

Bush Allows Oil Drilling on Pristine Texas Beach

U.S. Proposal Would Allow Oil Drilling Off Virginia

Whale Habitat Off Alaska Could Open to Drilling

U.S. Government ‘selling oil-drilling rights to polar bear habitat’

Main Stream Media and the Real Story

Bloggers like to think we are presenting information that is useful to a large number of people. But even if that number is small the information we present should be accurate. In the pre-internet days when news dissemination fell under the purview of main stream media, editors decided what was to be printed or broadcast based on their perceptions of what the public wanted to hear. Today, with an increasing number of news outlets falling under the control of corporations, editors and journalist are forced to temper, slant, or choose their news stories in accordance with corporate agendas. Blogs and websites, not owned by corporate news outlets, are free to present information without regard to what the corporate world wants or does not want to see. We can ‘round out’ news items, fill in the blanks or present information that the main stream just does not touch upon. Granted individuals can and often do have their own agendas but overall we serve to present a balanced more pedestrian view of what is going on in our world.

The environment is a small subset of the ‘big picture’ and environmentalist have been historically regarded as alarmists or ‘nut jobs’ with derogatory nicknames such as ‘treehuggers’, ‘granola eating hippies’, ‘recycling nazis’, that don’t exactly foster respect. We like to point out how plastic is such a danger to wildlife due to its non-biodegradability or how the rush to embrace biofuels to free ourselves from the grasp of foreign oil is creating more problems or even how we are not recycling enough.

Today, I would like to turn our focus to something positive. In an attempt to counter the overwhelming negative reports we see in the news, let’s look at some of the positive results brought about by environmental regulations that has allowed steady and significant progress in reducing almost every form of pollution.

The quality of our drinking water has clearly improved through improved purification methods and the amount of attention we have placed on it to not pollute it in the first place. According to the Council on Environmental Quality, the percentage of water sources that were judged to be poor or severe fell from 30% in 1961 to 5% in the 1990s.

The treatment of industrial and municipal waste has greatly reduced the amount of bacteria that enters our streams, rivers, and lakes. Wastewater plants served only 40 million Americans in 1960, approximately 22%, compared with 190 million today, approximately 70%.

In 1972, only 36% of America’s rivers and streams were suitable for swimming and fishing. By 1994, that percentage was 86. Lakes that were pronounced environmentally “dead” in the 1960s and 1970s, such as Erie and Ontario, are now producing record fish catches.

In 1989 the Exxon Valdez crude oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William sound was a catastrophe of epic proportions that saw 41 million liters of crude oil coat once pristine coastlines and wildlife. Today, American households pour 1.3 billion liters of oil-based products down the drain each year contaminating lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater. There are safer alternative methods of handling households chemicals. The good news to take from this report is that the number of oil spills have been reduced since the 1970s.

Solid waste in the U.S. more than doubled from 1960 to 1990 but recycling rose by 96%. About 60% of the physical waste now generated by the United States is biodegradable.

We use energy much more efficiently today than ever before. According to calculations by the National Center for Policy Analysis, “the amount of energy needed to produce a dollar of GNP has been steadily declining at a rate of 1% per year since 1929.

The loss of U.S. wetlands fell from 500,000 acres per year in the 1950s to about 50,000 acres per year in the mid 1990s. This rate is still too high, but it is improving.

These facts and figures gives us much reason for optimism for it indicates that we are headed in the right direction.

Even though these great strides in cleaning up our environment have been made public opinion polls indicate that the general public does not seem to be aware of it. Listed below are some amazing poll results that illustrate the extent of mis-information and inaccurate views of the state of the environment.

A Roper poll, taken in 2003, found that most Americans believe they know more than they actually do about the environment.

* 120 million Americans think spray cans still have CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) in them. But CFCs were banned in 1978.

* 120 million think disposable diapers are the leading problem with landfills. They actually represent about 1% of the problem.

* 130 million believe that hydropower is America's top energy source. In fact, it accounts for just 10% of the total.

A 2001 Gallup poll asked “right now, do you think the quality of the environment in the country as a whole is getting better or getting worse?” Of the 1,060 adults who responded,

36% said it is getting better,
57% said it is getting worse,
5% said its about the same

A Newsweek magazine poll in 2000 asked: “Since the first Earth Day was held 30 years ago, how much progress do you think has been made toward solving environmental problems: major progress, minor progress, or no progress, or have environmental problems actually gotten worse?” Of the 752 adults polled,

18% said there had been major progress,

52% said there had been minor progress,

16% said the problems have gotten worse

7% had no opinion.

A Yale University poll in 2005 found that 52% of Americans believe the environment in the U.S. is getting worse. And only 15% thought it was getting better.

This article in the Calgary Herald states similar misinformation and negativity from Canadians.

These more recent polls show that Americans consider environmental issues to be of high importance.

Polls find global warming generating heat – July 2007

Conserving Energy Is Americans’ Top Environmental Action – March 2007

Environmental issues could swing election - 2007

Why is it that when so many people claim to place so much interest on the environment that such a disproportionate number of people doubt environmental success? Main Stream Media is a major reason. Americans are spoon fed by sources with little information, but alternative agendas. The Roper poll respondents were asked where they get their information, 60% cited mostly television and newspapers, 25% credited the government and 33% said radio or environmental groups. (More than one source could be chosen.)

Simply stated, bad news sells more copy and ad space than do success stories. Findings show that a small percentage of people actually follow the news no mater what it presents. But, as Roy Greenslade, professor of Journalism and media commentator for the Guardian points out, peoples’ interest in news is much more intense when there is a perceived threat to their way of life. They want to know what has gone wrong rather than what has gone right.

People just do not bother to inform themselves about what is being done by those who govern them in periods between the eruption of crises. This means that they are not aware of the complexities of problems until it is too late for them to take a coherent stance for or against policy decisions. This situation tends to favor political leaders.

I realize that this post will probably only be seen by those few who actually have a developed curiosity and are civic-minded enough to want to learn more about what goes on around them, but just maybe this post will reach someone who has come to the conclusion that there is more to the story than what the ‘big boys’ of media let on and is willing to subject themselves to a more complete story.

A New Environmentalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, comments are welcomed and encouraged.