On my Solstice trip, I drove from Colorado to Sacramento, California. Driving from Colorado, (where marijuana is legal) to Utah (where alcohol is heavily regulated) to Nevada (where gaming is legal) to California (where there are many, many people compared to the other states) is a lesson on “more or less the same biota, but strong sociopolitical differences.”
At the same time, I was listening to “The Killing of Crazy Horse” on CDs. I recommend this story, especially to those who frequent Wyoming, Nebraska and South Dakota. Weaving together my departure from Golden, Colorado to a point west of Placerville, California, hearing about the gold rush in the Black Hills (people were responding to a depression at the time) , touched home with the story of the west as a story of using our natural resources. Mining, water, agriculture, wood, fish, wildlife. You can stand on a peak in Colorado’s Rockies and see evidence of mining and water engineering almost anywhere you look (as in the above photo by me).
Some might say “exploiting” but according to Merriam-Webster there are two definitions:
1. to make productive use of : utilize
2. to make use of meanly or unfairly for one’s own advantage
I am not sure that #2 has meaning in terms of gold or other resource development, but utilizing resources seems like a good thing. Or at least it did in those days, and I wonder why we are not as enthused about it today. It seems like there are two fundamental trains of thought nowadays.
1. We need to use natural resources and we should be careful of the environment and make sure we protect it while extracting and using those resources. We are lucky to live in a country with so many, because we can develop them in an environmentally sensitive manner, create jobs that contribute to our communities, and trade products with other countries who want what we have, for things we want from them.
Now I’m not saying that everyone agrees on the details of “protecting the environment”; I participated in discussions vis a vis the Forest Stewardship Council certification standards, so I have some clue about how much debate there can be. However, the principle is that you can cut trees, graze cattle, pump out oil and gas, and be environmentally friendly.
2. We should not use those natural resources because of environmental impacts in our country. Since people do use resources, this really means that people will either use different resources, or the same ones (say wood, or gold or molybdenum, or oil) from elsewhere.
My hypothesis is that public research funds are used to study environmental impacts of different practices, but not so much to improve practices. It would be interesting to take a use, say, grazing, or oil and gas development, and look at 1) who’s doing what research and 2) who’s funding it, and 3) how much is targeted to improving practices, rather than saying “impacts are bad, so you should stop doing it.”
This kind of research does happen, though, and maybe should be highlighted more in the press (?). However, “practices can be improved” doesn’t have the drama of “practices will destroy the environment.”
I did run across this interesting roundup of new technologies for oil and gas development in Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog.
The thing is…the native indians recognized that it was best to build a small fire and get close to it. When the non indians came to the land, they built a bonfire and stood back.
It’s not that we aren’t utilizing our resources, it’s that we are apparently unconcerned about conserving resources.
Jerry, that seems like kind of a global statement.. who is this “we” that are unconcerned about conservation?
It is a global statement. It is humans in general but we Americans are looked up to as leaders and we are the leading offenders in terms of squander. From the massive homes we build to the gas guzzling vehicles we drive to our obsessive consumerism to our apathy where energy conservation is concerned. (case in point on that last point, I was recently kayaking in the newport beach area of S Cal. Among the thousands of huge, high end homes I saw, not one had solar panels on the rooftop. These are high energy consumption homes with owners who could afford to conserve…and who can afford not to conserve…and rather than investing in conservation, they invest in larger power craft to moore out back.)
I think we are onto a potentially rich vein of discussion (so to speak).
I visited places where downtown stores are boarded up and there are anti-meth billboards. So there are poor people and rich people and people in the middle; and people who are rich are not spending money in conservation oriented ways. In my daily life, I run into many people in the middle who are spending a lot of their money on medical bills and may not have enough left for solar panels.
But if we’re talking rich people, we would have to compare them to the Spanish or French rich people who perhaps also have yachts and airplanes and perhaps not, solar panels.
Like I said, I think this is worthy of discussion. Since my other main hobby is in the spiritual/religion world, I get to listen to a lot of “our society” breast-beating, and I always want to question who “we” mean by “we.”.
Here’s a powerful spoken word song, “Crazy Horse,” by John Trudell with my friend Quiltman’s traditional vocals…..
Crazy Horse
We Hear what you say
One earth one mother
One does not sell the earth
The people walk upon
We are the land
How do we sell our mother
How do we sell the stars
How do we sell the air
Crazy Horse
We hear what you say
Too many people
Standing their ground
Standing the wrong ground
Predators face he possessed a race
Possession a war that doesn’t end
Children of god feed on children of earth
Days people don’t care for people
These days are the hardest
Material fields material harvest
decoration on chains that binds
Mirrors gold the people lose their minds
Crazy Horse
We Hear what you say
One earth one mother
One does not sell the earth
The people walk upon
We are the land
Today is now and then
Dream smokes touch the clouds
On a day when death didn’t die
Real world time tricks shadows lie
Red white perception deception
Predator tries civilising us
But the tribes will not go without return
Genetic light from the other side
A song from the heart our hearts to give
The wild days the glory days live
Crazy Horse
We Hear what you say
One earth one mother
One does not sell the earth
The people walk upon
We are the land
How do we sell our mother
How do we sell the stars
How do we sell the air
Crazy Horse
We hear what you say
Crazy Horse
We hear what you say
We are the seventh generation
We are the seventh generation
I don’t mean to point the finger at the rich. We live in a democracy in which all people have the power to bring about change. I point the finger at the apathy of the majority. We allow and participate in the degradation of the planet we live on, while expecting someone else to do something about it. We all have to take responsibility. If we allow the folks of Newport Beach (sorry NB residents, just using your town as an example) to build 10,000 square foot homes and power them with coal fired electricity, while consuming all the fossil fuel they can get their hands on for their boats and cars, then really it’s not fair to criticize them…it’s human nature to consume all you want if you can afford it. At fault is every one of us who can see the damage done polluting our air and water and laying waste to our land in the harvest of the materials to fuel the demand for all this. At fault is every person who keeps quiet and allows it to happen, rather than stand up and say…I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more!”
Hmm. You say “if we allow them to..”, how to you propose to “not allow” them to?
While it may be true that it is “human nature” to consume all you want if you can afford it, it is also “human nature” to use your excess to provide for others who have less.
Every spiritual tradition encourages people to moderate their excesses, to give to the poor and to take care of the earth. We can disagree about how much we, and others should do, and how we go about it.
But if over-consumption by some is a problem, then I still don’t understand how you think that means that resources should or should not be developed. Certainly some of the coal mined in Paonia, for example, goes to keep prices low to poor people, while some goes for others’ second homes or keeping homes at 75 degrees when they could get along at 65. It seems to me that the place to start is with others’ behavior. Otherwise, the over-consumers will simply replace our home-grown energy with something not from here.
Public opinion will prevail, provided we can keep the public focused long enough!
Conservation is more energy efficient than stepping up production.
So, how do you do that…how do you make everybody accountable and willing to participate?
You hit them in the pocketbook to begin with. If you’re going to permit a 10,000 square foot home (for example), you require mitigation (like solar) and you assess a surcharge earmarked for energy research (or something along those lines). The NEC should calculate a maximum consumption per dwelling and if you can’t comply you don’t get the permit.
Vehicles should be rated for efficiency. For those that rate poorly, a stiff fuel tax should be imposed.(maybe 2 – 3 dollars per gallon) For those rated highly efficient, a fuel rebate should be provided. Both assessed or granted at the pump. People can still have their Hummers but there should be strong incentive to leave it home and drive something more efficient. It would pay people to have an efficient daily driver (rather than drive the club cab dually around town every day) and put people to work producing the more efficient small cars.
Yes, there are people who have integrity and will provide for those who have less…but they’re pretty rare and we can’t count on them.
Jerry, I think that these are some good ideas, but maybe harder to implement successfully.
For example, really rich people could build large second or third homes that are solar. So they would be using more (say, wood) than their fair share, but not necessarily more energy.
People in rural areas may need to pull horse or cattle trailers so they need a truck. Maybe some can’t afford more than one vehicle, and there won’t be buses going out from town to their places.
We have something like the energy surcharge in my area, if you use more than XCel thinks you should, there is a surcharge. However, this doesn’t take into account people (say seniors with fixed incomes) with oxygen machines, etc.
Seems like those seeking to conserve could go after.. second homes.. pets…RV’s.. any number of things that are not “necessary” and use resources. Even tourism…putting a surcharge on skiing might cut down traffic issues..
Oh, come on…nobody wants to shut down everything that is dear to the American consumer… just take a more common sense approach (let’s say a little less piggy approach). These fixes need to be hashed out, exceptions made, rules refined and the final analysis given good “teeth” to prevent loopholes and abuse. There are tons of ideas out there, the implementation of which can put us on a much healthier path, both environmentally and economically. We just have to get off the “entitled American” mentality and move forward.
But Jerry, I don’t know anyone who believes that they are entitled to be piggy because they are American. In fact, I saw something today about folks opening a Jeep plant in China…which would lead to the idea that some things are nice to have that are not necessary in life, and generally people with money enough for food clothing shelter and medical care will tend to procure those things.
I think if someone provided an overall vision that was compelling to get from here to there, it could be explored and debated and people could be inspired to support it.
My mom and dad’s generation lived through the Depression and World War II. One of my mom’s favorite expressions was “waste not, want not.” So if “we” Americans have become “piggy” it must have occurred since then.. or maybe its only some generations?
I don’t think we disagree about fundamental human values, I think we disagree on specific ways of moving forward in a positive direction. Like many people said that people who didn’t want cap’n’trade were against dealing with climate change. Just for me, I’m all for dealing with climate change, but not through cap’n’trade. My argument was “why give control over the environment to the same folks who played with the economy until it collapsed? Fool me once…”
We all want to enjoy the fruits of our labors. We all have to live with the consequences of over consumption. There has to be a balance and until we collectively decide to work toward that balance, we slide closer to the abyss. There is evidence aplenty of damage done to this planet, in terms of climate change, habitat destruction and polution that threatens our own healthy survival. The status quo has to change. The world’s population has to eventually work together but we as Americans have to lead the way. If we don’t start recognizing that we are piggy in our ways, we aren’t heading in a leadership direction at all. We need to pressure the federal government to pass legislation that leads us in that direction in a meaningful way…not biased toward the almighty profits of the mega corporations and special interests but with sincere and strong consideration toward the place we call home.
Sharon, you are obviously being tongue in cheek when you say the we Americans live by the waste not want not creed of our parents. Our parents inspired the over consumption of the post WWII era, probably as a result of pent up demand from the depression years. We learned from them and have taken it to a new and higher level. Picture what a starter home looked like in 1965 and ask yourself what the market for a modest 2 bedroom, 1 bath home is today.
Or we can say…well, we just want to have a good time and the Earth be damned.
Jerry- maybe we are different generations. My parents lived in a two bedroom house until they moved to a retirement two bedroom condo.To engage in profligate spending.. you gotta have the money and you gotta want to. Many, many people in the US don’t have the money (or used to have it, but lost it in the recession or got it sucked up by medical bills), or came to this country recently in order to get enough to live on and send home.
My point is not that there are not people in the US whom I think spend money on things that I think are a waste and are unnecessarily bad for the environment. But I think it’s important to not tar all Americans with that label, because if we talk about everybody, we can’t really analyze the problem.
Maybe you’ll appreciate another pet peeve of mine. when I worked in the FS every once in a while there would be a sad tragedy of (mostly younger, mostly male) firefighters who had some kind of accident that was precipitated by not doing something correctly. The answer was always for everyone to have a safety session or stand down. It didn’t seem like we could address the problem without drilling down to the characteristics of that segment who does the actions that causes accidents.
I think you have some good points, Jerry. And I think it is worth thinking about. But I think it is much more complex than “piggishness” being an American value. What would be some concrete policy options you would propose?
Sharon…I think we are of the same generation and I don’t mean to disparage your parents. My point is that since the WWII era, our focus has been on consumption. Very little of our innovation has been focused on conservation and it’s been a fun ride. Now we need to change our mindset and look for ways to exist happily and healthy but by consuming much less. The cry for smaller government and less regulation is appealing because it’s seen as a means to proceed with business as usual. Left to our own devices, we will focus on wealth at the expense of the land and the hard choices will not be made.
The answer to how we change the mindset and head down the right road is simple. We won’t do it on our own. We need to be told we have to. The only authority we have to do that is the federal government. There have to be some changes made to the way the fed works to be sure, but we need that authority pointed in the right direction and we need to mold it with the environment in mind.
There has been an interesting transformation in recent times, inspired by the web based petition engines. People are communicating and are putting forth initiatives. They come together on an issue and that issue is noticed. I believe this will develope and will be a useful tool in reshaping the mindset. Politicians can’t ignore the voice of the people and these drives are the voice of the people. At the very least, the petitions force an open discussion that might not take place in their absence. Discussion is healthy…even if the targets of the petitions don’t think so. (as in the Goose Project/FS transaction last year). You and I would not be talking if not for this fact. Who knows how many other conversations might take place that wouldn’t otherwise. Who knows what solutions might be formed by those conversations.
We need to keep talking until the anger dies down and real compromises and real progress developes. The alternative is to ride this thing over the cliff while everyone points fingers at everyone else.
Jerry, replying to your last comment didn’t appear to be a choice .. so I am replying here.
I knew you didn’t mean to disparage my parents; neither you nor anyone else on the blog, is mean-spirited). There could be a class issue mixed in here somewhere.
Which would concern me if prices are increased on things… say the alcohol example in Thursday’s post. People who are well off will continue to drink as much as they want, while people who can’t afford much will be able to buy less. It may be “scientific” but is it just?
In 2005, the New York Times did a special section called “Class Matters”. Here’s a link. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html
I have not seen much research explicitly on the class component of the many issues we discuss here…perhaps I just haven’t seen them, or perhaps it’s another topic for the People’s Research Agenda.
Hopefully if there is..an alert reader will show us. I think it would be worthy of a post, if someone would like to submit.
Sharon, thanks for sharing your interesting observations and thoughts. Good food for thought.
Per capita electricity use has doubled since 1970. I guess all the baby bomers grew up to be Republicans. They were gonna change the establishment, when all they did was double the establishments carbon footprint. Mendacity.
Derek- EIA has a pretty good People’s Database. You could look up pretty much anything you would be interested in as to trends…
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/index.cfm