Saturday, January 7, 2017

Sustainability Criticism (or Rant?)

sustainability [suh-stey-nuh-bil-i-tee] noun: the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance

crit·i·cism [kridəˌsizəm] noun: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.

rant [rant] speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way

Lately I have not had much hope (perhaps that is a good thing) that attending talks with the word “sustainability” in the title will teach me much about how to achieve a “long-term ecological balance” in my life.  Instead, I usually assume that the talk will be much more about promoting a new technology or “renewable” energy source to sustain our current way of life (when I say “our”, I am referring to life as a middle to upper class American).  So when I first heard about the “Sustainability Forum: Threats and Opportunities” that was held today (January 7, 2017) at the Columbia Heights MN Public Library, I was skeptical about attending.  But then I found more information about the event (see this link for an example http://citizensforsustainability.org/2017/01/04/2017-call-for-big-picture-folk/ ) which proclaimed

“At this crucial time in world (and U.S.) history, when the future of civilization and life on this planet hangs in the balance, and political leadership is swinging increasingly to the authoritative right, it’s time for well-intentioned people to step up to the plate. Hoping that “others” will take care of our collective problems will not get the job done.”

I regained some hope (a mistake I believe now) that this forum might be different. The talks being promoted in the flyer I saw indicated that R. Michael Conley (the founder of Weathering the Storm) would tell us about “The Perfect Storm: Our Sustainability Challenges, Alan Ware (a research fellow at World Population Balance) would share his thoughts on “Making the Connection: Overpopulation and Sustainability, and Matt Holland (editor of “Best Practices” and apparently some sort of sustainability expert with the University of Wisconsin System) would close out the forum with a foray into going “Beyond Boom & Bust”. 

Mr. Conley began his talk with some simple basics on what are the sustainability related challenges we face and explained how he liked to compare the diagnosis of climate change to high blood pressure.  Both diagnosis are at first easy to ignore, but if the symptoms are denied for too long, then eventually bad things can happen. 

I was disappointed that he did not step back and look at this comparison from the big picture view promised in the forum promotional material.  Instead I came to believe by the end of the forum, that like high blood pressure (by this time mine had gone up), he and the other speakers were apparently toting that all we need to do is follow the doctor’s (or folks like the speakers) prescription and swallow some pills that allow us to keep living the good life (or at least believing in it). 

The pills seemed to be the likes of the twin clean-green-renewable energy technological miracles of solar and wind energy and their all American beneficiary of these new and improved fuels, the electric car or lawn mower; and condoms to be shoved down the throats of those overpopulation sources of our disease in the “developing” world like India and China who simply need to take a pledge of using birth control and educating their women folk.  For think about the impact on the planet if all those hordes were to obtain the simple pleasure of a “Bic Pen” as Mr. Ware reminded us, and then if we get rid of them, then we could avoid a future where we (American middle to upper middle class white-folk) had to give up our electric cars powered by windmills and solar panels with the resources to build the infrastructure now easily plundered from the depopulated developing countries and avoid living in poverty ourselves (my take on his talk anyway).      

So here’s to us, those who – have taken the big steps of stopping our progeny at 1 or 2 or better yet opted for no offspring at all; and have had the vision (and wealth) to be able to promote, purchase, and install wind turbines and solar panels on our roof tops and in our backyards, and purchase all that shiny new electric powered equipment and entertainment devices that can keep our reinvented economy growing.  And as an afterthought – perhaps we owe at least a token thanks to the over populated developing countries who we will help to become depopulated for the opportunity for us to continue to plunder the planet to find the resources to produce the new infrastructure that will allow these “renewable energy sources” to be as the day’s closing song reminded us – “reduced, reused, and recycled” into infinity so we can keep “our” economy growing and glowing – right (or am I wrong)?????

I am sure the good folks involved in planning and presenting this forum had no intention of leaving the audience as disgusted as I was, but rather hoped to inspire more hope for our fossil fuel free future, but I for one have become more resolved to hold strong to my renewed commitment to avoid talks by perhaps well-intentioned “leaders” who fail to really step back, open their eyes, and see the big picture.  For if they did, I think they would begin to see that to really convert our current fossil fuel powered economy to so called “renewable” energies, is at best a pipe dream designed to keep the American Dream alive for a little longer.  But just like their fossil fuel brethren, “renewables” designed to power an economic global super power like America, depend on an extremely non-renewable infrastructure of a very limited lifespan. 

Solar panels don’t magically grow from the ground, no matter how much “bio-mimicry” we use in the design process.  In the real world you need to mine silicon for the solar collectors, aluminum ores for the frames, sand for the glass encasements, copper for the wiring and new grids, iron for the new grid support poles.  The process of converting silicon to solar panels uses large amounts of energy (typically of the fossil based sort), uses hazardous chemicals to process the panels, and releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  Wind turbine infrastructure is also not “clean and green”, nor renewable.  There is the need for steel to build the support towers, metals to build the generators, petroleum to create the resin used to make the fiberglass blades, huge concrete foundations buried in the ground to support the graceful monstrosities, and more copper to create the transmission cables to carry all this “renewable” energy to our homes and factories where we make it all happen (or at least used to until we found out it is cheaper to build all this stuff in third world countries where we don’t have to worry about the costs of clean air or sustainable wages). 

So until our renewable energy gurus or salesmen can start to provide some data, slides and graphs detailing what the impacts from all these and other processes will be on the people and the planet and how all this worn out infrastructure will be disposed of – I will not be buying into the renewable unlimited energy fantasy future.  And if somehow we could achieve it (based on previous experiences with such forays) I have a feeling that the side effects would kill us off faster than any dose of high blood pressure or climate change every could. 

I suppose that makes me a doubter, a denier, a skeptic, a cynic, rambling idiot, or a hopeless doom and gloomer.  But I think it is time to embrace these labels boldly and let go of a hope for this nightmare of ours to go on.  So called overpopulated third world populations are not the source of our problems, but rather a convenient source to blame, provide cheap labor to build our stuff, and find many mouths to feed our excess industrialized grain to, so we can take their prime lands to mine our minerals, grow our luxury foods like coffee or fruit, sugar, or other recreational mind numbing drugs on.   

Perhaps I should not blame the speakers at this particular event who are likely just telling the same tale that we all seem to proclaim in one way or another in order to justify our own privilege, rewards, and existence that depends on promoting the company line – that economic growth (although perhaps it may needs some tweaking or “greening”) is the root of all that is good (at least to those of us who get the goods).  It also helps us to continue to deny the much more likely reality that this economic growth designed to provide profits for a few (and mind-numbing rewards to a few more) is actually the root cause of all our symptoms of the dis-ease we are all inflicted by (and by all here I mean everyone, the 1%, the 2%, the 10%, and even the overpopulated folks we like to blame for our problems – the 90%). 

Despite how much we would like it to be true, “renewable” energy sources or population reduction is not the answer to our problems.  Rather the reality is the only prescription that will heal the ails we have begins by acknowledging the limits of the finite planet we live on and then to thank our lucky stars that we live on a planet that has provided us with an opportunity to even exist.  We need to stop listening to fools who make up the 1% and their message regurgitated by us 10%-ers (whether we are right or left leaning) that consumption, a growing economy, and competition are what it is about (even if we “green” it up or make it more “sustainable”).  We need to power down big time (and here we refers to us white middle and upper middle class folks) and stop consuming a bunch of crap that we don’t need.  And we Americans need to give up our dream world and start living like those “poor” overpopulated folk we think we are better off than, and perhaps if they are willing to teach us, learn from them how to survive on a lot, lot, less than we do now. 

Note that I am pretty sure that that means giving up on the biggest part of the American dream – the personal automobile – no matter what you use to fuel it or what color you paint it. We need to find solutions not based on shoving into other people’s back yards things we would not have in our own back yards, nor take from other people’s back yards what our own backyards lack.  Instead we need to begin to live within the means available to us in our own yards and realize that if we destroy our yard, we destroy ourselves, along with everything else that lives there.  And that is the big fat pill we need to swallow whole (even if it gags us), if we are to have any hope of finding some sort of long term ecological balance in these miserable lives we have allowed to be created.  

And that is the end of this rant, for now.    

Friday, October 7, 2016

Is Economic Growth Immature?

Some excerpts from David Korten’s YES Magazine article on “Why The Economy Should Stop Growing -  And Just Grow Up”.

It is time to reframe the debate to recognize that we have pushed growth in material consumption beyond Earth’s environmental limits. We must now shift our economic priority from growth to maturity—meeting the needs of all within the limits of what Earth can provide.

Global GDP is currently growing 3 to 4 percent annually. Contrary to the promises of politicians and economists, this growth is not eliminating poverty and creating a better life for all. It is instead creating increasingly grotesque and unsustainable imbalances in our relationship to Earth and to each other.

Families are collapsing, and suicide rates are increasing.

Humans now consume at a rate 1.6 times what Earth can provide. Weather becomes more severe and erratic, and critical environmental systems are in decline.

We cannot, […], look to the economic institutions that created the imbalances to now create an economy that meets the essential needs of all in balanced relationship to a living Earth. Global financial markets value life only for its market price. And the legal structures of global corporations centralize power and delink it from the realities of people’s daily lives.

The step to maturity depends on rebuilding caring, place-based communities and economies and restoring to them the power that global corporations and financial markets have usurped.

Living organisms have learned to self-organize as bioregional communities that create and maintain the conditions essential to a living Earth community. We humans must take the step to maturity as we learn to live as responsible members of that community.


Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Stupid Work

Interesting synopsis of a study of stupidity in the workplace can be found at the following essay titled  “STUPEFIED – How Organizations Enshrine Collective Stupidity And Employees Are Rewarded For Checking Their Brains At The Door” written by Andre Spicer.   

“At the outset of our research, we suspected that organisational life would be full of stupidities. But we were genuinely surprised that otherwise smart people would go along with collective stupidity, and be rewarded for doing so. Mindlessly following rules and regulations – even if they were completely counterproductive – meant that professionals would be left alone. Using empty leadership talk would get ambitious people promoted into positions of responsibility. Copying other well-known organisations meant a firm could be seen as ‘world-class’. Launching branding initiatives meant that executives could focus on the easier work of manipulating surface images and avoid the much messier realities of organisational life. Following deep-seated corporate cultures often meant employees could be seen as committed organisational citizens while overlooking festering problems.”

Monday, December 21, 2015

Egalitarianism vs. Hierarchy, A List

Here is a list of some of the books/papers from anthropologists/archaeologists that I am aware of on the topics of egalitarianism and it’s opposite hierarchy and control by the Power Elite.  The ones marked with an * are my personal favorites and might be ones to start with, and those marked + I have, but have yet to read.  I hope they help in your quest to understand the downfall of man (and woman if she keeps following and being dominated by him). 
 
PAPERS:
 
* James Woodburn, Egalitarian Societies, Man, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 3, Sep 1982, p 431-451, https://libcom.org/files/EGALITARIAN%20SOCIETIES%20-%20James%20Woodburn.pdf
 
Richard Borsay Lee, Power and Property in Twenty-First Century Foragers, A Critical Examination, 2004, https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/17943/1/TSpace0098.PDF
 
Christopher Boehm,Conflict and the Evolution of Social Control, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, No. 1-2, 2000, p. 79-101.  https://libcom.org/files/Hunter-Gatherer%20Egalitarianism%20by%20Christopher%20Boehm.pdf
 
Christopher Boehm, et. al., Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy, Current Anthropology, Vol 34, No 3, June 1993.  http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/readings/boehm.pdf
 
Doron Shultziner, From the Beginning of History; Paleolithic Democracy, the Emergence of Hierarchy, and the Reemergence of Political Egalitarianism.  http://www.foti-peter.hu/Schulzinger_From_the_Beginning_of_History.pdf
 
* John H. Bodley, Socioeconomic Growth, Culture Scale, and Household Well-being, A Test of the Power Elite Hypothesis, Current Anthropology, Vol 40, No 5, Dec 1999.  http://libarts.wsu.edu/anthro/pdf/Bodley%201999%20Socio-economic%20Growth.pdf
 
John H. Bodley, Anthropology and Global Environmental Change, Encyclopedia of global Environmental Change, 2002.  http://libarts.wsu.edu/anthro/pdf/Bodley%20GB801-W.pdf
 
John H. Bodley, Growth, Sustainability, and the Power of Scale, Dimensions of Sustainable Development, Vol II, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems.  http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C13/E1-46B-27.pdf
 
BOOKS:
 
* John Bodley, CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY: TRIBES, STATES, AND THE GLOBAL SYSTEM  5th Edition ( http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Anthropology-Tribes-States-Global/dp/0759118663 ). 
 
 
John Bodley, ANTHROPOLOGY AND CONTEMPORARY HUMAN PROBLEMS, 6TH Edition (http://www.amazon.com/Anthropology-Contemporary-Human-Problems-Bodley/dp/0759121583/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) are also quite good.  If you interested in these, I would start with CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY, and then go to the next two if the topic really interests you. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
+ Harry Walker, UNDER A WATCHFUL EYE: SELF, POWER, AND INTIMACY IN AMAZONIA, http://www.amazon.com/Under-Watchful-Eye-Ethnographic-Subjectivity/dp/0520273605
 
 
 
 

 

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Message from the Future

An interesting vision for a better future –


  • "Our main aim is to live sustainably and cooperatively. We seek and enjoy a good life rather than material accumulation and privilege. We see ourselves as belonging to the earth rather than the earth belonging to us and do not see ourselves as superior to other living things. Similarly, our attitude of non-superiority applies to our view of other human beings. In our classless society all people are regarded as equal and treated equally throughout their lives and this has brought obvious benefits in terms of health, education, satisfying work and involvement in governance. The community not individuals own and regulate the land and its resources. Private ownership of land and resources has been fully replaced by cooperative ownership and organisation at the local community level."


Read more below from Geoff Mosley’s message from the future at the following link:

http://simplicitycollective.com/the-steady-state-economy-and-the-incompatibility-of-capitalism 

So what is your vision for the future and how do we get there?  

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Climate Change Denial

Being able to respond to threatening situations requires that one be fully conscious to what is going on.  One of the biggest threats to humanities continued existence is climate change.  To date little has really been done to address this threat.  There has been much talk about whether the threat is real or make believe, and additional talk about if real, some simple solutions that might save us from ourselves. 

Unfortunately most of this talk is muffled from the sand that fills our mouths as we bury our heads in the muffling material as a way to avoid becoming conscious of the reality of the situation we face.  Erik Lindberg’s piece titled:  Six Myths About Climate Change that Liberals Rarely Question  provides us with an opportunity to pull our heads from the sand and begin to really think about what we need to do to address climate change.  The full text is available here.  Some excerpts from his “sixth myths” of denial follow:

Myth #1:  Liberals Are Not In Denial

[…] liberal denial […] the belief that we can avoid the most catastrophic levels of climate disruption without changing our fundamental way of life.  This is myth is based on errors that are as profound and basic as the conservative denial of climate change itself.

[…]  conservatives climate deniers understand that addressing climate change will, in fact, change our way of life, a way of life which conservatives often view as sacred.  This sort of change is so terrifying and unthinkable to them, she argues, that they cut the very possibility of climate change off at its knees:  fighting climate change would force us to change our way of life; our way of life is sacred and cannot be questioned; ergo, climate change cannot be happening. 

We have a situation, then, where one half of the population says it is not happening, and the other half says it is happening but fighting it doesn’t have to change our way of life.  

Myth #2:  Republicans are Still More to Blame

It is true that conservative politicians in the United States and Europe have been intent on blocking international climate agreements; but by focusing on these failed agreements, which only require a baby-step in the right direction, liberals obliquely side-step the actual cause of global warming—namely, burning fossil fuels.  The denial of climate change isn’t responsible for the fact that we, in the United States, are responsible for about one quarter of all current emissions if you include the industrial products we consume (and an even greater percentage of all emissions over time), even though we make up only 6% of the world’s population.  Our high-consumption lifestyles are responsible for this.  Republicans do not emit an appreciably larger amount of carbon dioxide than Democrats.

Myth #3:  Renewable Energy Can Replace Fossil Fuels 

Conventional wisdom among American liberals assures us that we would be well on our way to a clean, green, low-carbon, renewable energy future were it not for the lobbying efforts of big oil companies and their Republican allies.  The truth is far more inconvenient than this: it will be all but impossible for our current level of consumption to be powered by anything but fossil fuels.  The liberal belief that energy sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels can replace oil, natural gas, and coal is a mirror image of the conservative denial of climate change: in both cases an overriding belief about the way the world works, or should work, is generally far stronger than any evidence one might present.  Denial is the biggest game in town.  Denial, as well as a misunderstanding about some fundamental features of energy, is what allows someone like Bill Gates assume that “an energy miracle” will be created with enough R & D.  Unfortunately, the lessons of microprocessors do not teach us anything about replacing oil, coal, and natural gas.

Myth 4: The Coming “Knowledge Economy” Will be a Low-Energy Economy

We like to pretend that the rest of the world can live like us, and we have certainly done our best to advertise, loan, seduce, and threaten people across the world to adopt our style, our values, and our wants.   But someone still has to do the smelting, the welding, the sorting, and run the ceaseless production lines.  

And, moreover, if everyone lived like we do, took our vacations, drove our cars, ate our food, lived in our houses, filled them with oversized TVs and the endless array of throwaway gadgetry, the world would use four times as much energy and emit nearly four times as much carbon dioxide as it does now.  If even half the world’s population were to consume like we do, we would have long since barreled by the ecological point of no-return. 

Myth 5: We can Reverse Global Warming Without Changing our Current Lifestyles

The upshot of the previous sections is that the comforts, luxuries, privileges, and pleasures that we tell ourselves are necessary for a happy or satisfying life are the most significant cause of global warming and that unless we quickly learn to organize our lives around another set of pleasures and satisfactions, it is extremely unlikely that our children or grandchildren will inherit a livable planet.  Because we are falsely reassured by liberal leaders that we can fight climate change without any inconvenience, it bears repeating this seldom spoken truth.  In order to adequately address climate change, people in rich industrial nations will have to reduce current levels of consumption to levels few are prepared to consider.  This truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.

Myth 6: There is Nothing I Can Do 

The problem is daunting; making changes can be difficult. But not only can you do something, you can’t not do anything.  Either you will continue to buy, use, and consume as if there is no tomorrow; or you will make substantial changes to the way you live.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Permitting Pollution

Minnesota Public Radio asked the following question – “Are you confident the proposed PolyMet mine would avoid polluting Minnesota’swater?”

My answer follows.  

Having worked for 30 years in the environmental field, I have come to understand that environmental regulations are not designed to prevent industry from polluting; they are actually designed to permit industries to pollute.  The goal of the writers of these permits is of course to encourage the mine operators to manage the pollutants as best they can, so as to not cause any immediate threats to the surrounding ecosystem out of which the mine will be carved. 

But pollution will occur despite our best attempts to manage it; even if there were no accidents, no equipment failures, or no operational negligence along the way.  Therefore, as long as a mine is permitted to occur, it will pollute.  And those pollutants will get into the people, plants, and animals that depend on that ecosystem for their life. 

The process will begin when the land which is to be mined is cleared off all life that exists there.  Runoff from the now denuded and disturbed landscape will begin to be carried off the site by stormwater and wind, despite permit requirements that require the mine to "control" this runoff with best management practices. 

The equipment used to clear the site, and mine the mine, will pollute the air when the fossil fuels that power the equipment is burned in the engines the move the equipment.  The pollution laden exhausts will then expand into the atmosphere, where the pollutants will dissolve or be suspended in the moisture in the air, where eventually some of them will fall to the ground and run into our surface and ground waters.

As the mining process continues, the overburden from the mine will be stockpiled, and when the rains and the winds contact it, sediments containing minerals and heavy metals that have been sealed in the earth will be exposed to the biosphere, and the pollutants they contain will again continue to run off the site, again despite any best management practices or treatment required by a permit.  Sure these practices will again prevent some pollution from running off site, but no best management practice or treatment system is 100% effective.  And the reality is that any treatment system used to treat the runoff will require more fuel to operate it, resulting in more pollutant containing exhaust to be released into the air.  

Eventually the mine will reach the groundwater levels.  And when the natural biological and physical filtration system that took billions of years to be placed is removed from the site, some of the sediments containing minerals and heavy metals that are mobilized in the mining process, and some of the equipment fuel or lubrication fluids that spill in the mine will find their way into the groundwater, again despite any requirements that the permit specifies to minimize these impacts or cleanup the spills.

And then when the mining process is finished, and hopefully the mine is “reclaimed” the metals and minerals and sulfates that will remain will continue to leach into to the groundwater and stormwater that contacts them.  And again, any treatment systems or management practices required by a permit will only remove a portion of the pollution they contain, the rest will be released back into the surrounding ecosystem and the now permanently changed ecosystem of the “reclaimed” mine. 

So the only way to be confident that the proposed PolyMet mine would avoid polluting Minnesota’s water, would require the concluder to not understand the permitting and mining process.

The question I have – is pollution of our ecosystem worth the benefits of some short-term jobs, some metals to make some more stuff, some tax money for the state, and potentially huge profits for the mining company?


 If your answer is “yes”, I would ask – is this the best we can do?