Georgia (as well as much of the southeastern U.S.) is in the middle of a really horrific drought. The region is seriously strapped for water, and despite the drizzly rain of the last three days the situation continues to become more and more dire with each passing day. Due to outdoor watering restrictions as well as concious decisions to conserve on the part of many folks in the Atlanta area, consumption has fallen anywhere from 16-34 percent in metro counties. This situation, however, is not one they can conserve our way out of. What they need is rain, and an incredible amount of it, very soon.
A friend, ever the skeptic of global warming and climate change, notes "Droughts, floods, earthquakes and natural disasters NEVER happened before the 20th century and therefore it must be our fault."
He is quite right that famines, droughts, floods and other natural disasters occurred before the onset of the Industrial Era, and if those who fear global warming were basing their concerns solely on incidents like Hurricane Katrina, the drought hitting the Southeast, and some above-average temperatures in October this year, they would deserve to be roundly driven from the table.
Unfortunately, the data go back quite a bit more than the last few years, and it's not just a few Chicken Littles screaming anymore. It is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that global climate change is happening, and that it almost certainly is due to or being accelerated by human activity. I'm aware that consensus doesn't make it absolute certainty, and that there are some quite intelligent scientists who disagree ... but as a matter of public policy, it makes sense to listen to the consensus when it's as strong as this consensus is. (There's always the argument that 30 years ago some scientists were ringing alarm bells about global cooling and a new ice age; if that invalidates conclusions that have been reached with more data and more sophisticated computer modeling, perhaps we should get back to the Flat Earth theory. There are some rather intelligent people who still hold to that too, after all.)
But for the sake of argument, let's set aside the question of global warming. For the discussion, I'll concede that there's nothing to it, that the very notion is absurd that human activities are causing the Earth to heat up, the Arctic to melt faster than normal in the summertime, the permafrost to thaw, and hurricanes to worsen. Let's say it's all poppycock. You know what that changes, in the final analysis? Nothing. Our lifestyle in America is still unsustainable, and it is disastrous for ourselves and the rest of the environment.
It used to be that most streams and waterways in the United States were good to fish from. Pioneers, settlers, and those who came after them would catch fish in the river and feed them to their families. Nowadays most of the waterways we used to fish from are polluted; the river downhill from my house actually has a sign warning people not to eat more than three fish from that river in a month. Nice, huh?
And while our ancestors lived the ultimate in sustainability -- they ate meat from animals they shot, turned worn-out clothes into quilts and rugs, grew their grains and vegetables themselves, and basically recycled or composted everything they used -- we as a nation throw out 22 million tons of garbage every year. If current trends continue, that's going to rise to 33 million to 35 million tons per year in just four years. And ironically, about 60 percent of that waste is organic and compostable. (I'm sure recyclable aluminum and plastics make up another sizeable chunk.)
The average meal in an American household also travels about 4,000 miles to reach the dinner table, if I recall the figure correctly.
Does anyone think it's a good idea to continue in a lifestyle that involves this much prolifigate waste? I don't. How infinite are our resources, anyway? From what I understand, hydrogeologists believe we already have consumed fifty percent of the world's oil supply. The rest is going to be increasingly more difficult to get, making it al the more expensive.
The situation in Georgia and the Southeast may not be due to global warming specifically, but I'm sure the American lifestyle hasn't helped much there either. We consume water recklessly, watering lawns that wouldn't naturally occur in the area during times when grass should be brown and dormant anyway, and we make little effort to recycle water after we use it, nor even to return it to the water table. Generally the goal is to get it to the streams and waterways as fast as we can, and never mind recharging the water tables.
So lately, environmentalists have been calling for things like improving fuel efficiency in our vehicles; developing alternate fuels and energy sources that don't involve producing pollution; finding natural heating and cooling systems; reducing our electricity consumption; transporting our goods across shorter distances instead of getting them from halfway across the planet; and so on. We have a family of four, and yet we produce only one garbage can full of trash every month or so.
It seems reasonable to me.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
bees
Most articles I've read indicate the likely culprit is a particular insecticide that is used pretty widely for crops, lawns and other areas. (What a shock, that. Spray crops with insecticide to kill nuisance insects, and wonder of wonders, it affects beneficial insects like honeybees too.) Commercial honeybees, the ones that get driven round and round to fertilize crops, are the ones being affected; anecdotally, the privately owned hives largely have been unaffected -- probably because if you're a honeybee hobbyist or a smalltime owner of a hive or two, you're not going to go spraying or taking the bees where people have been spraying.
France had similar problems, banned this particular insecticide, and they have seen a rebound in their honeybee populations.
Of course, insecticide might be only the chief (as opposed to sole) culprit, or one of several factors in the die-off. In any event, it makes sense to me for people to voluntarily scale back or eliminate their use of insecticides and find other ways to control pests. Organic solutions don't eradicate whole beneficial species, contaminate the ground, pollute waterways or accidentally poison children, and it's been shown that organically raised crops have a higher yield than chemically treated crops, even during drought years.
Seems a like a good approach for all of us.
France had similar problems, banned this particular insecticide, and they have seen a rebound in their honeybee populations.
Of course, insecticide might be only the chief (as opposed to sole) culprit, or one of several factors in the die-off. In any event, it makes sense to me for people to voluntarily scale back or eliminate their use of insecticides and find other ways to control pests. Organic solutions don't eradicate whole beneficial species, contaminate the ground, pollute waterways or accidentally poison children, and it's been shown that organically raised crops have a higher yield than chemically treated crops, even during drought years.
Seems a like a good approach for all of us.
Monday, April 23, 2007
bad news for the bees
Big-size problems are brewing for agriculture in the United States: The honeybee population is dwindling dramatically. From the Star-Ledger:
Jean-Claude Tassot felt the sunshine spilling over his shoulders. It was unseasonably warm for January -- a good day, he decided, to check his honeybees. So Tassot jumped in his truck and rumbled over the back roads of Morris County to the first of the eight farms where he stores his boxes of hives.
"When you first take the cover off, usually you can see the bees," said Tassot. "But when I looked, there was nothing. I kept looking (but) the hives were all dead."
It's tough to say what the culprit is, whether it's pesticides, bioengineered corn, mites or some previously unknown disease, but what's bad for the honeybees is bad for the entire agricultural industry and everyone who eats food that requires pollination. (That would include the human race.)
Best thing to do? Stop using pesticides and messing with the DNA of our food, plant a vegetable garden, and give part of your lawn over to wildflowers, so that wild honeybees, if there are any near you, can start to make a comeback.
Who the heck needs grass? Most of us wouldn't have a clue how to eat it, it's dull to see if for acre after acre, and it doesn't do much for biodiversity if everyone's growing turf on their corner of suburbia. I'll never understand how it became our chief crop in the first place.
Friday, August 26, 2005
states picking up feds' slack
I read something yesterday that I found utterly fascinating. According to a recent article in The New York Times, nine Northeastern states have taken the initiative of enacting new restrictions on emissions. In doing so, they have joined a number of the larger U.S. metropolitan areas in getting on board with the goals of the Kyoto accord, which President Bush refused to ratify on the grounds that it would be inimical to American interests.
Air pollution in general and emissions specifically are the most significant items of interest in the ongoing discussion on global warming and what to do about it. Virtually everyone except the president and his administration acknowledge that manmade pollution is heating up the earth's atmosphere and effecting climate change on a massive scale.
It's ironic that this movement is happening now, during the Bush administration, not just because it shows how out of step Bush is with a large segment of the voting population, but because he unintentionally or inadvertantly has reminded us of a great truth I think most politicians would rather we forgot: We have the power within ourselves to effect change, even when they won't do it for us.
Bush, whose administration has more ties to the oil and energy industry than I have unmatched socks in my drawer, has been about as unsupportive of the environmental movement as you can be without actually clubbing baby seals. He's expanded the timber industry's access to the forests in our national parks, targeted the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve for oil drilling, put oil industry executives on the task force that helped develop our national energy policy, loosened the fuel efficiency requirements for auto manufacturers, refused to ratify the aforementioned Kyoto accord, and has granted coal-burning power plants leave not to clean up their acts, leaving East Coast states like New Jersey to deal with the acid rain caused by Midwest power plants. Oh, and he also issued an executive order countermanding one by President Clinton that would have required toilet manufacturers to design commodes that use fewer gallons per flush.
All told, while the Bush administration has been a boon to business and industry, it's been quite the opposite to the environmental movement. It's been bad enough that former New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman, who could hardly be described as an environmentalist for her eight years as that state's chief executive, resigned as head of the Environmental Protection Agency when she could no longer support his environmentally unfriendly policies.
But Bush is out of step with much of America on this issue, and I think we're going to see more evidence of this as time goes on. Environmental groups are applauding the Northeastern states' actions, because they think other states are going to follow their initiative and take similar steps to curb emissions from power plants, industry, and automobiles.
Air pollution in general and emissions specifically are the most significant items of interest in the ongoing discussion on global warming and what to do about it. Virtually everyone except the president and his administration acknowledge that manmade pollution is heating up the earth's atmosphere and effecting climate change on a massive scale.
It's ironic that this movement is happening now, during the Bush administration, not just because it shows how out of step Bush is with a large segment of the voting population, but because he unintentionally or inadvertantly has reminded us of a great truth I think most politicians would rather we forgot: We have the power within ourselves to effect change, even when they won't do it for us.
Bush, whose administration has more ties to the oil and energy industry than I have unmatched socks in my drawer, has been about as unsupportive of the environmental movement as you can be without actually clubbing baby seals. He's expanded the timber industry's access to the forests in our national parks, targeted the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve for oil drilling, put oil industry executives on the task force that helped develop our national energy policy, loosened the fuel efficiency requirements for auto manufacturers, refused to ratify the aforementioned Kyoto accord, and has granted coal-burning power plants leave not to clean up their acts, leaving East Coast states like New Jersey to deal with the acid rain caused by Midwest power plants. Oh, and he also issued an executive order countermanding one by President Clinton that would have required toilet manufacturers to design commodes that use fewer gallons per flush.
All told, while the Bush administration has been a boon to business and industry, it's been quite the opposite to the environmental movement. It's been bad enough that former New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman, who could hardly be described as an environmentalist for her eight years as that state's chief executive, resigned as head of the Environmental Protection Agency when she could no longer support his environmentally unfriendly policies.
But Bush is out of step with much of America on this issue, and I think we're going to see more evidence of this as time goes on. Environmental groups are applauding the Northeastern states' actions, because they think other states are going to follow their initiative and take similar steps to curb emissions from power plants, industry, and automobiles.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
God's politics
A friend of mine writes:
Alas, I believe he is laboring under a false supposition that these things exist in isolation of one another. History has shown that when left to itself, industry is not naturally inclined to clean up after itself, and will leave a mess of horrifying proportions in the earth and in the water, viz. Love Canal, the PE&G problems celebrated in "Erinn Brokovich," God only knows how many Superfund sites in New Jersey, and so on.
These aren't environmental issues that have little impact on humanity; they're environmental issues that have a direct impact on us and on our children. Serious birth defects -- including fatal ones -- can be linked quite often to what big business has done to the environment and then left alone.
The issue I have with the GOP on this score is that it's more willing to let big business off the hook environmentally and to relax the pollution standards than the Democratic Party. (Bush's decision to abandon the Kyoto Accord, his decision to relax standards for arsenic in drinking water, to lessen emission and mileage standards for gas-burning vehicles, the willingness of his administration to pursue an energy policy relying on coal-burning plants, yada yada yada.)
And yes, the poor you will have always, but take a look sometime at the amount of Scripture devoted to addressing injustice, the oppression of aliens and strangers in our midst, the exploitation of the worker, and the cruelty of the oppressor who hoards wealth for self-indulgence. It's a vast amount of Scripture. It's hardly right to wash our hands of the biblical mandate to care for the needy just because they'll always be around.
As to what sins are the biggest affront to God ... well, I'm not going to dispute that abortion is one of the greatest horrors of modern America, and I'll say for the record that I am flat-out opposed to abortion in just about any circumstance. (The chief exception that comes to mind would be when the mother's life is in danger.) I've felt that way ever since I understood the issue.
Using a stand on abortion as a litmus test for political power, though, seems really absurd. That would suggest that God was asleep at the wheel when the Democrats had a majority hold on the COngress during the Reagan years, or that he was busy elsewhere when Clinton soundly beat the elder Bush at the polls. And perhaps he was confused in letting Christie Whitman be governor for eight years in New Jersey, when she's a pro-choice Republican. (Not to mention that Jim McGreevey, a pro-choice Democrat, is our current governor, and he beat out Brett Schundler, a pro-life Republican.)
I try to be careful about saying where God stands politically, because when you get down to it, he doesn't really take sides. That would make him subordinate to an ideology. The best we can hope for is that we're on his side, which is something I don't think either party can really make a reasonable claim to be.
At best, the parties can claim that God has raised them up for some purpose, much as he raised up the Chaldeans, Assyrians, ROmans or any other empire in the past. And then he cast them aside and judged them when he was through.
May God show us mercy when it comes time for that.
I agree that both parties are evil (to some extent) with some good people in them. But I believe God has a sense of priority, and ranks the death of innocent human beings in the millions over rich grinding poor (which has happened forever and ever and will continue till the end of time) or the destruction of the environment. A human is worth more than many sparrows, neh? And so I think He will allow the Dems to get their butts kicked until they get it together on this issue.
Alas, I believe he is laboring under a false supposition that these things exist in isolation of one another. History has shown that when left to itself, industry is not naturally inclined to clean up after itself, and will leave a mess of horrifying proportions in the earth and in the water, viz. Love Canal, the PE&G problems celebrated in "Erinn Brokovich," God only knows how many Superfund sites in New Jersey, and so on.
These aren't environmental issues that have little impact on humanity; they're environmental issues that have a direct impact on us and on our children. Serious birth defects -- including fatal ones -- can be linked quite often to what big business has done to the environment and then left alone.
The issue I have with the GOP on this score is that it's more willing to let big business off the hook environmentally and to relax the pollution standards than the Democratic Party. (Bush's decision to abandon the Kyoto Accord, his decision to relax standards for arsenic in drinking water, to lessen emission and mileage standards for gas-burning vehicles, the willingness of his administration to pursue an energy policy relying on coal-burning plants, yada yada yada.)
And yes, the poor you will have always, but take a look sometime at the amount of Scripture devoted to addressing injustice, the oppression of aliens and strangers in our midst, the exploitation of the worker, and the cruelty of the oppressor who hoards wealth for self-indulgence. It's a vast amount of Scripture. It's hardly right to wash our hands of the biblical mandate to care for the needy just because they'll always be around.
As to what sins are the biggest affront to God ... well, I'm not going to dispute that abortion is one of the greatest horrors of modern America, and I'll say for the record that I am flat-out opposed to abortion in just about any circumstance. (The chief exception that comes to mind would be when the mother's life is in danger.) I've felt that way ever since I understood the issue.
Using a stand on abortion as a litmus test for political power, though, seems really absurd. That would suggest that God was asleep at the wheel when the Democrats had a majority hold on the COngress during the Reagan years, or that he was busy elsewhere when Clinton soundly beat the elder Bush at the polls. And perhaps he was confused in letting Christie Whitman be governor for eight years in New Jersey, when she's a pro-choice Republican. (Not to mention that Jim McGreevey, a pro-choice Democrat, is our current governor, and he beat out Brett Schundler, a pro-life Republican.)
I try to be careful about saying where God stands politically, because when you get down to it, he doesn't really take sides. That would make him subordinate to an ideology. The best we can hope for is that we're on his side, which is something I don't think either party can really make a reasonable claim to be.
At best, the parties can claim that God has raised them up for some purpose, much as he raised up the Chaldeans, Assyrians, ROmans or any other empire in the past. And then he cast them aside and judged them when he was through.
May God show us mercy when it comes time for that.
Friday, June 11, 2004
triumphs and setbacks
I'm torn between the feeling of tremendous accomplishment and tremendous disappointment this year where the yard and the garden are concerned.
I'm pretty sure I've stated on the forum before that I'm committed to the organic philosophy where my garden and yard are concerned. In short: no pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers. Everything is done the way God designed nature to do it itself.
First is the good news that makes me feel like I've accomplished something. We've come a long way. The guy who owned this house before me didn't share the organic philosophy. He sprayed weedkiller and pesticides everywhere, and bombed the yard with Miracle Gro and other chemical fertilizers. When we moved in, there was a token layer of top soil, the earth was compacted and painful to walk on in your bare feet, and there was virtually no grass. There were entire chunks of the yard where literally nothing was growing, and when I dug the ground with a shovel, I never found a single earthworm. (You kind of need them for healthy soil.)
Today, through the efforts of reseeding the lawn piece by piece and fertilizing with compost (plus some Milorganite, an organic fertilizer produced by the city of Milwaukee from its sewage), we have a lustrous green lawn in the back yard. You can walk on it and treat your toes to a trip across a spongy green carpet. There are flowers blooming everywhere, and some of the parts of the yard that never supported anything are bursting with life. (The back quarter of our yard is an area I haven't planted anything in at all. I'm giving it a sabbath rest and letting it regenerate on its own. All I do is pull up maple seedlings since I don't want it turning into woods.)
Every time I dig into the earth with a shovel, I find earthworms. They're everywhere again. We had a flea problem last year that I eradicated with beneficial nematodes, an organism that also kills lawn grubs and termite colonies without harming people, pets or the lawn. I actually want to get some more of them to make sure the termites we had in the back corner of our yard really are all gone.
Plus I see lots of ladybugs. Ladybugs, to the uninitiated, are one of the nicest insects God ever created. They eat other insects that we consider pests, such as aphids and ants. A garden with ladybugs is a garden that has a happy gardener.
Best of all, my daughters enjoy gardening with me. Now 4½ years old, Eowyn helped me plant sunflowers, corn, tomatoes, pumpkins, beans, morning glories and ornamental maize this spring before she got bored and went inside. She also has helped me turn the soil, stir the compost and dig holes where I don't want them. Ruth, being only 19 months old, has not been quite as big a help, but she's enjoyed digging holes, planting some sunflowers in the wrong spot, and pretending the turn the earth with the spade fork.
Overall, it's a good situation, and I couldn't be happier.
Except for one thing: There's a good chance our soil has some hazardous contaminants, including lead. A gardener down the street had his soil tested and found that it is so contaminated it is unsafe for children to play in, let alone to grow food in.
Things were looking so up, and now potentially to have some idiot rob us of some of the triumphs of gardening is just ... well, it really stinks.
We were fortunate in that we were able to rent a garden plot not far from the house for only $10 a year, and in time to plant some vegetables. The plot's even bigger than what I was able to squeeze out of our yard, but it's not as convenient as going out into the yard to pick lettuce, tomatoes or beans right before a meal. It's also a site that has never been farmed before, so the soil has less organic material than the garden I've been using for the last four years -- and therefore will not grow the food as effortlessly as I was hoping to get this year.
I'm sure that eventually life will clean our yard of any impurities and make it safe to grow food in -- if in fact it is contaminated, which we haven't established for certain yet -- but that probably won't be in my lifetime. Certainly not while we own the house.
I'm pretty sure I've stated on the forum before that I'm committed to the organic philosophy where my garden and yard are concerned. In short: no pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers. Everything is done the way God designed nature to do it itself.
First is the good news that makes me feel like I've accomplished something. We've come a long way. The guy who owned this house before me didn't share the organic philosophy. He sprayed weedkiller and pesticides everywhere, and bombed the yard with Miracle Gro and other chemical fertilizers. When we moved in, there was a token layer of top soil, the earth was compacted and painful to walk on in your bare feet, and there was virtually no grass. There were entire chunks of the yard where literally nothing was growing, and when I dug the ground with a shovel, I never found a single earthworm. (You kind of need them for healthy soil.)
Today, through the efforts of reseeding the lawn piece by piece and fertilizing with compost (plus some Milorganite, an organic fertilizer produced by the city of Milwaukee from its sewage), we have a lustrous green lawn in the back yard. You can walk on it and treat your toes to a trip across a spongy green carpet. There are flowers blooming everywhere, and some of the parts of the yard that never supported anything are bursting with life. (The back quarter of our yard is an area I haven't planted anything in at all. I'm giving it a sabbath rest and letting it regenerate on its own. All I do is pull up maple seedlings since I don't want it turning into woods.)
Every time I dig into the earth with a shovel, I find earthworms. They're everywhere again. We had a flea problem last year that I eradicated with beneficial nematodes, an organism that also kills lawn grubs and termite colonies without harming people, pets or the lawn. I actually want to get some more of them to make sure the termites we had in the back corner of our yard really are all gone.
Plus I see lots of ladybugs. Ladybugs, to the uninitiated, are one of the nicest insects God ever created. They eat other insects that we consider pests, such as aphids and ants. A garden with ladybugs is a garden that has a happy gardener.
Best of all, my daughters enjoy gardening with me. Now 4½ years old, Eowyn helped me plant sunflowers, corn, tomatoes, pumpkins, beans, morning glories and ornamental maize this spring before she got bored and went inside. She also has helped me turn the soil, stir the compost and dig holes where I don't want them. Ruth, being only 19 months old, has not been quite as big a help, but she's enjoyed digging holes, planting some sunflowers in the wrong spot, and pretending the turn the earth with the spade fork.
Overall, it's a good situation, and I couldn't be happier.
Except for one thing: There's a good chance our soil has some hazardous contaminants, including lead. A gardener down the street had his soil tested and found that it is so contaminated it is unsafe for children to play in, let alone to grow food in.
Things were looking so up, and now potentially to have some idiot rob us of some of the triumphs of gardening is just ... well, it really stinks.
We were fortunate in that we were able to rent a garden plot not far from the house for only $10 a year, and in time to plant some vegetables. The plot's even bigger than what I was able to squeeze out of our yard, but it's not as convenient as going out into the yard to pick lettuce, tomatoes or beans right before a meal. It's also a site that has never been farmed before, so the soil has less organic material than the garden I've been using for the last four years -- and therefore will not grow the food as effortlessly as I was hoping to get this year.
I'm sure that eventually life will clean our yard of any impurities and make it safe to grow food in -- if in fact it is contaminated, which we haven't established for certain yet -- but that probably won't be in my lifetime. Certainly not while we own the house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
