A question for climate change deniers

Just a question for deniers, since the science is already out there - What empirical "proof" would you need to convince you that global warming is getting worse, and is anthropogenic? Would the sky have to burst into flames? Perhaps we find a gigantic cauldron in middle of the US? Or, okay, how about this:

• Severe drought in Africa and Australia?


• Acidification of the oceans due to absorption of CO2?


• Hundreds of millions of climate refugees?


• Extinctions of species due to severe climate variation?


• Increased spread of tropical diseases and insects?

I know, I know, you can counter my evidence with the fact that "Wisconsin is really friggin' cold right now." I suggest that all those of you who actually think that is an argument against antrhopogenic climate change leave RIGHT NOW, so that people who actually understand science (at least from a primary-school level) can continue this conversation.

The Joy of Sweatshops

A historically-challenged anarcho-capitalist (okay, that should go without saying) decided to take some of his precious time trying to educate me about the real world and why unregulated capitalism is soooo wonderful. I would like you to especially take note of this "Libertarian's" laughably insincere concern for the poor sweatshop-less people of Cambodia.

Okay--now that you've had your say, will you listen to a staunch anarcho-capitalist? If yes, I would like to start you off with a great article from (of all places) Nick Kristof at the New York Times, entitled "Where Sweatshops Are a Dream." Watch the video attached, read the article, and ask me questions if you wish.

But just remember a few maxims underpinning libertarian thought: 1) Poverty cannot be cured through force of arms or government decree--only by independent business. 2) Wealth is the foundation for all businesses except multinational conglomerates with sweet government contracts. Redistribution hurts everyone _except_ the Monsantos and Halliburtons. 3) The only power governments have military, and the only money they have is other people's money. 4) Subsidizing an enterprise with 'government' money is no different than when identity thieves buy jet-skis with your credit card--it's theft, pure and simple.

Next time you want to talk about capitalism being about "controlling and hurting other people," remember that capitalism is the only thing keeping you from living a terribly harsh subsistence-agrarian lifestyle, such as the vast majority of humans on this planet must endure. Perhaps if the mother of that article had been in a more capitalist country, her son wouldn't have been backed over by a garbage truck looking for scrap plastic. It's rather hypocritical to mock the very thing that allows you and I to maintain such an expensive and comfortable existence, isn't it?

This is my response.

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to educate me on the harsh reality (which apparently you inhabit 24/7) outside of my little utopian fairytale. I have a few humble comments about your enlightening and historically-accurate interpretation of how the world works. First, I'll start with your list:

1) Poverty cannot be cured through force of arms or business—which continue to exacerbate it—or government decree, though that can make a huge difference. Poverty can only be cured by local communities taking responsibility for their people's welfare.

2) Wealth is the foundation of all businesses. Period. Multinational conglomerates may have sweet government contracts, but that is still wealth. The problem with our system isn't whether or not businesses are founded on wealth; it is that wealth in this economy is based on wage labour and the exploitation of the poor. Redistribution doesn't "hurt" anyone. If I tell a child to share a toy with their friend, is that hurting them?

3) The only power that Objectivists want governments to have are through the military and criminal law. These are the two reasons why governments are so dangerous in the first place. Take away the military and criminal law, and all they can do is serve the people. You essentially have an anarchist society.

4) Subsidizing an already enormous enterprise through government money is completely unnecessary, but that's what gets subsidies. Subsidizing a small business gives them the leverage they need in a competitive environment. Otherwise, the most ruthless competitors (AKA the ones that exploit humans and the environment the most) would have the upper hand…as they do today. So wouldn't taking subsidies away from large corporations even the playing field? Yes, in the same way that cutting my hair would me closer to the height of an infant.

Aww yes, those poor people living in landfills. That must be because they aren't working in wonderful sweatshops! Please learn a little history. Have those people been living in landfills for hundreds of years? Are they the People of the Landfill, whose simple culture has been waiting forever for a chance to work sixteen hours a day absorbing toxins through the air and passing out from exhaustion? Or is it perhaps related to the industrial revolution, or Western countries ravaging Third-World nations' resources at the expense of the majority of the people on Earth? Such a simplistic view of labour is reserved only for the economist (who is taught from a young age to have tunnel-vision and accept economics as a "hard science"), and the Objectivist (who agrees with Rand that Native Americans deserved to be destroyed due to their primitive economic systems). That's exactly how this mess started: Westerners destroyed the land that other societies lived on, and massacred indigenous people, so now they cannot hunt and gather or develop small farms; instead they must become intentional slaves.

Perhaps if you wish to understand the real reason why Cambodians are in such a bad way they're willing to work in sweat shops, you will read this.

And now for my favourite: Capitalism is keeping us from living a "terribly harsh" subsistence-agrarian lifestyle. Let's look at that for a second, shall we? People who live subsistence lives tend to be the happiest, most fulfilled people in the world. If African nations still used subsistence agriculture, they wouldn't have any of the problems they have today (as a result of their subsistence lifestyles being forcefully transformed into cash-cropping and exports-based agriculture). No, the harsh existence that most people on this planet endure is directly caused by capitalism and imperialism, and is due to the fact that subsistence living has been all but destroyed globally. I hope that one day everyone will realize that the only way to combat poverty and environmental destruction is to grow your own food.

By the way, I live in an ecovillage community. We grow our own food here. We look after each other. And—whaddaya know!—we like it.

A betrayal of hope

My father wrote this letter to various media outlets, and I thought it was better than my previous post about Van Jones.

The Attack on Van Jones—a Betrayal of Hope

The first time I met Van Jones he gave a talk to my group of high school students. His talk, accompanied by a video about the way black youth are systematically treated, was addressed to a group of young white kids at an environmental action weekend in Marin County, California. The kids found him exciting and inspiring. You may be wondering what the question of black youth has to do with environmental action. To Van, the connection was complex but clear: In order to effectively address one critical issue we could not simply ignore another, equally critical one. The Environmental and Civil Rights movements are two of the most vital, powerful forces in the US. Imagine what could be accomplished if they worked together. True, not all black kids see the point of environmentalism—they are often more concerned with police harassment and their chances of having a meaningful career. And not all white kids understand racial profiling and injustice, what might be called the Skip Gates factor. White people just don’t have to deal with that, at least not directly.

Van saw, continues to see, the urgency of connecting the two. That is exactly what the “Green Economy” is: an attempt to solve both the economic crisis, which was already severe in the inner city before the current recession, and the environmental crisis, which threatens to drown us all in climate disaster. Train young people, including a fair proportion of those traditionally left out of these opportunities, as green collar workers. Produce and set up wind turbines, solar panels, composting systems, comprehensive recycling, local food production. Train and hire urban youths to carry out the jobs that will save both their communities and the planet.

Van’s vision is clear and compelling enough that it got the ear of Senator Obama, and once the Senator was elected President it got Van a job as White House Green Jobs advisor. His vision is clear and compelling enough that the Green Party co-leader of New Zealand—halfway around the world—raised it as an inspiration in his address last summer (US winter), mentioning Van by name.

Now Van Jones has resigned, in order to avoid becoming a distraction from the pressing national issues of climate change and health care reform. Van is a very smart man. He knows what he’s doing here. He also knows that he was the victim of a “vicious smear campaign” (his words) by the extreme right. The extreme right in this case takes the form of a national “news” program on Fox TV. Glenn Beck, the prime mover behind the campaign, fires a daily barrage of lies and hate at the Obama administration. Beck sees Obama as someone with “a deep seated hatred for white people”—this from a “news” caster who recently told a 7-year old girl to go back to Africa and offered to buy her a ticket there.

It doesn’t take a lot of insight to figure out who it is that has “a deep seated hatred”, and for whom. But it is very important that we understand: this is not just an attack on Obama. This is an attack on us. The extreme right has taken out a lead voice for both civil rights and the environment in one blow. And the purpose of this attack is to make all of us fear to lift our voices for social justice and the environment. It is wrong, very wrong, for Obama not to have stood up from the beginning and said to Fox News, over and over, as often as it takes: “You are wrong. You are a bully, and we stand against bullies. Your program is not news at all, but systematic personal attacks. Van stands for civil rights and the environment. The American people and I support him in that.” Bullies and abusers should not be ignored, because it only encourages them to more bullying and abuse. They must be exposed for what they are.

President Obama has communicated to us through his inaction that he will not provide effective leadership on these issues. But we do not require his leadership to act. The Color of Change, a civil justice group co-founded by Van Jones, has organized a very effective boycott of Fox News. Even conservative retail giant Walmart has withdrawn their advertising support for Beck’s program.

Van Jones has not resigned in disgrace. He has returned to the same civil society where he started such effective groups as Green for All and Color of Change. Van is one of us again. Let us stand with him for justice and against abuse.

A Visionary is Beaten—Temporarily

Van Jones, one of my role models and strong promoter of environmental justice, has just resigned from his position of Green Jobs Advisor to President Barack Obama, due to incessant bullying by Glenn Beck and his ilk. I have heard time and again that these right-wing lunatics are only fringe, and they do not represent the majority of Republicans. If that is the case, I'm fucking terrified. That is one powerful fringe. To give you an idea on how beyond conservative these wackos are, here is an actual conservative blog post defending Jones.

That fringe has already penetrated Congress, since GOP Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.) called a congressional hearing on Jones; he wanted to discuss the fact that Jones was liberal and how to prosecute him for it.

I have so far showed my support by signing a petition to call Beck out on his bullshit, posting several tweets about Van Jones, and becoming a fan on Facebook. Please go here for more information.

I also wrote him a note on his fan page on Facebook to show my support (below). I hope enough people can mobilise to do something productive about this blatant censorship.

Hi Van.

I have been a huge supporter for years, saw you talk a couple times, and supported the Ella Baker Center. You are one of my role models. I know if I had been bullied the way you were, I would have resigned a thousand times over. I was so excited to see you appointed as an advisor to Obama, and it hurts me deeply to see a visionary like you being attacked in this day and age. My disillusionment with the USA is one of the reasons I moved to New Zealand, I'm afraid.

But I hope to come back soon, because the US is my home and I am one of the more privileged (middle-class) people. We must use the power we have to stop injustices in this world. I will use my power to support you.

All the best,

Sitakali

External Costs

Unfortunately, the American economic system doesn’t value nature. Because it is capitalistic, material value is only considered, and it is rated by cost. Since it is so hard to determine the value of nature, it has been rendered valueless, which is certainly not the same is priceless. Many have tried to figure out what the value of nature would be.

Many things must be taken into account—for example, a tree would not just be the cost of its wood, but all the creatures it affects and the environment it affects have to be considered. I created an equation that I think includes all the important aspects of a tree.

A tree is made of partially water and also wood. Its roots prevent soil erosion and it takes carbon dioxide out of the air, which protects us from global warming. It also puts oxygen into the atmosphere, which helps us breathe. It is also the home to many creatures.

So, the value of a tree would be the value of the water it holds (H2O) + the value of the land it protects (L) + how much it would cost to fix soil erosion (S) + the value of how much oxygen it puts into the atmosphere (O2) + the value of each creature that depends on it (C). So, Tree (T) = H2O + L + S + CO2 + O2 + C.
But, wait! We must figure out the value of each creature that a tree houses. Creature (C) = value of the amount of land it saves from overpopulation of its prey (L) + value of energy it produces (P) + value of each creature it keeps alive by being its prey (C).

Therefore, C = L + P + C; therefore C is infinite; therefore the value of a tree is infinite. I’m not even going into how valuable land is, because of how many creatures it keeps alive.

It is impossible to accurately determine the value of a tree, or any life for that matter. In this economy, maybe for now, it is important to at least value nature at something. But it should be pretty damn expensive.

Dear Misguided People of the World:

The theory of global warming is a conspiracy. Why, you might ask, would the greatest scientists in the world join up with environmentalists to create such a huge hoax? The reasons are multifaceted:

1) To move our dependence from oil and coal on to more sustainable resources

2) To reduce pollution, and the medical problems that result from it

3) To get humans, as a whole, to understand and respect our relationship to the rest of the environment

Now that you see the horrible, self-interested reasons that the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world (AKA scientists and environmentalists) have for creating the myth of climate change, you understand why it makes sense that it is a conspiracy. Come join caring right-wing politicians and the humble petroleum industry in putting an end to the greatest joke in human history.

Because our only agenda is to keep the truth alive.

Sincerely,

ENRON
Exxon Mobile
Saddam Hussein
George W. Bush

Note: this generalization does not cover all economists, but still a large majority

The world today has become so detached, so "specialized," that human beings think we can categorize our knowledge into bits and pieces and not see connections between different disciplines. Environmentalists are aware of how much we separate ourselves from the non-human environment. But how can we connect with nature when we can't even connect with each other? We all live in a vacuum. Nothing one person does could possibly affect another human being.

Take economics, for example. Just like psychologists, sociologists, and political scientists, economists believe that there exists within their field empirical facts, scientific evidence, the "real world". But economics is a "soft science"--it has no empirical facts. And it is a social science--it relates directly to the human world, human interactions, and human relationships. People who use PoliSci and economics as their dogma may see otherwise. "Politics is about interactions between states and other things related to the government," and "economics is about goods and services, trade and policy."

But what are governments and states made up of? Human beings. What is the purpose of policy? To influence and affect human beings (usually to improve their livelihood, or at least it's supposed to be). Economics is a human invention; purely psychological. We invented money, trade, the ideas of inflation and Gross Domestic Product. A country's economy will grow or have negative growth partly because of whether or not investors (people or organizations of people) have faith in them.

This is why economists must constantly keep in mind how each theory, perspective, and policy implemented affects people. To call someone a "bleeding-heart liberal" for being concerned not just about how an economy is perceived to grow, but also how people are being affected by that economy, is grossly short-sighted. To say that economists (or people in an economics class) must not talk about people, but only about policy, is a contradiction. What is the purpose of policy? To help or influence a government or governing body. And what is the purpose of influencing a government? To help or influence the people ruled by that government.

Why was Adam Smith concerned about bringing Great Britain out of feudalism, into a system where supposedly anyone could make money? To get rid of slavery and the serfdom, so that people could be free to influence their own lives. Why was Karl Marx concerned about labor conditions? Because of how the people were treated. I could go on and on.

To argue that the purpose of economics is not to affect the people, but to affect the growth of a country, is ridiculously abstract. It turns into the country helping its economy for the country's sake, and then there is no purpose. For, what is the purpose of a country if not for people?

"The Long Run"

Economists claim not to be myopic, but to look into the future when they make their decisions. If privatizing the water supply of the city of Cochabomba, Bolivia, destroyed people's lives and demanded a quarter to a half of their monthly income, well, the point isn't so much how those people were affected "then." The point is, privatization would help Bolivia's economy "in the long run," maybe years from that point (when half the residents of Cochabomba are dead), and economic growth always helps the people didn't you know? It's automatic. The wealth of a country is never just owned by the already wealthy. No, there's a Reaganomic "trickle-down effect" as you can see worked so well in Bolivia before, during the privatization of other industries. Or in the former Soviet Union. Just ask anyone who lives in Serbia or the Czech Republic. They'll tell you, "I'm so financially well-off now; gosh I'm happy. The health care here is much better now and there are less poor people on the streets." While no one likes living in a pseudo-tyrannical dictatorship, the former USSR did sacrifice a lot to become a capitalistic "democracy." The cost-benefit analysis doesn't have as obvious an outcome as one might presume. And the rabid anti-communism is now just reminiscent of the McCarthy Era.

Strangely enough, these "far-sighted" economists have trouble getting other long-term effects of policy into their heads: environmental effects, human well-being. Petroleum is an unsustainable resource; anyone with half a brain will admit that. But ask an economist why it's a good idea to keep our dependence on oil without investing much further into sustainable energy resources? "Well, oil's not gonna run out for a long time." "Oh, we're investing enough into sustainable resources, so that by the time a world oil crisis hits, we'll have enough alternative energy sources to sustain us." The former comment reveals true hypocrisy if that economist believes the "in the long run" theories. And there is no way in hell an economist can say the latter if they've actually checked current trends and economic predictions. But no, they're still not short-sighted or anything.

I'd say these economists have what I like to call "selective myopia." You look into the future only if it serves your own interests. And boy, do economists care about self-interest! After all, there is no such thing as true altruism, is there?

The truth is, while examining policy, you have to keep your head on straight. Don't let it get abstract enough that it's just a bunch of numbers to you, and there is no humanity involved.

If all scientists were like economists, they wouldn't even bother with the "inefficiencies" of animal-testing. They'd go straight to experimenting on humans.

The Great Progressive Divide

Listen as the wind blows, from across the great progressive divide....
Sarah McLachlan (with a little tweaking)

It is hard for people and organizations alike to find some common ground; an idea they can work together on--even when those people and organizations have relatively similar perspectives. The "anarchists" scoff at socialists, because the socialists believe in giving the government more economic regulation "control", and the socialists scoff at the "anarchists", because in their view, the "anarchist" model tends to have little to no structure.

But they are both aiming for the same end result, and they have very similar beliefs as to what "social justice" is--social freedom without enforced "morals" (i.e. abortion or gay marriage bans), and a classless system that does not have any unchecked powers or authorities. The end goal of socialism is anarchism! Their means to those ends are just different.

The "Progressive Movement", as I like to call it, is so busy tearing itself apart, arguing over petty differences, that it cannot hold itself together to be strong enough to fight against anything but itself. Conservative Christians from the middle all the way to the far right of the political spectrum come together for the common causes of abolishing abortion, criminalizing gays, making prayer in the classroom mandatory, and forcing creationism into biology classrooms. Meanwhile, we "progressives" spit acid and labels at each other, such as "tree-huggers," "feminazis," and "New-Age hippies", thus not earning our title of "progressive".

Governments that seek more power and the corporations that fund them work together, out of greed, despite petty differences, to gain the highest profits. Why can't we work together, out of altruism, and sort out our petty differences? Is greed really a stronger motivator?

A perfect example of the divide in progressive politics is environmentalism and class.

Once Again: Environmentalism is a Class Issue

The environmentalist movement tends to be composed mainly of middle-class people who do not fully understand the plight and mindset of a blue-collar worker. In fact, there are many environmentalists who are so embarrassed by this, that they do not consider themselves part of the environmentalist movement--instead, they call themselves part of the "environmental justice" movement. This split within the environmental movement is very sad.

When environmentalists demand that people stop logging old-growth tress, but then fail to offer an alternative to the working-class lumberjacks, that is the environmentalist movement. When an organization preserves land in the Amazon rainforest and kicks the native people off that land, that's the environmentalist movement. On the other hand, when environmental lobbyists got together with the steelworkers union to sue the CEO of a steel factory (because of his dessomation of the environment, and because of poor labor conditions), that was the environmental justice movement.

Environmentalists, above everyone else, are supposed to understand how everything and everyone is interconnected to everything and everyone else. Therefore, we cannot dismiss the consequences of "environmental protection" when the consequences fall on human beings, because part of environmental protection is helping those human beings.

Why is Environmentalism a Class Issue?

When you are working two to three full-time jobs to pay for food for your children, the health of the environment is the last thing that's on your mind. Some environmentalists may say that this is selfish behavior, and "can't that working-class person see that we are all connected to the earth, and therefore, environmental health means his/her own health?" The simple, and quite obvious answer, is no. And why should you, when you have been offered no environmentally sustainable alternative to your job as a lumberjack, or buying clothes at Wal-Mart, or buying the cheapest car you can (regardless of how much gas it guzzles)? Can I really expect you to buy organic food and cotton and fair-trade coffe, when I know full well how much that shit costs? Can I expect you to become an activist with me when you barely have time to sleep?

That is another thing that environmentalists, of all people, should understand: the human survival instinct. Regardless of how inefficient or impractical a solution is in the long run, as long as it gets food on your table, you'll take it.

Of course, another problem in this country is that people in general are poorly-educated about various issues and current events, including environmental issues. We've been brainwashed to put our "economy" ahead of the environment, creating a completely false dichotomy. Like everyone else, on top of the above mentioned problems, the lower-classes generally have virtually no education regarding environmental issues.

The other problem is that the lower classes are the first ones affected by our destructive behavior toward the environment. a) Where do nuclear power plants and chemical plants and factories set up shop, where they can dump all their toxic chemicals into the neighbor's lawn? b) Which countries are having the worst environmental records (due to the outsourcing of jobs and environmental regulations)? c) Who wasn't able to escape the worst destruction of hurricane Katrina, and d) why were the hurrican's effects so severe? The answer, in case you didn't figure it out, is a) poor neighborhoods; b) the poorest countries; c) the poor and d) the city was too poor (and so was the infrastructure). Seeing a pattern?

An experiment for vegetarians and organic-product buyers (although I have to figure out the right numbers): Go on a food-and-grocery budget of about $50 (?)/month, and see how long it takes you--not only to stop buying organic food--but to start buying meat. Meat is cheap, and it fills you up. Regardless of your more abstract philosophies, when you're not sure when your next meal is, all your long-term goals and ideals go out the window, and only your short-term goals remain. This is one of the ways that the cycles of social and environmental injustice continue: keep enough of the people desperate enough, and they won't look at, let alone care about, ecological destruction, even if it directly effects them.

However, that is slowly beginning to change. The environmental justice movement sprung out of the early 1990s as an anti-toxics revolution: people from poor areas were fed up with how they were being treated. For more information on environmental justice, please visit the website Environmental Justice Resources on the World Wide Web

For the Love of Common Sense

I wrote this letter in response to an article entitled, Energy: A Potent Political Weapon, written (guess where?) on the Fox News website. You guessed right, didn't you? And you're saying right now, "Why did she bother writing to this man?" Well, my answer will be Ad Hominem: "You're stupid! Leave me alone." See? Now you know why, and you know I'm right.

Dear Mr. Steven Milloy:

Understand that I don't usually write to reporters; in fact, I believe this is my first time. I would like to point out a couple flaws in your article, that stood out to me.

1) In your article, "Energy, A Potent Political Weapon", you said, "Environmentalists are doing everything in their power to ensure that whatever energy is available will be more expensive."
As a very active environmentalist who speaks to other environmentalists on a day-to-day basis, I can assure you this isn't true.

That argument is called an Ad Hominem fallacy:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

Here is Person A's defense: The purpose of environmentalism is to protect the environment, and make sure that humans aren't negatively affected by the environment. We do not try to undermine attempts to boost our economy, especially when it comes to energy resources, since they are vital to the entire global economy. If we tried to undermine attempts to access energy and succeeded, the global economy would be in ruins.

This is exactly why, instead of undermining attempts to find energy resources, we offer scientifically-proven, very effective energy resources that would provide us with a lot of the energy we usually extract from fossil fuels. I'm sure you've heard of them; they're called alternative energy sources: wind power, solar power, and hydroelectric power are the most popular. As an environmentalist, I would like to show people that we have the opportunity to invest in some extremely reliable, economically, and environmentally sustainable energy sources. This would help us move from our dependency on petroleum, which is "unsustainable". This means that, regardless of when (certainly within the next century), we will hit a peak in oil extraction efficiency, and prices will rise exponentially from then on. Alternative energy sources don't have this problem. Therefore, if we were dependent on them, we would not have to worry about a sudden economic depression when oil extraction becomes next to impossible. This is not to say, "stop extracting oil now!" This is a gradual concept, to wean us off our dependency on an economically unsustainable resource. Therefore, we wouldn't have to pay higher prices for natural gas, as you said in your article, because there would be other energy sources available. (Yes, that was long-winded, I know.)

2) When you speak of the ANWR oil and gas drilling, you have to be willing to do a cost-benefit analysis. The economically recoverable oil in ANWR is about 152 days of supply. That's less than half a year's supply of oil. Drilling in that part of the Refuge would disrupt the balance of a very fragile ecosystem. Before you come to any conclusions, I suggest you learn exactly what an ecosystem is and how interconnected it is with each species it houses. Drilling will likely put the caribou species on the endangered species list. You may not share the same sentiments as I about deer. That's fine. How about people? The two large herds of caribou in ANWR are major food sources for the Gwich'in Indians in that area. They have lived off the caribou for the past 12,000 years, and are strongly opposed to drilling. To learn about more reasons that drilling in ANWR is a terrible idea, contact Senate Republicans, Lincoln Chafee (RI) and Mike DeWine (OH), and ask them why they voted against the drilling.

3) I will not go into the large amounts of evidence that global warming not only exists, but is exacerbated by humans. But I do suggest that, before you read more about how climate change is "junk science", you read this one pdf article, or you can go to the website and get it there.

Thank you very much for reading through this long email. I hope you at least found it interesting.

Sincerely,

Sitakali (I actually used my real name here)

Evidence that the Bush Administration is Suppressing Science

This is from the Audibon magazine, May-June 2005

The Big Chill

Last February, 62 distinguished scientists, 20 Nobel laureates among them, charged the Bush administration with "manipulation of the process through wich science enters into its decisions." To discover the extent of the abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists teamed up with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility to survey 1,600 scientists in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nearly 30 percent responded, despite agency directives not to. They spoke of a "climate of fear" at the USFWS--fear of the loss of jobs or of program funding. At a subsequent Congressional hearing, Representative Norman Dicks (D-WA) excoriated departed USFWS director Steve WIlliams: "You are letting political appointees beat up on biologists, so they are intimidated and can't dod their job for habitat and species." Nine of 10 managers cited cases where political appointees and members of Congress injected themselves into scientific determinations. Half knew of cases in which commercial interests caused the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions.

Many called for the removal of Julia MacDonald, an Interior Department appointee who recently claimed that historical records of millions of sage grouse were "simply a fairy tale" and that the birds did not depend on sagebrush for survival. "They will eat other stuff if it is available," she said. As a result, this endangered bird has been denied protection under the Endangered Species Act, while its habitat continues to be destroyed by commercial interests--gas drilling, mining, and development. Click here for the full report.

Survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scientists

Scientific Findings:
Commercial Interference....56%
Interior Department interference....70%

Resources and Morale:
Insufficient Resources....92%
Inaddequate Funding...85%

Effect on Scientific Candor:
Fear of Retaliation....42%
Ordered to Mislead Public....19%

The Maori Intentional Community Ecovillage Commune Pig Farms for Free-Loving Hippies Escaping the Brutal Capitalist, War-mongering System

Okay, a little fun-pokey at the hippie community, which includes I. And yes, I am aware of my incorrect grammar. I originally wrote the title in an email to my parents, making fun of them for going off to New Zealand in search of Utopia. Okay, not really Utopia, just something better than the US, which in itself isn't saying much, but New Zealand is saying plenty. I want to go there.
So I'm staying up until 4 AM writing in my blog, and I've got all this anger built up inside of me, and I don't know what to do. Writing politics, venting, complaining about the rich fucks--it's all fine and dandy, until you ask me what I want to do with my life. Why, I want to save the world, of course! Oh, you mean something more specific? Could I be an iconic socialist-environmentalist human rights leader who also writes fiction novels in her spare time? Okay, cool, I got my life set out for me! Too bad we don't get to live a hundred lives. But really, if you honestly want to know what I want to do as a career, that's honestly it. Now, it's time to narrow it down a bit. I got some of that done already. I know the novelist part is going to have to just be a hobby, if anything at all. I'm majoring in Ecology and Peace Studies at Antioch College. I could work for a non-profit or non-governmental organization and try to build a coalition with other NGOs through mine, but fist, I'd have to work my way up into a high position in that organization. What organization would that be? Well, my dream would be to work for the UN. UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), to be exact. I guess that's political; policy building and stuff. I'd love to do that, but I also want to build coaltions. Maybe I could volunteer at some NGOs, and build a coalition that way? I don't know, but I'd better figure it out before I go to graduate school.
I know I'm just getting all these silly retail jobs, because maybe I'm scared to try my full potential. I know I'm better than that. I shied away from the Clean Water Action job, but it really was stressful. My mother thought I could handle it. I honestly don't know, but she seems to think that I need to get a job with that kind of stress in order to show my full potential. I think the kind of job at the UUA would be perfect, and not nearly as stressful as going door-to-door, depending on a daily quota that will possibly get me fired. I think that was the most stressful part of all. If there hadn't been a quota, I may have been fine. But I can't just pretend there isn't a quota.
Well, time to play some Snood and Chowder. And then sleep, get up tomorrow, go shopping, do laundary, more dishes, water plants, call psychiatrist and doctor and dentist and the co-op office at Antioch. Well, I promised myself I'd make a list, and I think I just did.

Environmentalism Needs to Stop Being a Class Issue

It’s very easy for environmentalists like me to sometimes become shortsighted and see everything in terms of black and white. Hunters are bad; environmentalists are good. Anyone who degrades the environment is bad; those who seek to conserve it are good. But what many of us fail to see is that this is a class issue, as much as it is an environmental issue. When conservatives complain about liberals being “elitists”, they are not getting this idea out of thin air. At least as far as environmentalists go, the conservatives are right.
Think about it. Environmentalists are not just asking people to be outraged at our current ecological situation; we're asking people to do something about it, which is very productive. Unfortunately, what we seek from other people sometimes costs more money than they have. We preach that we must only buy organic foods, recycled products, fair trade and so on, which, as we’ve noticed, all cost a great deal more money than the less politically correct products. Yes, cheap labor coffee is evil; yes, Foster Farms and KFC treat their chickens horrendously, but they cost less, and people gotta eat. Even if they’re vegetarian, we still ask that they buy fair trade and organic products.
Then we come to hunting and logging. The CEOs of logging corporations are rich and can afford to treat the environment better, but the people who work for them are trying to make a living. If we simply ban logging without giving alternatives, those people will permanently lose their jobs. As for hunting, many hunters hunt for food. It’s a lot better than cooping up some poor cow in a tiny cage and letting her rot in her own feces, yes? These hunted animals, delicately put, are “free-range”. If they are endangered, we must offer an alternative to hunters before taking their food away.
What about cars? Do low-emission and high gas mileage vehicles cost less than the average car? No. When it comes to more environmentally sustainable cars, the investment is ecological, not economic. As for hybrid vehicles, take this example: If someone were to buy a Honda Civic Hybrid, which costs $5000 more than a regular Civic, s/he would have to put 300,000 miles on his or her car before the high mileage started making up for the $5000 difference.
A lot of working-class and poor people have a hard time identifying with environmentalists, because on average, we’re middle-class. They resent our demands for buying PC foods and products, because they simply cannot afford them. We take their apathy toward our cause as simple ignorance and greed, but is it more than that? By definition, lower-class people tend not to be as well educated as middle-class people, so we need to educate them about the environmental issues that we’re facing. But we also must combine environmental justice with economic justice, because logically, one cannot exist without the other.

Environmental Health Doesn’t Just Benefit Liberals

© Sunday, 02 May 2004, by Sitakali from The PeaceWorker

Liberals and progressives are at times blamed for being “overzealous” about the environment and making up conspiracies and controversies where there are none. Response to an article about a Pentagon report on global climate change showed the same blame and outrage. The Pentagon report articulated that it was only speculative and gave worst case scenarios, but also recognized that many of the scenarios were probable.

The article entitled, “Leaked Pentagon Report Warns of Coming Climate Wars” in the April PeaceWorker was written by two reporters from the Observer, and was first published on February 22. The Pentagon report suggested that global warning was potentially a greater national security threat than terrorism. The article has received a lot of publicity since then, both positive and negative. Many believe it blew the Pentagon report out of proportion and that the report never was secret or suppressed.

According to the article, former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) whistleblower Jeremy Symons said the report was suppressed for four months. This may have been inaccurate, but regardless of whether the Pentagon report was suppressed, Symons also referred to a 2002 EPA report that was severely “edited” by the Bush administration. The annual reports had previously always included updates on global warming, but that update was stripped from this EPA report.

An email, written by Myron Ebell of the Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute to Phil Cooney, senior official at the White House Council for Environmental Quality, explained how to play down an EPA report -- the first report where the U.S. admitted that humans are contributing to global warming. Suggestions included firing the head of the EPA, Christine Whitman. According to Ebell, “…we made the right decision this morning to do as much as we could to deflect criticism by blaming EPA for freelancing. It seems to me,” he added, “that the folks at EPA are the obvious fall guys, and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible…Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired.”

The White House is going to dismiss global warming, whether or not it is a national security threat. The Pentagon report was never sent to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Former EPA administrator Russell Train put it bluntly:
“Having served as EPA administrator under both Presidents Nixon and Ford, I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the EPA during my tenure. The EPA was established as an independent agency in the Executive branch, and so it should remain. There appears today to be a steady erosion in its independent status.”

The Bush administration insists that global warming isn’t real -- and even claims that the environment is in better shape than in the past.
Why then do scientists think that by 2025 50% of the world’s population will face water shortages?

Why is it that:

· The American Geophysical Union resolved that “human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate... scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.”

· According to a study by the University of Maryland and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the melting of Arctic Sea ice over the last 46 years has less than a 0.1 percent chance of being caused by natural climate.

· Carbon dioxide levels are twice as high as they were during ice ages, and methane levels are five times as high, according to the National Center for Scientific Research in Grenoble, France.

· The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere have increased by more than 25 percent since before the Industrial Revolution. Roughly half this increase has occurred during the last 35 years.

Proven or not, global warming is a coherent theory that has been approved by top scientists around the world. Yet, the Bush administration’s ideas of helping the environment are to:

· Allow three times more mercury emissions from power plants than current law allows.

· Allow 50% more sulfur emissions (which cause acid rain) than current law allows.

· Send a letter to Congress saying that Bush wouldn’t support new controls on global warming pollution from power plants—the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide emissions (a greenhouse gas), which account for 10% of carbon dioxide worldwide.

· Dismiss the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

· Increase the use of coal, oil and natural gas, fossil fuels that contribute to 80% of U.S. global warming pollution.

Despite the daunting facts, there are things that can be done to slow the process of global warming. Legislation to clean up power plants and raise fuel economy standards would stop the growth of U.S. global warming emissions within 10 years. A bill called the Clean Power Act was introduced by Senator Jim Jeffords (D-VT), and would limit emissions of pollutants from power plants. The bill has bipartisan support from 19 co-sponsors. The government could introduce more energy- and cost-efficient clean energy sources, which would address the U.S.’ energy needs. The Kyoto Protocol would help countries around the world cut down on greenhouse gas emissions everywhere. The Protocol has been ratified by 100 countries, including Canada, UK, Germany, Israel, Denmark, and Italy.

The U.S. is far behind the rest of the world when it comes to helping the environment. The rest of the industrialized nations have vowed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 level. As the rest of the world embraces sane and efficient ideas, both economically and ecologically, America’s power and reputation are falling rapidly.

I know that everyone has their differences in opinion, but I hope that we all agree that we want the human race to survive, and to ease suffering as well as possible. This world is not a happy place, environmentally and socially. Americans tend to be uneducated and, being the largest superpower in the world, it is our responsibility to have an influence on our own society, as well as set an example for the world.

If only the conservatives and liberals, the progressives and the reactionaries, could stop screaming at each other and listen, we might learn something about each other, the world, and what changes are the most necessary.

Peace,

Sitakali