Earth Gay

by Matt DeNoto

That what Gerod Rody’s gay/green organization, OUT for Sustainability, named its Earth Day events, when it built a garden and did some habitat restoration in Seattle, where the organization is located.

Gerod Rody was looking for a way to combine what he sees as the two defining facets of his life; trying to maintain an environmentally-aware, sustainable existence, and being gay. He did some research trying to find a group that filled that niche and when he couldn’t find one, he started one.

Judging by the website, the group’s focus tends more towards being green. It simply advertises itself to the LGBTQ community as a way of getting people to pay attention and giving them a reason to come out and join the group. It’s great if you can change the world, but if you can change the world while finding a date, even better!

Similarly, there’s been press over the past few months about different churches beginning to preach the benefits of a green lifestyle. They argue that God gave the Earth to humans so we could watch over it, not so we could exploit it into oblivion. There’s a Bill Moyer’s PBS Special called ‘Is God Green?’ that examines the subject.

In a previous article, I wrote about another PBS show, Building Green, which chronicled one man’s journey to build the most environmentally-friendly house he can. The website for that show, buildinggreentv.com, has grown into a community of members sharing information about sustainable building practices.

The point is that there are a number of ways to approach bringing the Green Revolution to your community. Part one is, naturally, finding out what ‘your’ community is. Outside of work, where do you spend the majority of your time?

If we each do our part to raise the consciousness of those around us, pretty soon all of us will be thinking a little more about these issues. Then they might not seem so intimidating to those unfamiliar with what the Green Revolution means. It might also help us convince those in power that we, their constituents, are ready to see them make the laws that lead to real change.

And if you can do all that while finding a date, even better.

Getting to the Moon

Forty years ago yesterday, two men set foot on the moon.

It was the culmination of a long fought battle between the United States and Russia, answering the question “who would get there first?”

I have spent parts of the day listening to the radio commemorating the historic event.  I will be the first to admit that if this happened a year ago, I would not have given the coverage the time nor day.  Like many Americans, this day would hold absolutely no significance.

I am completely unqualified to go into details, but I have had the privilege of conversations, with someone who knows, that has led me to understand the magnanimous feat it was to get to the moon.  This truly was no small thing.  Just to give you a starting point, we went to the moon using a slide rule as a calculator.  The margin for error was more probable than it would be today using one of our mega-computers.  But we did it!

Sadly, as is with many things for America, that is where the story ends.

During the aforementioned conversation, there was also a discussion of how disheartening it was that we have so much knowledge and ability, but instead of using it to do things to advance the human species, we use it to engineer mini-malls and super highways.  For all of the potential that landing on the moon could have advanced us, we abandoned it like it were a lost cause.

What I realized today, though, is that this is the American psychology.  The only reason we even entered the space race was because we were in competition with Russia during the Cold War.  I contend that is why we Americans do anything; to win.  The question is to what end are we winning?  Is it winning if what we win at today, is what kills us tomorrow?

We have advanced technology only in that it serves us to go to war and “win” over another culture.  We have gotten the “next, better, best” in our cell phones, cars, homes, and clothing, only for the purpose of being the winner between ourselves and our next door neighbor.  We have used our skills to create chemicals that are injected to prevent wrinkles or make bigger breasts, in this perverse attempt at being alluring to the opposite sex.  We have created an agriculture system where we have dominated the planet so much, we are conquering it and killing it off.

Again, I am totally bastardizing this, but Carl Sagan once stated that in order for a civilization to participate in interstellar space travel (travel between stars), it would have to evolve beyond war and become globally peaceful.  Therefore, if we were visited by aliens, it would be safe to assume that they were more advanced then us by the sheer nature that they would have to be non-violent having evolved to a level where they can travel between stars.

I have come to fully understand what he meant by this.  I think, he has been proven correct.  Because of our insatiable need to compete and win, we abandoned the possibility that we could have human travel beyond the Moon.  That, to me, is sad.

However, in all of this, I had a thought that might be a glimmer of hope.  Our need for competition is what might be killing us, when you apply it to climate change; the need for stuff in order to outshine a friend, a neighbor, or even a country.  But what if we use competition to save us?

Who is the first to reduce their CO2 emissions for 100ppm?  Who is the first to come up with a sustainable way to get its citizens water?  Imagine the first country to be “off the grid”?  What if we made saving the planet a race to see who can get us all to the finish line first?

Corporate Power

by Matt DeNoto

According to economists, one ingredient crucial to a stable, capitalistic society is a strong set of property laws.  If consumers don’t feel confident that they own what they buy, they won’t bother buying at all.

This was somewhat interestingly demonstrated recently when Amazon started messing with its customers’ Kindle e-book readers without their knowledge or permission.  When a publisher decided to pull a couple of books off the virtual shelves (George Orwell’s Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, appropriately enough), Amazon deleted the books even from customers who had already bought them, refundin g the money that had been paid.

While this is clearly an example of a corporation overstepping its bounds, it does provide a somewhat stumbling segue into how the Green Revolution must make us re-evaluate the concept of what we ‘own.’  Just because we’re paying for the water that comes out of our kitchen faucet, that doesn’t make it okay to leave the faucet on all night, regardless of whether or not we can afford it.  We are, at best, renting or borrowing much from the Earth, and we will have to reorient our thinking to reflect that.

This goes double for large corporations, who seem to be in the habit of assuming they own pretty much everything except the waste that they dump into your backyard.  That’s your problem.

But even that may be changing.  Wal-Mart, that paragon of consumerism, has been making small but significant strides towards becoming a more responsible company, at least insofar as its carbon footprint is concerned.  It looks like it is getting ready to take a much bigger stride.  Starting soon, products on Wal-Mart’s shelves will begin appearing with ‘sustainability scores,’ which will take into account all parts of a product’s manufacturing, transportation, etc.  This will give customers more information on which to base their shopping decisions.  It’s a great, bold move, and we can only hope other retailers follow Wal-Mart’s lead.

See?  Corporate power can be used for good.

Location, Location, Location

by Matt DeNoto

Today I have a couple of humble suggestions for relatively simple ways to make a couple of changes we might all like to see.

My first suggestion relates to guns.  There seems to be an ever-raging debate between those who believe people have an inalienable right to own guns and those who feel that guns are made only to kill and should therefore be taken out of people’s hands.  While it may be true that people kill people, they often use guns to do it.  And while we can’t get rid of the people, we can in theory get rid of the guns.

But there are plenty of enthusiasts out there who are very respectful of their guns, who just want to use them to hunt or, in an emergency, for self defense.  They practice strict gun safety and would never consider using their weapons for any illegal actions.

There may be no easy way to reconcile the two camps.  As long as the NRA has some lobbying power and the Constitution is interpreted as it has been for decades, people who want guns will be able to buy and keep them.  But many guns find their way into the hands of criminals.  Accidents kill children and gang violence affects innocent bystanders.

While the debate may not be new, perhaps some new technology can help ease the tension.  These days GPS chips are finding their way into many different forms of consumer electroni cs.  Mobile phones, cars and even laptops are being fitted with the location devices.  Why don’t we use this same technology in something a little more old school?

Putting GPS chips in guns would mean that those who simply wish to own their guns in peace could do so, because at any time it could be confirmed that those guns were where they are supposed to be.  But those who use guns to commit crimes would find that they are suddenly unable to hide.  The gun might be thrown away, but it couldn’t disappear.

I imagine there would still be an uproar from those who wish not only to own their guns, but to own them in secret, stockpiling and getting concealed weapons permits.  But they’ll have a hard time garnering sympathy when this change could have a major impact on gun use in violent crimes.

So anyway, that’s one suggestion.

The other one is a little more dear to the Green Revolution.  It relates to oil.  Besides its harmful environmental effects, there is also the oft-referenced political problem associated with our dependence on foreign oil.  Importing so much oil requires us to do business with dangerous regimes and governments that don’t much care for us.

But we love our oil.  We love it so much we don’t care who we get it from.  Right?  Perhaps that’s not fair.  Perhaps the true issue is that we don’t think about it much.  We don’t have to.  It’s not as though w e as consumers are ever given the choice between buying gasoline made from foreign or domestic sources.

What if that were not the case?  What if gas stations had to label their sources?

When you walk into a Target or a Wal-Mart and pick up a product, almost always there will be a label indicating from whence the product came.  For many products, that label says, ‘Made In China.’

What if, when you pulled up to a gas station, there was a big label on the pump that said, ‘Made In Iran?’  Would you feel so comfortable shelling out your money if you knew where it was going?

I imagine that there has already been a debate about this, that it took place a long time ago and the powerful oil lobby was able to quash the issue.  But perhaps the time is right, now that we have admitted more than once that we are addicted to oil.  Maybe now we are ready to start giving people reasons to acknowledge the consequences of paying for foreign oil, when we could be using plug-in hybrids, natural gas, or maybe even plain old domestic oil.

Just something to think about.  Enjoy your day.

Bringing Up the Rear

by Matt DeNoto

Fair warning, this is a bit of a rant.  Apologies.

One of the major arguments politicians have been making regarding the recently passed (by the House) American Clean Energy and Security Act is that the steps that it takes to try and cut America’s CO2 output are practically useless, because countries like China and India also produce a lot of CO2.

These politicians have been saying this quite a bit lately.  So much so that I feel the need to point out something that seems to me to be pretty obvious.

We can’t make laws for China and India.  They have their own governments.  If you would like to make laws for China and/or India, you probably have to move there first.

The argument also seems to imply that if we can’t make laws for China and India’s CO2 output, we just shouldn’t make any CO2 laws at all.  Which means we’ll just be sitting on the sidelines while the rest of the world innovates and reinvests and cleans up.  South Korea just dedicated 2% of its GDP over the next 5 years develop environmentally-friendly industries.  There’s a small town called Guessing, Austria that already produces more electricity than it consumes using natural biofuels.  The rest of the country also hopes to be energy self-sufficient by the end of 2010.

What will America look like then, if we still haven’t addressed our own environmental concerns?

We will look obsolete.  Antiquated.  Desperately clinging on to outdated, dirty methods, blindly insisting that we are keeping prices low for taxpayers, and profits high for companies.

And what happens when China and India’s lawmakers DO decide to pass regulations in those countries?  Will those who complained so loudly here be proud that America held out the longest?  That America dug in its heels and refused to do what reason and responsibility required?  That America, known and respected for so long for its progress and leadership, continued to wallow in its own crapulence even after it knew better?

It’s fascinating how much of the anti-environmental movement seems to be driven out of nothing but spite.  There’s a Volkswagen commercial being played now that mocks the sound hybrids make.  As if to suggest that what’s really important is having a car that makes the right engine noises.  Loud ones.  Ones that you can only get from combusting gasoline.

It’s a distraction, and in the coming years when people see the real benefits of living more while taking less, those spiteful whimperings will grow fainter and fainter.

Now let’s hope the Senate doesn’t give in.