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.
Flaws Build Character
Imagine that you were an alien visitor to an American grocery store and you step into the produce section. I think you would honestly believe that tomatoes only grow 16-18 cm. Or that corn is always about 8-9 inches. And that carrots are always straight and in a bunch.
You would actually have a lot of data to prove your point. Each grocery store you went into would look exactly the same, with the fruits and vegetables always meeting those expectations.
However, you would be wrong.
In fact, the truth is that a lot of fresh, edible produce is thrown away because it does not meet standards set by the FTC and the Grocery Manufactures Association.
On average, U.S. farmers are forced to dispose of approximately 1/5 of their entire harvest because it does not fulfill visually uniform and blemish-free criteria set forth by the FTC, modern advertising imagery and consumer desire. Other resources cite that figure being as high as 50%. That means that every twisty-goateed-carrot, two-headed eggplant, and eyeball-ridden potato that they encounter is either left on the fields to rot before finally being tilled underground or immediately carted off to the dumpster. Remarkably, the UK has followed suit for decades with the EU-imposed regulation of 26 varieties of fruit and vegetables that must be banned for sale if they are under-sized and/or misshapen – resulting in an annual crop loss for British farmers of 20%.
But during this time of an economic recession, as well as concerns about global warming, is this really a good practice to keep in place. There are estimates that with minor changes to the United States system of throwing out flawed produce, we could save tens of BILLIONS of dollars. And, this
Right now, I am thinking about the ridiculousness of the Monsanto campaign…”Helping Farmers Produce More”. Their claim is that with a looming 9 Billion people… they will need to assist farmers to produce more.
It seems that if they are throwing away 20-50% of edible, nutritious food, the need for technological advances seems unwarranted. But, maybe I am missing something.
I was happy to read that the UK recently changed their food policy to allow for “flawed” produce to hit the store shelves. However, there are stipulations as the product must be labeled “Product Intended for Processing”. This is fruit that does not meet visual standards, but is perfectly nutritive and can be used for things like preserving into jams and jellies or used in fruit salad.
Does the ridiculousness of this strike anyone else? Do you think our ancestors, in the African desert, would have passed by fruit because it crooked? The fact that we have these standards should be a sign of how out of control the food system has become. This mask of perfection that is created is distancing ourselves from the value of real food. It is a sign of the elitism that we have created in this country surrounding food. We are saying, loud and clear, that it is better for you to be starving on the street than eat an imperfect apple. (I wonder what the apple looked like in the Garden of Eden.)
I think that this policy needs to change. Food is a gift we have been given, whether you believe through evolution or divinity. The more we get detached from the variations in food, the more we ensure the growth of huge corporate entities that create our food. But more importantly, I feel it places the last nail in the human coffin.
by Shelley Boyle
Strange Bedfellows
by Matt DeNoto
In an earlier article, I suggested that one way to influence the unsustainable practices of large corporations was to buy stock in those corporations, thereby giving environmentally-minded people not only information in what the company was up to, but also a voice and a vote at stockholder meetings that decide future practices.
If that option seems a bit confrontational to you, but you still want to use your investment dollars in a green way, GreenBiz.com reports that many stock indices are offering special lists that categorize companies by environmental impact. This provides you with an easy source of information about which companies are being environmentally-responsible. The cynic in me requires that I point out, however, that it is of course always best to do your own research as well before committing your hard-earned dollars.
Speaking of research, the Breakthrough Institute is a progressive West Coast-based think tank that says that the recently-passed American Clean Energy & Security Act (formerly known as the Waxman-Markey bill) is not going to have a positive effect on the environment. According to the BI, what is truly needed now is heavy federal investment in new green technologies to increase their effectiveness while dropping their costs, in order to make them truly competitive with current technologies. Of course, with the big news these days being cap-and-trade, the BI’s best hope for promoting its ideas might be going to an unusual source…
Republicans.
Not well-known for their environmental stance, the GOP has been trying to discredit the cap-and-trade plan from the start. But instead of suggesting a reasonable alternative, the party has been quoting, or more accurately, misquoting a MIT report that says the new plan will cost every American over three grand per year. It almost sounds like Republicans care about the little guy, until you remember that the GOP is a bunch of rich old white guys who have spent the last eight years doing everything in their power to promote the interests of business over citizens at just about every turn.
The Republicans need a new angle. They can’t just be ‘against’ everything. So I’d like to take this opportunity to formally introduce the Republicans to the Breakthrough Institute.
Republicans, meet the Breakthrough Institute. BI, these are Republicans.
There. Now, Republicans, I know the BI plan doesn’t jive with your usual system. I know you don’t like government spending, but you also don’t like taxes. And at this point, the government has to do SOMETHING about the environment. Democrats have already jumped on the cap-and-trade bandwagon, so we know you won’t deign to go there.
Just give it a chance. Maybe you’ll see that standing up ‘for’ something, something that could make the world a truly better place, (instead of just trying to scare everybody all the time,) not only makes people like you, but makes you like yourself.
It’s a long shot, I know. Just sleep on it, okay?
Backlash: The Beginning
Last night, I was given a copy of the Wall Street Journal with a big opinion piece about climate change: The Climate Change Climate Change.
In it, the author, discusses the new trend of being a climate change denier. According to this, there are a large number of politicians and scientists who claim that climate change is the “worst scientific scandal in history.” They claim that they are looking at the data more closely because of the impact from the recession and it has left them with no doubt to believe it just does not exist; racking it up to something no greater than a new religion.
Surprisingly, the most outspoken of them all is a politician from Australia, Steve Fielding. Why this is surprising is because of the impact Australia is facing due to changing temperatures; drought, fire, food shortages, and rising temperatures. But this man can sit there and say there is not enough scientific evidence.
What is interesting to me about this type of article is this notion that we, who believe that climate change is real and moving closely upon us, seem to want it to occur. That we are looking forward to it and that we are damned that we haven’t been able to provide concrete evidence that it exists. And, not only that, but when asked, these same “deniers’ are not providing data to the counter, either. Despite that, it is all the fault of those who “believe” that are allowing legislation to go through and decisions to be made based on false information. (Of course, when the Federal Reserve does it causing economic collapse, they turn a blind eye. But, when it comes to the collapse of an entire species, they are screaming from the rooftops.)
What I am trying to say is this: that maybe there is a 50/50 chance that climate change does not exist. I certainly hope so. If climate change does exist and I change my lifestyle accordingly, then we have caught something before it is too late. If it doesn’t exist, then my changes will have little impact and will be a net neutral to the planet. If I don’t change my lifestyle and climate change doesn’t exist, again… net neutral… no impact, no change. But, if I don’t change my lifestyle and climate change DOES exist, then the impact I have made onto the planet is drastic and life threatening.
So.. my question is this… why are some people so adamant to not change, and do small things that might greatly alter the planet, just for the sake of being right?
Review: Food, Inc.
Just wanted to direct you all to a review I wrote over at LAist on Food, Inc. I wrote it a few weeks ago, and have since seen the movie twice. Obviously, this is the type of film that I find incredibly important to see.
Check it out: FOOD, INC.
You can watch the preview here or on LAist.
We All Knew This Was Coming
While at the airport, a contributor to the site happened upon something very interesting. So, he took a picture with what was available and sent it along.
Now, I don’t know much except that, as advertized, it is “limited time” and a co-promotion with Delta ONLY. But, you have to know more things like this will be on the way.
Waste Not
by Matt DeNoto
STAR TREK has always been praised for its optimistic take on humanity’s future. It suggests that a few centuries from now we will all live in a more or less peaceful world where there is no discrimination and no need for money. Every man and woman works willingly to make the world a better place, whether that means captaining starships or piloting starships or engineering on starships… You get the point. But when I think about these futuristic utopias where people work not because they need money but in order to better society, one question always pops into my mind…
Who cleans the toilets?
If the day were to come where our basic needs are all easily met and there is no need to compete with each other, jobs will become time fillers that we volunteer ourselves for mostly, I suspect, out of some interest that the job would fulfill. Those interested in keeping the peace become law enforcement officers. Those interested in caring for the sick will become doctors and nurses. But what about the dirty jobs that are done not because anyone wants to do them, but because they are necessary and they pay?
This question nagged at me for a long time until I saw something that suggested that our reality was finally catching up with STAR TREK’s fantasy: the Living Machine waste treatment system.
In the Living Machine system, human waste is deposited into a mini-ecosystem filled with various algae and plants that use the waste as food. It creates a small, pleasant wetland and at the other end useful gray water exits that can be used to irrigate landscaping or simply returned to the environment.
Of course there are other systems out there looking to make us rethink the idea of the material we now call ‘waste.’ Most of these revolve around the idea of ‘dry’ toilets which compost our waste into useful fertilizer. It’s a good idea which hasn’t yet quite evolved to fit our urban lifestyles.
Until we can transport our waste into the Sun, there’s always the ‘milk-bottle-in-the-water-tank’ trick, which you can use today to cut down on the amount of water that gets flushed away, another important consideration when we think about toilets. 20Or you can try the more extreme ‘if it’s yellow, let it mellow, if it’s brown, flush it down’ option.
The point is that in the future, waste won’t be seen as waste. It’ll be a useful part of some bigger process. So no one will have to volunteer to be a sewer technician. Instead waste handling will be lumped in with horticulture or farming, and the person who has to deal with it will hopefully still feel personally fulfilled knowing that s/he is making a meaningful contribution to the world.
Anyway, it makes me feel better.
Stumble it!