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?

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.

It’s true. The Green Revolution does mean more work for you. It means you will be expected to put thought and effort into reducing the amount of… well, everything you use. It means remembering to grab those reusable bags before heading off to the grocery store. It means looking for ways to cut out waste. And for some people, that alone is enough to turn them off entirely. Life is busy enough as it is, and one more thing to worry about would just… bring about the end of the world or something.

Fortunately, a lot of smart people are looking for ways to make it as easy as possible for us. After all, we’re living in the Information Age, where all the data to help us make our lives better is right at our fingertips.

For instance, Google has teamed up with a number of utility companies to take advantage of ‘smart meter’ technology to create an easy-to-use PowerMeter widget, which lets residents track exactly how much power they’re using in real time. Having that kind of instant feedback can be a powerful tool to inspire folks to turn off the appliances they’re not using, or perhaps take the extra moment to unplug those ‘vampire devices’ that suck down energy even when they’re off.

Another helpful tool to make greening your life a little easier is Earth 911’s iRecycle app for the iPhone and iPod Touch, which helps you quickly find local disposal locations for all your different kinds of recyclable waste.

And of course, the less water, gas and electricity you use, the less you have to pay for.

But the best way to save electricity is to not use any at all. Villages in Brazil have been reusing old 2-liter soda bottles to get free light all day long. How do they do it? Check out this short video to see the clever method and its fantastic results. They even compare the light quality between the soda bottle method and regular light bulbs. For those looking for something a little more stylish than soda bottles hanging from the ce iling, there are companies like Solatube installing similar systems right here at home.

I’m afraid it’s time to begin reevaluating those things we feel we have a ‘right’ to. Just because you work all day does not mean you can come home and leave lights on all over the house. Just because you have so many kids to take care of doesn’t mean the water can be left running while you brush your teeth. The world doesn’t ask much, just a bit of consideration.

And, in an ironic twist, it seems the hole in the ozone is the culprit… but it isn’t going to last. Weather patterns in the Antarctic have changed due to the hole as a result warmer air is blowing over the western part of the continent and colder air is on the east.

In fact, Katherine Richardson from the University of Copenhagen said that a new strategy is needed for communicating climate change, one that sidesteps journalists, and the money-making organizations they work for, entirely, according to Nature.

But the author of the report brings up a relevant issue:  if the scientists don’t talk to the journailists, ensuring accurate data.. who will?

Authorities on climate change are irreplaceable in informing the media, whether they do so by being a reliable source for science reporters, by writing op-eds in mainstream newspapers or by contributing to blogs. With recent cuts in core science reporting staff, such as those at CNN, it is especially vital that scientists continue this service to society. It would be better still if they combined this with more direct communication through avenues such as blogs, which are becoming increasingly important resources for reporters and interested citizens (Nature 458, 274–277; 2009). But such efforts should be seen as complementary to, rather than as a replacement for, mainstream media. By embracing both, scientists may well see their messages begin to permeate more effectively.

I didn’t read parts I or II, but part III is quite interesting:

The earth’s resources are finite. They are being fought over and consumed at a rate that is not sustainable. It is a problem that goes well beyond the most publicized problem of climate change. It is interesting that in a supposed free trade world, the military has to be such a big part of the effort to control resources. It is a complete and full contradiction without any gray areas. Even without resource wars, given the artificially created demands of western society, we would rapidly deplete many resources and continue to increase the levels of pollution, environmental damage, species extinction, climate change and other environmental disasters that are occurring. It simply cannot continue.

Has global warming really stopped?, via The New Scientist

(psst… I’ll give you a hint… nope)

We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.

Lying in Wait, via Chemical and Engineering News

someone has been using the ocean as a trash receptacle…

The find earlier this month off the Oahu coast by researchers from theSchool of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology (SOEST) at theUniversity of Hawaii, Manoa, on behalf of the U.S. Army is likely just part of the more than 8,000 tons of chemical agents that the Army reportedly dumped off the Hawaiian shores at the end of World War II. But this cache is only a small fraction of all the munitions and bulk containers holding chemical weapons agents that were routinely scuttled in the ocean.

According to Army documents, large quantities of shells, mines, solid rocket fuels, propellants, radioactive materials, and chemical weapons were dumped into the ocean not only off U.S. shores but all around the world. And on at least 74 occasions, the Army knowingly dumped hazardous chemical agents such as mustard, lewisite, phosgene, and VX off U.S. coastlines. Records of exact locations of such dumps can be hard to find, only partly for security reasons.

I have written before about how one reason the polar ice cap is melting is because as chunks break off there is more surface area exposed to the water, which is warmer, which then accelerates the melting.

There is a “bridge” in the Antarctic that has been preventing a certain area, the Wilkins Ice Shelf from greater risk of melting, because it has been acting as a barrier.  Well, it broke away yesterday. Giving scientists greater fear that the polar cap is melting much faster than originally thought.

The article can be found via BBC News.

Here is video of the region…

Saturday night at 830 is EARTH HOUR 2009: http://www.earthhour.org/home/

Everyone on the PLANET is being asked to turn off their lights at 830 pm, your local time.

I am inviting you all to participate in this once a year event!  Here is a chance to do something small, but potentially have a huge impact, to tell your government that you care about the planet and want… nay, DEMAND… change!

As always…. SPREAD THE WORD

Week 9 in the continuing series of what is missing from Carbon Calculators.  

There is a list of the things that those calculators don’t ask, thereby eliminating them from their algorithm. These are the things that are sometimes the meat of the matter, so to speak. By altering these things, you could affect your true footprint in ways unimaginable and truly make our planet sustainable.

EATING MEAT

Earlier the number one easiest thing you could do to shrink your carbon footprint was alluded to… well, THIS IS IT.

Meat consumption plays a bigger role in greenhouse gas emissions than even many environmentalists realize. The production and transportation of meat and dairy, particularly if you include the grains that are fed to livestock, is much more energy-intensive than it is for plants. Animals, especially cattle, also release gases like methane and nitrous oxide that, pound for pound, are up to 30 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Internationally there is an additional cost to animal agriculture: massive deforestation to make land available for grazing, which releases greenhouse gases as the trees are burned and removes valuable foliage that absorbs carbon dioxide. As a result, according to a 2006 United Nations report, internationally the livestock sector accounts for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions — more than the transportation sector.

To summarize, in order to raise livestock you have to clear cut the area of trees, which are CO2 absorbers and must be taken into consideration when you map the footprint.  The animals are being fed a corn based diet, so all the damage done listed previosuly in the High Fructose Corn Syrup discussion, also has to be added into the footprint.  There are the transportation emissions.  The actual animal methane emissions, which is a more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2. Lastly, the meat is also making us fat.

Many people shun vegetarian diets because they view it from the terms of a 1960’s hippie. Getting over this stigma may be the thing that saves the world. Consumers may not have a choice about where a power plant will be built or the fact that they live in an area where they have to drive to work; but a consumer can make a choice about how much meat they eat. On study indicates that switching to a vegan diet can reduce carbon emissions by 6%.

However, when I got to the end of the very brief article, I was surprised by what Roger Short, a professor at University of Melbourne, had to say:

“Global warming is a direct result of human activity,” Professor Short told The Weekend Australian.

“The more people there are, the worse the global warming threat gets.

“So we have got to do everything we can to control human population growth.

“We haven’t given the women of the world freedom from the tyranny — and I do mean tyranny — of unwanted fertility.

“If we could restore that freedom to women, the world could breathe a lot easier and we could look forward to the future because women would sort out the future for us.”

So… I ask for your feedback.  Do you feel women of the world are trapped in a “tyranny” of unwanted fertility?  What do you think women would come up with that could change how our planets future is looking right now?  And, do you think he gave women a compliment, or do you think he created even more tyrannical rule by putting us to work fixing the problems that men have created?

Thoughts…. would LOVE to hear them.

And, for those who need the clarification, tyranny is defined:

cruel and oppressive government or rule : refugees who managed to escape Nazi tyranny | the removal of the regime may be the end of a tyranny.• a nation under such cruel and oppressive government.• cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control : she resentedhis rages and his tyranny | figurative the tyranny of the nine-to-five day | hisfather‘s tyrannies.• (esp. in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.