slashing budgets, slashing ecology

With all this talk about slashing budgets whether it is on a national, state, or town level – public funding is taking a big hit. Why?  Well, simply so we don’t leave a huge gaping hole in our children’s children’s pockets. One problem with this thought though, or at least a bit of irony, is that many of the same people who are trying to reign in government and public spending are calling for the opposite in the way we look at our future ecologically.

And no, this isn’t just about greenhouse gases or wind turbines – although that is a big part of it. The way we are tearing apart the earth our children’s children’s pockets may be nothing to worry about if there is no land or resources to be had, whether it is that the land is gone through buildings, houses, giant malls, etc, or through laws (or lack thereof) that allow companies and people to destroy and pollute the land at will.

Through over-killing of such animals as the beaver, buffalo, and fish, many animals are scarce, some even extinct because of human interaction.  Here on Cape Cod a huge complaint is in regard to fish limits. They complain but don’t acknowledge their ancestors overfishing from the past making their living more difficult today. The laws for catch limits are there, in fact, not to keep companies and people from making as much money as they can, but indeed to make sure that their children can continue to fish in the future.

Once upon a time places where animals and birds could be seen in abundance were plenty. What can you see in those places now?  Homes, grocery stores, or even abandoned strip malls. Sprawl is everywhere and is causing a gaping hole in our children’s children’s ecological future.

red state, blue state...

I live in a blue state. But here on Cape Cod it’s a little more conservative. So much so that I frequently hear people say, “Oh, that Obama - he’s a jerk.” There’s no evidence surrounding the claims of course. It is a mere comment after some extraneous other comment. You know, like liberals exclaimed for five years – “There are no WMD in Iraq. Why are thousands of people dying over this? Why are billions of dollars being spent over this? Bush is a jerk.”

The biggest complaints I hear though are why liberals are liberals: healthcare, environment, education, and difference on economic viewpoints. Point number one: healthcare. “Obama’s a jerk because he is taking my hard-earned money and using it for someone else’s healthcare.” Unfortunately, in today’s society not everyone is able to afford healthcare. Should they not be able to have check-ups every year? Should they forgo the same rights as people who can afford healthcare? Do we dare play Darwin with other human beings?

Point number two: environment. “Obama is a jerk because he won’t let us drill every inch of the United States to unearth oil.” Well, as Republicans often ask their Democratic colleagues, ‘Do you want our grandchildren and great-grandchildren left when this debt?’ Well, do you want to leave Plant Earth destroyed for an unsustainable resource for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren? 

Point number three: education. “Obama is a jerk because he pays those teachers so much money.” With Republican Governors and state run governments it looks like people may not have much longer to complain about teachers’ pay being “too high”. Although, I find it ironic that the rally cry to rein in teachers’ pay is led by Glenn Beck who made $32 million in 2009. If Glenn Beck can make $32 million for speaking on the radio and tv, I think it is okay for a teacher to make $30-40K for educating our children.

For me, I am thankful that Obama hasn’t found any yellowcake. I’m thankful that he sees education as a key to our future, and thankful that his wife finds educating people about healthy eating a key issue as well.

inherit the wind

I am not completely sold on the idea of putting a massive wind farm in Nantucket Sound. A hundred and thirty wind turbines are in the works to be constructed in Nantucket Sound, and would span 25 square miles. I am not sure how the new turbines will affect the fishing industry and general safety of boaters, commercial and personal. Then of course how does it affect the marine wildlife?  Is this going to affect the whales, or does something like this have no affect on their breeding and migration? And lastly, how does this affect local tribes? Is the wind farm impeding on a past or present agreement with tribes?

Of course the economical circumstances are always going to upset someone.  Are energy bills going to go up, or are they going to go down?  What will a hurricane do to the turbines?  What about tourism? 

Some of the local outcry seems to be over ruined views and a deterrent on tourism.  If you go to Cape Wind’s website (the company who is supporting the wind farm) they have made photo-shopped photos of what the turbines may look like from various points along the Cape and Islands.  If these photos are anywhere close to being accurate then the turbines that are about 5 miles out will in fact not ruin any Cape Cod sunsets.  As for tourism – I think the turbines would only create a buzz instead of becoming a deterrent.  Of course for others, imagining the idea of having to look at 130 wind turbines is too much.

Beyond tourism and economics though lies a real issue: where the future of energy is headed.  The same week that the wind farm was approved, one of the largest oil spills in U.S. history happened.  It has even caused some to rethink offshore drilling.  And just weeks before, the coal industry had another massive safety issue which resulted in 29 deaths.

We are never going to be able to depend fully on wind power.  But, if we are to ever progress in energy freedom, wind power needs to be one of the foundations so that there can be less oil spills and fewer deaths, and substantially decreased dependence on fossil fuels.     

trash day

Earth Day, much like Earth Hour, is meaningless if we don’t do anything about it. Whether you believe in global warming or not, the idea of Earth Day is important. Just take a walk (or a drive) around town and look for all the random trash that is splattered along the road, or in the park. Drive along a major thoroughfare or a highway and you begin to notice all the McDonalds bags, Dunkin Donuts cups, Shaw’s bags, and cardboard boxes along the road. If we do not take Earth Day seriously, not just on April 22 but every day, the trash will not just be in the dumps and splattered along our roadways, but will continue to build up in the places we visit ever day that do not have trash.

For now, it is easy to turn a blind eye to the Earth. The ice caps are melting thousands of miles away. Last year’s cold summer caused even the biggest combatant of global warming to second-guess himself. Water pollution is covered up, or towns make unsubstantial excuses to as why waste treatment plants or paper companies (etc.) had to dump their excess into the local river.
Trash, for now, is nearly contained in dumps and for the most part those dumps are contained away from the rich and left in poorer areas (i.e. Chicago’s South Side). But, the land will run out eventually. The trash will begin to show. How long will it be until someone notices, until someone cares?

water: revisited

Back in September of 2008 I wrote a blog on the sustainability of tap water over bottled water. In a 2007 online article from National Geographic's Green Guide states that tap water just isn't about sustainability and money - but health. Just another reason not to buy bottled water. Check out the article here.

earth day: reflections on doubting thomas

Today is Earth Day. It’s the day when Christians and non-Christians can get together, drive down the highway and throw their fast-food bag and leftover fries to the side of the road and no one will care. Wait. What? No, that is the one day when we come together not to do that. Earth Day is a day, or a week in some communities, to clean up the messes we have made in parks and roadsides. Earth Day does seem to bring Christians and non-Christians together. Everyone agrees, at least, that the trash on the side of the road doesn’t look good.

On every other day though it seems that just like with politics, morals, and so on there is a deep divide between Christians and non-Christians on the environment. Just look at global warming. As most non-Christians take global warming to be a fact, still many Christians find it to be a hoax, unimportant, and total boo-hockey.

The gospel lesson from this week was about Doubting Thomas which can be found in John chapter 20. As my pastor pointed out this Sunday, Thomas gets a bad rap. He gets a bad rap because Thomas doubted. His faith was bent on seeing and not just believing. Thomas will forever be seen in a bad light as Doubting Thomas. Thomas has something in common with the majority of Christians today. Just like Thomas had to see and touch to believe, so do Christians have to see and touch to believe that there is global warming. It’s a kind of sad irony. With all the cold weather and snow this winter it seems to make doubting that much easier and believing that much harder.

Yet, Earth Day was not founded because of global warming and neither was this argument. Caring for creation isn’t just about global warming. It’s about caring for earth and all of God’s good creation. What does it say when we destroy something God has created? What does it say about resurrection hope, that like the disciples a week after Jesus rose, when we don’t care about creation?

those phony green products

When is green not being green any more? The simple answer is if we look at a scale. Is what I am doing helping or hurting creation? Of course life is not this simple. For example, I have to drive to get to work. There is no way around it. It is simply too far away for me to walk or bike to work. And it simply takes too long to take public transportation. If we were to give a simple solution for this, I could just quit my job and find one that is closer where I can be more green. Of course we all know it just is not that simple.

So, there is a lot of grey in being green. There is also a lot of black and white. Recycling, being more conservative with energy, is being more green. Not recycling, throwing trash to the ground is not being green. Being green can also be hard when we add as variable time and money. It is hard to walk to the grocery store and when you drive it saves forty minutes. It is hard to buy consumer products that are less harmful to the earth when they are double the cost.

And then there is Target. With it almost being Earth Day (April 22) Target came out with some “be green” products. Unfortunately, the products aren’t very green. The first is a sign from the dollar bin. It says to recycle and be green. Yet the product is neither made from recycled material nor is it made in an environmentally conscious way. Plus, it was shipped all the way from China. Second, is a note book promoting being green. Although the product had some recycle materials in it, it was still shipped all the way from China.

These products, while they may be promoting “being green” are completely hypocritical, and all for the sake of promotion. They may seem like a green product, but are most certainly not.

i don’t have a woodshop, but I do have a milk carton

I’ve created a two minute video on a DIY birdfeeder. If you are interested take a look.

Bird feeding diagram from the video
Some other DIY bird feeding ideas
Bird feeding tips from Cornell Lab of Ornithology

earth hour: turn out your lights

So, Earth Hour is tomorrow. It starts at 8:30 PM local time. What do you need to do? Turn off all your non-essential lights.

You’re thinking to yourself “But what am I going to do. I can’t see anything.” Although the Earth Hour website says it is okay to have your television or computer on I say turn them off, too. The point of Earth Hour is not to lower carbon footprints, as the website states, but to alert “those in a place of power that we as individuals and communities demand action [for climate change].” Well, although I get the symbolic emphasis of thousands and millions of people with their lights out, if the lights go out and there is still the television, a computer, video game, etc. still going on is it really showing anyone that you demand action for climate change? I say turn it all off.

What am I going to do for this hour?

Flash light tag
Candle lit dinner
Read by the fire or candle
Talk with your family or if you are by yourself, talk to yourself
Go to bed, get some extra sleep
Reenact colonial times by doing everything by candlelight
Write a letter
Make up a game in the dark
Look at the stars
Take an hour to be in silence

composting: the do's and don'ts

Thanks for the compost suggestion, but I don’t know how to compost.
Well, I’m not an expert so I’m not going to tell you. However, I did run across some great websites for composting 101:

-Compost Guide, including great tips
-How to compost
-Eartheasy, which also includes some great tips

I’ve also comprised a list of do’s and don’ts of things to compost here:

garbage in your house, yeeesss!

I always thought DIY were stupid. I figured people just did them because they couldn’t afford to buy the real thing in the store. Well, becoming more environmentally conscious, less-consumeristic, and less and less “dumb teenager-istic”, I have realized that DIY are actually kind of cool and fun.

So, while doing some searching on compost boxes for apartments on the Internet, I came across a DIY on the Discovery.com site. Not having a yard to make a compost pile, I wanted to see if other urban dwellers were able to compost despite the handicap of not having a yard. And apparently they are. And all you really need is some plastic or metal box. If, like me, you are interested in making your own compost box, go here. It lists out an easy step-by-step guide for making the box. Hopefully in the next month or so I can make my own. If you don’t have your own box outside or inside, think about making one of these.

be like bill, well we can at least try

Do you remember Bill Nye the Science Guy? He was the quirky science nerd on PBS that somehow peaked the interest in little kids to learn and have fun with science. Well, Bill Nye is still around. Yup, in the Times they did an article on Bill Nye and his green house. Apparently Bill not only talks the talk, but walks the walk with science.

The article is good. It talks about how Bill converted his 1939 home into a new eco-friendly home. Although to me there seems to be two disconnects between him and the reader. The first: Bill’s got a lot of time on his hands. He is filming a new show. And while its true that some stars may work ten or twelve hour days, I don’t get the impression from the interview that Bill is having long work days. In today’s world however people are working sixty to eighty hour weeks, running around their kids to ten different things a week, and hoping they don’t get stuck in rush hour traffic. People are busier than ever. Whether this is good or bad is not the issue (although I would debate bad). The reality is that people are pushing the limits of their time. What does this mean? It means, unlike Bill, there is no time to grind organic coffee beans and sip a cup of coffee at the kitchen table or have fresh squeezed orange juice every morning. There is no time to grow your own lettuce in your yard (if you even have a yard), or ride a bike everywhere.

Second, Bill’s got a little more green to be green than most people. Let’s see: $20,000 for new windows, $32,000 for solar panels, all organic food, rain barrels (Probably $100 each), and a Prius. Don’t get me wrong, these aren’t bad things that Bill Nye is doing. Quite the contrary - they are great things. Besides the raging jealously I am feeling towards those who simply have a house, but then to add solar panels, eat all organically, and have his own garden, its clear that his lifestyle just can’t be obtained by everyone. Once again, this is not a knock at Bill Nye, but merely the ideals and culture that make it difficult to live a life that sees less as more, sees a love for creation, and a sense of protection instead of destruction.

The article teaches us a lot about our culture in regards to time, money, creation, and resources. In a world that is seeking more green, but putting aside actually being green, maybe a more suitable life is closer to Bill Nye’s than the millionaires and billionaires.

Bill Nye article

website review: walkscore.com

Apparently, where I live it is a very walkable place. I came across the site http://www.walkscore.com/ on the New York Times website. Walkscore.com’s motto is for you to find “a walkable place to live,” or at least see how walkable where you live is. The website is interesting and draws awareness to car-dependency, but the website may not be as good as it seems at first glance.

The niche group for this site has to be people on the move (who like to walk or want to use their car less) looking for a great place to live. Because really, I’m not going to look at this site, find a great place to move, and move there. And the site really isn’t for showing people how walkable the area around their home is. Really?! For example: my parents. They live in the middle of nowhere. They aren’t going to go to this site, put in their address, and then say, “Oh, we never knew our house was so car dependent.” And they also aren’t thinking, “Hey, I saw that home for sale downtown (you know, the house that is closer to all the shops) let’s go to walkscore.com and see if it is more walkable than our house.” Of course they are not going to do that – it just is. So, it is clearly for people trying to move to a new place.

One slight, huge, problem with the website; the information it gives – sucks. For example: me. Where does it tell me to do my grocery shopping? Well of course the local 7-Eleven. Where else do you go, right? Eventually it does list an actual grocery store. Too bad as a local resident I know not to shop at that particular grocery store. It doesn’t list or have an option to list the grocery store I would shop at or prefer to shop at. This is key for someone that doesn’t know the area. My place may seem walkable with all the local 7-elevens around, but in reality is not. So, if someone does spot this mistake they still can’t fix it, because they can’t search where they would shop or prefer to shop.

Let’s keeping going with this example: movie theatres. For this, the closest listing is actually not a movie theatre, but a modeling agency and probably not one that the kids should be going to. This also goes with clothing and music – well unless I want to shop at the local Italian of Fashion for all my clothing needs.

So, what does the website do well? So, the website didn’t find me any good grocery stores or restaurants. It does show where the local schools, parks, libraries, and coffee shops are. In reality I am not in a walkable distance to a good grocery store, but I should have the option to find one and then have the ability to recalculate my walkability.

In all, the website is fun to look at although it does need some improvements in terms of the listings, and the ability to change the walkability factor. The website also can be good to find local places that you may have not known existed that might be right next door, literally.

pollution is bad - here's proof

Hi!

So, last week I posted this photo from the new Google archive of pictures from Life magazine. It’s a great photo for many reasons. I’m not quite sure why there are a bunch of cars in the water, and the picture gives no explanation other than to indicate where the photo was taken. Is the river a graveyard for gutted cars? Here is a similar photo of the cars in the water. Although the photo says it was also taken in May of ‘68 it was certainly not. When you compare the foliage of the trees they are clearly taken at two different seasons of the year. There are no leaves on the branches compared to the first photo where there is full foliage. It sure would be interesting to know what river the cars are in and to do a comparison of the area today.

The car graveyard surely isn’t the only pollution that was documented in Life 1968. Here is a dumping ground into a lake.

Some pollution stays the same. In the photo you can see the build-up of oil, algae, and random beer cans and worm containers (for fishing). In many of the recreational lakes in Michigan you can still find the same build up of trash.

I wonder what is in the water that is pouring out of that pipe? And what is up with the tires and other random trash?

When cars took over the world, trains were just abandoned, literally. I’m sure these trains are no longer here. Michigan has been converting rails into trails for years.

One take at this picture and you know it isn’t natural.

Its proof that the cartoon movie Wall-e could actually happen.

And that’s not snow flowing down the river.

This is a really neat photo. Until you notice all the pollution pouring into the canal.

Here a few others: This cover of Life is a little scary, but when you compare it with this photo it is even scarier. Please, please don’t eat the fish? Ralph – that’s what the river is doing.

i'm thankful for...

"I'm thankful that this can't happen anymore."

The photo was taken in 1968 in Michigan. More on this next week.

Life Magazine and Google recently hooked up. You can now view archived photos from Life at Google.com.

Photo by: Alfred Eisenstaedt

an alternative: sustaining

The economy has seemed to hit the bottom around the world and seemingly keeps plummeting. It seems to be the biggest issue on everyone’s mind and that is clear as the election is right around the corner. The economy is always the biggest determiner in electing a president though. So, what about the rest of it? Specifically, I am thinking about alternative energies. About a year to six months ago when gas prices were much higher than they are today people all of a sudden wanted to find an alternative or better ways to use energy; whether that was in cars, businesses, or even towns. With that came the awareness of eating organic, not using plastic bags, etcetera. Once again though, these ideas have been thrown to the wayside as a mere fad. The greater good has been taken over once again by the greater me. I’m not saying do not look out for yourself. But on the other hand we are really talking about serious issues of sustainability.

The issue of energy independence keeps coming up. The U.S. uses a lot of oil. I mean a lot of oil. This issue is beyond drilling off-shore and in Alaska. It isn’t just about finding alternatives. Although in some cases it is. The alternatives can be as simple as creating automobiles that use less gasoline, more mpg, or practical cars that don’t even use gasoline. Unless the U.S. completely changes its mode of transportation we will always be in some way dependent on cars in some form or another. What else? How about wind and solar power. Yes, they are expensive for one individual or family, but when money is pooled together say in taxes it can be used for towns, states, and the country for wind and solar.

The only problem is that the market isn’t ready for it. With the economy down, the last thing on people’s mind is finding alternatives, when just fixing the crisis is at the forefront. But we cannot forget about sustainability in the midst of crisis. Living in a community that is more sustainable in fact in the long run will be stronger and more prepared for crisis after crisis.

midwest love: isle royale

Michigan has one National Park. I have not been to it – yet. Who’s to blame me? I basically grew up on the other side of Michigan, basically the farthest point away from the park. Plus, my parents never took me to those type of things. In addition, the Midwest just does not have a lot of National Parks. It’s probably because of the stereotype that the Midwest is boring and flat. However, that is just a stereotype.

If I was to name one interesting fact about the National Park in Michigan, which is the island, Isle Royale, it would be the National Park’s study on wolves and moose. The study has been going on for the past fifty years. It’s strange to think how the wolves and moose came to be on the island, as neither were originally natives. About 1900 the first moose was recorded as being on the island. Most researches presume the moose swam the fifteen miles from Canada to the island. Wolves did not arrive for another forty to fifty years later. The wolves, a little smarter, traveled across frozen ice.

The study works because the wolves and moose are so closely linked on the island. The moose have no other predator, and the wolves have an endless supply of great food sources such as elk, deer, bear, or mountain lion. The study seems to have produced a lot of data about the two animals and how they interact on the island.

The island is also unique because it doesn’t allow wheels on the island - auto or bicycle. This is an example of how the park service is trying to keep the park natural and uninterrupted from human damage. This can also be seen in their camping and hiking policies.
Although the island does see its fair share of people, it probably does not see the same crowdedness as Yosemite or Yellowstone because of the location of the park, the proximity to people, its popularity, and its accessibility. This in itself should be a good reason to visit.

For more info:
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/
http://www.wolfmoose.mtu.edu/
http://www.nps.gov/isro

sustainability, bottled water, and a house bill

The Great Lakes basin made the New York Times today. The House is in the process of looking over a bill that would ban diverting water from the great lakes basin to outside regions. The bill which has already been passed by the senate and Bush administration looks good with its candy shell. On the inside though, as the NY Times article points out, there are a few loop holes. The biggest one being that bottled water can be pumped out of the basin and shipped outside of the region.

I’ve never liked the idea of bottled water anyway. Too much plastic. Too much money. Not enough sustainability. And here is where the issue lies: sustainability. As the Times article goes on, it quotes Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, opposing the bill because of the bottled water loop hole. Later, on one of the drafters of the bill, its quoted as saying that the bottled water is not an issue because more bottled water will actually be shipped into the basin area than shipped out. Why? Why can’t the Great Lakes bottled water stay in the basin region if it needs so much bottled water and ship the other water else where? Where?

The second big complaint according to the Times article is that people outside the basin, but live in a state where the basin resides such as Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York (Michigan is the only state completely within the Great Lakes basin) now wonder why they can’t have the water that clearly belongs to them. Remember the blog a few weeks ago on the Great Lakes basin? The issue is brought up again. How can I see the Great Lakes, but not be able to take water from it? Hence the boundaries of the basin and how it effects each ecology. Where will they get their water now - how about the outside shipped bottled water they brought into the basin?

Obviously the bill is not foolproof, as shown with the bottled water. I think at least it is a good sign of defining the basin in political circumstances that could be beneficial to future bills for the Great Lakes and the basin. Hopefully it will create awareness of our environment as they come to understand what the bill is about and who it affects. Although not perfect, the idea of the bill, I feel, is a step forward to the sustainability of the basin and the lakes.

NY Times article

guest lecture today

I read an interesting article in the Christian Century yesterday. Instead of writing about it I thought I would just link a “guest” article today by Bill McKibben. I know that’s lame, but it is a good article. The article is on an alternative way to live environmentally. The part on a small town in Sweden is especially interesting. With further adieu: link.

reflections on Great Lakes Journey by William Ashworth

I’m not quite done with the book, actually. Though I am close enough to the end to get the basic premise of Ashworth’s book. I would do a review of the book, but I have to say I am not as impressed by the book as its predecessor: The Late Great Lakes, a book I commonly rave about on this blog. In Ashworth’s first book he travels along the great lakes to talk about the environmental history of the lakes. The book really goes into great detail about the history of the region and its impact on the environment. Ashworth’s second book, during which he also travels along the Great Lakes, does not have the same impact. A lot of it is good and I will get into that in the reflection, but unfortunately most of the book gets into the author being irritated by sprawl (for good reason) and him testing out local breakfast places.

The basic reason Ashworth wrote the book was to have a follow-up on how the Great Lakes region has improved environmentally since he last wrote his book. Most of the book is a written conversation with various environmentalists about those changes. Besides the ranting of sprawl, the underlining theme was the public’s knowledge of the ecosystem of which they live in. What does this mean?

I was born in Michigan. Now I live in Chicago, Illinois. They are two different states that do their own business, economy, etc. separately. The problem with this is that Michigan and Illinois are in the same ‘ecosystem’ that is the Great Lakes. So, the people in Chicago live in the same ecological system as people in Detroit, Rochester, Green Bay, and other cities that are spotted along the great lakes. Me, a Chicagoan, has more in common with someone in Rochester, New York, than with someone say in downstate Illinois or Des Moines, Iowa. It is a psychological move from thinking ‘Midwest’ region to ‘Great Lakes’ region. So, why the shift?
In the book, Ashworth describes Chicago’s water centerpiece as…the Grant Park water fountain. The fountain is separated by Lake Michigan by a mere street. Yet, when people are so close to one of the world’s largest freshwater lakes they have their back turned to it and are instead taking pictures in front of the fountain. And apathy has set in.

We don’t know as humans what we are doing to the lakes and its inhabitants. What about the rivers that are so polluted that we are afraid to go in them? What about the bottom-feeding ducks that eat from polluted sediments of the river? Often we destroy wetlands and swamps because as humans they are an unlivable place, but they are vital to a working ecosystem. An imbalance is created in the ecosystem when they are taken out. Wetlands are often places for runoff and floods from local lakes and rivers. When they are taken out, flood then proceed to rush into towns and destroy homes and businesses that have been built over those wetlands. This same idea can also be transferred to the sandy beaches we create and maintain unnaturally, the plains, and the forests. Each has its own use and the land, water, and its residents depend upon it that way.