Sober Friday

Well, now that the Crazy Chicken has outed me as "that annoying Bill McKibben hanger-on," I figured I might as well produce photographic evidence of my hanging-on. And maybe my annoyingness, I don't know, a picture IS worth a thousand words, right?

So yes, I met Bill McKibben at a seminar the other day. It was supposed to be a jam-packed event, but then it wasn't, which sucks for the no shows but was awesome for me because I got to ask him a few different questions and then have a short little conversation with him.

I've read "Deep Economy," before, and I have to admit, I've been a little hesitant about Bill McKibben in the past. But I have to tell you that when I met him in person, I was deeply impressed by him.

But I was most impressed with his honesty. I mean I was also depressed by his honesty, so it was sort of a cycle of impressed!/depressed/impressed!/depressed. When I asked him about the critics who say that achieving 350 ppm would be so difficult and result in such rampant unemployment that we simply should not aim for 350, I expected McKibben to offer some false assurances that getting down to 350 would not rock the foundations of the economy. Instead he said that it was a fair criticism. But that he believed the alternative was worse. And that anyone who tells you that responding to climate change is not going to be extremely hard? Is just plain wrong.

And that got me thinking. There is a lot, a lot, a lot of talk on the blogosphere about how we should live simply because it will make us happier. Or that it doesn't really matter whether we believe in climate change because we all can find reasons to "clean up the Earth." Or that any small change can make a difference.

I get where all these bloggers are coming from, I truly do. And to a certain extent, I agree. Yes, I believe that I became happier when I snapped out of my consumeristic mentality. Yes, we can all find reasons to pollute less, consume less, etc. And yes, every small change does make a (small) difference.

BUT.

I also think it's becoming increasingly obvious that responding to climate change is going to take more than turning your thermostat down a notch, or carpooling.

In fact, I can't think of a single solution to climate change that won't result in the devastation of certain sectors of the economy.

Let me provide you with an example that I have mentioned before. Britain is one of the few countries that will meet its Kyoto Protocol target. Why? Well, because Maggie Thatcher pretty much killed the coal industry.

Now, it's great that Britain is meeting its targets, no question. But the North of England is still not recovered from that devastation that occurred 20 years ago.

Yes, new renewable energy will provide new green jobs. But a coal miner can't become a solar engineer over night. Which means that unless we invest heavily in job-retraining programs and the like, we will be looking at mass unemployment in various sectors. Even if we do invest heavily in job-retraining, we may still be looking at mass unemployment.

I realize that this post is turning into one very depressing post, but I think we probably all need to face up to the fact that combatting climate change may mean massive unemployment. It might mean a serious scale-back in people's creature comforts in the Global North. It will mean that Northern governments will have to funnel a lot of money to the South for adaptation and technology transfer. None of these things are going to be fun for us in the North. Combatting climate change may very well make us less happy. It might involve way more sacrifices than we wanted to make.

Now, I'm not saying any of these things are certain. Of course they are not. It's possible that in 50 years time, I will look at this post and laugh at how bleak I was.

But I think we need to start confronting the possibility that we will have to entirely change our lives to combat climate change.

The Road to Copenhagen

What is the biggest issue that we face in crafting a global deal on climate change at Copenhagen?

This was a question I was asked recently, and for me, the answer was a no-brainer.

Equity.

In fact, in my opinion, the greatest challenge we face at COP-15 is the same challenge we have faced ever since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

Back in '92, equity was written into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (called the UNFCCC for short. The UN loves them some acronyms.) Article 3 of the UNFCCC states:

The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.

This section of the convention was included at the behest of developing nations, who wanted to ensure that some concept of equity was included in the text of the convention. Perhaps the delegates at Rio assumed that they were putting the issue of equity to bed. It's in the convention, we're all agreed, and now we can move on.

Except not so much.

Run a quick news search with the words "India + Equity + Climate Change." You'll find countless articles stressing the need for equity to be central to the debate at Copenhagen. It's clear the equity debate is far from over.

But what does equity mean? What are "common but differentiated responsibilities?" What is the disagreement really about?

Well, it's about how we calculate and allocate greenhouse gas emissions. Southern countries want equity of per capita emissions. Why? Because, per capita, Southern countries emit much less than Northern countries. For example, according to 2006 data, China has surpassed the United States in carbon dioxide emissions. However, their per capita emissions are about a quarter of the US's per capita emissions. And when you take into account historical emissions, the United States is clearly responsible for a much greater proportion of historical emissions than China. (Remember carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for about a century or longer.)

Moreover, as The Centre for Science and Environment, an Indian environmental NGO has pointed out, not all emissions are alike, and that it is important to differentiate between survival emissions and luxury emissions. For example, an Indian farmer's cattle might produce the same amount of emissions as an American soccer mom's SUV. But the cattle are very likely necessary for the Indian farmer to feed his family whereas the SUV is clearly a luxury.

In addition (I told you this was complicated) many scholars are now arguing that calculating emissions produced is wrongheaded. The real question is: where are the emissions consumed? So China may produce more emissions than the United States in part because of China's large manufacturing industry. But if those manufactured goods are then consumed in the States, is it really fair to allocate those emissions to China? (Incidentally, this is why people are completely off base when they argue that they shouldn't change their consumption habits because Americans can reduce their emissions and it won't matter because of what China does. China's emissions are linked to American consumption. )

So now some of you may be reading this and thinking, "Gee, this sounds like a huge clusterf**k, but why should I care? Does it REALLY matter how emissions are allocated anyway?"

First of all, I would argue, that yes, it does matter. But really, you should care because, frankly, we will never achieve a global deal on climate change until we resolve the issue of equity. Until we agree on how to allocate emissions. Until we agree on North to South technology transfer. Until we agree on whether the North should have to fund adaptation efforts in the South. Until we realize that there is no them, only us. So yes, we should rally for a deal at Copenhagen. Participate in the International Day of Climate Action. But we need to rally mindful of what is necessary.

Equity.

Congressional Calls

I recently went to a panel discussing the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade legislation that was approved by the House, and is waiting ratification in the Senate.

It was a very interesting discussion, though there were parts of it that were slightly depressing. Like when ALL THREE panelists agreed that we simply could not bring the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million.

One of the panelist's comments really stuck with me. She basically was arguing that we need a stronger bill than Waxman-Markey, but the problem is, we environmentalists are getting clobbered. The other side, she said, is mobilizing, they are calling their Senators and Representatives. But for whatever reason, environmentally minded people are not doing a good enough job in mobilizing.

This kind of surprised me a little, but maybe it shouldn't have. After all, I haven't called my Senators about Waxman-Markey. I haven't called them, because, well, I have my reservations and disagreements with the bill. But what I realized, from this woman's comments, is that, even if I have reservations with the bill, I need to be calling my congresspeople to simply affirm my support for SOME climate change bill.

Here's the thing. The next two months leading up to Copenhagen are crucial. We cannot afford to let them pass without making our voices heard to our elected leaders. It is crucial that our leaders understand that there is a sizable portion of the electorate who wants a global deal for climate change at Copenhagen. That we care. That this matters.

So, I'm going to start by writing my Senators. I'm going to write about Waxman-Markey. I'm going to write about my reservations, and I'm going to write about the things that I feel are important.

And then I'm going to call my Senators to follow up.

And then I'm going to write the White House.

Because yeah, I have my misgivings about Waxman-Markey, but I've realized that the point isn't Waxman-Markey and the text of that specific bill. The point is that I need to register my support for environmental legislation.

What about you? Have you called your elected reprentatives about climate change?

Your Opinion

Seattle recently failed to enact a fee for plastic bags. What does it mean for the larger climate change debate? This is what I think. What about you?

Optimistic Thought For The Day

I have a professor who once said, "We didn't leave the Stone Age because we ran out of stone."

His point, was basically, that we, as human beings, have a long history of adapting and coming up with new forms of technology.

Of course, I think it's arguable that we've never had to adapt in such a pressurized condition before. While we might have innovated our way out of the Stone Age, no one was holding a gun to our heads and saying, "Adapt, damnit!!"

So here's the million dollar question. How adaptable are we, exactly? How innovative? Can we build a world based on renewable carbon-free technology? Or is our modern way of life doomed when the oil runs out?

I don't know the answer. But we live in a world with 6.7 billion people on it. And more than I believe in anything else, I believe in human beings, and our capacity to innovate and adapt.

Jim Hansen on Biochar!!

More from The Guardian's pages on biochar! Also, if you want to read Hansen's full report, go to. I am not going to read it because I have thousands and thousands of other reports that I have to procrastinate reading first. But if one of you pretty readers would like to read it, and then summarize said report, I and everyone else will ... tell you that you are pretty? And kewl?

By the way, if you don't read The Guardian's environment section, I really, really recommend it.

Biochar: The Viagra of Mitigation

The Guardian has had a nice series of articles on that possible mitigation wonder: biochar.

The basic idea is explained here. Basically, it involves cooking wood into charcoal in order to sequester the carbon. By planting fast-growing trees, and then cooking the wood, we could potentially suck carbon out of the atmosphere.

The Guardian subsequently published several opinion pieces on the matter:

James Lovelock and Chris Goodall are for it (along with NASA climate scientist James Hansen, but he didn't write a Guardian op-ed), and George Monbiot is against it.

I'm just an uninformed layperson, but that's never stopped me from having an opinion, has it? So here's mine, and feel free to change my mind here, but as an uninformed layperson, I'm pro-biochar. Do I think we should be using biochar to the exclusion of everything else? No, of course not. And I think Monbiot brings up some good points as to where these biochar farms are going to be grown. Clearly, a lot more research and investigation needs to be done on biochar. But the reality is, I think we will need every single tool in our tool-belt to combat climate change. While geo-engineering wouldn't have been my first choice, at this point I think it may be necessary.

What do you think?

Caught in the Storm of Cap & Trade

Yesterday, I ragged on cap & trade, and how I was so tired of seeing climate change framed in economic terms, and that it needs to be framed in terms of human institutions and human welfare.

Anyway, I got a comment that I thought was particularly interesting where the author of the comment basically argued that the reason climate change has been framed in economic terms is that people understand "costs" and "taxes" and "incentives."

...Really?

Because, I have to be honest, I think what most people understand is: how much is this going to currently cost me? How much more money will come out of my paycheck NOW? And for businesses I think it's: what are the short term costs and the short term paybacks?

Basically I think the way we've been arguing climate change is bass-ackwards. Because what we're arguing for is economic incentives/disincentives and then we assume that from THAT, societal change will flow.

But it don't work like that.

Take the sadly demised congestion charge for New York City. There were a lot of problems with the congestion charge, and a lot of specialized interests that caused its death. But one of the problems was simply that policy makers were putting the cart before the horse: the economics before the social change.

If you read this great article by Sarah Bunting, she mentions several societal problems with the congestion charge that weren't addressed by economic means:

1) People like cars & driving.
2) Many people may not technically need to be in their office to do their job, but their place of work might not allow them to work from home.
3) Trains into New York City are already filled to capacity

Now in my mind, the third is the most damning for policy makers. If you're going to charge a congestion tax, I think you have to build the public transit first and make sure it can handle the uptick in volume. But one and two are important to deal with as well.

Now, I don't entirely agree with Bunting's entire assessment. I think had the congestion tax gone through, you would have seen a down tick in people driving into New York City. But the salient point here, for me, is that the congestion tax DID NOT go through. And I would argue that it did not go through because policy makers were trying to deal with something from an economics point of view, and not dealing with the social ramifications.

I could name any number of examples, because environmental policy is rife with them. From carbon taxes to cap and trade to gas taxes at the pump to fees on plastic bags, policies have failed to be widely implemented. Why? Because people don't like 'em. Why don't people like 'em? Because people see it as money out of their pocket for an abstract concept: climate change.

Raise your hand if you know how 2 degrees or 4 degrees of global temperature rising will affect the weather in your hometown. Raise your hand if you have any real conception of what 2-4 degrees of global temperature rising even means.

The truth is, we don't know what a 2-4 degree temperature rise in global temperatures will do. We have some models, and good ideas, but basically, we don't entirely know what for sure will happen. So we're telling people we're going to charge them more to drive their ass to their work when they're already struggling to get by because some scientist at NASA says we need to have only 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere. And we expect them to go along with this because ... why now? Because Al Gore said so?

This is NOT working. It's not. And it has not been working for seventeen freaking years now.

So let's stop putting the cart before the horse. Let's stop framing climate change in terms of economics. Let's start framing the environment in terms of improving livelihoods. Let's create a social fabric where people bike to work because it makes them happier, healthier, and also because it's the thing to do. Or where people eat local, organic food because it tastes better. Or where people bring their own bags to the grocery store because everyone looks at you squinchy eyed when you don't. Because fear of society's disapproval is probably more potent than a few cent tax anyway.

Let's stop framing climate change ... actually let's stop calling it freaking climate change. No one understands what that means anyway. How bout instead we call it increased flooding in Amsterdam and Bangladesh, and more fires in Malibu and Australia, and more drought in Sub-Saharan Africa. And then, let's figure out how we are going to address these problems in their localized contexts.

Will it work? I don't know. But what I do know is that the other way isn't working, so, frankly, what have we got to lose?

Warning: Extremely Cranky Post Ahead

Dude, I need to stop going to seminars on climate change, because once again, I am depressed. 

It's not just the starkness of the science, though, come on, most of us have seen the numbers and they are not pretty.

But what really depresses me? Is the politics.

Because you go to these seminars, and you look at the scientists neat little predictions about TEOTWAWKI, and then everyone gets depressed, and then there's some talk about renewable energy and how it's awesome, and how other scientists (the ones who aren't working on carbon emission bell curves) are working on these new! technologies! for green energy! and everyone feels a little better. But then you remember that so much green technology ALREADY EXISTS, and that we're just not using it, and you get all depressed all over again.

What I'm saying is, the thing that depresses me most about climate change is not that we don't know what to do or that we don't have many options. What depresses me is that we do know what to do, we have lots of options and yet we're not doing it. 

The Germans know how to build passive homes that provide plenty of heat, but don't require a furnace. 36% of Copenhagen residents bike to work every morning. In Bogota and even in Los Angeles, they know how to build rapid transit bus systems that people actually ride.

We know what to do, and we know how to do it, and we HAVE done it. But mostly we have done it in blips, in drips, in drabs, in small pockets of the world. 

We keep on relying on technology to save us, but if we're not even making full use of the technology we currently have available to us, what makes us think we'll use this future technology?

As far as I can tell, and as far as most people can tell, climate change of 2 degrees Celsius is completely unavoidable. And even 4 and 6 degrees might be wishful thinking. Meanwhile, politicians are busy propping up banks and throwing money at dysfunctional car companies.

And meanwhile, many of us are going against society, often going against our friends and family, and sometimes going against our own personal comfort just so we can feel like we're doing SOMETHING. ANYTHING. 

About a year ago, Sharon and I got into a discussion around this, and her point as I understood it was basically that sometimes, the most important thing is to live your life with integrity. So basically, the act of trying can be enough.

But the truth is? Today? I don't give a crap about integrity. This, to me, is not about the fact that at least when the Earth was going to hell, at least I gave a rat's ass. Trying is not enough. Because if in twenty years from now, if the worst predictions are coming true, do you think I'm going to be sitting there, thinking, "Oh well, I'm glad I froze my buns off and used a god damn rice-filled old sock to keep me warm in the winter?"

No. I'm not. 

I believe in the power of people. I believe in the power of the snowball effect, or the butterfly effect or whatever the hell you want to call it. I believe that even my small actions make a difference.

But it isn't enough. Not by a long shot. And we don't got time to let a butterfly's wing flapping cool the planet. Because, yes, society can produce change, but it usually does it over long periods of time. We need to produce a lot of change within five years. And the change that we need to produce is not necessarily conducive to individual action because it requires systemic change. We can't expect people to take the bus to work if it comes once an hour and takes a whole another hour, when the car ride is only 15 minutes. We may want people to use less heating oil, but if their home isn't properly weatherized, and they can't afford the fixes, what are they to do? We may think people should consume less stuff, but when people are bombarded with signals constantly that they should consume more, what do we think will happen?

I try very hard to maintain a sense of optimism for many reasons, but mostly because I believe in humanity. I believe in our goodness, and in our ingenuity. And that's the thing. We CAN reduce emissions. We can even do it and retain a relatively affluent lifestyle, in my opinion. 

But we're not. 

And it's hard to find much to be optimistic about that.

Wait, Why Are We Worried About Peak Oil?

I just read this in a 2001 paper by Larry Lohmann at the Cornerhouse:

Yet the mining of coal and oil will have to be halted long before supplies have
run out. The amount of carbon in remaining deposits of fossil fuels (over 4,000
billion tonnes) swamps both the carbon pool in the atmosphere (720 billion
tonnes) and the carbon pool in the terrestrial biosphere (2,000 billion tonnes)
(see table). Atmospheric science suggests that adding just a few hundred to a
thousand of this 4,000 billion tonnes to the air could precipitate catastrophe.

So, wait a second. If this is true, then peak oil is really not something to worry about, right? Because by the time we hit peak oil, we'll all be dead!! Happy Monday!!

But seriously, this paper is a little old. Is there newer research that refutes Lohmann? Hit me up, peeps.

What Is Adaptation, Anyway?

Last December, I wrote a post about adaptation, and subsequently realized that I hadn't given many of you an adequate enough primer explaining what adaptation is, exactly. So, for this month's Green Mom's Carnival hosted by the Not Quite Crunchy Parent about global warming, I'm going to put on my teaching hat and try and explain a little what we mean when we talk about adaptation.

Basically, when we discuss climate change, there are two main points to look at: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation focuses on reducing carbon emissions and stabilizing the carbon content of the atmosphere. When we talk about reducing our carbon footprint, we're dealing with mitigation. Mitigation is probably what most people are familiar with because that's what is talked about the most.

Adaptation is talked about a lot less, for several reasons, but it is just as, or perhaps more important than mitigation. Basically, adaptation focuses on reducing vulnerability to climate change. Now, most people, when they think about adaptation, think about engineering and technological solutions to reduce vulnerability: stuff like sea walls, or better levees. This is certainly part of adaptation. But not all adaptation is technological. Adaptation might involve planting less water intense crops in a region vulnerable to drought. Or it might involve developing evacuation strategies in the event of a hurricane. In the third world, adaptation often runs concurrently with development. The idea is, the more developed a nation becomes, the less vulnerable its people are. The more we promote third world development, the more likely those nations will be able to weather climate change successfully.

Basically, say you are reducing your use of electricity because you want to lower your carbon footprint. In that case, you would be practicing mitigation. But let's see you want to reduce your use of electricity because you are worried that in the future you won't have ready access to electricity due to peak oil. Then you would be practicing adaptation.

On a global scale, adaptation is becoming increasingly important for a variety of reasons. One, because climate change is no longer a future occurrence. It's already happening in many parts of the world, and thus, people are already having to learn how to adapt. Two, because the stigma towards adaptation is luckily dying. Believe it or not, environmentalists, including Al Gore, used to think that if we talked about adapting to global warming, people would just forget about mitigation. Thus, adaptation was seen as something not to be discussed. Luckily, everyone has kind of come to their senses and people now realize that adaptation and mitigation can be pursued together.

All right, that's my basic introduction. Does anyone have any questions?

Wherein I Weigh In on the Astyk/Monbiot Debate

Like a lot of people here, I'm sure, I found the recent Sharon Astyk-George Monbiot argument fairly fascinating, partly for the obvious reason that they're both interesting people and thinkers, and partly for the, ZOMG! George Monbiot of The Guardian is arguing with someone I've argued with! factor. That makes me like, two degrees of argumentation away from Monbiot, and when you're as argumentative and contrary as I am, that's kinda cool. So kudos to Sharon for getting the well-deserved attention and press.

Now, I'm not a published author like Sharon, nor the columnist for one of London's biggest newspapers, but I do have an opinion, a blog, and a desire to procrastinate writing an essay. So, I thought I'd spend some time discussing their discussion.

If you haven't read the discussion, you really should (here and here) but I'll summarize quickly. Basically, Monbiot favors a technological green deal, while Sharon argues that the costs for such a green deal come with “an enormous front-load of fossil fuels." Because Sharon doesn't believe we can afford, both financially and climactically, such an expenditure, she instead favors a 5 year plan of personal reduction of carbon emissions. She writes, "This is a drum I keep beating, not because I wish to undermine efforts to expand renewable energy, but because I think living in a 5 degree warmer world with wind turbines will be small, sad consolation." Monbiot believes Sharon's voluntary abstinence plan is pie-in-the-sky thinking, whereas Sharon believes Monbiot's green new deal plan is wishful thinking.

Now while I greatly admire Sharon's work, and find her to be an incredibly interesting writer, we do tend to occupy different spheres of the environmental blogosphere, so it's not particularly surprising that I disagree with her AND Monbiot. But first, let's start with where we agree. One, we all can agree that climate change is real and imminent. And we can all agree that there is a lot we don't know. Based on our limited information, Sharon posits that Monbiot's plan "has a 20% chance of success if it isn’t already too late to invest in a build out [ie a rapid investment in green technology], 0% chance of success if it is too late for a build out, but not too late to stabilize the climate at all with rapid cuts, and 0% chance if we’re already past the tipping points." She argues that her plan has a "10% chance of succes [sic] if we still have time for a build out, a 10% chance of success if we don’t have time for a build out and a 0% chance if we are past the tipping points."

And this is where I find both Monbiot's plan and Sharon's plan troubling: neither plan has a shot of working if we are, in fact, past the tipping point, whatever that is. Put it this way, I think there's a possibility, that even if we attempt Sharon's more conservative plan in terms of mitigation, we could end up with a world that is a few degrees warmer, and WITHOUT wind turbines. We are already seeing shifts in weather patterns, the ice is already melting. It is evident that global warming is not a future event; it's happening now.

The truth is the time is past for a strategy focused solely on mitigation. The focus now needs to shift to adaptation. Solutions that have a zero percent chance of success if we're past the tipping point are no longer acceptable as solutions. 

So what exactly is adaptation? To put it simply, if collapse is one side of the coin, adaptation is the flip-side. A neo-Malthusian view of society is represented by a J curve: that is human population grows and grows until we use up all our resources, and then the population collapses and gradually starts to rise again. But collapse is not pre-ordained! The flip-side to Thomas Malthus is Ester Boserup, who argued that "necessity is the mother of invention." A Boserupian view of the world suggests that we throw out the Malthusian J-curve, and replace it with an S-curve. The idea is that when resources start running low, instead of a collapse, societies figure out a way to adapt. So if oil were to run out, a society might collapse, or they might adapt by using different types of energy.

While Sharon is right that the costs for a green deal likely involve a large fossil fuel expenditure upfront, that is very likely the price we are going to have to pay to adapt. In this, I agree with Monbiot that a technological green deal is necessary.

But, once we've gotten our green deal, we don't get to slap each other on the back, and say "Job well done," because the truth is, a green deal is just the STARTING point. It is absolutely crucial that any sensible approach to climate change must focus on a reduction of human vulnerability to climate change. 

Just who is vulnerable? According to the IPCC, while all countries are vulnerable to a certain extent, the countries most at risk include the LDCs (least developed countries) as well as the small island states. The risk to small island states is fairly self-evident, but why are least developed countries so at risk? Part of the answer lies in geography: many of the LDCs are in areas where climate change will be particularly problematic: for example, Bangladesh is a flood-prone area as it is, and rising sea-levels will exacerbate those issues, while many of the drought-prone countries in Sub-Saharan Africa could suffer more critical droughts more of the time. But part of the answer is that LDCs lack the infrastructure and the financial wherewithal to reduce vulnerability. The Netherlands suffers from its own geographic problems: as a low-lying country with an incredibly high population density, you might think it was a Malthusian collapse waiting to happen, but instead The Netherlands is the poster child for adaptability. Their climate change strategy has included a $1 billion investment to retrofit their dykes. The difference between the Netherlands and some of the LDCs then is not a difference in geographic vulnerability, but a difference in SOCIAL vulnerability. The Netherlands being a rich country with a stable government has the money and the institutions to adapt, whereas Bangladesh or Malawi might not. Part of our response to climate change must involve increasing adaptational capacity in these socially vulnerable areas.

Not all adaptation will involve technological solutions. In one of the more extreme examples of adaptation, the Maldives is establishing a fund to buy a new homeland should rising sea levels render the small island unlivable. Other means of adaptation might include better response systems to floods and hurricanes (the evacuation strategy prior to Hurricane Gustav is a good example of this kind of social adaptation.)

The point is, the world is not static, nor has it ever been. Much as we might wish that things were different, much as we might wish that we could stabilize the atmosphere, and stop global warming in its tracks, most scientists now believe that even if we were to stop carbon emissions this second, we'd still see a rise in temperatures and sea levels. Thus, we MUST learn to adapt. 

For too long adaptation has been put on the back burner, because, OMG, if we teach people to adapt, then maybe people will stop trying to reduce carbon emissions. This approach is nonsensical, dangerous, and if continued, could result in a zero-sum outcome where we've neither built our adaptive capacity, nor reduced our emissions. Luckily, the IPCC is now on board with regards to adaptation, and there's a real chance that the post-Kyoto agreement will give adaptation the attention it deserves.

Sharon sees a real problem with a world that has wind turbines, but is a few degrees higher, and acts like it is fait accompli that such a world wouldn't be worth living in. But the truth is, we don't know what the future will bring. We don't know that a massive green deal would result in temperatures rising by a few degrees. But even if the temperature did rise, we don't know that human beings could not ADAPT to such a world. In any case, I think we had better try. Because the alternative is accepting that we might just be screwed. And frankly, I'm not okay with that being a possible scenario.

The Elephant in The Room- Part II

Thank you all for your wonderful, and thoughtful responses to my post on population. Truly, I was so impressed and pleased with the civility and depth everyone showed on the question. In some ways, I feel like I don't even need to weigh in, but, well, given how much time so many of you put into answering my questions, I figure the least I can do is answer them myself! Plus, I'm a loud mouth. Since when do I miss an opportunity to express an opinion? ;)

Okay, so here we go.

To start with, is population a major problem from an environmental point of view? I think it is *a* problem, though I don't know that I would go so far as to say a *major* problem. Birth rates have already steeply declined in many parts of the world, and I generally see no reason to disagree with the UN's assessment that population will stabilize between 9-10 billion in 2050. Now, because a lot of that population growth is built in growth (due to large numbers of teenagers and twenty year olds in many countries), I don't think there's a real way to hold the world population down to 6 billion without instilling serious draconian measures. So, in a sense, I guess I see the neo-Malthusian debate somewhat of a red herring. The question for me isn't, is population an enormous problem, the question is, where do we go from here?

On to the bullet points:

• Does it make sense to treat population as a quantitative problem (number of people) versus a qualitative problem ( one of lifestyle?) If we had 6.5 billion people on the Earth living lives similarly to farmers in Ghana, would we have a global warming problem?

To me, population is only very minorly a quantitative problem. I don't think the world could sustain any number of people, but I do think 9-10 billion people could live on the Earth in a sustainable fashion. I think population often gets conflated with lifestyle choice which often gets conflated with affluence. No, I do not think that everyone in the world can live like a typical American without a major technological breakthrough (and even then, I'm not 100% certain.) I don't think the average American lifestyle is a particularly sustainable one. But again, and I think this is crucial, this is not to say that the *affluent* lifestyle isn't sustainable. Anyone who has brought their Riot for Austerity numbers down to about 10-20% of the average American's understands that it is possible to live with a high standard of living (from a global perspective) but with much lower output. Similarly, most Londoners and New Yorkers live much more sustainable lives than the majority of people living in the suburbia.

• Is it fait accompli that more people leads to degradation of renewable resources and/or increases in carbon emissions?

Okay, I'll admit, this was an unfair trick question. Is it fait accompli that more people leads to increases in carbon emissions? Well, it better not be, or why the hell did any country with a rising birth rate agree to the Kyoto Protocol! So my answer to this is an emphatic no. It is not fait accompli that more people leads to the degradation of renewable resources and/or increases in carbon emissions. In fact, if you look at population densities of the first world, it's interesting to note that countries with the higher population densities are often those that have lower carbon emissions. For example, the Netherlands is the 25th most dense country in terms of population and one of the most dense countries in the first world, but ranks 43rd in the world in terms of per capita carbon emissions. Conversely, the United States ranks 180 in terms of density, but comes in 10th at per capita carbon emissions. So higher population densities, far from obviously degrading land or increasing carbon emissions, can many times offer very positive benefits that improve land, and decrease emissions. To come back to New York, the reason New Yorkers have lower per capita emissions than the average American is precisely because density is higher in New York than it is in most parts of the US. As a result, New Yorkers tend to take public transit more often than the average American. 

• Is disease Nature's way of "controlling" population? If so, is it fair to extrapolate from that that malaria and AIDS are Nature's way of "controlling" population, and that the Western Europe and the United States should not interfere with Nature?

I was really interested to see Hypoglycemiagirl's answer to this since she's an evolutionary biologist, and Cath's answer since she's a virologist. Virologist right? I get confused. They both had better technical answers to this, than I ever could, but I think in the main everyone who commented agreed on the most important part of this question which is that we should be using all the tools at our disposal to stop malaria and AIDS from running rampant in Africa (and other places). I am very relieved that we all were able to agree on this point.

• What are the solutions? Is China's one-child policy a solution?

Here is where the comments started to get really fascinating and exciting. No one seemed to think China's one-child policy was the best kind of solution. I think Joyce, Cath, and Young Snowbird all eloquently discussed the problems with China's one-child policy. 

• And more generally, where do we go from here? Given that we have population increases built-in, so to speak, what are the steps we can take?

Here again, I think people brought up excellent ideas. In general, education of women was mentioned as key. I agree, though I believe education of women has to be done holistically and should not be simply education of contraceptive options. That is, women need to be empowered, they need to be given opportunities, and the general health and security of women and their family needs to be of primary concern. For example, as Joyce pointed out, many women have more children because infant mortality rates are so high. So in order to bring down birth rates, it is not enough to hand women contraceptives, one must also work to bring infant mortality rates down. One of my professors discussed how having many children is a form of social security in countries where the states don't offer much in terms of old age provision. If the state is able to offer parents more financial security, they may well see birth rates decline as parents realize they don't have to have several children to ensure their well-being in old age. 

Beyond education and health, Cath and Melinda made some very interesting points that I think are very important to this discussion as well. Cath pointed out that several first world countries with declining birth rates are now reversing, and are thus encouraging women to have more children. Cath's point was, instead of trying to increase the birth rate, let's open up immigration in these countries! I completely agree with Cath in this regard. As the child of immigrants, and as someone who is now living in my non-native country, I think countries with stagnating birth rates should be encouraging immigration.

Melinda pointed to some of the discrimination/social alienation that childless or child-free couples suffer, and wrote as a possible solution, "Making it socially acceptable to not have children." I think this is an incredibly important point. Too many couples without children must deal with all kinds of social pressure to have children. I believe wholeheartedly that having children should be a personal decision. Just as I don't believe it's right to cast aspersions on parents who choose to have larger families, I do not believe it's right to cast aspersions on couples who choose not to have children. 

All in all, I think this was a fabulous discussion, and I want to thank each and every one of you who took the time to share your views. I think the civility of the discussion allowed people from a variety of perspectives to share their opinions. We had several moms of four children express their views, as well as several childless people share theirs, and we all managed to do so without personal attacks, and with everyone's feelings intact. So thank you, thank you, THANK YOU. You guys are seriously awesome.

The Elephant In The Room

There was some really interesting discussion that took place in the comments of the Collapse book review post, so I decided to continue the discussion.

One thing I've noticed, we green bloggers love to talk about how we don't talk about population. Every few days it seems, there's a comment at No Impact Man about how we're ignoring the elephant or the 150 pound gorilla, or what have you, in the room: population. Sharon seems to have to deal with accusations on a fairly regular basis: how DARE she talk about the environment when she had the gall to have four children!! The general idea is, most green bloggers have kids, so people feel like they don't want to talk about population. And the green bloggers without kids don't want to sound self-righteous, so no one talks about it.

So, instead of ignoring this side of the debate, let's talk about it. I actually think Sharon has talked about population in the past, and has done a decent job, but maybe people feel like she has an agenda there. But I don't have kids, and it's possible, though I wouldn't say probable, that I might never have children. So I don't feel like I really have much of my own agenda to press here. I do have an opinion though. I mean, obviously.

But before I give you my views about population, I want to give everyone the chance to express their opinion. So here it is, folks. Do you think the growing population is a major environmental concern, and more specifically, do you think it is a concern with regards to global warming?

When you're answering this question, here are some other questions I'd like to throw out there. You don't have to answer them, though you can if you'd like. I obviously ask the questions with a point of view attached, so let's all understand that I'm not asking these questions from an entirely objective point of view:

• Does it make sense to treat population as a quantitative problem (number of people) versus a qualitative problem ( one of lifestyle?) If we had 6.5 billion people on the Earth living lives similarly to farmers in Ghana, would we have a global warming problem?
• Is it fait accompli that more people leads to degradation of renewable resources and/or increases in carbon emissions?
• Is disease Nature's way of "controlling" population? If so, is it fair to extrapolate from that that malaria and AIDS are Nature's way of "controlling" population, and that the Western Europe and the United States should not interfere with Nature?
• What are the solutions? Is China's one-child policy a solution?
• And more generally, where do we go from here? Given that we have population increases built-in, so to speak, what are the steps we can take?

I imagine that responses to this might get a little heated. Population maybe isn't talked about because it *is* personal. A good percentage of the people reading this will have children, and a good percentage of people reading this will not. So while I encourage debate, I do want to ask that people comment respectfully. I think in general the comments on this blog are incredibly civilized, and thoughtful, so I'm not too worried. I think we can have a good debate on this without resorting to personal attacks.

Summer Carnivals

Well, I guess great minds think alike. At about the same time that we were getting our APLS Carnival off the ground, Lynn at Organic Mania was launching her own Green Moms Carnival. Not being officially a mom (is BM an abbreviation for breast milk or something else, and if it is an abbreviation for breast milk, why does a two syllable phrase need to be abbreviated?) I didn't really look into submitting a post or anything.

As it turns out, the warm and welcoming Lynn was allowing moms, non-moms, and even some XY-chromosome types to participate in the carnival. Ah well. My bad. So I didn't participate in the first go around, but I think the carnival is important, and I wanted to mention it, and just for fun, here's what I might have said, had I thought to like, read the submission guidelines.

People often say that one person's actions can't change the world. That one woman using a reusable shopping bag won't do anything. That one mom buying her groceries at the farmers' market doesn't make a difference. That one family isn't going to stop global warming by composting.

And ... I think that's fair. It's true that my actions alone aren't going to STOP global warming in it's tracks.

But here's the other truth that those people never mention:

We can't curb global warming WITHOUT individual action.

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating: social movement precedes public policy. And historically, women and mothers have been the backbone of social movements.

Most people, when asked who was responsible for abolition, would immediately respond: Lincoln. But Lincoln didn't just show up on the national scene in a vacuum. On the contrary, the moral crisis over slavery was first fought in individual homes, towns, and churches. Hundreds and hundreds of mothers read Harriet Beecher Stowe's landmark novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin. Hundreds and hundreds of mothers imagined what it would be like to have their child sold into slavery. And soon, hundreds and hundreds of mothers were declaring slavery to be immoral.

Abolition was quickly gaining steam in social circles and churches, but meanwhile, in Washington, Congress and the Presidents of the era were practicing avoidance. For eight years in 1830s and 40s, Congress was actually FORBIDDEN from even DISCUSSING slavery. Finally, in 1850, two years before Uncle Tom's Cabin was published, Congress passed the Compromise of 1850, and with it, the Fugitive Slave Law, which made every citizen complicit in the slave trade. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property in the egregious Dred Scott decision. When Lincoln was elected, South Carolina seceded from the Union, and the lame duck President Buchanan, actually sat around and did NOTHING. That's right. Nothing.

My point is, while the abolition movement was heating up, while this crisis that would eventually lead to secession was becoming a bigger and bigger issue, our elected leaders did very little. It was not until they were compelled to act by societal forces that anything ever changed. So while, yes, eventually, slavery was abolished due to the 13th Amendment, there wouldn't have ever BEEN a thirteenth amendment if it weren't for individuals banding together to create the abolition movement.

Today, our nation is also facing a major crisis. And just like in 1850, our elected leaders are showing a certain reluctance to actually lead. Indeed, if you were to look at the actions of our government to curb global warming, one would probably think, "We're all doomed."

But ... we're not doomed, and here's why. While the government dilly dallies, and the Earth grows hotter, individuals have been acting. Farmers markets are multiplying. Reusable bags are all the rage. People are driving less, and using public transit more often. People are recycling, composting, line drying clothes, and growing their own food.

And these people who seem to be responsible for most of these changes?

Women. Mothers.

It's very simple really. Mothers still tend to be the ones responsible for the management of a household. They are the ones who often are responsible for buying the groceries, cooking, and drying the clothes. And thus, they are the ones who wield the power to change how their family as a whole operates.

Mothers in our society tend to get ignored by everyone but advertisers and politicians. And the advertisers assume that mothers only care about shopping, and the politicians assume that mothers only care about soccer games and safety.

But the truth is, mothers are much, much more intelligent and complex.

Mothers care about safety, yes, but they're not just worried about terrorists and kidnappers. They care about the safety of our food systems. They care about the toxins that are in our household cleaning products. They care about antibiotics in our drinking water.

And beyond safety, these mothers care about people. They care about building a better society. Their hearts ache for the child whose entire life was dispaced by Katrina. They worry for the Bangladeshi mother who is going to bear the brunt of climate change.

The moms I've had the fortune to meet on the blogosphere are fierce, they are determined, and they are brilliant as hell. They may have a degree in environmental science, or they may never have finished college, but that doesn't stop them from reading, learning, and immersing themselves in the global warming crisis.

Many of our leaders and policy makers might think, "Oh, they're just housewives. What do they really know?"

Well, I'm hear to tell you, they know plenty. And frankly, our elected leaders ignore these fine women at their own risk. Because as each day passes, these women, these mothers, are growing more and more powerful.

And one day, very soon, these women, these "mere housewives" will be so powerful, that our elected leaders will no longer be able to practice avoidance. Our government will be forced to pass meaningful global warming legislation.

And perhaps, 150 years from now, a history book will claim that President Obama was the one responsible for turning around the crisis of global warming.

And the world will forget who was really responsible.

But if the crisis of global warming is overcome, it won't be because of an elected official in Washington D.C.

It will be because of mothers and fathers, singletons and families, in California, in Michigan, in Florida, in France, in Canada, and all over the world.

We are not doomed.

The world will be saved.

Because the mothers are on the march.

Changing Focus- Part Two

Now, some of you may have read my last post and thought, "Wow. That Arduous. She's nice and all, but she's kinda unrealistic. Here we are facing some of the biggest crises of the century, and she's out there doing jumping jacks and pyramid formations for a brighter future. I mean REALLY. Do we even LIVE on the same planet? How the hell does she expect me to believe that not only are we going to deal with major problems like global warming, but that somehow we're going to come out the other end BETTER. Does she really believe that global warming can bring about a more positive future? Is she nuts?"

And, again, I get it. On the surface, it does seem nuts. But I believe firmly that crises can be catalysts for positive change. 

Let me provide you with an example from my life. Four years ago, my father passed away very suddenly of a massive heart attack. Less than a week after he died, my mother was diagnosed with cancer. My life, which had been fairly happy-go-lucky up until then, all of a sudden seemed ripped from a Lifetime movie of the week. 

Losing my dad sucked. Watching my mom go through chemo sucked. For a while, I lived in a constant state of grief. I couldn't understand how the world kept turning. How the newspapers kept reporting about the presidential election. Why did other people get to live their lives so peacefully when my life had effectively ended?

But slowly, I began to come out of my fog. And I learned a few things about myself. One, that my life, inexplicably, hadn't ended. Two, that my capacity to feel, whether it be grief, love, or happiness, was much greater than I had ever imagined. Three, that even when I felt weak, I was much stronger and more resilient than I had ever imagined possible. Four, that there were so many, many people out there who loved me, and cared about me, that I had so much to be thankful for, even in the face of tragedy.

I don't wish this kind of personal crisis on anyone. Hell, I don't wish it on myself. But ... it happened. And because of it, I am a better person. I am a stronger person. And I am a more confident person. Because once you go through shit like that, you know, deep in your heart, that if you can handle that? You can handle whatever else life wants to throw at you.

Difficult times test us like no others. And sometimes, we succumb to defeat. Sometimes, difficult times can bring out the worst in people. But difficult times can also often bring out the best in humanity. 

On a national scale, take a look at some of our greatest presidents like Abraham Lincoln and FDR. These are presidents that were made stronger and greater because of the crises they faced. Our nation itself is better for the difficulties it has gone through. The Civil War resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, but it also brought an end to slavery. The Great Depression brought us unemployment, bank runs, and the loss of fortunes. But it also brought us a more secure banking system, Social Security, and other much needed social safety nets. In other words, our country is better and stronger for having gone through and withstood these crises.

Now some of you might be thinking again, "Oh, great, Arduous. So you're saying that global warming could result in war, unemployment and unstable financial markets, but then that EVENTUALLY we'd be better off. Wow, yeah "civil war" scenarios are really hopeful."

And you would have a point. Both the end of slavery and the advent of Social Security were bought at a very steep cost. So here's where we have to apply some of the lessons of history. The Civil War came at such a steep cost because for years and years, we dithered around the subject, operating out of fear of change. We were so afraid of what would happen if slavery ended, that we waited and waited until there was no choice but to bring about the end of slavery in an extremely painful way. Similarly, while the stock market crash was certainly a terrible crisis, the fear that came out of it was worse. In fact, the subsequent run on the banks had a far worse effect on the economy than the stock market crash itself.

So, first, we have to remember that crises aren't necessarily bad. That they can bring with them opportunities and positive change. Next we have to remember that progress is natural. That life keeps moving forward, that there is no societal turning back to the "old days" no matter how wonderful those days seem. And then, we need to approach said crises with hope, with full hearts, and with faith that we can take on these crises and come out better. If we approach crises from a position of hope and strength, then I believe we can mitigate the worst effects of said crises. The sooner we stop fearing climate change the better. Because as soon as we stop acting afraid, we can begin to positively deal with the problem at hand. We can take this crisis we've been given, and turn the crisis into a positive BEFORE the costs start to grow any further.

Tomorrow (assuming I'm not brain dead)- Part Three: One lay blogger's prescription for a brighter future.

P.S. For the record, my mother's cancer-free now. Yay, my mom!

Changing Focus- Part One

All right guys, it's time to put your thinking caps on. I'm sorry, I DID talk about fashion and brunch for like three days. But now I gotsta wax philosophical again, yo.

Well, it's all the ever thought-provoking Chile's fault really. Because a week ago, after she announced a "Quit Your Addictions" challenge, she and her readers engaged in a really fantastic discussion about "changing the focus."

I didn't jump in the fray, because frankly, I was just enjoying soaking up the discussion. But I've been pondering the discussion for days now, and so I feel I have to come clean.

There was a time a few months ago, when trying to lead an environmentally-conscious life was killing me. Reading green blogs all the time was making me nutso. I was having nightmares about worst-case scenarios, I would watch people eating ice-cream and think, "How can people be laughing and eating ice-cream when the world is in crisis!"

In short, being green was making me miserable. (Okay, one of my best friends had just passed away so I would have been fairly unhappy either way, but I think it's fair to say that thinking about environmental catastrophes all the time wasn't helping either.)

I felt hopeless. Like here I was trying to do little lame things to "save the world," when there WAS no saving the world. Scientists agree that even if we were all to stop carbon emitting right now, global warming would still happen to some extent. There is no way to completely turn the clock back. So I'd get all upset about global warming, and then I'd happen on a site about peak oil or the food crisis or the economic crisis and how we're sliding into a depression, and pretty soon I would be a total mess.

By this point, I was seriously contemplating saying "eff it," and giving up on my personal environmentalism. Because, I'm sure you haven't noticed this (ha ha) but I have a contrary streak a mile wide. When people tell me that the world is getting worse day by day, my instinct is to be like, "Fine. Then what's even the point? Maybe I'll just turn on ALL my lights and then rent a plane and fly around the world twelve times for no reason!"

I admit it's not the most mature response, but there it is.

I don't respond well to negativity. When the focus is negative, I want to give up. I want to be a bad person. I want to stop caring.

It was especially fortuitous then that about the time I was going through this personal environmental turmoil, I decided to read Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus' book Break Through. I've already discussed the book a few times, but suffice it to say, the book turned me around. It helped me to shift focus, and made me realize that there IS hope.

But to go back to last week's discussion on Chile's blog, one comment in particular hit me very hard. Mollyjade writes:

I've been internally debating whether I should join the challenge (aspartame). And I think a good deal of my conflict has to do with this positive/negative divide. I have a chronic illness that means I won't survive if there's a massive breakdown in our infrastructure. So preparing for a world in which I have to be totally self-sufficient seems pointless because I could never live in that world.

I just can't believe that the world will deteriorate that much, because then I have little personal interest in doing anything about it. It's not logical, but it gets me through the day.

After reading Mollyjade's comment, I realized there is more at stake here. This isn't just about changing the focus because people respond to positivity better than negativity. This is about shaping our destinies, shaping our future. We owe it ourselves, and we especially owe it to the Mollyjades of the world to remember that the future is not set in stone. Is it possible that climate change and peak oil will cause a massive breakdown in infrastructure? Is it possible that competition for oil will result in a zero-sum game where a few very rich people win, while the rest of humanity loses? Is it possible that if CO2 in the atmosphere hits 400ppm "life as we know it" (whatever that means) will cease to exist? Yes, I think it is possible. BUT, BUT, that is not to say it WILL HAPPEN. We are not doomed, people, unless we resign ourselves to doom.

My friend Honda who is very wise is forever saying to me, "You can't resign yourself to two fates at once." (I think she's quoting someone, but I can't remember whom.) Well, here's the deal. We can't resign ourselves to doom AND also believe in a brighter tomorrow. If I really thought global warming was going to submerge the city of Los Angeles underwater, I couldn't ALSO be trying to improve the public transit infrastructure. But I don't believe either LA or New York are ever going to be submerged. Because I trust in human ingenuity, I trust in science, and I trust in the abilities of our engineers to do whatever it takes to keep frickin Wall Street above water.

It is tempting to feel like we have no control over the future. Like the best thing to do is to accept the inevitable environmental apocalypse, learn to be totally self-sufficient and start stocking up on guns and food.

If that is your philosophy, I understand where you are coming from. But for me personally? I can't do that. Not just because I have no desire to do it all myself, but because I know that there are many people in this world who CAN'T do it all by themselves, who can't live without civilization. And I'm not willing to resign myself to a world in which only the fit can survive.

So instead, I choose to believe that we DO have control over the future. That we can buttress our ailing infrastructures. That we can build new food systems that don't rely heavily on oil. That we can spur demand for alternative energies and invest in new technologies.

In short, I believe this crisis could lead to the creation of better systems, better technologies, and a better future for all of humanity.

Tomorrow (hopefully) Part Two: Why I'm not just wearing rose-colored glasses and how crises can bring about positive change.

Why I Have Hope

About a month ago Mouse and I were at a music show, and I brought up my standard diatribe about the music industry and how there are no seminal artists for this decade. Every decade has had its share of landmark artists who have defined that decade. Imagine the '50s without Elvis. Or the '60s without the Beatles. Or the '90s without Nirvana. You can't right? But the '00s without ... Coldplay? No offense to Coldplay, but it seems like the decade would be much the same as it is today.

So here I was lamenting the state of the music industry, and to be honest with you, I pretty much assumed that Mouse was going to agree with me. I mean, come on. Isn't it an article of faith among music nerds that the State of Music is a sad one, and that once upon a time music was so much better and so much more original, etc, etc?

So you can imagine my surprise when he disagreed with me. Oh, don't get me wrong. He agreed that there aren't really any "landmark" artists of this decade. But where I saw this as a sad thing, Mouse, because he is much smarter and also more positive than I, saw this as a great thing. Because, in his opinion, it wasn't music going downhill that has led to a decade bereft of 'seminal artists.' In fact, it was because there was TOO MUCH good music that it was now impossible for there to be just a few definitive artists.

Now, you need to read his most recent blog post if you want the full manifesto, but the more I thought about what he said, the more right he seemed. Fifteen years ago, if you wanted to reach more than a few hundred people, you had to be signed to a major record label. Now, any band can reach countless thousands of people through MySpace or iTunes. If you take a look at my iPod, it's crammed to the gills with local LA bands. And these aren't dinky amateur bands. These bands are fantastic, certainly better than most if not all of the stuff you hear on Top 40. How many of these bands would the LA music scene have been able to support 15 years ago? Three? Five? Fifteen? I don't know the answer, but I would almost certainly bet that its fewer than the number that are thriving today.

Isn't it interesting that Mouse and I took the same view of music history and transformed it into two different narratives? One (mine) was the negative narrative, "Music is different and therefore DOOMED!" One (his) was the positive narrative, "Music is different and therefore FLOURISHING!"

That night, I went to bed with a huge smile on my face. By changing the narrative, Mouse had (metaphorically) handed me another world. A world in which our choices are multiplying and the opportunities were boundless.

And then I started reading Break Through. The subtitle of the book is "From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility" which I think is a particularly apt description of the book. In it, Nordhaus and Shellenberger attempt to break free of the "We're all doomed!" paradigm towards a new paradigm focused on possibilities and not limits.

Is global warming a crisis? Yes, no doubt. But in the Chinese language, the word crisis is composed of two characters: danger and opportunity. Let us not focus solely on the danger aspect. Let us remember the great opportunity we have been given. Simply put, we have a chance right now, to remake our society into one that is happier, healthier, and more prosperous than one history has ever seen.

Let us not forget that obesity is a problem created in a society that is largely free from hunger. Let us be mindful that the rapid increase in carbon emissions is the result of thousands of Chinese and Indians escaping poverty. Let us give thanks that young people today have more opportunities than ever before, and that those opportunities are no longer constrained to the white, straight, and male.

In 1962, President John F Kennedy made a very remarkable speech. Against all odds, he challenged the American people to reach the moon by the end of the decade. He knew it would not be easy, and yet he said this to the American people:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

And it was not easy, and it required major investments in both time and money, and yet, somehow, amazingly enough, we succeeded. Within the decade, for the very first time in the history of the human race, a man would walk on the moon.

So listen to me, and listen to me good. If we can walk on the moon within SEVEN years of choosing to do so, we can do anything. We can build a society free from the confines of oil. Much of the technology from electric cars to photovoltaic solar cells is already here. And the technology that hasn’t yet arrived? We can create.

It will not be easy. In fact it will be extremely hard. It will require no less than an overhaul of government policy. It will necessitate the countries of the world to act in concert like never before. It will call for the minds of the finest thinkers all over the world. And yet, a sustainable society is firmly within our grasp.

Let us not waste our time longing for years past. We can never go back, and the past wasn’t as great as we think it was anyway. We will never again be the Jeffersonian “nation of farmers,” no more than we will ever be a country with separate drinking fountains for separate races.

Instead, let us set our eyes on the future. Let us imagine a world with denser cities that encourage use of public transit. Let us imagine gardens on every rooftop of New York City. Let us envision a new economy, not one based on things as pedantic as goods, but an economy befitting the 21st century based on ideas, experiences and service.

We can build sea walls in Bangladesh. We can put a composting toilet in every village of China. We can build tube wells and ecologically sensitive dams in the dry lands of India, and what’s more, we’re already doing it.

I want to quote a passage from Break Through. Shellenberger and Nordhaus write:

When we called on environmentalists to stop giving the “I have a nightmare” speech, we did not mean that we should close our eyes to our increasingly hot planet, the destruction of the Amazon, or continued human suffering. Rather, we meant that we all should open our eyes to the multiplicity of ways we can see and experience the world. Global warming could bring drought, disease, and war─ and it could bring prosperity, cooperation, and freedom. The future is not destined to be dark or bright, fallen or triumphant. Rather, the future is open (240).

Our destiny is not fixed. We can choose to be the generation that eradicates world hunger; we can choose to be the generation that eliminates dependence on oil. We can choose to be the generation that extends the American dream to every child in ever corner of the world.

We can choose to go to the moon. The future is ours for the taking.

On Risk Assessment, Stressing Less, and Other Thoughts

Apparently I was much, much more out of shape than I thought because that two miles to the metro today was killer. Seriously, my legs were kind of spasming up by the end. By the time I made it to the metro, I was ready for a nap.

So I am glad that this challenge is forcing me to get exercise, but I kind of wonder why exactly I need to be forced to get exercise? I can challenge myself to not buy new stuff for a year and I can do that (less than 4 months to go, baby!) and I can challenge myself to not eat pre-packaged meals, and I can do that. I can even challenge myself not to use toilet paper and do that! So why is it that when I challenge myself to exercise for half an hour a day four days a week, I fall flat on my face?

Why do I stress out about global warming and peak oil, both of which are pretty much entirely out of my control? Am I going to die of global warming? Pretty damn unlikely. In fact, it is much more probable that I would die of heart disease. I have a history of high cholesterol, and my father passed away of a massive heart attack. You would think that exercising every day would be a no brainer.

Except that it's not. And I'm not alone. According to a 2006 Time Magazine article on risk, I'm pretty average:

Shadowed by peril as we are, you would think we'd get pretty good at distinguishing the risks likeliest to do us in from the ones that are statistical long shots. But you would be wrong. We agonize over avian flu, which to date has killed precisely no one in the U.S., but have to be cajoled into getting vaccinated for the common flu, which contributes to the deaths of 36,000 Americans each year. We wring our hands over the mad cow pathogen that might be (but almost certainly isn't) in our hamburger and worry far less about the cholesterol that contributes to the heart disease that kills 700,000 of us annually.

Ring true to you? It does for me. In fact, I would go out on a limb and say that I think in the past few months I have worried considerably more about getting cancer from microwaved tupperware, than I have worried about having a heart attack. Rationally, this makes no sense. But, then again, people aren't rational.

Lately, my life has been going through a lot of turmoil. I always figured I'd be pretty settled in my late twenties ... married, with kids, and successful career. But beyond that, and more importantly, I thought I'd know the answers. And I don't. I really, really don't.

I've also had a lot of moments of poutiness, where I've felt frustrated with the current state of affairs in the world: financial crisis, rising food prices, global warming, disaster in Iraq, rising trade deficits, etc etc. On several occasions I have thought, why do MY twenties have to be so unstable? Why is so everything so difficult and insecure and at a crisis point NOW?

And then I have to step back and remember ... the world has been in crisis before. Can I really say that I am worse off than people who came of age during the Vietnam War? Or World War II? For all the doomsaying going on in the 24-hour news media (At 11:00 pm, we'll talk about how Avian Bird Flu, SARS and Ebola got together to create AvARSola, a disease so dangerous, you're probably already dead!) the threat of nuclear warfare is much lower now than it was in the 1960s and 1970s.

And so, I have been trying more and more to give myself a good dose of perspective when necessary. When I am stressed out about something that is out of my control, or that is unlikely to actually be a problem, I take a deep breath, and tell myelf, "You are being irrational," or "There is nothing you can do." And then I try and find something completely unrelated to do.

Does it work? Well ... no, not always. But I find that the mere act of recognizing that I'm being irrational, or that I'm worrying about something out of my control is in itself important and helps me to calm down. Even more important, though, is being dismissive of my irrational self. I used to get freaked out about stuff, and think, "I know this is crazy but..." But that, in a sense, was giving credence to the crazy thoughts. Now, my attitude is, "I know this is crazy." Fullstop. No ifs, ands or buts.

Now you might be thinking, "Okay, Arduous but irrational and out of your control are two different things." And they are. And look, I'm not saying we should duck our heads under the sand and not pay attention to the problems around us. But I think, in terms of our own personal sanity, irrational and out of your control are more or less the same.

I can't control global warming. I really can't. I can do my best to lessen my impact, and I do, because it feels right. I can write letters, and I can vote and I can act as an empowered citizen. But at the end of the day, what will be, will be, and my stressing out over it is not going to do a damn thing.

The problem with stressing about the irrational and the unchangeable is it allows you to ignore the real issues that you can change. Which is problematic. So, ultimately, while it's good that I am exercising more and eating healthier foods, it does give me pause that I'll walk to the metro to cut carbon emissions, but I won't take the initiative to walk for my own well being. And that I'll cook to cut down on packaging, but not because it's healthier for me than a diet of Lean Cuisine. I guess I'm lucky the health of the planet and my own personal health line up so neatly!

How Will Global Warming Be Solved?

There are a lot of scientists who read this blog, so I was interested to take your temperature and see what all of you think will be the solution to the global warming crisis.