At first I was perplexed: Why would someone empty his or (less likely) her ashtray at an intersection? And why cigars?

But then my confusion turned to consternation. Here I was, stopped atop a pile of someone’s waste after having just driven over the mighty Rivanna River, with mountains and trees and blossoms and birds and blue sky virtually enveloping my senses, and now plastic cigar tips present themselves to my perception!

Alas, my heart sank like a stone in that roiling river I had just traversed.

Ever since that traumatic experience in an otherwise idyllic setting, the presence of human detritus has grown ever more prominent in my environmental awareness. Fast-food containers, plastic grocery bags, soda-pop bottles, sometimes even car parts—-here, there, everywhere, it seems that humanity is only visible in the things it has thrown away.

Almost everywhere nowadays, not just in my fairly rural locale, any patch of grass or stand of trees seems be a field of litter waiting for harvest.

But the farmers and the field hands seem to be sleeping in this season.

And so no matter where we might happen to be, all signs show that we have a long way to go before we will have the fully developed “ecological conscience” articulated so urgently by the early twentieth-century American conservationist Aldo Leopold.

And so there is a profound intimation flitting around in my senses that the planet is becoming little more than a garbage disposal, that the sacred Earth is now a sacred trashcan.

I have so often seen on my morning walks the Blue Ridge in their autumn glory, or the sunrises and sunsets that bathe spring green with gold, or the snow and crystalline icicles on bare dogwoods—and a soda-pop bottle sticking its neck up from a pile of leaves, a mound of snow, a colloquy of daffodils.

I then wonder:
Have even the molecules of glass and plastic found a way to sprout, enchanted by that magic hiding just beneath the surface of the soil and moistened by the rain and the dribbles of soda left in the bottle?
Has the Earth found a way to turn waste into beauty, detritus into décor?

The sun still glimmers on the dew at daybreak, but it also glimmers off aluminum cans, glass jars, and sometimes even plastic cigar tips.The cardinals still know that twigs make better nests than shoestrings and plastic bags, and the squirrels prefer to dig in moist soil rather than decomposing cardboard boxes….

But those same squirrels often can be found playing in discarded car tires, and I have seen wrens and sparrows making good use of nearly everything that offers a few nooks and crannies.

So maybe nature can even embrace the material remains of humanity–our bodies and the goods we cannot (and apparently do not want to) take with us when we go—in its ample bosom. Maybe this blue and green and brown and white dot in the cosmic whirl of color can accommodate the things its inhabitants cast aside. Perhaps the shimmering of the sun on the planet’s waters is made more captivating to eyes looking at us from space by the glitter of our electric lights at night.

Still, I wonder if this sacred planet is losing its sanctity with every soda-pop bottle, fast-food container, and plastic cigar tip dropped upon its surface.

And I wonder what I am doing for the Earth–and to it, despite my affection.

And I wonder if we are losing our connections and community and communion with this place, our place…as well as to each other and to all the places we call home.

Sun rises, sun sets, and I wonder….

Image courtesy of Michelangelo-36 via Wikimedia Commons.

McKibben is a champion of the environmental movement and he made it clear that policy action on climate change will require broad-based and sustained political support for it. (Running time 4 mins.)

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/fL2erblsNtg" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Worldchanging magazine has announced that it is selling the ultimate environmentalist gift for high school and college graduates: carbon offsets for life.

This means that for every donation above a certain level, Worldchanging will buy carbon offsets in the name of the graduate.

But the price of this gift is not cheap—the minimum donation is $6,000 to offset a graduate’s childhood, and the max is $25,000 to offset an entire career. It also raises an important question: what will such a present do to the mindset of the recipient?

While Worldchanging is certainly performing a wonderful service with their carbon offset program, the certificates seem similar to the indulgences once granted by the Catholic Church. Will graduates who have been granted this enormous environmental pardon feel that they no longer have a responsibility to do their part? And will they think that they are on moral high ground when it comes to using gas-guzzling vehicles and jetting from place to place?

For those with an environmental conscience and money to burn, I say go ahead and buy all the carbon offsets you can. It certainly doesn’t do any harm. But perhaps we should let new graduates who are just realizing the huge problems we have to contend with find their own way without feeling that they have been granted a free ride. We can use all the help in our local communities that we can get—and a lasting dedication to healing our planet is better than any certificate.

She goes by so many names:
Mother Nature.
Mother Earth.
Mother Goddess.
Gaia.

She takes so many forms:
The dance of the seasons.
The ripples of a river.
The textures of a mountain range emblazoned by the morning sun.
The crash of a wave on sand.

She is very old yet laughs with the voice of a babe.

She dies continually yet is continually reborn.

She is
mother and daughter,
womb and tomb,
cradle and grave,
virgin and lover,
begetter and betrayer.
She is all of these things.
She is what She is.

And so when I wake on this day, I sense Her there to greet me.

She
stirs me,
embraces me,
warms me,
feeds me,
supports me,
protects me,
entertains me,
teaches me,
guides me,
cleanses me,
rocks me,
and tucks me in to sleep.

And so on this day, I give thanks to Her in all of Her forms.
I kiss her as my Mother and my Lover.
I learn from Her as my Teacher and my Guide.
I bow to Her, in all of Her awesome splendor, with piety and devotion.

On this day, I turn my face towards the light of the rising sun and sing:

“HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY.”

On this day, I turn my face towards the light of the noonday sun and sing:

“HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY.”

On this day, I turn my face towards the light of the setting sun and sing:

“HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY.”

On this day, I turn my face towards the light of the midnight moon and sing:

“HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY.”

On this day, I sing to all the mothers, all the daughters of this great Mother—my Mother, our Mother:

“HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY.”

And having given to Mother my heart, I give her now this hymn:

Glitter on Gaia

As stars against their blackened backdrop shine
And peep through matter hiding dark and shy
Our eyes will twinkle when they catch a ray
Of sunlight riding space and whizzing by;
As rain upon the pavement late at night
In silver moonlight softly gleams and glows
Our eyes will twinkle with the fearful sting
Of yesterday’s returning horror shows.

We dance and sing and play upon the crust
Afloat atop a molten ocean’s waves
And, lost in hurly-burly busyness,
We stomp the grass without a second guess
Or place our trust in the enduring strength
Of ground forgotten in the need and greed
Propelling us to work and gain our bliss
As dog eats dog and laps the tears we bleed.

Another day, another round of pain
As scourges whip and crack in heavy air
Then strike the earth, dig in, and rip its skin
But never noticing the pulse that wanes
And stutters, tripping when the wounds are made:
The rumbles quaking all around have drowned
Those echoes, fading as the pulsing fades,
And faster, harder, deeper pump the blades.

Another day, another masterpiece
Of art is teased from cold and stubborn stone;
From visions swirling through a brain aflame
And taking shape in words to find some peace
When pen and paper touch, unite, and speak,
Or else in pictures made of brush and paint;
Of architecture taking careful form
In monuments we stand before and faint.

The burdens and the blessings passed through time,
Those legacies of all who came before,
Are omens shouting, lest they be ignored,
Then screaming louder if at first denied.
Although, perhaps, we shut our ears and eyes
Or hide the shadows with electric lights,
The stars have watched us on our blazing stage,
Exploding often over earthly frights.

This dot of blue and green and brown and white,
This speck of dust within a cosmic whirl
Is ours to laugh and love and live upon
Or kill and steal and lie and die upon.
The choices made with each and every breath
And human heartbeat from the birth of time
Have shaped, are shaping every place and clime
And joy and sorrow in the face of death.

But still, at dawn, our mother Gaia wakes
And sparkles, kissed again by father Sky;
She wears the naked beauty that she makes
And glitters till we flicker, fade, and die.

Image courtesy of NASA.

Part 2: Turning Down the Thermostat

So the most toxic fumes polluting our planet may be coming right out of our very own mouths, churned up by the fires scorching our very own hearts.

Now, with the ever worsening state of bad news, bad policy, bad economy, and bad moods, each existing and new threat to the Earth understandably throws a spark on environmentalists’ waiting tinder. Admittedly, it is so hard not harbor anger over some of the policies and practices of our current administration (as well as past administrations), or of big business around the world, or of our fellow citizens who seem to care more about horsepower than living, breathing horses.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that we must not give in to our anger by acting and speaking hatefully or violently. I ask, how does it feel, in your heart and in your entire body, when you are in the midst of a fit of seemingly “righteous indignation”? Is it any wonder that “ire” rhymes with “fire,” not to mention “pyre”—as in funeral pyre? (Yes, yes, think here of the Doors song…go on, sing it in your head….) And so whenever we speak or act motivated by this fire within, we pollute the planet with burning negativity…and burn ourselves in the process. The energy we generate has no moral distinctions; it simply flows out and has its effects, just as coal smoke and exhaust simply rise into the atmosphere and trap the sun’s heat.

This is the worst pollution in so many ways. According to James Lovelock’s “Gaia hypothesis,” the planet is one immense living being in which everything exists in a state of essential symbiosis. So if we imagine the Earth, Gaia, as a living body, then our hatred is like a gland releasing toxins into the bloodstream and so poisoning the entire system. In a healthy body, every single cell and every part of every cell functions with the others in order to maintain homeostasis, so that the entire being is one vast system of mutual support at all levels. By contrast, some of the most debilitating conditions involve parts of the body attacking each other, as happens in the various auto-immune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, Lupus, and celiac disease.

We are at a point now where we must rely upon the love and compassion we feel for the life of our planet. We must let this love be our motivation as we strive to make changes in our individual lives, in the lives of those around us, and in the laws that govern society.

I ask everyone, then, to act upon this insight, to be engaged in the spirit of Gandhi when he said that “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” And I ask other “environmentalists” especially to be this change. Follow the present Dalai Lama, who has been able to watch the Chinese government exile and kill his people yet sees that same government as “my friends the enemy.”

We environmentalists have made too many enemies in our efforts to save the Earth.

In this challenge to save our living Earth, easily the greatest challenge in human history, we have no true enemies…we have only friends of many different kinds. Without a collective effort in which everyone is not “my friend the enemy” but simply “my friend,” then I fear that we cannot make the changes we want to see.

If we keep polluting the Earth with our hateful energies, our angry thoughts and words and deeds, then I fear that we are defeating ourselves in every step we take to do good and depleting the healthy energy of the life-force flowing through us all…and that “the centre cannot hold” for much longer.

We truly need to cultivate a “green” life without making it a mean life in the process.

If we can achieve a “green with heart,” then I think…I hope…that we can finally come together in one momentous effort to save our precious Earth.

Then, perhaps, we may come to know true wealth, true security, true community, true peace….

Then, perhaps, the lion will lie down with the lamb, the Republican with the Democrat, the farmer with the banker, the hunter with the animal lover, the environmentalist with the developer, the priest with the pagan…“and the forests will echo with laughter.”1

Notes:
1. Led Zeppelin. “Stairway to Heaven.” [IV]. Atlantic Records, 1971.

You often hear that “sex sells,” anger works to gain support, etc., all suggesting that extreme measures are the best measures. But do these appeals to emotions and knee-jerk reactions really work in the long run? Is red paint, coming out of a can or out of one’s mouth, really a good tactic? And besides anger, what other motivations for “doing good” are potentially counterproductive and self-destructive?

[Author’s Note: This is the first of a 2-part essay on this topic. Part 2 will be posted on Friday.]

Part 1: Toxic Avengers

The imperiled state of our planet seems to be growing more obvious by the day. It seems that a newfound ecological cognizance, if not Aldo Leopold’s “ecological conscience,” has been virtually enforced across the globe. (Sadly, America seems to be stuck at the back of class in so many ways….)

While I have tried diligently to educate myself on all fronts, mostly I am a very keen student of nature–whose classroom does not sit at the top of an ivory tower and to which everyone, every thing, is welcome. And nowadays, although the sunrises and sunsets often leave me speechless, and although the seasons still circle round me in their ancient dance, I feel as though the circle has become a downward spiral. I sense something suddenly happening in nature akin to what William Butler Yeats describes in “The Second Coming”:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.1

I feel confident that many others share my sense of foreboding. I feel confident as well in thinking that, along with the sense of concern and noble intentions to support this planet motivating many of the most vocal advocates for action, there is an equal degree of frustration at the foundation of their efforts. Whether or not all of them would call themselves “environmentalists” per se, I bet that they feel some degree of anger when they see another SUV drive by, when they see smoke from coal fires belching out of power-plant smokestacks, when they hear about the selling of land by the government to fossil-fuel development or who knows what else, when one group of “experts” issues a report on the environment that is immediately contradicted by another group of “experts”….

So a vast number of individuals may feel as much frustration and disgust with our lawmakers and executives as they do a heartfelt desire to heal the Earth.

But these same motivating passions and energies also lead to what, as I said way back in my very first blog posting (“Myths of Environmentalism”), I think is the worst, indeed the true, pollution that is raising the heat on all forms of life and is killing our planet. The fumes from tailpipes and smokestacks, the toxic chemicals dumped into rivers and on the soil, are only one form that the true pollution takes. And I am sad to say that so often those who spew this pollution are those who are most deeply and actively concerned about the planet–environmentalists, nature-lovers, animal-lovers, tree-huggers, whatever label they go by or receive.

What I am suggesting is that the worst pollution is the pollution produced by our minds when they are filled with hatred, anger, and bitterness towards others. This is so, I believe, because the mind is the key determinant in every aspect of our lives, individual and collective. The Buddha makes this point clear in the opening verses of the Dhammapada:

Phenomena are preceded by the [mind], ruled by the mind, made of the [mind].
If you speak or act with a corrupted [mind], then suffering follows you–as the wheel of the cart, the track of the ox that pulls it.
Phenomena are preceded by the [mind], ruled by the [mind], made of the [mind].
If you speak or act with a calm, bright [mind], then happiness follows you, like a shadow that never leaves.2

And those wheels of one person’s cart also leave ruts on the path that can trip up other travelers on their journeys.

Notes:
Image courtesy of Ian Britton via FreeFoto.com.
1. Yeats, William Butler. “The Second Coming.” The Collected Poems of W. B. Yeats. Rev. 2nd ed. Ed. Richard J. Finneran. New York: Scribner Paperback Poetry-Simon & Schuster Inc. 187. (Originally published in Michael Robartes and the Dancer, 1921.)
2. Dhammapada: A Translation. Trans. Thanissaro Bhikku (Geoffrey DeGraff). Barre: Dhamma Dana Publications, 1998. 1. (”Mind” here is translated “heart” in this translation; the Pali word can be translated either way. I have also reformatted the text.)

You often hear that the first step to overcoming an addiction is to admit you have a problem. Well, I admit to being…an environmentalist. I admit that just one glimpse of the bluetiful Blue Ridge Mountains, just one note of the Rivanna River’s murmured melody, turns my blood from red to blue and green. I hug trees. I go cuckoo for birds. I recycle. I drive a hybrid. So yes: I am an environmentalist.

But I understand that not everyone else suffers from my addiction or even sympathizes with my condition. This resistance to environmentalism was brought home to me recently during one of the composition courses I teach. After asking my students to write on the topic of “Humanity’s responsibility for the Earth,” one of them first commented quite extensively on how humans impact the environment. And then: “But I’m still not buying a Prius.”

I recognized underneath my student’s comment the belief that in order to do something good for the planet, she had to spend lots of money she did not have or want to spend, lots of time she did not have or want to spend, lots of energy she did not have or want to spend, or lots of thought she…well, you get my point. This myth that being environmentally responsible is just downright too costly and complicated in numerous ways is perhaps the most pervasive.

But, in truth, we need not forsake modernity or take out another mortgage in order to afford new ultra-efficient gadgets. Little things can have big impacts, too: tossing that can or bottle in a recycling bin rather than a trashcan, replacing an incandescent bulb with a compact fluorescent, bringing your own bag to the grocery store.

A second myth is that environmentalism is like reading the obituary page unto eternity: nothing but gloom, doom, disaster, and death. We see images of mountaintops and glaciers simply erased. We see forests felled and rivers drained dry. We see polar bears paddling in an endless Arctic Ocean. These sorts of things can shatter both your heart and your ability to hope for our future. Even worse, such hopelessness easily leads to the “What can I do?” syndrome in which any changes, small or large, seem futile.

But, in truth, environmentalism is mostly about the amazing power and glory of nature. Indeed, environmentalism means luxuriating in the abundance of beauty lying just beyond your door. It is like a life lived within a Proust novel: every thing, every moment, is just dripping with sensuality.

One other myth is that environmentalism is some sort of contagious disease whose main symptom is a smug clique mentality, with side effects ranging from mildly annoying uppity behavior to slinging red paint, destroying property, and even homicide.

But, in truth, this smugly antagonistic environmentalism is by far the worst pollution: the spewing out of toxic deeds, words, thoughts, and energy that raise the temperature of our warming planet ever higher. I believe that environmentalism is about loving kindness—for the Earth and its inhabitants, one and all and all as one…living community, that is. I believe that the real green movement, the greenness that can lower our global thermostat, is a green with heart.

We have so many myths today. We can explode the myths of environmentalism—these myths of costliness, gloominess, and smugness—much as we did the one of the monster under the bed: with self-education and a few mature actions. Yes, the changes on our planet may leave us wanting to hide under the covers. But sometimes we have to grow up. Sometimes we have to drop the myths and be the change.

What other myths of environmentalism are out there nowadays? How do they inhibit change and the embrace of an environmental consciousness? How can we overcome them?

Mostly because I’m not one for ethics, I will not build an ethical argument as to why it is fair for me to be skeptical and even cynical about Earth Day as we currently know it. In stead, I will argue that this skepticism has been a part of Earth Day since its inception in 1970. And until some substantive change is produced by the actions on Earth Day, there will be those who remain skeptical.

Earth Day 1970

Earth Day started out as an idea for a teach-in, a tactic used effectively by the New Left and the anti-Vietnam War movement. Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) was the first to develop the idea for the event, which would be a “National Teach-in on the Crisis of the Environment” designed to help crystallize this new environmental constituency while also distancing it from the counterculture and New Left activists (1).

Senator Gaylord Nelson later wrote, “I was satisfied that if we could tap into the environmental concerns of the general public and infuse the student anti-war energy into the environmental cause, we could generate a demonstration that would force this issue onto the political agenda.” Nelson was proved correct. As the word got out, “It took off like gangbusters…Telegrams, letters, and telephone inquiries poured in from all across the country…That was the remarkable thing about Earth Day. It organized itself.”

But traditional conservationists were not comfortable with the mainstream tone the event was promoting, nor the intense media coverage the teach-in was attracting. Both of these, they argued, were attracting the powerful moneyed interests of industrial manufacturers and utilities. According to environmental scholar Robert Gottlieb, “In the weeks leading up to and following April 22, the media embraced environmentalism as the all-inclusive cause of the day.” On the other hand, some industry groups were not comfortable associating with the first Earth Day event, thanks to the paranoid fears of right-wing politicians who suggested a conspiratorial connection between the date selected for Earth Day and the centennial of Vladimir Lenin’s birthday (2).

The teach-in organizers wanted to avoid the polarizing politics of confrontation. But despite efforts to distance themselves from the activist movements of the 1960s, the new environmentalism was largely seen as an extension of them.” We didn’t want to alienate the middle class…” said Denis Hays, the 25 year old Harvard Law Student and teach-in organizer. And for the most part, they didn’t. Estimates of the overall number of participants were as high as 10 million, and the gatherings were largely peaceful and non-confrontational.

Other events, however, maintained the oppositional flavor of the New Left and anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s. At the University of Alaska, Secretary of the Interior Hickel was booed off the stage when he laid out administration support of the Alaska pipeline. In Denver, antinuclear activists presented the Colorado Environmental Rapist of the Year award to the Atomic Energy Commission. And who could forget about the activists in Florida who presented a dead octopus at the headquarters of Florida Power and Light, a utility responsible for the thermal pollution of Biscayne Bay?

Earth Day 2008

I am not just advocating opposition for opposition’s sake. But it seems to me, for healthy debate to occur, we need to be hearing as many voices as possible – those in agreement, as well as those in dissent – and Earth Day has yet to create that forum.

With that said, I don’t consider Earth Day to be a bad thing – quite the contrary. Earth Day has the capacity to be so much more. It has the potential to be a powerful tool for education, discussion, and the mobilization of concerted political action on behalf of the environment. Earth Day could even be a national holiday, recognized with all of the rights and privileges associated with the title. Earth Day could take on greater political significance were heads of state to assemble along with heads of environmental groups, trade associations, labor unions, and indigenous populations. All of this is what Earth Day could be, but we are not there…at least not yet.

(1) Gottlieb, Robert. 1993. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement.

(2) Gottlieb (p. 111)

Earth Day 1970 (Video) from the Butterfly Project

Photos: 1. Birmingham, AL (1972) - Courtesy of The National Archives. 2. pingnews.com

Jennifer Lance has done just that, and it was a pleasure talking with this school teacher-mother, who walks her talk. When she writes about family values in Eco Child’s Play, you can rest assured it comes from her own life experience.

So settle back, and have a listen:

jennifer-lance-final.mp3

Before going, I want to call your attention to an earlier podcast interview with the Sundance Channel’s Simran Sethi. She is documenting the rebuilding of Greensburg, Kansas, devastated by a massive tornado last May, and also promoting a fund raiser for the rebuilding project.

And while I’m on the subject, check out my podcast interview with Beth Bader, lead writer for Eat.Drink.Better, and contributor to Eco Child’s Play.

In his blog, Tim focuses on applied energy politics, and the global green movement. While continuing his education in graduate school, he’s actively involved in environmental advocacy in his adopted home town in Colorado.

Here’s our interview: tim-hurst-2.mp3

But hold on. You’re the type who wants to help make the world a better place. Frappuccinos, Guinness, and burritos are not the be all and end all of cultural exchange. Then you’ll be happy to know that environmental values are making their way into Korea as well.

Many Koreans are taking note of the global environmental movement, which is already in full swing in much of the world, with increasing interest.

Children in South Korea are exposed to both their parent’s traditional environmental values and the environmental values of their foreign teachers in their English academies. They’re therefore a good barometer for the evolving environmental consciousness in South Korea. In one informal survey that I conducted with all 44 of my Korean students, I found that 77% of them said they were “very interested in the environment.”

Students who study for the TOEFL (the Test Of English as a Foreign Language) have an additional influence when it comes to matters of the environment: the TOEFL test materials themselves. Today’s TOEFL test prep books concentrate heavily on readings about such environmentally germane topics as species extinction and renewable energy.

Through school and media influences, interest in the environment is strong enough here to sway even the greatest of forces in Korean culture, the Korean mother. A New York Times article about Eco-Moms, which recently circulated around the Korean media, has only added to the interest in parenting with environmental values.

Still, for all of the growing numbers of foreigners and increasingly international dialogue on the environment, in much of South Korea the environmental movement remains distinctly Korean. The chamsari, or well-being, movement is a uniquely Korean green movement. It’s centered on healthy eating, exercising, and avoiding unhealthy activities.

Cultural colonialism or a healthy exchange of ideas?

In some ways, I can’t get over the feeling that I’m a neo-colonialist. My job as an English teacher is to spread the dominant language and culture. In my classroom, I’m a linguistic bouncer, kicking out Korean wherever it crops up and stamping everyone with new English terms. Many of my students have even chosen English names, like the little tyke in the picture above.

Linguists would say that I’m replacing the substrate language and culture with the superstrate language and culture. If these terms sound familiar, you’re either a linguist or you’ve lived in San Francisco, like me. Sure, we have a straight culture… a super straight culture.

But for whatever negatives there are in spreading the most dominant language around the world, being an English teacher also allows for some very positive cultural exchanges. Sometimes, I’m able to help my students take pride in their country’s great strides toward renewable energy, personal health, and recycling. More often than not, I’m the one who’s learning.

When the middle school English books talk about organic foods, I can ask, “Did you know that organics are a rapidly growing industry in North America?” When the TOEFL prep books give a reading on wind energy, I can point to Gangneung’s wind energy farm, which is on the mountains right above the city. And with my small kids, we all enjoy seeing YouTube footage of whales and other amazing animals before class starts.

Outside of the classroom, I’m the one on the receiving end of cultural lessons. Here in rural Korea, westerners make up about 0.02% of the population by my calculations. When you’re one in 5,000, you tend to draw attention. When I go into a restaurant by myself for lunch–already a faux pas in Korea’s group-centered culture–the word wegugin, or foreigner, excites people’s tongues and hangs in the air, strung up by sideways stares like squid drying in the sun. I feel like the squid. The other diners casually throw out guesses amongst themselves as to where I’m probably from, or they swap stories about previous encounters with foreigners. Cultural lesson number one: Confucius says, “value community.”

Photo: Flickr

The North American Free Trade Agreement, has been under scrutiny since its inception.

Thankfully we have Republican Candidate John McCain to defend this groundbreaking trade agreement.

NAFTA isn’t perfect. It was the first time a free trade agreement existed among such economically disparate countries. It was definitely a great experiment, and a lot has been learned from the results. There is no denying that there have been significant advances in a globally sustainable market that was enabled by NAFTA.

The U.S. economy thrives under NAFTA. As do Canadian and Mexican economies. But more important than just the economic benefits of NAFTA are the environmental impacts of the accord (not the car, although there are some positive environmental effects of high gas mileage as well). Within NAFTA was written a supplement, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. It’s the first time that environmental provisions were written into a trilateral free trade agreement. NAFTA has set the framework for government environmental protection and support.

However, the NAAEC only provides regulations for countries to enforce their own environmental laws. To deal with the non-enforcement of environmental regulations the NAAEC created the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation to ensure the enforcement of environmental laws and monitor the adverse environmental impacts of the trade agreement. In conjunction, the NAAEC also created the North American Development Bank to financially assist in environmental projects.

With so much on the line, why would Democratic candidates, who seem to want to find solutions to the economy and the environment, threaten to pull out of such a promising trade agreement? There is room to environmentally clean up NAFTA. John McCain has a vision to lead the U.S. into a sustainable global economy. We can do all the green we want at home, but if we can’t work with our neighbors to do the same, the planet is still doomed. NAFTA’s laid the groundwork to make that happen. Let’s not let our childish threats ruin a good thing.

McCain photo by christhedunn
Obama Clinton photo by eventeo

Whenever I hear a recording of my voice I always think it sounds really weird. And although it seems like I’m implying that I have a ‘face for television’, I’m not (my twice-broken nose, gave me a nice nasally-twang, and a mighty proboscis that may be unfit for television).

What I’m saying is that XM Radio listeners were “treated” to eight minutes of yours truly today on Channel 130, “POTUS ‘08” (Politics Of The US), XM’s politics talk channel. The program is called 1600 with Rebecca Roberts (who you may know from her NPR gigs). According to the program’s website, “Roberts focuses on the campaign stories and news with in-depth interviews, unfiltered candidate messages, and commentary from the world of political bloggers.” The interview will be replayed tonight (actually Wednesday morning) at 12:30 pacific time. You can easily subscribe to a free three-day trial of XM if you want to listen to this, or any of the other excellent programs on POTUS ‘08.

To give you a hint of what we talked about, we covered the role environmental politics will play and has played in the presidential election, the emergence of green collar jobs, and the feast or famine nature of American clean energy development. My segment aired just after an interview with James Merrit, former president of the Southern Baptists Convention, who was talking about the SBC’s recently released statement about global warming, so we also talked about that a little.

Rebecca Roberts was sharp, well-informed and asked good questions. As far as my performance goes, we’ll just have to wait and see (or listen, as the case may be).

Sarah spoke with us from her home in Chicago.

losanova-final.mp3

Here is the link to the anniversary podcast:
The Lindberg Report Podcast: Green Options Turns One: Looking Back… and Forward

With all of that said, though, I have to ask: What the hell do ELF members think they’re accomplishing?

Yes, the “Street of Dreams” homes were large exurban houses… which were built according to a legitimate green building standard. Ideal? No. But greener than traditional McMansion development? Definitely! The potential buyers of homes like these will not be in the market for yurts… ever. Radical acts may feel like a righteous means of “sticking it to the man,” but they also ensure alienation of a sizable portion of the mainstream… and we need these people making greener choices. Greenpeace’s John Passacantando summed it up nicely:

Passacantando believes educating people about the environment is the best tool of persuasion. He says the greats have taught us that love is the force more powerful, so burning down someone’s house for any reason is not going to advance anyone’s cause.

Unless that cause is enhancing one’s revolutionary credentials, and making headlines, of course. I don’t know if this will set back more mainstream environmentalism, or if it will cause some people exploring a greener lifestyle to step back for fear of being perceived as radical. I’m pretty sure, though, that the costs will be much higher than the benefits.

Image credit: Dan DeLong/Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Set for April 10 - 12, “Energy and Responsibility” will feature presentations by, among others, Robert Socolow, the Princeton professor who helped develop the concept of “stabilization wedges” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and curb climate change.

Socolow’s keynote address, scheduled for Thursday, April 10, will focus on “Living Ethically in a Greenhouse.”

“I welcome the opportunity to entice ethicists to help others deal with climate change, including the formidable environmental risks and social issues related to energy production, distribution, and consumption,” Socolow said.

Panel discussions during the conference will tackle a variety of topics: “Environmental Ethics and Climate Change,” “Irreversibility and Environmental Damage,” “Collective and Individual Responsibility” and “Energy Use and Future Generations.”

“Environmental problems, instead of being discrete violations of the natural order, have increasingly come to be seen as manifestations of the human domination of nature,” writes Dale Jamieson of New York University, who will give an address on “Ethics, Energy and the Transformation of Nature.” “But using energy, in all of its forms, transforms nature. When does transformation become domination? Answering this and related questions is the greatest theoretical challenge facing contemporary environmentalism.”

In the interest of bringing EcoWorldy readers the most up to date and worldly information, I’ve undertaken a small, and totally un-scientific survey of the Swiss population by asking a small number of random people random questions about their attitudes towards the environment and environmentalism.

Beno, Sports Instructor - My attitude towards environmentalism is that in general people miss the point. As with many subjects the press high-jacks it and people get miss-informed and end up barking up the wrong tree, sometimes in the wrong forest…

.
Michel, Banker - My problem is that most environmentalists are not grounded in reality. I try to do my bit, but to be honest I am often put off by extreme views of some environmentalists.

Nadia, Psychologist - The environment is something taken very seriously in Switzerland, we all try to make an effort to treat our Earth kindly. The Swiss government is taking this seriously as well, with the proposal for new legislation on climate change.

Andreas, Student - For sure, the environment is something that we should all be very concerned about. But to be honest, I don’t really actively do much or think much about it, but I should do.

Obviously, this small sample doesn’t give us the real picture. But it does demonstrate the fact that there are thousands of aspects to environmentalism in any one country, just as there are thousands of issues and thousands of solutions. The important take-away from this exercise is to remind ourselves that real environmental progress will only be made by considering all sides of the argument, and by engaging all opinions as we do so..

Many thanks to those who gave a few minutes of their time to provide their opinions here.

See all EcoWorldy articles about Switzerland.

“What is the one book, other than the Bible, that you would take with you into the White House as the next president?”

But as soon as I heard the question, my irrational fascination with all things green led me to wonder, what book with an environmental theme would I consider to be an essential read for the next president. I thought about that question a lot and came up with too many answers.  Please help me flesh these out a little by helping me answer the green version of Katie Couric’s question: 

[Other than the Bible] what ‘green’ book should the next president take into the White House?

Leave a comment with the name of the green-themed book you think is a must read for the incoming president and you could win a book yourself. Here’s the catch, you’ve got to make a case for it.

Valid entries will consist of a reply that is concise, clearly articulated and well-reasoned. One submission meeting those very simple requirements will be randomly drawn to win a copy of …

Power of the People: America’s New Electricity (2008) by NREL’s Carol Sue Tombari. A winner will be randomly drawn from all valid entries received by Friday February 8 at 5pm MST.

If you choose a book that does not have an overt environmental theme, please be explicit about why you think it should/could be. I am very interested in what you all have to say and I look forward to reading your responses. Be sure to leave a valid email address (that will only be used for notifying the winner).

FYI: Video clips of the candidates’ answers to Katie Couric’s question can be seen here and the text answers are below. Moyers viewers have posted several replies at his blog and he has said he would answer the question soon himself (the non-green version).

• John McCain: Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
• Barack Obama: Team of Rivals (biography of Lincoln) by Doris Kearns Goodwin
• Mike Huckabee: What Ever Happened to the Human Race? by Francis Schaefer
• Mitt Romney: John Adams by David McCullough
• Hillary Clinton: The Constitution and The Federalist Papers (neither of which would I consider a ‘book’ in the traditional sense.)

Photo Credit: Nufkin via Flickr

We used to be really good at this stuff. In fact, we sort of invented environmental policy in the late ’60s and early ’70s.  So that leaves me with one question for you all: WTF happened?

Thanks to Luis Alves at mokkikunta for the heads up on this one

Complete EPI Listings and the Methodological Criteria Can be Found Here