jump to navigation

Dune Nerds…

Written by The Naib

Even though it is clear by the name of this website that I am an uncureable Dune (the best book ever written) nerd, it is not often that I get to post something topical about it.

Watch the whole thing, but the payoff is at 10:45…for all fellow Dune nerds, you’re welcome.

A Balanced Look A Geo-Engineering

Written by The Naib

Take the time to check this out, Environmental scientist David Keith proposes a cheap, effective, shocking means to address climate change: What if we injected a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere to deflect sunlight and heat? The nice thing about this talk is that he raises real objections to this technology, as well as some reasons for why we might want to do it. I will let you decide if it is a good idea or not.

For some more reading on this topic see here and here.

“Home” A Short Review Of An Environmental Movie

Written by keithf

Home

Home is a tone-poem about the planet. Based on the breathtaking aerial images of Yann Arthus-Bertrand, this visual masterpiece attempts to do Planet Earth justice on the computer screen - for that is where is it designed to be watched - leaving the viewer with a deep desire to retain and heal what there is and what we are destroying.

That seems to be the intention, anyway, and for large parts of it my emotions were pulled from one pole to another, between awe and disgust, love and hatred, peace and anger: let there be no doubt, the message that modern human civilization is a turbulent and vile force for ecocide comes through like a shout.

So, I did wonder why the start of the movie along with the YouTube viewing platform is an advert for PPR. “PPR is proud to support HOME”. That’s what it says. PPR is a luxury goods company, responsible for driving the unsustainable addiction to fashion across the world, eating up resources faster and faster so we can never keep up with the unreachable dream we are constantly sold. And yet, somehow, they support this. What a blatant and terrible piece of greenwashing! I make no bones about how wrong this is - the message is already confused and we haven’t yet started.

But there is more that I need to criticise: First, the narrator refers to hunter gatherer lives as hard, short and “scrabbling for food” when we know that hunter gathering can be completely the opposite if done properly. This is a very unenlightened “enlightenment” attitude, unfortunately. Second, the movie doesn’t acknowledge that agriculture and the birth of cities was the first great downfall for the ecology (it simply says it was the first great “revolution”, in positive terms). There is no mention of semi-cultivated / domesticated food usage and permaculture: both of which are (still) common today. Third, the narrator refers to fossil fuels freeing humans of their “toil” on the land. When non-industrial life is couched in such negative terms, this is hardly likely to encourage people to turn away from civilization. “Comforts” and “human genius” with reference to our use of oil is the reverse, while showing huge cities, these words put a positive spin on our addiction to growth.

This is all in the first third of the movie; then at 25 minutes it gets good - very good. For the next hour, the movie becomes a cutting, and very well argued critique of our current situation: beautifully shot with sublime and frightening images that accompany an inarguable case against our toxic treatment of every ecosystem on the planet. The comment about trees and humans, “Our cells talk the same language, we are of the same family” suggests it wants us to connect with nature. After half an hour of this necessary battering I was feeling pretty down. What we clearly need is to reconnect with the real world and reject anything that refuses to be connected and tries to keep us disconnected. To stop this horrific system in its tracks.

It is obvious that “Home” is no longer a good place to be, if we carry on treating it like our doormat. But my concern is not just of our ecology: some of the language in this film jars terribly. At 58 minutes we hear: “Denied access to daily necessities like water, sanitation and…electricity”. Electricity? There is a residual “need” for industrial civilization evident here, otherwise surely it would have said, “and, because city living has substituted technology for tools, electricity.” Then we are told: “Hunger is spreading once more.” This suggests the filmmakers only see the “good” times as between the rise of agriculture (6000 BP) and the overurbanization of the Earth (now).

With 10 minutes to go I was bombarded with tales of good things that are going on: reforestation, education, preservation, New York getting all its fresh water from the surrounding lakes…hang on. How much water? What would the lakes be like without the extraction? And a log raft is floating down the river in Gabon - written on the side is “Sea Hope”. Or does it mean: “See Hope”?

“Let’s be responsible consumers” - Stop right there! I am not a consumer, I am a human being. Where is the return to the world where we didn’t destroy by default: carbon capture and storage, wind farms, solar panels tumble across the screen. We must keep consuming but let’s do it sustainably; but we must keep consuming because the movie won’t dare acknowledge what is so obvious. After all, what would the sponsors think?

Give me the choice and I would only show the beautiful and frightening middle section, and then ask: “What do you want to do now?” I think at least some of us would come up with something that might actually give us a future.

———-

To watch “Home” go to http://www.youtube.com/user/homeproject

Keith Farnish
http://www.amatterofscale.com

Travel Woes

Written by The Naib

I hate flying…really I do. It sucks, I have long legs and they always get cramped into the tiny seat. They charge you for EVERYTHING now, the air smells funny, and inevitably I always get stuck next to some screaming little kid. But the part I hate most about flying is the actual flying part. The air pollution, the green house gasses produced, and the various other horrible effects on our planet.

Because I had to do this for my job, and because I tried and failed to get out of it, I am going to try and make it up to the planet by figuring out how much co2 I have pumped into the air, and find a way to prevent that much from going up in the future. At least then I will have negated my harmful impact by reducing my emission in the future.

So first figuring out how much co2 I produced.

I flew in a Airbus A320 200 from Boston to Phoenix, and then in another Airbus 320 200 from Phoenix to San Jose.

It looks from my admittadly poor information that the plane has a capacity of 5252 gallons of fuel. And from the Airbus website it looks like the max range for the plane is basically a trip from New York to LA (a pretty good approximation of my journey, even though I took 2 planes) so lets assume that they used all of it. They most likely burned less fuel, but because the co2 is pumped directly into the high atmosphere we can assume it is doing more damage, and thus if there was a couple gallons left un-burned this would make up for it.

So now we need to figure out how much of that co2 was “mine” There were 150 passengers on both flights (full plane). I had only one small carry on, and I am a pretty slim guy, so I didn’t use up as much of that fuel as some people…seriously people how long are you going to be where you are going? Do you really need to bring two hundred pounds of stuff with you…but I digress.

So 5252 gallons/150 passengers = 35 gallons per person. I am going to make the trip back so lets double that to 70 gallons of jet fuel.

Now we need to know how many pounds of co2 was in that 70 gallons of fuel. Jet fuel is basically kerosene, so lets find out how much co2 is in a gallon of kerosene. I found different numbers online but most where around 23 pounds of co2 per gallon.

so 70 gallons of fuel burned times 23 = 1610 pounds of co2…ouch.

So how will I avoid this much co2… one method would be to avoid burning fuel in the future. Because I don’t have my own jet I can leave in the garage I will instead endeavor to not drive my car (I know, I know, the shame…I have one, but it sits in the drive way most of the time).

So how many miles must I NOT drive my car to make up for this.

co2 in a gallon of gasoline = 19.4 pounds.
so 1610/19.4 = 83.9 gallons of gas I need to avoid being burned.

My car has a fuel tank of 17 gallons, so I need to avoid burning 5 tanks of gas…my car gets about 400 miles per tank, so I need to avoid driving 2000 miles.

Hmm thats a lot. I already ride my bike to everything, so in good faith I can’t claim the thousands of miles I ride my bike every year as “offset” miles because I wasn’t going to drive anyway. So not driving is not going to cut it.

In all honesty I ran the numbers for turning down the heat, for insulating my home, and for a lot of other things and it is going to take me YEARS to offset this amount of co2. I think most carbon offset programs are scams, and many of them are shady at best. I have slimmed down my carbon footprint to a pretty small level, and when I do something silly like fly across the entire country it really inflates it. I guess I should go out and plant a couple hundred trees, and or perhaps work to reduce someone else’s carbon footprint to make up for my own foolishness.

If you have any suggestions please do let me know.

The Battle For Pork Chop Hill (Healthcare)

Written by Dennis

obama-listening- A friend of mine is an M.D. and recently he responded to President Obama’s request for grass-roots input from the U.S. public on health care reform by writing a letter to the president detailing his thoughts.   He sent me a copy of his letter to see if I had any thoughts and/or comments.

- I found it a well-written, thoughtful letter full of excellent suggestions but when I responded to him, I found it impossible to get into the spirit of it.   To me, here in the U.S., the battle for serious health care reform, is a meaningless battle - a lot like those battles when our troops fought for mastery of particular hilltop in WWII and the Korean War.   The hills won one day at a terrible cost would be abandoned just a few days later as the conditions of the larger enclosing battles changed.

- Frankly, I don’t think there’s any chance that the U.S. will ever enact serious health care reform and in my response to my friend, below, you’ll see why.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dr. H.,

Thank you for responding to the president’s request for input on our health care system.   What you’ve written here is an excellent public service.

I too have thoughts about all of this but I’m afraid I am less optimistic that calls for ideas will lead to any changes of significance.   My fear, as I’ve told you before, is that the medical and pharmaceutical industries in the U.S. have been thoroughly captured by large and powerful profit-centric corporate interests and that nothing will wrest control back from them short of a revolution.

Corporations vs. People

I don’t mean an armed revolution.   I mean a revolution in how we, as human beings, think about what the purposes of our national governments should be.   I’m fond of saying that, “One cannot have two number-one priorities.“  When it comes to deciding what governments are for, we certainly cannot.   We either have to place the welfare and happiness of the nation’s people first or the freedom of the nation’s corporations  to do whatever they want to do in their pursuit of profits.  We cannot have it both ways.

Once this choice is explained clearly and brought into our collective consciousness, I have little doubt that most people would feel that government’s number-one priority should be to maximize the quality of life for its citizens.   But, absent such explanations and awarenesses, our country, and most others as well, have been primarily molded by those who seek profit and power for themselves with little regard for the circumstances of others.

(As an aside, let me say that I am not against Capitalism.   Indeed, it is the engine that creates wealth and innovation in our societies.   I am only saying that at the very top of the decision pyramid, when corporate interests clash with the best interests of the people, the decision makers should opt for the good of the people.   Done even handedly, this might limit the range of actions of corporations but it would still be a level playing field for them and none would be disadvantaged verses the others.   More over, those decisions makers at the very top would be strongly instructed to stay out of the way of corporations to the maximum extent possible - save when the people’s best interests are at stake).

So, from my POV, the battle here is not how we can ‘fix’ health care.  It goes far far deeper than that.   Until we, as a people, decide that the happiness and well being of the nation’s people IS the highest priority of the national government, we will always have these battles.   And, given the drive and tenacity of those whose primary aims are for power and profit, we will usually lose these battles.

Beyond all of this, there are bigger problems for our country and the world yet looming.

Globalization

A healthy vibrant country can organize its finances to support free medical care for all of its citizens.  Several countries around the world have proven this decisively.   But, I’m not sure that a country whose finances are faltering badly can do this.   And our country is faltering badly at this point in its history.   Globalization was touted as our “friend”.   Indeed, as the “world’s friend”; better and cheaper products for everyone and improved standards of living for all.

life-and-debtBut, it hasn’t turned out that way for some of us.  Small countries, like Jamaica (see the Movie “Life and Debt“), have had food stuffs injected  into their markets at far lower prices than their local farmers could sell for.  The result is that the local farmers have all lost their farms and moved to the cities and now entire countries are completely dependent on the food stuffs supplied by the multinational corporate proponents of Globalization.  Sure, these folks can buy their food cheaper.  But now they’ve lost their independence, their jobs, their communities and they are utterly dependent on outside forces for their survival.   Globalization has made them into captive consumers.

And the rich nations have not escaped unscathed.   Multinational corporations seeking ever larger profits have convinced us in the U.S. to send our manufacturing and high-tech industries overseas.    They promised us lower costs on all the cheap goods  love to buy at Wal-Mart.  And for a while, that was fun.   But now we see the deep truth that a nation can only continue being rich if it produces and sells things of value.  And we’ve been turned into a nation of consumers and borrowers by Globalization and are getting poorer by the day.

The multinationals saw great opportunity some years back when they gazed at, for example, the U.S. and China.   They thought, “China is poor and has really cheap labor and the U.S. is rich and its labor is expensive.   If we connect these two situations, goods will flow from China to the U.S. and money will flow from the U.S. to China and we’ll set ourselves up as the folks in the middle coordinating the exchange and getting hugely rich.“  And, for the multinationals and China, it’s been a good deal.  But, for the U.S., the promises of Globalism have only impoverished us.

So, back to socialized health care.   I don’t believe that even if the U.S. wanted to implement serious socialized healthcare, that we could.   What would we pay for it with?   We are no longer a wealth generating nation.

So, that’s one of the big looming problems I was referring to.

Economies and Growth

The other has to do with the idea that most of our societies are built upon the principle that healthy economies are growth economies.  That’s worked well for us as a species up until now but it isn’t going to work much longer.   We’re coming to the limits of what the planet can supply for food and water and we’ve clearly exceeded what it can supply for renewable resources. We’ve built the very foundations of our societies on a non-renewable resource, oil, that will be running out soon.   And we’ve messed with the atmosphere’s Carbon Dioxide so badly that we’re well on our way towards a major climate shift.

And, in the midst of all of these dire warnings written so clearly on the wall of our future, the very best folks can come up with, as they consider and fret about the problems of the currently global economic downturn, is that with luck and perseverance, soon we’ll have our economies all back up and running just as before - with ever increasing growth, consumption and pollution as the cornerstones of our brave new world - same as the old unworkable, unsustainable world.

So, that would be the second problem - and it’s a big one.

Perspectives

pork-chop-hillIf you are down inside the workings of a specific nation and deeply involved and  invested in the concerns and problems of the local health care system, then it might seem reasonable to you to fight the good fight  for a better way of doing things.

But I would suggest that if one gets out of the trenches and ascends above the entire field of battle to a great height, one might see that in the bigger picture it isn’t going to matter if your brave and idealistic unit captures that small hill called “Healthcare”.   Bigger forces are afoot and visible from a greater height.

Those are my thoughts, Dr. H.   As always, I know I sound like a great pessimist.   But I don’t feel that way.   I think I am simply seeing the bigger picture.   I too am idealistic and I talk and rail and write about all of this almost daily.   But, in truth, I don’t do these things because I think I can really change them.   I act more because speaking the truth is right in and of itself and needs no other justification.

At the end of your letter, you listed the following points:

1. There is no place in medical care for “For Profit”.

2. Insurance companies’ priority is profit for shareholders.

3. Direct to patient advertising should be banned.

4. Medical Schools need to be induced to greatly increase graduation of primary care physicians, including loan forgiveness for those who go into primary care practice.

5. Providers should be incentivized for keeping patients healthy and minimizing expensive tests and medications.

6. We should have a single payer system that links patients and families with primary care providers that have support from social services, nutrition and exercise referrals and other support groups.

7. Hopefully we can move toward a society with less income inequality and social injustice where we prioritize education and opportunity and improve the quality of life for all.

I agree and applaud everyone of them.  And I say this not withstanding the fact that I think this battle over health care will be swept away by the larger trends that are afoot.

Again, thanks for writing your letter to the President.  I deeply admire your motives and your idealism.   Please do not take anything I’ve said here as a criticism - it is not intended to be.

Your friend,

Dennis

« newer posts | older posts »


Recent Comments:

Archive:


Authors: