The Wrong Kind of Green

The Wrong Kind of Green, by Johann Hari. Nation: March 4, 2010.

This is another one of those, no, REALLY? sort of articles. No, REALLY? Massive environmental organizations take money from major corporations?

No, it couldn’t be.

Sometimes it is so difficult to control the sarcasm on this blog. The funny thing is, I posted about this before, though in reference to the smaller scale version. Actually, upon reading that post again, I’ve already said just about everything I might say in response to this Nation article.

I do want to point out one other part. Hari mentions the phenomenon in which environmentalists are happy to be thrown a bone, any bone: a few trees here, a few concessions toward climate change there. Many environmentalists will accept just about anything if it makes them feel like they’re accomplishing something. It’s sad, but you see it happen again and again. They just back down and back down and say things like, well, the political climate isn’t right, and next thing you know, the actual, physical climate is too far gone to do anything about it. And then there’s no going back.

It’s so sad, and it’s one of the delusions that plague the environmental movement. We feel powerless. We have been raised feeling that nothing we do really matters, and really, how could we possibly defeat the massive corrupt army that is Congress and its multitude of corporate funders? What can we possibly do? Easy to accept the sad concessions thrown in our direction when faced with all THAT. I think the 2004 election had a lot to do with it. I think a lot of us, after staying up all night thinking to ourselves, no, there’s really no way that idiot could be elected president TWICE, woke up the next morning (or dragged ourselves into work after no sleep) with a different view of the world. No, our votes don’t matter. No, sense and the best interests of the population (and the planet) do not matter. Money matters. Money, and expansion, and the economy, and the rest, and we can scream ourselves hoarse trying to convince anyone else differently.

Some people seemed to become hopeful again after Obama election, and maybe these are the people who were still hoping something would actually come out of the Copenhagen debacle other than a lot of waffle. But really, anyone who actually expected some kind of effective decision to come out of Copenhagen was delusional. Anyone who still expects Congress, despite its immense corporate sponsors, to act in some kind of reasonable and responsible way as far as climate change goes, is living in a fantasy world. So in that sense, the accusation that the major environmental organizations are only aiming for what they think might have a chance of passing Congress is unfair. Those major organizations have a much better sense of reality than the environmentalists who thought real action would come out of Copenhagen.

Of course, that’s no reason not to take a hard line. After all, that’s how the major corporations get their way (well, that, and a whole lot of money). They stand their ground. They decide what they want and they fight tooth and nail, do everything in their power, to ensure that they get that outcome.

Shouldn’t that be what we do, as well? I’ve had about enough of waffle.

Read more...

Surprise, Surprise: An Expansion

I realized, after posting on the recent death of a Sea World trainer, that I might not have been entirely clear on the subject. At the time, I was so pissed I couldn’t see straight, and that unfortunately leads to posts dripping with sarcasm and not really addressing the issue at hand.

Let me start with why this issue hits so close to home, for me. I wanted to be a marine biologist growing up. I wanted to be a lot of things, like most kids, but it was always a toss up between some kind of artistic career (art teacher/ fashion designer) and marine biologist. Specifically, I wanted to be a dolphin trainer. I have been nothing short of obsessed with the ocean and specifically dolphins for as long as I can remember. They are intelligent, arguably more intelligent than humans (they haven’t destroyed the planet, after all). And they seem to symbolize, for many people, something which is inherently lacking in our civilized lives: a freedom, a joy in living which is somehow expressed by a dolphin’s careening leaps above the waves.

My desire to be a marine biologist was thwarted by two things: an aversion to cutting dead things up in biology class to study them, and the realization that dolphins are not happy in tanks. It is highly deceptive, the dolphin’s smile: no matter what their mouths twist up at the corners, and it gives the impression that they are pleased as punch to swim in circles all day and leap out of the water for the entertainment of screaming visitors. But if you have spent any amount of time near captive dolphins, and I have spent long, long hours sitting by the window at the National Aquarium in Baltimore gazing at these magnificent creatures, you will begin to understand the ineffable sadness in their eyes. You can watch them swim around and around and around their tank between shows, always the same circle, as if they are pacing, frantically, looking for an exit, looking for something that isn’t there. There’s nothing in those tanks. They are solid concrete. They must be infinitely boring to a creature with an intelligence on par with most humans. I mean, think about it: how would you react to being kept, for your entire life, in the same room, with absolutely nothing to look at except blank concrete walls? There is absolutely no justification for that kind of torture.

The main arguments I’ve heard in favor of keeping marine mammals in places like Sea World (and performing for audiences) is that it promotes conservation efforts. I’ve used the same argument myself, in favor of the Baltimore aquarium. And it’s true, these places do a lot of great work to save the oceans, and to educate people as to why the oceans are worth saving (though this should be so blatantly obvious it appalls me that we NEED that kind of education). But is that a reason to keep marine mammals in captivity? And not only to keep them in captivity, but to force them to perform over and over again for human audiences?

I could maybe tolerate the argument in favor of rescuing injured marine mammals and nursing them back to health before re-releasing them into the wild. But most people seem to think that just because places like Sea World participate in conservation efforts, it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether or not whales are kept in captivity. In fact, I’ve heard the argument that whales should be happy to be in captivity, entertaining humans, so that more people will be inspired to save whales. The thought is horrifying. If you applied the same argument to a human, say, if you proposed keeping children from Darfur in captivity to entertain and inspire Americans to donate money to end the civil war in Darfur, the uproar would be nearly unanimous. But most people also think humans are more important than animals, which, when it comes down to it, is why whales are in trouble in the first place. And really, so long as that attitude prevails, whales will continue to be in trouble: oceans will continue to be polluted, whaling will continue, climate change will continue unabated and we’ll all be screwed.

The real issue with a place like Sea World is that it encourages the notion that whales are there for whatever purposes we devise for them. They’re there for our entertainment, they’re there for our education, whatever you want to call it. They are there for human purposes alone. The purposes of the whales do not come into question. And I bet if you could ask one of these whales who have been in captivity their entire lives, would you rather be swimming free in the ocean or jumping out of a chlorinated swimming pool for the entertainment of humans who are probably not going to leave the theme park much more educated than they were going in, the whales would probably vote on the ocean. After all, it’s not like Sea World has thus far managed to end the threats to whales in its over 50 years of existence. If it had, I might be much more prone to agree with those who argue that a conservation program is reason enough to keep intelligent mammals in captivity.

There’s absolutely no reason why we should not be inspired to save whales by seeing them in their natural environments. But then again, as I said in my previous post, we keep ourselves in captivity, and seek to rationalize this at every turn. So it’s not in the least a surprise that we seek to rationalize the continued captivity and enslavement of marine mammals. After all, if we started to argue that whales have the right to enjoy freedom and joy in their lives, we might start to question whether we (humans) deserve the same.

Read more...

If you don't get it, we can't help you....

Read more...

Western Shore Dorms Dominate Campus Recycling Competition

As was explained in a previous entry “RecycleMania: Now at WC,” the Recycling Program is hosting a campus-wide recycling competition to encourage recycling within dorms. As of February 22, the Western Shore dorms were sweeping the floor with the rest of campus, leading the competition with a staggering 7.71 pounds per capita. The Hill Dorms (namely East, Middle, and West Halls) followed in second with 3.77 pounds per capita. Sadly, our fraternity housing doesn’t seem to be pulling their weight, bringing up the bottom of the pack with a lowly 0.91 pounds per capita. With all the partying that us students know goes on there, one cannot help but wonder at what happens to all those bottles and cans.

With the addition of new recycling containers to Caroline House, Minta Martin, Reid Hall, and Queen Anne House, these dorms have joined in the competition. Information regarding their per capita recycling rates will become available in future updates regarding the competition.

Here are the rates in pounds per capita as of February 22, 2010:

Western Shore: 7.71
Hill Dorms*: 3.77
Cullen Dorms**: 3.11
Kent: 2.37
Harford: 2.27
Chester: 1.66
Sassafras: 1.20
Quad: 0.91

Thank you to all Washington College community members who actively recycle their reusable materials, and please continue to do so! If you haven’t been recycling those bottles and cans, it is never too late to begin. Stay tuned for additional updates about campus recycling and sustainability initiatives!

*East, Middle, and West
**Wicomico, Somerset, and Worcester

Read more...

Surprise, Surprise

So I caught this on the news today: Killer Whale Kills SeaWorld Trainer.

All I can say is, no, REALLY?

You put a 12,000 lb whale in a tank and expect it to jump through hoops? Seriously? Are you delusional?

But of course they are. People believe they can tame nature, that they can pen up a 12,000 lb social animal alone in a tank, and that everything will be fine. Because we're in control, aren't we? Don't we have control over everything? Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

Of course, we put ourselves in cages, too. We call them offices. And we wonder when people "go postal," as they call it. And then we're just as shocked when a "killer" whale does the same. Of course, in that instance, it's all about a failure to follow job safety. I bet OSHA will get involved. Even the Humane Society recommends shooting the poor thing if it threatens human lives.

They can investigate all they want, to "determine what went wrong in this case", but it doesn't take an investigator to know an animal in an environment where it doesn't belong will eventually lash out.

Let me give you a hint, SeaWorld. Orcas do not give hugs.

Read more...

The 11th Hour

I have a long list of environmental documentaries in my Netflix queue, but I very rarely watch them (even though many of them are instant!). I think the reason is that they annoy me far too much. I imagine many of them are intended for people who don’t know that the environment is in trouble, but for me, I tend to tune out half of what they say (because I’ve heard it a thousand times before) and then become aggressively angry at the other half because I don’t agree with the type of solutions they suggest.

The 11th Hour was a perfect example. Leonardo DiCaprio managed to annoy me so badly I nearly turned the movie off half way through. If you are new to the environmental movement, or looking to be told what you already know for the umpteenth time, than by all means, watch this movie. This is a perfect film for those who are just getting their introduction to the concept that humans have royally screwed themselves over by destroying so much of our environment (read: our surroundings, the place that we live). It will also make the many people who believe that environmental destruction is bad but don’t want to change their lifestyles feel very good about themselves, because it promotes, unsurprisingly, the same “vote with your dollars” nonsense that ended An Inconvenient Truth.

Let’s start with the same old, it’s us and nature, and we have to save nature nonsense. I was glad that he (Leo) at least acknowledged that part of the problem is our society’s tendency to view the two as separate entities: we are part of nature, whether we like to believe it or not. But, after pointing this out, he went on to ask if nature holds the answers to our environmental crisis. I suppose he is referring specifically to the non-human part of the world, which yes, Mr. Smarty-Pants, probably holds some answers. You will notice that the non-human part of the world would be getting along very well if it weren’t for us. They must be doing something right, don’t you think?

Leo clearly thinks so, too. At least, he featured plenty of fairly uninteresting speakers who seemed to think so. But then he went on to ask what a city would look like if it was designed like a forest, and my brain nearly exploded. This particular bit boggled me so much that I will ignore his assertion that we need a “new industrial economy,” which means more regulation from the federal government and a revised tax structure, to more heavily tax those persons who pollute. It is naïve and somewhat delusional to think the government will ever tax industry more than a pittance for pollution, and will never charge them with cleaning up the mess they’ve created. Government and big industry go hand and hand, and you can be sure that no politician is going to cut off their own funding by angering big business.

But to get back to this city designed like a forest thing. If a city were designed like a forest, it wouldn’t be a city at all. This is one of those paradoxical questions. A city, apparently, according to the dictionary, is a large town or an incorporated municipality (which would technically make Chestertown a city). A forest is, well, a forest. It’s got trees, diversity, healthy soil structures… it’s self-contained… and a city requires thousands of people to be living in the same place. Usually all on top of each other, in one big building. That’s the definition. In order for a city to exist, massive amounts of resources must come from other places, to the city. Even if they invent some fabulous way of creating food in quantities large enough to feed all the people in cities, I can almost guarantee it will require some kind of technology (because we’re big fans of technological fixes), which will require some kind of metal, which will require mining, which will probably require petroleum, which is a non-renewable resource- are you seeing how this is unrelated to a forest? People in those kinds of numbers always require outside inputs, which are inherently unsustainable, which forests are not.

Not to mention the fact that forests, every few decades or sometimes hundreds of years, deteriorate and decay and burn down or fall down and go back to shrubs or prairie or what have you before growing back up into big forests again. It’s part of the cycle of life. Death, growth, change. Forests evolve. Species come and go. There are cycles.

Can you imagine a city like that? Would it still be a city? Cause I think the answer is no.

And oh, please, shut up about the voting with consumer dollars thing. It’s getting old. There are ways to create change without going out and buying more THINGS.

Besides, where’s YOUR shirt from, Leo?

Read more...

Suspicious Statistics

I read an article a while back (The Ubiquitous Matrix of Lies) that brought something to light I had always known but never really thought about. Companies make claims all the time, without any of us really expecting them to mean anything. So often you see billboards that say things like “best beer ever” or “#1 in the US”, which, if you look at the products being advertised, seems very unlikely. But no one is fussed by this, it’s just the way things are. Companies can make all kinds of claims and no one questions them or pays much attention to them.

As I was driving into work this morning, I passed a Waste Management truck. Waste Management does all sorts of things, but mostly they haul trash and other waste away from businesses and towns and that sort of thing. The side of this particular truck said, “Our landfills provide 17,000 acres of wildlife habitat.” Or something very close to that, I was driving rather fast.

Now, this kind of baffled me. Landfills… wildlife habitat?

…

Sorry, that was a pause while I attempted to make sense of that. I looked it up on the Waste Management website (Waste Management Wildlife Habitat Council), and apparently what they mean is that after landfills are full, they cover them over and plant things on top. I’ve seen covered landfills, but usually they just have grass on top, due to the fact that there are vents all over it to let the methane out. The smell is usually pretty horrendous. Sometimes I think they build schools on top and that sort of thing. Apparently now they’re building wildlife habitat, which is all well and good, we could use more wildlife habitat. It’s the landfill bit that’s got me a little perplexed. Somehow it just doesn’t seem like a great idea.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use landfills for SOMETHING. And wildlife habitat seems to be a better suggestion than most. I’m glad Waste Management is concerned about wildlife habitat. I’m just suspicious when I see messages purporting that a company is environmentally friendly on the side of a truck hauling trash. Their whole company is founded on hauling waste- they are (to my knowledge) the largest such company in the US. And I, personally, do not believe we should be producing all this waste, no matter how much wildlife habitat we build on top of it. I’d rather have the wildlife habitat intact in the first place, thanks ever so much.

But I suppose it’s technically not Waste Management’s responsibility to reduce the amount of waste produced- all they do is haul it after it’s been created. But, I have to ask, if it’s not their responsibility, whose is it?

Read more...