When Did We First Know?

....of the anthropogenic nature and dangers of "excess carbon in the atmosphere:

1965:

President’s Science Advisory Committee Report on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide...

...reported to Lyndon Johnson that "By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere.”  The report was entitled:

"Restoring the Quality of Our Environment”

"Restoring!"  This term was used 53 years ago; indicating that the level of excessive atmospheric carbon was already past safe levels more than 50 years ago.  It had increased by 7% between 1860 and 1960 (1.3% from 1958 to 1963). The report predicts melting ice caps, rising sea levels, acidification of water sources, and more.  The report links that increase directly to humanity’s behavior:, the Committee reports:

“Carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year.”

The report recommended: 

“economic incentives to discourage pollution” in which “special taxes would be levied against polluters.”  Think CarboTax Click on the report title above to read the report; or click here.

What Do We Do Now?

It's about "us" not "them"

It always has been,  The largest culprits of excessive are cars and trucks and manufacturing of products we consume.   Besides generating carbon is reducing excess carbon in the atmosphere; a process called "carbon sequestering"  This breaks down to the following action items. 

• Drive less
• Bike
• Public transportation
• Purchase less products in single use packaging that requires manufacturing which in turn generates carbon
• Eat less meat.  The manufacturing of meat generates carbon (Not to mention waste of water which generates more carbon)
• Plant more
• Plants pull carbon out of the air (carbon sequestering) and replace it with fresh oxygenated air
• Leafy plants such as philodendrons and spider plants are good examples.  There are a lot of people on the planet.  If everyone in the U.S. planted the effect would be multiplied by 200 million plus.  It would truly be a "grass roots" solution 

The solution like the problem has always been our responsibility. 

You and Droughts

Things you might want to know when deciding...

...What to eat:

How many gallons of water does it take to make one pound?

• Beef = 1857 gallons/lb*
• Sausage = 1382 gallons/lb
• Pork = 756 gallons/lb
• Processed Cheese = 589 gallons/lb
• Chickens = 469 gallons/lb
• Eggs = 400 gallons/lb
• Figs = 379 gallons/lb
• Fresh Cheese = 371 gallons/lb
• Plums = 193 gallons/lb
• Cherries = 185 gallons/lb
• Avacodos = 154 gallons
• Yogurt = 138 gallons/lb
• Apples = 84 gallons/lb
• Grapes = 78 gallons/lb
• Oranges = 55 gallons/lb
• Beans = 43 gallons/lb
• Strawberries = 33 gallons/lb
• Potatoes = 31 gallons/lb
• Eggplants = 25 gallons/lb

Eating a burger (without fries) requires 634 gallons of water Just sayin

Where to get your power:

How many gallons of water does it take to generate one Megawatthour?

• Atomic Generation = 720 gallons/MWh
• Coal Power Generation = 714 gallons/MWh
• Natural Gas Generation = 100 gallons/MWh
• Solar Power Generation = 0 gallons/MWh
• Wind Power Generation = 0 gallons/MWh

Nuff said.  You figure it out from here.

Too Much to Fix

Fracking, carbon emissions, water pollution, non-degradable plastic, NUCLEAR WASTE.....  the list goes on and on and on.  Too much for us to remember. Too much for us to do to be eco-responsible human beings. Too much!

It's overwhelming!  What should we do?

A New Way of Thinking

Maybe we just need a whole new mindset, a new zeitgeist. One that is less aggressive, more compassionate.  Stephen Hawking believes that human aggression will be then end of humanity  So, rather than try to keep track of each individual action we need to perform to maintain a safe, healthy world ("world" being the whole of the human race), how about we adopt a more compassionate, less competitive zeitgeist; not only in the esoteric aspect of thinking as the planet as a living creature, but toward each other.  What if each of us was less competitive more compassionate toward person we know, we meet in our daily excursions.   What if we were mindful of  acting in benevolent way with each person we met, or knew.   The task of acting in benevolent to the world would be much simpler.

Mindfulness

"Mindfulness" is a word that is used often these days that is quickly becoming a buzz word (trendy). It is actually a shortened version of the ancient Buddhist concept of "Right Mindedness" or "Right Mindfulness" and the 7th part of the Buddha Gautama's Eightfold Path that is 2500 years old.  Buddhist hold that being mindful is being in the present being aware of everything around one.  Sounds so ambiguous and esoteric.

However it is simple.  It may take practice, but it is simple.  For every action you take, be mindful of what the impact might be on someone else, someone you know or someone you never met. Before you consume anything, ask yourself will this create a problem for someone else.   Doing this will require practice in thinking in a more compassionate, less aggressive manner toward everyone.  Perhaps you may even be convinced that you are part of a whole organism like James Lovelocke's Gaia Theory that stipulates that we are all a part of a single self-regulating organism.

It will take a while, but soon you may find yourself acting in such a way that is more beneficial to all of the world, in small increments.  Be mindful of even the simplest acts,  If you live in Chicago, for instance, and leave that light on tonight, will you be adding to the nuclear waste building up in Morris Illinois, from the Dresden Nuclear Power plant that generates nearly half the electric power for Chicago?

What did you just do?  What impact will it have on others?

Yes. The Planet Does NOT Need Saving

The Human Race Does.

I know this is feeding into quibbling between proponents of the anthropogenic aspect of climate change and deniers.  Also, I am aware that  I am once again, preaching to the choir.  Those who believe that the whole plethora of potential and sometimes currently realized danger to the human race grouped under the umbrella of Global Warming will nod their heads in agreement, while Climate Change Deniers will sputter at this in mock.  Nobody's opinion will be changed.

What brings me here to post after a long hiatus from posting¹ (Tired of trying to teach pigs to sing) was several discussions in which I participated where people rather flippantly indicated that "the planet" has been taking care of itself for more than 4.5 billion years without needing saving by humans.  One person in such a discussion quoted comedian George Carlin² as a source, missing the double entendre of his joke.  If you have read any of my previous posts, you would realize that by this point in a post, I would have already quoted statistics like scripture, but have since learned that facts are ineffectual to  changing opinions.  I need to find a muscle-bound man and bikini clad woman in yoga poses to convey my message,  So, here's my rant³...er appeal to sensibilities:

Does this really need explaining?

Evidently, people don't get that "saving the planet" used in the vernacular is a colloquialism for keeping Earth habitable for humans; "saving the planet" means saving the human race.  Even when I titled my book "The Council to Save The Planet"  it had a bit of a tongue-in-cheek double meaning.  The tagline for the book read: "Take care of the Earth before the Earth takes care of you"

The Fatalistic Solipsism of Deniers.

The flippancy of the logic that Earth is on it's own agenda is the first indication of the solipsistic avoidance of personal inconvenience required to reduce carbon footprints, waste that won't decompose, conservational use of water and other resources, etc...  The harsh reality of selfishness of epidemic proportions practiced by climate change deniers come from the projections from the International Panel on Climate Control⁴ (IPCC) which show that real problems with the current carbon acceleration⁵ won't become cataclysmic until 2100.  It's not our problem, it won't happen until we are gone.

I don't know about you, I find this lack of compassion for future generations to be appalling selfish to the point of being pathological.  I would have used the term sociopathic, but I'm sure someone would argue that we can't be in society with future generations.  However, we can be compassionate and empathetical to those who will pay the price for our actions. Worse is the fact that those who will be the first to be harmed the most are poor from Third World countries. Now the term sociopath can be invoked to individuals who defer care about those less fortunate than privileged U.S. citizens⁶.

It's Not Someone Else's Problem

If you think about things blamed for green house emissions (cars, power plants, and manufacturing) there is no way to point the finger at someone else.  These are things that us ordinary individuals (AKA "consumers") leverage for our convenient lifestyles.    We are in control.  We can reduce our use of cars, reducing gas consumption. We can reduce our power consumption⁸.  We can reduce how much and what we purchase, reducing more power consumption and our output of non-degradable pollution,  We can conserve water⁹.  Sounds small scale, but multiply what you can do by 300 million and you have massive impact.  Most know how to do this, Global Warming ethicists and activists have pounded this at you for decades.  If not Google each, or look below where I have done it for you.

Rather than demanding that manufacturers give us more sustainable products and technology and that the government regulate those manufacturers to ensure sustainable products, we can change our habits to drive these changes. That is the one beautiful thing about Capitalism. It's really driven from the bottom up. It just means getting past The Cult of Convenience.

A New Zeitgeist

I have discovered that railing about specific practices needed to ensure a sustainable planet for our descendants is not productive.  We all know what we can do.  What's really required is a whole new way of thinking; one that is more mindful of others, alive or yet to be born.  This is tough for most U.S. citizens indoctrinated in the paradigm of rugged individualism (selfishness) .  The Cult of Convenience is rife with entitlement and status by gain, but lacking in empathy

Try this:  As often as you can, before you do something, buy something, throw something away, ask yourself how will this impact others, now or in the future?  A good time might be while you are in yoga class trying to ignore the pain of the Upside Down Flying Dog position.  Trust me, an overall new paradigm of concern for others will do a world of good


Footnotes
(Not only required to make this post look official, but informational also)

1. Actually I opted for action, by giving money to the strongest pro-ecology lobby in the US The Nature Conservancy
2. Carlin's opinion as a comedian of course outweighs the opinion of the 800 scientists of the International Panel on Climate Change and NASA
3. Rant's play better nowadays.
4. For those of you who are capable of reading more that short paragraphs Click here for the IPCC projections
5. "Carbon acceleration" refers to the fact that the rate of emissions gases released into the atmosphere is greater than the rate the Earth can turn it back into Oxygen and that rate is accelerating
6. The US has 3% of the planet's population, yet contributes to 25% of the green house emissions. Only China is higher, but that is only because they have so many more people.  On a person by person basis the Carbon Footprint⁷ of each Chinese person is 1/4th of each U.S. citizen contributes
7. Carbon footprint describes all green house emissions released by a particular entity (person, vehicle, factory, power plant) being assessed.  
8. Reducing your power / electric consumption <--Click
9. Conserving water <--- Click

You are responsible for the future.  

It Won't Be Easy To Be Green

With all the purveyors of the "green" industry hyper-hyping their greenness,it won't be simple to actually be green, though you can easily think that you are.

The not-so-green Green Festival

I can't even begin to imagine the carbon footprint left by the Green Festival this past weekend at Navy Pier, but when I put on my emerald colored glasses and gave the festival the green inspection, everything sort
came out brown, carbon emission brown. (continued below)



The first thing to strike me was the City of Chicago exhibit, which was comprised of about a hundred white cardboard boxes stacked to surround an area of the floor. If I recall, cardboard is made of paper, one of the greatest contributors to the accelerating carbon cycle. Not only does the processing of paper release greenhouse emission, but so does the transportation, then adding to that, it requires the wholesale harvest of trees, which diminishes the Earth's ability to re-oxygenate the carbon emissions.

The second thing I notice, because it is a 40 foot bus, is a climbing wall for children attached to the side of a . What isn't so noticeable is the sign on the back that indicates that is "soy" fueled. Hasn't Organic Valley, owner of the bus, been paying attention to the common media lately. The carbon footprint for creating bio fuels exceeds that of burning just plain old gas. But hey, if "the kids" can climb up the side of it, it must be green -- right?

In the category of Can't-See-the-Forest-for-the-Trees, was the massive psuedo-food industry presence. You know "psuedo food", that food that was brought to us by the marketing geniuses who figured out how to cheaply appeal to the granola minded. You can tell by the packaging that it is organiic, and healthy, until you read the back of the wrapper. I'm talking about the fruit and granola bars that are in reality carbo-sodium delivery systems, filled with rice and gluten (starch) like the ones you by at the healthy grocery store. If you open up one of these healthy fruit bars,
you'll find a ribbon thin layer of fruit compote wrapped in a thick wheat-gluten-carbohydrate cocoon. Then there's the sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate and the calcium casseinate.

Here's an example: The Bumble Bee bar. One of these 2 1/2 inch by 3 1/2 inch by 1/4 inch thick bars has 13 grams of fat, and 60 to 70 grams of sodium. That's more sodium and fat than and eight ounce bag of potato chips or Fritos and it's less than three ounces. The carbon footprint for producing, packaging and transporting psuedo-food is the same as junk food, so how is this green?

Well, everyone knows that if it looks organic, smells organic and tastes organic, it must be "green." Think again, Organic doesn't equate to green, though the organic and psuedo-food industry would like to think it is. Take Organic Valley dairy products. It may be organic, but with the carbon footprint required to transport, refrigerated, from California, hardly makes it eco-friendly. However, Organic Valley wants to position themselves in your mind as being green. They had no less than three booths at the festival.

I asked one hawker of an enzyme cleaner, sold through a well known chain of "wholly" good, green and organic products, what made his product so green. He said because it was "fermented" from natural ingredients. Now the word "ferment", generally means some process that does not require heat, such as distilling would. But, I asked and he said, heating was required, which means, carbon footprint, just like every other product on the market. Plus, it came in a disposable plastic bottle, the latest eco-villain to come under media attack for having a massive large carbon foot; so large that the city has put a drinking water bottle tax to dissuade us from buying [roducts in disposable plastic bottles.

The all time chuzpah product has to be Bliss Cleaner, touted as being a "green" cleaner. ignore that it too comes in a disposable plastic bottle and just look at the ingredients, as I did: carbonated water and various fragrances -- that's it!

What is most mind boggling about the festival is a phenomenon like looking at the stars in the sky. We do it all the time, taking it for granted, until you stop and think about the number of stars there are in the sky. Standing on the mezzanine and looking down into festival hall, the realization of the massive amount of paper required to put on the festival and relating that to the number trees cut, milled, processed and transported and will have to be transported away, recycled and transported back, ad infinitum. There is not only the information dissemination, but also the disposable paper required for the food services required to feed 30,000 green groupies.

So is anyone green at the Green Festival?

Yes, of course. There the Sri Lankan company that makes paper out of elephant Dung! Now that's -- er, green? And it helps the elephant which is running out of places to poo in Sri Lanka.

I listen to and spoke with Sharif Abdulla, author of "Creating A World That Works for All" who spoke of the need for everyone to become "mindful" of their own ecological behavior. We can't just pass it off to manufacturers and government to find a way to make us eco-friendly. But as he also pointed out that a crowd of less than fifty people who came to listen to him, how small they were as a gathering compared to the 30,000 people wandering the festival hall, eating free samples of organic-psuedo-food from disposable wrappers, climbing walls, or watching their children draw with crayons on paper and drink milk that had to be brought all the way from California. No one wants to hear what being green really means, since it may mean expectations from them

Majora Carter drew a somewhat more respectable crowd with her frank discussion of how a green economy could be coupled with the need for closing the gap in the economic disparity of the America diasporo. Something she is well well versed to speak about given her past successes in the Bronx. Too bad the hundred or so in attendance was a fraction of a percentage of those attending the festival in the name of being green. Of the truly green speakers I saw, Daniel Pinchback drew the biggest crowd, with his talk of apocalypse by 2012 and the use of psychotropic drugs. So there was green at the Green Festival

What is being Green

Based on what I saw, it was an "image" to be put on like a fashion statement. It reminded me much of the Hippy movement of the 60s, which I am old enough to remember. There were truly those who held the belief in
peace and the unification of humankind in love. Then there are those who just threw on the beads, hear band, tie-dye and dug the vibes of the Grateful Dead. I'll be curious as to who will emerge as the pop icons of the green movement, if there is a movement. I fear it might have been engulfed and absorbed by the Consumer Movement.

So what could have been done? As Sharif Abdulla points out, it does no good just to point out what is wrong. One has to have some suggested course of action. For starters, the food service could have been done with non-disposable dishes. Actually washing dishes doesn't cost more, it just redistibutes the cost back to the vendor, who can rely on the city for trash pickup costs. Parameters could have been set requiring exhibitors to use some greener medium of information dissemination than paper, much of which was thrown away unread. The event coordinators could have set up and vetted the exhibitors against a set of green parameters, meant to filter those who aren't really green and guide those who pass to be more green. I have to wonder, was there any real need for consumer products to be at this festival? Other than some textiles, I didn't see any consumable products that really were eco-friendly. Most all certainly sinned against nature in their manner of packaging.

So for those who really want to be green, best of it to you, but proceed with caution. Being green like anything good has become an industry from which opportunists will try to make money. And they know you want to be green