Teach Your Children Well

My friend Hema J_____ sent me this article she wrote on the ways her family is gradually reducing the amount of waste generated by their household. It’s a great example of the cumulative effect of many small changes in behavior. I asked her if I could reprint it here and she graciously agreed.

Daily Acts Toward A Waste-Free Life.

Early in 2011 a friend passed me an article from Sunset magazine. The article, titled “Zero-waste family in Marin”, described how this family managed to live a pretty normal life with no waste.

The article immediately made a deep impression on me. It reminded me of my childhood in South India. Growing up in the 1980s in the small city of Trichy, I never saw my family throw anything away. Our neighbors were no different — there simply was no garbage service! “Zero-waste” was just a part of the lifestyle there, at that time. Of course things have changed there now. Back then, we always carried our own bags and baskets to the grocer. We even bought cooking oil in our own steel containers. Milk was measured in liters and delivered at our doorstep, as was butter. We bought grains (paddy and wheat) in huge jute sacks, took them to the mill and brought home the flour. Meals were always made at home. So were snacks, yogurt and sun-dried goods.

Inspired by the zero-waste family in Marin, I started looking closely at my own everyday life putting garbage that I produce into perspective. It helped a great deal to watch the documentary “No Impact Man.” What ensued was a series of small changes towards reducing garbage that have added up over time, with the result that we have put out our municipal trash can only twice in the last twelve months, and the recycling can only a few more times. I will now take you on a short tour around our household, and talk about the changes we have integrated into our everyday lives.

To begin with a little background is in order. We are a family of four: my husband, a boy (8), a girl (5 ½) and me. We live in a duplex condo in California, in a pretty typical American suburb built in the early 1990s.

Grocery Shopping.

Let’s begin with the bags. We have a few bags of bags in our car trunk that we carry for grocery shopping. This includes the transparent plastic bags too. Since we always reuse our bags, we hardly have the need to use new ones provided at the store. Some stores even offer a small discount for bringing one’s own bags! It was such a pleasure to discover the bulk bins at our local stores. We buy most of the organic staples that we need — including yeast, fig bars, vanilla extract, soba noodles and pasta — from the bulk bins now. We found that a lot of times it is cheaper to buy organic items from the bulk section. My kids were of course delighted to see ginger cookies, sesame sticks and raspberry bars there. “Mom! Organic snacks in the bulk bins! No chemicals and no plastic! Can we buy these?” A few months into this mode of shopping, we realized that all that we needed was located in the periphery of the stores. By avoiding the center aisles we were reducing the plastic we were throwing away and also probably buying healthier at the same time.

The bulk bins brought to our notice other grains that we have now introduced into our diet. Our breakfasts now include millet, corn meal and steel-cut oats. And I shouldn’t forget to mention the fresh ground peanut butter that my kids simply love. We take our own (empty) glass jar, get it weighed initially (tare weight) and refill our jar. Some local stores have a wide range of items in their bulk bins.

We buy our eggs directly from local farms or friends that have chicken coops or the farmers’ markets. We return our empty egg cartons to the farmers. We learned about the energy-intensive recycling process involved with the plastic milk containers; we were not entirely happy about the details of it. So we switched to milk which comes in glass containers; we pay a deposit of $1.50 at the time of purchase and that is credited when we return the container. We buy cheese only if we can find a vendor (at the Farmers’ market) who is willing to sell a small unwrapped wedge. This necessarily means going without cheese most of the time. Considering the energy involved in the production and sales of cheese, we have decided to include it only occasionally in our meals as a special treat. The ideal situation would be to become vegan (we have always been vegetarians), then we won’t have to worry about these details.

Kitchen.

We have a green waste receptacle next to the sink where all our vegetable and fruit scraps go. There is no trash can under the sink now. Instead I have reclaimed this space for much needed storage for small appliances like the blender and the jars, the sandwich/waffle maker etc. I noticed that even after making changes to the way we grocery-shopped, our main source of plastic was the bread that came in plastic bags. One option was to switch to breads available in paper bags. Instead, I decided to take up the daunting task of baking, something I had never really done before. I decided to get help and enlisted a friend to be my baking teacher. She walked me through a great recipe for a delicious whole wheat loaf. Every week or so, I faithfully follow her recipe make three loaves at a time. The kids love to get involved and the whole process has evolved into a greatly enjoyable culinary ritual.

To maximize the use of the oven, I also make granola or baked pasta on the same day. We also make our own yogurt (just add live culture into warm milk), jams during summer and various kinds of simple dips and sauces like hummus and apple sauce.

Refrigerator/Freezer.

We have a relatively small energy-efficient refrigerator/freezer where we store dairy, veggies, fruit and leftovers. Having just enough space to store meant that we could never over-stock and also ensured that leftovers waiting to be eaten caught our eyes and are not wasted.

Pantry.

We have a bag of bags where we put back the grocery bags after transferring everything from the store into their respective containers. This bag is moved to the car once it has enough bags.

Kids’ Corner.

We use only one-sided paper from the mail and from my husband’s office for arts. The kids have a small basket under their table to discard used paper; when it overflows they take it to the recycling bin in the garage. They have similar baskets in their rooms for recycling paper. The kids mostly use pencils, color pencils, crayons, chalk pastels and water color for their art work. We don’t buy markers, sharpies, etc.

Office/Mail.

We mostly receive electronic statements and pay our bills online. We signed up at various places to stop junk mail from flooding our mailbox. There is a recycling bin under the table in our home office. We decided not to own a printer just to avoid the unnecessary printing that the convenience offered. We use scrap paper to write down driving directions off the Internet.

Dining Area.
At the table, we have a small pile of cloth napkins, for use during meals and also to wipe off spills that are frequent with kids around.

Clothing.

Thanks to a friend with slightly older children, we almost never buy new clothes or shoes for our kids. We have established a nice network to circulate these hand-me-downs and everybody that participates benefits from it. We buy under garments new and the rest is all from local thrift stores. This includes my clothes too. It took me a while to get comfortable with shopping at the thrift stores; it is looked down upon in India. Now I enjoy the benefits it offers – less expenses, supporting our local economy, reducing garbage, etc.

Cosmetics.

I have some stick-on bindis (decorative jewels for the forehead) from India and one lipstick (which I have hardly used). I use a rechargeable electric razor. It has lasted many years. Some local stores sell shampoo, soap, detergent etc. in bulk. We take our own containers and get them refilled. I read about people using baking soda as a deodorant and liked that option.

Laundry.

We buy laundry detergent powder that comes in cardboard boxes; recycling plastic detergent containers needs more energy. We don’t use the dryer most of the year; we either sun-dry or air-dry (drying the clothes in the garage out of the sun, especially during the rains) our laundry. We plan our laundry days based on the weather forecast, during the rainy season. This keeps our PG&E bill in the $20’s during summer and around $50 during winter.

Sanitary Needs.

A friend surprised me when she said she could count the number of instances she had used a commercial feminine sanitary product. She said that she had always used good quality cloth. I was guilty of the fact that after moving to the U.S., I had conveniently forgotten the norms in India and had transitioned seamlessly to the disposable-ways of living that is prevalent here. I switched back to cloth and found it to be very easy and natural. Recently I heard from a friend about the Diva cup. It certainly is an equally good, sustainable and comfortable alternative.

Parties and Gifts.

I have a set of about 2 dozen plastic plates and silverware just for party needs. We share this party set with local friends. We invite a small group of friends and families to the birthdays of our children. We serve homemade food and snacks or local fruit and veggies. We have inconvenienced some of our friends by asking them not to bring any gift, so we now request them to bring in any used book, toy or game that their child has outgrown. That works very well. The best birthday gift so far has been the farm-fresh eggs from my friend’s backyard!! Our birthday gifts to my kids’ friends have been books, homemade desserts, homemade jam, handmade crafts and gift cards to local stores.

Eating-out.

We choose places that have reusable china and silverware. Also we have one or two of our small containers handy (in the car) just in case we have leftovers.

Car.

We have a steel water bottle and a coffee mug in the car along with the bags of bags in the trunk. We have a couple of spoons and forks that have come in handy many times.

Purse.

My kids asked me if I could carry two little spoons for tasting the samples at the grocery stores. There couldn’t have been anything better to ask! It was quite rewarding to observe that they have taken the zero-waste lifestyle seriously.

House Cleaning.

We use a rag or sponge to clean the kitchen counter thereby easily eliminating our need for paper towels. We have laminated floor downstairs which are swept with a broom and the dirt is put back into the garden or compost. We mop the floor with a mop that uses a cloth pad. Our bedrooms are carpeted which are vacuumed once in a while. We do throw away the bags. We have separate rags to clean the bathroom floors.

Trash Cans.

We do have a trash can in the garage and toilet for emergency reasons and also for the convenience of our guests. We discard our old toothbrushes, empty toothpaste tubes (only some brands have recyclable tubes) and vacuum cleaner bags.

Recycling.

It was a shock for us to realize that recycling was only marginally better than dumping something into the landfill. The Internet has all the details, if you are interested. Basically, we realized that recycling is a good beginning but clearly not sustainable and does not come close to reducing waste.

Now, you may think this is a lot of hard work. Well, it actually isn’t. It is a different way of perceiving and planning so we can simply reduce our impact on this beautiful Earth. I shop once a week at a local grocery. During the summer, we buy our produce from the Farmers’ market, so we go to the store once every 10 days to 2 weeks. I cook once a day for a maximum of 30 minutes; there are days when we eat out too.

Our family life is fun-filled. We enjoy a wide variety of activities with the children – including gardening, cooking, vocal music, instrumental music, arts & crafts, board games. Our almost-waste-free philosophy doesn’t stop us from having fun, not one bit.

By treading gently and serving as the role models, we hope our children may take it up too. By involving the next generation we hope to preserve the nature of this only Planet we have. Also, every once in a while some of the following thoughts and questions arise in my mind and they help me stay on track:

• My mom and grandma certainly raised their kids in a more eco-friendly way than me. When I have conflicts in my mind — whether to do something in a certain way — I look up to their ways and that helps me choose the right course, which always takes the environment into consideration.

• If I spend a little bit of extra time shopping, planning and organizing, I can save Mother Earth thousands of years that she will need to decompose the waste I would have produced otherwise.

• When something seems very convenient or very cheap for an unknown reason, I stop to think “Who is actually paying the price here?” That helps me not fall into the trap.

• Years ago, I was disturbed to read a news article that said the U.S. shipped garbage to poor, developing countries. Since I am from one, it bothered me deeply. I have seen both the worlds – America that ships garbage and Indian slums that sit on mounds of garbage. America certainly “looks” clean. The garbage does go away from our houses. But where is “away”?

Year 3, Month 1, Day 29: Bad Cop. No Donut.

The Washington Post runs an article purporting to demonstrate strategic vision for the long term. It’s called “Global warming would harm the Earth, but some areas might find it beneficial.”

When you talk to climate scientists about winners and losers, a few words come up over and over again: could, might, maybe. According to University of Arizona environmental economist Derek Lemoine, local climate-change patterns are difficult to predict because uncertainties in the global model “are compounded when considering smaller scales.”

For this reason, it’s very hard to pin down climate scientists on local effects. Klaus Keller, an associate professor of geosciences at the Pennsylvania State University, is working to develop strategies to manage the effects of climate change. I posed a simple question to him: If the leaders of Russia or Norway asked whether their countries would be better off in 50 years if the temperature increased by a few degrees, what would you say?

Jeepers. I’m going to get out a package of “Seventh Generation” toilet paper and drown my sorrows. Sent January 23 (it’s a three-letter day for me!):

It’s hard to imagine positing winners and losers from a burgeoning greenhouse effect over a five-decade time scale, as suggested by Brian Palmer’s question to Professor Keller: “If the leaders of Russia or Norway asked whether their countries would be better off in 50 years if the temperature increased by a few degrees, what would you say?”

Fifty years is an infinitesimal span of geological time. In the context of global climate change, changes in national well-being after such an interval are analogous to the health impact of a cup of coffee and a cigarette in the next two minutes; the brief stimulation offered by these fast-acting drugs doesn’t translate into benefits in the long run.

Humanity’s near-universal incompetence at long term thinking will have catastrophic consequences for our survival. A climate-changed 2060 may well see some nations temporarily ascendant, but having the best seat on a sinking boat is no consolation.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 19: The Problem Is Not The Problem

The Oregon Bend Bulletin runs a McClatchy story noting that our virtuous and responsive private sector is getting into the act:

UNITED NATIONS — In the language of the 450 large institutional investors meeting at a conference here Thursday, climate change is a risk to avoid and also an opportunity to make a good return on investments.

The investors, who control more than $20 trillion worldwide, are looking at climate change from a business perspective even as Washington steers clear of the issue. Clean energy investments worldwide grew 5 percent in 2011 over 2010, despite financial turmoil in Europe and a wobbly economy in the U.S., according to a report released at the conference.

“I think the key message is that the narrative is changing. The private sector is taking the lead in addressing climate change,” said Mindy Lubber, the president of the investor and environmental coalition Ceres, one of the conference sponsors.

“This is a premier issue that’s being followed like a laser by the financial community.”

Global clean-energy investments reached $260 billion in 2011, some five times more than the $50 billion in 2005, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report. The analysis looks at renewable energy, energy-efficiency technology and biofuels, but doesn’t include natural gas or nuclear power in its assessment.

While this isn’t bad news, it isn’t necessarily good news either. Sent January 13 (a good day for letter-writing — this one brings me 6 days ahead!):

Given the pathetic failure of the industrialized world’s governments to address the climate crisis with anything approaching the requisite urgency, the news that leaders in the private sector perceive opportunities in climate mitigation and adaptation is welcome. But it would be disingenuous to simply frame the complex consequences of a runaway greenhouse effect as an economic “opportunity.” That’s uncomfortably like, say, framing lung cancer as a “sales opening for electronic cigarettes.”

One of the drivers of global climate change is an economic model predicated on the need for continuous growth — a model shared by most if not all of the world’s governments, and patently a leftover from the days when the resources of Earth seemed infinitely exploitable. Those days are gone; it is all too obvious that we live on a finite planet. While the engagement of the corporate sector in fighting this slow-motion catastrophe is certainly welcome, it won’t mean much absent an economic philosophy which values sustainability more than profit.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 1, Day 7: (cue scary theme music)

The Christian Science Monitor, among others, reports on a troubling development: corporations have learned how to swim:

In what is being hailed as the world’s first evidence of inter-species breeding among sharks, a team of marine researchers at the University of Queensland have identified 57 hybrid sharks in waters off Australia’s east coast.

{snip}

“Wild hybrids are usually hard to find, so detecting hybrids and their offspring is extraordinary,” said Ovenden.

Hybridization is common among many animal species, including some fish, but until now it has been unknown among sharks. In most fish species, fertilization takes place outside the body, with the males and females each releasing their gametes into the water where they mix. Blacktip sharks, by contrast, give birth to live young and actively choose their mates, which, as the scientists discovered, can sometimes be of a different species.

Ovenden speculated that the two species began mating in response to environmental change, as the hybrid blacktips are able to travel further south to cooler waters than the Australian blacktips. The team is looking into climate change and human fishing, among other potential triggers.

This is straining a bit for effect, but it was fun while it lasted. Sent January 3:

With the discovery of a new species of hybrid shark in the waters off Australia, we’re getting a glimpse of what the next few centuries have in store for us. In a post climate-change future, Earth’s fauna will respond to extreme weather conditions the only way they can — by adapting under extreme evolutionary pressure. It’s just our luck that the critters involved are vicious, soulless, mindless, predatory killing machines propelled only by the most basic of survival instincts.

Meanwhile, humanity’s attempts to mitigate runaway climate change are stymied by the corporate interests most implicated in causing the greenhouse effect — fossil fuel companies, which could just as easily be described as vicious, soulless, mindless, predatory killing machines propelled only by the most basic of survival instincts. Are twenty-first century mega-corporations the economic analogue to new species of sharks?

Will it ever be safe to go back in the water?

Warren Senders

31 Dec 2011, 12:01am
environment:
by

leave a comment

  • Meta

  • SiteMeter

  • Brighter Planet

    Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge
  • Year 2, Month 12, Day 31: A Gloomy Old Soul…

    The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Business section runs an article on the status of Big Coal in the region:

    The coal called “king” in this region, an acknowledgment of its presence and power, sometimes seems in danger of facing a coup.

    Just in the past week, federal agencies announced stricter regulations on pollution for coal-fired plants, with even former Pittsburgh Steeler Jerome Bettis filming commercials to strong-arm legislators into passing the restrictions.

    Add into the mix a natural gas boom that’s overwhelming the region and its lawmakers. Then there are the alternative options such as nuclear and wind energy that have won endorsements from the White House.

    With the pressure coming from all sides, the monarchy appears threatened.

    But a look at coal’s ever-overpowering numbers suggests a different narrative and proves the black rock remains as much a local institution as the football team for which Mr. Bettis once lined up in the backfield. The state still contains so much coal that it produces more power than its citizens and businesses need, with the extra used to light major metropolitan zones along the heavily populated East Coast.

    Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette! Sent December 27:

    When two realities collide, they can do a lot of damage. The slow-motion catastrophe of climate change is bringing us more extreme and unpredictable weather; naysayers find it increasingly difficult to reject the climatological evidence that humanity’s overconsumption of fossil fuels poses a deadly danger to the planet. That’s one reality.

    On the other hand, America’s economy is understood to depend on plentiful cheap energy, which means, more than anything, coal. That’s another reality.

    Representatives of the industry hold economic growth as a top priority, and call environmentalists “unrealistic” for decrying the link between burning black rock and burgeoning greenhouse effect. However, the reverse is equally true: by denying or covering up scientific evidence and analyses that could impact their profit margins, coal companies reject the reality of their product’s toxic consequences.

    Ultimately, the laws of physics and chemistry will win; they always do. Will human beings be the losers?

    Warren Senders

    28 Dec 2011, 12:01am
    environment:
    by

    leave a comment

  • Meta

  • SiteMeter

  • Brighter Planet

    Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge
  • Year 2, Month 12, Day 28: I’m Writing Four Days Ahead Of Schedule. Is That Long-Term Enough For You?

    Long Island’s “Newsday” runs a thoughtful piece from Kavita Rajagopalan, titled “Climate-change waiting game.” It’s worth a read:

    It’s the end of another year, a time to look back and take stock, maybe even make a resolution or two for the future. And there’s no bigger future to contend with than that of the planet. Unfortunately, after two weeks of intense negotiations at the 17th United Nations conference on climate change earlier this month, leaders from nearly 200 countries resolved to . . . wait.

    Holding off on serious and coordinated global action to reduce emissions not only drives us closer to irreversible climate change, it gives us the false sense that we really aren’t in the grave danger that we are.

    Although delegates agreed to draft a new treaty holding all nations to the same emissions standards and rules, they also agreed they it wouldn’t come into force until 2020. In the meantime, the contentious and flawed Kyoto Protocol emissions standards — which the United States never ratified — have been extended by another decade.

    We don’t have another decade to put off a global resolution on climate change. The Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists tracking climate change data, recently reported that global carbon dioxide emissions increased by 5.9 percent in 2010, the largest ever recorded annual jump. This amounts to an additional half billion tons of carbon in our air.

    In the last decade, global carbon emissions rose by an average of 3 percent each year, up from the 1 percent annual growth rate of the 1990s. Despite increasingly urgent warnings from leading scientists all over the world, the move toward a concerted global effort to bring down emissions and work together to mitigate climate change has been slow.

    Why?

    It’s interesting, trying to learn what our tribal ancestors did without thinking: incorporating long-term impacts into our collective decision-making. Sent December 24:

    If the industrialized nations are to respond successfully to the challenges posed by the climate crisis, we must change more than our patterns of energy usage. Those ways of living are symptoms of some very deeply rooted misconceptions which must be transformed if the struggle against a changing climate is to end well for us all.

    Because Earth’s resources are finite, we can no longer idealize an economy based on the notion of continuous expansion (as Edward Abbey put it, “growth for growth’s sake is the ideology of the cancer cell”). Because the atmospheric changes wrought by our past century’s extravagant consumption of carbon fuels will take thousands of years to go away, we can no longer afford to focus only on the satisfactions and frustrations of the present moment. To accomplish a sustainable society, we — all of us — must learn to think in the long term.

    Warren Senders

    Year 2, Month 12, Day 26: The Times They Are a’Changing

    The Jerusalem Post heralds the coming of the New World Order:

    The outcome of the latest round of climate change negotiations in Durban was as good as any dared hope for. A second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, together with agreement from all countries to begin negotiations on a new legally binding instrument, or an agreement with “legal force,” is a major step forward. However, Durban will be remembered for much more than that; as the place where the tectonic plates of international relations fundamentally shifted.

    The group of countries that drove the outcome in South Africa was a new coalition involving the EU and the BASIC countries – Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa.

    The emergence of this alliance of countries is significant for two reasons. First, these countries share a vision about the future and are committed to a path of low carbon, sustainable development. They recognize that this is the only pro-growth, pro-development strategy.

    Second, this grouping signals a dissolving of the traditional divide between rich and poor countries. For too long international negotiations have been hampered by an overriding solidarity between developing countries and a culture of blame. Durban saw a new maturity with the major developing countries partnering with progressive, developed countries and beginning to take responsibility for the future direction of the global economy.

    This shift of the tectonic plates is based on enlightened self-interest. On the one hand, there is no long-term scenario under which a fossil fuels-based economy is either sustainable or desirable for the human race as a whole. Reliance on fossil fuels, with supply risks in terms of political stability in oil producing regions, dwindling supplies and volatile prices together with an unstable climate caused by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, present serious risks to a growing economy.

    This gave me the opportunity for another more-in-sorrow-than-anger version of my “Corporations-are-teh-suck-and-America-is-doomed” screed. Sent December 22:

    When an enormous amount of work must be done in an extraordinarily short span of time, it’s essential that everyone involved recognize the necessity of the task. Alas for the American exceptionalists, the USA’s energy and environmental policy is now essentially crafted for the benefit of the multinational corporations whose influence is felt throughout the country’s government — and these economic leviathans have no conception whatsoever of the greater good.

    The “American Century” is well and truly over, a fact exemplified by the USA’s paralysis in the face of climate change. Fully half of my country’s lawmakers choose to deny scientific reality when it fails to match their ideological preconceptions. The emergence of the EU/BASIC coalition from the Durban talks is most welcome. If the United States cannot lead in the fight against climate catastrophe, then at the very least it should refrain from hindering the nations which can.

    Warren Senders

    Year 2, Month 12, Day 19: Hey, I Just Heard They’re Selling iPads For $19.95!

    Mike Tidwell analyzes the gloom in the Baltimore Sun, with an op-ed called “The hottest issue: Climate change dwarfs other problems.” Not much to add to this:

    An optimist might want to raise a glass as 2011 winds down. U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by New Year’s Eve. The global AIDS pandemic is ebbing. And the U.S. unemployment rate dropped by nearly half a percent in November.

    But an optimist would have to totally ignore one really important number to maintain the cheer. That number is 11. It was tossed out by scientists and economists at the international climate talks that just ended in Durban, South Africa.

    If we human beings continue to torch fossil fuels — oil, coal, natural gas — without any serious limitations in the next few decades, our planet could warm a full 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. That was the message from the highly respected International Energy Agency in a report just released in Durban.

    How much is 11 degrees of warming? For help, let’s inventory the warming we’ve already seen on our planet. Already, the Arctic Ocean has lost 40 percent of its ice mass since the 1970s. Already, wildfires in the American West destroy six times more forest land per year than 40 years ago. Already, the biggest hurricanes come more frequently, and the city of Virginia Beach is starting to plan a methodical retreat from its shoreline due to sea-level rise. Already, Allstate insurance company won’t issue any new homeowners policies in coastal Maryland and Virginia because of stronger storms.

    And how much warming did it take to trigger all of the above? How much to trigger the extreme floods and droughts and heat waves from China to Australia to Texas that scientists say are connected to climate change?

    Answer: 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

    I’m gloomy today. Wonder why? Sent December 15:

    The climate-transformed planet of 2100 offers, as Mike Tidwell states, little reason for optimism. Further gloom is warranted by the fact that a plurality of Americans have been egregiously misled by the industry-fueled message of triumphant consumerism and climate-change denial prevalent in our media. In the fantasy land inhabited by conservative denialists, the notion of climate change as a liberal conspiracy to enact a one-world government (forced re-education camps for SUV owners!) is more likely than the greenhouse effect, a scientific theory which has been verified repeatedly over the years since its discovery almost two hundred years ago.

    In a political culture obsessed with short-term gain and empty symbolic gestures, the systemic changes necessary for the survival of our species (and the countless others sharing our planet) will never be discussed, let alone implemented. Too risky; too costly; too boring. Let’s go to the mall instead — there’s a sale!

    Warren Senders

    Published.

    Year 2, Month 12, Day 6: The Onward March Of Folly

    The Zimbabwe Independent runs a story on the bad news:

    THE World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) warned on Tuesday at the UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa that greenhouse gas levels were rapidly reaching critical levels that could trigger “far reaching and irreversible changes” to the planet, its oceans and its biosphere. In South Africa, meteorologists confirmed the country was witnessing an unprecedented increase in the frequency and intensity of weather “events”, and experiencing warming trends that were above the global average.

    On Tuesday morning, the WMO released a provisional statement on the status of the global climate, showing that 2011 has been the 10th warmest year since 1850, when records began. This was despite the strong, cooling influence of the La Niña event that developed in the second half of last year.
    The volume of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was also the lowest on record and the area covered by seasonal Arctic sea was the second lowest on record — 35% below the 1979 — 2000 average.

    The full report from the UN agency, which assesses global temperatures and provides a snapshot of weather and climate events in 2011, will be released early next year.

    Finding a link for sending them a letter took longer than writing the damn letter. Sent December 1:

    The temperature is rising everywhere on Earth; likewise, the scientific evidence confirming the reality and the danger of human-caused climate change. And yet, the world’s richest nations are seemingly paralyzed, unable to utilize their economic power to help avert catastrophe. Why? There are many answers, but many of them boil down to a fatal combination of two factors: short-sightedness and greed.

    In most of the industrialized world, the profit cycle reigns supreme. Programs or projects that do not offer immediate returns on investment are automatically excluded from the policy-making process of nations whose economies are dominated by multinational corporations. The inability of the United States to address the disaster it has in large part created is a symptom of the control of government by these forces, and until their power and influence is checked, none of the world’s nations will be able to offer genuine solutions to the climate crisis.

    Warren Senders

    UPDATE: and the LTE bounced back; the Zimbabwe Independent does not appear to want to receive my emails. I searched on a text string from the original article and found another version of it in the Trinidad Guardian, so I’m resending it to them.

    Published in Trinidad.

    Year 2, Month 12, Day 4: Just Wait For The Balance-Transfer Offers!

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution runs an AP article on Rajendra Pachauri’s words about how expensive climate change is certain to be:

    DURBAN, South Africa — The U.N.’s top climate scientist cautioned climate negotiators Wednesday that global warming is leading to human dangers and soaring financial costs, but containing carbon emissions will have a host of benefits.

    Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, summarized a litany of potential disasters at a U.N. climate conference in the South African city of Durban. Although he gave no explicit deadlines, the implication was that time is running out for greenhouse gas emissions to level off and begin to decline.

    If we won’t change our ways to save the planet’s biosphere, maybe we’ll do it to save money. Sent November 30:

    Time is running out for the spurious fiscal arguments that have been deployed over and over again to justify inaction on climate change. As extreme weather becomes the norm, there will be huge impacts in every area of the economy. Public health, infrastructure, agriculture, transportation — all will be profoundly affected in ways neither public or private sectors have anticipated.

    Such climate-related expenses are direct consequences of our century-long binge of fossil-fuel consumption. But now, the hidden costs of our energy economy are becoming obvious; oil and coal are suddenly very expensive once these factors have been included.

    Financial responsibility now requires two things. First, paying off our debt to the environment; we’ve exceeded our credit limit and are now incurring significant penalties. And second, we must build an energy economy that ensures that all citizens of Earth live within their ecological means. Sustainability and fiscal responsibility must be synonymous.

    Warren Senders