An Unrealistic Dream

I have this unrealistic dream. It is a dream where, since we are all so self-centered, we can only choose for others and not for ourselves.  It is an example of how I like to think about problems in unusual ways.

We have a debt/deficit crisis. We all seem to want everything that will benefit us but do not want to pay for anything that we believe will not benefit us.

In this scenario, one of my thoughts is this: We set up a system where voters of one state would vote for the candidates from a random (drawn each election cycle by publicly broadcast lottery) other state. Each state would thus be voting for another state's representatives. That representative would then be reliant on votes from a state that would not be the beneficiary of wasteful spending for things like "earmarks" that would benefit that representative's state. This would help the effort to steer legislation toward the common good, rather than for the good of only one's own state. The candidates would remain the same, that is being from the state they will represent, and representing their state's constituents. But, those constituents would not have the expectation of a representative that would work to benefit their own state at the expense of the whole nation. In addition, any state that would deny another state's reasonable desires as a result of their votes for that state's representatives, would risk reprisal in subsequent elections. This would be a form of checks and balances.

This system would limit the power of long term elected officials (without term limits which I oppose), as they would not be re-elected based on the power of their seniority in congress, and their ability to bring home the bacon (pork) to the voters that support them.

Just an unrealistic dream, but perhaps food for thought.

The bilateral political divide

The bilateral political divide we are experiencing, is a result of two runaway trains of urgent thought. One side sees the world as a modern civilization careening towards the precipice of global cultural and financial collapse and that we need to do whatever is necessary to prevent going over the cliff in a way we have never seen before. The other side sees the world as a planet with people, that is careening towards a massive sink hole of planetary social and ecological systems collapse under the weight of a troubled humanity that needs to understand the threat and act quickly to prevent sinking into a worst case scenario reality.

The reality is that both views are based on fact. The divide is created because the two sides value what they are trying to save, and discount the importance of what the other side is trying to save.

The context of these goals in our current election cycle is important. It frames the arguments on both sides. The Republicans tend to see threats to cultural and financial stability. They seek to regulate culture in their own image, and to deregulate finance for profit and prosperity in order to maintain our prominence in the world. The Democrats tend to see threats to society and ecological stability. They seek to maximize social equity and regulate ecological stewardship to ensure we leave a sustainable planet to future generations.

Raccoon

I saw a raccoon on my mountain bike ride yesterday.

Economic growth is unsustainable

Economic growth is unsustainable. Our economy, as it is today, is based on growth. If the economy isn't growing, the economy is bad, and a lot of bad things happen. That is because of the premises that our economy is based on.

I am not an economist. But I do think about the economy, and I wonder if economists think at all about the economy the way I do. I like to think about the big picture. That means considering as many aspects of an issue over the longest term that is practical. When considering the economy, and its basis on growth. I think of what that growth is based on. And I think that growth is based on people. Consumers.

Consumers in the aggregate contribute to growth in two ways. The first way is by consuming more, and the second way is by creating more consumers. Neither of these two contributors of growth is sustainable.

We have already increased our consumption to the point that as Americans we consume substantially more per capita than the rest of the world. Not only has this resulted in an unprecedented depletion of our natural resources, increased pollution and a host of other problems, but we are exporting our consumer culture to the rest of the world, skyrocketing the levels of global consumerism.

And as far as creating more consumers, beyond the exportation of our consumer culture, more consumers are created by creating more people. Population growth creates more consumers.

So, I look at the long term, or even medium term, and see that this is unsustainable. Even looking far enough into the future where globalization has pulled the whole world's population into the consuming economy, the point comes where there are no more undeveloped countries to add to the economy. In that future everyone lives in a country that has a high level of consumerism. Further growth on that front is essentially gone. The only other way for the economy to grow is to add more people. More people, more consumption. How ever many people you think this finite planet can sustain, that number is not infinite. Regardless of where you think that limit is, there is a limit.

So, given that there is a limit to the expansion of markets, and a limit on the expansion of the earth's population, it seems to me that there is a limit on the capacity of economic prosperity to be based on growth. That being said, I believe we need to look at that future and begin the transition to a sustainable economy that is decidedly not based on growth. We need to visualize that future and start to implement the policies that make it possible and make it work.

Long Live the Radical Left

I used to have an ongoing debate with my brother. This debate lasted years and only ended with his death 5 years ago. With the rise of radical right wing activism, I think that were my brother alive today, my side of this debate would hold more sway.

This debate was on the question of the value of the radical left in modern society. I argued that though I believed that the most extreme radical left was excessive and wrong in much of what they think and do, that we should value their contribution to the big picture reality of where our society is today. And what is that contribution that I value so much? Balance. The balance that the radical left provides for the radical right.

The radical right has been active in moving the “center” to the right since the Reagan revolution. With the extremism of the radical right and their success at spreading their far right propaganda through the likes of right wing talk radio and and FOX News, the absence of an extreme left wing viewpoint moves the center to the right. So without the radical left, people, especially those who do not do a lot of personal analysis based on multiple sources of information, will see the center further to the right.

While I do not agree with the most radical left, without them my left-of-center viewpoints would be perceived as being far left wing. Using a bell curve as a visualization tool, and knowing how powerful the radical right is, without the radical left, a reasonable left wing is seen as being too far from the peak of the curve.

  

My brother argued that reason should be enough to sway opinion. I dream of such a utopia, but believe in reality.  I believe a sizable percentage of people locate themselves on the curve relative to the location of the “center” because they prefer not to see themselves as being too far from that center.

So, long live the radical left.

“Freedom versus Government”.

A lot of the political arguments these days seem to pit freedom against government. While we can all agree that freedom is generally a good thing, having a democratically elected government that puts some reasonable regulatory controls on that freedom in service to the common good is also something that we all should be able to agree on. The big question is where the limits of that regulatory control should be. No one thinks that we should be free to murder. So, where should the limits to government control be? That is a question worth debating. The debate should not be able to be co-opted by those who would argue for a simplified all-or-nothing Freedom versus Government question.

I believe that human nature is such that the majority of people generally act in their own self-interest. It pretty much makes sense, though I wish it wasn't so. Do that which you perceive to benefit you own life. The problem with this is that there are conflicting self-interests and that promotes conflict. If it was true that human nature had the majority of people acting for the common good, there would be less conflict.

Democratic government is in place for the purposes of the common good. Even if we all vote in our own self-interest, the results of the vote should be favorable for the majority of voters. So, as this election year progresses, let us focus on the issues of how government regulates, and not let the debate fall back on the default “Freedom versus Government” generality that creates a divisive dichotomy that polarizes our people, making the true goal of the common good harder to achieve.

We need to lead the push to a future that does not rely on fossil fuels

We have an energy problem. Everyone knows that, but there is disagreement on both what that problem exactly is and what we should do about it. I know this is a very complex issue and I am not going to go into all of the different complicating factors in this post.  That is more like something that could fill a book. So I am going to focus on looking to the future and how to plan and act to make that future the best it can be.

Regardless of the timeline that one might espouse, we can all agree that fossil fuels are finite. Even if you think we have well over a hundred year supply and that burning all of that won't harm the planet and human civilization, you MUST agree that eventually the fossil fuel resources will be so diminished as to make our reliance on them not just unsustainable but catastrophically disastrous.

That being said, I suggest that we look forward to that future. Imagine what that future would be like. What are our energy needs likely to be? How are we likely to obtain all of that energy and from what source. While there are a number of options, I am one of those that believes that an “all of the above” non-fossil fuel scenario is the most likely to provide a sustainable energy supply for the medium term future, and by that I mean the next couple of hundred years.

What are those non-fossil fuel energy sources? The most obvious is the sun. Our ability to harness a fuel source that does not originate on this planet, provides us with a source that we are unable to deplete. That is the best hope for the future. It is important to note that the wind is generated by the unequal heating of the earth by the sun and is thus an indirect form of solar energy. Hydro-electric energy is also indirectly sourced by the sun's heat warming the earth's water, evaporating it and then precipitating it at a higher altitude creating potential energy. Large scale wind and hydro require infrastructure that has impacts on the earth, but compromises must be made. We have simply over-populated our planet to the extent that we have no choice. Large scale photo-voltaic and concentrated solar installations also have these impacts. The decentralization of energy production decreases the impacts of large scale facilities. Small scale individual wind and solar arrays on homes and businesses decreases the need for large scale facilities. Nuclear energy has the potential to help us in this long transition, but the scale of the reactors needs to be brought down too, to decrease the threat of large scale catastrophe as we have recently experienced. More, smaller reactors like those in submarines and aircraft carriers would spread the risk while minimizing the impact of the inevitable accident. The transition to Thorium as a nuclear fuel source is another positive change that could provide safer nuclear energy as part of the energy we need.

Without going further into the various types of non-fossil fuel energy sources, I want to get back to envisioning the future where we are not dependent on fossil fuels and are getting the energy we need from these non-fossil alternatives.

However one might envision that future, it would be beneficial to consider the transition to that future. My thought is that if we can see that future in even the vaguest of levels of prediction, it would behoove us to make that transition as quickly as possible. In doing so, we push our civilization forward to that future. Those who lead that push are those who will profit the most from that transition.

At this point, the United States is not leading the push. The U.S. adoption of alternatives is well below countries that have made it their policy to proceed with a transition to alternative energy. As fossil fuels are depleted, and become more expensive to extract, and their effects on the environment are realized in a more and more negative way. Those countries that have made a transition will be at a huge competitive advantage.

So, I advocate for a focused push in the United States toward that imagined future where fossil fuel supply does not have us fighting for economic survival. Where fossil fuel pollution does not ravage our planet. Where we lead in the push to a new energy future. The technologies are already in place. They will only improve as time goes on. We must adopt those technologies to the fullest extent possible as soon as possible.

I envision a future where our ability to harness the sun to produce the energy we need makes energy so available and is so inexpensive that has little to no impact on our daily lives. Let's get there as soon as we can.

Otter on video

 I saw this otter porpoising all the way across this pond, but I first saw it from a moving car, so by the time I stopped and got my phone/camcorder out I missed recording a lot of it. The video I do have has been cropped and is not very good quality, but the content is pretty cool. The otter spooked a fish which breached ahead of it, but the otter was uninterested and just kept porpoising on. There was another animal that poked just its head out of the water watching the otter, way out there beyond my capabilities of identification. Perhaps a mink or turtle?

These things deserve to be preserved for our great grand children's great grand children to have the chance to see. Please. Please. Please


click for Otter porpoising across pond video

The first day of spring

Today is the first day of spring. High temperatures in the low 80s Fahrenheit. Another climate change data point.

On my way to work in the morning, I pass a number of school bus stops.

At a number of these stops, the parents are there, in their cars, mostly SUVs, with the engines running. This is bad enough, and it bothers me in the depths of normal winters, but today? Really? It was 41 degrees. Have we really come to a place where 41*F is reason to run an internal combustion engine to warm us while we are outside for a few minutes? We must awaken the masses to the necessity of eliminating the waste of our limited resources. I would guess that these people are not maliciously screwing the planet, it likely hasn't occurred to them at all that they might not run their engines. That they might save money, gasoline, and pollution. It's a bit cool out, turn on the heat. Well if today was any indication, the earth is turning on the heat.

Nature notes: First mountain bike ride in the woods in two months. The woods are dry enough. Heard Spring Peepers for the first time this season. Found a partial skull of a young white tail buck.

Update:  With record setting temperatures this week, Wednesday and Thursday topped out in the low to mid 80s.  The morning temps were in the 50s and the engines were running.  Arrgg.

Spend better to improve the quality of the economic recovery

Having seen some political stories recently related to the slow but steady improvement in the economy, I would like to make a pitch for a new economy, one based on a vision of a better future, rather than a stumbling back to a false economy based on blind consumerism.

I like to look at "the big picture."  The bigger the better.  This means considering as many aspects of cause and effect of as many factors and issues as possible, over the longest time frame relevant to humanity.

Statistically, Americans are the greatest consumers in the history.  We, in recent decades, have not used that consumer power for the greater common good, but have used our resources for satisfying our own self serving desires.  Some economists believe that if we all act in a self serving manner, then "the rising tide" of all of that individual self satisfaction "will raise" the "all boats" of the collective economy.  I think Adam Smith called this "the invisible hand"(?)

I believe that as our human population has ballooned to 7 billion, and as technology has changed our economy, and as our world has become more economically connected, that this self serving consumerism does not serve the greater good.  People do not eschew their own self interest for the common good.  Cheap goods are seen as better because we can have more.  More is seen as better.  Greed is good.  Why have a small number of high quality items when one can, for the same money, have a high number of low quality items?  We all seem to want to save money to live better.  But does it really work out that way?  I do not think so.

As our economy recovers, I believe we should all consider the ways we use our individual resources to benefit ourselves AND the greater good.  If we think about the true costs of the goods and services we consume, and weed out the wasteful short term advantages of those things that we have collectively become accustomed to, we have a chance to build a more sustainable positive future for our economy and the planet.

We all consume, but in doing so, I advocate for eliminating wasteful consumption.  In some cases this is not easy.  Planned obsolescence is built into our economy in many ways.  I have heard it described as the fact that we use permanent materials to produce temporary items and temporary materials to produce permanent items.  "Disposable" is seen as a positive attribute of many of our consumer choices.  But if we consciously try to eliminate from our consumption those things that provide short term reward we can make a start to change our economy.  When purchasing something physical, consider the utility of the item as well as how long that utility will last, how long until that item is disposed of, and what the state of it is at disposal.

One of my greatest peeves is that so many items produced today are intended to be disposed of in the same condition that they are in when they are coming off of the production line.  For a simple example let's look at the basic thing that is a plastic fork.  Okay, yes they can break, but the vast majority of plastic forks are throw away (read land filled or incinerated) in exactly the same form as when they are produced, and after having been used for mere minutes. This is not something that serves the greater good.

So, as our economy recovers (I will reserve my many other observations on this topic for later posts) I encourage everyone to think about the goods and services they purchase with consideration to the real benefit they are providing and the real cost, including external costs, that they incur.

#1 The Tipping Point

Welcome to my Blog.  This is my first post.  When considering starting a blog, I have wondered what my first post would be.  First impressions are important. Although I will definitely delve into some of my more controversial opinions here, I will start with a simple observation and what I believe it means.  So here goes:


The Tipping Point?

During the year 2011, there were some extreme weather events and cycles throughout the world.  I got the feeling, and it kept growing throughout the year, that the planet was approaching and even surpassing the "tipping point" of environmental stability.  So as of now, I consider 2011 the year the extremity of the change became undeniable, and will watch to see over the years to see if the changes that take place point to 2011 as when the switch was flipped.

It is in this context that I provide the observation of some unusual events that have occurred on my own property in the last year.  After a heavy snowfall season in the winter of 2010-11 and a relatively wet summer, the fall of 2011 was so wet for so long that our basement sump pump cycled quite consistently from early September through mid December.  This was the first time since we bought our house in 1986 that our sump pump kicked in outside of the spring snow melt.  Each spring we get water in our basement, and the sump pump kicks in.  It can last for as little as 2 weeks or so, to as long as a month and a half or more.  It's not a huge amount of water, but as the snow melts and the water table is high, the cracks in our foundation leak water into the basement.  But once that big snow melt is done, no matter how much rain we have gotten, until 2011 we have never had the sump pump run later in the year.  So, during every annual snow melt we get water in the basement.   Except this year.  Yes, it's true, for the first time since we bought our house in 1986 our sump pump has not kicked in during the spring snow melt.  We have had an unusually warm and dry winter.  The snow is almost gone.  No water in the basement.  These two firsts are somewhat shocking after 25 years.  Coincidence?  I don't think so. What is next?  A friend of mine says "the great drought of 2012".  We'll see.

While this is my story, there are millions of stories of statistical anomalies out there.  We need to act to minimize the climatic changes that will occur.  Changes will continue, and extreme weather events will happen, but we can slow the changes and avoid the worst case senario if we live our lives with an awareness of the impacts our personal existence has on the Earth and act accordingly.


Nature note:  I did a short bike ride before dinner today.  As I passed wetlands around town, the call of red-winged blackbirds, back for the season and establishing their territories was a welcome sign of spring.