Delta

I have been outrageously fortunate in my life, for I have three loves.

The first is a gentle tide, ebb and flow everlasting
She is a quiet spouse who loves me like the moon
If I lay as the Earth, her soft body entangles mine, warming me as we fly through space

My second love is a supernova, or perhaps the Northern Lights
a burning building
Or a four-part harmony drifting through empty alleys

My third love is the most cruel mistress of them all
But even as she torments me I am enraptured by her beauty
The suffering is mine alone, yet she can be possessed by no man
This would lead some to call her harlot, but they mistake the nature of her majesty
Like a Buddhist or Trafalmadorian, she is not encapsulated by mortality

My first love is life-giver, doomed to decay in time
My second is a lighter-flame of passion
But my third is the Undying Queen of existence
And if you approach the world with soft eyes
She will be your true love too

"Withdrawing" From Iraq and American Imperialism

Cross-posted from the Th!nk3 blog here

This morning it was announced that the US had finished its planned withdrawal of all of its designated combat brigades from Iraq two weeks ahead of schedule, resulting in about 14,000 troops being withdrawn. Despite this, over 56,000 US troops remain in Iraq who are trained in combat and expected to continue combat operations, and the Obama administration plans to double the number of private military contractors in Iraq to 7,000. Could anyone rational expect there to not be a US military presence in Iraq anytime in the foreseeable future?

In the same stroke, Obama has just authorized an additional $600 million to further militarize the US-Mexico border in response to increasing migration into the US and escalating drug war violence along the border, even as Mexican President Felipe Calderon calls for a debate on drug legalization and former President Vincente Fox openly supports legalization. Both presidents have been staunch allies of the US in fighting the war on drugs, and since 2006, when Calderon entered office and increased pressure on Mexican drug cartels, it is estimated that over 28,000 people have been killed in Mexico as a result of the war on drugs.

In addition to increasing the militarization of the border, deportations from the US have risen for the 7th year in a row to an all-time high of 393,000 in 2009 under the Obama administration. Of those deported, 72% were from Mexico. The deport-and-militarize strategy is not a sustainable solution to illegal immigration, as it does nothing to address the root cause of why these people are coming to the US.

The true source of the problem lies in US polices that have been encouraged in/forced upon Mexico, particularly NAFTA and the drug war. NAFTA essentially implemented US farm policy in Mexico, favoring large corporate monoculture factory farms and destroying the ability of small farmers to make a living. The drug war, as explained above, caused an epidemic of violence in the country. With no way to make a decent wage and rampant, brutal violence, it should be no surprise that some of these people want to come to the US. Yet, as with 9/11, Americans refuse to see that our foreign policy and our imposition of will on others has resulted in backlash against us, so we characterize all Muslims as terrorists and all immigrants as blood-sucking leeches on our community.

It is a shame to see this influence continue to be exerted for no other reason than profit and greed again, this time in India. The Obama administration is reportedly pressuring the Indian government to provide leniency for Union Carbide, the company responsible for massive environmental and public health damages as a result of the 1984 Bhopal disaster and which is now a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Corporation, one of the largest in the world. The leverage is coming in the form of US support for millions of dollars of development aid from World Bank loans.

Fortunately, it is reassuring to see some countries take a stand against American imperialism. The Colombian Constitutional Court has recently ruled that a deal that would give US forces access to seven Colombian military bases and permit 800 US troops and 600 contractors to operate with diplomatic immunity in the country was unconstitutional. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai issued a statement requiring all private security contractors, of which the US employs about 26,000, to cease operations within four months.

On Social Darwinism

Cross-posted from the Th!nk3 blog here

Social Darwinism is the theory that applies Darwin's ideas of evolution to human social structures. The basic premise is that, like competition between different species, those who overcome struggle to prosper and reproduce are the ones most fit to survive and should be rewarded, while those who do not are not meant to survive and deserve no help. This kind of philosophy is behind ideas ranging from free market capitalism to conservative opposition of unemployment and welfare benefits to Nazism and Aryanism.

Proponents of this school of thought tend to ignore Darwin's ideas on an important aspect of survival of the fittest: competitive advantage - the aspect which affords a species greater survivability. Darwin argued that it was human's ability to cooperate (facilitated by our capacity for language) that was our competitive advantage and that allowed us to populate the most diverse and hostile regions of the globe. It has been our cooperation that has allowed our population to increase to such great numbers (whether this is really a good thing is debatable, but in terms of species survival and genetic variability it is beneficial) and to accomplish such enourmous feats as space travel.

I felt I needed to bring this up because it serves as an important reminder to us in the competition of why we're doing this, and to everyone else that we're all in this together. I see divisiveness growing throughout the world, from the Islamophobia that has flared up in America again, to the lack of aid reaching Haiti and Pakistan, to the international climate negotiation debacle, and it is up to us to remind our leaders what the world truly needs from them.

The English poet Albert Pine said, "What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal."

How Legalizing Drugs Can Help US Foreign Relations

Cross-posted from the Th!nk3 blog here

On its surface, the drug legalization question seems to be at most a national issue. Portugal has enjoyed some success with its decriminalization regime, while Amsterdam proceeds with re-criminalizing hallucinogenic mushrooms. Meanwhile, developing countries tend to favor harsh punishment for simple possession. However, 28,000 bodies over the last three years in Mexico and calls from their pro-drug war President Felipe Calderon to open the debate on legalization suggest a need for the international community to consider this issue.

The U.S. could benefit greatly from changing its international drug war policies, which are the source of much fear, mistrust, and anger towards the U.S. abroad. Furthermore, legalization of the drug trade would remove a major source of profit for international criminal and terrorist organizations.

In South America, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia are the top producers of cocoa, which is used to manufacture cocaine. U.S. relations with these countries have fluctuated over time. Peru and Bolivia, once allies with the U.S. in the War on Drugs, have cut off these ties after realizing the effect of U.S.-funded aerial spraying of cocoa fields on their economies, not to mention the impacts to human health and the environment. This led to massive amounts of cocaine trafficking in Colombia in the 1980s - and now that the U.S. is spending billions on its anti-drug programs/military buildup in Colombia, trafficking has shifted to Mexico, the location of massive amounts of recent drug war violence, while cocoa production in Peru is experiencing a resurgence. If drugs were legalized, the needless destruction of land would stop, Venezuela would not have to fear the massive buildup of U.S. troops near its borders, and the saved money could go toward community development in South America, stopping LRA violence in Africa, or any other of the world's problems (thus improving the world's view of the U.S.).

Afghanistan is the opium capitol of the world, producing 80-90% of the world's supply. Opium has had tremendous impacts on the economy there, making up over a third of the country's GDP. It is also a major reason for instability and U.S. resentment - protection of opium profits requires paying off insurgents or terrorist groups, often the only form of peacekeeping in remote regions, and the destruction of crops by U.S. forces threatens the livelihood of the people involved in the trade, which is about 10% of the population. Drug legalization would vastly decrease the profits made from farming opium poppies and encourage people to go back to farming traditional crops and raising livestock. It would also reduce the need of opium farmers to rely on insurgents for protection of their now-legal trade and help discourage people from that lifestyle if survival can be found through less extreme measures. Reductions in insurgents, while not the only factor in a very complicated situation, would help lead to a sooner end of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, which many view as the inevitable end to an unwinnable situation.

In Mexico, the U.S. spends countless dollars supporting President Calderon's drug war by supplying arms and training troops - only to have these troops defect to the drug trafficking organizations. Corruption is widespread throughout Mexico's government and police force, whether due to greed or these officials fearing for their safety. As the government comes down harder on drug traffickers, the violence escalates due to desperate traffickers struggling to protect their profits. As a result, schools in Mexico are now teaching elementary school children how to hide under their desks when shootouts start. Legalizing drugs and removing the profit motive would completely eradicate this violence, if not these organizations in their entirety.

The costs of the drug war are too high for a humane society to inflict on itself or any other. The international community needs to look to places such as Portugal that have figured out how to reduce the harms of drug use while eliminating the harms of prohibition.

To Show Our Strength

Cross posted from the Th!nk3 blog here

Last night on the Daily Show, John Stewart reported an excellent piece on the controversy surrounding a proposed Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City (to see the report, click here). To be clear, the plans are for a cultural center, not a mosque, and it is not actually on the site of the former WTC, but a few blocks away in an abandoned department store. Yet opponents are still fighting back fervently, some of the most extreme opposition coming in the form of banners on buses in New York depicting a plane about to crash into a flaming WTC tower and posing the question, "Why there?"

If this were a nation that upheld freedom of religion as defined by the First Amendment to the Constitution to the full extent of the law, this would be a non-issue - people may not like it, but the cultural center would be established nonetheless. Instead, Islamic cultural centers and mosques face opposition all across the country, from New York to California. For a country that claims to value freedom so highly, I am thoroughly embarassed that an elected public official would insinuate that Islam is "a cult" and should be persecuted as such (I believe that even cults, however you define the word, deserve respect and space, unless they perpetrate crimes such as forced childhood incest).

To not allow this cultural center to be built shows our weakness to the world. It shows that we, the American people, are weak enough to give in to bigotry and ignorance, to assume that all 1.4 billion Muslims in the world are extremists, and to not stand up for equality in the face of the extremists who oppose this place of diversity and learning. On the other hand, allowing it to be built shows the exact opposite - that we are strong enough to embrace diversity, to reconcile with a faith that has for years been persecuted and discriminated against within our own borders, and to recognize what our real enemies are in the War on Terror - fear, ignorance, and hatred.

I would propose that we allow these plans to proceed at an even higher degree. How would the world react if we allowed a mosque, a place dedicated solely to Islamic worship, to be built not near, but on Ground Zero, where the two towers once stood? It would be our olive branch to the Islamic community, a true sign that we want to make peace with the world, and a show of strength and unity in the face of violence and terror. My ideal plans along these lines would be a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, and an Islamic mosque all sharing the former WTC space together (not to exclude other religions, but I believe these three send the most powerful message) with a memorial to 9/11 in the center. The dedication would read something like:

'To those who bring us fear, we respond with courage
To those who bring us division, we respond with unity
And to those who bring us violence, we respond with peace.'

What's the opposite of global progress? US Congress

I used to think that it would take a major environmental disaster to kick the country into gear and get serious about climate change, but after three months of the BP Gulf oil disaster and record breaking heat waves across the country the Senate has given up on passing a comprehensive climate bill. While official statements suggest that the bill will be up for debate again after the August recess, it is doubtful that the Democrats will try to push hard on a controversial bill with the midterm elections approaching.

This will ultimately be more devastating to the UN climate negotiations than the failure to produce anything meaningful from the Copenhagen talks last December. Prospects for a legally-binding climate treaty were already nonexistent for COP-16 this December in Cancun and slim for COP-17 next year, but if the US fails to act by then the negotiations could completely fall apart. China and India are dumbfounded by this latest US development as they make serious headway in their climate efforts, and if the US continues to show up to the table empty-handed they may just walk away, having no incentive to stay involved.

I see a great parallel here between the financial crisis and the climate crisis. During the financial crisis, the government didn't get involved until Lehman Brothers failed, bailing out the rest of the banks. Will the US stay uninvolved in the climate crisis until the oil runs out or islands start disappearing? I certainly hope not, but there's not much giving me hope otherwise.

Th!nking about it some more

(Originally written March 25, 2010, but never published)

Earlier this week I traveled to Brussels to participate in the kick-off event of the third round of the Th!nk About It blogging competition, sponsored by the European Commission and the European Journalism Centre. The topic for this round is sustainable development and global cooperation, and specifically how the Millennium Development Goals can be met by the target year of 2015.

One of the most amazing things I found was that Europeans and others from around the globe overwhelmingly like Americans, even though they may dislike our foreign policy just as much. One speaker during the conference remarked “Americans are among the nicest, most generous people you will meet” even as he expressed his disbelief that we could support such outrageous foreign policy initiatives as those implemented by Bush (to be fair, Obama has continued many of these policies, so he's not off the hook either).

In particular, the War on Drugs has been devastating for American relations with developing countries such as Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, and Afghanistan that cultivate the crops used to produce narcotic drugs such as cocaine and heroin. In addition to providing a large source of income for these countries, these crops are an important part of the native culture. Among the Andean Indians of South America, chewing cocoa leaves to get relief from hunger and fatigue while working in the fields is the equivalent of coffee and cigarette breaks in our society. Who are we to say that people around the world can only enjoy the drugs our society deems acceptable?

Instead of oppressing these people's culture and livelihood, we should find a way to work together to combat our drug problems. One incentive for growing these crops is that prohibition makes the price of drugs artificially high, so if we were to legalize and regulate drugs we could reduce price and therefore supply and at the same time reduce outrageous spending by our government on drug control policies that not only have failed to reduce the supply and demand of drugs, but actually resulted in increased rates of drug use and availability.

In Afghanistan, Al-Queda understood that the people depended on the poppy harvest for their livelihood, and they were able to gain so much support because they chose to work with the population instead of destroying their source of income and an important part of their culture. We have the ability to solve so many global problems such as drug use and terrorism, but it can only be done if we choose to work with the rest of the world, not against them.

On Juarez, Afghanistan, and Wal-Mart: The Overwhelming Case Against Prohibition

I found it extremely ironic to read about this weekend's Ciudad Juarez shootings ("Two Americans killed in Mexico shootings") and the Afghan poppy harvest ("Afghan poppy harvest is next US challenge") side by side in this Wednesday's edition of the Collegiate Times (available here, page 4). All around us are signs of the immense failure of the War on Drugs, and yet prohibitionists continue to vouch for the efficacy of their approach. Drug use is indeed a problem, but it is one that should be addressed without causing brutal violence and massive unemployment. Unfortunately, prohibition does exactly that.

Making drugs illegal does not cause demand to disappear, so users are forced to turn to the black market to obtain their drug of choice, regardless of whether it is Adderall, painkillers, marijuana, or heroin. In this black market, suppliers face more risk, resulting in higher drug prices, but these prices create the potential for huge profits. Profits so large that they become worth killing for, which is what happens not only in Mexican border towns but also in our own inner cities. And in order to keep these profits, no one is off limits from killing, not even diplomats or police officers.

Now contrast this system to one in which drugs are regulated in the same manner as alcohol or tobacco. The primary distribution method for these two substances is not the black market, but the legal, regulated market, and because of this no one kills anyone in the regular course of business. In addition, the sales of these products are taxed, generating additional revenue for the state, and the people in charge of distributing these products are gainfully employed and presumably paying income taxes. The prohibitionist alternatives are imprisoning drug offenders and paying farmers not to grow anything, which both come at great cost to the state.

Even in our own country, the prohibitionist mentality is putting hard-working, law-abiding citizens out of work. Take the case of Joseph Casias, a dedicated employee of the Wal-Mart in Battle Creek, Michigan, whose hard work won him the award of Associate of the Year in 2008. Joseph also suffers from sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor, and to treat the severe pain caused by the affliction he uses medical marijuana, which is legal in the state of Michigan. Yet when he tested positive for marijuana in a drug screening following a work-related accident, the company decide to fire him last November. Furthermore, earlier this week it was reported that Wal-Mart was challenging his eligibility for unemployment benefits, although they have since changed their position, most likely due to the high volume of negative publicity they received in the media. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Joseph will be able to find another job to support his two children and pay for his medical bills in Michigan, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

All of this illustrates the high cost of prohibition, but it should also be noted that it is ineffective. In Portugal, the Netherlands, and other places that have decriminalized drugs, drug use has actually gone down in response to decriminalization, as more people are willing to seek treatment, among other reasons. And over the past 30 years in the US smoking rates, particularly among teenagers, have gone down, not because of making cigarettes illegal and using scare tactics, but because of honest education and open dialogue on the subject. In our great country that was founded, above all else, on the principle of liberty, it is time to end the fascist policy of prohibition.

My Vision for Our Decade

Although I don't know where yet, in the fall I will head off to law school to learn about resolving environmental disputes. I see the Senate and U.N. eventually passing climate legislation that's good but not great, and it will be up to the youth to make it so. Faced with new restrictions, business and industry will have two choices: to become our allies, working together toward compromises that can benefit the interests of everyone involved, or continue to be our enemies in an increasingly costly battle over regulation. In the midst of all this I see myself working to bring everyone to the table, business leaders, environmentalists, and government agents alike. Through this work we can create communities that provide their own energy, grow their own food, and take care of their own waste - communities that care about themselves and their future.

For Science!

Due to the highly political nature of the subject of its research, the IPCC is constantly under attack from critics and those opposed to climate change action, who hope to use anything that can be regarded as a mistake on behalf of the panel to turn public opinion against taking action on climate change. The most recent “scandal” concerns the panel's assessment of economic losses from catastrophe and their relation to observed global temperature increase.

The story, published by the Times Online on January 24, accused the IPCC of cherry-picking data from a then-unpublished study on the increasing costs of hazard loss since 1950. The study, which has since been published, compared the costs incurred by natural disasters to growth in population and infrastructure and found no increase in the impact of disasters, after accounting for growth, between 1950 and 2005, and a slight 2% increase in the impact of disasters between 1970 and 2005, when strong rises in global average temperature began.

However, the published study also included caveats on technical factors, such as strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005 and currency exchange rates, that could produce bias in the result, and so the author added a caution that there was “insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses”.

While revelations such as this reflect poorly on the IPCC (as they are designed to do), more scrutiny should also be given to the sources of these “scandals”, as it would appear that the Times Online is itself cherry-picking information to discredit the panel. The IPCC assessments are based on the entire body of climate change research, and one study that stands out would be insufficient to sway the conclusions reached by the entire panel.

The reality of the situation is exactly that. Although AR4 references the study that found the 2% increase in catastrophe losses since 1970, it also mentions that no other study has been able to detect a similar trend. The report offers a balanced view not only on this particular issue but on all of the research available at the time it was written. In fact, many have called the reports and processes of the IPCC conservative in that they require the agreement of hundreds of scientists before anything can be published.

In contrast, the Science and Environment Editor for the Times Online needs the approval of only a handful of managing editors (if that) for a story to be published, and while we hope that all journalists are proud enough of their profession to maintain their integrity, the truth is that the profit motive plays a much bigger role in the decision-making process of the editorial board for one newspaper than it does for a diverse group of hundreds of scientists – the amount of advertising on each group's respective website speaks clearly to this fact.

Thoughts on Election Day

So I wasn't planning on writing a blog today, even though it has been a little while, mainly due to the level of exhaustion I expected, but I did want to get a few thoughts down while they were fresh.

First of all, and I hope I'm not announcing this to anyone, but I'm disappointed Bryce lost. All told, he did an amazing job for himself and I can only anticipate what we'll see next from him. But much congratulations goes to the council-members-elect, particularly Cecile Newcomb, for earning their spots on the Blacksburg Town Council.

The statewide elections were an unsurprising let-down, and that's about all the space I'll waste on that.

Finally, this idea promoted by Wellstone Action about election day registration is starting to grow on me. That, and hearing about how easy it is to vote in other democratic countries such as Germany, really makes me consider the capitalistic slant towards those with more "freedom" present in our supposedly fair democratic process. Then again, the continued existence of the electoral college system serves as a certain truth about that notion.

Virginia Powershift 2009 Recap

Virginia Powershift 09 wrapped up a couple of hours ago, and after some good food (Chipotle!) and digesting (no pun intended) everything that happened, I wanted to share some of my thoughts. I'll start with some of the activities of the conference, then move to general observations.

The Petrol-Free Gypsy Carnival Tour: this was incredible! Thanks so much to Nick and Rachel. Over 11 days this past summer, they biked from Harrisonburg to Virginia Beach while making stops along the way to play shows and spread the good word about touring with people power instead of oil power. Oil funds war and other social injustices, as well as contributes to climate change, and so by opting out of oil they chose to support a more noble cause. I have no clue how to pull it off, but don't be surprised to see Dubnium biking around Virginia next summer.

Probably the most surprising thing I learned this weekend was that campaign contributions in Virginia are unlimited. Of course, a quick trip over to the Virginia Public Access Project makes that quite apparent: the largest contribution by an individual to McDonnell's campaign was $125,000, while for Deeds it was $175,000, and both campaigns had multiple organizations which had contributed over $1 million.

But by far the best workshop I attended was the social media workshop hosted by Tom Dawkins, currently of Ashoka. Tom is their "social media guy" and had a lot to say about the strategies and pitfalls of using social media and how it is well suited to activism. One of the best lessons I took away from this workshop was only doing as much as you can be good at; focus on your strengths, yes, but also focus them in a way that's truly effective. Climate change is only one of many issues I care deeply about, so this made me evaluate how effective I was working on multiple issues and projects as opposed to focusing on one or two, but I think that sort of evaluation leaves out the value of community and coalition-building that results (partially) from what I do. And, ultimately, those are two things that can always be added to; after all, "the market for belief is infinite".

Saturday was October 24th, the 350.org international day of action. Ours was one of over 5,300 actions that took place that day, and with participation in over 180 countries, this can be considered the first ever global day of action for anything.

Then, of course, came the keynotes. Mike Tidwell was brilliant as always, vividly describing the shocking effects of climate change already happening while passionately telling us why he fights on every day, and why we should too. Rachel Butler of SustainUS added another number to the mix: 43, as in 43 days (42 now) till the Copenhagen climate conference, 43 days left to get our members of Congress to pass as strong a climate bill as possible, and 43 days left to ensure that Obama will be in Copenhagen, leading the way as the world prepares to deal with the greatest threat to mankind ever known. Jessy Tolkan was very much herself and brought the fire and passion to us straight from Times Square, which 350 had taken over as part of the day of action, and couldn't have done more to get everyone there excited. She brought up one really important point during her speech, one again of numbers, which I'll elaborate on with the rest of this post.

At one point Jessy made a reference to the "60 or 70" people in the room, but in reality at the time there were probably less than 50 people. And that's embarrassing. This event should have easily had a couple hundred people, if not a thousand, but for various reasons didn't. And while I can't speak specifically to the organizing effort by George Mason students or recruiting efforts by other schools, I do have a couple observations to make as to why Virginia Tech, one of the top schools in recruiting for both national Powershifts, showed up with only 6 students.

Quite simply, the problem was us, the experienced Hokie climate activists. We (and I use this term loosely, as I personally did not have much to do with planning) may have thrown a somewhat successful Virginia Powershift last year, but it was our collective attitude that helped kill Powershift this year. We didn't think it was worth our time, we lacked faith in the ability of those organizing, perhaps because of our inflated egos from the long summer months we spent planning as opposed to five short weeks, and overall we didn't care. We didn't care if Powershift succeeded, and maybe even wanted it to fail because we'd be proven right, better, superior to those organizing this one.

Well, sorry guys, but by every standard other than numbers I consider this Powershift a success. Every workshop I attended gave me quality information and networking contacts that I know will continue to help me from this point forward. The small numbers might even have turned out to be a plus for networking because of the informal environment created.

Another point brought up to me at the post-Powershift party last night was that some people felt that they didn't need to attend because they already knew everything. This is the pinnacle of folly, one because you can never know everything, and two because Powershift is about more than just learning. It's about putting that knowledge to work and creating change in our communities and around the world. I know most of us know this already, but it's easy to forget; Powershift is a good reminder of why we're doing what we're doing, how important this is, and how many others are there right alongside us.

So what to do now? I'll reiterate what Rachel Butler said: we have 42 days till Copenhagen to get our political leaders on board. Are you up to the challenge?

It's Time For Virginia To Join The Debate

On Monday, the Department of Justice issued a memo directing US attorneys to avoid prosecuting “individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana”. For the 13 states with medical marijuana laws, this is a great step by the federal government to respect states' rights, but for those without such laws this should open the discussion.

In Virginia, we incarcerate people at a rate 9% higher than the already bloated national average, and as a result of this our taxpayers paid 12% more to keep these people incarcerated. We also have far fewer parolees and probationers compared to the rest of the nation. Instead of keeping all these people locked up, we should seek to save taxpayer money by not imprisoning nonviolent, otherwise law-abiding drug offenders. Furthermore, we should be talking about generating revenue for the state not by enforcing the senseless policies of prohibition, which 3 out of 4 Americans believe have failed, but by enacting sensible policies of regulation and taxation.

Digging Ourselves Out of a Hole?

Last Sunday, Daniel Goleman came to Blacksburg to talk about his new book, Ecological Intelligence. Not surprisingly, more than a few people were angry at the message he was sending. The notion that we can consume our way out of the environmental problems we now face is absurd. The impacts of continuing to consume at current rates and a steadily rising population that wants to mimic our patterns of consumption will not be offset by consuming stuff that is less bad.

But on the other hand, as consumers we should have the level of detailed information about products that Goleman suggests with his notion of "radical transparency". We should know the full impact of what we're getting before we get it. And in a sense, this same logic was behind the controversial First & Main development in Blacksburg.

In their proposal, Fairmount Properties used the terms "residential" and "mixed-use development" several times, but when it came time to build the only concepts on their mind was commercial and big-box retail. So of course members of Town Council were upset by the deception and fought the project that they didn't approve.

Last night, at the Town Council Candidate Forum hosted by the SGA, a couple candidates voiced their feelings that the Town Council erred on this issue, that they should have been fully supportive of any commercial development in Blacksburg as a boon to the tax base, whatever the cost. This kind of thinking is short-sighted, as it fails to consider even the current needs of the schoolchildren located right next to where the proposed big box would have been, much less the character and future of the town.

An onslaught of unbridled economic growth can hardly be called sustainable; while it may ensure that Blacksburg may still exist in 50 years, it would hardly be the Blacksburg that we know and love today. Although some of the candidates would have you believe this myth, one look at the way Christiansburg has developed and the impacts of sprawl on its smaller population should be all it takes to convince you that the need for economic development needs to be carefully balanced with concerns of social and environmental sustainability. Bryce Carter, Susan Anderson, and Cecile Newcomb were three candidates who showed that they understand this balancing act and that they desire more for Blacksburg than endless strip malls and box stores from South Main to Christiansburg and all the way out Prices Fork Road.

Sustainability can be tough, but by recognizing the importance of all three legs of the stool, social, economic, and environment, our town can grow to meet all the needs of its residents while remaining the Blacksburg we love. But focus too much on one aspect, and the stool begins to tilt while the hole next to it gets deeper.

Virginia Tech: Move Beyond Coal

This week, Apple joined a host of other companies, including Exelon, the nation's largest utility, in resigning from the US Chamber of Commerce because of the group's opposition to climate legislation. Other companies to resign include PNM Holdings and PG&E, two large utilities, and Nike decided to step down from the Board of Directors. The Chamber's calls for a new Scopes Monkey trial on climate change, as well as their intensive lobbying efforts against the climate bill now before the Senate, prompted the string of resignations.

What we're seeing here is a clash of paradigms between those who want the world to stay the way it was, and those who are accepting the new reality of the situation we face. As John Rowe, chairman and CEO of Exelon, put it, “The carbon-based free lunch is over”. Fossil fuel energy is on its way out, and it's up to Virginia Tech to decide whether they will keep up with the times or become completely irrelevant. And this has to start right here on campus, with our very own coal-fired power plant.

The good folks at Exelon aren't the only ones who realize this change is coming. China has recently announced plans to cap and reduce their carbon intensity (that is, tons of CO₂ per dollar GDP). Because of this and other recent efforts by the Chinese government, China is quickly becoming one of the fastest growing markets for renewable energy. Or, to look at it from another perspective, consider Applied Materials, a US-based microchip manufacturing company that also makes machines that manufacture solar panels. Currently they have 14 factories making these machines, and not a single one of them is in the US. The green energy economy is quickly expanding, but it seems the US is being left behind.

Coal is dirty business. From the mining and extraction to the burning and disposal of its waste, there is no aspect of using coal for energy that does not harm the environment. In addition, the impacts of climate change are becoming readily apparent, and with CO₂ levels soaring above scientists' worse-case scenarios, things are looking grim. The time for action is now.

Virginia Tech’s Beyond Coal student group is working hard to be a leader in the green energy movement through supporting the Obama Administration’s efforts to reduce climate change through legislation and by raising awareness of the irreversible damages of coal burning. On September 16th, a group of students marched from the coal plant to Burruss Hall to present a report on the dangers of using coal as a power source and the urgency of the need for change. As a university, we have the resources to be leaders in the research, development, and implementation of clean energy alternatives, so why not take that step, close down the coal plant and make a true commitment as a University to sustainability?

We have a choice, we have a voice, and we have the responsibility to preserve our planet. The time is now for us to come together and progress Beyond Coal.

The Other Side Of The Coin

Yesterday, John Podesta, CEO of the Center for American Progress, wrote about how we're arguing about the wrong things in the climate debate. It doesn't matter whether we go with a carbon tax or cap and trade, or how we allocate permits. These are merely tools. What we need to focus on is what the solution looks like: renewable energy.

By heavily investing in renewable energy and funding incentive programs (like net metering), we can reinvigorate our economy and breathe some life back into the crippled middle class. But what happens if we don't?

China has pledge $440 to $660 billion dollars over the next ten years to renewable energy. South Korea is ready to invest billions more to gain a competitive edge. Germany is already the biggest player on the market. If we don't make a seriously large investment in renewable energy soon, we could lose our chance to become a major contender in the industry. We'll continue to import our energy, from China instead of Saudi Arabia, and the economy will continue to suffer as more jobs are lost and tax revenue shrinks. Indeed, this could be the turning point for an American manufacturing industry already in decline: will we salvage it, and rebuild our country with a clean energy economy, or are we content to let the decline continue and let fossil fuel execs profit until there's nothing left?

I'll end with a quote from the only TV show I seriously consider worth watching, The Wire. "You know what the problem is? In this country, we used to make stuff. Now we all have our hands in the next guy's pocket."

A Hazardous Situation

Margaret Mead said it best: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Certainly this is true of the various examples of popular epidemiology that we have seen: several concerned citizens, aware at some basic level of an ongoing problem, join together to find answers to their questions and seek justice for those wronged. Deborah Stone (The Policy Paradox, 2001) would call these groups concentrated interests, people closely connected to an issue and heavily invested in achieving their desired outcome, which in most cases consisted of restitution to those who suffered, reparation of damage done to the environment, and better preventive measures by corporations and regulatory agencies.

While the emotionally-charged stories they told were successful in obtaining compensation for victims and cleanup funds not only for their specific sites but for future incidents (i.e. the 1986 Superfund reauthorization), it is doubtful that citizen suits have done much to enhance preventative steps taken except those that stem from a corporation's self-interest in not facing lawsuits of potentially millions of dollars. Not much has changed with the EPA either: a lack of funding and time plus regulations that place the burden on the EPA to show the hazardous nature of new chemicals results in hundreds of untested, potentially unsafe chemicals in the marketplace.

Despite the interest of what could easily be millions of people, whether they be victims or past participants of popular epidemiological studies, environmentalists, or people concerned with their health and the health of their children, these rules are not likely to change anytime soon because of the billions of dollars it would mean for a handful of corporations. According to Stone's logic, the concentrated interest overpowers the dispersed one, and so this is the system our society has chosen: a system that completely disregards the precautionary principle and exposes each of us to thousands of potential risks each day (contrast that with Europe, where rigorous testing is required before a new chemical can be introduced). Yet no one complains forcefully; that is, until another new chemical wreaks havoc and the public cries in outrage against corporate greed and indifference and bureaucratic timidness. But who among us will really stand up for the precautionary principle?

The State of Our Democracy

One of the objectives of a democratic society is to ensure that the interests of all its citizens are represented not equally but fairly. This necessarily requires that all citizens be equally able to express their concerns and have them championed by their servants in government. However, in the United States today this is not the case due to several factors, the main ones being low voter turnout, capitalism, and the two-party system.

Low voter turnout, Rousseau would argue, is a sign of bad government because it reflects a general attitude among its citizens that “the general will will not prevail” and therefore instead of being a servant, elected officials become representatives of their entire constituencies while advancing the interests of only those who put them there, i.e. the majority that elected the official and the contributors who allowed the official to run his or her campaign. And who are the underrepresented parties? Primarily young people and minorities. Young people, before they reach adulthood, are accustomed to being subverted by authority regardless of their interests and have no expectation that this pattern will change; the same can generally be said of minorities.

Capitalism has caused democracy to count votes not by citizens but by dollars. And it is no secret that in elections, especially state and local elections, the candidate with more money wins the vast majority of the time. As such, it meant for the longest time that the chief interests advanced by servants in government were those of corporations. It has been only recently, within the past 30 years or so, that citizen groups have sunk to the level of corporations and begun expensive lobbying campaigns. And when citizens would rather pay another to advocate for them than take to the streets to demand their needs, “the State is not far from its fall”.

The two-party system only serves to entrench the tyranny of the majority within our government. For example, which party is the anti-empire peace advocate supposed to support? Under both Republican and Democratic administrations have we seen our military budget steadily increase, even as our nation falls deeper into debt and recession. The ones who profit are the military contractors who our nation becomes more enslaved by as their pockets swell. Indeed, moneyed interests have captured our public servants, and the media, for the most part slaves to those same interests, serve only to maintain the illusion of representative democracy and distract the public from critical issues at hand. What can we do to reinvigorate U.S. citizens' interest in government and public service?

Time for Our Lives (draft)

A new poem to hold you over until my next blog post(hopefully tomorrow): What would I sacrifice for a climate bill?


Time for Our Lives
The time for our lives was yesterday
Today there's no room for making-do.
Getting by has seen its time
And the day has come for getting done.
This Juliet-and-her-Romeo
between the ground and the sky
Is about to reach the turning third try
And man's role is Mercutio.

We know where we're going
And how to get there quick too.
We'd prefer to be elsewhere
But would anyone be with you?

Who am I to make this query?
I see the world through star-glazed eyes
Imperfection rectified
Innocence, unadvised.
Even enemies, when they succeed,
I can hardly debase them so.
Behind our disagreement
Is our common cause
Mine
Yours
The fate of the world

And so is the fate of the One-Manned Sword
And the Library of Written Never
And consumed, in the belly of the Winged Snake,
Is the Galaxy of Ever.

Part II Begins: First Climate Bill Hearing in Senate

That's right, folks: after just passing in the House by a slim margin on Friday, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) will be discussed in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works this Tuesday, July 7. While I won't be able to attend myself, I encourage everyone who can to go to this hearing. It's at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate building, room 406.

The witness list for the hearing is pretty typical, although there are two interesting additions: John Fetterman, the mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, and Haley Barbour, the Republican governor of Mississippi. Fetterman's career as mayor began four years before his election, when he moved to Braddock while working for AmeriCorps. He has been a significant force for development in the area, providing low-rent housing, youth educational opportunities, and community art exhibitions, helping revitalize the town in the face of a declining population and a global recession. He is also a proponent of developing green energy as a means to revitalize the region's economy.

Haley Barbour, the newly appointed chair of the Republican Governors Association in the wake of the Sanford scandal, is certainly not one you would expect to support climate legislation. But despite his dubious record, there are indications that he will bring a reasoned perspective to the debate, unlike that of many extreme conservative pundits. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Governor Barbour promoted New Urbanist principles to the communities faced with the task of reconstruction, saying "the goal is to build the coast back like it can be, rather than simply like it was".

The other witnesses include Steven Chu, secretary of the Department of Energy; Lisa Jackson, administrator of the EPA; Tom Vilsack, secretary of the Department of Agriculture; and representatives from Dow Chemical Company and the Natural Resources Defense Council. For more information, go here.