Ethics and the Environment (with some economics and politics thrown in)

Trying again: Let's start with frankenfish and consumers' right to know

2012-01-18T09:28:00.000-08:00

© 2012 Joshua Stark

According to some producers, wild salmon just don't grow fast enough. Oh sure, a Chinook salmon can reach 40+ pounds in two years, feeding for free and adding to the health of our lands and waters as it does, but this kind of willy-nilly public resource just doesn't cut it for those who wish to have complete control over their market. So in the name of profit, these folks have genetically engineered a species of salmon that grows over twice as fast as wild fish. Meant to be farmed in closed systems, these GE salmon will be fed by fishing for baitfish, presumably, and will not be allowed to enter our oceans, for fear that they will out-compete and destroy wild salmon. First, however, the producers of this fish must get past the FDA, which doesn't look like too big a hurdle.

While the FDA wrestles with the question of legalizing GE salmon for consumers, California is considering whether or not to require labels identifying such meat as GE in the marketplace. And while I might address the basic question of even allowing GE salmon at some future point, right now I want to address consumer knowledge in the marketplace.

This, of course, is a no-brainer outside of the halls of governance: Libertarians to Socialists agree that consumers have the right to know where and how their food comes to be. Even the opponents of the labeling bill (AB 88) couch their opposition in a manner that acknowledges some leeway in labeling requirements, arguing not that they shouldn't be labeled, per se, but that such requirements are the responsibility of the federal government, not the State.

In reality, the bill's opponents are concerned that if consumers know what they are buying, they will probably choose not to buy it (about 50% say they wouldn't). Really, consumer choice is the issue here, and California has every right to require labeling.

What is the California Delta to you?

2011-10-06T07:39:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Dan Bacher has an update on Delta issues - noting that federal representatives of the Delta and North Coast recently met with the new Delta Czar, Jerry Meral. Their reason: To let him know that they have "grave concerns" (Mr. Bacher's language) about the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. Add their voice to the many groups who've been involved for years fighting to make the Delta whole and healthy.

According to Mr. Bacher, the Reps.' concerns are over a peripheral canal. However, if you read the quotations, it sounds like those representatives are not as adamant about opposing a canal as is Mr. Bacher. This is too bad, and we constituents need to let them know that we want solid, explicit language opposing any conveyance around the Delta.

Make no mistake: Any peripheral canal would be an ecological compromise, at best; at worst, it would be an ecological and economic disaster for a fertile, diverse, unique region.

Everybody rips on the Delta, but the Delta is California's crown jewel, the source of our very life: from its water, the foods that come from its amazing soil (with no need to go against gravity), and its unique habitats. From the way it is talked about in the news and in so many watercooler conversations, you would think that it is a festering sore on the face of the Earth, a cesspool of pollution, devastation and death just waiting for a catastrophe to rip it wide open and spread famine everywhere. But, we have made ugly in concept something that is beautiful in fact - even now - and we do it because we do not understand our physical connection to it.

You, who drink water in Los Angeles, water that is pumped hundreds of miles and over an entire mountain range, you are connected to the Delta: It infuses your cells, hydrates your body, helps fire your synapses.

You, who spray water to ever-saltier flats on the West Central Valley, you are connected to the Delta: It lines your pockets, pays your kids' tuitions, keeps your workers happy.

And we, throughout the world, who buy California produce, we are all connected to the Delta: It grows the largest agricultural industry on Earth, it builds our muscles and bones, forms our staffs of life, grows our children's eyes and brains. We sanctify it, pray over it, cook it up, add it to our very selves. We are made of the Delta.

And this is good.

But if we are to continue to benefit from it, then we must treat it right. Many billions of other lives depend on the Delta, too, and the Delta, as any ecosystem, depends upon those lives for its own health. There is no separation of a wetlands habitat from its water without loss and significant change, and we, as Americans, have taken on the responsibility of caring for those creatures we have harmed.

Mr. Bacher notes a sad new record set this year: more Sacramento splittail minnows were killed at the pumps this year than any other. Nine million little lives lost for the pumps, while more water was pumped than ever before.

All of this that is the Delta - the devastation as well as the vitality, goes into those things we put in our bodies to keep ourselves whole.

So next time you start to think about the Delta as a horrible place, just remember: The Delta is You.

Professor Mankiw's frustrating comment - with no chance to comment!

2011-09-27T07:08:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Sorry for the non-environmental post, but the Harvard Econ. Professor Greg Mankiw has me a tad frustrated this morning.

I'm no economist, and so, if he cared to, I'm sure Mr. Mankiw could come in and take apart my comments here, (frankly, I'd love that, because I want an accurate representation of economics out in the public, and where I'm mistaken, I want to be corrected). My real problem is that the Professor posts to a blog, but doesn't allow comments.

First, I would hope Mr. Mankiw would understand that the interactive nature of the internet makes it a world-changing phenomenon, and participate wholeheartedly in this interaction. Second, I think by opening comments, Mr. Mankiw would watch his own posting a bit more carefully. Case in point:

I'm poking through the cadre of economic minds on-line (starting at Env-Econ, of course) this morning, and I come across a little post by Prof. Mankiw. He ends this three-sentence post with:

"If you can remember only one fact, make it this one: The middle class (middle quintile) pays 14.1 percent of its income in federal taxes, while the rich (top tenth of one percent of the population) pay 30.4 percent."

Of course, I'm frustrated by this comment, because it misses a basic economic concept, "diminishing marginal utility". But, when I scroll to the bottom of the page to respond, I find no way to comment!

So, I'm taking time to point out a couple of mistakes that Mr. Mankiw makes in his inference (as I understand it, he is inferring here that our federal tax system is sufficiently progressive).

First of all, as he points out, the richest 1/10th pay about double in "federal taxes" (we'll get to that definition in a minute) what the middle quintile pays. My immediate question: What is 14% to a person making the middle quintile vs. 30% to one of the richest 1/10th? So, I follow the link he posted, and I find that the middle quintile is defined as people making between ~ $34k and $62k, while the richest 1/10th are defined as making over about $2,468,000.

Then I ask: What is the marginal utility of this money - the relative impact of 14% on $34k ($4760) vs. 30% on $2,468,000 ($740,400)? Am I the only one to see that the five grand is way more valuable to the person making $34k than the $750K is to the person making the nearly $2.5 million? If you don't see that, then realize that I just swallowed the poorer persons yearly after-tax salary in the rounding error for the richer person.

Now, consider that these were just the examples of the poorest in the group. For the richest of the 1/10th, we are talking billions upon billions of dollars earned per year.

Upon closer examination, then, it becomes obvious that 14% is a far heavier tax burden on the middle quintile than 30% is on the richest 1/10th.

And there is one other problem. The "effective federal tax rate" Mr. Mankiw uses doesn't even include federal excise taxes - like the 18.4 cents-per-gallon on gasoline. For poorer people, these taxes are heavy burdens (one study showed that the folks in the middle quintile pay about a quarter of their income on transportation), but for rich folks, that regressive tax is almost nil.

Professor Mankiw, please consider teaching folks in the ether about real tax burdens and economic concepts (like diminishing marginal utility), and please oh please start participating in the earth-changing world of the interwebs.

I'd be tickled pink if you'd start here.

Sec. Salazar continues the time-honored tradition of promising California hydrological miracles

2011-09-20T07:19:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Mike Tougher has a good article in the San Jose Mercury News about Interior Secretary Salazar's comments on pumping Delta water to Central and Southern California.

Last year, when I pointed out that Meg Whitman (remember when she ran for Governor?) promised more water, I gave her the benefit of the doubt and chalked it up to the pressures of a live debate (I'm sure I'd look like a complete moron in a live debate, so I'm always judging those events nicely). Secretary Salazar, when taking questions before the Commonwealth Club, might also get the benefit of the doubt. It was a live, well-respected audience.

But the comments Mr. Tougher reports show a man flirting with serious conflicts with physics. And believe me, physics always wins.

From Mr. Tougher's report: "Salazar said building a new aqueduct around the Delta might increase the flexibility of water operations in such a way that it could lead to more water deliveries."

The Delta needs x amount of fresh water each year. We aren't sure what x is, yet, but we know that in a typical year it is more than it now gets. If freshwater is diverted from the Delta, it will suffer an ecological decline.

Mr. Salazar later visited the new fish screens put up to protect fish from the South Delta pumps. Unfortunately, what Mr. Tougher failed to note is that the sucking up of fish into the pumps is only one of the ways they impact endangered and threatened species. Their overall impacts on the flow of water through the Delta also kills fish by confusing them and sucking them into predator pits.

But never forget that removing actual habitat (i.e., through a peripheral canal) is not the cure for pump impacts on tides and flows. The single greatest ecological and economic benefits for both the Delta and the rest of the Central Valley would come from farming the Westlands for solar power.

Physics can be our friend.

What's rural? Wild? Urban? Nobody really knows

2011-09-09T07:29:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Matt Weiser has an interesting article about Sacramento's recent, apparent uptick in violent human/wild animal encounters the past two weeks. In particular, a couple of animals have been found with rabies (sad and scary, as anybody whose seen Old Yeller can tell you).

Coming from the country, I love how these stories are often told with surprise and awe about how these animals can live in such seemingly unnatural environs; namely, our cities.

First, I don't know how even humans live in these seemingly unnatural environs, but let's look past that, and consider the reality of our habitats and communities: Nothing in nature respects political boundaries because they don't really exist.

There is no such thing as a "city" in nature. Roads, rivers, bike trails, ditches, empty lots, power and sewer lines... the list of entryways into cities is long, and animals that have a high tolerance for humans and similar tastes find cities very inviting, indeed. Cities offer wonderful shelters from weather and feasts for omnivores, and there is little we can do about it. Conversely, traffic, agriculture, flood and fire control are a few examples of how the "urban" infiltrates and impacts those places we consider rural and wild, altering them completely.

Certain animals thrive under conditions that humans create. As Bill Tweed, former Chief of Interpretation at Sequoia National Park, once pointed out, scavenging omnivores love food-storing omnivores; and, what are we, if not the consummate food-storing omnivore? It would be very unnatural if other animals did not take advantage of our largesse.

For its part, Sacramento's wildlife may be wilder than most cities, which can, ironically, help bring down animal encounters. We are blessed with a Wild & Scenic river corridor running right through the city, providing habitat for pipevine swallowtail butterflies to mule deer. These wilder habitats offer more appropriate shelter and foods for those raccoons, skunks, opossums, and others who may be tempted to hit up houses and parking lots.

(If you are interested, you can read more of my posts on the illusions of rural, wild and urban here, here, and here).

President Obama concedes the wrong point in pollution regulation

2011-09-02T12:16:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

President Obama has pulled back from his earlier proposal to put stricter limits on ground-level ozone, a major pollutant and cause of asthma attacks and deaths, reports the Associated Press.

By this act, the President has conceded to opponents the very idea that pollution regulations are job killers, and opened the door to a flood of rollbacks, and the subsequent pollution increases that will come with them.

Hard choices have to be made, and the President has ducked a big one right here. Sadly, he has done it by buying into the notion that pollution control is a net loss to our economy, thus legitimizing the idea, even though, under our current circumstances, it almost never has merit.

In our dirtiest places, Americans live like 3rd World countries. California's Central Valley has thousands of Americans who can't even drink their own tap water, and one-fifth of their children have asthma (for a thorough look at the impacts of asthma and ozone on the Valley, click here).

The regulation that the President has backed off would have direct impacts on asthma rates in places like the Central Valley, improving the quality of life for millions of Americans, particularly the poor. But, what would be the economic impact?

Well, in 1997 the EPA estimated that asthma cost the U.S. between $9 and $11 billion (today, that would be $12.5 to %15 billion). And these rates don't calculate lost productivity due to parents' worries over a hospitalized child, stress from losing a child, young people's inability to perform work throughout their life due to their impaired physiques and oxygen loss during growth.

Additionally, these calculations don't take into account the value of individual dollars - a gaping intellectual hole when calculating economic impacts. Simply put, one dollar is worth more in a poor person's hands than it is in a rich person's hands, especially now. A poor person, when getting a dollar, will spend that dollar, because it is more valuable turned into food than it is sitting in a bank. A rich person may spend that dollar, or they may save it, because its value as a saved dollar may be bigger than its value as one more hamburger.

Right now, our economic problem is in large part due to our low total demand for goods and services because we can't afford them, because there isn't enough circulating money. Money isn't circulating because we have too many people out of work, unable to afford things.

We are in the beginning stages of a vicious cycle, economically-speaking, and this cycle has nothing to do with our pollution. But, regulating our pollution can go a long way toward ending this cycle and getting us out of our current slump. Robust pollution regulation can lead to direct job growth in the testing and regulating industries (often public-private partnerships), and it will lead to increased productivity among those who would see improved health. The additional demand from this growth of more valuable dollars would lead to increased supply to meet that demand, pushing up employment.

Make no mistake, companies who fight these regulations want to pollute. If they didn't want to pollute, they would not care about the regulation. They do not care about total demand, they do not care about social health improvements. The individuals who work in these companies might care, but officially and professionally, they don't make their decisions based on what is good for the nation; they cannot, because the pressures of their fiduciary duties and their pressures to see quarterly profits are too great.

Economic reasons aren't the only reasons for robust pollution controls, and they shouldn't even be the first reasons. But, there are real economic benefits to robust pollution control, and the President, by ignoring these, has lost sight of the good of the nation and has given over to ideas that will further stunt our growth, economically and otherwise.

Grist wins me over - with sensible talk about population control

2011-09-01T15:40:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

In response to Vice President Biden's comments on China's one child policy, Grist's senior editor Lisa Hymas posted an article debunking some myths about the policy. But what she really does is bust population control as a place for government intervention, and for that, Grist should be commended.

Sport, or not? Hunting, philosophy, & language

2011-08-25T14:32:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

It's funny, because my title, compared to those at Holly's, Tovar's, and Phillip's, is pretty high-falutin, but I won't go nearly as deep as they.

Currently, these three sites are having a great philosophical conversation over whether or not A: hunting is a sport; and B: whether that is good or bad.

Tovar and Holly (and me, to be honest) take the tack that hunting, to us, is not "sport" in the general sense of the word, and that the term dilutes, diminishes, and ultimately harms hunting in the general public's eyes. Phillip, bless his soul, embraces his hunting as sport, and gently chides us for falling for stereotypes (sport and "trophy" hunters as bad folks), rather than trying to destroy them. His inference (which he's made more clear at other times) is that the hunting community shouldn't be torn apart by these esoteric distinctions.

Personally, I don't think hunting is a sport, in the general definition of the term. That is, I believe that the impacts to hunting (physically, emotionally) separate it from the category of sports. Specifically, I think the fact that you try to kill an animal during hunting (and much fishing) means that it is, inherently, different from other categories of recreation, and "sport" has a dismissive tone to it nowadays that diminishes the gravity of killing. I, for one, don't use the term for this very reason.

Phillip's argument seems, to me, a bit off-focus. First, he seems to define "sport" as encompassing all recreational pursuits. If this is true, then I concede that hunting is a "sport", but I don't buy his definition. I think there are many pursuits, and that within the realm of recreational pursuits there exists both sports and other things (reading, for example). There are also some activities that are both recreational and something else, entirely. For example, many people do not grocery shop as a recreational pursuit, but many people fish for both recreation and food.

There are characteristics to the common definition of "sport" that do not ethically fit with hunting, especially when considered from the perspective of the non-hunting public. For example, sport tends to have a competitive element, but when that is applied to hunting, the non-hunting public imagines people who want to kill something in order to beat somebody else, and they tend to be repulsed by this urge.

It seems as though Phillip is really upset that some hunters condemn certain hunting practices or attitudes, and that this leads to fractures in hunting that may jeopardize it for all of us. He gives a lecture on the evils of stereotypes, and ends by suggesting that Tovar and Holly are not trying to destroy stereotypes, but are actually bolstering them by taking a side.

But, this isn't a case of stereotypes, this is a case of identifying unethical actions and condemning those actions. I (and probably Tovar and Holly) aren't taking a group of people, identifying them by one shared characteristic and then attributing to them additional characteristics that aren't true. We are saying that a particular action may be, or is, wrong. In the case of hunting, there are people who hunt for trophies, there are hunters who kill only to kill, and I (and probably Tovar and Holly) do not believe this is ethical behavior. We have a different standard from Phillip (we don't draw the ethical line at the law, which is a totally different conversation). But, that's okay. Hunting, like all good human endeavors, will thrive when people think more deeply about it and talk openly about it.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if hunting couldn't survive public scrutiny, then it shouldn't survive it. I, for one, know that much of it is good and important to pass down, including the ethical considerations. I know hunting can survive this argument.

(Note: Phillip's link doesn't seem to be working, so go to his main website page for reference.)

Yo-Yo: Grist with a good article on eating fish

2011-08-17T07:21:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Grist has a good interview with chef/author Barton Seaver about eating seafood. It's a tad light on actual tactics for improving our ocean conditions by eating seafood, but it is still worth a read.

This is a big step away from the opinion piece it ran a couple of weeks back on an oyster farmer's desire to own more farms at the expense of other fisheries... well, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, but that is how it read to me.

Mr. Seaver does explain one tactic for improving our impact, and it happens to be one of my favorites: Eat lower on the seafood food chain. He doesn't make the claim so directly, but the fish he points out that need to be replacing the giant, slow-growing (and often toxin-laden) predators we currently eat are smaller prey species like sardines and mackerel. These just so happen to be the tastiest fish one can eat (we had grilled, whole sardines two nights ago!), and they are also cheaper than the big ones.

It was a refreshing change to read at Grist, though it wasn't a complete rebuttal to the earlier piece.

Level-headed and honest discussions about famine, climate change & overpopulation

2011-08-12T19:46:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Within ten days, two separate radio programs addressed the controversy around overpopulation, and they did it exactly like it should be done: in passing, dismissing it as a separate threat, and mentioning it only in the context of sociopolitical pressures and poverty.

These two shows? Forum, with Michael Krasny, and Talk of the Nation Science Friday, with Ira Flatow.

In the Forum episode, an update on Somalia, Semhar Araia, the regional director for OxFam's work on the horn of Africa, addressed an email from a listener who railed about Somalia's inability to feed its too crowded landscape. In perhaps two sentences, Mr. Araia stated clearly that Somalia has the ability to feed itself even under the current circumstances. People were starving to death there because militia groups were preventing them from reaching food.

It is as simple and as horrifying as that. Somalia doesn't suffer from brown and black people having too many babies, it suffers under the hands of vile militias.

And today on Science Friday, in an entire discussion (I think it was a half-hour) on food, its production, and climate change, only a few scant seconds were given to overpopulation as a problem in and of itself. Ira Flatow started off with the fear-mongering threat we often hear - by 2050 there will be 9 billion people - and the respondent replied, to agreement with the other speakers, that: first, we may not even reach 9 billion by 2050; second, we grow enough under current situations to feed all of us; third, the problems are an overpopulation of poverty and distribution - and more specifically, that when people get out of abject poverty, they will want to eat more and different foods; fourth, climate change is going to impact our yield, and so we need to study those impacts and do what we can to mitigate them.

Again, that was it. Overpopulation was not the problem. (For the record, I think Mr. Flatow was lobbing a softball in his question on overpopulation.)

I hope to post a bit more on the Science Friday show, because there is so much in there to take apart related to ethics and the environment, but I wanted to make the overpopulation issue clear: For most folks seriously working to improve food security, overpopulation isn't the problem.

Opinion piece in Grist gets it wrong about fishing

2011-08-11T06:18:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

There are few controversies in the environmentalist world quite like fishing. Most folks agree that most recreational (though I hate that term) fishing is a great way for children to connect directly to the wild in a special way, a way that often begins a lifetime of love and appreciation for the outdoors; fishing is often our gateway. Really, only the animal rights groups have a problem with recreational and subsistence fishing, and as I've pointed out before, "animal rights" is not environmentalism.

But, then there is "commercial fishing", that ugly moniker attached to images of mutilated sharks, denuded seascapes, and "Whale Wars".

Yet, there is more to commercial fishing than many give credit. Commercial fishing, when done right, is a powerful way for many people to connect to the wild, through their food. In fact, commercial fishing is the only major food market left with a direct connection to and need for healthy wild places. And many organizations and fishing groups have tried to make commercial fishing an ecologically viable enterprise, especially in the past couple of decades, and especially in California.

Also, consider commercial fishing's impact to wildness vs. farming's impact. As one fisheries biologist points out, commercial fishing, at its worst, impacts about 30% of habitat, while agriculture, at its best, still impacts very nearly 100%, by completely altering landscapes.

And the importance of having a group of people whose very livelihoods are affected by the health of ecosystems is vital to ensuring that those same ecosystems have a voice in our democratic systems.

I'm not defending all commercial fishing, but I am arguing that it is a powerful connection to a wild place that would suffer worse without that connection.

This is why I'm disappointed in a recent opinion piece in Grist Magazine titled the, "Sustainable Seafood Myth". I can expect Grist to go over the top on a typical day, though I am a fan of their reporting and suffer the flash to get to the meat of their stories, but this one didn't have much meat.

Grist uses the very real dangers associated with global warming to pooh-pooh Whole Foods' (and others') attempts to provide real information to consumers about the sustainability of various fish. Instead of asking Whole Foods why they might still sell fish with a low sustainability rating (I don't know if they do), or simply pointing out that the sustainability rating should include carbon emissions, the piece makes wild claims like, "Sadly, in the era of climate crisis, overfishing and other forms of unsustainable harvest are the least of our problems."

First of all, the least of our problems are still problems. Second, if it's in the "problems" category, there is no reason to attack a solution. Third, it may be the least of our problems, but it ain't the least of fish's problems.

The author of the piece does recommend that sustainability rating systems include carbon footprints, but he then wades into deeper waters with an over-simplified and risky solution:

"...dedicating portions of the ocean to farming -- while reserving large swaths for marine conservation parks. These farms need to be small and decentralized. Industrial aquaculture farms have rightly been branded as large-scale polluters producing low-quality food. Simply replacing destructive fishing fleets with destructive global fish farms will only hasten the demise of our oceans. Guided by principles of sustainability, our shorelines of the future can be dotted with organic fish farms servicing local communities."

Ah. So, the author (an oyster farmer) sees a solution in ending our connection to the wild and replacing it with seafood only for those wealthy enough to live right next to the sea... got it.

This excerpt is so damaging on so many levels, and so completely dumbs-down so many ideas, that it becomes destructive to the greater good. First, "marine conservation parks" can be problematic, as they often only disallow fishing, but allow for water pollution and resource extraction, both of which come with far larger carbon footprints and other ecological impacts than well-regulated fishing.

Second, dedicating portions of the ocean to farming is the same thing as saying "completely denuding wild landscapes from portions of the ocean and replacing them completely with man-made operations". Third, not all large-scale aquaculture is bad - in fact, fully enclosed, freshwater systems are very important alternatives that remove impacts on the oceans and can provide local fish to inland consumers who aren't blessed with trust funds.

Shorelines and oceans aren't homogenous, but pretending that one stretch of beach is the same as another is detrimental to an understanding of fish, habitats, and fishing. The same spot that will make a great oyster farm (for example) is very often the very same spot that makes great wild habitat for varieties of species.

Last, fish farming in ocean waters is problematic, not only because of the damage it has on wild systems, but because of the political economy. Fish farms can scale up and pressure markets and governments quickly, and without commercial fishing operations who need healthy ecosystems, there will be little pressure to keep farms' impacts in check through regulation. (This is true for any industry: hence, the "well-regulated" label.)

Commercial fishing has a horrible history, but there are proven ways to operate a well-regulated system that helps the environment - just think of the salmon folks fighting today to recover salmon habitat inland throughout the Pacific Northwest and California. And the commercial folks' check on aquaculture is vital to a well-regulated market. We would be far worse off if we lost yet another connection to our wild oceans.

At the end of the piece, we are tasked to, "reimagine our waters as agrarian eco-spaces designed to curb seafood's carbon footprint..." To which I say no, thank you. I prefer not to "imagine" my waters as anything. I prefer to understand my waters as they are, and to understand and improve my relationship with them. I do not wish to pretend that just by ending commercial fishing they will no longer suffer from global warming.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I am a board member of SalmonAid.)

A short, non-environmental post on the debt "deal"

2011-08-01T11:19:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

The title of this AP piece, and EVERY article about this horrific deal should be:

REPUBLICANS VOTE TO RAISE TAXES; DEMOCRATS VOTE TO CUT

Here's the most important quotation from the above-linked article:

"Yet it appeared Obama's proposal to extend the current payroll tax holiday beyond the end of 2011 would not be included. Nor would his call for extended unemployment benefits for victims of the recession."

Republicans are now running around saying they kept taxes from going up, but what happened is that they wouldn't vote for an extension of a tax cut to working folks, nor would they vote to back-fill these tax losses through taxing corporate jets.

Democrats are running around saying that they get the debt ceiling raised, thus averting catastrophe, but happened is that they were willing to let their major donors in the financial sector get away with not having to deal with the catastrophe they've created, this limping-along recoveryless recovery. They also voted to cut unemployment extensions and to raise taxes on working people at the same time.

Here's a quick reminder of the definition of "unemployment": Those who do not have a job, but who are able to work and are actively seeking work. It's these people that keep inflation in check - and if there are too many of them, they drive down wages and keep recoveries from happening (sound familiar?).

This is a sham, another slap in the face to working people and people who want to work, and another meaty steak for the rich. What a sorry, sorry state we are in.

Cap-and-trade, when studied under one simplified scenario, beats carbon tax, one study finds

2011-07-11T11:09:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

My title should have been the title to this article out today at California Watch. Unfortunately, they picked a title with a tad less specificity, and in doing so have picked a side in the debate between the two ideas. Their title: Free cap-and-trade system beats carbon tax, study finds.

That study, Inducing Clean Technology in the Electricity Sector: Tradable Permits or Carbon Tax Policies?, by UC Merced & the University of New South Wales, compares the possible impacts of a carbon tax vs. a cap-&-trade system using a model of a single, small firm that owns a coal-fired power plant. In the abstract, the authors claim to find that, due to the inherent uncertainty of a tradable permit system, a small firm will more likely hedge its bets by investing in some hybrid form of clean tech. + coal than it would under a system with a more stable carbon price.

Now, I don't have $20 to put down on a copy of this study (chalk it up to microeconomics, both literally and figuratively), but I do have some questions - especially to California Watch:

-The study's abstract says nothing of a "free cap-and-trade system", and in fact, I don't have a clue as to what a "free" cap-&-trade system would look like. People pay when carbon is priced, period. So, California Watch, where did "free" come in?

-The study's abstract also explains that other ideas associated with C&T (e.g., offsets) are also more expensive than just a tradable permits system without them. California Watch, why did you not include this little gem of news?

-And for the researchers: Why study a particular scenario that is unlikely to have much of an impact on carbon? If energy companies were as the authors envision - small firms owning one coal plant - then uncertainty may lead to hedging. However, we are talking about creating a contrived, government-mandated market with a number of very, very large firms. These firms move markets, they tend to suppress volatility (which is why companies want to be big), and they unduly influence political economy in their favor (hence, offsets & free permits to them). This last point cannot be understated, especially because any carbon price is going to be the result of a government regulation and it will be much easier to "game" the system if it has elements of contrived uncertainty in it.

Also, consider this: A clear government regulation pointing to a relatively quick increase in carbon prices will also lead a small firm to switch to clean tech. In fact, if the price looks high enough, that firm will leave coal completely, thus saving lives. This regulation will also lead big firms to switch.

Never forget that, no matter how we price carbon, it will be through a government regulation.

Uncertainty in carbon prices may, indeed, lead many companies to hedge their bets, although current history (carbon prices are surely uncertain right now) does not completely bear this out. And if carbon prices were a commodity, rather than a priced-in externality, I'd be more inclined to allow some uncertainty. But the fact is that any carbon price will be contrived, because it doesn't have to have a market price. Since the price for carbon will come out of regulations (even a C&T price) and an artificial scarcity, since large companies can thrive on creating their own certainty and influence shifting and uncertain regulations to a greater extent, and since a clear sign that carbon prices will go up will also induce a strong shift toward clean tech., it is imperative that we have a clear and certain regulatory framework.

Bad Science on levees makes it into the paper

2011-07-07T13:53:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Alas, having an advanced degree in a field doesn't always mean you are always right all the time.

Take this op-ed piece in yesterday's Sacramento Bee. In it, a Dr. Lund from UC Davis, a man who is probably nearly a genius in his field, makes some very dubious claims about Central California's levees. Sadly, here he refers to no studies nor historical evidence to prove his position.

The professor's claim is that we should remove trees from all "urban" levees, per a requirement by the US Army Corps of Engineers, even though doing so may have bad impacts to riparian habitat and recreational values. He is concerned because trees may weaken levees, and hide burrows from workers checking them.

What does the professor use to support his claim? The fact that other parts of the world - namely, China, Japan, & the Netherlands - remove trees from their levees.

That's it.

He offers no studies in this article that have shown these levees to be superior to California's. He offers no examples of California levee failures (or any levee failures) due to trees. He offers no support whatsoever for such an environmentally devastating act, for an act that will forever change habitats and recreation on our levees.

After some research, I found Dr. Lund's article as a blog post where he actually does cite references. However, the references are largely skewed (most being from the Corps), or almost never support his position. For example, this Power Point presentation lists trees and vegetation that are more or less problematic according to their research on European levees. The list describes a host of bramble bushes - blackberries and such - as less problematic for levees. However, I daresay that a burrow would be harder to find in a blackberry bramble than under a valley oak.

Another example, from the Ca. Dept. of Water Resources link he cites: "... California asserts that the Corps’ strict enforcement of the ETL and PGL will adversely impact public safety."

An earlier report by the Sacramento Bee, about the lawsuit by environmental groups against the Corps for this horrid idea, did mention the science on levee failures:
"But it (the Corps) offers little scientific evidence for those conclusions (to remove trees). A 2007 symposium hosted by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) offered evidence for the opposing view: Tree roots may, in fact, strengthen levees by binding soils together."

I am no levee engineer. However, a quick google search of images from the last major levee failure on the California Delta, at Jones Tract in 2004, are telling; do you see any trees? Also, think back to times when you've noticed tree roots, perhaps sticking out of the side of a cut-bank on a road or a creek. Think about the dirt and rocks sticking to it, and how it and the land touching it stick way out from the eroded places around it, places that only had short grasses growing on it.

Last, I want to make a point about Dr. Lund's tone (and nearly everybody else talking publicly) when talking about levees: It is super-easy to make dire predictions, because nobody wants to have been the Pollyanna the day one fails, and because the old saw about there being two types of levees (those that have failed, and those that are about to) is true. But I would like to point out that this year we have experienced well over double our average runoff, and have had no major levee breech.

It may be time to reconsider a push for drastic actions to redesign a system that has been working pretty well for quite a while. Eventually, a levee will fail. Far less likely will multiple levees fail, and the event that would cause multiple failures will also likely go beyond what we actually accomplish to protect them now, regardless of the current wild-eyed rhetoric. Perhaps we should look at smaller-scale solutions to a recurring issue, rather than panicking about a potential catastrophe.

And for the record, I was born and raised on the Delta, and I live on the Delta now, as do my parents, a sister, and a nephew.

Non-environmental economics post

2011-06-16T13:04:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

But, it's a quick one.

I just wanted to re-post this quotation from Professor Brad DeLong's blog:

"A depressed economy with a slack labor market, low wages, and very low interest rates can be consistent with high asset values and ample corporate profits. But policies that produce such an outcome aren't policies for economic recovery. They are policies for class war. They are not in the public interest..."

California Republicans Have a Strange Way of Shrinking Government

2011-06-14T12:00:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

The Sacramento Bee blog Capitol Alert has a post on a letter from four Republicans in talks with California's Governor over a budget deal.

The Republicans explain the types of reform that must happen in order for them to vote to allow Californians the chance to vote to keep taxes at their current levels.

I found page 3 of the letter - on regulatory reform - fascinating. In particular, I am blown away that the way Republicans hope to shrink government and reign in spending is by creating a brand-new Office of Economic and Regulatory Analysis.

I don't get it.

The Sound of One Shoe Dropping

2011-06-13T08:24:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Sadly, as the New York Times reports, the catastrophe hitting California's State Park System is more of a nationwide phenomenon.

To sum it up, parks around the country have had few funds, and in the past few years, even these have dried up. In California, we are looking at closing 70 parks, and probably radically altering fees. Closing 70 parks. This is unprecedented, and sad.

Think about this: What do we have to remember about the 20th Century's massive economic meltdown? Many things, of course, but just about the only physical representations are the "C's" park units - parks whose infrastructure was designed and built by the CCC, a Depression-era attempt to put young men to work. These park buildings are often jewels of rough-hewn timber and stone trail steps, with a unique aesthetic, beautifully integrated into the rugged park scenery. In their day, they were beacons of hope to aspiring American visitors, and good, honest work for young men.

What will our legacy be for this economic downturn? According to the NY Times, "Customers... is the new buzzword", the notion that parks are selling goods and services, competing with the likes of Six Flags, WalMart, Sierra Pacific Lumber and Chevron. Gone is the notion that visiting our most treasured natural and historical spots is an American rite and right. Gone is the notion of "visitors". "Customers" is the new buzzword.

A few years back, I stood up during a National Park Service-sponsored conference on visitor use and defended the idea of visitors using parks. Amid concerns from park staff about a sizeable reduction in visitation to parks, a well-meaning professor had made the comment that fewer boots on the ground meant fewer impacts to the resource.

My response: If visitors aren't using it, if Americans and other tourists aren't there to enjoy what we are trying to protect, then they will no longer care, and others will use them - they will log them, dam them, mine them, and drill them. They will get used, just not in the same way. We have to encourage appropriate use, to build appreciation for and a desire to protect these amazing places, by encouraging appropriate access.

Today (from the Times): "One of the most inventive efforts is in Ohio, where the Legislature is set to approve a bill that would allow drilling for oil and gas in the shale beneath some state parks. Lawmakers say parks would directly benefit from revenues."

----------

As a Western American, I know our Right to Freely Move through Our Lands. California is half-owned by the federal government, in the form of US Forest Service and BLM lands. These lands have always been free (notwithstanding the Los Padres Nat'l. Forest fiasco), and it is as American as apple pie that they stay free to appropriate uses. However, parks have usually had minimal fees - they require higher standards of protection and more intense management because they guard our most cherised natural and historical places. But without funding from government, these places are pressured to increase fees to draconian levels, where they can, and pressured to close - or be opened up to extractive uses - where they cannot. "Customers" is the new buzzword, as unAmerican as that is - limiting access to the history of how we became the freest society on Earth.

I am sure I've opined in previous posts about the sad affairs of California's State Park interpretive (educational) system - how I had to quit my best job as a park interpreter because we couldn't afford to live on a 3/4-time salary, how my park units saw one million people per year (1/3rd the visitation of Yosemite), but only had one 3/4 time interpretive position.

For a quick reminder, here is the Mission of the California State Park System:
"To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation."

Sadly, we are way past just underfunding the very mission of the park system. We are actually closing parks.

We have met our recent economic downturn in a much different way than did our forebears some eighty years ago.

I, for one, am ashamed.

A classy piece from a good man

2011-06-05T11:41:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

If you have not yet read it, please read this piece by Bill Magavern on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which he describes as, "the centerpiece of California's economic democracy." If you think that is a reach, then definitely read it to understand his position.

Not buying the premises

2011-05-26T12:36:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

California State Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg says that a budget deal with Republicans is close, which most likely means that:

A) A tiny cadre of probably termed-out Republicans will support a tax increase, most likely in the form of regressive taxes (sales, vehicle license fees, etc.); and
B) Democratic leadership will probably support environmental regulatory shortcutting in the name of "job growth".

I don't buy either premises.

First of all, the notion that we can re-establish a robust state government relying even more heavily on the backs of the poor and lower-middle class are ridiculous. I've talked about the problem with regressive taxes before, but I'll be clear and concise right here: A tax that disproportionately impacts poorer people is unethical and bad economics, because it devalues dollars by moving more valuable dollars (one dollar is worth more to a poorer person than to a richer one) into a pool of less valuable dollars, it exacerbates the problems of poverty (which require more government expenditures to fix), and it makes government revenues rely upon a more volatile base (poor people's purchasing power fluctuates a lot more than rich people's, which is why everybody wants to be rich).

The second premise is a bit more hidden: If Democrats agree to curtail environmental regulations in order to grow California's economy (jobs), then they are agreeing to the premise that environmental regulations are dragging California's economy.

I've yet to see a study showing this to be true. Further, I've seen studies showing that, if anything, the opposite is true.

To be honest with you, the majority of places where California's economy is in dire straits are those places where:

A) California's environmental regulations have been lax or inconsistently applied;
B) Places where California's economy has always suffered.

Think places like the Central Valley and other poor communities. For goodness' sake, we refer to them as environmental justice communities!

Just consider this another unintended consequence of term limits.

The Vatican takes a stand on climate change

2011-05-08T07:48:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

The Catholic Church recently published a report from its scientific arm - a non-denominational organization, and one of the oldest scientific bodies on Earth - showing its concern over the indisputable fact of mountain glaciers retreating all over the world.

From the introduction:

"We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious
and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused
by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other
pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other
land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without
delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of
climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain
glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home.
By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility,
we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet
blessed with the gift of life.

We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet
receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink
as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect
the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant
us this wish."

Trying to stay afloat - and taking on Monbiot

2011-04-26T06:57:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Work and life can really take from one's blogging time... I wish I could say that the World has had no environmental ethics dilemma as of late, and that's why I've been so sparse in blogging, but alas, that is not the case.

So, one fairly quick comment on some recent environmental conversation, hopefully to get my writing juices flowing.

George Monbiot, prominent environmentalist, has changed his mind about nuclear power, in light of what has happened at Fukushima. His article, "Seven Double Standards", is a strong defense for nuclear, though he hasn't convinced me. He is catching a lot of flak for his position - undeservedly so, as I truly believe he is looking out for the world's interests.

Still, he hasn't convinced me to support nuclear. His major argument, that if we eliminate nuclear as an option, we will turn to the far dirtier, people-killing coal, is true, but not inevitable. He conveniently leaves out both the option to turn to other renewables and more importantly, conservation. His idea that if Fukushima is the worst that can happen then nuclear is sound makes a point - to which I counter, a massive failure of a nuclear plant in a sparsely populated corner of the world's most technologically advanced country is not the worst that can happen. The worst that can happen is a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant near a massively populated region of one of the world's least technologically advanced countries. Of course, that could only happen if that country has enemies crazy enough, and of course, India is loved by all, right?

Even the article I link above, though generally well-written, completely ignores conservation, and makes a stretch about some other ideas (his last double-standard makes a wonderful argument against nuclear that I hadn't even considered, for example). But, he is right about coal: It is far, far worse than today's best nuclear options.

The question is: Where should we be spending our resources for our future production? I say, we should be focusing on generation that doesn't include catastrophic failures either as a means of doing business (coal) or as a potential (nuclear, hydroelectric). Thus, if it takes ten years to build either a good nuclear plant or a good solar plant, I choose the latter option.

California Native Plant Week

2011-04-18T07:16:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Yesterday kicked off California's first Native Plant Week. The California Native Plant Society has a list of events going on around the state celebrating this week, which was declared by the California Legislature last year (I'm very close to the person who wrote the resolution).

Also, if you are interested, you may read the resolution, which talks about the economic, social, and historical importance of native plants to California, here.

Black Swans, the Precautionary Principle, and Power

2011-03-28T13:06:00.000-07:00

A quick note: I'd like to read what you all think about nuclear power in light of the events in Japan. It is a horrible, sad, tragic series of calamities befalling the country right now, and I won't tolerate any unkind comments. For us, however, the debate should begin.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "black swan" thinking, in general. However, outliers should be examined in the context of the level of catastrophe that may one day occur. For nuclear and large hydropower, the potential for catastrophe is large at generation. For petroleum and coal-based generation, the potential for catastrophe is large at extraction (see the Gulf). Really, the only generation types that would appear to limit the potential for catastrophe is very small hydropower, wind, and solar power.

What do you all think?

Much going on...

2011-03-18T13:59:00.000-07:00

© 2011 Joshua

With a baby and a new job, I've found my blogging time constrained. Alas, the world still turns, and there are many topics on which I'd love to wax poetic...

First, this report from the U.N. on sustainable agriculture. In a nutshell, "agroecological farming practices" can double food production in many regions. These science-based practices empower local communities with their foods, which puts major corporate enterprises out - so, expect them to fight these conclusions.

Next, California Watch reports on a Pacific Institute report on nitrates in California's Central Valley groundwater... we've all known it's been there for years, but this report attempts to quantify the human impacts.

My view on the Central Valley, my second home, is that its social, political, and economic infrastructure is effectively a 3rd World country, a fiefdom for a handful of extraordinarily (and inordinately) powerful people. Pile this report on top of the reports on asthma, air quality, cancers, unemployment, working conditions, transportation, income inequality, etc. And if you are so inclined, please pray for the Valley.

The L.A. Times reports on Republicans using the budget in California to dismantle our environmental regulations. Please, conservative conservationists, keep up the calls to legislators, letting them know that this is not your value. The major law usually attacked is CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), which, in a case of powerful irony, is just about the only transparency-in-government law out there, and is also a law very often used by companies to keep out competition from industrial growth.

Looking at our economic and fiscal conditions, it's safe to say that these regulations have not had an economic impact on our State to any great extent, especially in relation to our quality of life, nor in comparison to more lax states like, say, Texas, whose budget deficit is larger than ours in absolute terms and in relative terms ($27 billion in Texas vs. $26.6 billion in California). Far larger an impact on our quality of life has been our decision to stop funding infrastructure like transportation, schools, and energy.

And, speaking to California's impact on the rest of America, it looks like our Congress has decided to run its budget show like we do here in the Golden State.

That's it for now. I'll try to get back into the swing of things, but first, I'd like a full night's sleep.

Update: Conservative conservationists

2011-03-04T15:55:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

In my previous post, I asked where they were, and I've got my answer:

A couple days back, a number of conservation and environmentalist groups testified before a California Assembly Committee - among them, representatives from the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance (COHA), our hunting lobby. What were they talking about?

They were informing the California Legislature of the horrible, horrible proposals of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the devastation they will wreak on conservation.

If you want to read what they have to say, click here: "Congress Considers Massive Cuts to Wildlife Programs".

I often despair that large, corporate enterprises have eaten American conservatism. It allows for large, corporate enterprises, but it holds many other values equally, or more, important than the mere hoarding of capital. I'm heartened to see conservatives making clear that wildness, and its appreciation, are American virtues.

In other, related news about conservative conservation, Western Farm Press reports that, "California farms and ranches now make up more than 20 percent of all operations in the nation with solar, wind and methane digester use", according to the USDA.

Lest ye forget, amidst the shock-media decrying our horrific fiscal situation, California still leads the nation in many things. Including green energy. And agriculture.

Where are all the conservative conservationists? & a quick economics rant

2011-02-20T09:49:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

I know quite a few conservative conservationists, yet I'm completely baffled by the support I hear for their political leadership in recent days. Everything from dam removal studies to support for the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, whose corporate partners include Altria, Anheuser-Busch, and Bass Pro Shops, is slated for defunding.

And it isn't as if this leadership is trying to curb government spending: The same folks who decry these programs as too expensive have already suggested building a gigantic dam with federal funds, and are fighting to keep subsidizing money-losing dams on the Klamath.

Nor is it as if the leadership is trying to remove the federal government from local decision-making: The same leaders who complain that local folks don't have a say are pushing to defund those Klamath plans, plans that locals have arrived at after years of internal negotiations, and after some deep soul-searching and compromise. By moving funding from removal studies and back into subsidizing those money-holes in the water, conservative leaders are bringing down the heavy hand of D.C. government into the affairs of locals.

So please, my conservative conservationist friends, please contact your leadership and tell them that we all value the wild, that it is part of our shared American experience and spirit.

-----

Now, my economic rant (those of you who know me have heard this from me a million times, but in my defense this is because it's been said a million times): Every politician talks about putting America's economic house in order, because the typical American family has to balance its budget, and therefore so should our government.

Baloney. Pure B.S.

First, the typical American family does not balance its budget. If any of you has a car payment, house payment, boat payment, college loan payment, or credit card payment, then you have deficit spent, and you have an unbalanced budget. If you don't have any of these, it's probably because you already paid it off, but at one time you deficit spent to get there, and you probably did it to the tune of many times your annual salary.

We all deficit spend in order to build our economic house. We pay it off, and save, when we are better able to do so. We save, in part, for those hard times we know will come.

Second, the typical American family cannot regulate business, nor does its spending influence the overall cost of goods and services in the economy.

To make the analogy is to lie, in a big way, to the American people.

The Precautionary Principle might have come in handy...

2011-02-11T07:40:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

California Watch reports on lead, arsenic, and other toxins found in climate-friendly LED lights.

While reading this post, I thought: Well, there's another technological fix with the subsequently ugly, unintended consequences (see glyphosate-resistant crops, methyl iodide, and DDT even). I also remembered my post on our inability to "sell" conservation.

Right now, if you hear a spokesperson for any environmental advocacy group, you are far more likely to hear about green jobs, high-mileage brand-new cars, high-tech solutions to saving the planet, efficiency gains, etc. What you will rarely hear is one of them saying, "just turn off your lights, and turn down your thermostat. And for goodness' sake, hold off on buying that new car!" It's hard to sell, "buy less".

But this post isn't on conservation, it's on preparing for all these new technological advances that purport to save us from ourselves. As I read that report, I thought: how do we keep from shooting ourselves in the foot with each new attempt at efficiency gains, especially here in California, the Land of the Next Big Thing?

Then I remembered that simple, great, conservative pillar of environmental justice: The Precautionary Principle. This principle merely states that a new item (chemical, technological process, etc.) must prove that it is generally benign to the environment before it can be mass produced.

That's it.

When people hear about this principle, they are usually struck by the notion that things don't have to prove that they won't leave tremendous amounts of toxins persistent in the environment. In the case of LED lights, for example, I'm sure people are thinking, "but, we regulate lead; how did these things make it here in such huge amounts?"

Regulation is an interesting term, and while most Americans think it means that everybody gets equal scrutiny under the law, the reality is often far, far more complicated.

It comes down to this: Most Americans believe, inherently, that our regulatory agencies follow the Precautionary Principle, because it is a very conservative way of looking at the World. But, they don't.

What we need are far more sophisticated models of thinking, rather than re-packaging the same materials in new ways. We need, when we consider costs, to include the total lifecycle of the product. We need to consider the noneconomic impacts, even if that means coming up with some quantities to at least represent them (and we need to continually re-work those quantities). At the very least, we need some form of the Precautionary Principle, some proof that the Next Big Thing doesn't come with the Next Big Cleanup Effort.

Rural California: Where bad economic and environmental practices meet

2011-02-09T06:44:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the AP's Economic Stress Index, which shows that 15 out of the 20 worst counties are in California.

Of course, there's no real news here, nor is there any change from what would be the case if this were a booming economic time and not a lingering recession. These counties are chronically the worst in the country.

The sad part? They are also the counties with the highest agriculture revenues in the world.

In the world.

These are the same counties whose boosters proclaim that they feed the world. These same boosters cry in anger to the (political) gods whenever the Delta must have more water, screaming that it will destroy, is destroying, their way of life, their jobs and economy.

Never mind that ag. was the only growth industry in the State, even during those drought years. Never mind that these counties suffer huge numbers of smothering poverty, drug addiction and violence. Never mind that these counties tend to have much higher asthma rates among its children, and that in dozens of communities throughout their gold-producing fields, nobody is allowed to drink the groundwater, because it is contaminated from runoff. Never mind that their own rivers are dammed and run dry.

These counties remind me of a drug addict. Whenever their supply is threatened, they talk about how much they need it, how much better they do with it; even, sometimes, how after this time, they'll work to get off it, but they need this just one more time. Of course, they talk through blackened teeth, while their children go hungry behind them.

I grew up and live in rural California. I love it with all my heart. That is why I talk like I do.

Rural California needs to see a shift away from its typically feudal/colonial structure. It needs permanent jobs with local and regional focus, it needs industries that do not pollute its water and air and offer minimum-wage (or less) with no benefits.

Non-environmental economics post: The Texas "miracle"

2011-02-07T07:54:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

The L.A. Times reports on Texas' $27 billion debt.

The Times gives a positive spin to this problem, even after talking up just how haughty Texans had been over a perceived economic superiority to California, by saying that Texas' problems are now "in the same league" as California's.

Um, no.

California's economy is five hundred billion dollars larger than Texas'. Again: one half of one trillion dollars more is generated in California than in Texas, every single year. And yet, even with the positive business climate in Texas, even with very low taxes, they still find themselves in a far, far larger debt-to-income ratio than California, which means that they are far, far closer to any kind of default.

Now, how do you suppose Texas is going to deal with its debt? Lower its taxes to take advantage of the Laffer curve? I'm guessing they've already fallen off that ideal peak.

There's only one way to go, folks, if you are a government entity who cannot deficit spend any more, and I fear that a parallel of Keynes' comment may come true: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

So God bless Texas. They need it.

California Cap & Trade loses its court fight, and salt ponds show quick rebound

2011-02-04T12:10:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

A couple of unrelated news items, but both timely and interesting.

The California Air Resources Board's adoption of a cap & trade program was shut down by a judge yesterday, due to CARB's inadequate analysis of alternatives, a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirement.

CEQA requires state agencies to analyze alternative ways of achieving a project's goal, choosing the most environmentally appropriate way to accomplish it. In the case of cap & trade, a coalition of environmental justice (EJ) advocates, led by the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, successfully argued that CARB didn't adequately analyze the alternatives to cap & trade that they'd put forward. And, they have a point.

Many EJ folks have a serious problem with cap & trade. While on the large scale, C&T could lower total carbon emissions, it does it in a way that favors particular regions (usually rich ones), and hurts others (usually poor ones). For carbon, this isn't a problem, because carbon doesn't, say, cause asthma near where it is emitted. However, impacts to industries that would cut back on carbon emissions would also lead them to cut back on "co-pollutants", those pollutants that come out with carbon, and these are typically very harmful to local communities.

The way C&T gains economic efficiency over other methods is by allowing companies to choose whether it is cheaper to cut their emissions (by lowering output or installing cleaner tech.), or cheaper to buy emissions credits on a market. By doing this calculation, the price of carbon becomes clear in a market-like manner, and we see cuts to carbon emissions.

It is a simple leap, then, to understand that, if company A wants to buy carbon emissions credits instead of cleaning its emissions, then it will continue to emit carbon, and whatever else comes out of that smokestack. In fact, if California's cap & trade is tied to a larger market-like mechanism, California could theoretically see increases in its own air pollution, including carbon.

It's the "whatever else" that bothers EJ advocates and the judge. CEQA's job is to ensure that state activities consider the most environmentally appropriate actions. In addition, CARB is mandated to decrease air pollution, and if its activities actually increase pollutants, it may well be in violation of its own mandate.

Stay tuned for more in this arena, for sure.

In other, happier news, recovered salt flats in the South San Francisco Bay are returning to their natural state at a very fast clip. As a Son of the Delta, I am always thrilled to see wetlands recover so quickly, especially considering just how cautious scientists have been due to concerns over water pollution.

My favorite line from that report: "A similar study done in 1,400 acres of former Cargill ponds in the North Bay near the Napa River also found a wide abundance of bay fish had come back, including striped bass, tule perch and even a chinook salmon, some only weeks after the ponds had been breached."

A similar scene has been taking place for the last seven years in Iraq, too - if you are interested in that one, head over to Nature Iraq.

Quick posts on federal and state politics

2011-01-28T12:53:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Though not environmental (because he decided not to ever try to do anything about the environment any more, apparently), my comment on the President's speech is what it was last year:

I am very disappointed, just as I was with Bush, that the first words out of his mouth weren't, "we are a nation at war", followed by a good long talk about the killing and dying we demand of many of our young men and women and their families.

So please, all of you, whether you support or oppose our military actions overseas, please take a moment to let the President know that you want him to focus on the sacrifices he orders others to make in our names. Their blood is on all of us.

Now, a little note about Gov. Brown's proposed budget. Of course, just like his predecessor (we can't expect our different parties to actually govern differently, can we?), he's proposed cutting millions of dollars from our State Park system, which will end up closing some parks.

I'm still saddened by this, but at least we know that the majority of Californians didn't want to pay for it, anyway, and so voted down last year's proposition to get unlimited entry into parks by California cars for a once-per-year fee.

It's very difficult to come to the realization that your perspective is in such a small minority. Most Californians, and indeed most Americans, it would seem, have decided that their own, personal economy is more important.

And this from a man who was out of work (and looking) for nearly six months, the most in my entire working life. I still voted for that proposition while unemployed (which, for those who don't know, is defined as "no job, but actively seeking work").

Mammoth cloning, anyone?

2011-01-25T07:25:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Yahoo! News reports that Japanese researchers expect to clone a mammoth in the next five years. From what I know, the technology isn't far-fetched, and many mammoths are found with intact DNA... in fact, Northern Exposure had a great episode about this very thing.

Of course, the ethical question looms, right?

Well, not for me. I'm all for seeing a live mammoth! However, to humor folks who may feel uncomfortable at letting loose yet another charismatic megafauna on the Earth, and for those Goldblum fans out there, let's talk a little about the implications.

First, it is almost certain that mammoths, like many large mammals up to about 13,000 years ago, went extinct due to changing climatic conditions, and there is no real argument in favor of human hunting driving them out. Since they were almost certainly killed off by non-human reasons, why should we want to bring back these extinct animals?

Enter the Pleistocene Rewilding, an idea bandied about by folks who consider the North American ecosystem to have been unbalanced by the extinction of a number of megafauna about 10,000-13,000 years ago. As the argument goes, today's flora and fauna that had existed for millennia prior to the mass extinctions of this period now find themselves out of balance, as these large (sometimes huge) creatures moved so much biomass that their loss must have had an impact.

A prime example is the plight of Joshua Trees in Southern California. Up until thousands of years ago, Joshua Trees were propagated by a giant ground sloth. Now, the only remaining Joshua Trees probably reflect the last, tiny range of the sloth during its demise. This range's climate has changed dramatically during the last few thousand years, as a mountain range has sprung up West of it, blocking the rainfall and turning it into a much more arid habitat. Without the animal that fed on its seeds then walking over ridges and valleys to other, potentially more hospitable climes (very likely in California), the Joshua Tree is in danger of extinction within its current realm.

The Pleistocene Rewildling line of thinking argues that species that had been extirpated from particular regions, but who still exist, should be reintroduced to their former ranges. Species who are extinct, however, but who are known to have had an impact on their habitats, should be replaced with similar species (see this on the American cheetah).

But, what if species can be returned from extinction? What impact might a herd of mammoths have on tundra habitat, on the size of wolves or bears - the numbers of bacteria and other scavengers, too - on the movement of nutrients throughout the system?

That's the big problem as I see it. We are focusing on the megafauna because, let's face it, they are very cool. However, we don't know why they disappeared, and we don't know what else went with them, particular microbes, for example, that may have played a vital function in maintaining their "balance". In fact, we don't even know what a balance means. In any ecosystem movement, there are winners and losers (in the living sense); outside of our own impacts, who are we to pick these winners and losers?

These questions are vital before we can start to imagine a "healthy" ecosystem beyond managing our own impacts, and since our own impacts have been very large and often systems-wide, we have a lot of work to do in the present realm. I hope the Pleistocene Rewildling efforts will, for the most part, remain shelved until we can control our own impacts, and get a better picture of the mass extinctions that took place thousands of years ago.

That said, I still want to see a mammoth. I was an eight-year-old once.

Organic milk is better for you than conventional milk

2011-01-21T15:56:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Research continues to buck the attempts by industrial ag. to convince people that the only difference between organic/sustainable products and their industrial doppelgangers is the price.

First, it was, of course, research that showed that pesticides were bad for the environment. Next came studies showing that yield per acre is considerably higher with sustainable methods vs. the application of artificial fertilizers. Studies continue to come in showing that locally grown and consumed produce often contains higher concentrations of nutrients, because they are fresher.

Now, here's another one. U.K. researchers have discovered that organic milk is better for you than industrial ag. milk.

Go figure.

Non-environmental economics post: Unintended Consequences? Or crazy like a fox?

2011-01-19T10:02:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

A threat is an interesting thing.

When Governor Brown proposed his budget for the State of California, it included eliminating the redevelopment agencies.

I don't have an economic opinion on that proposal, because I've never waded into those waters. However, I have noticed a number of fast-tracked redevelopment agency projects in the wake of this announcement.

Here's Fremont.

And San Jose.

And Riverside.

This recession has needed large infrastructure projects for both the short- and long-term health of our State. It looks like Brown figured out just how to spur those projects, without resorting to any more state deficit spending.

The question for me is, did he mean it? He's just crazy enough to have thought this through, if you ask me. But, I really don't know.

Of Fire, Taxes, and the Ethics of Paying for Services

2011-01-16T17:14:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Wildland firefighting finds itself among the many cuts proposed by Governor Brown, which should leave many living in SRA's (State Responsibility Areas) wondering if they should have supported the 2008 bill creating funding for just such an endeavor.

The idea of the 2008 bill was to create a fee system for people living in SRA's, those places for whom the state is responsible for fire protection, since right now, their fire protection comes from the general fund. The bill failed passage, however, which means that Californians outside the SRA's must pay for their own fire protection from local taxes plus fire protection for folks living within the SRA's.

The purpose of the fee was to pay for the state's fire protection, but it also came with incentives for reducing the potential for damage from fires, lowering the fee if the owner had a steel roof, for example, or had properly cleared around the home. Enough could be done on a property, in fact, to eliminate the fee for individuals. However, many opposed this legislation when it was proposed, especially people living in SRA's.

If a person has spent enough time believing themselves entitled to services for little or no charge, it is difficult to then believe, when the bill comes due, that they should be the ones to pay it. But, when hard times come, these are the types of services that get axed.

Firefighting has always been one of those sticky places in the ethical gray area around government intervention. Fighting fires is a service to private property owners, it is not a "public good" by the economic definition (nonrivalrous and nonexcludable). However, the devastation wrought by fires, and their potential to quickly become uncontrollable and threaten others' homes, in addition to the sense of community, honor and courage that we have built around fighting fires, has made it a public service.

This is why, when firefighters let a fire burn somebody's house down, even if they didn't pay their fee, many of us are outraged, and many are torn. Letting the fire burn is a perfectly libertarian thing to do, but ours is not a perfectly libertarian country, for this very reason. It just doesn't seem right to let a person's house burn down, because we know it isn't (yeah, that's a near-tautology there, sue me, it's still true). Yet, as a country that tries to let our services be paid by those who use them, there is still a sense that people should be responsible for paying.

One might think that those people who find themselves closer to a libertarian ethos would be more comfortable with a fee structure for people living within SRA's. One would be wrong: In fact, those who lean more strongly libertarian in our current political atmosphere were also the most vociferous opponents to a service fee for California's SRA's.

It's loss, coupled with the new proposed cuts, will hit California's rural counties hardest. The fact that California has some of the lowest property taxes in the nation, and tries to make up for it with some of the highest sales taxes, means that rural counties have an even harder time paying for services such as fire protection.

California finds itself in a financial bind. Technically, it isn't in as bad shape as some - it doesn't have as high a debt-to-income ratio as some other states, there is no concern about defaulting on its bonds, and its economy is still well over one trillion dollars, making it the 10th largest economy on Earth - but the political fallout from a $28 billion debt is troubling for many, even during a recession, when governments should be deficit spending somewhat. What should California cut?

Our new Governor is proposing a sweeping set of cuts, in addition to asking voters to extend temporary tax increases.

The ethical question, then: Who should pay for fire protection? Should it be those who receive the service? Or, should it be equally spread among all Californians? If the former, then how do we find that funding? If the latter, then will we be willing to make it fair, and have the state make payments for all firefighting throughout the state, both within and outside SRA's? Our current system, demanding that all Californians pay an equal share to fight fires within SRA's, while exempting those living in SRA's from having to help pay for other Californians', is blatantly unfair.

During times like these, when people are angry about the state of our state's funding, those same people should be willing to step up and pay for services they receive, or else expect that they will no longer receive those services.

Water policy & Mr. McClintock... where history and power trump regional representation

2011-01-15T21:49:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Well, I suppose this is what happens when you elect a carpet-bagger to be your representative. Tom McClintock, in a majority party for the first time of his 25 years as a professional politician, now claims that the Auburn Dam is back in play.

It makes sense, when you think about it: Except for the past two years, Mr. McClintock has represented Southern California his entire professional life. His Wikipedia entry speaks volumes; I recommend it.

With his comments about the Auburn Dam, it appears that Mr. McClintock still represents his Southern California constituents, or more appropriately, the water buffaloes who pretend to represent Southern California.

You'd think that a politician who has made his career about shrinking government and lowering taxes wouldn't want a multi-billion dollar federal land-grab in his own district. But, if you read that Wikipedia entry up there, it makes perfect sense. It's all he's ever known.

For example, I gained more experience in the private sector than Mr. McClintock at my last job... which lasted 16 months.

Of course we all knew he would bring up the dam again, though, don't we? But, it's still hard to accept that a small-government Republican would be willing to flood a huge part of his own district to protect a downstream Democrat's, and do it by spending billions of federal tax dollars and potentially enacting eminent domain.

It's a strange world in which we live.

The flood protection from a new dam on that river is unneeded. And I live right in that river's path, downstream. What is needed is more appropriate storage where the river wants to go, in the Delta. The "protection" claim is a sham.

For a thoughtful counter to the Auburn Dam, please read "Nature Noir", by Jordan Fisher Smith. Unlike Mr. McClintock, Mr. Smith worked for years in the 3rd District - 14 - and has written an amazing, powerful book about his time as a park ranger in the very canyon this proposed dam would flood and destroy.

On ethics: hunters vs. nonhunters

2011-01-12T10:21:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Phillip over at the Hog Blog has an interesting piece on the idea of hunters who purport to hunt for ethical reasons quite possibly creating a false dichotomy or a subtext of superiority over those who do not hunt.

He specifically points me out (in amazing company), though he does so in a nice way.

It's a great read, I highly recommend it (he writes circles around me, which isn't fair, so keep that in mind).

Basically, Phillip thinks that we may be creating a "false dichotomy" in claiming that our hunting has an ethical component to it. I've way oversimplified his article (read it, he makes more sense and includes more nuance), but that is the gist as I see it. For example, Phillip writes,

"Hunters... say that they accept the role of predator, and by this acceptance they feel a critical connection. By the blood on their hands, they have taken responsibility for the death of the animal and become active participants in the primal cycle of life and death. This provides a deeper understanding of the natural world and environment. With this sense of connection comes a suggestion of moral superiority."

I feel that comment all the way up to the "moral superiority" claim, but that is only because I think there are real distinctions among ethically preferable actions, feelings of moral superiority, and expressions of profound connections and feelings that relate to human nature.

We all make choices based on ethics; we all take ethically preferable actions. We don't, for example, actually physically accost the person who cut us off on the interstate. We help our neighbors and friends. Many people give to charities. All of these actions are ethical choices, they are, at their most basic, sets of "should" or "ought" statements that we have answered.

Further, we all make ethical claims on other people. Here in the U.S., our general public ethos has a strong libertarian bent, and so it is often hidden from view, but every time a person says that a person has a right to do something, that person is making an ethical claim. For example, Americans are often incensed when a person is shouted down, or not allowed to speak at all. We say, "hey, he has the right to say his piece, even if it's ridiculously stupid or even mean." Effectively, we are telling the bully to shut up and let the other guy speak, and this is an ethical claim we place on the bully.

To me, anyway, this is different from claiming moral superiority. Moral superiority implies a personal, patriarchal or condescending superiority lorded over others. If we were to make all ethical decisions equal to a sense of moral superiority, and therefore try to avoid it (an ethical claim, by the way, to say that moral superiority should not be pursued), not one of us would be able to function in society.

Phillip is concerned that hunters may alienate non-hunters, and give anti-hunters more ammunition, by making our ethical preferences clear, because it may be perceived as moral superiority. He is worried that we hunters who talk about our ethical reasons for hunting may come off as evangelical blowhards who, instead of encouraging more people to hunt and support hunting, turn non-hunters off from the whole shebang. And he has a point, but only to a point.

There is a dichotomy between hunters and anti-hunters, and it is an ethical dichotomy. No matter how hunters act, anti-hunters have decided that all hunting is ethically wrong, and they will always think that is so, as a group (which is why they label themselves "anti-hunting").

The public's decision-making power determines all other actions, and many people make their decisions based on ethics. To pretend that hunting is just another sport, like basketball, is to falsely downplay both its bloody and violent nature as well as its values to society. Nonhunters know that hunting is bloody and violent, that it hurts animals. If hunters do not point out hunting's values to society, there will be no counter to this set of feelings, and hunting will take even more pressure.

Further, if hunters actively refuse to point out the ethical value of hunting, we may just as easily come off as looking "morally superior", withholding some kind of secret, as if the public isn't worthy of knowing the profound nature of hunting. Hunters, therefore, do need to illustrate, to the public, that hunting is an ethically preferable exercise to not hunting, though, like many ethical claims, it is not for everyone in all cases and times.

But there is something else. Phillip is taking issue with expressing the feelings of connectedness with nature that hunting can bring. This may not even be ethical, much less "morally superior", but it is a profound set of feelings that talk about human nature - always a sticky subject. Truly, for the hunters I know who have been moved by the nature of hunting, I've never felt a sense of "moral superiority", but instead a desire to express the profundity, the intimacy and finality and love of hunting, that they feel. Is there an ethical claim in there? Perhaps. But just as likely, there may be a sense among some that expressing something that changed a person's life and nature may be uncomfortable to consider.

But, like I said, Phillip has a point. There is a time and place for these arguments, and times and places where they aren't appropriate. Obviously, judging by my traffic here, I'm still working on that one, but Holly and Tovar have their audiences down pat, so I think they understand the appropriateness of the subject.

For me, I know my writing comes off as stuffy and probably a tad haughty, but that's just the way I write. I try to do better, but I often just let it stand. In my defense, my conversations with nonhunters do not ever come off this way. Most times, I get people who have always wanted to try hunting (or fishing), even among groups that are normally considered hostile toward hunting. Even among people who don't express a desire to hunt, I've, with only one exception I can remember, never had a hostile reception to my hunting. What I almost always experience, instead, is a conversation about the profundity of and love for nature. So I'll keep on talking about the ethics of hunting as well as the other parts of it, too. It's gained me some great friends, and I feel it may help, if only a little bit, in getting people to understand hunting and its value. But, because I respect Phillip so very much, I might tone down my rhetoric in the vacuum of the internet. Maybe.

Postscript
Phillip ends his piece with these words: "I sometimes wonder why we can’t just say we enjoy something because we find it enjoyable", to which I respond: Where's the blog content in that?
; )

The future of federal climate change work

2011-01-09T09:02:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Though I do not consider myself an expert, I have had the honor of advocating for efforts to fight climate change on-and-off for the past four years. I do have a perspective that is not tainted by decades in the trenches, political or financial connections to powerful people with a dog in the fight, or even a personal history of traditional environmentalism, and with that in mind, and considering this is a new year with new challenges and government leadership, I'd like to offer some general suggestions for folks looking to get our governments to work fixing climate change:

1) Don't spend a dime on getting any kind of positive climate change legislation passed in the House of Representatives

All of our House efforts need to go to supporting only the staunchest allies in climate change, and in fighting the horrific legislation that will come out of a House leadership, especially the Natural Resources Committee Chair who has specifically singled out the EPA's Supreme Court-mandated regulation of greenhouse gasses.

2) Turn some federal energies to the EPA

For the past ___ years (fill in the blank with the number of years you've been working on climate change legislation), the federal legislature has refused to acknowledge carbon as a pollutant. Meanwhile, due to a Supreme Court decision, the Environmental Protection Agency is mandated to regulate carbon as precisely that. Focus all your efforts on EPA decisions about carbon. My specific recommendation? Look at the "cumulative impacts" condition that the EPA (and other federal agencies) must address through NEPA (the National Environmental Protection Act). It is reasonable to assume that any government activity resulting in net carbon emissions into the atmosphere may exceed the cumulative impact threshold for carbon in the atmosphere. At the least, this should cause the EPA to pick a number, and it may effectively eliminate Environmental Assessments (a common shortcut in NEPA) for a time, as agencies are forced to determine their carbon footprint per project. The idea should be to get the EPA to enact actual regulatory measures. We have frightened and imagined ourselves out of straight regulation, believing that we need a consensus in the House and Senate before we can accomplish anything. But we can't achieve a system-wide trust in regulations unless we have regulatory agencies willing to regulate. The environmental communities can help rebuild that trust by going to the EPA to get the ball rolling.

Bottom line: Don't waste time on the House and Senate. Focus on where you have leverage.

3) Turn the rest of your federal energies to get training from your state-level allies and advocates, to improve state and regional climate change efforts

Two regions are putting in place carbon prices and markets, and California has already set limits, determined many of its industries' carbon emissions, and begun enforcement of carbon-cutting programs. Get on board here, and lobby and cajole other states to sign on to regional efforts. I've been beat over the head with the "don't let the perfect get in the way of the good", and I've got one in response: Don't let the dream of being in the room when the President signs carbon-capping legislation get in the way of actually cutting carbon emissions. The current regional proposals are far from perfect, but if everybody were fighting on those fronts to improve them, we'd have better proposals and actions.

It all comes down to this: While the federal legislature fiddles, the executive has been ordered by the judiciary to regulate carbon. Meanwhile, state and regional efforts are actually debating the numbers - tons of greenhouse gasses, allocation of allowances, etc. - that will determine the course of action in just a few months. Many advocates who've been working on state and regional carbon regulations now have tremendous knowledge concerning actual working numbers. The federal advocates can really learn from their knowledge and experience, and can bring extra weight to bear on getting the best possible decisions out of local and state policymakers.

In California, for example, we have a new governor who is probably much more amenable to reading the vital economic analysis of our state's proposed carbon allowance trading program. Considering CARB's recent decision, its staff still believes itself too vulnerable to follow the economically (and frankly, ethically) preferable action of auctioning allowances right away. However, we probably have a Governor now who understands that this is really a carbon fee, and if we give away allowances, then we hand over fee collection to the companies who pollute the most, and this isn't right. The environmental communities need to let the Governor know, every day, that there are better ways to cut carbon emissions, and every day spent in the House of Representatives is a day not spent in the Governor's office.

It is time for the environmental communities to consider where the work is being accomplished, and focus our energies there.

Why does Bjorn Lomborg get paid to publish and I have to do mine for free?

2011-01-07T14:29:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

I had decided a long time ago not to do a post on Mr. Lomborg, what with my desire to stay away from popular topics...

Really, I felt (and still do) that he doesn't have much credibility concerning the things he discusses. For years, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Lomborg was the poster boy for deniers of human-caused climate change. Since I felt (and still do) that the science proving human-caused global warming was pretty solid, and that a paraphrase of Pascal's Wager fits nicely into the notion, I decided that this fellow didn't need any publicity I would give him.

Now, of course, he's changed his tune, and argues that we must do something about human-caused climate change. So he's now entered the 1990's in terms of scientific advances; good for him. But I wasn't going to spend my time on him, except that this time he tries to stray into planning, efficiency arguments, and science, and he falls so flat (without any real attacks on his claims) that I've got to clear the air.

Mr. Lomborg, in his piece, argues that efficiency actually worsens our ability to fight climate change, and he does so by completely misrepresenting the rebound effect (where efficiency gains lead to people increasing consumption).
Fortunately, one doesn't have to do any research to debunk Mr. Lomborg's claim, as he effectively counters his own conclusions with the data he uses as example. So without further ado, Lomborg claims, in his own words:
From this:
"Back in the early 1970s, the average American expended roughly 70 million British thermal units per year to heat, cool, and power his or her home. Since then, of course, we have made great strides in energy efficiency. As the Washington Post recently reported, dishwashers now use 45 percent less power than they did two decades ago, and refrigerators 51 percent less. So how much energy do Americans use in their homes today? On a per capita basis, the figure is roughly what it was 40 years ago: 70 million BTUs."
And this:
"the proportion of resources that we expend on lighting has remained virtually unchanged for the past three centuries, at about 0.72 percent of gross domestic product. As Saunders and his colleagues observe in their journal article, "This was the case in the UK in 1700, is the case in the undeveloped world not on grid electricity in modern times, and is the case for the developed world in modern times using the most advanced lighting technologies.""
To this:
"the more efficient we get at using something, the more of it we are likely to use. Efficiency doesn't reduce consumption; it increases it."

I have one simple question for Mr. Lomborg:

Does "greater than" = "nearly equal to"?

There are more mistakes in his article... in fact, I was pretty amazed at his ability to throw together so many mistakes in such a small space.

Ultimately, readers should ask what Mr. Lomborg was attempting in his article. His trite little ending, encouraging people to get their leaders to think up good ideas, is completely uninspired and silly, considering this is supposed to be a tremendous scientific mind at work trying to help fix climate change. The only lesson this article illustrated to me is that aggressive exaggeration gets published, regardless of the logic, even when a person's popularity and "credibility" came from a background in science.

Perhaps he was more helpful when he pretended he didn't believe in human-caused climate change. We look worse having him as a "cheerleader."

California salmon

2011-01-02T07:56:00.000-08:00

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Last week, the Fresno Bee had a very interesting article on the Sacramento/San Joaquin chinook salmon runs. While giving some "good" news, it held out the notion that all still is not well with our Valley Kings. Even with a couple of small mistakes, (e.g., the commercial fishery isn't the only source of all wild-caught California salmon), the story is worth the read, and the Fresno Bee needs folks to click over and support such appropriate journalism, especially considering the farmwater slant this could have taken.

The reporter brought up some very important points about reestablishing wild salmon populations, pointing out that hatchery fish stray from their home rivers at far, far higher rates than naturally spawned salmon, and giving a clear-eyed description of this year's numbers.

For their size, king salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) are remarkably short-lived creatures. The typical fish will live 2-4 years, (hopefully) returning to its birth river to spawn and die. Yet, these fish are often caught in rivers in the 15-40 lb. range (the record Sacramento line-caught fish was 94 lbs.); the amount of nutrients they bring deep inland from the ocean's depths every year is simply stunning.

Sadly, equally stunning is the fact that about 90% of their wild spawning habitat has been lost behind the Sierra Nevada foothill dams of California. Though I'm not a huge proponent of the "keystone species" concept (we usually find out that they are all keystones), the loss of California's biggest native movers of biomass (what a romantic notion, eh?) - large predators and salmonids - must have had a tremendous impact on its biodiversity as well as its total populations of wildlife, plants, fungi, etc.

Imagine: California has the largest number of climates, biomes, plant species, etc. of all the 50 states. And the vast majority of these evolved with salmon as a nutrient source, including habitats not directly adjacent to salmon waters, as the creatures that fed upon salmon (from grizzlies and wolves to eagles and crows to bacteria) moved throughout the land.

As the article points out, the numbers of returning salmon are barely meeting salmon managers' hoped-for numbers, but they are meeting them. This time the crash was largely due to poor ocean conditions.

I can attest to this reason: Back in 2006, I worked a stint at a California State Park on the Monterey Bay. One of my jobs was to collect sick or injured birds that washed ashore on the beach, before they hurt somebody (if you ever get the notion to play hero and save a sea bird, just remember: cormorants go for the eyes). That Summer, many, many older and young birds were washing ashore, starving to death: there simply wasn't the food supply that the upwelling from the trench brought every year. The reason was that there was no upwelling, and so instead of seeing blue whales in the Bay, we saw red tides (microorganisms that thrive in warmer Monterey Bay water and suck the oxygen out of it). This loss of food obviously hurt salmon populations, helping to decrease their numbers by 95%.

95%.

Of course, ocean conditions won't be the only culprit. Just as botanists point out that when an oak is born, it's already got 10 things wrong with it, and though the 11th thing might kill it, but it would have survived if not for the other 10, so it is with all things. Poor breeding, poor freshwater habitat, droughts, etc., may all have impacted our kings. For example, the fact that hatchery-spawned salmon are dumber than wild-spawned ones might lead one to wonder: Could naturally-spawned salmon have survived the poor ocean conditions at higher rates than hatchery fish?

Last year, ocean conditions were great, and the fish are coming back at slightly higher rates. However, we are still far, far below the numbers we should expect for healthy California rivers. The article notes that the numbers of fish returning this year are roughly double those of last year. What is not noted is that this doubling brings the total up to what is probably about 10-15% of what we should expect in a healthy year.

If these numbers don't send a chill down your spine, I reckon little else could.

It isn't a huge leap to imagine some small, beautiful flowering plant in a valley, perhaps a fuzzy little thing with pink and yellow petals, or maybe a tall, showy number with a long stalk, gone now because it needed that extra bit of food, brought by a bear after having had its fill of fish at the stream over the ridge. Perhaps its seeds still sit in the soil, patiently waiting that little extra help...

The Air Resources Board is poised to make a bad decision... help them see the light!

2010-12-15T11:03:00.000-08:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Contact the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and tell them to vote down the current cap & trade proposal before them tomorrow.

I haven't written on cap & trade in quite a while, but here's a quick run-down of my views:

1) Carbon pricing must be collected by the government - giving away carbon 'credits' is tantamount to allowing companies to tax consumers for the companies' pollution;

2) Carbon offsets are too costly to monitor and too easy to get around - if you don't trust that California can pay for adequate monitoring of its carbon offset projects, do you really believe Brazil or Chiapas can?;

3) Cap & trade can work, but only if it is fairly expensive, and only if the revenues are given back mostly to the people via a direct rebate, and the rest only used to mitigate or adapt to climate change.

(If you are interested in my more extensive writings on the topic, click here, here, here, and/or here.)

Keeping in mind that there is no such thing as a "carbon market" - it isn't a good or service with any consumption value, and any scarcity of carbon will be contrived by the government - it is easy to remember that any attempt to put a price on carbon emissions will be a tax of some sort. This is not bad! Taxes are not always bad! However, they are bad if they are allowed to be collected by private parties, and the latest proposal, by giving away carbon credits to the companies and industries that pollute the most, will do exactly that.

In addition, the forest rules in the latest proposal will most likely provide incentives for timber companies to clear-cut, and they will definitely subsidize wood products in California, with the subsidies, again, being paid by consumers directly to the companies that pollute the most (those getting the free credits). Look for California oil companies to start buying a lot more wooden chairs and tables than you'd think they'd need. Also look out for giant chair bonfires at your local refinery...

This is a bad proposal, and its complexity makes it ripe for gaming. It is also probably going to be so cheap that it will do very little to curb actual carbon emissions, with the result being a nominal tax on consumers given directly to polluting companies. What an interesting way to save our planet!

For more information, start with this article at California Watch; to contact CARB about the cap & trade proposal, click here.

A voice for High Country News

2010-12-15T07:35:00.000-08:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

If you live in the Western United States, then you must subscribe to High Country News. If you romanticize the West for its grand expanses and wildness, then you, too, should be a subscriber to HCN.

If you've never heard of High Country News, check out their website. They are a great paper, with thorough expose's on any number of issues impacting the Western U.S., & with some excellent commentary, to boot.

This morning, for example, I read an opinion piece by Ben Long, a Wyoming hunter decrying the widespread acceptance of poaching wolves in his community. After expressing his disgust with local gun rafflers alluding to poaching while marketing their raffles, he makes absolutely clear that poaching is a sick attitude that does nothing to promote hunting or the rule of law. Mr. Long makes an especially good point about the rule of law and its value in protecting our hunting heritage and wildlife. A couple years ago, I, too, wrote a bit about the "sss" to which he refers. I'll add to Mr. Long's piece and say that hunters, as the public face of gun owners and the power this infers, have an even greater responsibility to promote and follow the rule of law.

If you clicked to read the HCN opinion piece, and you are not a subscriber to HCN, you cannot read the entire article. Usually, I'm a bit miffed when that happens to me, but HCN isn't a gigantic paper with loads of pop-up ads to make up for our cheap asses. In fact, the first thing you should notice is that the website is a .org, because they are a nonprofit organization. They pay for their work through subscriptions (gasp!) and donations, and they do good work.

I'm not affiliated with HCN, (though I'd love it!), I just think they do good and valuable work. If you are interested in the West, then do yourself a favor and subscribe.

4-H does that? Great!

2010-12-12T08:21:00.000-08:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Though I grew up rural, I never got into 4-H. We didn't have land, and we were never an animal-husbandry type family.

As an adult, however, I've become very interested in the agrarian life, and how it can apply to my own condition (if you are interested in reading about my semi-urban homesteading attempts, please read my other blog, Agrarianista). Most recently, I applied for (and I believe, subsequently did not get) a position with the Sacramento County 4-H.

I was interested in all the work they've done providing experiences to young people, and in researching today's 4-H, I was very impressed with the types of activities and roles they offer kids from pre-school through high school. 4-H focuses on getting kids to "learn by doing", a model for teaching that is dear to my heart, and also an effective pedagogy. Today, 4-H works to get to urban youth as well as rural kids, with programs that give children the opportunity to practice environmental sciences and sleep out under the stars, as well as learn agricultural and homesteading skills.

Of course, I am especially impressed with the 4-H Shooting Sports category. I've been interested in getting young people involved in shooting, but without the politics associated with the groups who offer such services, and 4-H offers just that: the opportunity to teach kids how to shoot and how to interact with the outdoors (both the wild and the farmland), while giving them the breathing room to enjoy the experiences.

If you are interested in passing on your knowledge about the wild, about farming and food, about the interconnectedness of the urban, rural, and wild places, then contact your local 4-H and volunteer today.

http://www.4-h.org/

California okays methyl iodide

2010-12-02T14:55:00.000-08:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Yesterday, the State gave the final approval to methyl iodide, despite the opposition of dozens of scientists, and more than a few legislators.

Back in June, I posted a piece using the methyl bromide-to-iodide controversy as a great example of "internalizing externalities". In the case of this switch, it seems ridiculous to me that we should replace one chemical because of its impacts on the ozone layer with a chemical that stays closer to home, thus raising serious cancer (and other) risks.

As sfgate.com reports, State officials are reassuring the public by claiming that this fumigant will only be applied by specialists, and the soil will be covered by an impermeable tarp... must I point out how much more awful that makes the product sound? What a way to reassure!

And this reassurance illustrates, yet again, just how we structure our ag. policies to favor huge, monocropping companies. How many mom-&-pop small farms will be willing or able to tap strawberries when the big companies are able to increase yield/lower prices by paying for "specialists"? The burdens to entry into the strawberry market are thus ratcheted up, leaving it safer for oligopoly.

Again, in the wrong direction with our agriculture.

Women's rights, food justice and security - from the social to the individual and back

2010-11-23T07:41:00.000-08:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Two great articles out last week, speaking to different issues around the ethics of food, got me to thinking about the nexus of hunting, food security, and women's rights.

First, this article at Grist on the implications of a whitewashed food justice movement. The author is honest, thoughtful, and far better at her craft than I. Definitely read it. Two weeks back, I posted a piece on how the environmental movement (which, in my mind, includes 'food justice' folks) hamstrings itself through apprenticeship programs, subsequently passing on its expertise and influence to a disproportionately wealthy group of individuals, and creating difficult burdens to entry for those who cannot afford to work for free. Natasha Bowens, the author of the piece at Grist, talks about this from a different perspective, and also shows just how one group is trying to break the homogeneity.

Next, I wanted to get a little more traffic over to Ms. Winfrey's site, to help out as I can... O Magazine has a wonderful article on hunting for the Thanksgiving turkey. Although the category is "women and hunting", the author (Kimberly Hiss) doesn't wax political about it - I wouldn't care if she did, it's a great subject, and she is an amazing writer - she writes about hunting and shooting a bird for Thanksgiving, and this act's personal and family implications. She does allude to the strange, new pressures she received when she began hunting, and also the beauty and sense of fulfillment she gets by providing food through hunting, and her subtlety is wonderful. Being thoughtful and considerate, she really lets the reader join her.

Ms. Hiss might not have considered her's a piece on food justice or food security, but I do. When she talks about her bird's diet vs. those packaged in stores and when she describes the hunt, she alludes to important aspects of food security. Food security means, at its most basic level, the ability to safely provide healthy food, now and in the future, for you and your family. For some of us, this is solely an economic problem, but for many, food security addresses the quality of food (a healthy variety) and the physical act of acquisition (keeping out of harm's way when getting it) as much as it does the ability to pay for it when it is available.

Many parts of our country are effectively food deserts, communities with no walking access to anything other than the local liquor store. In these places (as in almost everywhere on Earth), women are most often responsible for providing food for the family, and yet, the physical act of trying to get healthy food often puts them in harm's way. The empowerment that comes from effectively and efficiently wielding a gun (or a bow) to provide for one's family is profound; it strikes the very core of both food and security.

Which is why I read with happiness this piece by Holly Heyser, the Nor Cal Cazadora (another writer of the fist caliber), on the numbers of women hunting. As she points out, women hunt at a much higher rate in the West than in other parts of the country. This core of hunters and what they represent, if I may be allowed the latitude, can have a global impact on the role and empowerment of women.

Hunting embodies empowerment. Taking the life of an animal to provide sustenance is one of the three or four most basic things a human really needs in order to survive, and honing those skills requires controlling and mastering a powerful force. Guns are powerful, they equalize people like few other things - and this empowerment can mean so much more in the hands of women.

Now, I'm no trigger-happy gun fanatic, nor am I a violent person, a condition of my religion. What I am, as my Momma raised me, is as much a feminist as a man can be. And I'm not naive when it comes to understanding and recognizing power as choice and the ability to defend and provide for oneself, especially at the personal level, and especially as that relates to women in the World. In my household, I'll make darned sure that my daughter and son can shoot, of course, and also catch, garden, forage and cook good food. On the social level, I recognize that access to these basic skills is vital to equality.

As I thought more about this issue, I remembered a piece by Scott Simon of National Public Radio. When he learned of the possibility for peace talks with the Taliban, he reminded his listeners about Afghanistan under their rule, as he had reported from there for quite a while in the early 2000's. In particular, he talked about watching the first soccer game in Kabul after the Taliban were run out, where a British commando took off her beret to call to a friend, and the crowd erupted in cheers. Soon after, and every few minutes during the game, a woman would stand up in the crowd and remove her veil.

Yes, this may feel like a tangent, but I think you know where I'm going. There in Afghanistan, one empowered woman expressed that power without even thinking about it, and helped other women to see themselves as powerful. Around the world, U.N. forces with women soldiers empower local women who've suffered as slaves for untold millennia, just by being there. I don't pretend that all these women are automatically freed, but changes do happen because of these experiences. Here in the Western U.S., where women first took the right of suffrage in the U.S., it is important to remember, make conscious and plain and pass down, this power.

Hunting necessarily taps and hones that power. Increasing food security for communities and individuals by developing local means to produce food also empowers individuals. From Holly, Ms. Bowens and Ms. Hiss all the way to those women in Afghanistan who stood up in that stadium and dared to show their society that they have faces, these expressions of power shake our very foundations in the best possible way. Thank you.

That Time Josh called that coot with his speck call & the shell fell out of Kevin's gun...

2010-11-16T09:00:00.000-08:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

I love the Fall. "The sound of gunfire, off in the distance (I'm gettin' used to it now")... because, when I'm hunting, that's oftentimes the only way I hear gunfire.

Many people worry about the physical act of hunting, because guns are so dangerous. Well, let me put that worry to bed right now: Go hunting with me, and the only worry you'll have about your gun is how it's making your arms sore from lugging it all over Kingdom Come. In fact, you might even start asking yourself why you even bothered to bring a gun in the first place.

I'm known in my hunting circles as a "cooler" (look it up, yourself), a condition that grows in magnitude whenever I go hunting with my cousin. Our hunts together have been described as Epic, as in, "Wow. I've never, in my entire life, had as bad a hunt as with you two - and I doubt I ever could again."

If you've ever heard a hunting story of our adventures together, you know that they always start with the line, "that was the time that" followed by a title fitting of the greatest thing to happen on that particular hunt.

"That time we shot that speck";
"That time we shot that dove";
"That time we heard those woodies about 15 yards from us, but never got a shot";
"That time we emptied a box of shells to bring down that bufflehead";
"That time we saw those pileated woodpeckers";
etc.
(Contrary to the ramblings of one Hunter Angler Gardener Cook, there never was, "that time we almost heard those geese," that's just hurtful.)

For clarification's sake, those aren't special hunts - we didn't shoot a record-winning dove. We shot a dove.

So, though I often talk about the ethics and importance of hunting, I just wanted to be clear with you, the reader(s, I hope). I wouldn't want any illusions as to any prowess out there.

A typical mid-Winter day duck hunting with me. 75 and clear, with no breeze...

Parks get short shrift (and myopic suggestions for management)

2010-11-10T08:46:00.000-08:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Here, I'd like to add a small voice in support of parks, and explain, via a couple of poor ideas I've found in the media, some real threats faced by parks.

First, this op-ed in the High Country News really irked me. Mr. Pace makes a good point about the need for the environmental community to provide Californians with bigger ideas, but he does it by trying to shoehorn the loss of Proposition 21 into his analysis.

I worked a short stint in California State Parks, and I worked over four years in environmental advocacy at the California state level, and believe me, Mr. Pace's characterization of California State Parks as the environmentalists "pet agency" is simply wrong, and damaging.

First, most state parks are historical sites. Second, the California Dept. of Parks and Recreation has had to get its budget through the general fund, while environmental groups sought fees and fines to fund other agencies with a more direct environmental bent (like CARB, DFG, air pollution control districts, etc.) If State Parks is a pet agency, it's the runt, sucking hind teat - and Californians sadly illustrated that notion last week.

Then, A few days back, I came upon this Environmental Economics post on National Park visitor fees by Professor Whitehead. It's an interesting, short question about determining the most efficient visitor fee level for the National Parks. Unfortunately, it also perfectly illustrates a couple of common misperceptions about park visitation and management.

First, national parks are not overcrowded. Like Mr. Pace's mistake, Prof. Whitehead taps the notion of a few, iconic parks, ignoring the vast majority of the 392 park units, and ignoring the seasonality of visitation. But, even during their peak visitor seasons, those iconic parks are not overcrowded. Instead, their crowds occasionally need more efficient in-park management.

The reality is that park visitation has lagged in the past decade, and managers are rightly worried about this lag.

You see, the mission of the National Park Service is twofold: To preserve, for future generations, those places we've found to be important to our natural and cultural history, and to provide for the recreation and enjoyment of Americans at these places. This, plus the truth of the NPS budget (that revenues don't come from visitor fees, but from the Federal Government), means that Professor Whitehead's simple view of parks fits the mistaken perception of the public, but it does not fit the real threats to parks, nor does it fit the mission of the National Park Service.

The professor assumes that parks are overcrowded, that entrance fees = budget revenues, and that park fees are the most efficient way to manage for crowds. All three are mistaken.

Simply put, parks need visitors who love them. Park managers understand that they need many visitors to all have a great time. In California, state parks have come up against this reality, and they find themselves in a vicious circle. They can pretend that their visitor fees pay their bills, and set entrance fees to optimize their revenues from fees, but in doing so they will alienate themselves from the constituency that really pays the bills - the California resident. In a short time, they will lose popularity in the public's view, and will therefore lose their budget. Park advocates and managers, therefore, rightly decided to take the idea of visitation and Californians' responsibility to our cultural and ecological heritage, directly to the People. Sadly, that vicious circle had already taken its political toll.

Using visitor entrance fees to manage for crowding in park units can exacerbate that political reality. If fees are raised to "manage" (i.e., discourage) crowds, crowds won't come. If crowds don't come, parks won't get high priority in budget determinations.

Higher visitor fees are the wrong way to manage for crowds. Sadly, many economists can only talk in visitor fees, and therefore must make some seriously constraining assumptions when trying to "help". Also sadly, many park systems are realizing that, among their problems, the fee structure has politically alienated them.

I wish I had a suggestion for this dire problem many park systems now face. If you have any, bring 'em.

History and responsibility, and hope

2010-11-03T09:47:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

If you are expecting some reflection on yesterday's election, it ain't happening here. I'll gladly give my opinion if people want to read it, but not unless there is some email outpouring lamenting the dearth of talking-head spinmeisters. The only thing I will say is that I completely and totally gave up on the federal government doing anything for climate change in 2009, and I'll keep my focus on California and regional attempts to do right by their people, considering the latest changes in federal vs. state government.

But this post is another reflection from reading "A Sand County Almanac." No politics. This is about history, and more specifically, the importance of knowing history and acknowledging and reflecting on our good and bad past deeds.

A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to sit on a panel at the BlogHer Food '10 Conference (for my take on that great event, read here). During my short time at the conference, I had a number of fascinating conversations with people well versed in all things culinary. One of these conversations involved hunting snipe (Gallinago gallinago), which included the typical snipe-hunting conversation - five minutes of swearing up-and-down that they do, in fact, exist (hence, the link on the name).

Then the conversation moved to the notion that the snipe is the last of the legally huntable shorebird game species (okay, there's timberdoodles, but if I mention them, then nobody will believe any of these exist). Someone showed surprise that shorebirds had been eaten at all, the concept being so foreign, and the cultural knowledge of these supposed delicacies having been removed by law decades ago.

But shorebirds were heavily hunted by Americans for many, many years. The end of shorebirds appearing on menus and in cookbooks happened because of the efficiency of the market hunter and the flocking nature of most shorebirds, coupled with a new-found awareness that we must protect our wilds, lest we lose them all.

This morning, then, when I read 'May' in Aldo Leopold's wonderful work, I was reminded just how close we came to losing so many birds. Leopold writes,

"There was a time in the early 1900's when Wisconsin farms nearly lost their immemorial timepiece, when May pastures greened in silence, and August nights brought no whistled reminder of impending fall. Universal gunpowder, plus the lure of plover-on-toast for post-Victorian banquets, had taken too great a toll. The belated protection of the federal migratory bird laws came just in time."

One hundred years ago, the demand for plovers was so great among households and restaurants that market hunters nearly ended them all.

And the same is true for many, many species. Egret feathers no longer adorn hats. Buffalo tongue and wild grouse are no longer on the table as regular fare or ingredients. Most sadly, there is no longer a popular pigeon pie, because that great biological phenomenon, the passenger pigeon, was shot, netted, and clubbed out of existence.

Thank goodness for the wisdom, if belated as Leopold put it, of legislators who thought past mere economic efficiency, and looked at the value of things from other perspectives.

Maybe this is a political post, then. Perhaps I'm still hoping for that human trait to make a comeback, and for our leaders to note the value of our wild places, the value of what we put in our bodies, the values that we teach our children. I can hope that our leaders will look past their political affiliations from time to time, and recognize the need for us to directly manage and protect our wilds. We've done it before.

Maybe I haven't totally given up hope.

The ethical conundrum that is the apprenticeship

2010-11-01T16:26:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

I am unemployed. Of course, that means much anxiety about the future and the present, although I don't have to worry nearly as much as many others, my family and friends being who they are (wonderful). But still, it's been hard.

The past few years I've attempted to switch professions, from teaching high school to something that involved the outdoors more, because it overwhelmed me one day that I need to be outside more, and I need to be involved in the outside.

But, few outdoors-oriented jobs are currently open to me, because my educational background is in social science, and many outdoors jobs require biology or "related fields". In fact, I'm confident in my environmental science knowledge, but without papers, I can rarely get even an interview.

And so, for about five seconds, I considered the option of apprenticeships, in order to get my foot in the door. I went to California FarmLink's (a great organization, by the way) section on apprenticeship options, and found one close by. However, when I read the position description, I felt like I'd been hit in the stomach: Five months, 40-65 hours of work per week, for $300 per month.

A familiar rant welled up inside me.

I'm not from the movement that spawned environmentalism, 'back-to-the-land'-ism, urban farming and the like. Namely, I'm not from the urban & suburban upper-middle and upper class white community. We were not poor by any means, but to quote a famous song, "I was born in a small town." The landscape was riddled with conservationists, but not one bona fide environmentalist that I can remember.

Every Summer, then, to help get through college, I worked in agriculture - every pear packing shed on the Delta and in Ukiah. I did every job in the shed except pack, eventually getting a great gig as a USDA/CDFA fruit grader, 50+ hours per week at its best, for a decent wage.

There was never any option about taking a Summer off and touring Europe. There was never an option for a free apprenticeship to get a foot in the door at some company or industry. I needed to help cover my college expenses as much as I could, and so part-time work during the Semester, and work with overtime during the Summer was the only way.

Today, many in the environmental movement are derided by others as "limousine liberals", folks out of touch with real America. I'm not so harsh a judge, because I share most of their goals. But I know that there is a kernel to that truth, and a large part of that image comes from the way in which the industry (because it is an industry, too) chooses its employees.

People taking this road must often sacrifice, not just time, but financially to a level below a living wage. This may feel like one is only choosing the true followers of these ideas, but in reality it is only choosing for those who can support themselves by other means, as well. Typically, this is a young, single person with family to provide for tuition, room and board, and health insurance. Other options are spouses with enough time for both to work, but one making enough money to cover the basics (health, mortgage, insurance), leaving the other free to pursue a more altruistic profession, or the single and wealthy individual, or the retiree looking to help out. All of these are fine people, and do great work.

But what this method excludes are myriad voices - passions and perspectives that would make the environmental movement the complete system it needs to be in order to effectively reach its goals. Poor folks who need employer-based insurance, single parents who want to dedicate their vocation to a calling, college kids who need a living wage during the Summer in order to cover exorbitant tuition rates, families who want to be a part of the solution, who want to advocate and who have talents and skills to contribute, but who cannot live on less than minimum wage. These people bring different perspectives about what the wild means to them, and these people can often more effectively talk to those people living in similar circumstances.

So I am frustrated with the apprenticeships and entry-level positions offered in the nonprofit, environmental world. I understand the difficulties often faced by fickle funding, but I'm much more frustrated at being "offered" positions that cannot provide my family an honest living, and I'm a tad offended that they would expect me to continue to impoverish my family for The Cause.

A great friend (and nonprofit veteran) once quoted me Confucius during a conversation about this. She said, "that which is expensive is not expensive, and that which is cheap is not cheap."

Quick thought from the Each One Teach One idea

2010-10-28T09:33:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

In responding to NorCal Cazadora in my previous post, in occurred to me that we could help solve the chicken-and-egg conundrum about hunters and environmentalists.

Oftentimes when I'm attending an environmental advocacy conference, I come across one or two people who would love to try fishing and/or hunting, but who don't know how to start. I often also come across open-minded hunters who absolutely love having new folks to show hunting. I propose, then, a Take an Environmentalist Hunting Day, and I mean that in the sincerest sense.

Many hunters believe that environmentalists and animal rights people are one and the same, but they are not. In fact, I don't even consider animal rights advocacy part of the environmental movement (with a couple of notable exceptions, of course), although I must admit that the fact that many members of nonprofit environmental groups also tend to be knee-jerk members of animal rights groups, which clouds the situation.

Many environmentalists believe that hunters today are paramilitary members who spend part of each year in a compound in Idaho and worry about the New World Order. However, they carry a romantic notion of the act of hunting, because they have grafted themselves to the Tree of Conservation, whose trunk is T.R. and Thomas Seton, and whose roots are their romantic notions of subsistence hunters and pre-Columbian folks in North America. They know that deep within their love of the wild exists a need to be the wild, to be a part of it in the most natural way possible, through getting some of their sustenance from it. They may salve that empty part of their hearts by telling their conscious selves that this is a New Era, and that hunting, today, doesn't have the same spirit and heart, but many long for the experience.

What happens, then, when we introduce enthusiastic environmentalists with the likes of Holly at NorCal Cazadora, Hank at Hunter, Angler, Gardener, Cook, Phillip at the Hog Blog, or Tovar Cerulli? And there are many, many more like them, ready to share their love for hunting and what it provides, physically, mentally, emotionally, and in some cases, spiritually.

Hunters, if you are so inclined, I recommend you seek out some of your more environmentalist acquaintances, talk up the beauty and experience of intimately knowing your habitats and gaining sustenance from them, and see what happens. You may end up with a new hunting partner, and helping to re-engage two artificially separated communities. But if it doesn't even go that far, I doubt you'll be disappointed in the conversation and the shared feelings about those things to which we all feel connected.

Addendum: If you are interested in hunting or fishing, but have never done so and don't know where or how to start, please shoot me an email, and I will do my darndest to find a hunter in your area who will give you more information, and may even want to meet you and help show you the ropes.

Aldo Leopold, & why I don't see a difference between my hunting and environmentalism

2010-10-27T08:24:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

This morning, I read some of Aldo Leopold's, "A Sand County Almanac" to my son (he is one month old). If you are interested in understanding just why I cannot comprehend how hunters and fishermen don't consider themselves as brothers and sisters to environmentalists, or indeed, environmentalists, themselves, then please read the first three paragraphs of Mr. Leopold's foreword.

The spirit conveyed in this work, so beautifully put in those first paragraphs, lays bare the reasons that many of us hunt and fish.

The only thing separating us into different communities are other politics, and that is a crying shame.

Thoughts?

Water Politics and Physics

2010-10-08T05:50:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark.

Okay, so with little exception, the California debates for governor and senator ran their courses as expected. And for all the listening I did, I only found one environmental reference worthy of note, but not in a good way.

I'm sure you've all heard that Meg Whitman employed a woman to work in her house for 9 years, and it turns out that the woman didn't have her papers in order to work here. I'll brush past that, except to say, "duh!" I think it's obvious that wealthy people hire undocumented housekeepers as a status symbol.

But on to the environmental comment. In the first Whitman-Brown debate, Ms. Whitman stepped into a time-honored tradition in California politics: offering the promise of more water.

That's right, Meg Whitman promised more water.

I believe it was about two-thirds through the debate, when one of the moderators brought up the Peripheral Canal. Ms. Whitman took it and ran with it right in the direction I knew she'd go. She said that the Central Valley's current economic woes were due to the overzealous environmental regulations (or some such thing), and that the peripheral canal was a perfect example of a jobs-building, environmental savior. Then, she contracted something, a condition I've heard called "diarrhea of the mouth", in which she couldn't stop herself from explaining the benefits of this grand scheme. She worked herself up into such a state that she had to finish where she did, as horrific as I'm sure it had become in her head. She ended by claiming that the peripheral canal would provide more water for the environment and more water for agriculture.

I can imagine the little voice in her head, "okay, you've made a great point about jobs (although it isn't true, and the poor Central Valley will always be a feudal state), so wrap it up. Okay, bring it in bring it home... wait, wrap it up! Arrghh! Stop talking! No, don't promise them more wa... well, crap."

Ms. Whitman is surely smart enough to realize that a new river bed, no matter how it is designed, will only provide the water that runs from its sources, and cannot provide any new water. Ms. Whitman has got to be cognizant of the fact that weather and climate determine precipitation, and that one concrete conveyance cannot do one thing to increase our rainfall and snow pack.

It would have been one thing to say that the Central Valley needs the jobs that more water provides. I'd have slammed it, but at least it is within the realm of physics. But to promise a magical transformation? Pretty bad, pretty amateurish, and perfectly, politically, Californian.

Fear mongering and non sequitors from a couple of pro-Big Ag liberals

2010-09-17T14:45:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

A Grist blogger slams Ezra Klein at the Washington Post over a snippet in support of industrial agriculture. Klein "argues", in two paragraphs, that we'll have to keep agriculture industrial, and he quotes a man saying the same thing... well, in fact, half of "his" piece is the quotation. The good news? If that's the best he can get in support of big ag., then we don't have much to worry about in the arena of reason.

The quotation claims that farming benefits from economies of scale, like steel manufacture, so we should keep it industrial, and even make it super-industrial. Klein tries to add to this excruciating generalization by noting that no other enterprise that has gone industrial has ever gone back, and he does so in a remarkably juvenile fashion, I might add. We can comfortably ignore Klein's little "addition" because there is no argument in there. It's so silly, in fact, it's actually quite shocking.

However, the gentleman being quoted, Mr. Raynor from the Observer, attempts some semblance of a conversation on a serious topic that involves the lives of billions of people.

Mr. Raynor believes that the U.K. is on the verge of food shortages of such a level as to cause riots. His description of the British food supply goes a long way toward proving how silly that sounds, but he sticks to it - it is the gist of his opening line, after all.

In light of the cheap, perfect-looking foods Brits have come to expect, Mr. Raynor argues, the only way they will avoid Mozambique-like riots over food is to build a big mega-dairy...?

From there, he gets even more lost.

First, Mr. Raynor makes an across-the-board claim about agriculture, taking an extraordinarily diverse concept and treating it as if it is one product in one market. His belief that "agriculture" always and everywhere benefits from economies of scale illustrates his ignorance of both agriculture and economics.

Mr. Raynor fails to realize, for example, that economies of scale in agriculture most often come from lax environmental regulation, extraordinarily cheap labor, poor animal treatment, and/or subsidies. Mr. Raynor spends much time considering the British apple market, probably because they are an iconic English crop, but he gives no example of how big ag. can save British apple production. Would he be willing to allow DDT, labor at a pound or so per day, and tax breaks in order to save apples? I think he would argue that these measures wouldn't save British farming, and he would be 100% right.

And if Mr. Raynor is worried about the status quo, he must surely realize that the status quo includes big ag. for most of his food supply right now, anyway. Those imported apples he hates? They get there only through a few, gigantic corporations. Instead of vilifying the apples, he should be praising their availability to the skies.

Since he couldn't provide an industrial ag. solution for the problem he outlined, he picked up another one: dairy. I don't know the specifics of the dairy industry in England, and from Mr. Raynor's quick description, neither does he. I've spent some time debunking the "farmers don't get profits from sick animals" claim, so I won't do that here, but the fact that he uses this as his argument in favor of a mega-dairy says a lot about how much he really knows about food production facilities.

His last point, the inference that organic and sustainable farming practices can only be enjoyed by the wealthy, actually undermines his first point, that Brits have put themselves in a pickle by demanding produce at half of what they've previously paid (and will even burn buildings and kill people if they have to go back).

Mr. Raynor's bias of omission is also startlingly revealing: No mention of the impact of oligopoly on food markets, which often exacerbate scarcity and jeopardize food security to maximize profits - the very crises he hopes to avert by concentrating food production in the hands of a few people and places. He needs to consider the past 25 years of price gouging and collusion that major corporate agriculture enterprises have committed, and study the recent foodborne disease outbreaks originating from huge, centralized production facilities, before he goes waving the Big Ag Flag in public.

To me, though, his biggest offense is that he compares Mozambique with England to give a frightening picture of a possible English future. This is just wrong, and maybe immoral. Mozambique's GDP per capita in 2008 was roughly $440. Ten years ago, it was below $200, which means that Mozambique has been slowly improving, and that people remember times worse than when they averaged four hundred bucks per person. This, alone, should explain the reaction of Mozambicans in light of a 30% hike in bread prices, and it should make startlingly clear just why it is so wrong to compare Mozambique to England. What do Londoners pay for bread, two pounds? If it rose 100%, there would be no riots. If it rose 500%, there would be sternly-written letters to MP's, replete with apologies for doing so, but there would be no riots.

Mr. Raynor points out that Brits are paying half of what they paid for food 20 years ago, from about 20% to about 10% of their incomes. If prices rose 100% for all foods, not just bread, they'd just be back where they were twenty years ago.

Mr. Raynor makes no serious claims for supporting big ag.; he obviously is not familiar with scientific studies that point to organic and sustainable smaller ag. producing higher yields and more sustainable business models without the need for exploitation of the resource or of humans; he ignores the market impacts of oligopoly that come with big ag.; he completely misses the problems associated with food security when production is centralized; and he tries to scare people in England into thinking that they may start killing each other over the price of bread.

I don't buy it.

Must... avoid... cliché... can't resist... must try... ah, heck: A rose by any other name will still cause obesity

2010-09-16T11:39:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

How can a person resist the ease of title-writing via cliché when the topic makes it so horribly easy? BlogHer reports that the makers of high fructose corn syrup want to officially change its name to "corn sugar".

The author of that report, Rita Arens, took the topic further at her personal blog, and it's well worth reading.

As Ms. Arens points out, for those already into these issues, a name change won't make a difference. But in my humble opinion, the name change will have a detrimental effect on the public's buying habits. In general, marketing works. It works so well that we've decided, socially, to develop our media streams solely on the back of the revenue generated through marketing.

Specifically for this product, "high fructose corn syrup" is not very sweet sounding, because you have to get through three un-sweet words before you get to syrup. Additionally, the term has become one word, really, and a social inertia has been building against it. By changing the name to something vaguely nutritious in our society (corn) and something sweet that has already well stood the forces aligned against it (sugar), and is even a term of endearment, hfcs producers hope to distance themselves from the social opposition that has taken hold against the term. They are betting that A) a typical consumer won't read labels and stay up on the news; and B) the association with "sugar" will diminish the social stigma.

But, the purpose of hfcs, just like marketing, is a means to maintain market share. Marketing differentiates between products, building resistance to competition in the marketplace. High fructose corn syrup is a very expensive endeavor to begin, with huge up-front cost in materials and labor, making it difficult for competitors to enter the market. Unfortunately, these ways of increasing barriers to entrance create scarcity in food markets to create profitability among a few, gigantic corporations. This trumped-up scarcity for a necessity is a bad way to build a market and a horrible way to distribute food. In fact, creating scarcity completely contradicts the purpose of economics.

The Basic Economic Problem, the only reason for the existence of the field of study, is scarcity.

The science of choice, bovine flatulance edition

2010-08-30T09:12:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

...and I don't mean it like, "The Breakfast of Champions."

Economics is often called the science of choice (which is also why it's called the "dismal science"), because an economist spends her time thinking about everything you could have done with that $1.25 you spent on the King Sized Snickers you bought at the corner liquor store (the Standup Economist has a simply genius take on this when translating Mankiw's Ten Principles of Economics).

It's interesting, because economics looks at the choices we make with an eye toward improving efficiencies, but efficiencies come in many shapes and sizes, and increasing one efficiency may, in fact, create a less efficient outcome for something else. Take California cow farts, for example.

That's right. KQED posted a snippet about methane digesters at two huge dairies in the Central Valley, and the problems they are having getting them up and running. In it, they talk about the farmers' troubles with lowering their pollution. You see, methane is a greenhouse gas, but burning it causes a local pollutant known as NOx. It just so happens that the air quality district in which these dairies operate is almost constantly far beyond the legal limit for its local, human-health-destroying pollutants. For some perspective, note that one in five children in the Central Valley has asthma.

Unfortunately, KQED decided to place this in its "ClimateWatch" series, and not its, "OhMyLordOurIndustriesAreKillingOurChildren" series, where the "efficiencies" argument might be considered in a different light. However, they did, and they talked about how these farmers, in trying to do a good, unselfish deed, were coming up against the heartless and cold steel wall of bureaucracy. Why, one poor farmer has had to spend $200k for one pollution control device!

But, what the report does not do is compare the costs of containment to a number of other factors. For example, how much was saved in medical costs for asthma attacks? I'm no doctor, but I'm guessing that a couple hundred grand is chump change. Also, how much of these farmers' energy costs were offset by generating their own power, even after the added pollution-control measures? How much ag. production from neighboring farms was saved, since pollution is responsible for probably a 15% reduction in plant productivity from dimming the Sun in the Valley?

And, if they'd saved that money, how many additional cows could they have bought, thus increasing their pollution contribution?

Economics uses money because it is a convenient way to measure relative efficiencies, but it isn't the only way, nor is efficiency the only thing to worry about. For example, how many children were spared a painful, frightening and life-threatening asthma attack? How many parents were spared the horror of rushing a child, who simply cannot breathe, to the hospital? We can put these savings into dollar amounts, but that would cheapen it in a bad way, now wouldn't it?

I will tell you right now that these farmers did not fund methane digesters simply because they believe that global warming is partly their fault, just like we consumers don't all put solar panels up on our houses or run out and buy an electric car just to save the planet. They ran the numbers, and the energy saving they'll get from doing it in-house pays off. Plus they may get carbon offsets in the near future. Plus they help do their part to save the planet. Plus they have the ability to cover the up-front costs of conversion, and the risk of doing something fairly new.

I commend these farmers for taking a step out unfamiliar territory, and I'm especially glad that John Fiscalini at Fiscalini Farms put in that pollution control device. That's great work. I'm also very happy with the work of regulators telling folks that they have to control their NOx pollution in a place with the worst air quality in the entire country. I'm not so happy with KQED losing the heart of this story by contriving an angle to shoehorn it into their ClimateWatch series.

Economics, in getting us to consider our choices, is a great boon to society. But remember that these choices go beyond the over-simplified monetary quantities. Our choices have real impacts.

And, when you click over to the KQED piece, please note the convolutions the editor had to go through to get to use, "cut it", in the title of a piece on cow farts.

Working with what we've got

2010-08-27T22:12:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Even with the funding near-crisis which we've reached, our land management and land protection agencies still do some pretty fine work. If you read Outdoor California, for example, you'll notice the great stories of game wardens out catching poachers, drug dealers, and other nefarious sorts - and remember, at every stop of hunters, the warden knows the person is armed.

Also, consider the wonderful job Phillip at the Hog Blog describes being done at a beautiful valley in Northwestern California. It would appear the Forest Service is rehabilitating a land devastated by a catastrophic wildfire. That is some hard work, and takes a lot of effort, planning, and achievement.

For those who don't know, a catastrophic wildfire is a largely unnatural event in California ecology. Due to the high level of forest fuels from too much fire suppression over the past 150 years, coupled with a forest floor full of non-native invasive plants that burn hotter and into the soil, catastrophic fires destroy native plants, seeds, and soil biology, leaving rock and lifeless dirt in its place, to be re-populated by even more non-native, invasive plants. To bring back these lands, planners and managers must take many factors into consideration, which in California is even more complicated than other places - we have more microclimates, and therefore more plant varieties. In fact, we have more plant varieties than all other states. Combined.

So please consider this great work. Here's my tip of the hat to the wonderful, hard-working men and women of our public lands management. Thank you.

Funding issues in the environment

2010-08-25T09:22:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Phillip Loughlin always does a bang-up job of hitting some nacent idea between my brain cells and getting it out. This time, a commenter on one of the Hog Blogger's condor posts knocked me in the temple, and out popped a notion that had been stewing in my unconscious for quite some time.

The commenter made a common, innocuous claim: That condor preservation costs about $74k per bird. He also alluded to the notion that this was extravagant. I've heard this claim before, and though I don't know it's a fact, I'm willing to believe it is true right now, because condors have had such a small population for so long.

Where it took me was deep in my head, into the realm of funding for our natural resources and habitats. I've had more than a few dealings with funding, and I've come to two conclusions: If we don't step up, as a society, and start paying for effective research and management of our natural resources, somebody will... or, won't... but either way, it won't always be good.

I've dealt with land managers who've argued that lower visitation means "fewer boots on the habitat", while still decrying the loss of money for good protections. I've dealt with it as a visitor, finding garbage cans and pit toilets overflowing and filthy. I've dealt directly, as a park employee, with trying to make a living in a 3/4 time position in a place where the median price for a house was $425,000. And I've dealt with it as an advocate in the legislative realm, where many have looked for every possible way to fund our public resources management, only to find themselves having to compete for shrinking dollars with fire, police, health, and education.

Two very bad things seem to be happening, and both are exacerbated by our current economic crisis.

First, we've just flat-out stopped funding government (or "our" as I like to call it) management of public resources. We've cut park staff, rangers, and facilities for public use. California has the lowest number of per capita game wardens: 200 wardens for a population over 38 million, with more than 800 miles of marine coastline in a state 158706 square miles in size, 2407 of those inland waterways (about 500 sq. mi. more than all of Delaware). And for yet another year, our state will probably furlough 10% of their work hours.

Second, in their desperation, many advocates are turning to a new form of funding in order to take care of our public places: Private contributions. But, private money comes with some serious issues. When people give huge chunks of money to help purchase lands, there is always the conversation about how the place will be managed. This is understandable, but the government has always gained some leverage, during those conversations, by saying that it will be paying for management, and therefore it will have to determine management in a public fashion. But when private money goes into implementing management plans, the pressure to manage for those who provide the funding grows exponentially.

This second move brings with it some sad potential for public management of public lands for private benefit. I am sure there are many benevolent and wealthy folks out there willing to give up millions of dollars with no desire for getting special treatment when it comes to managing our public lands, but we cannot merely trust in the good nature of these folks.

The bottom line is that, cliche' though it may be, public lands are our lands, and if we are going to keep them well for all of us and for our future, then we cannot shirk our duties to protect them. Nor can we give over those duties to a small minority of people to manage, in the hopes that they will still think about the public's needs and wishes.

One way to help step up is by buying duck stamps, even if you don't hunt. Also, involve yourself in the public management process by commenting on proposed rules and rule changes. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that any federal government action that may impact the environment must go through a public process. California has a wonderful law like that, too (CEQA) - and other states may have other public-input requirements.

It's always important to give whatever volunteer time you can, and it's always important to donate to worthy causes. But don't forget that the United States is special and worth protecting only because of its democratic republican principles of a government of, by, and for the people.

Watch out for radioactive pigs from space! (and truffles)

2010-08-09T13:54:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Except for the space part, the title is true if you live or plan to visit East Germany (and probably huge parts of Eastern Europe and Russia), and you also plan to eat wild boar or certain mushrooms, then you might be interested in this article in the Spiegel (via the Hog Blog).

25 years after Chernobyl, German hunters are still killing contaminated hogs, and the German Government is required to reimburse them for it, last year to the tune of over a half-million dollars.

The article points out, among other things, that the pigs are probably still being contaminated because they feed on certain mushrooms, including truffles, that still concentrate the contaminants. And, they are finding some pigs contaminated at rates over 11 times the allowed about of radioactivity.

I also thought this might be interesting for people who are on the fence about subsidizing nuclear as an energy option.

A quick note

2010-08-06T12:15:00.000-07:00

I'm still around, just trying to get through life and times.

Some big things have happened that I've just not had the time to post here:

The federal climate legislation died (who'd a thunk it?), & President Obama ponders next steps;

A panel finally gave a number for the amount of flow the California Delta needs for its ecosystem functions (much less than is already flowing), and a State Senate Select Committee is meeting to talk about it next week;

The Western Climate Initiative posted its cap & trade proposal;

& the Center for Biological Diversity and allies have just petitioned the EPA to consider the impacts of lead ammunition on wildlife.

I'm sure I'll post my thoughts on these issues... in a bit.

In the mean time, do any of you have any issues you think I should cover? Think about the nexus of ethics and the environment.

A Successful Outing - Young 'uns in the field.

2010-07-19T18:46:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Yesterday afternoon, we came home from a 3 1/2 day camping trip into the Sierra Nevada.

It'd be nice to say that we hiked back 20 miles or so into some roadless area where we lived off the land, picked berries and tubers, killed the great Hart, caught fish, or some such thing. The truth is, however, that we drove up to the last vacant site in a campground of 80 spots, amid hundreds of people and next to a reservoir. But I do not apologize.

My plans always start bigger than they wind up (ask any number of my hunting and fishing companions), and this trip proved no exception. We were expecting upwards of 20 people to join us for a few days of hiking, berry-picking, perhaps crawdadding, and definitely fishing, fishing, and fishing. But slowly, people backed out, all for very good reasons, of course, and we were down to two days of 5 1/2 of us, and two days with three more folks.

The days were hot, too: I'm sure we broke 100 on at least one of them. And the neighbors were up pretty late and up pretty early. And the reservoir was full of motor boats and jet skis.

But not in our neck of the woods. Where we landed, we had a wonderful little inlet that had a few people, but almost zero encounters with fast boaters. We launched our kayak and canoe, toted around a blow-up turtle (as opposed to an exploding turtle), and splashed in the water the first day.

The evening of the second day, my nephew and I took to the woods stumpshooting. For those of you who aren't lucky enough to use a bow and arrow, stumpshooting is when you walk through the forest, slowly and quietly (or not so slowly and a little bit loud, but not screaming and running), and sneak up on and shoot wily critters like pinecones and sticks. Stumps can break arrows, so we don't really shoot at those... I'm guessing the term was coined by wealthier folks than we.

We walked, and talked, and watched the stream higher than I'd ever seen it in July. We vowed we'd return the next day with the whole family. We also had a run-in with a hawk of some kind (it kills me that I don't know what kind of hawk it was) chasing a baby bird, the momma screaming and right on its heels. The three of them went careening through the woods, and we had to duck to avoid being hit - the hawk barely banked to its left, the baby bird to its right. They flew on through the forest, but since we almost instantly heard no more screaming from the momma bird, we figured the baby had gotten away. While neither of us could help feeling relieved, I also explained to my nephew that the hawk may be trying to feed its own little ones. He responded, after some thought, that "it's both good and bad."

The next day, we all trekked back to the stream and swam it. There was a fast current in the middle of a fine pool, and my nephew swam it bravely, (which means with trepidation, but doing it anyway because he felt he should, not because we goaded him - we aren't like that). Other family arrived, and we had a great time at the pool. At one point, a niece fell in the water (she was okay), and our 11-year old dog, Irma, jumped in to save her - a remarkable feat, since she absolutely detests swimming, and the water was cold. If you've never owned a dog, I might venture to say that you've never known pure, unconditional love.

The berries weren't ripe. We didn't drop a crawdad trap. We fished maybe ten minutes, tops. No rabbits for the pot. Deer season was a month away. And yet, this was one of the greatest camping trips I've ever had. Loving family was there, there were adventures aplenty, the food was great, and I got to watch my 3-year old daughter show little fear of anything other than boats and band-aids. She climbed up and down rocks all day, she watched bugs, she asked about bird calls (a red-breasted nuthatch).

What an amazing time.

If you ever get a chance to get out with kids into the woods, even if they are a little crowded with other folks, do it - for them, and for you.

And now, I'll leave you with a little video I took on a tree next to our campsite. I think it's fitting with the theme:

Last weekend's hunt, and thoughts on archery hunting

2010-07-15T12:23:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

I had an absolutely amazing time on my bowhunt with Phillip and Cat. No game was bagged, but something in me clicked, in a good way.

Archery hunting tends to do that to me. It makes me calm, it helps me move more deliberately and understand that serenity goes a long way in life.

When a person moves when archery hunting, they are trying to get in close, without being recognized. Many people automatically anthropomorphize creatures, but when one hunts with a bow, even the most basic human assumption - that sight is the most important sense - has to go out the window. At least, it does when you hunt pigs or deer.
flx1247rg
When bowhunting, the wind is more important than cover. Sound, too, becomes very important.

And so, one pokes slowly through the forest, using game trails and old roads, and always checking the wind patterns. Especially when there is no persistent breeze, winds can be tricky.

I consider myself fairly astute at reading the wind, for which I credit my nearsightedness. When I was young, I went a few years without knowing I needed glasses. I was quiet and shy, and I also got good grades, so it just never really came up until I was about to get my driver's license. However, I walked outdoors constantly, but came to rely more and more upon my understanding of the wind, especially in regards to how it moved sounds, but also smells. (I also greatly enjoyed tracking, because tracks were close and thus more visible than, say, sunlight through the ear of a cottontail.)

Luckily for me, then, I've a decent ability to read the wind, a downright invaluable asset when bowhunting. Rifle hunters need to know the wind, too, but usually only if it is moving big, or if they are still-hunting, or hunting heavy cover; but for a bowhunter, there is much more to it. My most recent trip provides a prime example:

This last weekend, I had the absolute privilege and joy to stalk wild hogs. In particular, after stumbling (a little more literally than I'd have liked) upon a wallow on a creek, I decided... well, my calves decided to sit a bit, because I knew it had been used recently (I could smell pigs there - isn't that cool?). The Sun was setting, and I knew I had maybe 20 minutes of light left.

The creek was nestled between two steep, dry hills that rose a few hundred feet on either side. They were very steep in some places, impassable in others, and covered in varying degrees of deep, dark wood, oak park habitat, and grassy open spots. The grass was golden and dry, the ground baked by the California Sun, making bushwhacking too noisy a prospect. But, a road paralleled the creek.

After "hearing" something up-creek a bit, I slowly walked around a small bend. I realized almost simultaneously that the noise had come from the water, and that, 100 yards distant, browsing calmly between two oak trees and out in the grass, moseyed a sow, a boar, and six piglets. I froze.

Now, if this had been a story with a rifle, I would have had the picture of the pig at the end of this story, right? But with my recurve, I was just beginning a stalk, and I had 70 yards to go.

Thanks to my nearsightedness, when I stopped moving I immediately knew the bad news. The back of my arms and neck, the exposed parts of my body, were colder than the front. The wind was slowly wafting from me to my prey. With little light left, I knew I couldn't hike up the hill and back down to them, so I attempted to close the distance a little quicker than normal. Using the cover of the creek berm, I moseyed, myself, toward them.

Crap! I walked up onto another wallow, and I immediately knew that's where they were headed, and if I'd stayed put, they might have walked right up to me.

I made about 30 yards before the boar caught wind of me. A little snuffling snort, and all of them stood stock still, wound up tight, and ready to run. Then they did run, back into the deep, dark wood, and into my memories forever.

They never once saw me, of that I'm sure - and the creek's gurgle ensured that they never heard me, either. All it took was the familiarity of my smell (my wife will laugh at that one) for them to know, as surely as I would know if I'd seen a man with a gun stalking me, that they needed to leave, and fast.

Archery hunting hones a lot of lessons that regular hunting teaches, including the human need to move slowly and deliberately through the wild, the need to understand how you influence the world, and the vital lesson that things happen that you cannot control, and that accepting them and putting yourself out there are more important.

Getting out there also reminded me that I love and thrive on just being there. I saw a tiny owl, I saw bandtail pigeons ripping through the air. I saw quail, and had the hooey scared out of my twice by a lovesick grouse and his beautiful, brown mate. Twice. I stalked a jackrabbit and was showed equal shock and an instant of stark terror when a horrifying pig-squeal rose up from the canyon below us. I realized that no successful North American mammal predator has a green coat. And I spent a great time with two great, new friends - laughing, joking, eating and drinking, recounting tales, and sharing a sad moment (read Phillip's piece on that one).

So, when I got home and started poking around a few sites looking for archery and bowhunting legends and lore, and I stumbled upon this amazing video, I won't feel shame to say it brought tears to my eyes. Please take a couple of minutes to hear the last question of the last interview given by Fred Bear. You won't be disappointed.

I'm off after the great Hart

2010-07-09T12:51:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

In a few hours, I'm on the road to meet up with Phillip from the Hog Blog, and pursue both blacktail deer and wild pigs.

The last deer I took, a beautiful, tiny, blacktail doe during the late season archery hunt in Monterey County, happened while my wife was pregnant with our now three-year-old daughter. I was elated that my daughter was made out of the coast blacktail, and I've told her that her whole life (she's also made out of the wild rainbow surfperch and rainbow trout of the Sierra).

This year, we are expecting another baby, a boy, some time in September or early October. Of course, I again hope to bring home venison and pork.

However, even if I come home with only life-sustaining stories with what I know will be a wonderful, powerful time, I am still lucky. From my relatively new community of blogging friends, my baby is already made from coast blacktail and wild boar. For, we were invited to Hank and Holly's Big Fat Greek Party back in Spring, where they served up wild sausages I believe were made from Maximus. Later, they also provided me with venison stew meat, and chunks of Trinity River steelhead.

It sounds fru-fru hippie, I know, but it isn't that in my mind. In my mind, places are very important, and places include the animals and plants that have thrived there for hundreds or even hundreds of thousands of years. And though my family doesn't have the ancestral connections to this most beautiful of places, I have still thought myself a Californian, in love with the myriad habitats and climates, and the wonders they hold. This is why I have taken off for the wilds my whole life. This is why I hunt.

And knowing that my children's synapses were formed from this place, that they have been nourished, if only a little, from these amazing lands, makes me very happy.

Archery season! Archery season!

2010-07-07T13:06:00.000-07:00

© Joshua Stark 2010

It's time, again. The seasons roll around, and although my life has changed dramatically the past couple of years, and continues to do so, the seasons still roll around. What season is it now? Well...

I read many hunting blogs and magazines this time of year, and I also break out two very important books, one by Fred Bear and one by Chuck Adams. Both of these books were given to me when I was a high-schooler, and I've read them and re-read them almost every year since. They are books about archery, and about bow hunting, in particular.

Archery is my favorite hunting season in California. I know that sounds weird, because I read about how horrified people get at the prospect of hunting in 100+ degree weather, but that has always been my experience.

I didn't grow up in a hunting culture, and so I've rarely been successful at big game. Four years ago, then, when I bought a recurve bow and decided to pare down my gadgetry and gear for archery, I was very surprised to take a doe with it. Archery, and in particular "traditional" archery, had taught me valuable lessons.

I've blogged about archery gear over at my Lands on the Margin blog, if you are interested. I hunt with a cheap, 55 lb. draw recurve I named Versorger (German for "bringer" or "provider"... basically, a caterer) that pinches my fingers bad and stacks like a beast (stacking is bad, if you don't know archery). But it has provided, and I shoot fair-to-middlin' with it. What I do when I hunt with it is hunt better.

In archery season you at least see bucks sometimes. In California, with very few exceptions, you can only shoot forked-horn or bigger deer (for you over-compensating whitetail hunters, that would be a "three pointer" or bigger), and for many years I thought the notion of deer with antlers was a myth perpetuated by the Dept. of Fish & Game to sell tags. But in archery season, buck sightings are more common, probably because the hunters are quiet, unlike during rifle season, when shots occasionally roll across the canyons and valleys, and many, many more people take to the "field" (meaning, drive up and down logging roads).

Archery, itself has a great quality about it: it is a deeper brush with our connections to the wild. I enjoy shooting guns, for sure, but every aspect of archery provides me with a deeper meaning. The symmetry of the bow, the speed of the arrow, the finality of the shot, the ultimate reliance on one shot, and the need to get closer all appeal to me.

Ethically, I have the same problem with archery season that I do with most people who think they can shoot past 100 yds.: Many people don't practice enough, and when they are in the field, they aren't honest with themselves about the range and opportunity of shots.

Some animal rights people are concerned with the wounding danger of arrows, but they haven't had enough experience with a bow, either. Poorly shot arrows do wound game animals, and that is a shame. However, an arrow-wounded animal that gets away has a much better chance of surviving and thriving than does an animal wounded by a gun. Arrows kill by slicing clean, often passing completely through. Guns kill by opening holes, too, but also by shock. A gun hits with a blunt force. An arrow, as Chuck Adams states, has less kinetic energy than the smallest pistol, a .22 short. Yet, with an arrow, a person can kill bison.

Archery also teaches one how to hone skills, not just acquire them. Everything about archery, from the actual honing of the broadhead to the need to improve tracking skills, read the wind, and know your prey, thrives on betterment. Above all, archery rewards accuracy, and it can be practiced in a relatively small space.

This year, I hope not to put down the bow with the end of archery deer season. California has an early season archery quail hunt in August, and I hope to get up into the mountains after them. I also hope to get family out with bows for stump-shooting after pinecones and the like. It's a great sport just by itself, and it teaches a lot without preaching. Something I could learn...

Lead bans in California

2010-07-06T21:27:00.000-07:00

© Joshua Stark 2010

Phillip at the Hog Blog beat me to it, but I wanted to note here that the proposed lead ammunition ban in California wildlife areas was killed in committee. I don't expect this decision to be paraded around by opponents as another example of wise leadership on the part of our legislature, but it should.
flx1247rg
That's right, I said that the folks who were opposed to this ban need to acknowledge, vocally and in public, that this decision was a good, wise decision. Then, they need to take it a step further, and offer a bill that would provide for research on these properties, research that looks for any and all impacts from potential pollutants, including lead, but also other pollutants. It's time to judo-flip this puppy, lock arms with other members of the environmental and EJ communities, and say, "hey, there is a concern for pollutants on our lands. We worry, because we love the wild, and we also eat the wild. We want healthy places for our land and for our children."

Now is the time to step up with some solid language. I propose the bill language include general research into airborne, soil, and water pollutants with a focus on identifying the toxins and determining their vectors into the habitat. I also propose that findings be reported by five years' time. Last, I propose that the research consider each wildlife area individually, that it not be lumped into some general statements.

We are a huge state with many climates, dozens of microclimates, many different watersheds, and a huge diversity of industries. We also have a gigantic population that is highly urbanized. All of these factors weigh in on the various pollutants with which we live.

Seriously, this could be the impetus for bringing together those who care about our environment, whether for hunting, for its own sake, or for the pollutants that harm our own neighborhoods.

Editorial note: I did support the lead ban in condor country, but opposed the proposed lead ban in all wildlife areas. I also no longer shoot lead at all when hunting, because I have a pregnant wife and a three-year-old daughter. We need solid science to show that a lead ammunition ban would, indeed, positively impact my wild places, and where this comes to light, I do support lead bans. But, where it is determined that it is not causing a problem, I do not support a ban.

The sorrowful pessimist in me says that other politics (namely, the grip of huge industries on our political sphere) will keep our groups from organizing on this issue. But, I try to remain hopeful, and if anyone is interesting in helping out, please let me know.

Bad article on feedlots, with a twist

2010-06-27T11:23:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

A few days back, I came across an online article in the tweet-stream written by a self-described vegetarian, about CAFO's (confined animal feeding operations). This might not sound very strange, as vegetarians often write about CAFO's. But the catch was this: the article was going to be in favor of them. This, I had to read.
flx1247rg
After reading it, I'm sorry I spent so much of my time on it.

Basically, it boils down to this: This article is nothing more than a fluff piece for CAFO's. In fact, it is so fluffy, I'm willing to say that I seriously doubt the author's authenticity. The piece is riddled with misrepresentations, flawed logic, and the typical arguments couched in a "wow! as a VEGETARIAN I never knew that!" style of writing.

First off, I'll admit that I am confused about the author, because his "favorite" t-shirt was a bust image of a woman's t-shirt (on a woman) that read, "have you hugged a vegetarian today?" Also, though the blog author is, "Ryan Andrews", the introduction was obviously written by somebody else, and that, coupled with the objectifying shot of the woman's headless torso make for a discombobulated opening. But, on to the actual reporting.

The claims of this article are extraordinarily polished - by which I mean that they have been worked and worked to avoid, as much as possible, actually false claims, while trying really hard to address specific concerns voiced by people who actually care about animals.

For example: "You see, very few people in the nutrition world are ever allowed to visit feedlots. In fact, some of my favorite authors have written entire books about feedlots without ever being granted permission to see one in person."

I'm sure this is technically true. I mean, what logical person owning private property would willingly let in people who are looking to destroy their industry? However, quick search engine searches, or searches on YouTube, easily offer video footage of animal cruelty within actual feedlots. There is a difference between being granted permission and getting inside. Yet, the author's claim here is meant to give his article a credibility that other "favorite authors" (who?) shouldn't have, without actually calling anybody out.

Another example: "So if Steve’s (the feedlot owner) is a “family farm,” what’s a “factory farm”? Well, the term “factory farm” isn’t actually used in the agricultural community. So, in essence, it’s slang that was coined by skeptics of the cattle industry."

First, note the two "so's" sandwiching a "well" - creating that shucky-darn down-homey feel, trying to hide an industry mantra, that there is no real factory farm, and that farming is still a family enterprise at its heart, with the hope that people will automatically equate "family" with local, good, simple, humble.

But there is something more insidious in this claim. I, for one, have heard many in the agriculture community use the term "factory farm". Organic and small farmers serving multiple products largely to their own communities often refer to their subsidized, promoted, competition as factories. And of course, if you eat, you are a member of the ag. community. And don't even get me started on what constitutes a "farm" (multiple products) vs. a "ranch" (one product). It's bad enough to perpetuate the illusion that there is an ag. industry that doesn't include its customers, but trying to separate organic and multi-cropping farms from the agriculture community is downright wrong.

I could really spend an entire post pointing out these little, weasley wordings. But there are some actual claims made by this PR piece that don't stand up to scrutiny, even after all the polishing, and it's those I'd like to really address.

I'll start with the CAFO definition. The author claims that the EPA says a CAFO are places that, "congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields, or on rangeland." But, this is the definition of an "AFO", not the definition of a CAFO. According to the EPA, a CAFO is defined by its pollution contribution, a criterion which Magnum (the feedlot in the article) meets. Pretty interesting omission, that one.

Another one has to do with the author's "surprise" at the diets of feedlot cows: "Wait, wait. What about all those reports of sick cows being stuffed with corn? Well, folks, at Magnum anyway, there’s no such thing as an “all grain” cattle diet. In fact, the diet of the cattle at Magnum never exceeds 50% corn. And often, it’s much, much less."

This statistical claim is so out of context that it is rendered beyond useless, it is actually misleading. The simple, unanswered question is: What amount of corn in a cow's diet is bad for it? The author doesn't know, or doesn't say; but by showing shock at the grass in the cows' diets (what does he think all those alfalfa fields are for?), he misleads the reader into believing that he does know, and that the percentages used by Magnum are good for cows.

Michael Pollan claims that 15-30% of feedlot cows show abcessed livers, which more reasonably leads one to believe that the diet is not good for cows. Also, fat marbling in muscle is a fairly unnatural phenomenon in nature, so one can reasonably assume that whatever is being fed to feedlot cows is doing unnatural things to their bodies.

Next: "Growth-promoting hormones are used in feedlot cattle as it (sic) increases efficiency. These are naturally occurring hormones that are regularly metabolized by the body. Most cattle don’t get antibiotics. And if they do, they need it. Further, they won’t be sent to slaughter until 21 days after antibiotic administration, since it takes that long for the antibiotic to clear the system."

Okay, I'm sick to death of this argument. Do you know what else is naturally occurring? Puffer fish poison. Cyanides. Hell, petroleum is naturally occurring. And when a body metabolizes it, what happens to it? Does it completely disappear, doing nothing? Another bias of omission. Also, the last sentence is at least misleading, and probably false. The folks at Magnum have to give a waiting period for cows on antibiotics, per USDA regulations. We don't really know if it takes 21 days to clear the system, but we definitely do know that this isn't the reason the folks at Magnum wait 21 days.

And another: "According to Magnum, organic feed doesn’t seem to increase meat quality or safety. Research doesn’t really support the idea either. But, organic feed does allow consumers another option (i.e. organic meat vs. non-organic meat). And organic farming practices may have some benefits for the planet."

Holy cow! Really??!!! It's hard to address this one, because it's a whopper. "Quality" is subjective, and many folks who raise grass-fed beef get the smelly end of that stick, because USDA quality criteria include fat where it shouldn't be. The "another option" claim is a way to give lip-service to an industry the author doesn't necessarily want to offend (other cattle ranchers). That last sentence just... it just... well, I'm sure you know how that last sentence makes me feel.

And that was just the bump-set for this spike: "Sure, some folks think grass-fed, free-range is better. But, as any good PN reader can attest, it’s a heckuva lot more expensive. And, at the end of the day, Magnum is competing for the protein food dollar. Mainstream America is currently buying conventionally fed meat from cattle, so, feedlots keep producing it.

"It’s also important to know that if we continue to eat 200+ pounds of meat per person per year in the U.S., grass-fed isn’t really an option. There’s not enough land."

Of course, the first real reference to consumers is derogatory. The hapless, helpless little beef industry buffeted by the market and insatiable appetites must, simply must provide what is demanded. As an economics-minded person, I'm always sickened by the hide-behind-the-demand defense, because it pretends that profits don't exist, that wealth doesn't exist. Also, the economist in me immediately asks, "why is grass-fed more expensive?" and the answer is apparent: The big CAFO ag. industry is heavily subsidized, in its feed, in its water deliveries, in its pollution, in its energy consumption, even. So, we are paying more for meat, we are just paying for it socially, through taxes and social costs associated with its production.

And I've already blogged about how untrue the land claim is regarding grass-fed vs. feedlot cows.

And on to animal welfare: "...Magnum wants the cattle to be clean and comfortable.

"I know, I know, I can see my animal welfare comrades shaking their heads – - but think about it. From a profit standpoint, if animals aren’t comfortable, they aren’t going to eat. If they don’t eat, they don’t grow. If they don’t grow, they won’t be much use to the dude wanting to buy a big steak."

I have thought about it, and the consequentialist ethic here regarding cleanliness is wrong. Magnum doesn't want cattle to be clean. They want carcasses to be clean. Magnum doesn't want animals to be comfortable, they want them to be fat. To be fat, they need to eat, not be comfortable. Comfort does not always equal eating well, and discomfort does not always equal eating poorly. One does not have to follow the other.

Plus, "comrades?" Can you say, "subliminal message?" No Commie inference there, I'm sure.

And on "waste" at Magnum: "Magnum recently started composting manure and mortalities (i.e. cattle that don’t make it). It’s gotten more expensive to send deceased cattle to processing plants that manufacture pet foods, so this was the next best option.

"Plus it’s more sustainable. And the cattle don’t end up standing around in piles of their own feces. Whew!"

Did I miss something? Is dog food made out of cow poop? A sneaky little semantic sleight-of-hand there, moving from all its waste to just its "mortalities". The last sentence there makes one think that Magnum has folks just standing around behind cows, waiting for them to poop. But wait! What was the author's first thought upon arrival? "“Oh, god, the smell.”" Now, go to your local county fair, and smell a cow. Don't smell just the barn they've been standing in, but really smell a cow. They smell like cows, not cow poop! Cows, like other animals, only smell bad when something is wrong. He should have trusted his nose, it always knows.

I could spend an entire post on his "conclusions." But I won't. His conclusions, based on such faulty information, cannot lead anywhere good. Of course, he never touches the notion of animals having worth in and of themselves, or our responsibility toward allowing them to live like they should. Nor does he address the fact that pollutants in a CAFO are actually additive in a grass-fed environment, and that farmers can reap greater output with fewer inputs, over the long run, with grass-fed beef. Nor does he address the health concerns of the people working in industries that support this CAFO (like the folks who have to deal with the pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides in the fields that feed these cows).

Please, food folks, stop passing this article along as some kind of new and improved way of looking at CAFO's. It's bad reporting, it's bad writing... it's, it's just bad.

Connections and connectedness

2010-06-24T11:12:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Last week, at an environmentalist convention (I live a very unorthodox life, I'll tell ya), I had a typical lunchtime conversation that I thought you all might be interested in.
flx1247rg
I attend many environmental get-togethers - conventions, seminars, "summits", annual meetings, those sorts of things - and almost inevitably, at lunchtime, I find myself sitting at one of those large, round tables in a convention hall of some big hotel. The food is almost always the same, and oddly enough, is just like everybody else's conventions: Hotel-catered lunch meats, but with a slightly more robust veggie section, to give the vegetarians something. Most environmentalists, even here in Northern California, are not vegetarians.

Anyhoo, I find myself sitting at a large table, and the conversation always goes to food and where it comes from (odd, that...). At some point, I give my philosophy (that animals should get to live as they were intended to live, wild when wild, and that we should take responsibility for the lives that sustain us). Then I tell the folks that I hunt.

Every time I have done this, one or two people at the table begin talking in hushed tones: "I've always been interested in hunting. I've never had the chance (oh, I shot my friend's uncle's gun when I was a teenager), and it has always appealed to me as an idea." They are truly excited, they are looking me straight in the eye, leaning across the table, no longer eating. I can see their eyes focusing on something else sometimes, even, somewhere else. They have that spirit within them, but they've never had a conversation with it, and now they see that it isn't just a little, dirty secret, it isn't just some vague blood-bespattered notion without a word to give it a beginning within their hearts, it isn't some voyeuristic vision which they can only feed by watching Shark Week. It is alive, it is a part of them, and it is shared. It has an ethic, even.

So we talk, mostly questions asked of me, and always in hushed tones.

What do you hunt? Do you eat what you kill?

Where do you go?

What do you need/use? How do you learn?

Well, this week, I offered to take a fellow out to the shooting range, and he bit. Next week some time, then, I'll be teaching a man how to shoot, as well as just showing him around the American River parkway and fishing with him (he's fished in the past, and wants to start again).

Interestingly enough, a couple of times I've mentioned my hunting to get a rile out of somebody, but it has never come. The people who have dedicated their lives to environmental action, who have chosen livelihoods to complement their passions, have never once been offended by my statements at lunch, including every vegetarian I have ever spoken to at an enviro. get-together. There is an honest respect for and understanding of ecology, food webs, habitats, etc., and there is also a deep desire within the community to connect with the land. Many of these folks were compelled to become biologists, ecologists, guides, because of a need to be in the wild, to know it deeply and respectfully. I am always happy to find myself in their company, happy to be among folks who so deeply love the wild for what it is.

Flat-out on the Ethics of Hunting, and Fair Chase in particular

2010-06-18T12:00:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Quite a while back, a number of thoughtful hunters in the blogosphere started a round-robin sort of series of posts on the ethics of hunting, in particular over the concept known as fair chase. (Phillip at Hog Blog has a good compilation of the links.) Fair chase has an interesting history, in the United States becoming ingrained in the community as hunters both became less dependent upon killing for the table, and as technological gains substantially changed the nature of hunting.
flx1247rg
For those of you who don't hunt, fair chase is the idea that hunters should use equipment and techniques that limit their chances, in order to make the hunt more fair for prey. That description sounds weird, especially because we are talking life-and-death, so let's put it in context: Humans have devised many techniques to very efficiently take animals. When hunting was vital to peoples' food, hunters would drive large herds over cliffs, use fire to burn out places and drive animals, use bait to bring animals to places where they could be dispatched more easily, use traps, etc. As we grew more technologically advanced, and as economic systems encouraged larger and larger takings, acquiring wild meat became very easy - actually, too easy, and animal populations plummeted. Today, in the parts of the world where hunting is not vital to providing food, and where commercial hunting has been outlawed due to its tremendous impacts, hunters have often developed the concept of fair chase as a way to hone skills and to properly manage their impacts on animal populations.

Well, after having read blog posts and comments, I felt just about everything had been said, and didn't see much to contribute. And yet, I felt like there was a piece missing in the connection between fair chase as a personal choice and fair chase as an ethical concept. On a broader note, I truly believed that there was something to the ethics of hunting that needed to be said, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

But the other day, Tovar's piece on his problems with Ortega y Gasset led me to a stronger connection to one idea about fair chase developing as a replacement for hunger as the impetus for improving one's skill. I had already believed this, but in contemplating the conversations related to Tovar's post, it dawned on me that this is a sufficient reason to consider fair chase an ethic rather than an aesthetic.

The betterment of skill is desired by a hunter, at least because of the improved results that come with skill, and oftentimes the desire to make quick, clean kills to minimize pain and other negative impacts on the prey and habitat. Improving one's skill, therefore, is a "good", both in the Aristotelian definition of the word and in the definition as described by many other ethical philosophies (e.g., Kantian, utilitarian, Judeo-Christian).

Hunting traditions place fine skill above almost anything else. An expensive gun may be envied, and nice clothes do sell, but real admiration and respect goes to the hunters who have honed their skills to a great degree. Tracking, understanding habitat, weather, and especially the spirit of the prey are most appreciated, as are a respect for and skill with one's equipment. The next time you get a chance, ask a hunter which he feels more admiration for, a man with a Kimber shotgun who hits 10 out of 25 clay pigeons, or a man with a Mossberg who can hit all of them, and I will 100% guarantee you how the hunter will answer. When hunger and the need to provide for family and community were lost from hunting, and when human ingenuity outpaced animals' abilities, fair chase became the impetus for honing one's skills and techniques.

Many hunting traditions have strong codes of conduct, strong ethical traditions. In fact, skills that would be merely important in other endeavors, but not ethically so, reach the level of ethos in hunting because of the seriousness of the activity. In the past, hunger drove hunting, and good hunters were rewarded, but due to our social nature, everybody was rewarded by the good hunters, too. "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" provides one great example of this shared good through individual skill. In addition, a hunter could very well be successful today and horribly unsuccessful for the next few weeks, or even be wounded in the field. Because of these factors, magnanimity, humility, and respect for the environs are other ethical claims in which many hunters strongly believe. The vital need for success, the finality and emotional ambiguity involved in killing and death, the dangers involved in taking to the wilds after animals, and the necessary respect for and constant need to improve skills, all exemplify why hunting lives by an ethical code rather than just a series of preferences, and why the conversations around hunting are so passionate.

This digging deep into the human soul is actually why many are attracted to hunting, especially in our culture, where few things are left that have such depth and importance, or deal with such basic human needs and concerns with such seriousness and sincerity.

So, skill is not merely something that a person might or might not work to improve in hunting like it is, say, in basketball. A person may play pool occasionally, or go bowling without practice, but the person who claims to be a hunter without trying to improve their skills at the very least in preparation for the hunt commits an unethical act, as their actions will more likely result in no animal, or worse, a wounded animal, or even worse, a wounded person. A person dismissive of skillfulness in hunting crosses a line that doesn't exist in a pick-up basketball game or photography.

Without the vital need for sustenance, without the need to rely on others directly or supply food for neighbors and family, hunters still value skill beyond just a neat thing to acquire, and they have devised fair chase in consideration of conservation efforts, and in understanding the need to improve skills, both of which are ethical concerns. And since the reasons for fair chase are ethical reasons, the act of fair chase is an ethical concern, too.

Please weigh in - let me know what you think of the concept of fair chase, or of the ethics of hunting.

The meat of Environmentalism

2010-06-16T11:13:00.000-07:00

The controversy over meat within the environmental movement is a long-running one. Not having originated from what is known as the hippy-crunchy enviro. crowd, I'd always considered eating meat a natural human activity, though my own concerns with the sadness of death and the moral implications of causing pain gave me pause in my life, and continue forcing me to consider my actions and impacts.
flx1247rg
Lately, a number of articles and conversations formed the impetus for a post about the environmental consequences of eating meat. A couple of months ago, I started receiving emails from Grist, an environmental e-zine, and quickly found a number of articles and blog posts on the meat-eating controversy. Then, David Zetland posted this on vegetarianism, and Ms. Niman wrote this article for the Atlantic Monthly. Most recently, Tovar Cerulli posted a piece on providing game for the homeless, and Holly at Nor Cal Cazadora just posted a review of the book, "The Vegetarian Myth."

I, too, have posted some thoughts and feelings about eating meat, in particular this post on the Calculus of Death, where I look at the nature of death and sustenance, and compare the environmental impacts of a typical vegetarian vs. a conscious meat-eating diet.

Although I don't mind a person making a choice to eat vegetarian, or even vegan, I do have serious problems with the ethical claim that vegetarianism is environmentally preferable to omnivory. Vegetarianism may be a religious requirement for some, or a health decision for others, but its impacts on the environment are negligible, at best; and at worst, the practice may lead to an unnatural perspective on the world parallel to our current food industry. Now, I'm not arguing that it is as bad as our current agricultural system - vegetarianism in the current system, as an individual choice, may have some positive impacts. But what is lacking in vegetarianism as a system tends to perpetuate the same problems we have under our current regime, though probably on a smaller scale.

For example: One tendency appearing in 'vegetarian-as-green' arguments is the belief that since feedlots are usually sources of pollution, eliminating meat in the diet eliminates this pollution. Another argument notes the size of agricultural land needed to feed these animals, land that could be used for growing a veggie diet with room to spare for the wild. But, these arguments miss a big point. As Wendell Berry has pointed out:

Nature farms with animals.

In nature, lands are fertilized and revitalized by animal and fungal activities. Ms. Niman points out that the very slightly tilled North America prior to European migration maintained at least as many large, hoofed ungulates as it does now. And yet, there were no gigantic dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, no need to process chemical fertilizers, no need to truck food here and there.

Right now, big ag. desperately tries to separate each ecosystem component into its own box, ala other large-scale enterprises, from the belief that this is more efficient. But this is not more efficient in terms of food production. The organization 'Co-op Voices Unite' cites a USDA study showing that smaller, multicropping farms are far more efficient at food production than large-scale, monocropping ranches.

Right now, big ag. separates cows from farms and puts them into CAFO's (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations). Their effluent then becomes a waste product that must be contained, cleaned, and trucked out, and much of its nutrients are lost.

Right now, big ag. separates plant species into huge fields, and must artificially plow and apply processed fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides, and pesticides, because nature keeps wanting to creep into these huge chunks of land. With no real infrastructure in the soil, these lands become susceptible to erosion and quickly slough off much of the artificially produced and applied fertilizers, etc.

And so, due to the tremendous loss of nutrients at the CAFO and the at the field, we are forced to artificially produce more nitrogen and other components to maintain "healthy" plants. This raises the levels of these nutrients outside of the feedlot and land - these become pollutants, where otherwise they would have been food.

This is just one example of the problem with specializing and separating ourselves from our food. Unfortunately, an all-veggie diet doesn't leave this system, it tends to perpetuate it, but without the animal part, which requires more artificial fertilizers. Much of the protein acquired from plants comes from soy cultivation, which needs this sort of treatment, in addition to the pest eradication that kill many millions of mice, rats and voles each year.

The environmentally aware answer, for me, is to understand that nature puts animals, plants, and fungi together. Instead of deciding to stop eating cows and drinking milk, for example, we should encourage them closer to home, on grasslands and near plant crops. We want them working within a system that improves watersheds and provides nutrients where they are needed. If we pretend we can live without animals, we will find ourselves still trapped in an artificial world of false economy and separation from the land. Nature needs animal life and death, and we are here a part of nature.

I've not yet heard how the pro-veggie side expects we will fertilize these lands, but if I've missed something, please let me know. In the meantime, I will take my cues and lessons from nature, which needs animals, life and death, to farm, and not pretend that I know better how to make food.

Utilitarian Environmentalism?

2010-06-14T21:58:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Should environmentalists embrace utilitarianism as an ethos, or are they barking up the wrong tree?

In my recent conversations on pollution, and population growth, I've noticed that many environmentalists claim utilitarianism as their ethical lodestone. Usually, I bite, and try to argue from within the confines of utilitarianism, but occasionally I question the premise. (For a good definition of utilitarianism, read this.)
flx1247rg
Utilitarianism is a 'consequentialist' ethic: The rightness or wrongness of an action depends only upon the consequences of the action. In utilitarianism, therefore, the only good thing is some form of happiness, or pain aversion, and actions are deemed ethical or unethical by how effectively they can maximize happiness and avoid pain. There are no inherently 'good' or 'bad' things, people or actions. Also, therefore, the only equality among people is coincidental to the level of happiness or aversion to pain that particular actions may have upon them.

Personally, I have trouble reconciling an environmentalist worldview with utilitarianism both in theory and in practice. For example, utilitarianism very easily supports the type of elitism that many people find unethical by requiring that smaller communities bear the burden of the pollution of larger communities, so long as the total good feelings win out. Also, a person has to really go through contortions to use utilitarianism for arguing against over-consumption, or to even think about waste as a problem.

But where utilitarianism makes its biggest flub in environmentalism is the fact that it gives no inherent value to the environment. To me, it seems reasonable that an "environmental" ethos values the environment as more than what it can provide to people.

Of course, it is up to today's philosophers to adhere to such strict codes as utilitarianism. This is ironic, because philosophy literally means "love of wisdom", and usually wisdom teaches that such strict mathematical dogmas don't make it very far in this world. But for environmentalists, it may be a better idea to acknowledge belief in the environment as valuable in and of itself, in addition to what it provides for us. Utilitarianism can be a great decision-making tool at times and in particular ethical dilemmas. But, it is not an environmental ethos.

Internalizing externalities, cancer-causing pesticide edition

2010-06-03T13:02:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

The San José Mercury News reports on the probable use of methyl iodide in California.

"The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has proposed registering methyl iodide as a pesticide in California to the dismay of scientists and environmental groups, who say it is so toxic that even chemists are reluctant to handle it."

Methyl Iodide was proposed and accepted by the US EPA as an alternative to methyl bromide in 2007. Methyl Bromide was phased out because of its damage to the ozone layer.

So, instead of using a pesticide that causes an externality to the atmosphere, we as people are about to switch to an agent that 'internalizes' that damage, so to speak.

This is also another example of a false choice. Where's the "none of the above" box to check?

If you are interested in weighing in on this issue, please make your voice heard at the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation's public comment section. The article above has the address and email, or you can email:
mei_comments@cdpr.ca.gov

The Secret of NIMBY

2010-06-01T13:44:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Okay, so I have a 'problem' with silly, obscure titles. Sue me. But there is a secret of NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard'ism)... that secret is... we all use it, and it ain't all that bad.

I'm sure you've heard NIMBY excoriated as a concept at one time or another. Usually, hateful language is aimed at the concept when tied to limousine-liberal-elite-hippie-tree-hugger hypocrisy, like when a wealthy, left-leaning neighborhood turns down a waste facility in their county, and it gets located in a poor backwater. You can also hear it when people argue about the future of greenhouse gases, as in the case of David Zetland's post here. (if you read the comments section, that's me defending NIMBY.)
flx1247rg
However, there are many logical, ethical reasons for the value of NIMBY, the value of protecting your own back yard. And I'll start this defense, as many ethical philosophers do, with a claim, and then use a thought experiment (a pretend set-up used to illustrate a particular idea) to support it.

My claim: People prioritize their values, and people who do not value the safety and well-being of their own physical places are stupid.

Yes, I'm blunt - this is a blog, not Harvard. (And although I didn't include a "should" or "ought" claim in the sentence, it's inferred.)

Now, to support this claim with a thought experiment couched in a series of questions:

First, would a reasonable person allow a threatening murderer to live in their actual back yard? No, a reasonable person would not. Then, would a reasonable person allow a threatening murderer to live in the back yard of someone living 10,000 miles away? Yes, a reasonable person would allow that. That second claim sounds silly, but it is true. Many bad people live in other countries, other states, even other towns. Where we are able, people move those bad actors out of their own back yards, and others do not begrudge them this, (with one nuanced exception which I will address later). But the reality of the world is that we must prioritize our values, and our limited resources demand that we prioritize the safety and well-being of our location. That is NIMBY in a nutshell. Now, let's see this concept in environmental ethics, with another thought experiment/claim.

A person has every reason to keep open, seeping toxic waste from being dumped in their physical back yard. A community of these same persons has every reason to keep open, seeping toxic waste from being dumped in their public places. In fact, as I claimed above, it would be stupid for a community to allow open, seeping toxic wasted to be dumped in their public places, or, to put it more broadly, and kindly, it is perfectly reasonable, even expected, for a community to prioritize its own physical safety and well-being. If you agree with this, then you agree with some form of NIMBY'ism, and your problem isn't with the concept, it's with the application in particular circumstances. (If you don't agree with it, stop reading here.)

Take another example, more positive this time: When a California community pays local taxes, should they expect those tax revenues to pay equally for roads built in North Korea? India? New York? Arizona, then? It is perfectly reasonable, even expected, that a community will prioritize its own infrastructure. In fact, one may go so far as to make the ethical claim that a community should prioritize its own infrastructure, its own physical safety and well-being, and that to do otherwise (to build an equal amount of roads all over the Earth) would be... well, stupid.

Interestingly, attacks on NIMBY'ism almost always occur in only two circumstances. One is when arguing about the general notion of externalities (effects upon society from production and consumption). The other, more common time, is when specific communities pressure a particular enterprise (say, liquor stores or waste facilities) out of their location, or export their own problems, thus putting pressure on neighboring communities. The latter is actually a form of NIMBY'ism, and it falls under that "nuanced exception" I referred to. The former, however, is typically an off-hand remark that does little to further an understanding of the real world, and it fails whenever specific examples are provided.

"Opponents" of NIMBY'ism typically make an argument analogous to "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind". If you push a bad thing out, they say, then you push it into somewhere else. "Opponents" also add that if you extend some sort of NIMBY'ism into the universal (that is, treat the whole world like your back yard), then you create an untenable place, because our bad stuff has to go somewhere. Usually, anti-NIMBY arguments assume both that the selfish nature of NIMBY'ism is wrong, and that the particular problems being exported are inevitable problems with no other solutions.

Did you notice opponents in quotation marks? That's because these folks only oppose NIMBY when it involves others' back yards - NIMBY-as-universal - not NIMBY as applied to their own communities. Nobody says, "yes! I'll take your open, seeping toxic waste in my physical back yard"; they always have a reason for why their place is no good for it. This is not unreasonable, but it is hypocritical.

These "opponents" also believe that bad things are inevitable from production and consumption, but they are unwilling to allow those bad things into their own back yards, so they basically become NIMBY-people, with a dose of hypocrisy, topped by an unwillingness to deal directly with the bad things they believe they must create through their own production and consumption. What they have really done is fall into that nuanced exception.

Really what angers people, the unethical behavior that gets labeled NIMBY, is when individuals or communities export their own messes into other people's back yards. This is usually made worse by the fact that the wealthy can buy their community's safety (economic NIMBY, and the reason why people want to be rich), while poor folks cannot. The recent fight between Kern County and L.A. over the latter's dumping their literal crap in the former's back yard offers a prime example. L.A. residents do not want to deal with their own poop. Kern counters with a firm, "Not In My Back Yard". Both represent NIMBY, but only one has breached an ethical line here. L.A. needs to learn to deal with its own waste. But, whoever wins this argument, NIMBY is not the bad guy here.

People need to prioritize the safety and well-being of their communities. Rather than excoriating the notion when arguing over who and where gets to deal with our waste, we should understand the value of NIMBY and instead look for ways to internalize external impacts -say, by pricing or capping pollution levels to a much greater degree.

Opportunity Cost and environmental ethics

2010-05-28T12:31:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

To be honest with you, the reason I bring up a lot of economics on this blog is because economics is the study of scarcity and our solutions to scarcity, which also happens to be a really big question in environmental ethics, only with (sometimes fake) numbers and an overly-(pseudo)scientific approach. Here, then, is another economics concept that applies to environmental ethics: Opportunity cost.
flx1247rg
Strangely for economics, the term "opportunity cost" is actually very descriptive of the idea. Opportunity cost is simply everything else you could have done when you chose to do something. For example, if you spent $5 on lunch, you could have saved that $5 one more day, you could have bought a toy, etc. The cost to you is every other choice you could have made with that five bucks.

Yes, it is depressing. But, it can be really helpful in honestly looking at what you have and how you should use it - basically, your opportunities, and what they cost you. If you get too bummed-out, just take a moment and think about opportunity benefit - what you get from your decisions.

Now, let's use opportunity cost in an example brought up by Prof. Ray Hilborn of Washington University. The good professor contends that if we were to replace the protein we get from fishing by instead farming on land, we'd have to use additional land about 22 times the size of our current rainforests. Dr. Hilborn then compares land-based agriculture's to fishing's impacts on biodiversity, and claims that fishing has shown to have reduced biodiversity about 30%, whereas land-based farming, in his opinion, results in a 100% decrease in biodiversity.

Dr. Hilborn is a well-known (to fisheries nerds), typically pro-commercial fishing scientist, and so his description needs to be taken in that context, but the general concepts are valid, and bear some thought. What are the true opportunity costs to switching from fishing to on-land agriculture?

I find Dr. Hilborn's biodiversity comment a tad oversimplistic on both ends: directly decreasing biodiversity from fishing will have many impacts on food webs; and farming practices exist that provide better biodiversity impacts than his claim. But, these questions do offer some real meat for future research as well as future decision-making by agencies and individuals regarding food choices, and these decisions will be based on the opportunity costs to the values we hold for our wild places, our oceans and lands, and ourselves.

So, that five bucks you were going to spend on a burger today... where will it go? What else could you have done with it?

"These are America's Wetlands"

2010-05-28T10:13:00.001-07:00

Please take a minute and watch this short clip of Louisiana Rep. Melancon.

Climate bills...

2010-05-12T14:37:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Well, Grist has a good break-down of the bills (and Pres. proposal) for carbon capping.

Just remember, the purpose of this is to cut carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Update: I'm reading through some summaries, and I'm happy to report that there is a rebate in the Lieberman-Kerry proposal, although I'm sad to report that some of it is in the form of energy bill credits. That is stupid and sick, because it will incentivize people to use more energy in-house, while benefiting large companies.

Also, the proposed use for the remaining revenues (deficit reduction) doesn't take into account mitigating impacts on climate change. That's too bad, because we need serious watershed and habitat protections and resiliency - they impact human lives, and they are valuable in and of themselves, yet they don't get a check cut to them.

At least they are where they belong

2010-05-11T11:55:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

The Contra Costa Times reports on former Bush Administration officials, at least one of whom with a spotty public service record, have gone to work for Westlands.

Here's the important quotation:

"MacDonald resigned in April 2007, a month after the first of the investigations found numerous questionable actions, including leaking an email to the California Farm Bureau that it used in its unsuccessful lawsuit to remove Delta smelt from the endangered species list.

A follow-up story by the Contra Costa Times showed MacDonald also participated in an unprecedented decision to remove Sacramento splittail from the list of endangered species even though that decision directly affected her property near Dixon."

Vileness from the Right and Left over the oil spill

2010-05-04T12:17:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

I won't belabor this point, because the spill is getting enough coverage from folks who can write far better than I. However, I do want to help provide a context, and do what I can to keep this from becoming merely a political football.
flx1247rg
In that vein, then, I provide the following: First, there is no socialist/communist conspiracy to create an oil catastrophe in order to end petroleum as we know it, or to try to usher in a socialist regime. All socialist regimes have loved oil, from the good ol' USSR, to today's Venezuela. Second, this disaster has not created any kind of political "opportunity".

What happened in the Gulf of Mexico, and continues to happen, is quite simply a horrible, horrible catastrophe. Eleven souls were lost on that platform, and the ensuing damage will destroy countless human lives and livelihoods, untold numbers of sea life and habitats, and will change the way we know the region. We will lose billions of dollars and work-hours, just to get as close to square one as we can.

Yes, we can learn from this horrible event. Yes, we can and should use this experience to grow as people. But, to use this catastrophe to fan the flames of dissent among us, or to claim that it has created a political opportunity, shows a callous disregard for human and wild life, and, dare I say it, is anti-environmental.

In particular, I am upset at the editors of Grist magazine for letting this piece, titled, "Wake up, Obama. The Gulf Spill is Our Big Chance" not only get published, but get such a title. Environmentalists used to be known as being in favor of living things. The realpolitik expressed in this title and the piece, itself, however, continues to destroy the general public's perception of our community.

The Gulf Spill offers no "chance", no opportunity. It is a sad disaster that we may learn from, yes, but so long as "environmentalists" claim some political gain from disasters, especially in light of the deaths of workers, our community will relegate itself to the fringes of society and politics.

Beware Brits bearing business contracts

2010-05-03T11:50:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

A quick note for folks on the Southern coast. al.com has a story about British Petroleum (BP) hiding a waiver to sue to fishermen who may be impacted by the oil spill and who signed up to deploy boom to help corral the spill. Basically, if offers $5k for the job (I believe), but buried in its fine print was an agreement to waive suing BP over damages in the future.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd recommend nobody sign that thing.

Happy Earth Day!

2010-04-22T10:33:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Happy Earth Day, folks. As I poke around the news, I'm finding a lot of feel-good stories about how much better we are now than in 1970, and that's great. Unfortunately, I'm also seeing some disjointed logic, as in this article from the Contra Costa Times that talks about the great improvements of the Bay Area, while noting that we still have much to do.

The author points out that while we have greatly improved our pollution (and it is laudable and surprising how well we've done), it then points out the dangers - among them, population growth.

In the same article, just two paragraphs down from all the amazing gains we've made, the author says, "Put another way, since the first Earth Day in 1970, the Bay Area has grown by 2.8 million people — the equivalent of adding the combined populations of present-day Denver, Portland, Boston, Washington, D.C., and Sacramento to the region — bringing huge problems with sprawl and traffic."

For some reason, the author cannot see the disconnect between claiming as a threat the 2.8 million person increase during the exact same period he applauds us for improving our impacts.

The problem ain't population, folks; it's how and what we consume. We absolutely need to make sure that the additional population doesn't destroy what we've done, but that is completely possible.

Update: PCL's Greenroots blog has a great post on L.A.'s water conservation during the past ten months, including a note that even though L.A. has more than one million more people, it still used as much water last month as it did in 1979. Great note, PCL! See, Contra Costa Times? You can applaud people doing better while not at the same time decrying their actual presence.

Foraging

2010-04-21T10:51:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

I must admit, though I grew up in a pretty rural place, I've never been much of a forager. Of course we 'chewed' sweet anise (fennel) and sourgrass (sorrel) when I was a kid, ate figs off the trees along the sloughs, and ran around with blackberry-stained shirts and fingers every Summer. We also helped ourselves to neighboring farmers' baby corn (they didn't mind). But mostly, I fished, and walked with a dog and a gun and called it hunting.

The past couple of years, though, after meeting up with Hank at Hunter Angler Gardener Cook, I've become nearly addicted to foraging. Greens have been my biggest revelation - first with nettles, and then with mallow - and I'm really looking forward to the upcoming elderberry and gooseberry seasons. Elderberries had become very rare around here, but in the past ten years they have taken off, probably as a result of efforts to re-establish the endangered blue elderberry beetle.

I've also been glad that Hank introduced me to a great foraging blog, Fat of the Land, where Mr. Langdon Cook last week had a great post on how to "commit a radical act".

James Cameron keeps bothering me...

2010-04-20T10:20:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

James Cameron obviously didn't read my last post about some environmental inconsistencies between his talk and his actions.

Yesterday, National Public Radio's 'All Things Considered' covered the concept of 'windowing' in the movie industry - where companies try to maximize profits from each medium their movie will hit - and did so by considering how Fox is working Avatar.

It's the last comment that deserves note on this blog:

"ULABY: In the case of "Avatar," the DVD coming out does not have a single extra - no commentary, no nothing. The studio wants fans to buy both this version and the fully-loaded DVD that comes out in gift-buying season in November."

That's right... Mr. Green, the man parading all over the World trying to save it, will manufacture his DVD in a way to cajole millions upon millions of people to buy the same thing twice.

He just proves my point, you can't sell conservation. I just wish he'd opted for the 'conservation' part of that equation, rather than the 'sell'.

On Goose Music

2010-04-19T14:01:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

The famous chapter in Aldo Leopold's "A Sand County Almanac" on Goose Music always moves me, in particular because I grew up right smack in the middle of a major landing place for waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (for a great excerpt, check this out).
flx1247rg
The photo I've added above, for example, was taken in East Isleton, at the end of the street where I grew up, about 100 yards from where my parents still reside. Those are snow geese coming down in a neighboring field.

Nearly every Winter of my life I've lived with calls from overhead. I remember laying in bed at home in the middle of the night, hearing swans call to each other as they passed over town in the fog, flying so close that, with the window cracked a bit, I could hear their rhythmic breathing. I remember hearing the amazing, trumpeting calls of sandhill cranes, only a few when I was a boy, but more and more each year so that now we watch huge, swirling flocks come down in August and September. And I remember geese.

It seems that everybody has a neighborhood gaggle of honkers nowdays, and as Tovar Cerulli recently pointed out, there is at times something strange about the ease with which they can interact with our world. We have a flock passing over many mornings and evenings, and their calls still stir me, even if I know they are flying out to and back from their golf-course feeding grounds (no better use for a golf course, anyway). But I grew up close to wild geese, and I was blessed with the widest variety of big waterfowl around. Honkers of all sizes, swans, cranes, snows, blues. And specks.

Ever since I watched, from my elementary school playground, a big flock of specks take flight in 20 mph winds, and, buffeted, swing right overhead, I've been amazed by them. Their call is distinctive, too, often a higher pitched, two-note number, and it means that Fall fell, and Winter is here. Or, it means that Spring has sprung fully, and it's time for them to head up North to have babies, so they can come back home, here on the Delta.

Night before last, in my back yard, while I was putting the ducks to bed (I have three yard ducks), I heard a flock of specks passing over. As it was night, and mid-April, I knew they wouldn't be back for a few months. And although the arrival of Spring brings its own greatness, there is always a hollow in my heart, an empty space to be filled only with that two-note cry, now wending its way on North.

Senate considers a fifteen cent gas tax to fight global warming

2010-04-14T10:37:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Do I have an automatic, knee-jerk reaction to big oil companies supporting climate change legislation? Yes, I do. I understand that I need to rein that in some, but in this case, I'm concluding with my knee-jerk reaction.
flx1247rg
The L.A. Times reports that Sens. Lieberman, Kerry & Graham are hashing out a tri-partisan (the Independents in the Senate are their own beast) climate change bill that would possibly include a gas tax of around fifteen cents. The Times reports that some oil companies are in favor of this because, "it figures to cost them far less than other proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including provisions in the climate bill the House passed last year."

I guess so.

Here's another interesting tidbit from the Times:

The fifteen cent gas tax, "is shaping up as a critical but controversial piece in the efforts by Graham, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to write a climate bill that moderate Republicans could support. Along those lines, the bill will also include an expansion of offshore oil drilling and major new incentives for nuclear power plant construction."

Is this a "climate bill" like Clear Skies was an "air quality" bill? I still need to get the specifics for myself, but if what we end up with is a bill where consumers have to pay a regressive tax so that major companies can have an easier time pumping more oil and not paying for failed nuclear projects, then this is looking a lot more like the environmental double-speak of administrations in the past.

We need a price on carbon, not just gas. And, we need a rebate of a good chunk of that money directly to Americans, to help mitigate the regressive nature of that price. Also, the price has to be big enough to hit the 300 ppm of atmospheric carbon that is generally agreed to in the scientific community. If it's easier to hit that number with a cap, then cap it. If it's easier to hit that number with a cap-&-trade, then do that. If it's easier to hit that number with a tax, then I'm all for it. Just remember to mitigate the regressive impacts, and don't let individuals or individual companies off the hook.

For a refresher, here are some quick links to pieces I've written about climate change and/or regressive taxes:
Carbon Pricing: Who, What, Why (the basics)
Cap & Trade, Front & Center (on alliances and positions about its impacts)
Where are all the Big Greenhouse Gas Emitters? (on California's list of its biggest emitters, and greenwashing)
My Problem with Pigou (on Pigovian taxes used to help alleviate negative externalities, and the need for rebates)
Cap & Squander Strikes Back! (on a highly respected panel of economists agreeing with me about rebates)

Some recent posts on basic environmental economics

2010-04-13T10:51:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

I read Paul Krugman the other day as he decided to weigh in a bit on economics and greenhouse gasses. It's a good piece, and a good example of the reason economics is called the 'dismal science'. No free lunch, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, etc., etc.

I found it at my favorite environmental economics website, however, and I recommend you read their environmental economics primer, too. Env-Econ., run by two professors at Appalachia State and Ohio, I believe, make good points, and the site is worth a visit every couple of days.

Krugman also commented on his blog about some kickback from environmentalists for his piece, and he tries to explain himself a bit.

In his blog post, he mentions a belief among many environmentalists that he doesn't quite hold, himself:

"On the first (belief among many environmentalists, the claim that): there is actually a fair bit of evidence that many energy-saving measures would also be cost-saving, even at current prices. Like most economists, I take these estimates with a grain of salt: if these actions really are cost-saving, why aren’t they being taken already? Isn’t that an indication that there are hidden costs? That said, in the real world people aren’t perfectly rational, so there may well be energy-saving measures with negative cost that aren’t being undertaken."

I've got to disagree with the Nobel Laureate, Princeton economist on this one.

First, Prof. Krugman doesn't seem to remember the constraints of poverty. For example, how exactly will a renter put in energy-saving washing machines and dishwashers? How will homeowners put them in, if they must pay, also, for the upgrades? The same goes for water heaters, windows, new heating and A/C units, cars - the list is long.

Second, Prof. Krugman doesn't seem to remember the imperious influence of huge corporate interests on the marketplace and infrastructure. Oligopoly and oligopsony play powerful roles in determining just where the "efficiencies" end up in a market, and the dollar amounts rarely reflect the greatest efficiencies for consumers.

You can tell a person that for $20,000, they can eliminate their electricity bill with a solar panel system, but if A) they can't get twenty thou., and B) they have to remove themselves from the electrical grid or suffer penalties and be responsible for the maintenance of a brand-new thing, they won't do it, even if it'll save them $300 a month.

If, however, you tell homeowners that they can roll their solar loan into their home loan, and they will get back wholesale price for the extra energy they give to the electrical company (often during peak energy use hours, interestingly enough), then you would see the true efficiencies being borne by the consumers, and you would see a rise in solar use. If you tell landlords the same thing, then they can do that plus get a small premium (smaller than the monthly electrical bill in a similar home, for the renters), too.

So, it isn't the efficiency of the product when compared to other forms of energy, it is the efficiency of the product to the individual user through the hurdles of market manipulation and poverty.

I usually like Prof. Krugman, but in this case, he doesn't seem to see the trees for the forest.

Update: David Roberts over at Grist has a similar, though not the same, complaint to Krugman.

Corporatism has eaten libertarianism, and now it starts gobbling environmentalism

2010-04-08T13:38:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Although I am not a libertarian, I have often appreciated folks who hold to libertarian ideals. I am partial to them because libertarianism is an ethos, and people who subscribe to it often do so because they are honestly thinking about their impacts on others, and how people should behave towards one another.

But libertarianism as a concept in the minds of many has been consumed by corporatism, and though individuals may hold to true libertarian ideals, the word among the public is now a cover for the type of behemoth corporate accumulations our economic and political system has spawned and nurtured.

Our market system is not a free market system - for example, our borders are not free, thus regulating one of the four basic factors of production, labor. Our market system is generally more free than some, and more regulated than others. But, the style of our regulations in recent decades (see my post from yesterday) has become more and more slanted in favor of large corporate enterprises, such that individuals within corporations may wish to behave in certain ways, but corporate pressures for profit, magnified by regulations that encourage this behavior, make long-term prudence and personal ethos nearly impossible to enact.

Where the large corporate enterprises create economies of scale (the fancy way of saying "more efficiency by being bigger"), we should allow it in some fashion. But where it does not, we should not use it.

One major problem with our current market system is the elimination, over time, of competition. When companies "win" in our markets, they actually beat other companies, which means those companies cease to exist. But, instead of new companies taking their place, more often the "winning" company eats the old company, grows larger, and exerts more power over the market. This power, in turn, causes political ripples in favor of the remaining company, often at the expense of free society and government representation, as well as consumer prices and efficiency.

Noting the strong libertarian streak in our American ideals, many companies have used the notion (rather than the actual principles) of libertarianism as a way to maintain our current system, while at the same time stifling competition through political influence. The past decade saw many politicians finding cover in the words of libertarianism while actually undermining those libertarian principles of our government.

Now, corporatism has made serious inroads into the environmental movement, and threatens to eat it like it has eaten libertarianism in the minds of the public - through controlling the conversation and political processes. From "greenwashing" to lobbying, corporations are exerting a level of control over our environmental consciousness that threatens to crush real changes where those changes may risk individual corporate profits.

One current example of this is in California, where the Department of Fish and Game and the California Fish and Game Commission are working to enact the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). Though I like the idea - enacting a series of protected areas akin to national parks and wildlife refuges on land - the continuing state budget crisis has been used as a final corporate crowbar, an excuse to privatize our public regulatory and legislative processes. This bodes ill for our public processes and the reasons for our public actions.

This week, High Country News has a great blog entry titled "Privatizing Conservation", where they write in better detail about the MLPA and the influence of Packard Foundation and the Western States Petroleum Association. Especially note the chair of the MLPA process. I highly recommend it for everyone, because, unlike our neighbor to the East, what happens in California almost never stays in California.

After reading that previous post, please read this piece from the San Luis Obispo Tribune on a new offshore drilling proposal between oil companies and three environmental organizations.

Environmental organizations have always had to look for money in order to operate, and many wealthy folks want to do right by the environment. However, private donations and membership don't always pay all the bills, and so corporate foundations and other pools of money offer to cover many expenses and battles, and usually with few or no strings attached. Heck, I've even been paid by RLFF money. But these payments, often in the form of non-profit foundation grants &/or pools of money set aside as mitigation for illegal activities, sometimes make advocacy a winding, twisting road. Add the idea that many companies both donate to environmental organizations and groups like the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and large-scale battles over the fate of the California Environmental Quality Act take on an interesting hue.

Generally, these issues are not a problem - 95% of the time, people come to the table to debate and discuss, our representatives vote, and we move forward. However, occasionally (and especially over the big fights like CEQA and climate change), these conflicted interests create problems.

In the case of the MLPA, the problem is that the ocean isn't receiving adequate or appropriate protections for habitat or for people to care about its fate in the future, and the appearance of bias in favor of the private industries involved makes the process look very bad, indeed. Currently, the protected areas (MPA's) look like "no fishing" zones for recreational and commercial fishermen, but with absolutely zero protections against pollution, other visitation impacts, commercial fishing in neighboring federal waters (more often by huge international operations rather than by local folks), or take for scientific purposes. In addition, the Fish & Game department's own wardens believe that they cannot adequately protect the areas designated, which means that only lawbreakers would get to fish, and then they would do it with little fear of reprisal.

Consider this: If a company was polluting the Merced River before it flowed into Yosemite Valley, would we stand for it? And yet, the same company that pays a huge chunk of money for the MLPA process, Hewlett-Packard, is represented by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, which lobbies to keep the California Coastal Commission from coming down hard (or at all) on coastal polluters.

This same company helps pay for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, a beautiful place and a hub of conservation efforts. However, the fact that MPA's don't protect from scientific take becomes more ominous when the Vice President of the Aquarium is on the Fish & Game Commission, and when it remains unclear whether or not scientific take is currently the largest fishery in California, because landings are not monitored like they are for commercial fishing. If it isn't the largest fishery, many believe it is close.

Last, please read this piece in Calitics about the President of the Western States Petroleum Association... er, I mean the Chair of the Marine Life Protection Act... calling for more drilling off the coast of California.

Many local environmental and environmental justice groups in Northern California are making a ruckus over the MLPA as it moves into their neighborhoods. Northern California environmentalists seem to have come around to the positive impacts of local food and appropriate access to the wild, and hopefully these ways can educate and inform the process such that we get a more nuanced and appropriate set of rules for the North Coast.

The appearance of huge, private enterprises funding and running actual government processes marks an unfortunate turn in the environmental community. We all must tackle our demons, and the pressures of our current market structures are such that, even when individuals want to give large chunks of money to protect the environment, corporate pressures tend to put undue pressures to protect their profit interests. This is why we created a government of, by, and for the people - we understand that the pressures of a market can cloud people's judgment, and so we try to remove those pressures when making public decisions. This deeper encroachment into our public life needs to be reassessed.

Non-environmental economics post

2010-04-06T10:22:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Robert Reich has a blog post up about the need to break up our big banks. This is pretty unrelated to the environment (except that a lot of money that would have gone to environmental protection went down the toilet or to the big banks and then down a gilded toilet), but I really, really feel the need to link to it.

This is a hugely important issue. Just over one hundred years ago, big banks had a complete stranglehold on both parties. The ensuing rise of the Progressive Party was in large part a reaction to this phenomenon.

Today, we see single financial institutions that dwarf our entire economy of that era. And yet, we question whether or not our system can withstand such behemoths.

It cannot. In the 1990's, a very important law was repealed, retirement programs shifted en masse from defined benefits to defined contributions, and financial institutions began throwing insanely large amounts of money into housing. In the 200's, when wages stagnated, the appreciating housing market became a salve and a game of musical chairs at the same time, keeping wages depressed while providing the illusion of wealth. Meanwhile, unregulated financial institutions carved up shares of housing, and convinced each other that 80% of them are good, and 80% of the remaining 20% is better than the worst, and on and on. All of these contributed to our current situation.

In response to the crisis, then, both parties did what any sane politician would do - throw the largest chunk of money they possibly could directly at the people and institutions who caused the mess and contributed huge amounts of money to their re-election campaigns. Now, though unemployment remains unsustainably high, lending remains extraordinarily low, and many more folks with jobs still can't make ends meet, we are told that not only is the recession over, but we must fear runaway inflation!

We are told this so that the huge financial institutions can keep the money we gave them and not have to lend it or pay it out.

Please read Prof. Reich's post. It is very illuminating.

Save the Planet, have a baby.

2010-04-02T09:42:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

With some really good caveats, an author over at Grist makes the same mistake about overpopulation I and many others have made... well, ever since Malthus, I suppose. With good intentions (but a bad, bad history), many people (let's call them "scared folks") today argue that overpopulation is the single biggest cause of our environmental collapse, and I believe they are truly concerned about it (yet, fortunately, many of them do not take any serious steps to address the problem).

Their arguments usually start with the scary number of the moment - which right now is 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Then, they usually appeal to papers, scientists, and philosophers discussing the threat of an even greater population. Nowdays, the number used is over 9 billion by the back-half of this century. Then, they stop talking about population numbers, trends, or real-world ways that population growth is curbed (here is where my first frustration lies).

Instead, scared folks usually begin some good talk about consumption, but they cover it too lightly, especially since they left out some really important words about the long-term population trends of the world. They almost always mention that it would take ten Earths to live like a typical American, or that all humans right now emit x amount of carbon/year or are consuming one-third more than our Earth can sustain.

They usually end with a dire warning and an admonition of sorts.

To be fair, the Grist author had a slightly different take on the concept, and also wanted to use this as a way to tell folks who've decided not to have babies that they are okay, and they should be proud of who they are. I'm okay with that part. As for the worries about having children and the destruction of the planet, however, I am not.

I've blogged about this before here and here, and I'll say it again: There is no correlation between population growth and carbon emissions. In fact, countries with shrinking populations, with few exceptions, emit levels of magnitude more carbon both in total and per capita than countries with population growth.

So what are scared folks missing? Well, first they are missing the long-term population conversation. The U.N. projects a declining world population within 100 years, and considering the trends of the past 50 years, their level of projected decline is conservative.

Scared folks also avoid/don't know about factors that actually cause populations to slow growth or even decline. Two major factors correlate to slowing population growth: Women's education and infrastructure. (Funny, but merely telling people to have fewer kids actually induces them to have fewer kids.)

You see, in societies with little or no safety nets, family is the safety net. By increasing women's education (even through grade school), and by building and improving electrical grids, hospitals and roadways, you increase the wealth of a nation as well as its consistency and reliability. When that happens, people have reason to wait around a little longer, and have fewer children - because they don't need the safety of young marriage and many kids to make it to adulthood and provide for them in their old age.

Next, scared folks ignore/miss out on the real problem of human habitation on our planet: Consumption. Our current consumption patterns are unsustainable. Period. By focusing on the population number, however, rather than the consumption numbers, they miss the real solutions that currently exist (and they come across as incurably elitist). For example, two countries currently buck population decline's perverse inverse-proportion relationship to carbon emissions. Japan and Denmark maintain very low carbon emissions (and other pollutants) while maintaining a good lifestyle for their citizens and seeing populations decline.

Scared folks also do not consider the physicality of 9 billion people to the world. To get a better look at consumption patterns and the potential for dramatic improvement, consider this thought experiment:

At it's projected largest amount of 9 billion people, if every person were to be housed in the U.S., and each individual person were given 1/5th of an acre (twice the size of the property my family of three lives on with three ducks and a dog), we would still have five hundred million acres left over. Five hundred million acres is about 100 million acres more than we farm crops in the U.S. If the thought experiment is done with family units, the amount of left-over acreage multiplies four times.

And we are only the fourth largest country on Earth.

Now, I am not proposing everybody move here, okay? What I'm doing is giving perspective. There currently exists plankton blooms in single locations that are six times humanity's biomass.

Besides the silliness and ineffectiveness of inferring that people have fewer babies, and the lack of connection to the physical world's realities (complete with solutions for doing much better for our planet), scared folks join a group rife with racism and elitism. I'm sure the vast majority of folks scared about overpopulation aren't racists or even conscious elitists, but the simple fact is that A) brown folks' countries have the highest growth rates; and B) pollution (especially greenhouse gas pollution) is far and away the result of very wealthy regions with declining populations. By keeping their eyes on the population ball, they ignore the real problem of the world, and by ignoring the real problem of the world (overconsumption by wealthy regions and folks) they become de facto elitists.

They also miss out on the fact that babies actually save the world. From 1960 to 2000, the world's population doubled, from three to six billion people, and yet our air quality is far better than it was in 1960, and many pollutants we'd used daily are now gone forever. They are gone because people had kids. These kids both gave impetus for solving the great problems of the world, and actually helped solve them, when they grew up. (These kids pay into social security, too.)

Having kids isn't the big problem right now. The problem is consumption.

To help solve this problem, we should start with a chart of carbon emissions by economic quintile. I'm still looking for one.

In the meantime, just remember that babies can save the world. I know my talking about it won't make people have babies, just as scared folks won't really put a dent in people choosing to not have babies, but don't fear them as a group. As individuals, however...

Ah, the Fresno Bee and water...

2010-04-01T16:10:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Of course they are horribly, horribly biased, especially when the big farmers around them lose out, like yesterday.

However, comments like this...

"It's the latest loss for farmers and other water users in the decades-long battle over moving water through the state. That battle continues today when water users and environmentalists square off in Wanger's court in what promises to be a pivotal case."

Really should be in the realm of crappy opinion, not sold off as real news.

First, not all water users lost. Second, environmentalists are water users.

This is fully ridiculous.

Uh-oh... buying green makes you an evil, lying, cheating, thief (behavioral economics edition)

2010-03-30T08:01:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Via Env-Econ., a paper on consumers' choices and subsequent impacts on their moral decisions.

For those who aren't so familiar with the field, behavioral economics is exactly what it sounds like: Studies on folks' economic behaviors. It is a very interesting field, and my favorite radio show, Marketplace, usually has a weekly segment about it.

This research indicates that students who participated in a lab experiment, after being merely shown "green" products, were less inclined to do bad things to others (lie, cheat, and steal, basically). However, if they purchased these products, students became much more likely to do bad things to others.

You really have to read the study to get the whole idea, but it is fascinating. These researchers were trying to identify yet another place where humans (it is believed) give themselves a kind of moral credit from one behavior, and then spend it on another (even similar) behavior. My take is a little different - I believe that humans take their moral action to make themselves feel superior to others, and then are able to treat the other inferior individuals in a worse fashion. But, I'm no psychologist.

Either way, it opens up a new notion about using moral grounds to get people to buy green... maybe.

On a related note, I guess when you are around me, you should probably keep a tight grip on your wallet.

A good article on the Delta, but something's missing

2010-03-24T07:29:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Like most articles and expertise claimed about the Delta, local voices are missing from this story at the Oakalnd Tribune.

I find especially distasteful the "rural vs. urban" battle which the city-slicker farmers in the Central Valley have fed to the media, and which the media is happy to portray. Dichotomies are easier to write about, especially when they lack the nuance of reality.

Not to mention I think the whole urban-rural-wild distinction is an unhealthy myth.

Jamie Oliver's newest TV show - I'm impressed.

2010-03-22T14:07:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

My wife and I stayed up last night to watch "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution" on ABC last night, and I must say we were very happy with it.

Yeah, it's got the typical reality-TV production quality, but the people in this one seem real, (if you've never met a lunchroom lady, you have not lived life) and the concept is fascinating. And relevant to this blog.

Since I'm from a small town in rural Northern California (and one that gets pretty crappy media, when it gets it at all), I completely understand the suspicion that the residents of Huntington, W.Va. showed to Mr. Oliver. But it really does look like he just wants these people to eat better.

The saddest to me is that these folks come from a vibrant food culture. My guess is that this city is made up of the progeny of folks who left the hills of Appalachia, came into the city, and hungered to embrace a modern world. When packaged food came along, it made people's lives easier, and it came with a stigma for people who still lived in the old ways, I'd bet. Now, cities like Huntington are full of people who don't have the tradition of taking a little more time to do for themselves.

I look forward to watching his program, but I have no idea where it's going.

For a very interesting, schizophrenic review, read the Washington Post's job here. And, don't let the title scare you off - the author ends by saying they are going to keep watching.

Sushi restaurant serving whale meat in Los Angeles is closing

2010-03-21T08:44:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

I'm sorry you missed out on the Sei whale special, but if you didn't get down there for it, the L.A. Times reports that you are too late.
flx1247rg
This is just another example of the truth of the world, that we do need laws to protect the environment, even when we think that the laws are superfluous due to public pressure.

A few years ago, I was privileged to sit in on a discussion about access on our public lands. The forum, organized by the National Park Service, housed a fine number of some of very thoughtful land managers, rangers, and professors concerned with the subject, and much of the conversation was wonderful and enlightening.

One professor, however, did stray into unfortunate territory on the topic of how to increase lackluster visitation. He said, effectively, that fewer boots on the ground meant fewer impacts on the resource.

This is a comforting fallacy, but devastating in its falsehood.

I stood up and immediately commented that these resources are always going to be "used" for one thing or another. There are companies who would be more than happy to log protected sequoias (just like they are logging unprotected ones), or mine El Capitan. It sounds preposterous, but if folks will sell and eat endangered whales in downtown Los Angeles, then know for certain that nothing in this world is safe unless we declare it so and protect it.

Remember, there are people in this world who buy and sell people. What is a mountain top to them? What is a bird?

The only counter to these ills is to declare things protected and valuable in and of themselves. And the only way to get people to agree to that is to let them experience the beauty and awe of these places.

Experience. That means access.

At the same conference, I heard a story about a person wanting to keep Yosemite Valley completely pristine, arguing to seriously restrict access to it. She argued, "how will we create the next John Muirs of the world?" if Yosemite Valley weren't pristine?

She had forgotten that John Muir was made precisely by being in Yosemite Valley. If he hadn't had those experiences, there would have been no Muir in the sense that she knows him.

She had also forgotten that John Muir spent thousands of hours in Yosemite Valley... logging it.

Of course we need to manage access in a way that minimizes the negative impacts of our presence while enhancing our positive impacts, but if we don't get folks into these places, they won't care about them.

And when that happens, the whale-eaters move in.

Proposed Solar on the Westlands, Feinstein gets good science, and the RNC throws vote-trading accusations

2010-03-19T08:28:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Here is a great, short document on the value of the Westlands Irrigation District to California... as a solar generator.
flx1247rg
The author, Bill Powers of Powers Engineering, explained in these comments to the California Energy Commission that 5% of the Westlands could provide 5,000 MW of solar energy to the state.

Wouldn't it be great if we converted, say, 1/3rd of the Westlands to solar, 1/3rd we restored to native habitat (for water and air quality improvements, too), and kept 1/3rd in ag. production?

Meanwhile, the L.A. Times reports that the National Academy of Sciences has weighed in on the California Delta issue, per Feinstein's request, and found that water export cuts are completely justified.

I hope this settles the issue for our senator, but based on this conversation (including Feinstein telling a reporter that Lake Shasta is spilling over the top right now), I doubt it.

Meanwhile, California Watch reports that the Republican National Committee is accusing San Joaquin Valley Democrats and the Obama Administration of trading a "yes" vote on health care for more water. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but it doesn't look like it from my vantage point right now. Here is a link to the DOI statement of water allocation increases. Note that everybody is getting increases, because of the amount of water currently in the mountains. The important number is for flows South of the Delta to secondary water rights' holders, which DOI is increasing from 5% of allocation to 25%. I fully expected this increase, so again, the accusation seems flimsy to me right now.

Kern county defends its poop ban

2010-03-18T10:16:00.000-07:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

The L.A. Times reports that L.A. and Orange counties are appealing a voter-approved Kern county ban on their biosolids being trucked onto its county.

I think it's time that local governments work out local solutions to their own messes. Go, Kern county!

A wonderful, contemplative post on environmental ethics

2010-03-12T12:39:00.000-08:00

© 2010 Joshua Stark

But, not from me. Chad Love at the Mallard of Discontent has a great post on the loss of our amazing, native prairie birds.
flx1247rg
One criticism often thrown at the hunting side of the environmental community is that they only care about their specific issues, places, or species. And judging by the way we've organized ourselves in that community, there is little doubt that this criticism contains a grain of truth. Consider the following hunting organizations' names:

Ducks Unlimited
California Waterfowl Association
Mule Deer Foundation
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Pheasants forever
Quail Unlimited
Snipe United for Free Worms for All

Okay, I threw that last one in there, but I believe my point stands: although we've stressed the importance of habitat - watersheds, plants, other species - we maintain a focus on particular species, and sometimes this means that we leave out others, to our detriment.

One problem is, of course, the time dedicated to supporting individual species means that less time gets devoted to understanding the complex systems in which they thrive, and also that we may tend to overemphasize artificial "restoration" of populations, rather than supporting self-sustaining systems. But, Chad points out another problem: the potential for trends to ignore species, which may cause a sort of vicious cycle - as hunters stop hunting them, the species declines from a lack of funding or care. They fall all the way until somebody notices that they may need protection, if they are lucky.

Unfortunately, right now we don't seem to have any consistent mechanism for catching species before they hit that last stop on the way to oblivion, the Endangered Species Act. Thank goodness for that act, too, because it does express our desire to understand our negative impacts before we lose all the pieces (see Leopold's First Rule of Intelligent Tinkering).