© 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."
Friday, January 7, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
California salmon
© 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...
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...
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Air Resources Board is poised to make a bad decision... help them see the light!
© 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.
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 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.
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.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
4-H does that? Great!
© 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/
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/
Thursday, December 2, 2010
California okays methyl iodide
© 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.
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.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Women's rights, food justice and security - from the social to the individual and back
© 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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)