© 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.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
What's rural? Wild? Urban? Nobody really knows
© 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).
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).
Friday, September 2, 2011
President Obama concedes the wrong point in pollution regulation
© 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.
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.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Grist wins me over - with sensible talk about population control
© 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.
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.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Sport, or not? Hunting, philosophy, & language
© 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.)
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.)
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Yo-Yo: Grist with a good article on eating fish
© 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.
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.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Level-headed and honest discussions about famine, climate change & overpopulation
© 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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)