Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

18 Apr

China’s Green Revolution

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Climate Change, Corporate Ecology, Energy Conservation, Environmentalism, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , .

A power plant in Pinghu, China. A cap-and-trade system would help China to reduce carbon emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020. Photograph: Philippe Lopez/AFP/Getty Images

A power plant in Pinghu, China. A cap-and-trade system would help China to reduce carbon emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020. Photograph: Philippe Lopez/AFP/Getty Images

The following article comes from a recent report by the Guardian Newspaper. The truth is that reports of similar green initiatives coming from China are becoming more and more frequent.

While typically viewed as the “bad boys” on the environmental stage, it seems that the “Johnny-come-lately” communist party is capable of agreeing and acting with greater ease on environmental issues than our democratically elected congress. Perhaps making decisions based on scientific evidence is more effective than the democratic process that bends to the wishes of an uninformed and opinionated populace and congressmen whose election campaigns are funded by the very corporations guilty of perpetuating the problem.

Quoted by the World Economic Forum, Victor L. L. Chu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, First Eastern Investment Group, Hong Kong SAR, states “In terms of energy intensity, which is the amount of energy required to generate one unit of GDP, China has dropped 75% over the last 20 years and is still looking very aggressively to achieve more efficiency. Nearly 40% of China’s 4 trillion renminbi stimulus package is green project related.”

I’m not suggesting we become a communist nation, nor am I pleased that China burns more coal than any other nation in the world. China has a number of hurtles to overcome, but at least they are on the track and making their way forward.

Here is the article entitled: China’s green progress leaves US red-faced, from the Guardian dated April 12, 2013:

When it comes to responding to climate change, the contrast between China and the United States is stark.

It has been clear for some time that the Asian powerhouse is moving more rapidly on renewable technologies. A recent report by Pew Charitable Trusts shows China led the world last year with a $54.4bn investment in clean technology, about 40% higher than third-placed America.

More surprisingly, the Communist government in Beijing is also showing a greater willingness to adopt market-based approaches that were once considered preferable only by capitalist economies.

On Monday, a senior Chinese official said mandatory emissions trading systems will be rolled out in six of the country’s most advanced regions by 2013. After the pilot schemes in Guangdong, Hubei, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing, the government has promised to ramp up the use of carbon-based financial instruments to a nationwide level by 2015.

It is a sign that China is both desperate and ambitious enough to try almost anything. The widely trailed move towards a cap-and-trade system will provide an extra tool for China to achieve its Copenhagen commitment to reduce carbon emissions relative to economic growth by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020.

Cap-and-trade initiatives in Washington started much earlier, but have sunk in Congressional quicksand. The first US experiment in emissions trading came to an end four months ago with the closure of the Chicago Climate Exchange, though California’s scheme (the world’s second largest) is reportedly in talks to expand by joining with Europe’s.

Critics of emissions trading will undoubtedly say the US is better off without it. Europe currently has the world’s biggest carbon market, which has channelled billions of dollars towards projects in developing nations that are designed to reduce emissions. China has been a major beneficiary, accounting for about 60% of the world’s carbon credits.

But the United Nations mechanism for evaluating credits has been plagued by allegations of fraud and misallocation of resources. In the latest scandal, Chinese officials denied this week that the country’s factories were manipulating production of hydrofluorocarbon-23 – a powerful greenhouse gas – to qualify for huge quantities of carbon credits. The European Union is unimpressed and will ban such credits when its new emissions trading system starts in 2013.

Existing schemes are clearly flawed. But by opting out, the US is losing its ability to influence reform, just as China begins to establish what could become a rival trading system. Beijing has positioned itself cleverly.

In the years ahead, its influence will grow in both renewable technology and climate finance. This has prompted the analyst Søren Lütken to talk of an emerging Grand Chinese Climate Scheme.

It is far from certain that this will be successful. Corruption, imprecision and inexperience are major hurdles that China has yet to overcome in establishing a cap-and-trade scheme. Lobby groups could water down plans that will cost industry money. As in the US, the economy will remain dependent on fossil fuels for many decades.

Yet compared to the US, China seems to have a clearer sense of direction, greater flexibility and a willingness to move.

In a testimony last month to a congressional energy committee, Deborah Seligsohn, the Beijing-based representative of the World Resources Institute, spelled out the long-game that is underway:

“Chinese economic strategists recognise that China was late to the industrial revolution and even late to the IT revolution, but it believes it can be a leader in a green revolution.”

Frustration among US environmental groups has been building up for some time, evident in these blog comments last year from Jake Schmidt of the National Resources Defence Council:

“The signals today on clean energy coming from China and the US are pointing in complete opposite directions – one country on hold and the other moving forward. Sad but true.”

Expect more of the same in the coming years. The world’s red and green lights are not where they used to be.

14 Apr

Earth Day at Eagle Marsh

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Birds, Botany, Children and Nature, Climate Change, Corporate Ecology, Creation Care, Ecology, Education, Environmentalism, Gardening, Politics, Recreation, Reptiles, Water Conservation, Wetlands, Wildlife. Tagged: , , , , , , .

Earth-day-image

Earth Day is just around the corner and will be celebrated around the world. But how did it all begin and how can you become involved?

Origins

The idea came to Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, then a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, after witnessing the ravages of the 1969 massive oil spill in Santa Barbara, California. Inspired by the student anti-war movement, he realized that if he could infuse that energy with an emerging public consciousness about air and water pollution, it would force environmental protection onto the national political agenda. Senator Nelson announced the idea for a “national teach-in on the environment” to the national media; persuaded Pete McCloskey, a conservation-minded Republican Congressman, to serve as his co-chair; and recruited Denis Hayes as national coordinator. Hayes built a national staff of 85 to promote events across the land.

As a result, on the 22nd of April, 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums to demonstrate for a healthy, sustainable environment in massive coast-to-coast rallies. Thousands of colleges and universities organized protests against the deterioration of the environment. Groups that had been fighting against oil spills, polluting factories and power plants, raw sewage, toxic dumps, pesticides, freeways, the loss of wilderness, and the extinction of wildlife suddenly realized they shared common values.

Earth Day 1970 achieved a rare political alignment, enlisting support from Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, city slickers and farmers, tycoons and labor leaders. The first Earth Day led to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts. “It was a gamble,” Gaylord recalled, “but it worked.”

Earth Day at Eagle Marsh

Screen Shot 2013-04-14 at 8.15.53 PMHere in Fort Wayne Indiana, Earth Day will be celebrated at Eagle Marsh (Little Rivers Wetland Project) on Engle Road from 1-5pm. To say that it will take place on “Engle Road” is in fact the truth. After the success of last year’s event, executive director Sean Nolan requested permission to have Engle Road closed between West Jefferson and Smith Road from 9:00am to 9:00pm.

Many area nature groups and businesses will be part of this free event, which will feature numerous fun activities for the whole family. These include volunteer opportunities to plant native milkweed plants at Eagle Marsh , interactive nature education stations along the preserve’s trails, a new nature photography exhibit, face painting, and more.

The Education Stations will provide lots of “hands-on” activities and will include:

  • Building a Better Bug – insect parts and the opportunity to build your own bug
  • Bee a Pollinator – pollination and the life cycle of a bee
  • Why Wetlands – three experiments to demonstrate wetlands clean water
  • Everything Poops in the Marsh – scats and tracks (hosted by yours truly)
  • Whoo Eats That – what owls eat
  • Salamanders – environmental barometers
  • Frogs and Toads of Eagle Marsh – a hopping good time guaranteed
  • Life Cycle of a Leopard Frog – actually build the four stages
  • Pond Dipping – swimmers, wigglers and things that go hop
  • Bird Observation Station – spot birds and make your own binoculars
  • Coloring with AEP – sponsors for the educational stations

A Earth Day 5K Walk presented by OmniSource will begin at 2:00 pm on April 21 during Earth Day Fort Wayne. Register now at www.firstgiving.com/lrwp/EarthDayWalk ($20 for adults, $10 for ages 7-17) to help us raise funds for LRWP’s important work of wetland restoration and nature education, including the care of Eagle Marsh and other LRWP preserves.

Visit www.Facebook.com/EarthDayFortWayne for details.

 

 

 

 

13 Apr

Drop In Demand for Ethanol

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Corporate Ecology, Creation Care, Crops, Eco-Friendly Products, Energy Conservation, Food, Fossil Fuels, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , .

The use of ethanol in fuels is not a new idea. It's been a bad idea for decades.

The use of ethanol in fuels is not a new idea. It’s been a bad idea for decades.

Just ten years ago it was the darling of politicians across the Midwest and held the promise of transforming the fuel and agricultural industries. Or so it seemed. Since 2007, demand for ethanol has dropped from 9.7 million barrels a day to 8.7 million last year.

According to the New York Times, the change is largely a result of more fuel-efficient vehicles. However, consumers have also been less than overwhelmed by the higher cost at the pump and the relative drop in mileage that comes from the so-called “flex fuel”.

According to the same article, one out of every 10 ethanol production facilities in the country has stopped producing in the last year. That means 10 percent of the tax payer investment and incentives in this new technology has been lost – and the trend is expected to continue.

Of course the major flaws in the whole agri-fuel concept lie in the fact that an equal or increased amount of fossil fuel (primarily natural gas) is required to produce ethanol. This means that the net impact of the “green” fuel alternative is actually negative.

According to Cornell University professor of agriculture David Pimentel, producing corn and processing it into 1 gallon (3.7 liters) of ethanol requires 131,000 BTUs of energy; but 1 gallon of ethanol contains only 77,000 BTUs . And since farmers are using fossil-fuel-powered equipment to plant, maintain and harvest the corn and are using fossil-fuel-powered machinery to process that corn into ethanol and then, in almost all cases, to ship the product to collection points via fuel-powered transport, the ethanol industry is actually burning large amounts of gasoline to produce this alternative fuel. That ethanol could end up containing less energy than the gasoline consumed to produce it.

In addition, the increased demand for dent corn, or other bio-fuel ingredients used as it’s raw material, has resulted in food crises in countries where escalating food prices were not simply inconvenient, but a matter of life or death. Such food crises are caused by two factors. First, land that previously produced food crops has been transformed to produce fuel crops. These crops may be profitable to the land owners, but do nothing to feed local populations. Secondly, the lack of consumable crops creates a food shortage which leads to skyrocketing prices.

So how should we respond?

Well, I for one am glad to see the decline and hope to see the entire industry disappear. Sure, we’ll experience the loss of some jobs, the potential loss in the price of dent corn and have some expensive production facilities to dispose of, but this was an idea most recognized as being ill-fated from the start.

It’s time to focus on solutions that are in fact solutions for all people and not just one segment of the voter population and the agri-corporations that support politician’s campaigns.

8 Mar

Mining the Moon?

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Corporate Ecology, Creation Care, Ecology, Environmentalism, Politics, Space. Tagged: , , , , , , , .

Regan Morris, of BBC America, recently asked the question, “What if you could mine the moon? The article, which appear on the BBC News Website, reminded me once again of the problem we seem to have with taken care of what we already have, and somehow believing that we can just move on to the next big thing.

The attitude of many is expressed in his opening comment, “…there’s a race to exploit new frontiers by mining their minerals.”

Having recently returned from Sierra Leone, West Africa, and having seen the impoverished communities that surround the extensive titanium, bauxite, gold and diamond mines that are among the highest quality and most productive in the world, I was reminded that so much of how we handle our natural resources is precisely as Morris states, “a race to exploit”. Too often it has been done without concern for the human and environmental impact. As one presidential candidate put it during the lead up to the last federal election in the United States, “That’s the price of progress.” In Morris’ articel, NASA scientist Margarita Marinova, suggests, “…we won’t make the same mistakes in space that we’vd made on Earth and the man can’t afford to explore space without tapping the local resources to survive”.

This raises another important question, is space exploration a responsible expenditure and use of our dwindling resources? Some suggest that the colonization of the Moon and Mars is not too far off in the future. Would anyone really want to live there? I’ve seen the Sahara, Death Valley and driven across the Mohave Desert and personally I would not like to live in any of the three, let alone deserts with no atmosphere and wide-ranging temperature changes. It was be easier to colonized the Sahara Desert than it would the moon. Come on!

Nevertheless, Bob Richards, CEO of Silicon Valley-based Moon Express, one of 25 companies seeking to lead the way in tapping the mineral resources of the moon, says, “We’re becoming a multi-world species. That will happen.” My concern is that if we haven’t done an adequate job of stewarding the resources and the well-being of all living things here on our current planet, how can we expect that a number of resource-seeking corporations will lead us in caring for the next?

In the early days, when new frontiers were opened by Europe in what today is known as the Americas, business interests like the Northwest and the Hudson’s Bay company traveled west for one reason, and one reason alone – to exploit the resources of this new land and return them to Old World. In South America, conquistadores did the same, enslaving, exploiting and exterminating the native people so as to carry off the abundant gold they discovered and enrich both themselves and the monarchies that supported their ventures.

Bob Richard alongside a NASA designed mining robot.

Bob Richard alongside a NASA designed mining robot.

Now, I grew up in the 1960s and remember well the excitement of the Apollo missions. Even in Canada, where I lived, we had school assemblies to watch significant stages of the missions and all aspired to become astronauts someday. However, decades of unbridled spending that gained us little more than bragging rights brought down much of what was the NASA space program.

So does more exploration excite me today? I suppose not. One adjustment I appreciate is that it is no longer being funded to the same degree on the taxpayer’s tab and has been left to the for-profit sector to pursue. Yet the question remains, are we simply moving on from one contaminated planet to a new one as we did from the Old World to the New World? And, what are we prepared to do to ensure that those who benefit little to nothing from such ventures, or are even exploited in the process, are somehow cared for given the opportunity to share in the bounty of what God has created?

 

 

 

3 Jan

Green Spaces and Human Health

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Children and Nature, Corporate Ecology, Creation Care, Ecology, Environmentalism, Politics, Religion, Spirituality in Nature. Tagged: , , , , , , , .

IMG_0460While the United States has recently averted its “Fiscal Cliff” with a last-minute revision of its taxation model, it has yet to deal with the thorny matter of reducing spending if it hopes to make a meaningful dent in its deficit. In the meanwhile, everyone has their own ideas about what should be cut.

However, not all cuts are equal. Some expenses can actually save us money in the long run. This includes health, recreation and ecological concerns.

For example, one of the programs on the chopping block is the National Parks Department. Yet according to John Gardner of the National Park Conservation Association (NPCA), the current cost to taxpayers is just 1/14th of one percent of the federal budget. Not bad when you consider there are 394 National Parks in the United States. Further restricting funding or access to national parks certainly won’t solve our budget problems.

However, there is another side to this issue that requires consideration. If we want to exercise a fiscally responsible approach to the matter, we ought to also consider the fiscal benefits of spaces like National Parks and other green spaces currently on state and municipal lists of items to be cut or curtailed from their budgets. Quite simply, green spaces improve human health, reduce the need to deal with carbon emissions and increase individual productivity.

NASA, on the other hand, receives about 5 times what the National Parks Department does from the federal budget. While NASA has had its wings clipped over the last few years, I still wonder about the benefit of space exploration. I still can’t take a walk on the moon (not that I want to), neither can any of the people who currently access national, state and municipal green spaces on a regular basis.

It’s interesting to read through the Bible and find multiple examples of God moving people to places of solitude in order to restore and refresh them. Elijah was fed by God through a raven at a brook named Cherith in a quiet and lonely place, and Jesus regularly pulled his disciples aside from the crowd of followers so they could be refreshed and regroup in the wilderness. In fact, he himself found the mountains to be a great place to retreat to in order to pray (Luke 4:42, John 6:15).

Mark Kinver, environment reporter for BBC News, comments on the growing evidence linking green spaces to human wellbeing could help strengthen the case for conservation in “Human wellbeing can strengthen case for conservation”.

 

In his article, he refers to the comments by Prof Norris, a co-author of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, at the British Ecological Society’s recent conference. Norris explained that he explained that he favoured a framework that embraced the “ecosystem services” concept, which places a value on ecosystem functions – such as reducing pollution or cleaning water – based on what the economic cost would be if we degraded an area’s biodiversity. ”We know that these things are linked to our wellbeing, so that means that they can also be linked to our health,” Prof Norris observed.

So what “fat” do we cut from the federal budget and what exactly do we consider to be “fat”? If green spaces are of benefit to you, perhaps you need to let congress know. The NCPA does a great job of lobbying the government on your behalf, as does the Nature Conservancy. Local trail association and land trusts can also use your help. As a trail steward for Acres Land Trust, I know that filling out a visitor card as you depart any one of their more the 50 properties in Indiana, Ohio or Michigan, helps them in applying for grants from private foundations or from federal or state agencies. The same is true of the Little River Wetlands Project in Fort Wayne.

Preserving our green spaces is not a luxury. It’s necessary to sustain life, sanity and our spiritual connection with God.

 

9 Dec

Climate Change: Should Rich Nations Compensate Poor Nations

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Climate Change, Corporate Ecology, Creation Care, Environmental Missions, Environmentalism, Politics, Religion. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , .

UN Climate Talks in Qatar

UN Climate Talks in Qatar

About one year ago, I found myself in the backseat of a taxi traveling four hours into New Delhi, India. As we neared the city the smog become so thick that from time-to-time it was nearly impossible to see more than a block away. Then came the burning sensation in the back of our throats accompanied by the watering eyes. We noticed people on the sidewalks, and even in their cars, covering their mouths and noses with kerchiefs.

Then we asked the question everyone in the taxi later wished we had never asked. Yes, we inquired of our, up until now, polite English-speaking taxi driver, “Why is there so much smog in New Delhi?” Bad question. He responded in such a way we knew recognized he had either prepared, or delivered his response before, “It’s because huge corporations come and set up their plants in our country so that they can freely pollute in ways that would never be tolerated in their own countries.”

Suddenly my worldview took yet another shift as I recognized that my efforts in the Midwest of the United States of America have little meaning if we are simply “greened-up” our own backyards, but relocating our problems to someone else’s.

This last week, on the heels of the Lausanne Movement’s statement regarding climate change and it’s affect on the poorest nations, (see “6. Radical action to confront climate change.”) the UN has been meeting for climate talks in Qatar with the prospect of rich nations having to compensate poor nations for losses due to climate change.

According to the BBC, the US has fiercely opposed the measure – it says the cost could be unlimited.
But after angry tussles throughout the night the principle of Loss and Damage is now in the final negotiating text. Small island states at risk from inundation say they will walk out if the US vetoes the proposed deal.

The political stakes are high. The EU’s position is not yet well defined, but soundings suggest that it can live with the text.

The report went on to say, the US will be seeking support from other big polluters – like Canada – likely to face liability for climate damages.

You may want to reread my blog on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The intent of the Kyoto Accord was to have 37 of the most industrialized nations sign on to an agreement in which they would seek to lower their carbon emissions by 5% over a period of 20 years. Many of these countries signed the accord and met or exceeded their cuotas. The United States increased its carbon emissions by 11%. But they never signed the accord in the first place. Canada, who signed the accord, increased their emissions by nearly 18%. The source in large part: he Alberta Tar Sands.

If the US is left alone fighting against the chair’s text, its negotiators face a dilemma – either to bow to the majority and accept that the nations which caused climate change bear a moral responsibility to other nations damaged by it, or to refuse to sign.

If the US vetoes the text, President Barack Obama will be accused of hypocrisy and failure after re-committing himself to tackling climate change since his re-election.

While the US does have a point in that the cost could be unlimited and in our current economic state we’re hardly ready to start handing out compensation to poor nations impacted by climate change. However, there is without a doubt a moral principle to consider.

Again the BBC reports points out, already poor nations are bitter that rich nations, particularly the US are dragging their feet over a promise made at the failed Copenhagen climate summit to mobilise $100 billion by 2020 to help poor nations get clean energy and adapt to climate change.

The developing countries say the original sum was too low – especially in the light of Mr Obama’s request to Congress for Sandy damages of $60 billion, and the UK’s bid to raise £200 billion for clean energy by 2020.

While there doesn’t seem to be a quick solution, a number of items stand out as first-things-first:

  • Corporations ought be follow the same envirnmental standards regardless of where they “set up shop” around the world.
  • Climate change and environmental issue are global in nature an so the responsibility for, and cost of restoration, ought to be shared.
  • Accords are what they are, “agreements” made in good faith. If we have made commitments, whether in good faith or in writing, we should honor our statements.

As I participated in a church service this morning celebrating the season of advent, I was caught be the words of a prayer, particularly the use of the word “humble” although I do not know the prayer’s author, this is what we recited,

Gracious Lord, prepare our lives to receive you beloved Son as he come to us in humble, simply and unexpected way. Let us love the humble one in our time and place. Let us be humble witnesses of your power and await him with joy. Amen. 

May we be the humble ones in our time and place.

14 Aug

New Development in Battery Storage Capacity

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Climate Change, Eco-Friendly Products, Ecology, Energy Conservation, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Lithium ion polymer batteries used by the NASA Space Shuttle program may soon be replaced.

Just yesterday I commented on the differing positions of the two presidential candidates in this year’s election. Both positions have merit and reflect one of two thoughts. On the Obama side, green energy holds great potential, if we can continue to develop the technology required to utilize it. Among the Romney camp, energy from fossil fuels is a known quantity for which we already have the systems and technology in place. Therefore the game-changer is new technology.

The storage of electricity poses a continuing challenge to those who would like to promote green sources of energy. It’s all fine to have solar panels and wind turbines, but if we can’t store the power they produce, we remain reliant on coal, gas or nuclear fired generators to supply the instantaneous demands of our power grid. If we have sustained cloudy weather or a lack of wind, a switch can’t be thrown and a nuclear generator suddenly fired up to meet what can often be a sudden surge in use. It takes weeks to shut them down and the same to fire them up again.

However, according to a number of news sources including the BBC, a team of Stanford researchers has found the solution to make lithium-ion batteries hold ten times the charge they currently can. How? By replacing the battery’s anode, usually constructed out of graphite, with silicon. It sounds like a simple fix, but scientists haven’t been able to do so until now because the silicon would be quickly destroyed in a process called decrepitation. Even though silicon atoms would allow more lithium ions to bind than carbon atoms, therefore allowing the battery to store more charge, the silicon would expand and retract as ions flowed through the battery. These expansions and retractions caused cracks in the silicon. Another problem is that the lithium ions would sometimes react with the silicon, removing the battery’s ability to charge.

The Stanford team has developed a technique to strengthen the silicon anodes by making them out of nanowires and hollow nanoparticles. The anode is also coated with an outer layer of silicon oxide, a ceramic material that prevents the silicon from expanding.

For now, these batteries are able to operate for more than 6,000 cycles, ten times beyond current lithium-ion battery cycle life standards.

The team’s given no timetable for when this technology will be commercialized. For now, they’re working on simplifying the process of creating the new silicon anodes and creating better cathodes to match the new silicon anodes on lithium-ion batteries. I can only hope that such technology will trickle down to the consumer level soon.

At present the development seems to be of tremendous benefit to the automotive industry which can expect the new silicon-based battery to replace the graphite-based lithium-ion and increase the distance electric cars can travel by ten times. However, it is hoped that this type of breakthrough result in others and eventually allows for wind and solar energy to be stored and reserved for a longer period of time, thus reducing our dependence on carbon-based energy sources.

24 Jul

Young Evangelicals Speak Out on Climate Change

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Climate Change, Corporate Ecology, Creation Care, Eco-Friendly Products, Ecology, Energy Conservation, Environmentalism, Fossil Fuels, Politics, Recreation, Religion, Spirituality in Nature. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Pollution and climate change have repercussions for many of today’s pressing issues from the health of our children, to global and domestic poverty, to jobs and economic growth. This makes how we care for God’s creation one of the greatest moral challenges of our time. And as Christians, we also know it is a challenge that cuts to the heart of how we promote and cherish life.

The reality of climate change is already being felt here in the U.S. and around the world in the form of extreme weather and health impacts, which most affect the unborn, poor, and powerless. It is time for America to tackle this great moral challenge. Doing so protects life and abides by Christ’s teaching to love one care for the least of these, who will be hit hardest by climate change.

Unfortunately, our country’s leaders are not stepping up to this great challenge.

But our young people are!

The Young Evangelicals for Climate Action’s call to action will give you a good sense of what they’re about. Here’s a quote:

We believe that God is calling us to take action towards overcoming the climate crisis. For us, this means living as good stewards of God’s creation, advocating on behalf of the poor and marginalized, supporting our faith leaders when they stand up for climate action, holding our political leaders accountable for responsible climate policies, and mobilizing our generation and the larger church community to join in. Together, with the LORD’s help, we can overcome the climate crisis.

It’s time for us to listen to our young people and transition away from old, fossil-based energy to clean, future-oriented, climate-friendly, job-creating solutions. Simply put: forget the fossils; embrace the future.

While it’s encouraging to see the under 30 generation showing concern and taking action to deal with creation care, it seems a shame they are being left to clean up the mess their parents have made and prefer to ignore. As with many issues, it appears we prefer to “kick-the-can” so that our children and grandchildren can deal with our disasters, whether it’s the national debt, medicare, depletion of fresh water, social security or climate change.

There’s a problematic sense of entitlement with the “boomer” generation (of which I am a part) that somehow believes it can “eat, drink and be merry” during its life time and leave tomorrow’s problems for someone else to figure out. However, our self-centered mentality fails to take into account its impact on our own children (not some ambiguous future generation of unknowns) and our obligation to honor our Creator and God.

So what action are you taking?

27 Jun

Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is a Bad Idea

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Climate Change, Corporate Ecology, Creation Care, Ecology, Energy Conservation, Environmentalism, Fossil Fuels, Politics. Tagged: , .

Proposed Route for the Keystone XL Pipeline

1. It will not lower the price of gasoline in the United States

The current Keystone pipeline runs from the the Alberta Tar Sands to Cushing, Oklahoma. The new pipeline will run somewhat parallel to the existing pipeline except that it will extend from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast where the petroleum companies have the majority of their refineries. Why would this be important to them? Well, if you can’t get the oil to the coast, you can’t ship it to foreign buyers. It’s a well known fact that fuel prices in the United States are among the lowest in the world (if you don’t take into account Venezuela or Saudi Arabia). The petroleum companies are “for-profit” corporations and are not controlled by government (that would be socialism). We can all come to this conclusion having witnessed the rather lame “lashings” handing out to oil executives by congressional panels in recent years. Oil from the Alberta Tar Sands, or from new Alaskan oil wells, will not lower the price at the pump in the United States. It will not produce more resources to supply the demand of our citizens. It will simply be sold to the highest bidder. If the plan were to sell it to US citizens, would we really send it by pipeline right across the country to the Gulf Coast?

2. It will set efforts to develop energy alternatives back by at least fifty years.

What the Keystone XL pipeline will effectively accomplish is to push back any efforts to develop alternative energy strategies. Geologists believe that there is at least 50 years worth of oil reserves in the tar sands. Even more might be available in the Arctic if they get permission to “drill baby drill”. If we have that kind of supply, why bother to invest in alternatives sources of energy? Once again, we’d simply “kick the can” down the road for following generations to deal with. Once the investment is made in a pipeline of this nature, you can only expect that it will be used for as many or even more of it’s 50 year life.

So why not take advantage of this valuable resource?

3. It is one of the “dirtiest” sources of oil available to us today.

Do you remember something called the Kyoto Accord? The intent was to have 37 of the most industrialized nations sign on to an agreement in which they would seek to lower their carbon emissions by 5% over a period of 20 years. Many of these countries signed the accord and met or exceeded their cuotas. The United States increased its carbon emissions by 11%. But they never signed the accord in the first place. Canada, who signed the accord, increased their emissions by nearly 18%. How can this be in a country that prides itself in being green? Well, one of the the leading contributors is the Alberta Tar Sands.

You see, of all the means of extracting oil from the ground, the tar sands project is the least efficient environmentally, (and economically by the way). According to the National Wildlife Federation the tar sands oil is one of the most destructive, dirty, and costly fuels in the world. To extract the tar sands, oil companies are digging up pristine forest in Alberta, Canada and leaving behind huge toxic wastelands.

Mining and extracting tar sands:

  • Destroys enormous swaths of important ecosystems;
  • Produces lake-sized reservoirs of toxic waste;
  • Releases toxic chemicals into our air when it is refined in the U.S.;
  • Emits significantly more global warming pollutants than fuels made from conventional oil.

4. The pipeline itself threatens everyone in its path.

Not only does this impact the area surrounding Fort McMurray, Alberta, it also threatens the six states it is intended to cross as it carries 900,000 barrels of oil per day to the Gulf Coast.

On Sunday, July 25th 2010 an estimated 840,000 gallons of raw tar sands crude oil burst from a pipeline into a creek that feeds the Kalamazoo River. The oil spreading quickly in the flooded river, coating wildlife, saturating marshlands, backyards, businesses and farm land. The flow of the oil was contained before reaching Lake Michigan.

The raw tar sands oil disaster was caused by a break in a pipeline owned by Canadian tar sands giant, Enbridge. The company was cited for safety violations in the pipeline before it ruptured, and Enbridge was recently found responsible for safety violations in a 2007 pipeline explosion that killed two employees in Minnesota.

One of the largest tar sands oil spills ever in the Midwest, the disaster in the Kalamazoo River was one of many pipeline accidents in Michigan and one of hundreds of Enbridge oil spills in the last decade.

Conclusion: 

If the Keystone XL pipeline will do nothing to lower gasoline prices, postpone efforts to develop alternatives to fossils fuels, inflict serious damage to our already fragile environment and pose a continuing threat to our valuable freshwater aquifers and surface water, why would we want to vote “yes”. Hey, I’m even a Canadian citizen and would love to see this boost to my homeland’s economy and that of the United States, but it simply doesn’t make good sense.

We have a responsibility as stewards of the earth, to our children and grandchildren, and to God for the resources He has given us.

15 Jun

Canada Goose Poop and Other Stuff You Probably Didn’t Know About These Feathered Friends

Posted by midwestnaturalist in Birds, Education, Politics, Wildlife. Tagged: , , , , , .

Canada Goose “Touque”

You got that right. I said “poop”. There is an awful lot we don’t know about the Canada goose including how much poop they can produce in a day.

Here are just a few things you might not know about our feathered friends from the North:

  • It is incorrect to call them Canadian geese. It is a Canada goose or Canada geese.
  • The average lifespan of a wild Canada goose is 24 years.
  • While on the ground, a flock of geese is called a gaggle. In the air, a flock of geese is called a skein.
  • Canada geese have an enlarged bone at the end of each wing, similar to a wrist. Though unlikely, an adult Canada goose is capable of breaking a human limb with this part of its wing.
  • There are 11 subspecies of Canada goose. In general, they get smaller as you move northward and darker as you go westward.
  • Geese can cover 1,500 miles in just 24 hours with a favorable wind, but typically travel at a much more leisurely rate.
  • Geese fly in a V formation because it creates a current of air that makes flight more efficient and allows for better communication (guess they don’t listen to iPods when they travel).
  • Goslings begin communication with their parents while still in the egg and learn up to 13 different calls by adulthood. Females have a deeper voice.
  • Canada geese are one of the most hazardous species associated with aircraft bird strikes. In 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 struck two geese six minutes after takeoff and ditched into New York’s Hudson River. All 155 passengers survived the crash (the geese did not).
  • Canada geese have bills with serrated edges that help them cut tough grass stems.
  • Loosely based on a true story, the film Fly Away Home depicts a father and daughter rescuing 16 orphaned Canada geese by escorting them some 1,000 miles from Ontario to North Carolina in ultralight aircraft decorated like mother birds. The truth? Bill Lishman spent five years training geese to follow him in flight as a biological experiment.
  • Some claim Canada geese poop as much as one pound per day. However, in a study conducted by Dr. Bruce Manny, research fishery biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, the average goose produces 0.3432 pounds (5.49 ounces) of wet droppings per day. At 21.04 percent solids in the average goose dropping, this amount of wet droppings is equivalent to 0.0722 pounds (1.15 ounces) of dry droppings per day.
  • Still others claim that Canada geese are trained in Canadian terrorist camps up in the bush and are sent to the United States by the heavily underfunded Canadian Armed Forces to conduct characteristically passive-aggressive strikes on their southern neighbors. Well. search as I may, I could not find any information to dispute this claim.

    Heads up! Incoming from Canada.

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers