Take Action against the Keystone Pipeline

As you may know, the Keystone Pipeline was recently made available for public comment.  I'd like to share a little information and hopefully encourage you to voice your opinion on this matter.

WHAT'S THE DEAL W/ #KXL

The proposed pipeline will carry crude oil and products of tar sands production from Canada through the U.S. for refining.  There's also been talk of shipping these refined products to Europe.

Aside from the mainstream environmental issues - its contribution to climate change and our government's continued resistance to move away from fossil fuels - Native Americans and First Nations of Canada have been extremely active and vocal about stopping Keystone.  All of the land the pipeline will traverse and will draw from were once native lands - and some still belong to native people.  Beyond that, burning these fossil fuels will affect us and generations to come, with unforeseen consequences of climate change.  This is a bleak picture that I'm sure you are familiar with.

However, there is good news!

The construction permit for this project has not issued yet - it's still a proposal.  That means, if we get our act together, we can prevent it.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT

There are several things you can do to express your thoughts, feelings, and plans for the project.  Here are a few:

• Submit a comment online - http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOS-2014-0003 - before March 7
• Write and send in a letter to (more info http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/) - before March 7

U.S. Department of State

Bureau of Energy Resources, Room 4843

Attn: Keystone XL Public Comments

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20520

• Share this email with your friends and people who care about the health of the planet and its people.
• Attend or organize a protest - join others who feel similarly, feel solidarity in action - they're happening across the country.

The first two actions are often taken in isolation; you can't really *feel* that you're part of something bigger.  However, attending protests is often an inspiring way to show how I feel about something and also be joined by others who agree.  It's motivating and reminds me that tons of other people really care about these things and are willing to go out and do something about it.

CONCLUSION: DON'T SIT THIS ONE OUT

I recently saw Winona LaDuke (an Anishinaabe activist) speak - she made a point about how the extractive industry is becoming more extreme.  The Deepwater Horizon (drilling to depths of more than 30,000 ft) fracking, mountaintop removal, now tar sands extraction - the U.S. is becoming more and more desperate in our addiction to these toxic substances.  But more and more people are also standing up, realizing the truths about climate change, and taking action against the government's mindless trajectory toward climate destabilization.

I urge you to voice your own opinion about the Keystone Pipeline - we have the ability to slow, stop, and prevent it from happening.

I'd love to hear if this email has been motivating to you - and to hear if you decide to email or mail in a letter.

My public comment on the Keystone Pipeline

We know climate change is happening and is caused by human activity, namely the burning of fossil fuels.  President Obama has promised us oil independence - let us take steps in that direction by NOT building this pipeline, and instead, investing in energy sources that will sustain us in the future, not cripple us and our children's children.

The United States should take a leadership role in the world by denying industry- and greed-based proposals such as this one and move forward with this country's history of innovation.  This pipeline will only deny the inevitable as there is still only a finite amount of oil shale, tar sands, and crude oil to be refined.

Building this pipeline will negatively impact me by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, by continuing to destroy and develop Native American lands, and by failing to respond to the sentiments of U.S. citizens, who are vocalizing their dissent of this plan.

Please do not approve this plan - it is environmentally destructive, socially unjust, and deeply un-American.

The biggest repository for plastic waste is the ocean.

Read more here, for the 50th anniversary of Silent Spring.

PS more like BS

Was just toying around with this as a t-shirt idea...but not sure it'll come to fruition:

Polystyrene (PS) more like BS!

Letter to Subway Franchise World HQ

Subway Franchise World Headquarters

325 Bic Drive

Milford, CT 06461-3059

May 24, 2011

To whom it may concern:

I recently purchased a sandwich in Champaign, Illinois and was happy to see a note on your Subway® napkins telling me to compost them after use. Had I been going home after my meal, I would have. However, I was in transit, as I assume many fast food customers are when they purchase such food.

I’m writing this letter with the hope to encourage franchises to provide compost bins in their stores as well as compost food waste generated on-site. I imagine franchises generate far more waste than consumers generate using napkins, and taking the steps necessary to process this on-site would mean a huge reduction in waste. Furthermore, providing napkins when people ask for them rather than handing 5 out each time would also cut down on waste, as would sourcing part of the napkins from post-consumer recycled paper.

It’s encouraging to me as an individual that Subway® acknowledges my part in addressing waste problems, but I’d also like to see this mirrored by the corporation/franchise itself. Composting food waste and allowing consumers to do so in-store would do this.

Thank you for your consideration and the steps that the franchise has already taken. I hope you and the franchise continue along this path.

Sincerely,

Ariann Sahagun

Letter to the Editor

Land Grant Institution should use Renewable Energy

I graduated with a Bachelor’s in Psychology in 2008 and recently came back to the University for a Master’s program. When I was an undergrad, I worked with other students to urge the University to become more sustainable. We urged: build a wind turbine, create a strong Office of Sustainability, and include sustainability topics in classes. Unfortunately, since I’ve come back I’m not sure that the University has gained much ground on these fronts. U of I - as a land grant institution - should be striving to become a leader, to demonstrate to our state and local communities what sustainability means: using renewable energy, enacting policy changes, engaging students for educational advancement, among many other potential activities.

I am disappointed that our university has continually dragged its collective feet on building a wind turbine on campus. I started working on this project in 2005 and have spent countless hours with many other students. Students in the form of the Student Sustainability Committee as well as the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation have committed millions of dollars to the project and the University has shown little follow-through.

It is time now to move past coal-powered electricity plants and toward renewable energy. We know about climate change enough to commit to this. Given this knowledge and such inaction, what will we say to our children and grandchildren? Will we say we did all we could?

Ari Sahagun
Graduate student in Communication

Lecture: Race and Whiteness within Vegan Philosophy

I attended two of Breeze Harper's talks as part of the Campus EcoFeminism Summit, an event I am glad to know will be continuing annually. I learned a lot from attending her keynote speech and her less formal vegan meet n' greet event earlier in the day. What it means to be a good environmentalist today is to buy more things: a hybrid car, organic veggies, expensive gadgets. Along these lines, I'll admit: never before had I explicitly considered where race and class belong in the discussion of veganism.

Breeze Harper was the summit's keynote speaker with speech called: “Race and Whiteness within Vegan Philosophy: Critical Race Feminist Reflections from the Sistah Vegan Project.” Breeze's main point was that mainstream veganism has been presented by and for a narrow segment of race and class (white middle-class); many authors don't acknowledge that they are white and middle to upper class. She suggested that many (white) people in the United States have a racial literacy from the '50s where racism = segregation and overt violence like lynching. The view of our society as “post-racial” (“we're not racist, we have a black president”) covertly encourages race- and class-neutral attitudes, and does more harm than good.

Breeze talked a lot about privilege: it's like being born on second base when you think you started at bat. She argued that there isn't a good understanding of how whiteness and racism work in veganism, and many popular books are laden with unacknowledged privileges: don't be a cheapskate, buy all organic foods! (Well, what if there isn't a Whole Foods in your backyard, or you don't have a car to drive to one, or the money to afford their high prices?) Without knowing where we're at in terms of race, class and gender and the historical contexts of which we're a part, we can't see how these things shape our relationship to nature.

The path to addressing these issues will hold anti-racism as a central tenant and include reflection about our own privileges. To learn more about her work, visit the Sistah Vegan Blog. She also mentioned further reading: Lee & Lutz: Situating "race" and racisms in time, space, and theory and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's Racism Without Racists.

Lecture: Social Science Aspects of Sustainability and Climate Change

As a grad student in Communication I also attend a lot of lectures on various topics including sustainability, climate change, gender, class and race awareness, and whatever else peaks my interest. I’m thinking that it would be a good idea to do a short write up after each one to help me digest the various topics and keep writing. So here begins a series of responses to lectures I attend.

Today’s lecture was given by Scott Butner who works at the Pacific NW National Lab, specifically in the Technosocial Predictive Analytics Initiative (TPAI). It was presented as part of the ISTC’s Seminar Series on Sustainability.

The motivating idea of the talk was that we (engineers?) should consider both group and individual behavior in modeling of climate change and energy use. Butner touched on the definition of sustainability noting that the Bruntland Commission’s usage has no inclusion of metrics, and that generally, engineers tend to think of the problem of sustainability as fundamentally rooted in material and energy constraints. I personally don’t this has people (society, individual behavior) integrated enough into the definition, nor do I think sustainability can be boiled down into one fundamental problem. It seems much more complex than that.

The group at TPAI through a grant from the EPA has used systems dynamic modeling (with STELLA) to combine technological systems (agriculture, climate change, smart grid) with social and individual behavior models. Apparently they’ve also use computer gaming to inform opinions. However, near the end of the talk he mentioned that these models are “pretty disposable” and are mainly used to spur critical thinking, not produce results.

Here are some of my thoughts:

• I’m not very familiar with modeling in the social sciences. I’d like to learn more about/if there are endemic (i.e. rooted in social science) models of, say, behavioral change. Usually when I think of social scientists using the word “model” it’s mostly theory, not a sort of “black box” type of thinking including inputs and outputs which I assume most engineers/technically-minded people think of. I might be wrong here, but I think the social vs. “hard” sciences have different uses of the word ‘model.’
• The speaker used a quote from the USDOE regarding the smart grid, noting it “will require cultural change.” How can the publishers so over-generalize and simplify cultural change, suggesting it might come from top-down government recommendations? Is this in line with folk knowledge (or scientific knowledge) about how cultural change actually occurs?
• Another point that was mentioned a few times is that even with increases in energy efficiency, energy use is still on the rise. Or, there are “normative expectations” for energy use. He cited this article to back up the claim.
• The team at TPAI used the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) data for mapping variables like affluence and behavior – one of the most interesting slides in the presentation was the correlation tables between behavior and energy usage across several variables. Like: affluence is correlated with the number of windows in a house. (More affluent = more windows)
• Also, and this may be slightly cynical, but I was struck by the sort of generalized nature of "social science" and discussions of "behavior." This is pretty much in line with many of the informal discussions I've had with engineering friends or groups. It made me wonder: who does critical social science? Do engineers who eventually recognize the importance of social science tend to have a less critical and more generalized understanding? Hopefully that's not horribly offensive, but there are open comments...

only when the last tree is dead,

when the last river is poisoned,

and when the last fish is trapped,

then we will understand that we can't eat money

Environmental Justice

Every time I hear about the environmental justice movement I hear it contrasted to the environmental movement: while I was at Greenpeace, in some classes in college, and most recently at the US Social Forum. The environmental movement is mostly situated within middle-class white hegemony and seeks to reduce the problem by individualizing it - giving each individual the power to act, you know, like the good ol’ American Dream. Change your bulbs, save the world. Get a job, end poverty. Use birth control, reduce world population. That kind of thing.

The environmental justice (EJ) movement, on the other hand is grounded in the context of historical social injustice. EJ issues are generally also spatially grounded, and a generically recognized EJ issue is some sort of hazardous waste in the backyards of poor people of color. EJ points out that many of the problems of the environmental crisis lie in the roots of colonialism. So EJ is grounded both historically and socially, as well as spatially. In this context, the way to stop dumping hazardous waste is to stop having poor people.

This week I heard a lecture that talked specifically to the historical/spatial aspect, that of burying the past, of burying social inequity. The work of EJ then is to study the material wastes -- or “imperial debris” -- of the past, making visible social inequalities. EJ, then is the antidote to our “green consumption,” “greenwashing” rampage.

This new wave of “green” consumption is a response to a basic understanding that this treadmill of production and consumption is flawed. However, rather than making any significant changes, we make the superficial addition of “green” consumption, “green” production and continue on our way. Don’t worry that the whole system is flawed; at least it’s green now. Now you can feel good about driving.

Seriously. The slogan for Toyota's new Prius is: "Welcome to the 3rd generation Prius, where man’s wants and nature’s needs agree." (Source) And, "Harmony between man, nature, and machine" (Source) (Also, can't help but notice the repeated use of the gendered word "man.")

As for greenwashing, it’s usually used in this way - just paint the whole thing green. Greenwashing, says Wikipedia, is a portmanteau of "green" and "whitewash." So - make no structural changes, only superficial ones to change how people interpret it. “Green” cars, “green” coal, etc. However, it can also be looked at as a “whitening” of the movement, with regard to class participation. If to be green means to have the newest, greenest product, only those who can afford to buy it can be really green.

EJ provides a grounded antidote to greenwashing by unearthing historical inequities. Grounded in such a context, it becomes clearer that greenwashing is really just the same old symptomatic solution to the continuing problems.

I wonder, though, if it is possible that the environmental movement can provide any new tools to the continuing civil rights movements. Can the environmental movement make us more aware of the ecology of social movements? Or the cyclical nature of change? Can grounding ourselves in the natural world help us gain perspective and inform our work?

Books recommended at this week’s lecture: On Bullshit and There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster

Yes, Bill McKibben, Yes.

Bill McKibben, an outspoken activist and inspiration author (among other things) has recently written another though-but-more-importantly-action-provoking post over at Grist. Check it out. He says:

Mostly, we need to tell the truth, resolutely and constantly. Fossil fuel is wrecking the one earth we've got. It's not going to go away because we ask politely. If we want a world that works, we're going to have to raise our voices.

I recently read the book he mentions writing in 1989, called The End of Nature. It was scary and depressing, and what's worse, it was written 20 years ago and a lot of the issues are still around, as prevalent as ever. It led me to scrawl across my notebook:

HOW CAN PEOPLE NOT SEE THIS GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS AS THE BIGGEST ISSUE OF OUR TIME?

I'll share what I thought were a couple pivotal quotes, if you don't have the time to read the whole thing.
His premise is, I think encapsulated in this particular sentence:

"The invention of nuclear weapons may actually have marked the beginning of the end of nature: we possessed, finally, the capacity to overmaster nature, to leave an indelible imprint everywhere all at once."

To elaborate:

"If the waves crash up against the beach, eroding dunes and destroying homes, it is not the awesome power of Mother Nature. It is the awesome power of man, who has overpowered in a century the processes that have been slowly evolving and changing of their own accord since the earth was born."

And another:

"We live, all of a sudden, in an astroturf world, and though an astroturf world may have a God, he can't speak through the grass, or even be slient through it and let us hear."

I think this last one hits particularly home for anyone who is remotely spiritual. If your spirituality is even loosely connected with God as life, God as unity, or if there is any Nature in your God, it's a point worth considering.

To deal with guilt, we must take responsibility. We Americans alone are responsible for a huge percentage of global environmental harm (which continues as you read). Knowing this, as many do, we must address it. We must strive as individuals to use less energy, to produce less waste, and to educate our friends and family how (and why) to do these things as well. As consumers, we must demand better products, electric cars, organic foods, local products, sweat-free clothes. We must lead by example and show the world we recognize what we've done, take responsibility for it, and as a nation provide a better way of life as an example for the world.

We must reject products that lie about being "environmentally friendly," and seek to create criteria of our own for how we should treat our environment. What, by the way, is your "environment?" Have you thought about this? Is it something you're intimately familiar with or just catch a glimpse of on your commute? How does Organic Ranch Dressing help our environment?

We must become environmentally-informed consumers, and choose products wisely, not based on ads or alluring packaging.

We must examine and change our habits.

Oh, and I'm tired of this mediocre, middle-of-the-road, compromising bullshit. Let's get mad, let's get radical, and let's get some shit done. Right on Bill.

Agricultural Complex

What do bananas, Colombia, and Disney have in common?


I don't know, but this is what I found at my local food co-op.

Walruses??!

And I QUOTE:

"How can Exxon Mobil have walruses in the response plan for the Gulf of Mexico?"

Story & video @ Huff Post.

"Change starts with your underwear."

I haven't been posting much lately, but I have been buying underwear. Yep, that's right. I recently found a company that I like (so far). They produce organic cotton underwear AND support non-profits around the world. My first purchase was one that supported Wangari Maathai's Green Belt Movement in Kenya.

Anyway, if you're looking for a new pair of undies (for men and women), check out PACT!

Their ad's not bad either:

"Huge Eco-Possibilities"

I like efficiently using small spaces, but this guy takes it to a whole new level. Check it out:

4 Rs, for eaRth day

In a consumerist culture where forces act to keep us buying stuff we don't need, no wonder that the rest of this iceberg is left hidden from view. It pisses me off to see recycling touted as the way to 'save the earth,' to the neglect of these 3 other more important actions and lifestyles. Do it, or if you need to hear it again, here:
1) Reject those things you don't need. Don't buy shit that isn't sustainable. At least try not to. Don't buy into the idea that you 'need' to buy anything.
2) Reduce your consumption - buy less. Choose things with less packaging.
3) Reuse: think creatively about the waste that you do create. Compost. DIY.
4) Recycle: you know the drill.

But I don't really mean to be preachy at you. Just saying that this mass of actions below the surface is being hidden from us, as we're herded into doing as little as possible.

Meat (over)consumption

Americans eat 10 billion,

10,000,000,000
animals each year!

Holy cow! Learn more: watch or read.

AmeriCorps going green

I sent an email to my supervisors:

I'm writing in response to a call for "going green tips" for our individual lives. Though I think these changes are necessary, and I appreciate the opportunity to share, I feel that they should also be paired with the larger changes we must all work toward.
--

Our shorter showers, hybrid cars, and organic ranch dressing are far from useful if we don’t also work to change the larger systems of which they are a part. These important yet smaller changes are not nearly on the same magnitude of the problem they attempt to solve: shorter showers will not address the worlds’ water shortages, nor will driving a hybrid change a culture of car ownership, end greenhouse gas emissions, or prevent wars fought for oil security.

Now, if AmeriCorps committed to becoming a “greener” organization, we could enact real green business practices (read: sustainability!) to those (hundreds of?) thousands of non-profits we partner with. This would be change to get behind.

“Going green” doesn’t mean spending more money or expending a lot of effort; rather it is grounded in awareness of our use of resources and an acknowledgement of our relationship with the earth.

I see and appreciate the Forest Stewardship Council certification on the envelopes for the receipt of my direct deposits, but part of the reason I chose direct deposit was to reduce the amount of paper I get. We work for finding solutions to poverty but buy our AmeriCorps clothes from countries employing sweat-shop labor practices (read: exported American jobs).

If we as individuals commit to changing our lifestyles, part of that change should also be working toward “greening” the systems to which we belong, in which we work, and on which we depend.

Thoughts from No Impact Man

Reblogged from here
Thoughts I come back to when thinking about environmentalism 2.0:
1. Happier planet = happier people.
2. You make a difference.
3. Our culture is broken.
4. The personal is political.
5. Economic growth ≠ Life satisfaction growth.
6. Jobs are paramount but we should work to make our planetary home better not worse.
7. The concept of zero sum game is for people with zero sum brains.
8. There is a better, happier system out there.
9. If thine eyes (or thine economic system) offends thee, pluck them (or it) out.
10. It’s not about having less. It’s about having more. The question is: more of what?
11. There is dis-ease in our culture. People yearn for something better.
12. People are trustworthy and altruistic and good and will do the right thing if you let them.
13. This does not deny the fact that normal people act abnormally in abnormal situations.
14. Love and good company, the chance to be of service and to matter, connection to something bigger, the use of our most prized talents—these things make most people happier than stuff.
15. Being responsible for the world is not a burden. It is freedom from victimhood!
16. My happiness cannot be complete unless you are happy, too.

Ants & Humans

Another William McDonough quote:

"Consider this: all the ants on the planet, taken together, have a biomass greater than that of humans. Ants have been incredibly industrious for millions of years. Yet their productiveness nourishes plants, animals and the soil. Human industry has been in full swing for little over a century, yet it has brought about a decline in almost every ecosystem on the planet. Nature doesn't have a design problem. People do."