Big, Red, Angry Tomatoes

In my last post, I briefly mentioned the Greening Earth Society. Brief recap: GES sez more CO2 = more green plants = good, bountiful harvest that's better for humanity! In a nutshell (pun intended), keep the greenhouse gases pumping, it's good for the earth. Not incidentally, the GES was founded by the Western Fuels Association, and it lobbies for the (fossil fuel) power industry. I don't think that mentioning that connection constitutes an ad hominem (namely, poisoning the well) as it's highly relevant to the choices they make with regard to their research, etc. So there.

Yesterday's Grist magazine featured an article on the effects of global warming on the nutritional content of our food. Is the GES right? Are fossil fuels good for continued survival and health of hairless monkeys?

Grist concedes that there is something to the science -- CO2 fertilization does yield growth in plants. However, as they say, "there's a catch." High levels of CO2 may yield faster-growing plants, but they also yield less nutritious plants, much to the detriment of the critters who feed on said greenery (including the aforementioned hairless monkey, i.e. us).

Monocultures decrease nutritional value of plants as well, as the nutrients in the soil are depleted and not replenished via crop rotations. Increased use of chemical fertilizers and engineered high-yield crops also decreases the nutritional value of plants. The World Bank has termed the resulting nutritional deficiencies (most frequently felt in "developing" nations) "hidden hunger." Wealthy nations like those in the G8 can compensate for these nutritional shortcomings by supplementing crops, animals, and people with missing nutrients. Less wealthy nations may not be able to keep up. There's more in the article. It's quite interesting.

It also mentions that higher levels of CO2 increase production of non-nutritious elements in plants -- compounds that serve as the plants' natural defenses. Tomatoes might be bigger, but they'll also be meaner. Who needs nuclear radiation when you have CO2?

Also, it seems that it will be increasingly difficult to be a healthy vegetarian in a world with higher levels of CO2. Even if you grow your own organic produce, there's no way to keep your plants from interacting with a CO2-laden environment. Granted, organic produce will still be healthier than non-organic, bioengineered, factory-farmed produce, but nevertheless, the "veg block" should be pissed. And so should we all if yet another way of life becomes closed to us.

The Aesthetics of Rhetoric

Despite a recent "Sense of the Senate Resolution" acknowledging a causal link between human activity (increased greenhouse gases) and global warming (i.e. "climate change"), and despite finally publicly acknowledging the reality of said warming, the US still refuses to formally agree to pass legislation or enforce regulations requiring businesses and citizens to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of course.

At G-8 this past week, Bush himself was heard to say,

"Listen, I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem."

Whoa! What's that? The Bush Administration is finally, after years of trumping out global warming skeptics like MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, acknowledging a causal relationship (not just a correlation!) between human activity and climate change? But they're still not going to take formal regulatory or legislative steps to address it? Not surprising. The Sense of the Senate Resolution acknowledging the causal link and the need for mandatory caps on emissions came shortly after the Senate voted down the McCain/Lieberman co-sponsored Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. It's a big step from acknowledgement to action, particularly when there's so much at stake politically and economically -- and socially.

Strangely, it's much easier to "justify" a war -- to fix intelligence and "facts" around a policy that benefits . . . who, again? With war, the status quo remains remarkably untouched and unaffected. When it comes to global warming, however, we must rethink an entire economic system, and begin to radically restructure the ways in which we do business. This takes massive amounts of creativity, effort, and possibly even sacrifice (gasp!). War isn't nearly as frightening as this -- in fact, in this case, it seems to be classic avoidance behavior. Do you enjoy irony? How's this -- we're fighting to make the world "free" for a way of life (read: a way of doing business) that is destroying the world. Remember when Bush encouraged us all to fight the terrorists by going shopping, rather than by taking steps to reduce energy consumption and dependence on "foreign oil"? Remember back in 2002 when members of Congress held aloft pictures of shiny new SUVs and waxed eloquent about the American "right to drive" whatever we want to drive, and went on to defeat a proposal to increase fuel economy standards for cars, light trucks, minivans, and SUVs? Let the market decide! The Invisible Hand will guide us to greener pastures (here I'm reminded of such pseudoscience as that funded by fossil fuel interests and the Greening Earth Society, the folks who claim that increased levels of greenhouse gases are good because CO2 makes the plants grow up to be big and green and strong).

In a Nova/Frontline investigative report on global warming (2000), a "regular citizen" had the following to say about the matter of our heating planet, "It's a question we need to answer, but do we need to pay for it?"

Nice.

Meanwhile, as a sidenote, Wikipedia has a very thorough entry on Global Warming, with lots of chartsengrafs.

Get Up on the Down Stroke

Today is an ozone action day in Knoxville. The air quality forecast anticipates levels of ozone and particulant matter that will be unhealthy for sensitive groups (those with chronic heart and lung diseases in particular).

University of Tennessee seems to be blissfully unaware of this, as evidenced by the number of lawnmowers and weed-whackers currently in operation around campus. I can hear the whine of a weed-eater from the computer lab where I'm currently accessing the Internet.

I would like to see state government play a more proactive role in setting the standard for dealing with ozone action days. Rather than simply recommending that people conserve energy and not use two-stroke engine machines (like weed-eaters and lawnmowers) that increase unhealthy levels of pollutants, they should follow that advice. On ozone action days, state and local governmental entities should participate in public efforts to conserve energy AND refrain from engaging in polluting activities (like lawnwork)-- particularly when those entities are located in nonattainment zones.

I know I'm going to see a leafblower before this day is finished. Gr.

Scrubbing behind TVA's ears

Today's edition of the blog of the well-traveled South Knox Bubba features a very well-phrased post regarding TVA & the new scrubbers at Bull Run. The technology in question will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from the Bull Run plant by 90%. However, this represents (according to Bubba-math) a 7.5% reduction in overall SO2 emissions from TVA plants. This figure matches TVA's proposed 7.5% rate increase. Hm.

While you're at Bubba's blog, you should check out the pictures from his recent jaunt across our wide nation. Hint: you have to scroll "backward" through the photo archive to view the pictures in proper chronological order. Use the left arrow, Ethel!

Separation of Business and State

Lately, the separation of Church and State has come under fire from a number of sources both within ("faith-based initiatives") and without (Dobson, anyone?) the current Administration. It seems that having 200+ years of no official state-sanctioned government has created a climate in which people are failing to see the harm of combining government and theology. Combine that with the religious right and their seemingly effective cries of victimization and persecution (everyone loves the underdog). "Children aren't free to pray in school!" "The liberal Democrats hate your God!" ad nauseam. This has incredibly serious implications for Democracy, which I shouldn't need to point out.

There's another Sacred Wall that should exist, for many of the same reasons -- preservation of meaningful Democracy and affirmation of deeply held normative values (equality, autonomy, freedom, etc.), to name but two. This is the wall between business and the State. Given the most prevalent model of doing business within a capitalist economy (thanks Milt!), the State is one of the only constraints that business recognizes. Law and regulation are often recognized as the only external checks on running business -- and business, ever mindful of the bottom line, realizes this and continually pushes for less regulation. This is typically justified by an appeal to an ethic that seems like Utilitarianism-- business will lead with its Invisible Hand toward a better life for us all, and the fewer restraints, the quicker we'll reach our goals. A rising tide raises all boats; that sort of thing.

So business lobbies government, at great expense and frequently with great success, to relax regulations and pass business-friendly laws. Now government and business are so incestuous that we begin to think that good businesspersons necessarily make good public servants, even though the goals of a businessperson and the goals of a public servant are frequently (and for good reason) sharply at odds. The interests of the public are not always in lock-step with the interests of business, particularly with regard to long-term goals. Why does this even merit a mention?

Citizens are NOT always consumers, and (unfortunately) vice versa. We claim membership in a democracy, a free society, where we MUST (by definition) be able to vote and make reasoned and informed choices regarding our leadership. Given the current state of newsmedia ownership by corporate giants, making an informed choice becomes more difficult. The newsmedia, the Fourth Estate, should be treated as if it were a part of government (in the sense that it enables the people to provide the ultimate check on government via the provision of information, not in the sense that government should use it as a mouthpiece), and NOT as a business. News should NOT be a business. We must be able to vote with more than the dollar. As citizens of a democracy, we are required to perform certain civic duties (like voting) in order to sustain our favored way of life. Otherwise, we're just a nation of Wal-Mart shoppers and we're fooling ourselves with all of this democracy-talk. We're not making the world safe for democracy, we're making the world safe for people to make money.

Currently, the Administration and Congress (both sides) is loaded with businesspeople -- people who are more concerned with free enterprise and profit than with what constitutes genuine action in the public interest. Money talks, and bullshit walks -- or so the saying goes -- and there's a lot of fecal perambulation going on in DC.

I've argued before and I'll keep arguing until I'm blue in the face that we need to get our priorities straight -- do we truly want Democracy? Do we truly believe in the normative values that undergird our society? If so, business MUST be kept out of politics. In fact, businesses that are based in a democratic society have a duty to uphold those democratic principles first, and not to actively work to erode them. If profit and democracy come into conflict, democracy must win. Business has a duty to stay out of politics, and to accept the constraints that the people choose to place upon it. None of this telling us what's for our own good; that if we just wait long enough, we'll experience the economic benefits of a society based upon capitalism and free enterprise. There's more to life than stuff. There's the act of living itself -- an experience that can't be packaged, commodified, bought, or sold, no matter how hard you try. The whole concept of "selling an experience" confounds me. You can no more sell an experience than you can milk a lizard.

And then there's this Philip Cooney guy. Whose interests was he serving when he altered scientific reports to obscure the impact of data regarding global warming (ie "climate change")? Your interests? As a consumer? As a citizen? As a human? As a "free" and "autonomous" individual?

Robert F. Kennedy for The Huffington Post:

Throughout the Bush administration business lobbyists from polluting industries are now running the agencies charged with protecting Americans from pollution -- not out of a commitment to public service but rather to subvert the very laws they are supposed to enforce, to enrich the president’s corporate paymasters.