Wildlife: Going . . . Going . . .
As much as I criticize CNN, I have to say they are the ONLY news station concerned about the environment, including species other than our own wonderful selves.
(Olbermann thinks animals exist for our mirth)
Everyone should be a member of at least one environmental organization. Because we are killing off all life on this planet.
Link below to depressing reality:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/ 16/wildlife.shortage/index.html
Advertisement
And everyone who wants to think about the environment and has even one child, might want to think about how they are contributing mightily to the problem.
May 18, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never met anyone who factored the environment into their decision to have kids, have you, clearthinker? Nor have I met anyone who is teaching their kids active conservation and stewardship of the planet (beyond recycling and changing to energy-efficient light bulbs). The American mindset is still very far from instituting drastic lifestyle changes and making wiser choices.
Whether you have kids or not, all of us (myself included) need to reduce our consumption, right, Mr. iPhone? :-)
May 18, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true, gasket, you do know someone: DF has publicly stated on this board that he has no children for exactly that reason.
I know other people who have made that decision as well.
I guess you don't hang out with the right people.
May 18, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do know people who factored the environment into their decision not to have any kids at all. But I was trying to recall if I know anyone who has planned a family with the environment in mind, and the only person I can think of is my high school physics teacher, who introduced the concept of zero population growth.
May 19, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
People who believe that strongly in this should actually think about adopting children instead of having biological children. There are millions of children on this planet that are already here that need a family.
May 19, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
rtbg,
I can't think of a single close friend who hasn't mentioned environmental concerns in their debate about having children. Maybe I just happen to have a particularly enviro-conscious group of friends.
Agree that excess consumption is a major problem.
May 19, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
CaliforniaPaige,
It could also be something the people I know just haven't shared with me. Or it could reflect regional and/or generational differences. I'm three time zones and nearly a generation ahead of you. This is very interesting to me.
My recycling-and-light-bulbs comment has to do with the people I know who moved to the suburbs (New Jersey, specifically, if that matters) to raise a family. It seems like once they had kids and moved out of the city proper, they stopped being environmentally rigorous. Don't know if it's just the having kids part or if it's New Jersey too. New Jersey strikes me as being woefully backwards on environmental issues, considering its population density, its borderline liberal tendencies, its proximity to New York, etc. But because the state shows no environmental leadership, the lifestyles of its residents are stuck in the 1980s. It's kind of appalling to see.
May 19, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
My daughter wasn't planned. But we did use cloth diapers for environmental reasons.
:)
May 19, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Same here (on both points.)
Personally, I think my kids moved on from diapers faster because cloth diapers were less comfy.
May 19, 2008 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should meet my kids.
Oh, you should probably get out of the city once in a while too.;)
Seriously, where I live, EVERYONE who is a parent is extremely active in environmentally indoctrinating their kids.
For example, I have a friend who takes her youngest daughter to her oldest daughter's school every day to pick up all of the leftover food from school lunch. They bike. They load up her bike trailer with these rubbermaid garbage cans full of food, and they haul them to our local CSA where they feed it to the pigs or compost it. They do that EVERYDAY.
That was the kids' idea. They didn't like the food going to waste.
In my daughter's class, they're doing a unit on architecture. Each kid was to design a school from the ground up. The school my daughter designed is heated with bio-mass and solar, powered by wind, has gray-water recycling, and is built out of wheat board, reclaimed lumber, and straw.
She's 9.
I'm actually stunned to see you write that nobody you know is teaching their kids to be stewards or conservationists. In my neck of the woods, the kids are, without question, the environmental conscience of my entire world.
My kids will NEVER let me go to McDonald's because the South American beef farms are destroying the Amazon.
My dad's an old cattle rancher. Conservative as hell. He's retired, but he's raising a couple dozen organic cows because his grandkids have convinced him that its right. They've talked him and my mom into a whole lot of other stuff that I was never able to talk to them about.
May 19, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they're teaching them a lot in school. They bought acres of Rain Forest, and did a lot of local clean ups, and monitored water quality in the lakes.
Now that she's a teenager, she's not as concerned, but she makes sure we recycle.
I just made some banners and booklets for Elementary school kids that have an environmental theme. "It's cool to be green"
A lot different then when I was in school. We had paper drives and that's about it.
May 19, 2008 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I should clarify that currently I happen to be in Union County NJ, a short train ride away from the city. I'm living with a friend whose husband died in a car accident. She has two small kids, ages 4 and 2.
Despite it's proximity to the city, this is a completely suburban neighborhood, nearly identical to where I grew up. The only observable differences are that the population is much denser and everybody uses a lawn service. Otherwise, it's a surreal time warp.
Strangely enough, I notice a drastic contrast with the environmental activism of New York City. There is no "activism" to speak of in the outskirts here. And the families I meet (again, here in NJ) are not activist either, maybe because their kids are much younger than yours? I don't know. Anyway, I guess I have my work cut out for me while I am a resident. ;-)
Believe it or not, slouch, NYC is where I learned about CSAs! From farmers' markets I also learned about Slow Food movement. NYC is where I learned about rooftop gardening and beekeeping. Not trying to paint a rosy picture, because it's also where I learned about industrial sludge in the Gowanus Canal, the toxicity of the Hudson River, and the solid waste problem demonstrated by the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island.
May 19, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was KICK ASS article in the New Yorker a couple of years ago about how Manhattan is really a green community (everybody walks, the density makes it more efficient to heat, etc.) That article lead to a seismic change in my view of density and sprawl, and has lead me to rethink some very unpopular positions here in flyover country.
People are appalled when you suggest a high rise might be the most environmental thing you could put in the middle of a mountain town. When you point out that ALL of the environmental problems they want to "fight" are SEVERELY intensified by sprawl, and somewhat alleviated by urban density, they kind of stammer and drool a little as their brain melts.
The "get out of the city" comment was mostly a gentle rib.
May 19, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without my kids, I feel like I'd be in one of the least environmentally conscious places on earth.
The direction I was going, I'd likely be in prison now. Or living under a bridge, which is arguably more earth friendly than most Americans.
The first time I saw my daughter smile, it gave me a reason to think about my (and our planet's) future.
May 19, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a rude and ignorant comment, Slouch. I understand.
I wonder if it would behoove our kids to opt out of funding social security and medicare for those "selfish" enough not to go through the expense and hardship of having children, like their parents did.
Just sayin'
:D
May 19, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
WB:
Of course, having children is a ponzi scheme and helps consumerism which is what drives our economy.
Why do you think countries get concerned when their population grow slows?
My comment wasn't ignorant. And you only felt it rude because it pointed out a point of cognitive dissonance for you. Sorry about that. But facts are facts.
May 19, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand, and to a limited degree, agree with clearthinker's comment, and I appreciate the values behind his stance.
I also think it represents an overly narrow perception of the world, and I was slightly offended by it, though I don't harbor any ill will toward clearthinker.
I don't want to have this debate here. I love my kids fiercely with every cell I'm made of, and thus I begin any discussion with the child-free community in an overly emotional state. Therefore, I prefer to agree to disagree, and to live and let die.
May 19, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The middle child in me sees both your point, slouch, and clearthinker's. I can't broker a middle way between the two of you, of course, but I accept the reality that every step Americans take to protect the environment is a good thing. Every step leads to other steps. That comes from my direct experience working for an environmental org. So thanks for contributing to your kids' environmental activism, slouch!
P.S. Notice how clearthinker never addressed my iPhone comment? ;-)
May 19, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because it's a dumb specious argument.
Here's a way for a person to reduce your carbon footprint: die.
See? Wasn't that easy?
Now can we discuss things in a serious manner?
May 19, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That response is 100% troll.
The tedious thing is you know it's not a dumb or specious argument. It's about consumerism. No one needs an iPhone, and it certainly isn't a "green" product. End of story.
May 19, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one needs any piece of technology.
My iPhone is a cell phone. I know you probably have cell phone envy here, but I wonder what exactly was your point? No one should carry cell phones?
Your posts are usually arguing for the sake of attention. (The most recent one on the Kennedy/Obama blog where you tried to be all things to all people: telling workerbee that your response wasn't like mine and then telling me that we did mostly agree.)
Perhaps you should ignore me, gasket. It'll be easier on you.
May 19, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
While obviously not a necessity, cell phones are a very useful part of modern life. What drives me bonkers about them is not that everyone has one, but that almost everyone replaces their phones after two years -- and almost has to, because they're designed to last only a short while. And as long as the rate of technological advancement with mobile phone technology keeps up at its current pace, there won't be a strong demand for long-lasting phones, since the technology itself becomes hopelessly behind-the-times after a couple years, anyway.
I don't know what the solution is, though.
The same cultural and economic issues are at work for many other things, of course. Demonstrating and proving the value of things that are either longer-lasting and higher quality or easier to reuse or recycle could help ramp up demand, but I don't know of any way to mandate a cultural shift, only to raise awareness. Hmm... Or perhaps disposal costs are cheaper than they ought to be?
May 19, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
CAPaige:
Gasket typically has tried to troll for info on me and then use it to try to refute my positions. Mostly harmless like a mosquito.
As far as:
this is a key point. Forget about technology... 10 years ago, shirts held up better! Now you have to replace your wardrobe as a matter of shoddy (read cheap) workmanship. This is endemic and mostly because the US (which defines many markets because we are so large) has traded quality for cost.
It's part of the consumer/ponzi scheme: you can grow your economy if people have to buy, buy, buy!
I usually get about 6 years use out of my computer, for example. (This is fully 2x the "expected use" -- and I don't do incremental upgrades on hardware or software.) I could get more, but it becomes nearly impossible to use new software when the other software is so old. So, I'm forced to upgrade even though I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.
So between "cheap workmanship" and "planned obsolence" we have a serious issue. And every additional person on the planet, especially in the US, adds to that burden greatly.
That's the central issue: the planet is finite so you want a steady-state environment, but then your economy won't grow by 2-3% which most countries consider desirable. Eventually, you just fill everything up.
I suggest this video which DF introduced me to:
http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461
May 19, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depending on the definition of technology, we do, in fact, need it.
ha! I don't envy anyone's iPhone, and you willfully miss the point. It's not about begrudging people their iPhones, it's about consumerism. How many times do I have to say that?
I don't argue for the sake of attention. I'm pretty selective, actually. I don't post my own blog, and I don't comment in every thread.
As I said to workerbee, nuance is hard to achieve in this forum. I did mostly agree with you in the Kennedy thread. It's a rare occasion.
Don't worry about me, I am not having any difficulties.
May 19, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slouch,
I'm glad you love your kids. Just recognize that having them wasn't good for the planet. There's no way to rationalize it any other way.
May 19, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker,
what region do you represent?
May 19, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, our shared habit of frequently reading and posting here at TPM (or anywhere else on the fossil-fuel powered internet using fossil-fuel constructed electronics that will most likely be disposed of in really bad ways) is not a good decision for the planet either. There's really no other way to rationalize it.
You're right, the world is a complex place.
May 19, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon Slouch:
Your argument is specious (viz. the Internet). It can apply to lightbulbs, cooking, using toothpaste, showering, anything.
That's the reason why not having children is so critical to truly worrying about the environment: to reduce the resources used.
For the record, I have never driven a car that's gotten less than 25 mpg -- in actual, city driving.
May 19, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you drive. You're part of the problem.
May 19, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, did you say something about someone being specious?
May 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You brought up the specious argument about the Internet. I figured you would bring up car use next. Forgive me if you weren't about to go there. But, you'll note, for example, that gasket was right there and ready.
I agree, it's off the main point. Because it responded to you which already was off the main point.
May 19, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your a curious thinker.
My wife works with kids in heart-wrenching situations. You know the stories; unemployment, substance abuse, and hundreds of kids in literally life-threatening situations. Addicted women with half a dozen mouths to feed from too many deadbeat sperm donors, and they keep getting pregnant. These mothers can't even feed their broods, much less educate them on anything (other than how they can reliably find ways to get high.)
By your "clear" line of reasoning, there is no difference between me and them. Amongst breeders, there is no continuum of moral culpability.
Yet, in your rush to preemptively certify your environmental responsibility, you plea for credibility based on what? Your presumably "environmental" position on the scale of fossil fuel morality.
Who could forgive those ignorant slobs who get only 22 mpg - in the city?
And I'm the one who's "rationalizing?"
I've got to respond to one more of your responses to my "off-point" ramblings:
I don't see. I will educate my kids, like I always have, that their choices in life have permanent, widespread consequences, and this includes the decision NOT to have children. I see nothing painful about this at all.
My kids already know that their choices affect everyone in the world. They understand that 25 mpg is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE if there is any alternative, and they hold the people they know accountable.
But somehow, this is all off point.
What was the point again?
May 19, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is simple:
Nearly every one of the environmental issues are based on one thing: there are too many people on the planet. By a lot.
There are only two ways I know of to eliminate the population: killing people and preventing them from being born.
Most would agree that killing people is not a good option.
Therefore, the only real way of helping the planet is to prevent more people from being born.
In terms of this simple fact, you are correct: people that create more children are, in fact, equally contributing to the problem, and that's that. You may raise your children better or worse than average, but that's not the issue.
The issue is to reduce the number of people on the planet.
The "painful" part I referred to regards the notion that it's people's "right" to have children... or grandchildren. But, of course, this adds to the problem greatly.
In terms of environmentally closed systems, humans on the planet are no different than bacteria in a petri dish. In a petri dish, when all the media is used up, the colony goes through a mass death. The same will be for people on the planet.
All the so-called environmental acts we talked about on this thread, only affect the *rate* at which the planet is used up. It does not affect the outcome.
Now, I agree that affecting the rate is important. I am also going to live a "normal", functioning life -- I will buy communication devices, find transportation, and a number of other things that are required to function in our present society. I will try to consume on a reasonable level (reasonable being defined as what is required to remain functioning in our society). For example, I won't buy an SUV which is wasteful of gas -- even if the price of gas is $1/gal. And the majority of the people in the US, can't even handle *that* concept.
So the point is the following: There are realistic choices you can make about your rate of consumption. And it's possible to dial back your consumption and still live a functioning life in our society. But it's not a 'choice' not to have children, not if you are serious about the environment. Because you can only have them or not. There is no in-between and the single biggest environmental issue is that our population grows and as the world continues to raise the standard of living, the rate of consumption grows even faster.
I would assume it's a painful truth that a person would hear that they won't be a parent or grandparent -- if they are serious going forward about the environment. Maybe your mileage differs.
May 20, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you got a vasectomy, when?
May 20, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker,
I'm not picking a fight here, especially regarding my kids. You win. Were I a true environmentalist, I would have never had them.
But could you please explain why the environmental footprint of the world wide web is a merit-less concern?
May 19, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not going to answer that, slouch.
And there's no need to give him an inch about your kids. He's just trying to make you feel like shit. He's not a true environmentalist himself.
May 19, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong again, gasket. What else is new?
May 19, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you call evasion an answer, I guess I am wrong.
May 19, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slouch:
It's not merit-less, but it's an issue of degree.
The biggest issue facing us isn't how much each of us uses (although that's part of the issue). The *biggest* issue is that there are too many of us to begin with.
For example, this is where the rubber really hits the road: will anyone educate your children that they shouldn't have children?
You see? This is a very painful contemplation. But it does get us beyond the "I did something for one day of the year and boy do I feel tied to the environment." It's not that doing something for one day is a bad thing, it's that, as an order of magnitude, it doesn't do much -- and the scale of the problem is enormous and that drastic and dramatic solutions are required. Or as a mathematician would say: we need to find a non-linear solution to the problem, linearizing no longer works.
I'm glad your children are growing up in a nurturing household.
May 19, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad/sad to see that Polar Bears have been added to the endangered species list. Sad that it has reached this point, glad that someone is paying attention and attempting to afford some protection.
The global warming deniers seem almost gleeful that the icecaps are melting, since it means easier access to arctic oil and gas deposits.
"arctic" comes from the Greek "arktos" meaning "bear". "antartic" means "no bears".
May 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd recommend the Sierra Club. I feel that they're respectful to people they disagree with, and are always completely honest in their reporting. You also get an excellent magazine as part of your dues!
May 18, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a niiice calendar.
:)
May 18, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.sierraclub.com/
Big Victory for the Sierra Nevada
May 18, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, as much as I love unity, there's a bit too much unity going on in this thread. We need Billy to come in here and warn us of the evils of the "echo chamber".
May 18, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll do it!
I read a while back the the Sierra Club had a breakdown in it's organization because the National Directors and board decide to accept "funding" from corporations in exchange for their promotion of "earth friendly" products.
The state and local directors bolted when national accepted a partnership with the Clorox co.
May 18, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
corrections:
"I read awhile back that the Sierra Club..."
"...national directors and board decided..."
May 18, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn it, Hocking, what next? You gonna hit me with the Vulcan "everything I say is a lie" trick? You wanna see me short circuit and blow sparks out my ears? "Unity" he says....(unintelligible muttering....)
:)
May 18, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
hehe.
Maybe they've restructured that policy since.
You can put down your dress now.
May 18, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Sierra Club made me mad. A representative came to my door one day and convinced me to give a donation, and I said, "sure, but is it possible to not send me the newsletter and all the other literature you just talked about? I know I won't have time to read it, and I'd hate to waste the paper." The rep said, "no problem," so I handed over my check. Next thing I knew, I was getting all sorts of paper mail from the Sierra Club. That made me madder than anything, and I haven't quite forgiven them yet. Granted, it was just a tiny bit of waste in a vast ocean, but it preventable waste.
May 19, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta love the irony, CAPaige.
At least you were thinking big picture.
The problem is that the calendars also present a conundrum for similar reasons.
As I say, the world is a complex place. ;-)
May 19, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, complex, indeed. And I do support much of what the Sierra Club has accomplished. For people who are going to read the magazines and use the calendars, the environmental cost may be justified; if they're produced as sustainably as possible, and the environmental benefit from outreach outweighs the environmental costs, then great. (I'm not sure how you calculate that equation, but I'm happy to posit that it exists.) But to not respect my wishes to save paper -- from an enviro group -- that was ridiculous.
May 19, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that this issue is vitally important for all human beings to be cognizant of. One major step is to consider being a vegetarian. Your empathy for other animals will increase dramatically once you no longer have an animal on your own plate.
There are many great meat substitutes available today, so there is no excuse.
May 18, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
vegan. meat is murder.
May 18, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
wait, shouldn't that be: "milk is murder"?
May 19, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
For similar reasons, various churches over the years have tried to ban auto-erotica for men.
May 19, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Confused. I was making a semantic point: vegetarianism is not eating meat, and veganism is not eating animal products of any kind, like milk.
May 19, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did eat meat until two years ago. Then a death of a four legged member of my family changed my eating habits.
May 19, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I knew a vegetarian fellow, a Navy Pilot and in great shape. Died of a heart attack from all the cheese and eggs.
May 19, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even better than joining an environmental organization is to volunteer for one. Nonprofits are chronically understaffed and need sentient beings for menial office tasks or fundraising efforts or running booths or beach cleanups. I used to work for one (The Cousteau Society), and we always needed volunteers who were under the age of 85 and could figure out how to operate a copy machine or a computer. Volunteering frees up the paid staff.
When I lived near the Chesapeake Bay, I did the International Coastal Cleanup every year. It's stinky, sweaty dirty work, but incredibly rewarding. If you aren't on either coast, see if there's a Riverkeepers group, Sierra Club, Audubon, or Nature Conservancy Chapter nearby. You can help scientists collect water and soil samples for testing; you can help count dolphins for the Mid-Atlantic Dolphin Count or birds for the Great Backyard Bird Count or trees for MillionTreesNYC.
I suggest volunteering because getting out there and doing something is the absolute best way to learn about protecting the environment or assisting a group that does. Participating in even the smallest way can help.
May 18, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did a series of maps for a Massachusetts Environmental Organization that showed clearly where environmentally sensitive areas, (vernal pools, pitch pine forests, etc.) were located as a service to all the small town zoning boards in MA that had to give permission for building, etc. It took two years, but I got invited to all their big donor affairs. I couldn't go to any as I couldn't afford them, and every free moment I had for two years was eaten up in these maps. I also did a set of trail maps for a local land trust. Oh, and I did a few fundraising brochures, too.
Sometimes, volunteering doesn't require getting blisters.
:)
May 18, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true about the blisters, workerbee. I wanted to say something about that because I know many people have physical limitations, but I thought my comment was getting too soapboxy. So thanks for pitching in! In every way. ;-)
May 18, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I added on. (Aside from being proud of the work I've done) Not that I necessarily have any limitations, but I know others do. They also have valuable things to contribute. There are just a lot of things folks can do that don't require getting muddy, so I thought it worth mentioning.
It's been about 3 months since I've done anything, but I'm expecting an email any day now.
;)
May 18, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Can we see the maps online, workerbee?
May 18, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can read about the atlas here:
http://www.manomet.org/programs/planning/atlas/
It's kinda nice to see I'm still listed as a donor. :D
The trail maps are available as PDF downloads only, here;
http://www.lymelandtrust.org/trails.html
They're monsters, though.
May 18, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love the maps, workerbee. I can't imagine doing them. They look really difficult to me. Didn't your eyes cross after a while, or maybe maps are your expertise? As a design project, they strike me as architectural, almost like you have to visualize on multiple planes yet translate that to the two-dimensional page. I can't imagine proofing them.
I like how you made the brochures look kind of retro but the maps are more contemporary-looking (bold and clear), which makes them easy to follow. Impressive and gorgeous work!
May 19, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've done a lot of trail maps, so those weren't really too bad. They were hand done, as opposed to using more sophisticated methods, but the scale was too detailed for anything else. The Atlas maps were much more complex. I had to take GIS data, convert it to a format that Illustrator could read, and make some sense of it and make it readable, and attractive.
Thanks, cartography is a sideline, but a nice change from illustration/design.
Speaking of which, I have a map to finish for a friend this morning. Ugh. Thanks for the opportunity to share.
:)
May 19, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You just floored me. Is this the same person that just wanted to talk about bjs the other day. I too once lived by the bay and have spoken on environmental topics but have never actually gotten my hands that dirty. I now feel humbled.
May 18, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Yep, that's me! I'll talk about anything from bjs to blue jays. ;-)
Hey, don't feel humbled, the next coastal cleanup is Sept. 20. Maybe we can sign up with Desidero and workerbee and girl from the bronx and Genghis and destor23 (and anyone else) to pick up trash on Long Island Sound together. If you are still somewhere in the NY/Tri-state area, that is.
I highly recommend the getting dirty and/or outdoor activities. (I recommend wearing gloves and old jeans, however.) They're not like Outward Bound or anything, so you can go at your pace, etc. It's actually fun.
May 18, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm down in Virginia but have folks in upstate NY. I could use the trip. Is there a link?
May 18, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link for Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanup volunteer registration page. I'm supplying that page so anyone reading this can look up their state. From that page you can navigate the rest of the site to see what the organization does. (I haven't actually checked into it for this year, so I don't know if Long Island Sound is the real location or not; I was making up a centrally located beach that workerbee might be able to get to.)
As an international event, it's fun to know that people around the world are pitching in too as you stoop over to pick up your 3000th cigarette butt. :-)
May 18, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll make sandwiches....
:)
May 18, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the volunteer reg. link.
May 19, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
That might actually be fun.
:)
May 18, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an example of CNN dumb.
CNN posts a video of a cute sleepy bear cub.
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2525369/7655722
The video sounds like it was taken by tourists.
The poor bear cub is in deplorable surroundings.
Within a few minutes of research I find that the cub is an endangered Asian Bear located in Thailand. Didn't take much time the info was located in the url.
I send off an e-mail with info to a supposed staffed 27/7 site, no answer.
Later that night Anderson Cooper of AC 360 who just did a special with Jeff Corwin on CITES, or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora of which the Asian Bear is listed, watches the video with that other news chick.
He's saying how cute and adorable the little bear is and as much as they searched could not find any information about it. What a moron.
By the way that's the same cute little bear slaughtered for it paws and other parts to make Chinese medicine and God knows what else. The not so cute thing is when this cub grows up it is even more aggressive then our black/brown bear so it's usually caged for the rest of it's life.
Now I have all this info at my fingertips I just need to get out there as in the example set by readytoblowagasket.
May 18, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I'm always complaining about Anderson Cooper's moronic reactions. Do you think he's really an airhead? If not, he's very convincing as one.
Anyway, thanks for the baby bear vid. I happen to love bears. And that one has such a squishy nose. lol!
Check out this amazing slide show of an interaction between a polar bear and husky dog: Animals at Play. Norbert Rosing is the photographer.
May 18, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then when the photogs back was turned he ate him :)
Ah, the many faces of Anderson Cooper, 360. Makes you wonder? I think Cooper just comes across a so gullible, then nice, then hard hitting, then dumb - it's enough to make your head explode.
May 19, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's happening mostly invisibly to us land dwellers, but we should be aware of what is perhaps the largest environmental catastrophe now occurring (after all, 79% of the earth's surface is ocean) -- the overfishing of our seas. A major study a few years ago estimated that we will have depleted the oceans of sea life within just 50 years. More on this utterly depressing story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm
The only solution I see is counter to almost all international, economic and fishing trends: a return to sustainable, regional practices.
May 19, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unbelievably depressing. Heart breaking.
Every time I read or hear about the ocean or other related land critter vanishings, I'm forcibly reminded of some books I read when I was 20 - Marge Piercy's - He, She and It. The fore-fronting was a relationship. Intead, I remember the things that were happening in the background and in the margins of the plot, the ecodisasters, the new food industry, the politics, the sociocultural mess and the corporatism. Or Sheri Tepper's Beauty. I read both books nearly 16 years ago and they are more urgently relevant today than they were then.
Please know, that in bringing up those books, I'm not diss'ing the current urgency or the heartbreak that is fast approaching. It just helps me come close to understand the stark reality which is approaching.
May 19, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that I could have some hope for the environmentalist cause but I don't. Things have gone too far to make a difference. I wish that it wasn't so. But just can't delude myself any longer.
May 19, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is certainly a growing body of scientific work that points out that global warming will continue for a while, even if we stopped all industrial activity today. This means that the thermohaline currents will likely stop and contribute to a significant shift in climate on the land masses.
Also: humans will plunder the environment to keep up a standard of living. There's historical evidence for this: the Germans denuded whole forests at the end of WWII to use the wood for fuel.
It's not a matter of *if* we drill in ANRW, but *when*.
May 19, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even though I have no hope for the planet, I think we can do the right thing with energy policy, especially as pertains to gas. That is also an economic reality. But even if we somehow restrain ourselves, we have no say in the emerging nations in the world who certainly want cars and things. Look at China ! And Africa !
Too depressing.
May 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
We especially will have no say when more fuel goes to those countries than goes to us. And the way things are shaping up geopolitically, that will probably happen within the net 5 years.
Remember, both China, India, and the US are net oil importers. That means that we will either need to be able to have access to markets, or we will have to take oil via military means.
We presently aren't doing well in the make-friends department.
May 19, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few more uncomfortable facts for TPMers to face:
a) recent estimates showed that a homeless person in America still has twice the carbon footprint of the average world citizen. This is consistent with the fact that the US with 5% of the world's population uses about 25% of the world's energy reserves. So American children really are a cause of particular concern in the overpopulation of the planet.
b) Recycling material is good for resource management. However, it's bad for energy consumption. Here I'm talking about the type of home recycling that people are discussing on this blog -- not recycling (more like reclamation) of industrial plants.
So the choice becomes: save resources or save energy?
Again, the world is a set of interconnected facts and many times the received wisdom simplifies things to the point of error.
May 19, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink