First off, I was all set to write a rant on our country's cozy relationship with long-time human rights-abuser Saudi Arabia when I discovered that Amitabh Pal from The Progressive had already posted an elegantly powerful summary of the dangerous nature of this connection. It's definitely worth reading, as it points out a major inconsistency in how we deal with the issues of freedom and democracy abroad, and how our ravenous desire for oil is helping to build an economic and cultural powerhouse overseas which is in many ways opposed to our ideals.

In another bit of synchronicity today, I found myself pondering issues of energy and resource consumption only to find a few intriguing readings on that topic which share a focus on an idea we hear far too little about: conservation, or the reduction of consumption. It's easy to get lost in the idea that the most crucial issue for us is the type of energy we're using. I often find myself focusing on the damaging nature of oil, coal, and nuclear energy production and use, and longing for exploration of cleaner technology like wind, solar, and hydroelectric. But as important as those issues are (and they're incredibly important), what often gets left out of the equation is the variable of our ever-growing demand for energy, and how this essentially damns us in the end no matter what energy source we choose.

A thoughtful article by Bill McKibben in the latest issue of Orion magazine looks at the pressures and motivations that push us unthinkingly past consideration of "how can we use less?" to a knee-jerk response of "how can we get more?" McKibben notes our instinctive behavior of focusing on the most immediate problem, our patterns of solving one day's problems and then moving on to the next day's, and how it's more difficult to sustain focus on something long-term. Reliable analysis indicates that world petroleum production has just about peaked, while consumption is accelerating rapidly. Solutions designed only to reduce costs or increase availability of energy are not enough--they're just short-term band-aids for a larger problem.

That thread was picked up this week by author and Guardian columnist George Monbiot in a thoughtful column about the fallacy of focusing too much on technology as a solution to energy issues. He focuses on wind farms, but really makes a larger point about how we're going about the energy debate:

Alternative technology permits us to imagine that we can build our way out of trouble. By responding to one form of over-development with another, we can, we believe, continue to expand our total energy demands without destroying the planetary systems required to sustain human life.

...What is acceptable to the market, and therefore to the government, is an enhanced set of opportunities for capital, in the form of new kinds of energy generation. What is not acceptable is a reduced set of opportunities for capital, in the form of a massively curtailed total energy production. It is not their fault, but however clearly the green groups articulate their priorities, what the government hears is "more windfarms", rather than "fewer flights".

Finally, a long and thorough (but very worthwhile) piece by Norman Church delves into how our food supply is dependent on oil, how the incredible inefficiency and wastefulness of food production, packaging and transportation places a great variety of burdens on our environment and energy resources. This dependence and inefficiency make the food supply vulnerable and unsustainable.

The answers to these issues can't be fit easily into a few words, but it's exciting to see what seems to be an increasing focus on the core issues of interconnectedness and interdependence, and how only a comprehensive view of the entire system--biological, economic, social, technological--can really address the problem.

But in the meantime, a good guideline for us to follow is to simply minimize the amount of energy consumption that goes into what and how we buy. That idea can be deceptive; it doesn't mean to save a bit of gas by driving to the nearest Wal-Mart and buying everything in one place. The seeming economy of such a choice ignores the massive energy use and inefficiency of running such an enterprise (not to mention the vast array of immoral corporate practices at Wal-Mart, which is a topic for another day). No, in this case we're better off going down to the local farmer's market. It may be a little less convenient in location or schedule, but the closer you get to the direct source of anything, the less wasteful the process becomes. The spinach and bread Ann Marie and I bought at the Columbia Farmer's Market last week wasn't mass-produced on an enormous corporate farm a thousand miles away, using massive quantities of agrochemicals, shipped on enormous boats and tractor-trailers, wrapped in tons of plastic and cardboard. It was made nearby, using sustainable practices, placed into a car or truck by hand, and driven a few miles to be sold directly to friends and neighbors. And oh man, was it delicious, too.

When I go somewhere like that, I can't help but feel that the solution to many of our problems is so near, so very much within our reach. To paraphrase the old cliché, care globally and buy locally.

Labels: Environment

This Sunday was the Earth Day celebration in Columbia. It's always a bit of a renewing occasion; I don't get much from the aimless hippies or fire-jugglers, but I am encouraged and reassured by the sight of all the people who are doing the hard work every day to help make the world a better and more responsible place. A recent jibe I heard directed at the concept of Earth Day--"why celebrate the creation instead of the creator?"--made me think, but it ultimately misses the point. Earth Day isn't defined as spiritual or non-spiritual, as religious or pagan. It's an open-ended concept that allows all manner of connectedness to and celebration of the natural world, and our place in it and interaction with it. After all, to respond to the potential religious complaint, right off the bat in the book of Genesis, you have God at each stage of creation proclaiming that it was good, and blessing it. Why would such a statement be included if it wasn't meaningful? And if it is significant, then surely taking a day to echo that sentiment is valid. So take Earth Day as you will, but ultimately I see it as a sign of respect--a sign that many among us still believe that the natural world is something to be cared for, respected, and honored instead of exploited, abused, and pushed aside by suburban sterility.

I've posted a couple photos from the event. Highlights of the day included crowd-pleasing performances by the DragonFlies dance troupe and Hilary Scott.

Labels: Environment