environmentalism

No...not "Jon Stewart." I'm talking about John Stewart, Provost of John Muir College at the University of California, San Diego. I found out this morning that John Stewart, a man who had a profound affect on my life in college, died last year.

I am an alumnus of John Muir College and UCSD and I knew John Stewart. I should note that we never called him John or Dr. Stewart or Professor. He was always "John Stewart." I don't know why. Some combination of closeness and respect. I probably last talked to John Stewart some 20 years ago, though he may have written me a letter of recommendation or two after that. But probably even that level of contact ended by 1990 or so. For a few years now I have wondered if he was still alive and well. When I knew him he was already 70 or so, and he was backpacking in the backcountry with myself and other gung ho college kids. He might not have been the fastest of the bunch, but I am willing to bet he could have out hiked us if push came to shove. He retired the same year I graduated, so my graduating class was the last he presided over as Provost. I remember being asked to give a short speech at a tree planting ceremony in his honor, an event where the music was played by folk singer and marine biologist Sam Hinton, another friend of John Stewart's. I can't remember what I said, I just remember feeling honored to be asked to do honor to this man. The tree is probably still there, I suppose.

Yesterday's climate-change debate between current Senator Kerry and former Speaker Gingrich seems to have earned a big raise for all concerned.

It raised awareness of the urgent need to deal with the science of global climate change in a responsible manner.

It raised questions of why smart people from both sides of the issues can't work together more often to find mutually-acceptable solutions to common problems.

It raised the bar for reasonable, rational, respectful discourse between persons from different partisan political parties.

It raised eyebrows on the part of pundits who had been predicting a 'smackdown' but got a hug fest instead.

It raised the hopes of those who believe progressive politics is finally on the rebound in America.

And it raised the hackles of arch-conservatives who bitterly accused their erstwhile standard-bearer of selling out to those terrible tree-hugging leftists.

(I especially like that last aspect of it -- let the über-right wingnuts go choke on their own vile bile. Sorry, you whackjobs, Gingrich's goin' green. Deal with it.)

Kimberly-Clark, the company that owns the Kleenex brand (along with Huggies, Cottonelle, Kotex, Scott, Depends, etc), thinks it's cool to use old-growth trees in the United States and Canada to manufacture their paper tissues. Yup. They think it's Ok to kill 100+ year old trees for the sake of your incontinence, menstrual flow and buggers.

This from Greenpeace's Kleercut.net website :

Kleenex, one of the most popular brands of tissue products in the world, contributes to the destruction of ancient forests. Its manufacturer, the Kimberly-Clark corporation, has been unwilling to improve its practices, continuing to rely on paper and pulp made from clearcut ancient forest including North America's Boreal forest. Kimberly-Clark clears these ancient forests, essential in fighting climate change and providing home to wildlife like caribou, wolves, eagles and bears,into products that are flushed down the toilet or thrown away.

When I was a kid my family recycled. We were very unusual in doing this and had to go to great lengths to get our recyclables to a place we could drop them off. By the time I was in grad school, it was much more common to recycle and even some Republican-leaning friends of mine were recycling.

Then city after city started making separation of recyclables mandatory. Los Angeles, Santa Cruz and NYC are the last three American cities I lived in and all three have laws requiring recycling. This is real progress that is often overlooked.

But there is another and probably even more important side to the equation: a market for recycled products. If there is no market, then recycling does little good.

Metal recycling is always worthwhile because there is a large market for them. The market for recycled glass is much smaller because bottlers find it easier and cheaper to make bottles de novo. In between are the different kinds of paper and plastics.

But one disturbing trend is a DECLINE in the market for recycled paper. This comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Is Recycled Paper in Trouble?
March 2007

The growing presence of recycled paper has led many people to believe that all paper is now made from recycled materials. This unfortunate misconception has actually decreased demand for recycled paper, causing manufacturers to produce less. As a result, more than 90 percent of printing and writing paper still comes from virgin tree fiber.

The global warming "debate" is not what the right wing portrays it as. Long ago a solid, overwhelming consensus was reached among scientists that a.) global warming is happening, b.) that humans are contributing to warming, and c.) warming will seriously impact our civilization in the near future...maybe already is.

The debate among scientists has shifted to details. Will there be localized cooling in the North Atlantic? Where will there be droughts and where flooding? How rapidly and how bumpy will the changes be? But the main question for all of society is whether it is too late to do anything. THAT is the new global warming debate. I have two answers to this: we sure had BETTER be able to do something about it and YES, WE CAN!

I have been aware of global warming science for at least 25 years. The science goes back even further, to the 1960's when measuring carbon dioxide levels and the observation that carbon dioxide was increasing were first done by Roger Revelle. Way back then, Revelle noticed changes and predicted that temperatures would rise as a result. When I became aware of global warming some 25 years ago, many predictions were made: increased storminess, Northward migration of tropical diseases, increased variability of temperature extremes, etc. What has astonished me as I read about current global warming science is just how many of the predictions of 25 years ago are coming true. In science the value of a theory is in its predictive value. From what I can tell as an informed, though not professional, observer is that the predictive value of the global warming models has been good. Details may be inacurate, but the general predictions have come true.

Another awe-inspiring fuckwaddery as uttered by the Concerned Women for America. But, in reading it, I was reminded that there is a huge difference between evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Christians. And while I am neither, I happen to think that the evangelicals may at least have the advantage of conscious thought on their side.

CWA President Wendy Wright said, "It is hard to believe that a foundation that gives millions to Planned Parenthood, International Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, and the Center for Reproductive Rights would give money to a group and not expect to see the results it wants. The ECI signers are linked to an initiative funded by a group utterly opposed to the basic Christian principle of life. While it is absolutely necessary that Christians be good stewards of the Earth, there is no Biblical basis for elevating the Earth above human beings in priority. We care for Nature so it can sustain God's crowning creation - the only thing made in His image - mankind. When the mission comes in conflict with the Biblical, pro-life stance that evangelicals live by, it negates itself."

What’s got their grandma-pant knickers in a twist? The fact that the Evangelical Climate Initiative, a group of evangelicals who think it’s time to deal with the impending disaster that is global warming, accepted a chunk of change from Hewlett Packard. It turns out, according to Ms. Wright, that HP wants to kill all the unborn babies in the world and convert them into silica. Okay. Not really. But the woman’s so bat-shit crazy, I would not be surprised if she argues such a thing.

Let's go back to the passage I’ve highlighted: Um. Does that register as cognitive dissonance to you?