Tuesday, January 28, 2020

IS (BLANK) BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?

Because of my career as an ecologist, people sometimes ask my opinion about the environmental impact of one consumer product or action compared to others. Someone recently asked my opinion about dishcloths advertised as environmentally friendly compared to others, so I did a bit of research and replied. This is a good example of the conundrum in which we consumers find ourselves; the answer is usually "I don't know."

Here is the problem. As consumers, we don't have enough information (data rules!) to make these decisions. There is a growing body of evidence, for example, that plastic grocery bags are better for the environment than the cotton or recycled plastic fiber bags we carry in our cars when we go shopping. This is often true if the cradle-to-grave effects of an item are considered, not just one factor, such as plastic pollution of the ocean, in this example.

Here is an over-simplified diagram of cradle-to-grave effects analysis.



As shown above, we need to consider the inputs of energy and raw materials, as well as the emissions of contaminants to water and air from every phase in the life cycle of an item in order to understand the environmental impact associated with it. This includes, of course, the transportation of raw materials and products and recycled items. 

We also need to be aware of the fate of items we place into a recycling system. An old saying of mine is, just because an item has a recycling symbol on it does not mean that it can be recycled. 

Some analysts have suggested, based on their own research, that for many items such as plastic waste, landfilling is better for the environment than recycling. One factor in this analysis is that much of the plastic being recycled in the USA is actually shipped overseas for recycling. The environmental costs associated with shipping (fuel, emissions, etc.) are large, and the receiving countries generally are not as good as they should be about wastes from their recycling processes (there are even some reports that loads of plastic deemed by the receiving countries to be too contaminated with non-plastics and non-recyclable plastics are dumped in the ocean). The comparison includes the fuel used and emissions from transporting waste from homes to a landfill, versus the fuel used and emissions from transporting waste from homes to a transfer station to a sorting facility to a port to an overseas port to a recycling facility.  

As usual, in my opinion, consumers are tasked with trying to figure all of this out and being responsible for disposal of the packaging and items we buy. Should the companies that produce, package, ship and sell the items bear some responsibility for handling the wastes associated with their products? 

Consumers are also responsible for trying to determine the environmental footprint of a product before purchasing it. There are some, but very few exceptions to this, such as the paper food bags sold in the box seen in the following photo.


(Paper Snack and Sandwich Bags, manufactured in Sweden. If You Care, Ltd.)

This kind of informative labeling is very rare, and it helps consumers make informed choices. I buy these because they appear to be a good choice environmentally; however, because they are manufactured in Europe, I have to assume that the transportation environmental costs are outweighed by the overall low environmental cost. 

So as I said at the beginning, the answer to the question “Is (blank) better for the environment?” is - I usually don’t know. The best I can do is to encourage everyone to be thoughtful consumers: think about where it is made, what it is made from, how it gets to you and what you will do with the associated wastes before you purchase an item. Most of the time it will be an educated guess, but being more aware is a good thing.

—-


Sunday, January 26, 2020

6,000,000 =

If you murdered every person in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Boise it would be equal to the number of European Jews murdered by the German Nazis during World War 2.

If you murdered 70% (7 out of every 10) people in New York City it would be equal to the number of European Jews murdered by the German Nazis during World War 2.

The Holocaust.

Genocide.

Never forget.

Friday, January 10, 2020

TRUMP CONTINUES USING THE PUTIN MIDDLE EAST PLAYBOOK

As Speaker Nancy Pelosi said about Donald Trump, "all roads lead to Putin." The on-going crisis between the U.S. and Iran, in my opinion, is right out of the Putin Playbook. Let me explain.

It seems more than coincidental to me that every action Trump has taken in the Middle East benefits Russia. When Trump pulled American troops out of northern Syria and green-lighted Turkish troops moving in, he created a vacuum that Russia immediately filled. We saw images of Russian troops hoisting their flag over military bases occupied by American troops days before. Trump's action also abandoned the Kurdish forces who had been our stalwart allies in fighting ISIS, and left them at the mercy of their Turkish enemy and Russia. Putin was certainly very pleased with this outcome. 
In this recent action against Iran, Trump has once again hurt the interests of the U. S. and benefited Russia. There is apparently no clear justification for the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani,¹ and the killing is likely a violation of U.S. and international law. The fact that Soleimani was a "bad actor" is not the relevant point; he was an official of the Iranian government killed by the United States in Iraq.²  
Prior to the Soleimani assassination, Iranians were protesting against their own government, and Iraqis were protesting against the influence of Iran in their country. Both of these were beneficial to the interests of the United States, and not good for Iran and it's Russian ally. The assassination changed all of that. Iranians immediately took to the streets to protest the United States, and Iraqis did the same. The Iraqi Parliament passed a resolution demanding that the U. S. remove all of it's troops from Iraq. Overnight, Trump turned actions that were beneficial to America into benefits for Russia. Putin Playbook, Middle East chapter; mission accomplished! 
And then there is ISIS. When Trump betrayed the Kurds in northern Syria, one result was the release of many ISIS prisoners the Kurds had been guarding. Now in Iraq, U.S. troops have been ordered to stand down in the fight with Iraqi forces against ISIS. No matter how much Trump crows that he has defeated ISIS, the facts on the ground are that he has single-handedly set the stage for a resurgence of ISIS. 
I'm normally not into conspiracy theories, but I do wonder what Putin has on The Donald. 
---
Notes:
1. A total of seven people were apparently killed in the drone-launched missile strike. According to the AP, among those was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, and five others, including the PMF’s airport protocol officer, Mohammed Reda. Were any Iraqi citizens among those killed, and were they all "bad actors?"
2. For the purpose of example, think about the invasion of Iraq by the U. S. under the Cheney/Bush administration. The war with Iraq was initiated on false pretenses and the number of Iraqis killed, including large numbers of civilians, was in the tens of thousands. What would we think if Iraq today assassinated a top American General who had a leadership position in the invasion of Iraq and was therefore considered a "bad actor" by the Iraqis, and they did it in another country? 

Saturday, January 04, 2020

"THIS IS A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS"


“This is a nation of immigrants.”

I read or hear this statement, or something like it, often. For example, candidates for the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States use this statement to make the point that this is not a country just for white people who, somehow, are already here. And yes, I have used the phrase.

But think about it; what does this statement really mean? 

The United States was founded by white, Christian, immigrant men from northern Europe and their male descendants. The Nation these men founded excluded: the native people (male and female) who were on the land before the immigrants arrived (they were actually colonizers), immigrant women, and the African slaves (male and female) owned by the immigrant men. This was all dictated by the Constitution these white, immigrant men wrote and ratified. So yes, this is a Nation of immigrants.

But, most people who use the phrase “this is a nation of immigrants” don’t mean it the way I just laid it out. What they mean is that the things we have in the USA today are the result of the ideas and aspirations and plans and businesses created by immigrants, with each generation of immigrants bringing that much more to the successes of our society. 

But I’m changed by this thought exercise. Once again, I can glimpse - hopefully see fully naked - the truth of the racist core of America, the institutionalized part that we all live in and by, and that we don’t truly comprehend that by it’s very nature and history, the United States of America is a nation of 18th century white, Christian, European immigrant men. We don’t really stop and think before we say “this is a nation of immigrants,” because we don’t recognize, let alone accept, the racism inherent in that phrase. 

The objective is not to blame, it is to fully understand. Only by understanding it do we have any hope of pulling it out of our communal core. 

This is a Nation created on a landscape once occupied by diverse nations and tribes of people who were replaced through a prolonged genocide starting with colonialists/occupiers from Europe.

This is a Nation by white men who overthrew rule by an English monarch and established a Constitution based on representative democratic rule.

This is a Nation in which the Constitution created by white 18th century men left out native people, women, and the African slaves owned by the white men.

This is a Nation in which government and corporate rules and laws grew out of the instructions inherent in the Constitution written and ratified by white, immigrant men, and only major and prolonged efforts by excluded members of society (women and African-Americans and Native Americans and Latin Americans and all the Everything-Americans struggling alongside them) resulted in changes to the Constitution that technically include these people in the official “We.” 

This is a Nation, over the course of more than 2 centuries, that has been populated by immigrants from around the world, many of whom were discriminated against and made wage slaves or outright enslaved, and those immigrants and their descendants built the society we live in today upon the foundation laid by the 18th century white, immigrant men.

If you say all of that, then I will accept it. 

—-
January 4, 2020
written after reading the poem “How Easily the White Professor Forgets” by Emmett Wheatfall 
(Our Scarlet Blue Wounds. 2019. Fernwood Press, Oregon).

Twitter