http://onemansblog.com/2007/07/29/australian-comedy-the-front-fell-off/
Second video down. Funny.
It's been busy here. I haven't been slacking on blogging, per se - check out Alaska Conservation Voters' blog which is secretly maintained by yours truly - but my contributions to this blog have taken a mid-summer nosedive. No, it doesn't have to do with nonstop daylight and beautiful weather. Anchorage Daily News recently reported that this summer may be the coldest on record. It does have to do with the sense that summer's coming to a close; less than two weeks left for me and I am living up what I can. Also, my 'academic' blogwork (ie lots of research with casual delivery) has really taken place on the ACV blog since I started it.
Work:
1. The Alaska Conservation Alliance brochures I designed are about five feet away from me. There are 500 of them and I am proud of how they came out. I don't know about my future relationship with InDesign - there were many...trying moments in the creation of the brochure. I think there should be a way to just get my hands into the computer and directly move things around. But I suppose until high-tech manual collage is back in vogue/technologically possible I am pleased with my InDesign know-how and happy I had the opportunity to learn about it while designing something useful for ACA.
2. Friend to Friend has been more challenging as the summer progresses. I have a lot of 'yes' responses but an almost equal number of no-shows. Many people are on vacation. Still, we've probably sent out a grand total of 50 letters to potential donors through FtF participants. When we get new member envelopes in the mail I'm excited to see if 'FF' is marked on the donation slip and I really hope some will come back before the summer's out. I wonder if we would have a higher turnout in the winter when nobody wants to be outside/people feel more pressure to socialize and be active. I'm not sure, but I've enjoyed meeting the people who came in and I think they've been amused by me (intern, huh? From NYC? You like Alaska and want to come live here, eh? Have you heard about our winters?). Also, I have a much better way of delivering small speeches because of all the practice I had with the phone rap so thanks, Alaska - it'll be nice to have my shiny new presentation mode on hand for senior year.
3. Tabling for the Renewable Energy Fair - this will be my last day. There will be temporary tattoos, big new posters, brochures, a sign up sheet with numbers corresponding to free compact fluorescent bulbs. I would like to find a purple table cloth. I would like to find more volunteers.
NotWork:
1. Karen is away for a while and lent me her car; I've been going on all sorts of adventures (and my running's taken a subsequent hit. Will have to bounce back, carless, next week). Last weekend I went to Eagle River and Girdwood, during the week I meandered a bit around the Seward Highway - nice trails around Potter Creek, apparently they're closed all the time from the McHugh side though because of a lot of bear activity. Hmm. I went to Eklutna Lake, which is a surprisingly quiet place given how gorgeous it is. That can probably be said for much of Alaska though. This weekend I drove down to Homer and that was incredible. I think it beats Seward.
2. Pictures forthcoming.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
No Greenhouse Gas Regulations
Just a few days after the G8 summit in Japan, where President Bush agreed that the United States should reduce it's greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050--and where he also signed off by saying: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" and "then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock"--it has been announced that the EPA will not act to regulate greenhouse gases during the Bush administration.
This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA regulates greenhouse gases.
From the Washington Post:
"To defer compliance with the Supreme Court's demand, the White House has walked a tortured policy path, editing its officials' congressional testimony, refusing to read documents prepared by career employees and approved by top appointees, requesting changes in computer models to lower estimates of the benefits of curbing carbon dioxide, and pushing narrowly drafted legislation on fuel-economy standards that officials said was meant to sap public interest in wider regulatory action.
...
"Several EPA officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that throughout the process, White House officials instructed the agency to change their calculations with the aim of reducing the "social cost of carbon," a regulatory term that reflects the economic burdens stemming from greenhouse gas emissions.
This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA regulates greenhouse gases.
From the Washington Post:
"To defer compliance with the Supreme Court's demand, the White House has walked a tortured policy path, editing its officials' congressional testimony, refusing to read documents prepared by career employees and approved by top appointees, requesting changes in computer models to lower estimates of the benefits of curbing carbon dioxide, and pushing narrowly drafted legislation on fuel-economy standards that officials said was meant to sap public interest in wider regulatory action.
...
"Several EPA officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that throughout the process, White House officials instructed the agency to change their calculations with the aim of reducing the "social cost of carbon," a regulatory term that reflects the economic burdens stemming from greenhouse gas emissions.
Career EPA officials argued that the global benefits of reducing carbon are worth at least $40 per ton, but Bush appointees changed the final document to say the figure is just an example, not an official estimate. They prohibited the agency from submitting a 21-page document titled "Technical Support Document on Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions" as part of today's announcement.
"The administration didn't want to show a high-dollar value for reducing carbon," said one EPA official, adding that the administration cut dozens of pages from a draft that outlined cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases.
Some officials said the administration has also minimized the benefits of tighter fuel-economy standards by assuming that oil will cost $58 a barrel in the future, compared with its current price of $141.65. While the EPA calculated in a May 30 draft that stricter standards would save U.S. society $2 trillion by 2020, officials revised that figure last month -- using the $58 estimate -- to predict that they would save only between $340 billion and $830 billion.
...
Hutto, a former Cato Institute intern and Bush campaign volunteer during the Florida vote recount in 2000, whose grandfather patented at least seven piston inventions for the Ford Motor Company, has "an anti-regulatory philosophy and concern about what regulation means for the American way of life. He would talk, for example, about not wanting greenhouse gas controls to do away with the large American automobile," said the meeting participant."
------------------
I find it odd that large automobiles are more important to the American way of life, then, say, having a planet that is hospitable to life. I would think that latter would supersede the former.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Gov. Palin & Sen. Stevens: Tag Teaming
In what the Anchorage Daily News is calling: "a rare tag-team appearance with Gov. Sarah Palin", Ted Stevens has launched a "multi-pronged" (again in the words of ADN) plan to reduce energy costs in Alaska. Sounds promising, right? Multi-pronged--that probably means something other than betting on oil. I mean multi-pronged has to have multiple solutions. It has to.
Well, apparently, Stevens plan is to: 1. End oil speculation. 2. Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 3. Give the state a third of off shore oil drilling revenue.
The only mention of some kind of alternative energy is that the revenue from the Arctic Refuge would go to development of alternative energy sources--which is, in some ways, interesting. It is estimated that it would be 300 billion over 30 years. However, as I pointed out earlier this week, that production would not start immediately and wouldn't peak until 2025, so that money would be a long ways off. By 2025 most technologies to harness renewable energy will not be considered "alternative". Europe, California, Japan, and even countries like China and Brazil are already funding and developing renewable energy technology. Sweden plans to be completely off oil by 2020. Portugal plans to produce 60% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Falling behind now would leave Alaska without a viable economy as the world begins to move from oil and gas to renewable energy. If Alaska wants to develop a sustainable economy, it must start now, not 15 years from now.
Ending oil speculation is starting to look like the new ending the gas tax. It seems that few people actually think that speculation is the leading culprit in skyrocketing prices. As the IEA points out: fast growing demand and finite resources are the driving force behind oil prices.
Number 3 has the same problem as number 2. A good idea 30 years ago, but a bit too late now.
So Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin have created a multi-pronged plan that will: End speculation, which will probably do nothing. Continue the status quo of keep drilling. Begin substantial funding of alternative energy sources after they have become the new status quo 20 years down the line.
Well, apparently, Stevens plan is to: 1. End oil speculation. 2. Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 3. Give the state a third of off shore oil drilling revenue.
The only mention of some kind of alternative energy is that the revenue from the Arctic Refuge would go to development of alternative energy sources--which is, in some ways, interesting. It is estimated that it would be 300 billion over 30 years. However, as I pointed out earlier this week, that production would not start immediately and wouldn't peak until 2025, so that money would be a long ways off. By 2025 most technologies to harness renewable energy will not be considered "alternative". Europe, California, Japan, and even countries like China and Brazil are already funding and developing renewable energy technology. Sweden plans to be completely off oil by 2020. Portugal plans to produce 60% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Falling behind now would leave Alaska without a viable economy as the world begins to move from oil and gas to renewable energy. If Alaska wants to develop a sustainable economy, it must start now, not 15 years from now.
Ending oil speculation is starting to look like the new ending the gas tax. It seems that few people actually think that speculation is the leading culprit in skyrocketing prices. As the IEA points out: fast growing demand and finite resources are the driving force behind oil prices.
Number 3 has the same problem as number 2. A good idea 30 years ago, but a bit too late now.
So Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin have created a multi-pronged plan that will: End speculation, which will probably do nothing. Continue the status quo of keep drilling. Begin substantial funding of alternative energy sources after they have become the new status quo 20 years down the line.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Harry Reid: YouTube Celebrity
Harry Reid had the most popular video on YouTube yesterday--and it is still in the top 5. In the video he says that "coal makes us sick". Apparently, somehow this is being pushed by some as proof of the Democrats being out of touch on energy issues, even though it is a fact that coal does make us sick.
In fact, coal does a lot more than make us sick--coal kills us. Every year 18,700 people die just due to respiratory diseases from coal dust. Then there is the mercury poisoning that comes from coal combustion and mining.
Incredibly, though, Sen. Reid bringing up the fact that there are large externalities associated with the use of coal as an energy source puts him out of though. The cost to burn coal is larger than people assume, that is what he is pointing out. Health costs for the countless people effected by coal production, environmental and building damage due to acid rain, the increasing concentration of green house gases, steadily rising mercury levels, and a whole host of other costs need to be considered when people claim coal is a cheap energy source.
In fact, coal does a lot more than make us sick--coal kills us. Every year 18,700 people die just due to respiratory diseases from coal dust. Then there is the mercury poisoning that comes from coal combustion and mining.
Incredibly, though, Sen. Reid bringing up the fact that there are large externalities associated with the use of coal as an energy source puts him out of though. The cost to burn coal is larger than people assume, that is what he is pointing out. Health costs for the countless people effected by coal production, environmental and building damage due to acid rain, the increasing concentration of green house gases, steadily rising mercury levels, and a whole host of other costs need to be considered when people claim coal is a cheap energy source.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Alli Blogs 6/24
First, a work update. Second, a recreation update.
1. I am working on the final drafts of the ACA brochure. Soon it will parade its pretty self around the office and then circulate; schmooze with the Anchorage conservation community. Working with InDesign was frustrating at first but we sorted out our differences and eventually, even though I didn't understand why one had to go to 'File' and select 'Place' and then usually hit 'Undo Replace' in order to freakin' add a picture, we came to an understanding. Or a sort of mutually accepted low-grade frustration that at least resulted in a nice product. But hey I don't want to speak ill of a computer program; I feel like that could karmically come back at me (probably during finals in my last semester of college, 3am in the computer lab you know).
2. Friend to Friend is difficult. I have a really hard time with calling people up; it's like if you were at a party where, even though you were constantly keeping up momentum and interest, nobody felt obliged to be nice. Face to face (Friend to Friend) people tend to listen more; at least give you the benefit of the doubt. Not over the phone. Sometimes I get a really cute kid on the other line and then mom comes on and she's friendly, but then she won't commit to a time and I have to e-mail her...who knows if I'll hear back. The good news is that despite the difficulties I'm averaging 1 person per Friend-to-Friend evening, which is 2 a week, which is about 6 sendouts to non-members. So I do think that by the end of the summer we'll have new members.
3. I'm pondering options for a blog/myspace/facebook. No, not for me. I have enough of those damn things. This is for ACA/V. But how do you blog for an organization? I've been doing some research to find out, and it turns out that lots of nonprofits do blog. Most of the ones I've looked at include events past and present, causes, pictures etc. But to be honest I haven't found any nonprofblog terribly interesting because there's no contriversy in events, causes, pictures etc... So the catch 22 seems to be that you need contriversy to get attention, but as a nonprof it's really not in our best interest to broadcast cards on the internet. There are a lot of issues out there, especially in Alaska, but it's difficult to write about them in any meaningful way if you're not taking sides. So I guess that's why most nonprof's stick to what what's already public: dates, times, snapshots.
Does that mean we have to have a dull blog/myspace/facebook? Well...maybe not dull, just more informative than subjective. For a nonprofit, the point seems more about getting the word out about upcoming events/issues than sparking meaningful discussion. A blog's just one part of that effort. But maybe something more can be done; tomorrow I have a meeting about it, we'll talk about these fine lines there.
Okay, so that's my research focus for the day: BLOGS! In the meantime, as this is my shared blog in which I'm pretty sure I know what to say, I'll post photos from the solstice weekend:
Friday 11:50pm
12am: Taking pictures of Denali from the porch at Snow Goose.
12am: Denali is that little bump over the woods on the right. This overlooks Ship Creek.
8am Saturday: Mayor's Midnight Sun Marathon start.
8:30am: Yours Truly ready to run 13.1 miles.
Saturday 9pm: Heading up Flattop for the sunset.
10pm: En route.
10:30pm: It was crowded!
10:30pm: Betsy taking photos.
10:30pm: AJ
10:30pm: David and camping stuff.
10:30pm: Me, dreaming.
Low flowers
View from the other side of Flattop
12am: Sunset (Denali again, on the right)
12am: Fourteen of us came up!!
12am
12am: gettin' down
A cab came for us at 1am. Fantastic weekend.
1. I am working on the final drafts of the ACA brochure. Soon it will parade its pretty self around the office and then circulate; schmooze with the Anchorage conservation community. Working with InDesign was frustrating at first but we sorted out our differences and eventually, even though I didn't understand why one had to go to 'File' and select 'Place' and then usually hit 'Undo Replace' in order to freakin' add a picture, we came to an understanding. Or a sort of mutually accepted low-grade frustration that at least resulted in a nice product. But hey I don't want to speak ill of a computer program; I feel like that could karmically come back at me (probably during finals in my last semester of college, 3am in the computer lab you know).
2. Friend to Friend is difficult. I have a really hard time with calling people up; it's like if you were at a party where, even though you were constantly keeping up momentum and interest, nobody felt obliged to be nice. Face to face (Friend to Friend) people tend to listen more; at least give you the benefit of the doubt. Not over the phone. Sometimes I get a really cute kid on the other line and then mom comes on and she's friendly, but then she won't commit to a time and I have to e-mail her...who knows if I'll hear back. The good news is that despite the difficulties I'm averaging 1 person per Friend-to-Friend evening, which is 2 a week, which is about 6 sendouts to non-members. So I do think that by the end of the summer we'll have new members.
3. I'm pondering options for a blog/myspace/facebook. No, not for me. I have enough of those damn things. This is for ACA/V. But how do you blog for an organization? I've been doing some research to find out, and it turns out that lots of nonprofits do blog. Most of the ones I've looked at include events past and present, causes, pictures etc. But to be honest I haven't found any nonprofblog terribly interesting because there's no contriversy in events, causes, pictures etc... So the catch 22 seems to be that you need contriversy to get attention, but as a nonprof it's really not in our best interest to broadcast cards on the internet. There are a lot of issues out there, especially in Alaska, but it's difficult to write about them in any meaningful way if you're not taking sides. So I guess that's why most nonprof's stick to what what's already public: dates, times, snapshots.
Does that mean we have to have a dull blog/myspace/facebook? Well...maybe not dull, just more informative than subjective. For a nonprofit, the point seems more about getting the word out about upcoming events/issues than sparking meaningful discussion. A blog's just one part of that effort. But maybe something more can be done; tomorrow I have a meeting about it, we'll talk about these fine lines there.
Okay, so that's my research focus for the day: BLOGS! In the meantime, as this is my shared blog in which I'm pretty sure I know what to say, I'll post photos from the solstice weekend:
Friday 11:50pm
12am: Taking pictures of Denali from the porch at Snow Goose.
12am: Denali is that little bump over the woods on the right. This overlooks Ship Creek.
8am Saturday: Mayor's Midnight Sun Marathon start.
8:30am: Yours Truly ready to run 13.1 miles.
Saturday 9pm: Heading up Flattop for the sunset.
10pm: En route.
10:30pm: It was crowded!
10:30pm: Betsy taking photos.
10:30pm: AJ
10:30pm: David and camping stuff.
10:30pm: Me, dreaming.
Low flowers
View from the other side of Flattop
12am: Sunset (Denali again, on the right)
12am: Fourteen of us came up!!
12am
12am: gettin' downA cab came for us at 1am. Fantastic weekend.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Opening up federal land and its effects on oil prices
The debate over whether or not to open up federally protected areas, such as the Arctic Refuge here in Alaska, and allowing more offshore oil drilling is really starting to pick up. Both President Bush and John McCain--though McCain has been a lifelong opponent of offshore drilling until this year--are advocating opening up anywhere that has natural gas or petroleum. Meanwhile democrats such as Harry Reid and environmentalists are questioning the value of opening up these areas. So what are the economical benefits of opening up this land?
Well according to the Energy Information Administration (which is a government agency) opening up the Arctic Refuge would lead to oil prices being 75 cents less...per barrel...in 2025. Also according to EIA is that opening up offshore drilling areas would lead to to an increase of 1.6% by 2025 in domestic oil production, which would lead to an "insignificant" price in oil prices. These are reports put out by a government agency; not environmental groups.
The only people who would benefit from opening up these areas are oil companies. There would be no significant change in cost to the consumer. I don't have the knowledge to predict what a barrel of oil will cost in 2025, but I think we can assume it will be high enough that 75 cents isn't going to make a difference to most people. In fact a general rule of thumb is that a dollar change in the price of a barrel of oil corresponds to a 2.5 cent change in a gallon of gas.
Over the past two years domestic oil and gas production has outpaced domestic consumption fourfold. There just is no correlation between domestic production and the cost of gas for Americans. Oil is an international product and its price is determined on the international market. The oil that is in American soil is sold to international companies.
Another point that needs to be made is that oil companies already have more leases to reserves than they are using. As Peter Lehner of the National Resource Defense Council points out: in the past four years the BLM has issued 10,000 more permits to oil companies than they have used. There is six times more oil currently available for drilling than is located in the Arctic Refuge. As for offshore drilling, there is currently 7,740 active leases, of which 1,655 are in production. There is four time more natural gas in those leases not in production then in the areas protected by the offshore ban.
All that said, energy independence is very valuable. However, oil and natural gas are not the answer. The easiest and most cost effective route is to be more energy efficient. Smart building practices can significantly lower energy demand, to the point that, with some small scale renewable energy systems, zero energy buildings are currently possible. Sweden plans to be completely off oil by 2020. The United States has the ability to become a leader in the renewable energies market, which as oil prices soar will become a very lucrative market. Any plan that is centered on increased oil production is bound to fail. The impact that drilling will have on the economy is minuscule, in fact oil prices will continue to sky rocket no matter what. Renewable energy sources will always be available, so why not develop them?
Well according to the Energy Information Administration (which is a government agency) opening up the Arctic Refuge would lead to oil prices being 75 cents less...per barrel...in 2025. Also according to EIA is that opening up offshore drilling areas would lead to to an increase of 1.6% by 2025 in domestic oil production, which would lead to an "insignificant" price in oil prices. These are reports put out by a government agency; not environmental groups.
The only people who would benefit from opening up these areas are oil companies. There would be no significant change in cost to the consumer. I don't have the knowledge to predict what a barrel of oil will cost in 2025, but I think we can assume it will be high enough that 75 cents isn't going to make a difference to most people. In fact a general rule of thumb is that a dollar change in the price of a barrel of oil corresponds to a 2.5 cent change in a gallon of gas.
Over the past two years domestic oil and gas production has outpaced domestic consumption fourfold. There just is no correlation between domestic production and the cost of gas for Americans. Oil is an international product and its price is determined on the international market. The oil that is in American soil is sold to international companies.
Another point that needs to be made is that oil companies already have more leases to reserves than they are using. As Peter Lehner of the National Resource Defense Council points out: in the past four years the BLM has issued 10,000 more permits to oil companies than they have used. There is six times more oil currently available for drilling than is located in the Arctic Refuge. As for offshore drilling, there is currently 7,740 active leases, of which 1,655 are in production. There is four time more natural gas in those leases not in production then in the areas protected by the offshore ban.
All that said, energy independence is very valuable. However, oil and natural gas are not the answer. The easiest and most cost effective route is to be more energy efficient. Smart building practices can significantly lower energy demand, to the point that, with some small scale renewable energy systems, zero energy buildings are currently possible. Sweden plans to be completely off oil by 2020. The United States has the ability to become a leader in the renewable energies market, which as oil prices soar will become a very lucrative market. Any plan that is centered on increased oil production is bound to fail. The impact that drilling will have on the economy is minuscule, in fact oil prices will continue to sky rocket no matter what. Renewable energy sources will always be available, so why not develop them?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Two cents for environmentalism
This is an interesting interactive map of the North Slope of Alaska once you figure out how to use it. I found the easiest way is to right click on the map and hit 'zoom', then move the map around manually with the mouse to see different parts. You can also just hit the zoom button at the base of the map and decide which features you want to enable/disable - there are wildlife layers; oil development layers. I found that with all the layers activated it's all too confusing.
Here is a primer on the discovery of oil in the North Slope - its bias is pro-development, but I figure mine is pro-conservation so between us there's a pretty solid set of facts. Remarks on the careful insulation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and housing built on permafrost are interesting to me. The article stresses that the insulation was used to prevent heat transferrence from the pipeline and homes to the foundational permafrost. The thing is, while no heat may have been lost on the ground in the early days (and it is quite impressive that the pipeline withstood a magnitude 7 earthquake) no mention is made in this article about what happens now that the earth which supports that pipeline is melting. And that it's melting because of what happens to the stuff in the pipeline later on in its lifecycle; the same oil that is so carefully insulated in its debut run down from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. It's been pointed out several times before, probably in this very same blog, but one of Alaska's big ironies - kinda like an L-shaped pipeline across its forehead - is that the same resource it hustles to make a quick buck off is exactly what warms it up - and disproportionately faster than the rest of the world. This state is an oil addict and is choking on its own fumes.
Ok, so strong statement. I've had many conversations and been privy to many meetings where the topic of conversation is basically 'so now what'. Well, on a political level I think it's a tremendous problem that Alaska as a state is so reliant on oil industry for its income. A main tenet of Alaska Conservation Voters is that 'a sound economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand' and this is going to be a crucial frame of reference if any sustainable development is to happen. I do not think, given our dependence on oil, that the solution will happen overnight. I do think that given the opportunity planning/development does not always occur in forward motion, and that given insane schemes such as the Alberta Tar Sands there need to be stringent guidelines and economic incentives in place which prevent highly emissive, energy inefficient, and overall environmentally catastrophic development from taking place.
But you know, these words are almost meaningless to most people now. Even as I write them, 'environmentally catastrophic' seems like it would be best illustrated by a set of pictures, or superhot days with terrible air quality, or even being stuck in bad traffic. 'Environmentally catastrophic' means not being able to afford food, or being forced to work crappy jobs, or not having a place to live. Once you start to examine one part of our culture, such as the reliance on oil, the rest starts to unfold fast. One massive get-rich-quick scheme, such as the Alberta Tar Sands or even oil extraction in general, works for a few, but for the rest of us it causes a steady erosion of our surroundings. We can't even see that this cumulative effect of our day-to-day lives is the environment, so that if we decide to use less gas; if we decide to put our money where our mouth is, if we decide to vote/letter write/demonstrate/at least think we can make a marked difference in our personal lives that has potential to contribute to a greater whole. So, on a personal level, the reasons for getting out of oil addiction, or just bettering the world in general, have to conjur up a whole lot more personal incentive in order for the political side to work.
Now people (ok Alaskans) tend to think 'extreme environmentalists'. Well, I don't consider myself extreme. I just want a nice life for everyone...even those 'damn republicans'. When I think 'environment' I think whatever it is we all live in, day-to-day.
So, on a personal level, I think environmentalism is really just a steady consideration of what's right around you - how much effort you put into it, what feedback you get, how involved you are. Here, we're riding our bikes everywhere - bing, connection to the road and we're not paying $4.19/gallon at the pump (we run on bagels). We're nice to folks and listen and try not to cram an opinion in their ears, and hopefully then there's room for conversation. And yeah, whoever it is at the office who hasn't yet removed the plastic bag they stuck in the dish drier (that's been there since the start of my internship) could maybe be called an 'extreme environmentalist' but I think it's cute. It's better than the opposite. And I like that it's still there; it means no one else would just throw it away.
Now if only I could get myself to make my bed every morning I could certainly stop global climate change.
Ok, lovely tangent, now back to poking around the North Slope..
Here is a primer on the discovery of oil in the North Slope - its bias is pro-development, but I figure mine is pro-conservation so between us there's a pretty solid set of facts. Remarks on the careful insulation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and housing built on permafrost are interesting to me. The article stresses that the insulation was used to prevent heat transferrence from the pipeline and homes to the foundational permafrost. The thing is, while no heat may have been lost on the ground in the early days (and it is quite impressive that the pipeline withstood a magnitude 7 earthquake) no mention is made in this article about what happens now that the earth which supports that pipeline is melting. And that it's melting because of what happens to the stuff in the pipeline later on in its lifecycle; the same oil that is so carefully insulated in its debut run down from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. It's been pointed out several times before, probably in this very same blog, but one of Alaska's big ironies - kinda like an L-shaped pipeline across its forehead - is that the same resource it hustles to make a quick buck off is exactly what warms it up - and disproportionately faster than the rest of the world. This state is an oil addict and is choking on its own fumes.
Ok, so strong statement. I've had many conversations and been privy to many meetings where the topic of conversation is basically 'so now what'. Well, on a political level I think it's a tremendous problem that Alaska as a state is so reliant on oil industry for its income. A main tenet of Alaska Conservation Voters is that 'a sound economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand' and this is going to be a crucial frame of reference if any sustainable development is to happen. I do not think, given our dependence on oil, that the solution will happen overnight. I do think that given the opportunity planning/development does not always occur in forward motion, and that given insane schemes such as the Alberta Tar Sands there need to be stringent guidelines and economic incentives in place which prevent highly emissive, energy inefficient, and overall environmentally catastrophic development from taking place.
But you know, these words are almost meaningless to most people now. Even as I write them, 'environmentally catastrophic' seems like it would be best illustrated by a set of pictures, or superhot days with terrible air quality, or even being stuck in bad traffic. 'Environmentally catastrophic' means not being able to afford food, or being forced to work crappy jobs, or not having a place to live. Once you start to examine one part of our culture, such as the reliance on oil, the rest starts to unfold fast. One massive get-rich-quick scheme, such as the Alberta Tar Sands or even oil extraction in general, works for a few, but for the rest of us it causes a steady erosion of our surroundings. We can't even see that this cumulative effect of our day-to-day lives is the environment, so that if we decide to use less gas; if we decide to put our money where our mouth is, if we decide to vote/letter write/demonstrate/at least think we can make a marked difference in our personal lives that has potential to contribute to a greater whole. So, on a personal level, the reasons for getting out of oil addiction, or just bettering the world in general, have to conjur up a whole lot more personal incentive in order for the political side to work.
Now people (ok Alaskans) tend to think 'extreme environmentalists'. Well, I don't consider myself extreme. I just want a nice life for everyone...even those 'damn republicans'. When I think 'environment' I think whatever it is we all live in, day-to-day.
So, on a personal level, I think environmentalism is really just a steady consideration of what's right around you - how much effort you put into it, what feedback you get, how involved you are. Here, we're riding our bikes everywhere - bing, connection to the road and we're not paying $4.19/gallon at the pump (we run on bagels). We're nice to folks and listen and try not to cram an opinion in their ears, and hopefully then there's room for conversation. And yeah, whoever it is at the office who hasn't yet removed the plastic bag they stuck in the dish drier (that's been there since the start of my internship) could maybe be called an 'extreme environmentalist' but I think it's cute. It's better than the opposite. And I like that it's still there; it means no one else would just throw it away.
Now if only I could get myself to make my bed every morning I could certainly stop global climate change.
Ok, lovely tangent, now back to poking around the North Slope..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
