-Mahatma Gandhi
I have this terrible habit of eavesdropping on conversations. No matter who it is or what they’re discussing, I’m continually fascinated by what other people talk about. And there’s no better venue for inquisitive ears than the airport. The other night, as I was waiting for my flight back to Kaua’i, the mid-western family to my left was trying to deconstruct whether anyone had fed the chickens before they boarded their plane for Hawai’i. I knew that conversation all too well, so my eyes and ears moved on to the guy directly in front of me doing an interpretive dance routine by the window. While inspired by his bold expression of self in a public sphere, I felt a bit too intrusive, so I kept scanning. To the far right, at the end of my 180 degree arc, I hit evesdropping gold with an “alternative” looking group talking about the potential Wai’ale’ale horizontal well project on Kaua’i. They were expressing their disbelief that anyone on Kaua’i would consider drilling into the side of Wai’ale’ale. One of the women said that she feels so strongly that she would be willing to go to jail to bring attention to the evils of the project.
That’s when I stopped listening. Not because I wasn’t interested in the conversation, but because (as my wife likes to remind me) I’m incapable of thinking and listening at the same time. I kept turning that statement over in my head: she would be willing to go to jail to bring attention to the “evils” of the HDD well. There are a few acts of civil disobedience that I could potentially feel strongly enough about to risk jail time for, so I can understand and deeply respect that sentiment. But, the HDD well is not one of them. The irony is that me and the “jail-time” woman are probably very similar. I would bet that: we both consider ourselves environmentalists, we have a nearly identical voting record, we are aligned on social and economic issues, we even have very similar diets. Heck, I live in a yurt; the ultimate sign of my inner hippy. Yet, I would guarantee that we are firmly entrenched on opposite sides of at least two other major environmental issues facing Kaua’i: biotechnology and smart meters.
For the next few days that query of opposition kept raging around in my head: how can two people have the same information, the same intentions, similar backgrounds and lifestyles, yet come to radically different conclusions on the greatest environmental questions of our island?
And I believe it comes down to a differing mental paradigm for decision making.
I began realizing the importance of mental frameworks through my business, Kamanu Composites. While all canoe builders are similarly motivated (a love for the sport of outrigger canoeing), we have gone down very different paths. Since we started our business in 2007 we’ve had a simple framework for decision making: we feel strongly about local manufacturing and want to ensure that Hawaiian outrigger canoes are made in Hawai’i. Every decision that we make is done so within the framework of progressing local canoe manufacturing. If our motivation were based on profit, then we would’ve been outsourcing long ago. With each decision, the burden of proof lies with local manufacturing first.
The decisions facing Kaua’i are obviously much more complicated than questions of “should we outsource this part,” or “should we license our design to that overseas builder.” But, we still need a framework in order to make the right decisions.
From my perspective, most Kaua'i environmentalists (those who have been loudest on a string of issues from the Superferry to Smart Meters) base their decision on the following paradigm: man and nature should remain seperate. People see the degradation of our planet (and our island) and come to the conclusion that the best thing we can do is to get out of nature’s way. Preserving the natural environment simply means excluding us from it. To use some of our island’s most recent issues as an example: the Superferry was an assault on the ocean; genetic modification is a clear assault on plants; smart meters, by emitting EMF, are an assault on molecular biology; a dairy in Maha’ulepu is an assault on the ‘aina; and a horizontal well drilled into the most pristine natural environment on Kaua'i, Wai'ale'ale, is an environmental offense of the highest order.
I sympathize wth that view, because that used to be me and many of the people that I most respect on Kaua'i are aligned with that. I originally opposed the Super Ferry and GMOs. I even built my home to be off-grid because I felt that I could be part of the realm of nature. But, the awareness of climate changed forced me to change my perspective. By separating ourselves from nature, all that we are doing is externalizing the true costs of our industry to places around the world. Often, by saying “no” we are in fact saying “yes” to continued environmental travesties in faraway locations.
The clearest example is the HDD well proposed for Wai’ale’ale. I think it’s safe to say that nearly all environmentally minded people on Kaua’i are opposed to the project.
If we look at the Wai'ale'ale issue in a vacuum, as a static representation of the realm of nature without analyzing the periphery, then drilling a well in the side of one of the most sacred and culturally important mountains in the world is clearly a bad idea. But, if we expand our view and look at the fact that our two current options for clean water in Lihu'e-Kapa'a (surface water treatment and ground water wells) are incredibly energy intensive and expensive, then the scenario changes. Annually, it takes 1.7 million KWH of electricity to supply water to the East side. On Kaua'i, we might not feel it directly, but the arctic refuge or war zone where our diesel fuel originated definitely feels it. And the planet, through climate change caused by rising Co2 emissions, is being deeply affected.
The horizontal well, would turn the east side water system from one of the largest users of electricity on the island to one of the largest producers. The combination of savings (by decommissioning wells) and production (through hydroelectricity) would eliminate somewhere around 4.3 million pounds of Co2 emissions. To put that into perspective, that's the carbon equivalent of planting 50,000 tress every year.*
So, if we change the framing to include global impacts, we have two clear options:
1) Say “no” to the well, and continue with the status-quo. Pump our water up from the ground at a high energy cost which contributes to global destabilization.
or,
2) Drill a hole in an environmentally sensitive area. Which will result in the carbon savings equivalent of planting 50,000 trees per year and greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I'm not saying that the environmental factor of carbon emissions should always be the deciding factor in decisions such as these (especially when there are deep underlying cultural factors). Neither option is perfect, as each have significant drawbacks. But, with the looming specter of devastating climate change and the effects of our rampant fossil fuel consumption, negative planetary ramifications have to be given the heavy weight that they deserve.
So, where does this leave us? I believe it's time for a new framework for decision making. Our relationship with nature is not black and white and our decisions can't be made in a vacuum. Humanity is pushing beyond the limits of Earth’s support systems and we need to figure out a way to live within our means. That means framing our decisions based on the paradigm of reducing our impact on the planet by working towards sustainability and self sufficiency for our island. That needs to be the goal, and every decision needs to be weighed against that. We can’t continue to say “no” (smart meters, Maha’ulepu dairy, HDD well, etc) without looking at the global impact of our current status quo.
Our role, in a functioning democracy, is to unravel the rhetoric and hyperbole until we get to some fundamental truths. And that can only happen through deep and deliberate dialogue and an awareness of what's at stake.
In the fitting words of Michael Pollan:
"The gardener in nature is that most artificial of creatures, a civilized human being: in control of his appetites, solicitous of nature, self-conscious and responsible, mindful of the past and the future, and at ease with the fundamental ambiguity of his predicament- which is that though he lives in nature, he is no longer of nature. Further, he knows that neither his success nor his failure in this place is ordained. Nature is apparently indifferent to his fate, and this leaves him free-- indeed obliges him-- to make his own way here as best he can."
* This is a vague estimate. The numbers used for the calculations are the following:
-.45 pounds of Co2 per KWH of electricity (a mix of Naptha and diesel)
- 85 pounds of Co2 soaked up by every tree (EPA)
- 892 kw produced by hydro through the HDD well
