-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
Great blog post. I totally agree- climate change desperately needs to be part of any decision making process. hahaha-I love listening to people's conversations, too. relationships and discovering commonalities/differences completely intrigues me. at a certain point it seems people will almost come full circle--the left and right very often have the same conclusion, even if they come to it via different lines of thought. thanks for your thought provoking blog!
ReplyDeleteWell said, Luke. I'm a big Michael Pollan fan. Objective, open minded thinking is good, but hard to find these days. Probably all days.
ReplyDeleteLOVE your start quote Luke! Was just thinking recently about connecting with you, I like the way your brain works and to top it off you are an awesome writer!!
ReplyDeleteI love the conversation you are bringing up!
Writing a full response :)
Let’s start with your question - 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 really our time)!? It’s a great question.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right about the different mental paradigm for decision making. In saying that, I think that your mental paradigm comes from an array of things including, the information you have been exposed to and what understandings you have about life, yourself, the functioning of the environment and your connection to everything you do, think and feel on a day to day basis. For many people their decision making is based on belief and religious and spiritual understandings as well. Decision making, and how people go about it, is also influenced by culture, upbringing and your environment. For many of us we can, with the same intention, look at the same problem and see totally different concerns and solutions. I too find this to be an incredibly fascinating aspect of humanity and psychology.
Your thoughts about man and nature are very interesting to me. I was fascinated by lectures that related to this during my environmental science studies, particularly a course I took called ‘The State of the Earth’. Here our lecturer, an amazing and wildly passionate man (specializing in climate change adaptation and entomology mostly), shared with us some of the theories as to how we got to this place, this absence of connection between man and nature, which we most certainly have obtained.
One of the most intriguing to me was the concept that it all began about 10,000 years ago when we started realizing we could grow our own and raise our own food. As we started to go from nomadic tribes to stationary civilizations we started fighting to remain in one place, for thousands of years our mind set became one of fighting nature, fighting pests, fighting weather, depleted environments and resources, waste and everything else that comes with it. And for the record, no, I’m not suggesting we revert to caveman or nomadic lifestyles – we have certainly evolved a long way in this time.
In some ways we figured out ways to ‘manage nature’ and we evolved, adapted and created tools to suit our needs as we started to develop civilizations. With the rise of The Industrial Revolution we started to move away from fighting nature, to living in its absence. Now many people have come to live with an absence of their relationship or connection to nature. Everything many of us use, home items, day to day items, personal care products and sometimes even our food, man created in the absence of nature.
Obviously most things come back to nature at some point. I think deep down everyone understands that. Overall it seems many people do commonly, and I think mostly unconsciously, figure we really can do without nature now and have faith in government and industry to be able to ‘figure it out’ and save us. Unfortunately I have really little to no faith in their decision making paradigm for the most part. Now we find ourselves in a place where big industry, big oil and big biotech-chemical manipulate and control environmental policy and push forward despite environmental and scientific concerns echoed worldwide by a growing percent of our population and scientific communities.
See for me, the solution is not stay out of the way - it is get in the right way. We need to quickly, as a species, stop, reassess and realize that if we don’t change our thinking and we don’t start functioning as a part of nature again, that it and us will collapse.
ReplyDeleteBefore I completed my degree my understanding was more one similar to what you mentioned, get out of the way, humans are just destroying nature, conservation must mean the absence of humans. I totally understand this differently now and it is my strong opinion that we will only find solutions to these environmental problems with an understanding of our true roll within nature and how we and the ecosystem function. To many people the word ‘conservation’ triggers this very thought - the exclusion of people in the name of protection. This is not my understanding.
Climate Change is a very real phenomenon, but at the same time cannot be the basis for our decision making. As you pointed out, it can’t be the only thing we base a decision on. In this case there are specifically cultural issues associated with the project but when we look at an EIS for a project we also look at land, soil, vegetation, ecosystem, social, water, energy, waste, geological and many other factors.
My understanding is that Climate Change is a natural and cycled process. It has been impacted by our species due to our high population and our centuries of industrialized actions. It is not something we created, but something we have impacted over time. It should be everyone’s priority to figure out how we are individually playing a part in this and limit and manage it. I am confident that we are making headway in this way, in many forms and we need to continue to do so.
Many people around the world have a growing understanding of this major issue we face. My lecturers in Climate Change Adaptation inspired me with incredible news and research about different green and innovative solutions. If only politics and big business didn’t function as usual maybe these would be being implemented more readily.
~ Side Note ~
ReplyDeleteThe Super Ferry was just an all out assault. An assault on free thinking and community and an assault on honesty and integrity by bypassing our state laws for their own rushed interest. It was an assault by big business, to push their interests without forward thinking and comprehensive planning and without even following the law. I won’t get to into it here, but for many reasons (some social, some environmental and some just simply ethical) I am against any super ferry between the islands. Much of my decision making for this is based on my experiences being raised here, my deep concern with the traffic, drug and social issues we have and my environmental concerns, particularly with increased rate and threat of species invasion.
Genetic modification (engineering) may be an assault on DNA, life and spirituality for many people. For me the assault of biotech on a local level is related to the experimental pesticide use and heavy levels of restricted use and general use pesticides being applied. This facet of the issue deals with what this technology is being used for and its consequences, not the technology itself.
I’m positively encouraged by the planned Maha’ulepu dairy and think we should be encouraging food production agriculture on Kaua’i. People concerned should get involved with the project, bring these concerns up, only when we have real community engagements are we going to get the right outcomes for our community.
Smart Meters – Skip
~ End Side Note ~
Now, this drilling into the sacred mountain to access our water. Let’s talk about it.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you, about the use of so much energy to pull our water vertically out of wells – seems like a dinosaur idea to me! Everyone wants costs of water to go down and aren’t we paying something like over a dollar a liter (maybe $2) in energy costs for extraction! Gravity pulled water is a great idea. It should definitely be considered as we move forward.
What is so important to me behind all of this is the ‘Statement of Need’ – Why do we need this project?
After one of the meetings, my partner and I were in the right spot at the right time having a drink and talking about solutions and the project, our concerns. Some of the people involved happened to show up for dinner. Because I can’t help myself, I sparked a conversation. What was most telling to me was the clear statement of need. We need better quality, long term and more secure water solutions to replace our current situation.
One of the reasons I am particularly concerned about is the pesticide levels and water quality we are drinking, not only in Lihue but around the island. Apparently our TCP (Pesticide used by pineapple plantations mostly) levels for Lihue drinking water are sitting just below federal standards (I’ll confirm and get this data, it’s been on my list to do since the meeting!). With standards in residual pesticides in water supplies ever being redefined it’s likely that like California our state standards could follow with a revision of those thresholds to consider the endocrine disruption impacts and birth defects associated with chronic exposure over time. If this happens, we would be mandated to come up with another solution immediately, because the water would exceed state guidelines for drinkable water. Thus costing us millions, maybe billions if it is not done so thoughtfully, carefully and with major effective and sensitive community engagement – from the beginning.
A few things I am certain of. One is that there are definitely more than two options for moving forward. Other solutions are possible and are needed.
This project, or anything similar by other departments or proponents, will never be approved and move forward until they do learn to start looking first to community, culture and kupuna for guidance.
From KMurray:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why this blog was posted where I found it. I was happy to find people thinking about these issues. However, to my mind your reasoning seems a bit contradictory.
You write:
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.
I believe that those hardworking environmentalists see themselves as a part of nature and I do not understand how you make the jump to tie them to that polar opposite paradigm.
Preserving the natural environment simply means using the resources wisely enough to maintain a healthy balance. To use some of our island’s most recent issues as an example: the Superferry was an assault on the ocean that could further harm marine life for the short term benefit of a few. Genetic modification is a clear unnecessary assault on plants, not having higher yields using untested cocktails of restricted use pesticides and designed to create food monopolies. Smart meters, by emitting EMF, are an assault on molecular biology; a dairy in Maha’ulepu with too many cattle for grazing in the area is a pollution assault on the ‘aina; and a horizontal well drilled into the most pristine natural environment on Kaua'i, Wai'ale'ale, is an assault on native cultural and rights which can be avoided. Maintaining unnecessary grass, lawns or golf courses with potable water is a waste of precious resources. Perhaps the solution to water issues is to study the water science of the past ahupua'a system which didn't treat land and resources as commodity so was much more able to utilize water wisely.
By undertaking industries using destructive means, we separate ourselves from nature. Nature becomes something we use without regard to resciprocation. We need to be creative in a way that embraces conserving and preserving nature so we can avoid externalizing the true costs of our industry to places around the world. Your canoes are great and I hope that you not only continue to work locally, but also work locally in and environmentally friendly way.
Thank you for your guys' thoughtful responses.
ReplyDeleteKmurray-
I was trying to present two separate frameworks for viewing our relationship with the planet. Paradigm one is a separation of man and nature. Basically the conservation ethic of John Muir and, in my opinion, many environmentalists on Kaua'i. I'm a big fan of both Muir and Kaua'i environmentalists, so I'm not intending to criticize that ethic, just expand on it. I believe we need to go further than conservationism and embrace our role on the planet, not shy away from it. This is a sort of neo-environmentalist ethic. To be clear, this is not my idea. Many books (Rambunctious Garden, Second Nature, The World We Made, Here on Earth) have expanded on it. We have modified our planet so far beyond balance that it's best hope to regain balance is us. For a clear example: with climate change many species (tree and animal) are going to go extinct because they can’t adapt or move towards the poles fast enough to avoid the warming climate that they’re not suited for. Should we abandon them to die or assist in migrating them north?
If we are part of nature, then genetic modification could be viewed as us embracing our role. I don't mean to make this about genetic modification, but it's one of the clearest examples of this idea. Is genetic modification that different from a bee pollinating a plant? We're both modifying the environment for our species benefit. And, in doing so, we benefit the species that we’re modifying (from an evolutionary perspective, GMO crops want to survive just as much as any other) and often a host of other species. The difference with us is that we SHOULD be able to have the foresight to modify our environment and allow for other species to thrive and to restore balance. Yes, we are currently completely failing on that front, and genetic modification as a corporate practice (modifying plants to withstand more poison) is a villain. We’ve spent the last 10,000 years establishing our dominion over the planet (and destroying it int he process). I hope that we can spend the next 10,000 working WITH nature to restore what we’ve damaged.
For example, imagine if we had the ability to engineer a tree to glow in the dark and replace street lights (very real breakthroughs have been made on this). So, we end up replacing all of our street lights with glowing trees. Which is more in balance with nature? The incandescent or LED bulb in the manufactured bulb in (the energy likely coming from fossil fuels or a lead acid battery) sitting on top of a steel or aluminum post (both made in high energy high heat forges) or the tree that is glowing with the genes of jellyfish? I’d argue that the GMO tree is more in balance.
This concept does expand to the HDD well and many more of our Kaua’i-centric issues. If we can work with nature (water flowing downhill to generate electricity) I’d argue that that’s a good thing. Hence, the new paradigm which is that sustainability should be the goal. If that is the end goal, then the glowing tree, the HDD well, and moving plants northward are all in line with that.
Wow Luke, stimulating conversation and you raise some great points, some I agree with and some I don’t.
DeleteI too believe we need to go further than conservationism and embrace our role on the planet and agree we have modified our planet so far beyond balance that it's best hope to regain balance is us. I guess the stark difference between our opinions is that I see that roll as more of a stewardship role and somewhat more functioning within the bounds that nature provides rather than a control role in which we create the bounds that we want to see in nature.
From a scientific perspective one of my largest concerns is that there are some completely unknown unknowns about this technology and the impacts of genetic engineering through cell invasion technology may be far more complicated and relatively subtle than we ever imagined.
I think that to truly understand our role in nature we have to realize that we are not necessarily smarter than it. There are many things it ‘knows’ that we do not about life, functioning of the planet, biology and genetics.
Utilization of genetic engineering technology is, in my view the very opposite of a changed paradigm and a shift in the view of our roll in nature. It is instead the perpetuation of the ‘our technology can do it better, more efficient, cheaper, faster than nature’ attitude and the very problem with how we got here in the first place. This thought process of we know better than nature and can figure out how nature can better adapt, evolve and change is just as naive, arrogant and dangerous as it was with the introduction of the industrial revolution, the use of toxic chemicals, introduction of plastics etc etc etc. In countless cases we have learned of unexpected consequences that come from our steam engine approach to new technology in the name of human progress.
I think within the bounds of what nature can and does naturally do, then some assistance here and there is good, and even required in some cases, but this can not be compared to genetic engineering, which not only crosses levels of division in nature that would never ever naturally occur (i.e different families or orders of plants) but different Kingdoms of life, and actually even above that – because through cell invasion technology genetic codes from DNA and cells so drastically different from each other are cut and blasted into DNA codes that are nothing alike. In-fact, these crosses are often made above the Kingdom of life by crossing different Domains of cellular life, the highest cellular division of life we know.
DeleteHopefully that explains the difference between genetic engineering and bee pollination.
I mean no disrespect Luke but I feel that it is incredibly arrogant to approach the situation that we in someway know better. I believe it is highly arguable that the modification being done through genetic engineering is in anyway a benefit to our species at all. If weighed fairly I would argue it has grossly been the opposite and the bulk of the application and research has lead only to more negative benefits to our species health overall. I believe it is even more far fetched to state that in this modification we benefit any other species, the ones we are modifying or those they interact with. In-fact I argue we are actually doing them a dis-service and as studies are finding more and more regularly GMO crops are actually producing less yield and quality product that is often more naturally susceptible to pests or environmental conditions and weakened in natural resistance.
For example, in the removal of the gene from apples that makes them turn brown, they may have actually removed some of its natural defenses against pest and disease. Surprise, surprise, we may have been acting on only a fraction of the information relevant to the situation.
I too hope that we can spend the next 10,000 years working WITH nature to restore what we’ve damaged. With the new paradigm - sustainability as the goal - then I argue that genetic engineering in our food supply, being utilized especially in the manner it is as one large genetic experiment, may be a very unsustainable way to move forward with agriculture and food production and that it is indeed a perpetuation of the ‘we can do it without nature’ paradigm, rather than the shift (we both want to see) to living within nature.
Fern,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to respond in depth.
Let me take a couple of steps backwards in order to get back on common ground. I believe (and I think you’d agree) that our market driven system is failing in regards to the environment (though it is wildly successful on many other fronts). Industrial agriculture is just one facet of this failure, and the current host of genetically modified crops that has been developed by this system of agriculture is merely an example of how it’s failing. Government regulation (and consumer education) is integral to reversing this trend. Without government intervention some corporation is always going to sell out our environment to the highest bidder. I think we agree wholeheartedly there?
Yes, we need to figure out a way to work with nature in order to restore balance. That’s the basic tenet behind what I’m trying to say. Where we diverge is that I am alright with the concept of biotechnology and I think that a “manufactured” organic genome is a lot more in line with the principles of nature than a synthetic plastic, metal, fertilizer, pesticide etc. The glowing tree as a contrast to a street light was only a model for that principle. I also think that biotechnology holds incredible promise for our future. Areas of very real potential are in prevention of genetic disorders (i.e. down syndrome), aids vaccines, and the ability to bring back long extinct animals. Hawai’i had something like four flightless birds before Polynesian arrival that filled very critical niches in our local environment. If we can use biotechnology to bring them back, then I’m all for it. Not to mention the potential for nitrogen fixing plants, etc. I agree with saying that corporate driven industrial agriculture is not a sustainable system and the GMO crops produced by that system (glyphospahte resistant, etc) are anything but sustainable. But, it’s a failure of capitalism, not of the technology itself. And yes, there is also very real potential for harm. Development of this technology should be regulated as strictly as possible.
So, along those lines, I think our only real disagreement is that I feel as if biotechnology holds the promise of a more sustainable future, whereas you do not. I can live with that disagreement, as I don’t think it’s going to be resolved anytime soon.
In your first post you said that climate change was simply cyclical (though boosted by humans) and that you feel as if humans are doing a good job of avoiding catastrophe. Those two concepts are basically at odds with every scientific organization on the planet. Yes, it does cycle over millennia, but never this fast. The climate is currently changing 10X faster than it ever has before and the natural factors that do cause cyclical climate change are not currently occurring (increased radiance from the sun, etc). The cause of climate change, with basically 98% consensus among scientists, is human based fossil fuel emissions. And there is not a single legitimate agency out there that says that we are mitigating the effects quickly enough to avoid disaster. I’m not trying to be a fear monger, but climate change is the biggest threat that humanity has ever faced. Once again though, we can’t make decisions based simply off its effect on the climate, but it’s certainly a gigantic factor.
At the end of the day, I’m saying we can’t continue with the status quo. And, all too often, by saying “no,” we are saying “yes” to business as usual. By saying “no” to the concept of the glowing tree, we are saying “yes" to manufactured street lights. By saying “no" to an HDD well, we are saying “yes" to fossil fuels to pump up our water. By saying “no" to a Maha’ulepu dairy, we are saying “yes" to importing our milk from factory farms on the mainland. The alternative has to be considered in every decision.
Fern,
DeleteI'd also like to add that I don't want to get hung up on a discussion of biotech. I respect that you're wary of the industry. The only reason I bring it up is because I think the technology is representative of the potential for human ingenuity in solving many of our crises'. As, I believe the solutions lie not in a reversion to a "natural" state, but rather that we use human ingenuity and foresight to work with the environment for a sustainable future. Biotech is just a clear example of how that could work, but it's not integral.