Here's a letter I just submitted in response to this editorial in The Garden Island.
On Sunday, for the second time, The Garden Island Newspaper published an editorial from fossil fuel lobbyist Tom Harris.
The scientific consensus on climate change is equal to the scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer. Yet, TGI would never publish an editorial from a tobacco industry lobbyist pushing the benefits of smoking. I don’t blame Tom Harris for writing his piece, because as a lobbyist that’s what he does. He gets paid a lot of money simply to muddy the debate on climate change. But, I do blame TGI for printing it.
Over the last year, 9,137 scientists have published peer reviewed research on climate change. Of those, only one attempted to discredit the theory of anthropogenic climate change (that the planet is warming and humans are causing it). So, in an attempt to accurately represent the views of the scientific community, I propose that TGI devotes the next 9,136 issues (every issue for 25 years) to publishing editorials from actual scientists who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Only then will we get a fair and balanced view of the scientific concensus on climate change.
The planet is warming, humans are the cause, and the effects (unless mitigated) will be disastrous. That conclusion is endorsed by every national academy of science of every industrialized nation on the planet, the IMF, the World Bank, the Pope, the UN, NASA, and the President of the United States. But, don’t just take my word for it: check out http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus and http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php for a wealth of information on the consensus behind climate change. The debate is over; it’s time to start talking about solutions.
Luke Evslin
Kapahi
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Friday, May 16, 2014
In the mirror
I had a dream last night.
Somehow I ended up in a Mortal Kombat style death match. Opponent after opponent. Good vs evil. I was fighting for the fate of the world. My special power was hadoken and it enabled me to breeze past my enemies: oil company executives, marketers from Monsanto, Marco Rubio, the Koch brothers, and even my 10th grade bully. And then I get to the final round. Standing across the ring is my ultimate enemy. This is it, one more battle and the world is saved. As I put my hands together for my opening flaming hadooooken, I realize that I am fighting myself. The consumer.
I've mentioned "status-quo" or "business-as-usual" in nearly every blog post I've ever written and used those terms as the entropic scape goat that is responsible for the visible decline of society and the environment. Since we can witness and measure an obvious environmental decline, then it only makes sense that the culprit is the way we currently run society. That's our enemy.
There's only one problem; that's us. We embody the status-quo everytime we get into our car. Everytime we ingest food that comes from a grocery store. Everytime we put on a t-shirt. Everytime we cast a vote for either a democrat or a republican. But what else can we do?
We all can see it. We all complain about it. We all want to do something about it. But that's as far as we can go. We've failed at even approaching a solution because we are the problem. We can't look to the Civil Rights movement and sit at a lunch counter in Birmingham or look to the Indian Nationalist movement and go on a hunger strike in a British prison. The two most successful social movements of the last century had tangible enemies. And non-violent resistance worked because of that. As we perpetuate the greatest environmental crime (climate change) in history, we are our own enemy. And there's nothing that we can do to divest ourselves.
So, back to my struggling question of last week, what now? How do we envision a different future? How do we change the system?
I thought that I had a solution by going "off-grid." It was the only thing I could think of, and it gave me something concrete to work towards. But, I realized that off-grid is an illusion. In this hyper-connected society there's no such thing as off-grid. I might have the financial privilege to afford six solar panels, a couple of batteries, and the luxury of being able to spend a few hundred hours figuring out how to harvest rain water, but so what? What did I achieve? Arguably, nothing.
And now, as I get to the final level of my dream's Mortal Kombat death match and I look into my own perpetrating eyes, do I back down or do I fight myself? We've all been avoiding that question. We know we're the perpetrators, yet we do everything possible to pretend we're not. So we go after Biotech with 2491. We go after the fossil fuel companies with 350.org. We go after the Republicans by protesting the Keystone pipeline. We put all of our energy into these skirmishes. Yet, what do they really accomplish? Gandhi fought for one thing: complete independence from foreign domination--- and he got it. Martin Luther King Jr. fought for one thing: complete equality under the law for African Americans--- and he got it. Yeah, there were thousands of battles along the way, but they were all in pursuit of achieving systemic change.
I think that's what we're missing: the over-riding goal of systemic change. As Joan Conrow recently quoted from a recent Adbuster's article:
I'm not writing this because I'm hopeless; it's actually unbeatable optimism that drives me to put this blog out. I wouldn't write if I didn't believe we could change the system.
Growth and technology can be good and our society can do amazing things. As I write on my Macbook and research on the internet, I won't deny that. Just look at the progression of light: from candles made of beef tallow to LED lightbulbs. In ancient Babylon a day of work earned you the equivalent of 5 minutes of light. In the 19th century you might've gotten 5 hours. Nowadays, work an entire day and you've earned 20,000 hours of light. That's an efficiency increase of 24,000,000%. And that economic growth has given us literature, science, the arts, and leisure time. Regardless of how much we've fucked the planet, we are impressive primates.
Our failure isn't caused by incessant growth or a reliance on technology. We are failing because capitalism can not adequately value the environment. There is an intrinsic worth to nature which can not be quantified. Even if we try (as people are doing) to calculate the market value of a tree (such as calculating air/water purification, carbon sequestration, etc), it's not enough. It's like trying to quantify the value of your child's life or your family pet. You can't, and shouldn't do it. Putting a monetary value on a forest (or our climate, or a human life) only lends legitimacy towards cutting it down when the price of wood goes high enough, or when oil is found under it. We desperately need to acknowledge that the open market of capitalism can only take us so far. And, as David Suzuki famously said: "capitalism, free enterprise, the economy, currency, the market, are not forces of nature, we invented them. They are not immutable and we can change them." While it has led to the most incredible outpouring of human ingenuity in the history of the planet, we can not be slaves to the market.
By fighting within the system, the battle is impossible to win. Because, no matter how much incremental change we achieve, at the end of the day, we still have to face ourselves.
So, again I have to ask: what now?
Along with a vision for a sustainable future, we need to face the fundamental paradox that while the capitalist marketplace is unbeatable for achieving economic growth (and the side benefits of leisure, art, science, etc), it simultaneously drives up inequality and is incapable of adequately valuing the environment. Until we address that, we are doomed to failure.
As a finishing note, I'm not saying that we shouldn't protest the Keystone pipeline, or continue to shame politicians who do bad things, or try and divest from fossil fuels. And, we definitely shouldn't criticize those who are working from within the system to fight for incremental change. They are all necessary as we move forward and I deeply respect those who are standing up. But, we need to go further and recognize our own complicity in every act of environmental degradation. That acknowledgement can lead us and drive our thinking as we use science, technology, and the power of human ingenuity in the systematic pursuit of a new status-quo. One that recognizes the priceless and intrinsic value of both human life and the natural environment
Somehow I ended up in a Mortal Kombat style death match. Opponent after opponent. Good vs evil. I was fighting for the fate of the world. My special power was hadoken and it enabled me to breeze past my enemies: oil company executives, marketers from Monsanto, Marco Rubio, the Koch brothers, and even my 10th grade bully. And then I get to the final round. Standing across the ring is my ultimate enemy. This is it, one more battle and the world is saved. As I put my hands together for my opening flaming hadooooken, I realize that I am fighting myself. The consumer.
I've mentioned "status-quo" or "business-as-usual" in nearly every blog post I've ever written and used those terms as the entropic scape goat that is responsible for the visible decline of society and the environment. Since we can witness and measure an obvious environmental decline, then it only makes sense that the culprit is the way we currently run society. That's our enemy.
There's only one problem; that's us. We embody the status-quo everytime we get into our car. Everytime we ingest food that comes from a grocery store. Everytime we put on a t-shirt. Everytime we cast a vote for either a democrat or a republican. But what else can we do?
We all can see it. We all complain about it. We all want to do something about it. But that's as far as we can go. We've failed at even approaching a solution because we are the problem. We can't look to the Civil Rights movement and sit at a lunch counter in Birmingham or look to the Indian Nationalist movement and go on a hunger strike in a British prison. The two most successful social movements of the last century had tangible enemies. And non-violent resistance worked because of that. As we perpetuate the greatest environmental crime (climate change) in history, we are our own enemy. And there's nothing that we can do to divest ourselves.
So, back to my struggling question of last week, what now? How do we envision a different future? How do we change the system?
I thought that I had a solution by going "off-grid." It was the only thing I could think of, and it gave me something concrete to work towards. But, I realized that off-grid is an illusion. In this hyper-connected society there's no such thing as off-grid. I might have the financial privilege to afford six solar panels, a couple of batteries, and the luxury of being able to spend a few hundred hours figuring out how to harvest rain water, but so what? What did I achieve? Arguably, nothing.
And now, as I get to the final level of my dream's Mortal Kombat death match and I look into my own perpetrating eyes, do I back down or do I fight myself? We've all been avoiding that question. We know we're the perpetrators, yet we do everything possible to pretend we're not. So we go after Biotech with 2491. We go after the fossil fuel companies with 350.org. We go after the Republicans by protesting the Keystone pipeline. We put all of our energy into these skirmishes. Yet, what do they really accomplish? Gandhi fought for one thing: complete independence from foreign domination--- and he got it. Martin Luther King Jr. fought for one thing: complete equality under the law for African Americans--- and he got it. Yeah, there were thousands of battles along the way, but they were all in pursuit of achieving systemic change.
I think that's what we're missing: the over-riding goal of systemic change. As Joan Conrow recently quoted from a recent Adbuster's article:
By proposing simple and false solutions inside a framework of what’s been cleverly branded as ‘Peaceful Resistance,’ potential disruptors of the capitalist system are pacified, placated and rendered ineffective while simultaneously being led to believe that they are engaged in meaningful resistance to ‘save’ the planet.”And, as she further quoted from a New York Times article about Paul Kingsnorth:
Movements like Bill McKibben’s 350.org, for instance, might engage people, Kingsnorth told me, but they have no chance of stopping climate change. “I just wish there was a way to be more honest about that,” he went on, “because actually what McKibben’s doing, and what all these movements are doing, is selling people a false premise. They’re saying, ‘If we take these actions, we will be able to achieve this goal.’ And if you can’t, and you know that, then you’re lying to people. And those people . . . they’re going to feel despair.Without a vision for systemic change, these battles are potentially detrimental. Like my mission to go "off-grid," they lead us to believe that we're fighting for effective change and they keep us sane. But, they allow us to avoid recognizing our own complicity and they give us the delusion that we can repair our broken system.
I'm not writing this because I'm hopeless; it's actually unbeatable optimism that drives me to put this blog out. I wouldn't write if I didn't believe we could change the system.
Growth and technology can be good and our society can do amazing things. As I write on my Macbook and research on the internet, I won't deny that. Just look at the progression of light: from candles made of beef tallow to LED lightbulbs. In ancient Babylon a day of work earned you the equivalent of 5 minutes of light. In the 19th century you might've gotten 5 hours. Nowadays, work an entire day and you've earned 20,000 hours of light. That's an efficiency increase of 24,000,000%. And that economic growth has given us literature, science, the arts, and leisure time. Regardless of how much we've fucked the planet, we are impressive primates.
Our failure isn't caused by incessant growth or a reliance on technology. We are failing because capitalism can not adequately value the environment. There is an intrinsic worth to nature which can not be quantified. Even if we try (as people are doing) to calculate the market value of a tree (such as calculating air/water purification, carbon sequestration, etc), it's not enough. It's like trying to quantify the value of your child's life or your family pet. You can't, and shouldn't do it. Putting a monetary value on a forest (or our climate, or a human life) only lends legitimacy towards cutting it down when the price of wood goes high enough, or when oil is found under it. We desperately need to acknowledge that the open market of capitalism can only take us so far. And, as David Suzuki famously said: "capitalism, free enterprise, the economy, currency, the market, are not forces of nature, we invented them. They are not immutable and we can change them." While it has led to the most incredible outpouring of human ingenuity in the history of the planet, we can not be slaves to the market.
By fighting within the system, the battle is impossible to win. Because, no matter how much incremental change we achieve, at the end of the day, we still have to face ourselves.
So, again I have to ask: what now?
Along with a vision for a sustainable future, we need to face the fundamental paradox that while the capitalist marketplace is unbeatable for achieving economic growth (and the side benefits of leisure, art, science, etc), it simultaneously drives up inequality and is incapable of adequately valuing the environment. Until we address that, we are doomed to failure.
As a finishing note, I'm not saying that we shouldn't protest the Keystone pipeline, or continue to shame politicians who do bad things, or try and divest from fossil fuels. And, we definitely shouldn't criticize those who are working from within the system to fight for incremental change. They are all necessary as we move forward and I deeply respect those who are standing up. But, we need to go further and recognize our own complicity in every act of environmental degradation. That acknowledgement can lead us and drive our thinking as we use science, technology, and the power of human ingenuity in the systematic pursuit of a new status-quo. One that recognizes the priceless and intrinsic value of both human life and the natural environment
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Looking at the bigger picture through open space.
“The downgrade to AA- is based on the county’s reduced financial flexibility following a substantial reduction in reserves over the past several years,” an April 24 Fitch Ratings report read. 'Expenditure growth has repeatedly outpaced revenue gains, resulting in recurring operating deficits and drawdowns in fund balance.”
- The Garden Island Newspaper, May 11th 2014
“When you're broke what do you do? You continue your spending and you continue putting into this fund? Who’s going to pay the bill? Are you going to raise more taxes? Are you going to raise more fees?”
-Kaua'i County Council Member Ross Kagawa
“As we all know, the financial situation of this county as we see it today is going to get worse next year. And the year after that. So, to expect the economy to turn around. And the financial condition of this county to turn around, this year and the year after I don’t think is realistic.”
-Kaua'i County Council Member Mel Rapozo
"...the budget is a moral document. the budget is a statement of values. And I believe that we should make that statement strong here today to say that our values are grounded in preserving open space, preserving access, and preserving those benefits for future generations…. we look at what we spend money on in this county. We lose $1 million a year on our golf course. We’ve spent millions and millions on bad decisions with the solid waste fund. And to take those bad decisions and those money losing decisions out on the natural environment and access and open space, is certainly something that I’m not willing to do. If we need additional funds to fund the budget to make up for this, there’s many options… the visitor industry is a huge beneficiary of open space and public access, whether we have to increase taxes above and beyond what’s already proposed on the hotel victory industry that’s one option and the vacation rental industry that’s another option…”
-Kaua'i County Council Member Gary Hooser
“I’m not in favor of reducing.. for one year, two years, or whatever... If you start taking from it, you’re going to get used to taking from it... Need to learn how to live with us putting aside. It's like putting aside for a college fund or a reserve. It's a discipline and we need to learn how to do it every year.”
- Kaua'i County Council Member JoAnn Yukimura
I have two guilty pleasures in life: watching Game of Thrones and watching our Kaua'i County Council in action. Other than one of them existing in a world where winter can last a decade, they've become almost indistinguishable from each other. There is a palpable rolling ball of power elusively circulating through the room, and you can see each member grasping for it. I love being a spectator to the constant verbal warfare; watching the alliances form and crumble; and, in times of desperation, watching the reversion to playground racial stereotyping. While the battle is fierce, I do strongly believe that every member on the council holds Kaua'i's best interests at heart, they are just all pushing drastically different ideological ideas. And, just like Game of Thrones, every week I find myself applauding for a new hero.
The ensuing battle over the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission Fund is particularly exciting. We have an obvious problem. A $57 million surplus has disappeared in four years. County revenue is dropping while expenses are rising. Our bond rating has been downgraded. And, for the first time, the county doesn't have the cash available to cover its current liabilities while maintaining an adequate reserve. In short, we are in a fiscal nightmare. And there are funds out there (like the Open Space fund) which are, pardon the cliche, ripe for the picking.
Now that we are facing a perpetual budgetary shortfall we have two possible solutions:
we can either raise revenue (taxes and fees) or cut expenses. Those are the only choices. And, as our government officials go line by line and decide to either tax or cut on a variety of items, they are making continuous ideological decisions.
With every decision (tax or cut) policy makers are choosing who will bear the brunt of the burden. Raise property taxes on second homes and you increase the burden on high income folks. Raise resort taxes and you increase the tax burden of visitors. Raise excise taxes and you increase the burden on low income families. Cut government services and you disproportionately impact low income families (who rely on those services). Out of every line of the budget, the decision that our policy makers make on the Open Space fund is most illuminating as to where they stand on the ideological divide.
When it comes to Open Space, we have the same two options: cut the fund or look elsewhere for revenue. However, Open Space is particularly interesting because it is large land-owners that necessitate the fund. The more properties that we develop, the less we can access our natural resources and the more open space that we lose. Forever. So, the reason that the Open Space fund exists is to mitigate the impact of development on our island so that we can maintain access (Kilauea Falls, Papa'a Bay, etc), preserve our natural resources (Salt Pond, etc) and save open space (Black Pot Beach park, etc).
So, in summary: we have a system that promotes development as a solution (as I've talked about before). That development ultimately causes a host of problems including environmental decline and social inequality. One practical way to mitigate the problems inherent in pursuing development is through the Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Fund. But, now there's no money, so our leaders are left with a choice: they can throw in the towel on our environment and our access to it by cutting the fund, or they can look at ways to raise money from those who necessitate the fund in the first place: large land-owners and developers.
By reducing the fund 66% they are in effect saying "no" to the potential for access to Kilauea Falls, to improved access to Papa'a Bay, and to a buffer zone of open space behind Salt Pond. By reducing the fund, our policy makers aren't even attempting to fix the situation that both necessitates the fund (over development) and is causing our current fiscal dilemma. Without a more progressive taxation system we will continue to be in a state of perpetual fiscal crisis.
As we transition to a balanced budget in the face of diminished growth, we all need to make sacrifices. But, our policy makers need to ensure that they are not placing an undue burden on the environment, future generations, or on our local community. There is nothing more valuable than our island's natural heritage.
Mayor Carvalho made his decision clear when he presented his budget (which includes a 66% reduction in funding) to council. The council members will each make their final decision tomorrow (May 14th).
-- In the continual spirit of full disclosure, I am a volunteer commissioner on the Open Space Commission.
Kilauea Falls is now inaccessible and will be for the foreseeable future. The Open Space Commission is currently openly deliberating about potential ways to acquire access.
- The Garden Island Newspaper, May 11th 2014
“When you're broke what do you do? You continue your spending and you continue putting into this fund? Who’s going to pay the bill? Are you going to raise more taxes? Are you going to raise more fees?”
-Kaua'i County Council Member Ross Kagawa
“As we all know, the financial situation of this county as we see it today is going to get worse next year. And the year after that. So, to expect the economy to turn around. And the financial condition of this county to turn around, this year and the year after I don’t think is realistic.”
-Kaua'i County Council Member Mel Rapozo
"...the budget is a moral document. the budget is a statement of values. And I believe that we should make that statement strong here today to say that our values are grounded in preserving open space, preserving access, and preserving those benefits for future generations…. we look at what we spend money on in this county. We lose $1 million a year on our golf course. We’ve spent millions and millions on bad decisions with the solid waste fund. And to take those bad decisions and those money losing decisions out on the natural environment and access and open space, is certainly something that I’m not willing to do. If we need additional funds to fund the budget to make up for this, there’s many options… the visitor industry is a huge beneficiary of open space and public access, whether we have to increase taxes above and beyond what’s already proposed on the hotel victory industry that’s one option and the vacation rental industry that’s another option…”
-Kaua'i County Council Member Gary Hooser
“I’m not in favor of reducing.. for one year, two years, or whatever... If you start taking from it, you’re going to get used to taking from it... Need to learn how to live with us putting aside. It's like putting aside for a college fund or a reserve. It's a discipline and we need to learn how to do it every year.”
- Kaua'i County Council Member JoAnn Yukimura
I have two guilty pleasures in life: watching Game of Thrones and watching our Kaua'i County Council in action. Other than one of them existing in a world where winter can last a decade, they've become almost indistinguishable from each other. There is a palpable rolling ball of power elusively circulating through the room, and you can see each member grasping for it. I love being a spectator to the constant verbal warfare; watching the alliances form and crumble; and, in times of desperation, watching the reversion to playground racial stereotyping. While the battle is fierce, I do strongly believe that every member on the council holds Kaua'i's best interests at heart, they are just all pushing drastically different ideological ideas. And, just like Game of Thrones, every week I find myself applauding for a new hero.
The ensuing battle over the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission Fund is particularly exciting. We have an obvious problem. A $57 million surplus has disappeared in four years. County revenue is dropping while expenses are rising. Our bond rating has been downgraded. And, for the first time, the county doesn't have the cash available to cover its current liabilities while maintaining an adequate reserve. In short, we are in a fiscal nightmare. And there are funds out there (like the Open Space fund) which are, pardon the cliche, ripe for the picking.
Now that we are facing a perpetual budgetary shortfall we have two possible solutions:
we can either raise revenue (taxes and fees) or cut expenses. Those are the only choices. And, as our government officials go line by line and decide to either tax or cut on a variety of items, they are making continuous ideological decisions.
With every decision (tax or cut) policy makers are choosing who will bear the brunt of the burden. Raise property taxes on second homes and you increase the burden on high income folks. Raise resort taxes and you increase the tax burden of visitors. Raise excise taxes and you increase the burden on low income families. Cut government services and you disproportionately impact low income families (who rely on those services). Out of every line of the budget, the decision that our policy makers make on the Open Space fund is most illuminating as to where they stand on the ideological divide.
When it comes to Open Space, we have the same two options: cut the fund or look elsewhere for revenue. However, Open Space is particularly interesting because it is large land-owners that necessitate the fund. The more properties that we develop, the less we can access our natural resources and the more open space that we lose. Forever. So, the reason that the Open Space fund exists is to mitigate the impact of development on our island so that we can maintain access (Kilauea Falls, Papa'a Bay, etc), preserve our natural resources (Salt Pond, etc) and save open space (Black Pot Beach park, etc).
So, in summary: we have a system that promotes development as a solution (as I've talked about before). That development ultimately causes a host of problems including environmental decline and social inequality. One practical way to mitigate the problems inherent in pursuing development is through the Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Fund. But, now there's no money, so our leaders are left with a choice: they can throw in the towel on our environment and our access to it by cutting the fund, or they can look at ways to raise money from those who necessitate the fund in the first place: large land-owners and developers.
By reducing the fund 66% they are in effect saying "no" to the potential for access to Kilauea Falls, to improved access to Papa'a Bay, and to a buffer zone of open space behind Salt Pond. By reducing the fund, our policy makers aren't even attempting to fix the situation that both necessitates the fund (over development) and is causing our current fiscal dilemma. Without a more progressive taxation system we will continue to be in a state of perpetual fiscal crisis.
As we transition to a balanced budget in the face of diminished growth, we all need to make sacrifices. But, our policy makers need to ensure that they are not placing an undue burden on the environment, future generations, or on our local community. There is nothing more valuable than our island's natural heritage.
Mayor Carvalho made his decision clear when he presented his budget (which includes a 66% reduction in funding) to council. The council members will each make their final decision tomorrow (May 14th).
-- In the continual spirit of full disclosure, I am a volunteer commissioner on the Open Space Commission.