The other day I practiced my rhetorical writing skills in a blog post which blurred my thoughts behind the drawn-out metaphor of gardening. Since I'm not a politician and have no interest in being a politician, I apologize for not just saying what I meant: the government is failing to protect Kaua'i socially and environmentally from the incessant force of the market. In other words, if you grow up on Kaua'i, are educated on Kaua'i, and work on Kaua'i, you will not be able to compete in a market tailored to overseas money (yes, there are some exceptions, but they are rare). Yet, with a 660 word post I never actually said that. Oh faithful reader, I promise you that, despite the urge, I will do my best to avoid the tempting art of rhetoric: saying a lot without saying anything. So, on that note…
There was an interesting article in The New York Times about reforestation being a critical tool in the fight against climate change. (Before going any further, if you haven't already, please read my post on climate change-- in my opinion it's the only half-way decent post I've ever written and it sets the stage for what I'm going to say next). Notable in the NY Times article was the claim that if we can convert 1.2 billion acres (equivalent to half of US) of degraded ag land back into forest, we could temporarily* slow, or "possibly even halt" the rapid growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How do we do that? According to the article "researchers say it would be possible, in principle, if farming in poor countries became far more efficient" as "saving forests… will require producing more food much more intensively, on less land."
How do we grow food more intensively? I don't know, but there are a few companies on Kaua'i that are committed to finding out, such as Dow, Pioneer, Syngenta, and BASF. Before you close your browser window in reaction to my environmental heresy, hear me out. While I've already written a partial defense of the seed companies activities on Kaua'i, I don't expect everyone to agree with me in supporting their presence here. I understand the reasons for fighting them and I spent years of my life arguing that the seed companies presence on Kaua'i was incompatible with our fragile ecosystem. At the time, no online blogger could sway my opinion, so I don't plan to sway yours. My gradual acceptance, and then support, for their activities here was a slow realization that increasing yields is one of the most important aspects in the dual fight against starvation and deforestation. There are plenty of other important tools in that fight, and I urge you to read Nathanael Johnson's Hungry Hungry Humans series on Grist for a thoughtful analysis of global food supply and how to combat hunger, poverty, and deforestation.
Rather than debate the merits of the seed companies (because they definitely are not perfect environmental stewards), I just hope that we can collectively acknowledge that the fight against deforestation, hunger, and climate change requires every tool available.
Beyond the seed companies, the article has more relevance to Hawai'i. We have no virgin low-land forests left on our islands and we have plenty of degraded farm land. Could reforestation be our strongest local weapon in the fight against climate change? In an era of pervasively stretched state and county budgets, there is almost zero political will to mitigate our impact on global climate change (i.e. reduce emissions). Even the Sea Grant report on climate change for Kaua'i (which, for some reason, is no longer available online) focuses extensively on adaptation techniques (i.e. dealing with rising seas) and very little on mitigation techniques. However, reforestation does not require political will, because the money is already available.
The Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission Fund** exists (as the name suggests) to purchase land for the preservation of open space and natural resources. At the end of 2014 the fund should have somewhere just under $5,000,000 in it, and because 1.5% of property taxes go straight to the fund, it's growing by about $1,500,000 per year. Further, the Hawaiian Island's Land Trust is the private equivalent to the county fund and has openly committed to helping with financial support for county land acquisition used to preserve open space and natural resources. That is a hugely significant source of available funding. What if that money were used to slowly acquire degraded farm land around Kaua'i for the purposes of reforestation?
Right now there are basically two options for degraded ag land: 1) seed company research and 2) development. Acquisition for the purposes of reforestation could provide a viable third option that would preserve open space, reduce the market pressures (land holders need to make money) for development or seed company expansion, minimize our island's contribution to climate change, and, in the future, possibly provide a viable source of bio-mulch for Kaua'i's local farmers. Since the fund can only be used for acquisition, a community organization (of which I believe there are plenty willing) would need to step up to the plate to organize the extensive reforestation of our low lands.
In the words of Nigel Sizer (as quoted by NY Times), director of forest programs at the World Resources Institute: "Every time I hear about a government program that is going to spend billions of dollars on some carbon capture and storage program, I just laugh and think, what is wrong with a tree? All you have to do is look out the window, and the answer is there."
How do we grow food more intensively? I don't know, but there are a few companies on Kaua'i that are committed to finding out, such as Dow, Pioneer, Syngenta, and BASF. Before you close your browser window in reaction to my environmental heresy, hear me out. While I've already written a partial defense of the seed companies activities on Kaua'i, I don't expect everyone to agree with me in supporting their presence here. I understand the reasons for fighting them and I spent years of my life arguing that the seed companies presence on Kaua'i was incompatible with our fragile ecosystem. At the time, no online blogger could sway my opinion, so I don't plan to sway yours. My gradual acceptance, and then support, for their activities here was a slow realization that increasing yields is one of the most important aspects in the dual fight against starvation and deforestation. There are plenty of other important tools in that fight, and I urge you to read Nathanael Johnson's Hungry Hungry Humans series on Grist for a thoughtful analysis of global food supply and how to combat hunger, poverty, and deforestation.
Rather than debate the merits of the seed companies (because they definitely are not perfect environmental stewards), I just hope that we can collectively acknowledge that the fight against deforestation, hunger, and climate change requires every tool available.
Beyond the seed companies, the article has more relevance to Hawai'i. We have no virgin low-land forests left on our islands and we have plenty of degraded farm land. Could reforestation be our strongest local weapon in the fight against climate change? In an era of pervasively stretched state and county budgets, there is almost zero political will to mitigate our impact on global climate change (i.e. reduce emissions). Even the Sea Grant report on climate change for Kaua'i (which, for some reason, is no longer available online) focuses extensively on adaptation techniques (i.e. dealing with rising seas) and very little on mitigation techniques. However, reforestation does not require political will, because the money is already available.
The Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission Fund** exists (as the name suggests) to purchase land for the preservation of open space and natural resources. At the end of 2014 the fund should have somewhere just under $5,000,000 in it, and because 1.5% of property taxes go straight to the fund, it's growing by about $1,500,000 per year. Further, the Hawaiian Island's Land Trust is the private equivalent to the county fund and has openly committed to helping with financial support for county land acquisition used to preserve open space and natural resources. That is a hugely significant source of available funding. What if that money were used to slowly acquire degraded farm land around Kaua'i for the purposes of reforestation?
Right now there are basically two options for degraded ag land: 1) seed company research and 2) development. Acquisition for the purposes of reforestation could provide a viable third option that would preserve open space, reduce the market pressures (land holders need to make money) for development or seed company expansion, minimize our island's contribution to climate change, and, in the future, possibly provide a viable source of bio-mulch for Kaua'i's local farmers. Since the fund can only be used for acquisition, a community organization (of which I believe there are plenty willing) would need to step up to the plate to organize the extensive reforestation of our low lands.
In the words of Nigel Sizer (as quoted by NY Times), director of forest programs at the World Resources Institute: "Every time I hear about a government program that is going to spend billions of dollars on some carbon capture and storage program, I just laugh and think, what is wrong with a tree? All you have to do is look out the window, and the answer is there."
* "temporarily" is a key word. Trees don't solve the long term problem, especially because when they die, their stored carbon ultimately ends up being released as the wood decomposes. At best, it's a stop-gap to give ourselves an extra twenty years to solve the real problem: fossil fuels.
** While I spent two years as an Open Space Fund commissioner (for some reason, the website still lists me), I resigned last month over a conflict of interest. Because I haven't attended the last few meetings, I'm not sure of the exact amount in the fund, but, as it was $3.3M at the end of 2013 I expect that it's somewhere just under $5M now.
(In the interests of "click-bait" I've realized that if I have a picture on the post, more people follow the link.) One of about 80 Koa trees that my wife and I have seeded and planted (with the support of Kamanu) over the last few years.
Thanks for another great article, Luke. Readers interested in the Sea Grant report on climate change for Kaua'i can find it in the good old Internet archive at the link below.
ReplyDeletehttps://web.archive.org/web/20141030063241/http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/sites/seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/files/publications/web-8-18-14-kc3ha-final.pdf
Thank you Loren, and thank you for providing the link!
ReplyDelete"Raise Your Albedo!"
ReplyDeleteOr
"Plant a thought. Save the Planet."
There are many science based articles that touch on the subject of planting trees to save the planet, some with a "common sense" approach and those with a rational thought process that involves some counterintuitive thinking. The general assumption that planting trees will save the planet is not that simple nor generally agreed upon. I write this flog to expand on Luke's blog "Reforestation". I do agree with Luke that we need every tool available to address global warming but I will have quite a different list at the bottom of my flog.
You quoted Nigel Sizer, a global forest watcher in Washington DC (really) who has an interesting job, laughing at those trying to capture and store excess active carbon in the atmosphere and then spew out some feel good manure about planting a tree from his office in DC while he browses Google Earth. Fridiculous. I'm sure he seeds wonderful tweets from his office chair while he is "forest watching". Is he somehow equating planting trees with "locking up carbon" for millennia? Because that's how I read Justin's article when he reiterated global warming could be "HALTED".
Oh wait I forgot to start my flog with... there was an interesting article in The New York Times.
ReplyDelete"To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees"
By NADINE UNGER
SEPTEMBER 19, 2014
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?referrer=
Or how about this article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20587-planting-forests-wont-stop-global-warming.html
Or this one?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/08/12/201763/trees-wont-fix-global-warming/
To paraphrase my rhetorical thoughts on this subject:
ReplyDeleteCarbon offsetting schemes like planting trees are so enticing because they offer us a quick fix to preserve the lifestyle we’ve become accustomed to. I think it's those same lifestyles you were trying to preserve in your other blog. The only incontrovertible (unarguable, undebatable, undeniable) way to stop climate change is to drastically limit the quantity of fossil fuels being extracted. Repeat. Reduce Extracted Fuels. Extracted? Yes, extracted. Like putting Mother Earth in your juicer and seeing what you can squeeze out of her. I know you mentioned fossil fuels being the main culprit but do you really think we should plant 1.2 billion acres of trees just to give us an extra 20 years to figure out what we already know. What if every generation starting with us has this same thought. The Procrastination Generation leaving climate problems to the Entitled Generation or perhaps the GMO Generation. I picture the tropics choke full of trees and the cold and dry climates using hybrid seed and/or GMO technology to grow food. Because you don't want to cut the forest to grow pineapples in Costa Rica right? Maybe you can grow palm tree (oil) in Texas with water from Colorado.
The good news Luke is that I think my experts can agree with your experts that planting trees in the tropics DOES cool the planet, by evaporation that is. Most people think trees will just suck up the CO2 and spit out O2. Interestingly, trees planted in the colder climates absorb heat because they are darker than their natural surroundings, and actually WARM the planet. Think snow reflects heat and dark green trees absorb heat. Simple stuff. Add that little part about trees being Carbon themselves and well you've got a dilemma. Unless you have enough tree huggers to care for each tree and then give it a proper burial when it dies:(.....to capture the carbon in the ground of course.
ReplyDeleteLet's say what it really is. People see "plant trees = save the planet" and think: post online status 'Saving the Planet', wait 5 minutes, check for likes, drive to Home Depot, buy a tree, take pic, post pic, wait 5 minutes (buy shovel and fertilizer), check for likes, like comments, comment, fill up gas at Costco, go to Starbucks, buy $5 coffee, sit and drink coffee drink while liking comments, drive to Wailua Homesteads Park, take selfie in front of albizia tree, change filter to Sierra, post to Instagram, drive home to north shore, dig hole, plant tree, take pic, post pic, water tree, save planet, feel good, post 'feeling good about saving planet', check periodically for likes and comments, drive to farmers market for coconut water.
What they should be thinking is "change lifestyle, save planet."
ReplyDeleteIn the words of Bill Burr (I'm Sorry You Feel That Way), "85% percent of you have to go". Let that sink in.
Oh and If you are lucky, your tree will survive the shock. My Koa tree from your wedding didn't make it. I was sad:( The good news it was so tiny that it didn't leave much of a carbon footprint:) But it didn't grow up to cool the planet:(
I digress. To reiterate, a quick carbon offsetting scheme of planting trees doesn't compute with saving the planet when you are thinking in decades. Start thinking in millennia, not two decades.
The real culprit is the "Inert" Carbon that ironically fuels our active lifestyle, the underground fossil fuels that are out of the picture. Cue GoPro lifestyle footage. Clip video, add music, and post on timeline.
You can't change the amount of Active carbon by planting and growing "carbon" trees. Oops I said that wrong. Should I say temporarily reduce instead of change? I know you touched on this *"temporary" solution in the end of your blog, and how the carbon is just temporarily moved from the air to the tree itself. Sorry I'm hammering that point too much.
It's baffling to me to think that seed farming in a tropical climate is a solution at all. It's even more baffling to take a global problem like climate change and somehow justify seed farming on Kauai. That's our local solution to helping the food problem right? Or are you saying plant trees AND seed farm because there's no other efficient means to "farm" and we have limited resources (land)?
It's like 3 people pushing a box from 3 different sides towards the edge of a cliff. Until one backs off, you don't know how hard the others are pushing and in what direction the box will go. Global warming. Global food. Global forestation. Is that the big 3 pushing our planet to the edge? What about our Global population problem?!?! Can we reduce the population "naturally"?
ReplyDeleteI guess planting trees makes you feel good about the future, about as good as the sustainable garden salad in my back yard.
Changing YOUR lifestyle? Possible? What about the lifestyle of the pineapple farmer in Costa Rica. Is reducing the amount of fossil fuels extracted and made available a solution? Good luck with that global monster. And let's see how people feel about that while they are literally enjoying the lowest gas prices on Kauai that we have seen in a decade (Katrina?). Are we still running out? Either way, less oil on the market = gas prices skyrocket, food prices go up, utility prices go up, airfare goes up, tourism goes down, vacations go down, the price of everything shipped here goes up, cost of building and maintaining affordable housing goes up, on and on and on and on. Sounds like it might cramp our lifestyle. It won't cramp the lifestyles of the oil companies. And don't people with money just end up looking for more opportunities to make more money? For those fortunate few that are able to preserve their lifestyles on Kauai, it won't matter. For the less fortunate who have also preserved their lifestyle, more money for food, equals less money for fun. And for the very unfortunate that hold onto their lifestyle, less money for food, equals less money for food.
I'll finish up my flog by paraphrasing your list:
ReplyDelete"Options for degraded ag land":
1) Seed company research
2) Development
3) Acquisition for the purposes of reforestation
4) Preserve open space
5) Provide a viable source of bio-mulch (delete #5--adds to global warming, not renewable energy)
And I'll add:
5) Photovoltaic farms
6) Wind farms
7) Co-op farming
8) Affordable housing
9) Schools (post secondary, job training, career oriented, etc.)
Now flip that list upside down because I can't talk global warming and put seed farms at the top of the list when we are talking about reforesting, preserving and/or protecting "degraded ag land" and lifestyles. Oh wait I forgot one. Hawaiian Homelands. I think DHHL offered my grandmother some of that "degraded ag land" after being on the list for over 20 years. Just think how big the trees would have been in her yard now.
Plant a thought. Save the planet.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Your bring up some points that I mention at every opportunity (and, which were the impetus for my blog):
ReplyDelete1) there are no simple answers
2) there is no single "big" solution
3) In the long run, addressing climate change (and most of our environmental and social problems) requires addressing the endless growth model of capitalism.
I think that we agree on that?
To respond to some of your particulars:
1) Population growth:
Do you have a non-holocaust suggestion for reducing the population? Obviously we have to address population growth, but-- we have 7 billion people right now that aren't going away and, simultaneously, we have less than a decade to peak and begin reducing our emissions. So… population is a long term question, while changing our economy to address climate change is an immediate problem.
2) Nobody is claiming that planting a tree is a permanent solution. It, as I mentioned, is a stop-gap. And, you agreed that tree planting in the tropics is beneficial. So…
3) If you think that we are going to solve the climate crisis by taking personal initiative, then I think that you must be even more of a recluse than me. If you think that we are on a political path to solving it without a stop-gap like tree planting, then you're not paying attention to the 20+ years of fruitless UN climate change negotiations. We have halting progress, but it's not nearly as fast as it needs to be.
4) Regarding degraded ag land-- sure, if we're looking at options purely for the betterment of humanity, there is plenty that we can do with it that I didn't mention. The land uses that you mentioned, would be great (along with a drug treatment center and a MRF)-- but they're not happening. why? Because of market pressures (in the tragic case of DHHL I would add government incompetence and a lack of political will). I would love to hear of a non-growth based solution to capitalism and the pressure of the open market (land owners want to make the most money that they can). If you can outline that solution then I will officially take my blog down because there will be no further reason for me to write. But, at the moment, it doesn't exist and the best that we can all do is nibble around the margins. So, the land is going to go where the market takes it, and currently, that is seed companies and high end development. Reforestation is, as I said, a "viable" third option because the money currently exists and it can take market pressure away from seed company expansion and more high end development.
Thank you for taking the time to post seven comments. I appreciate your thoughts and your critical thinking, and I would appreciate it even more if you presented some solution based ideas.
Interesting perspectives....
ReplyDeleteA non growth based solution to capitalization? Sounds like communism to me. A free market allows for economic expansion or contraction. A non growth based solution (stagnation ) can only be maintained by government run economies designed to ration or prohibit economic success or failure, thereby disregarding market demand, entrepreneurial innovation, suppressing invention/development and necessitating the support of poorly performing, inept or entitled industry or business. I'm surprised any business person would be in favor of non growth based solutions in a free market economy.
John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill (the founding fathers of modern economics) all conceded that there are limits to growth.
ReplyDelete"...the increase of wealth is not boundless. The end of growth leads to a stationary state. The stationary state of capital and wealth… would be a very considerable improvement on our present condition."
-Keynes
It's perilous to ignore the reality that unlimited growth on a finite planet is impossible. And communism was a failed totalitarian project, not a solution to the endless growth model of capitalism.
Yet, as I've written before, I'm not discounting capitalism. In an earlier blog post I wrote:
"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."
"Non growth capitalism with a side order of jumbo shrimp"
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to wonder if you are pro alternative energy or alternative government, anti GMO or anti capitalism, for the people or for the people that already have everything they need. I was going to define capitalism for you and your readers but your blog only allows 4,096 characters. Please read the definition so we are on the same page, on the next page.
You want a non growth based solution to capitalism that is somehow not a single "big" solution nor obviously simple. Does non growth capitalism even exist? And if it did, would it not be communism? But for your readers, I'll assume you don't want communism just like you assumed I don't want a holocaust to reduce the population.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'm assuming the "growth" you are referring to is the increasing profits of the private corporation or a sole individual's wealth defined by the mere goal of expanding this wealth. Dang it I think I just defined capitalism. Anyway, here is your solution to non growth capitalism.
"Democratic Socialism."
ReplyDeleteYou are a smart guy so we don't have to discuss the laborious details of restructuring our laws and education system (no poor child left behind) blah blah blah to adopt this constitution oops I mean solution. It's easier to look at an existing model wouldn't you agree?
Norway provides a stellar example of what an alternative to capitalism might look like. Ever been there? I think they have an outrigger canoe club:) Anyway, Norway was relatively untouched by the 2008 crash, because they don't allow individual and corporate greed to be the dominating force in their economy. Banks are highly regulated and income taxes are high enough to generate the revenue that provides for the basic needs of everyone, such as health care and education, kind of like gambling and legal marijuana in Colorado. Makes you curious how they do it right?
Norway's Democratic Socialism retains many of the defining characteristics of capitalism as we know it. Businesses are privately owned by individuals and corporations. Doesn't sound too unfamiliar right? However, resources that are vital to everyone’s wellbeing, such as energy, are either owned or tightly regulated by the government on behalf of the entire country. Norway’s abundant North Sea oil reserves, for example, are owned by the country as a whole and not private corporations, and the income generated is distributed across the entire population. Wow! Well you should read that previous sentence twice and ask yourself should, would or could our government own our resources and then the bigger question should, could, or would our government dish out the bennies to everybody?
ReplyDeleteSo how do they do this? The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway of 1814 was at that time considered to be one of the most liberal or radically democratic constitutions in the world. It has remained nearly unchanged for 200 years until recent human rights paragraphs were added this year. I would say that would be best place for you to start researching the foundations for the type of government you seek.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, I would suggest using your social media skills to slowly take away the fear of ‘socialism’ because to most Americans it means a loss of freedom and the value of the individual (Soviet Union and China). Perhaps post some interesting political happenings or obscure vacation destinations in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands where socialist principles have worked out much differently.
Would you agree less "freedom" would affect primarily the wealthy and corporations, not the great majority of ordinary people?
Is it a coincidence we are taught the ‘dangers’ of socialism in school and in mass media?Do you believe we Americans are the most free people on the planet, that everyone wishes they were American, that our standard of living and health care system are the best in the world? Some think so. Maybe. Evidence quickly shows Norwegians (or Swedes or Danes) routinely come out far ahead of the US on measures of personal happiness and quality of life, including crime, health care, social mobility, income, wealth, and democracy.
So is this the solution you were looking for Luke? Are you going to stop blogging and campaign for Democratic Socialism? Is this too simple? Too big? I imagine it's easier to plant a tree than an idea in this country.
Or you could move to Norway and literally plant a tree on top of your roof. Now that's going green! Maybe the grass IS greener on the other side of the planet.
To my anonymous friend of many comments:
ReplyDeleteFunny that you mention Norway, which, per capita, is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses in Europe. But, it is an interesting comparison to Hawai'i because there are a lot of overlaps between our reliance on tourism and their reliance on fossil fuels. Dutch Disease, the natural resource curse, their sovereign wealth fund and the lessons for Hawai'i (how do we ensure that tourism doesn't crowd out other industries and ensure that tourism can support the development of other necessary, yet unrelated, industries) are extremely relevant, yet topics for another conversation.
Yes, I've written repeatedly that we need to incorporate socialist ideology in order to fix the climate crisis. Democracy, as we know it, is very good at muddling through immediate crises, but it is profoundly inept at dealing with long term crises (i.e. The Civil War). Stronger state control is, without a doubt, a necessity. You can see more of my thoughts, along with an outright endorsement of social democracy, here: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2014/10/gmos-ebola-isis-and-climate-change.html
So yes, social democracy is definitely part of the solution. If Bernie Sanders runs for president, I will be ecstatic and will use my Facebook voice to promote the hell out of him. But, I also know that there's not a chance that he (the most prominent socialist in America) has a chance at winning the Presidency. Regardless, who is President of the US, or what types of social reforms are enacted in Norway are only part of the puzzle. When I said that there is no "big" idea that will save us, I mean that there are as many solutions as there are people alive, and averting climate crisis while continuing on our path to ending poverty/starvation requires every tool we have. Which includes every topic that I've written about so far and many, many more:
yield/efficiency increases in farming: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-do-they-do.html
reducing the inequality gap: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2014/01/what-does-it-profit-man.html
diversifying our local economy: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-death-of-local-manufacturing.html
Taking personal responsibility: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2013/12/we-are-all-complicit.html
Making sustainability the priority in our decision making: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2014/02/shifting-paradigms.html
Reducing our consumer impact: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2013/12/stop-feeding-beast.html
Supporting a smart grid: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-energy-revolution.html
Supporting local ag: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2014/06/eat-poi.html
Fighting for a local government with long term vision: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2014/12/when-fixing-potholes-becomes-our.html
And accepting our first world hypocrisy in all of the above: http://kawaehawaii.blogspot.com/2014/07/off-grid-hypocrisy.html
"Allemannsrett"
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to do better than regurgitate some "quotes" and link a half dozen or so of your previous blogs. I've read them all and I'm attempting to stay on point, this point, not the point you were trying to make March 14, 2014. I'm not attempting to comment on your previous blogs at this moment because to be honest your blogs don't really mesh that well, together that is. Your "ideals" are repetitive yet somehow seem all over the place. It's baffling and exhausting. However, I did enjoy your early blogs very much though (grit and progress).
I know you are already shaking your head or laughing so I'll just say very briefly why it's exhausting. You want to save tourism and hotel industry from a rising ocean...then you are pro GMO benefits...but don't shop in the middle "corn" aisles at the grocery store...then you want a 6,000 sq ft warehouse to fall in your lap on Kauai...then you brag about your profitability and how much GET you paid...then complain when the local government is doing it's job and wants to pave a road...then you want to plant trees and promote seed farming on degraded Ag land...but then you don't want a free market...prefer a stop gap solution to climate change...and a non growth capitalist government...and insist on increasing property taxes for those who live on an Ag CPR! It's exhausting!
You live off the grid on Kauai and run a successful carbon fiber canoe production facility on Oahu. You are an epoxymoron!!! Haha now that's funny. No seriously, I'm glad you guys don't make your canoes in China.
ReplyDeleteSo try to read my earlier comment(s) for what they are. Don't tell me about Norway. That means you missed the point. I know they are a large coal producer. I left that part out on purpose because I knew you would feel the need to mention it. But you failed to mention Norway didn't even make the top 10 in the world for coal production behind Wyoming (3 of the top 10), China, Australia, Russia and Colombia didn't you? You chose to disclose your irrelevant detail without disclosing the real grit and missed the point of my reply, the reply to your challenge. I gave you an example of a type of government system you very briefly described in your challenge but that you have been preaching about for a bloody year. And still you didn't acknowledge it for what it was. You just linked all your blogs and dissed Norway. I'll tell you why Norway came to mind Luke. Not because they have green houses, literally, but because they face their ethical dilemmas as a large coal producer and still manage to invest in companies that are not in conflict with global warming and still, I repeat, still have a government pension nearly a trillion dollars! Yes, by investing in renewable energy and green companies and without investing in the very industry they are a producer of, COAL. Not too many government pensions can say that right? Doesn't that sound like a conscious government for a mere 5 million citizens? Try producing oil and then not investing in oil and see how your shareholders feel about that.
There's more to that story but dig for yourself. My point is that maybe you should look deeper into democratic socialism and how Norway breezed through the last market crash and how they don't allow certain food products there. Didn't you say you didn't like the perfect looking fruits at the grocery store? Yeah you'll love Norway. Oh and I don't think you can buy Red Bull there. The government doesn't like the caffeine content. Maybe you'll find the answers you are looking for there, or close to there. Because in my humble opinion, it would be easier for you to move to Norway than for "Norway" to move here. Allemannsrett! But I don't know, maybe you won't like Norway because Norway is GROWING, financially, as a democratic socialist kingdom. And maybe you don't like that kind of growth. Oh and Norwegians don't complain and they are conformists, unless opting for teal Chuck Taylor's instead of white is trend setting. Did I mention they don't complain? Wouldn't be much to blog about. But I think it's worth a deeper look, if you like dissecting another country (government) more than you like dissecting comments. Weren't you a history major?
ReplyDeleteLuke, don't get me wrong, I've read your blogs and I appreciate your efforts to "educate" your readers over and over and over about capitalism and climate change and smart meters and land prices etc. But at this point I've said more than I wanted to say and I think you referenced enough articles in the last year to support what you wanted to say, again and again. So no need to reply to this comment as I would only expect you to post a link to your other blogs or link an article or quote another historian or politician from another part of the country or world etc. Until then, enjoy the free market you live in. Enjoy your freedom and choices you have and make. Enjoy the public services you pay for with your property taxes. Enjoy weed whacking your property. Enjoy the fruits of your labor. Enjoy all of your first world problems. Enjoy your business. Enjoy your profits. Enjoy the products you produce. Enjoy what you consume. Enjoy your life and lastly but most importantly enjoy your wife. Maybe in the next 2 decades, you will be so successful that all of the non biodegradable and non photodegradable carbon fiber products your company produces will lock up enough carbon to stop gap our planet's climate change. That was a joke. More likely you will be recycling old or broken carbon fiber canoes and grinding them up for thermoplastics to make iphone cases and plastic plant pots.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I understand your passion but you have some karmic knots my friend, that perhaps only some much needed truly disconnected meditation can untie. Until I see you (hopefully on the water), blog away and happy new year to you and your ohana!