Reforestation

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."

* "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. 

Balancing the Field

"Human existence may be simpler than we thought. There is no predestination, no unfathomed mystery of life. Demons and gods do not vie for our allegiance. Instead, we are self-made, independent, alone, and fragile, a biological species adapted to live in a biological world. What counts for long-term survival is intelligent self-understanding, based upon a greater independence of thought than that tolerated today even in our most advanced democratic societies." 

- E.O. Wilson

If there is dirt, sun, and water there will be growth. That part is simple. My role as gardener is to guide that growth, understand where it's heading, and ensure that my crops can compete against pests and invasives. It requires constant work, an understanding of agricultural science, a connection with the land, and, most importantly, a guiding vision for it. If I step out of the picture and allow nature to take its course, my yard will revert back to the ecological desert of guinea grass that it was when I began working on it four years ago.

While there are thousands of introduced plants in Hawai'i, only a few are invasive. And guinea grass is one of the worst. It likely evolved in a highly competitive environment tempered only by the incessant appetites of roaming ruminants. The sugar cane fields of my childhood are now guinea grass havens. It's always there, hanging around the margins of our land speculating the right time to spread its seed. My first job as gardener was to even the playing field for the native species, food crops, and other beneficials that I was introducing to my yard. After four years of weeding, digging, pruning, and mulching the land is now more diverse and biologically productive than would be possible without my input. The birds are coming back, flood events are less damaging than they were before (more plants to soak up the water and swales to divert it), I am adding top soil with the excess biomass, nitrogen fixing plants are minimizing my need for outside fertilizer, and, in my opinion, it's beautiful. Notice anything missing from that list? Unless I could survive off Thai basil, ginger root, and bananas-- I'm not getting much sustenance from the land, but that's another story.

While it's a diverse and symbiotic community of plants, it was created entirely by my own hand. There are rules that I was slow to learn (i.e. don't plant too close together, slow down the path of water, etc.) and there are natural limitations to growth, but, the direction is entirely up to me. Understanding my responsibility and relationship to the land was the first step; tailoring a vision for it was second; and undertaking a lifetime of making it work (pulling weeds, harvesting, supporting weak plants, etc) is a never-ending commitment. 

Because I'm predictable and my posts often follow a similar formula (societal revelations through the lessons of nature), you've probably guessed where I'm going with this stretched metaphor. Society, like my garden, is our own creation* and it's time that we own up to to our responsibilities. Change water to money, photosynthesis to capitalism, and we become the gardeners of society. In the words of David Suzuki, "capitalism, free enterprise, the economy, currency, the market, are not forces of nature, we invented them." 

Yet, we continually stifle our own transformative potential with the friction of bureaucracy on one hand and the illusion of the invisible hand on the other. If we can just grow the economy enough our problems will go away: in other words, the market will see us through. Look around, how's that strategy working out for us? One pervasive lesson after 238 years of the greatest political experiment in the history of humanity (democracy) is that it doesn't work without our constant engagement.

By disengaging from the system we are shirking our duty and in the process we are losing our quality of life. The massive systemic failures on Kaua'i aren't going to go away simply through growth or time. As everyone who has ever lifted a hoe knows, when you step back and rest on your laurels, invasives will win every time. 

*Creation is a tricky word. Obviously I didn't create the plants as much as an artist doesn't create his paint and a politician doesn't create his community. But, the vision, design, and outcome are all very much items of our creation.

  

"Yup that's me.. I speak"

Yup thats me...the one who can't speak your english.

Uh huh, I lack the speech you speak the way you teach that shit to me. 

Oops, annoyed are we? At my pronunciation of your words, the words that also teach me to say "yes, sir, "no ma'am," or "may I" instead of "can I." 

Say what you say, while I walk along in my path of speech with my tongue. I mean, as long as I survive the brutal beatings of my voice cuz I can't speak the way you speak and argue the way you yell.

Let it be known, that I lack your fluent tongue; your "whitewash" accent. Then again, will I want to lose my voice? Maybe I do; cuz it is only this where you might label me as educated in a society where my culture has been decapitated from the onset of my mother's hesitation to assimilate.

Yup this is me. A first generation/half Americanized, last generation immigrant of my family's misfortunes. Where my native tongue meets my learned speech; I'm stuck in the middle struggling to communicate with a mother who only speaks in my past and dealing with the real world telling me that I am not "educated" enough.

I mis-use your words in sentences, mis-place your pronouns and prepositions in my writings. Is this my fault? Yes, you say. Cuz in your world, one must speak your language to be allowed to take the oath of citizenry. Well, I guess my lack of fluency and literacy in your language labels me unfit.

I will take that label with pride. Cuz I am not what you want, but frankly you're not what I want.

I spoke my thoughts in the speech you have taught, so go on and re-read this for mistakes and grammar check, cuz all I have to say is: Yes, this is me, I can't speak english but I can speak.

20 Dec 06 3:37am

You probably guessed that I didn't write that. My bad-ass wife did. About an hour before meeting Sokchea for the first time (my friend Drew introduced us) I made the mistake of looking through her Facebook wall (if you think that's unusual, you must not be a member of the Millennial Generation). And, I stumbled upon that post. Yeah, it scared the shit out of me. Afraid to talk, I just sat there cradling my beer watching surf videos at Mai Tai Bar. (Note to Sokchea-- in retrospect, is cultural genocide really an appropriate first date conversation starter?? Note to myself-- is Mai Tais really an appropriate place for a first date??).  

Many in Hawai'i can relate to the anger, the mourning over cultural "decapitation," and the ensuing disenfranchisement that Sokchea writes about. Yet, I believe her words are even more valuable to people like me: those of us who can't relate to it. Grammatical articulation does not equal eloquence. I could never have written what Sokchea wrote above because I have no idea what it feels like to struggle with a language or carry the stereotype of that struggle. I have no idea what it feels like to capitulate to the language of my oppressors, to forget the language of my culture, or to be judged based on how I arrange my words. While ethnicity and language in Hawai'i are more complex than elsewhere, I, as a haole born on Kaua'i, am not qualified to write much of a commentary on stereotyping or racism. So I'll stop there.  

I posted her writing because, for me, it is a powerful reminder of the severe limitations of my perspective. 

When fixing potholes is our government's main priority, then fixing government must be our main priority

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself..."
- President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, inaugural address 1933

"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what, together, we can do for the freedom of man."
- President John F Kennedy, inaugural address, 1961

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."
- President Bill Clinton, inaugural address, 1993

"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord ... The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."
- President Barack Obama, inaugural address, 2009

"Lets make a vow to have Puhi road paved... let's say within the next six months... "
- Council Chair Mel Rapozo, Kaua'i County inaugural address, 2014

My last post contained a glaring omission in the Kamanu Composites story. While our dedicated composites technicians and loyal customers define us as a company, government services are what enable our success. From zoning ordinances, to trash disposal, to road maintenance, to electricity regulation, to state unemployment insurance-- our freedom to prosper in business is the direct result of government services, regulation, and intervention in the market.

As I wrote about last week in The Death of Local Manufacturing, when we give the market too much control to dictate our economic direction, as we are doing on Kaua'i, we lose the ability to foster diverse and viable alternative industries. When the government lacks vision, we suffer and we stifle the chance for our children to thrive. Continuation of the current status-quo means that life on Kaua'i will become progressively harder for local people to afford a home; it means continued and increasing dependence on tourism and resort development; it means that local agricultural will continue to decline; it means that local manufacturing will continue to look elsewhere; it means that we will continue to lose access to our natural resources; and it means that the only well paying jobs will continue to be off-island.  

Our county Inauguration was on Monday, an event that is like the opening ceremony of the Olympics: a time of incomparable hope, unity, and optimism before the bloodsport of the actual competition. Inaugurations are a chance for our elected officials to explain their vision for the future, to inspire renewed faith in government, and to reassure us that they are committed to working for the public good by fighting the status-quo. Mayor Carvalho's Holoholo 2020 inaugural address in 2010 was a perfect example of how an elected official can momentarily inspire us all towards a better collective future. With all that in mind, I walked into this year's county inauguration with high expectations and, six hours later I limped out weighed down by the crushing bureaucracy and the endless in-fighting of the Kaua'i County Council.   

Council Chair Rapozo's inaugural address was a clear statement that our island's systemic issues will continue to go unmentioned. Maybe my expectations were too high or I'm naive and idealistic, but I was hoping his speech would provide an outline for more than clean park bathrooms, quality performance audits, and support for burning trash as a solution to our landfill problem. The stark realism of that depressing priority list was topped off by his number one commitment for the county of Kaua'i: the re-surfacing of Puhi road. 

Road maintenance is a basic county service, not a bargaining chip or an achievement. In just four years we traded in the grand and sweeping vision of Mayor Carvalho's Holoholo 2020, which included expanded bus service, a north and south shore shuttle, and green affordable housing for the stark fiscal realism of Council Chair Rapozo's vision of re-surfacing a road. Obviously the road needs to be paved, but, by promoting it as priority #1 our council chair is relegating our county government to just fulfilling basic services. What about a government that works to increase economic freedom, enables environmental protection, and fights for Kaua'i residents to retain their way of life? Nope, let's let the market take care of that while the government focuses on paving roads and cleaning bathrooms. 

While disappointed in the inaugural speech, I held on to the delusion that the new council might be able to reconcile their differences in the spirit of a new beginning. However, the debate over the new council rules quickly shattered that illusion. I won't go into detail on the rule changes on this blog, but, they are important for us to pay attention to and I urge you to read Loren Kohnfelder's two posts on the subject (here and here) and Joan Conrow's different perspective in her two posts on the subject (here and here). The important take-away is that the council chair has vastly increased his authority, and the rule changes forced each council member to either vow their allegiance or state their opposition to the new consolidation of power. If it sounds like Game of Thrones, that's because it is like Game of Thrones. 

The one bright spot of the day was the confirmation of Mauna Kea Trask to the position of County Attorney. His high level of integrity, intelligence, experience, and background make him perfectly suited for the job. The legal wing of our county government is in good hands with the complimentary team of Mauna Kea Trask as our County Attorney and Justin Kollar as our County Prosecuting Attorney.  

The death of local manufacturing

"...We don’t outsource, re-sell, or source canoes. We build them from start to finish. Materials come in and canoes go out. We believe it results in better products, reduces our environmental footprint, stimulates our local economy, and provides high skilled jobs to our community... In the end, it’s about satisfied customers, happy workers, and a healthy world."  

      - Kamanu Composites, LLC "Reason for being." 

If you know me only from my blog, then you probably have a skewed impression of me spending my days wallowing in mud, critiquing the experience and occasionally cutting off a chickens head. But, those days are rare. Most of the time I'm clean shaven, wearing matching socks, and trying to manage sales and finance for Kamanu Composites. Because my writing often generates heated conflict (which I don't want to bring upon our shop), I have relegated the focus of this blog strictly to my personal life. While I spend my days attempting (and sometimes failing) to ensure the profitability of the company that I helped found, I'm just one small cog of this socialistic manufacturing machine. And, since my strong opinions are rarely the consensual opinions of our shop, I do my best to avoid getting Kamanu mired up in the moral mud that my writing wades through. But, since my business experience has shaped my perspective (which is the basis of this blog), for once I'll break my own rule and write about it.

In a story ripe with cliche, my two close friends and I spent our four years at Kaua'i High School dreaming about becoming canoe builders. Since paddling outrigger canoes was the focal point of our lives, we would sit around on the weekends continually rehashing our ideas for this imaginary business. When we graduated, we split up to go to college, each with an appointed direction: one went to school for composites fabrication, one went to school for aeronautical engineering, and I went to school for business (I ended up switching to History). In 2007, upon returning from college, we founded our dream company. There was just one problem.

While we were all from Kaua'i, we started the company on O'ahu. Materials were easier to source, Grainger Industrial Supply was right around the corner, and most of the Hawai'i market for outrigger canoes is there. Our intention was to spend a few years getting started then move the operation to Kaua'i.

In 2010, I was severely injured during a canoe race and flew home to recover. The move was supposed to be temporary, but, after being away from Kaua'i for seven years, I couldn't imagine leaving again. So, I had to make a decision-- either go back to O'ahu to continue managing production, or, stay on Kaua'i, take a pay-cut and relegate my official duties to what I could do remotely. I chose Kaua'i. And I've grappled with that decision every day since.

In 2011, one of my partners also faced a similar decision. Being desperate to move back to Kaua'i, he sold most of his share in the company and found a job selling cars in Lihu'e.

Now, seven years after we began our company, we've outgrown our current location and are looking for other options. One of which is to finally bring Kamanu to Kaua'i.

As a manufacturing shop we need industrial zoning. We need 200 amps of electricity for our large CNC machine, industrial oven, and our powerful compressor and vacuum pump. And we need an open floor plan of 6,000-8,000 square feet so that we can maneuver large canoes around. Any building that we move into would need around $100,000 in infrastructure improvements (mainly ventilation systems).

So, here we are with a profitable shop, employing 20 local people at livable wages and good benefits, generating $40,000 a year in excise tax, infusing around $1,100,000 a year into our local economy ($.88 of every dollar we take in is spent in Hawai'i, includes tax, payroll, rent, and materials and does not include the multiplier effect of that money), making a product that otherwise would be outsourced (our main competitors are all in China, and therefore generate nearly nothing for the local economy), and doing it in as environmentally friendly a way as we can (one of two Hawai'i businesses certified by the EPA for using exclusively renewable energy).* And, most importantly, we are highly motivated to bring the shop to Kaua'i-- yet we can't do it.

Why?

For the same reason that owning a home is out of reach for almost every young person on Kaua'i. For the same reason that we're losing access to our coastline and natural resources. For the same reason that local agriculture isn't profitable.

Because our island home is incomparably beautiful, we're losing it. We have made tourism, and the low wage service jobs its provides, the back bone of our economy. Unlike O'ahu, which still has a diversified economy, Kaua'i is marketed as a place of resort communities where the vacation never has to end. Every high end land purchase pushes island-wide prices a little higher and we have created a market fueled by overseas money that is nearly impossible for local people, with local jobs, to buy into. Industrial land (along with agricultural land) is competing against the gentrification/resortification of our island. And, in a story repeated throughout every desirable community in the country, gentrification always wins. Remember the industrial zone in Kilauea, near Guava Kai? Yeah, neither do I.

Without adequate government intervention, the quiet totalitarianism of capitalism forces us to march in step with the invisible force of the market. Because if we don't, we get priced out of our island home (both literally and figuratively).

With just a few vacant heavy industrial spaces for rent on island, all of which are under 2,000 square feet, and no vacant heavy industrial land for sale, moving our shop home is currently impossible.

In the same way that development erases our memory of what used to be, outsourcing erases our collective memory of production. Why build it here when we can buy it from elsewhere? While support for local agriculture remains (for good reason) a political buzzword, support for local manufacturing is... meh.

The composites manufacturing of Kamanu Composites, LLC doesn't fit our island's limited industrial model. Resort communities need custom cabinet shops and granite counter tops, not outrigger canoes. So, Kaua'i's industrial space is tailored to the 1200-2000 square feet necessary for small high-end craftsmen, not mass production. All of which adds to Kaua'i's dependence on tourism and resort developments. While we keep fueling the same fire that is burning us, the self-perpetuating circle continues.

So, now we're looking at signing a lease on a new 8,000 sq foot building on O'ahu. And I am forced again to choose between business and Kaua'i-- because in manufacturing you can't have both. For more info on who we are as a company, check out our website at kamanucomposites.com  or read below on why "we build" is our motto.

*Just because I love disclaimers, let me add that of course all is not perfect at Kamanu. See the dumpster in the beautiful picture above? We send out two of those per week, filled with less than environmentally friendly trash, as each canoe results in its own weight in waste. We also continuously face a variety of production and morale related issues. As is the case in everything I write about, unless we close our eyes completely, all roads are filled with morally ambiguous mud. All we can do is try to tread the cleanest path.  

The words below were taken from a Kamanu blog post I wrote in 2011.  

We Build

We Build Canoes. That three-word statement proudly proclaimed above was the simplest way to express what we do at Kamanu Composites. But the meat of that phrase is We Build. We don’t outsource, re-sell, or source canoes. We build them. Carbon fiber and epoxy come in and canoes go out.

The world is changing so quickly that it can be hard to catch a glimpse as it slips by. Five years ago most of us had never heard of Facebook or Barak Obama. Our phones hadn’t taken over our lives. Money was cheap and jobs were plentiful. Climate change was a distant threat. Tahitian dominance in the Moloka’i Hoe was still being blamed on flat water. And almost nobody was building canoes in Hawai’i. We, as Americans, were on top of a cloud. Debt financing was the way of the future. We didn’t have to produce anything. The cloud was supposed to take us as long as we kept consuming.

But it didn’t. Our extreme leveraging caught up with us and we collapsed. The market peaked in October 2007. Nearly the exact day that Kamanu Composites produced its first canoe. As fate would have it, we began our future here as millions of Americans saw their futures disappear along with their savings, homes, and jobs in the Great Recession.

That is the world that Kamanu Composites grew up in. And it has had a profound impact on where we’re at today. The canoe brought us together; formed us as individuals, as a company, and as a community. But, in the end it’s not really about the canoe. It’s about building. It’s about local production. It’s about being one small gear in this great machine of a world. It’s about the fact that we can’t continually rely on someone else. As a company, Kamanu Composites has framed every decision around one simple premise. We believe wholeheartedly in local manufacturing. Because part of America’s problem was that we forgot how to manufacture after giving it all away. Once we understood why we were doing what we do, it became easy to do what we do. As a community we can have a much greater impact than a small canoe building shop. Every decision we make puts us either one step forward or one step back. The answers are easy, but it starts with understanding why.

Hopes and chicken blood

“To lock yourself up in the ivory tower is impossible and undesirable. To yield subjectively, not merely to a party machine, but even to a group ideology, is to destroy yourself as a writer. We feel this dilemma to be a painful one, because we see the need of engaging in politics while also seeing what a dirty, degrading business it is. And most of us still have a lingering belief that every choice, even every political choice, is between good and evil, and that if a thing is necessary it is also right. We should, I think, get rid of this belief, which belongs to the nursery. In politics one can never do more than decide which of two evils is the less... Even a general election is not exactly a pleasant or edifying spectacle..."   
    - George Orwell, 1948

Sometimes people ask, and sometimes I wonder, why did I stop writing about Yurt life and start writing about Kaua’i politics? Partly it’s out of the realization that the nearly insurmountable environmental and social issues that inspire our “low-impact” life-style have to be solved by government, not consumer choice. And, by focusing my writing on consumer choice and portraying a false glorification of our off-grid life, I was contributing to the chronic schizophrenic inaction of local and national government which is fueled by our societal ambivalence (and periodic malice) towards politics. By gloating about living off-grid, I was saying “hey, look at my self sufficiency! Look at what I can do without utilities or government, and you can do it too!” I glossed over the fact that this lifestyle is supported by my wife’s corporate job in IT, through my partial ownership of a small manufacturing shop, through industrial farming (Organic Layer Pellets), and cheap Chinese labour to produce my material goods (Ikea furniture and Apple phones). More importantly, I glossed over the huge amount of mud, death, and chicken shit.  

While my morning routine is to watch the sun come up while reading George Orwell with a cup of hot coffee, I rarely mention the other side. Like how I spent the last four months raising a hen (she often sat on my desk outside while I worked) only to cut her head off with a rusty Cambodian meat cleaver while waiting for my coffee to boil this morning. It’s easier to offer up trite sentences about the quality of the evening light as the shadows lengthen across my forested yard than it is to describe the incoherent and inevitable momentary panic as I watch my hen’s beak gasp in vain for air while her headless body tries to fly away, all while the sound of my screaming water kettle tells me to get the job done quickly. 

I write about politics (and elements related to politics) because I understand the necessity of the process. I’ve stopped writing about the drudgery of my life because I understand the inherent cherry-picking hypocrisy of it. Any hope I hold out for systemic change towards social and environmental justice is reserved for government action-- not pseudo hipster/hippies raising chickens and living in yurts (in case you’re offended by that description, I’m talking only about myself there). 

Since my head is filled with the wishful thinking of campaign promises and hasn't been tainted yet by the obstructionist politics and inaction bred by democracy, I'll use this rare bout of optimism to lay out my hopes for the next two years:

I hope that Chair Rapozo (he will be voted chair) can work to end the partisan warfare of the last year. Since vague* support for agriculture and fiscal conservancy were his entire election platform, I look forward to seeing solutions on reversing the decline in local ag and balancing the budget.  

Since nearly every candidate voiced support for the bus and our Multi-modal transportation plan as a solution to our growing traffic problem, I hope that bus service can be expanded and shelters constructed. If the counties gain the power to raise the general excise tax (as they are lobbying for at the State Legislature) I hope that any increase in that regressive tax is used exclusively for off-setting its regressive nature through support of the bus.

I hope that the Anti-GMO movement can reject demagogic leaders and the illusory appeal of simple solutions to complex problems and that it can accept that environmental justice can not be achieved without social justice.

I hope that Mayor Carvalho will follow his campaign promise of building the MRF, pursuing methane recovery at our landfill to power the Kaua'i Bus, and prioritizing drug treatment.  

Most of all, I hope that every elected official will read the dire words outlined in the Seagrant report on climate change. Because when the waves lap against Kuhio HWY in Kapa'a town at the end of the century (as predicted in the report), we need to not only be prepared, but know that we did everything we could to minimize our contribution to climate change.

At the end of the day, it's a lot easier to critique the system as an outsider with no political power. So, my personal goal for the next two years is to step away from the ivory tower of my rhetorical keyboard and become more personally involved. And yes, I will do that while continuing to wipe the chicken blood off of my hands in the early dawn light of a chilly Kapahi morning.  

I also want to give a special shout out to Mason Chock-- who earned a spot on the county council while spending less than all of the other candidates, limiting campaign contributions to $50 per person, and successfully managing a campaign strategy reliant on conversations with constituents and community service projects. I hope that his action/ideas oriented campaign will gain traction with future Kaua'i candidates. Our island is small enough that we can reject the crippling influence of big money on our local elections.

Congratulations to every candidate who put their name forward in an attempt to represent Kaua'i as an elected community servant. The lust for blood and the gladiatorial spirit of American democracy are alive and well on Kaua'i. I remain forever hopeful that we can see some good come out of this brutal sport.


* for clarification, the word vague was added on 11/11/14

GMOs, Ebola, ISIS... and climate change

"...one of a few million favoured human beings who live ultimately on the degradation of the rest."  

  - George Orwell's definition of the middle class, 1941

If site traffic is an effective judge of the power of a post, then my write-up on planetary changing changing climate change was 25% as effective as my write-up on the process and history of corn hybridization. I understood the difficulties inherent in the subject before going at it, and yet I failed completely to accomplish my writing goals. Since it affects every aspect of our lives it's hard to boil down into a digestible and readable form. It's even harder to explain why we should all care and harder again to explain why we need to overturn our current economic structures in order to fight climate change.  Yet...

What if I had uncovered a secret Monsanto plot to raise the temperature of the planet by six degrees through genetically modifying the respiratory process (to release more Co2) of soy bean so that their patented heat resistant corn would take over the market?

Or, what if ISIS was developing a weapon that they planted deep in the Syrian desert that converts sunshine to carbon dioxide in order to turn the entire planet into a barren waste land?

Or, what if Ebola mutated to cause hemorrhaging of ocean algae, therefore eliminating one of the largest biological carbon sinks on the planet and causing rapid temperature increases and climactic instability?  

Everyone would go batshit. We'd instantly mobilize and defeat climate change. When someone else is causing the problem, that's what we do.  But, since our relative wealth is a direct result of our carbon intensive economy, what do we do with the realization that we are the problem?

Current inaction on climate change benefits the status-quo. Right wing politicians understand this, which is why they fight so hard to continue with a steady course of denial and inaction (only 3% of Republican elected officials at the federal level have gone on record accepting the reality of climate change). And, to a certain extent, we all understand that the status-quo will have to be upended in order to fight climate change. So, we compartmentalize climate change in an area of the brain reserved for future thought. We justify our inability to do anything about it with the fact that there are more pressing issues on our plate: we spend $10 million per day to fight ISIS; we fear the almost nonexistent chance that EBOLA will cause a US Pandemic; and, we maintain that genetic modification is a tipping point in the human evolution of food. A popular political candidate in Hawai'i (who I will not name) has used Facebook to combine all of the above threats to insinuate that Monsanto worked with the Department of Defense to create Ebola and that they are using Kaua'i to experiment with it. That candidate's innate ability to draw on our collective societal fears is a main driver of his popularity. 

Yet, I understand our communal unwillingness to engage in the complex topic of climate change. Because there is no tangible enemy to fight, we can't fix climate change through war or merely by throwing more money at it. Effective action on climate change is not just research and development of renewable energy and it's not capitalistic deployment of carbon capture technology. The fact that our planet is warming from unfettered economic growth fueled by stored carbon necessitates a complete societal and economic restructuring. 

The one billion starving people in the world need adequate food before they can think about smaller families and preserving rainforest.  And, in turn, we need to eliminate poverty to end starvation. The only hope for developing countries to reject oil and coal (the cheap energy sources that brought unprecedented wealth to developed nations) is to use our wealth to advance their economic security. 

As a quick aside, let me clarify when I say "our wealth."  I mean the relative wealth of the US. Not the $842 that I currently have in my savings account. The top 10% of Americans own 75% of the wealth, yet pay 68% of the income taxes. And, while our economy has exploded since 1979, look at the graph below to see where all that wealth has gone.  

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

On a local level, when the average Kauaian is struggling to pay their mortgage and afford groceries, who can blame us for not caring about climate change? Which is partly why (there are many other reasons, including basic morality) reducing inequality has to be the social priority of anyone who cares about preserving biodiversity and maintaining a planet conducive to human civilization.

As voting middle-class members of the wealthiest democracy on Earth, it's up to us to take stock of our privilege and step out of our comfort zone to start combating the forces of climate change: consumerism fueled by laissez faire capitalism and social darwinism. To be a modern environmentalist means incorporating socialist ideology;* as they go hand in hand.  And any modern environmental movement that ignores the human aspect of our economic system is doomed to fail.  

Check out the following graphs from the Institute of Policy Studies and Peace for a snapshot on the undervaluation of climate change investment (including energy R&D, science funding, and climate change related foreign aid) when compared with military investment.  

As defined by Wikipedia: 

"Social democrats have advocated for a peaceful and evolutionary transition of the economy to socialism through progressive social reform of capitalism.^[4][5] Social democracy asserts that the only acceptable constitutional form of government is representative democracy under the rule of law.^[6] It promotes extending democratic decision-making beyond political democracy to include economic democracy to guarantee employees and other economic stakeholders sufficient rights of co-determination.^[6] It supports a mixed economy that opposes the excesses of capitalism such as inequality, poverty, and oppression of various groups, while rejecting both a totally free market or a fully planned economy.^[7] Common social democratic policies include advocacy of universal social rights to attain universally accessible public services such as education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services, including child care and care for the elderly.^[8] Social democracy is connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers."

Government is not, and should never be, like business

"We need to run government more like a business."
      -Said by nearly every political candidate at nearly every political debate since the beginning of time, especially on Kaua'i.

I'm able to swallow most of the rhetoric at political forums on Kaua'i.  But that statement above always makes me cringe. Government should not be run like a business. The entire function of government is to fill in the gaps that business can not. As a small business owner of seven years (ugh, I'm getting old) I will proudly admit that running a business has nothing to do with running a government. And, if anything, being a successful businessman makes a candidate particularly unsuited for running a government.*

When my business partner and I are making a decision at Kamanu Composites, our financial bottom line should be our first priority. And the nature of the beast forces us to toe that line. If we stray too far from a profit motive, then our insolvency will make room for the next guy that stays on track. Our own moral inability to follow that capitalist ideal to its natural conclusion (for us, that conclusion would be outsourcing production to China) is part of the reason that we are not successful businessmen.

Successful businesses exist for one reason: to make a profit. Even Patagonia, the model of a conservation minded business, makes no qualms about the fact that backing environmental causes helps them increase their sales. Businesses exist on a psychopathic sphere where the bottom line is accumulating more cash. And, government is the opposite. Government's bottom line is to balance the field (i.e. public education and business regulation), to protect the unprofitable (i.e. human health and the homeless), and to maintain the commons (i.e. natural resources and our climate). To quote myself (yeah, I know it's egocentric) from a post I wrote in May:

...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. 

Because business can not adequately account for the non-monetary value of human health, environmental protection, or reductions in inequality, we need government to fill in the gaps. Yet, somehow we've made government a dirty word and business a political buzzword. Just once, before I go to the polls in November, I want to hear a candidate tell me how they will use government to reverse inequality and protect our environment and not how they will run the county like a business.

*Before an angry conservative commentator calls me out on that statement, I'm not saying that fiscal responsibility isn't vital for elected officials. What I mean is that the basic pursuit of accumulating more profit that lies at the heart of successful businesses is the anti-thesis of good governance.

Climate Change: why I write

"We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a 'thing-oriented society' to a 'person-oriented society.' When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
        -Martin Luther King Jr, 1967

 "Today's climate movement does not have the luxury of simply saying no without simultaneously fighting for a series of transformative yeses- the building blocks of our next economy that can provide good clean jobs, as well as a social safety net that cushions the hardships for those inevitably suffering losses"
        -Naomi Klein, 2014

I was recently scrolling through my blog and I realized, to my dismay, that I've created a glaring and grievous error.  While I spend an inordinate amount of time writing about biotech, industrial agriculture, smart meters, capitalism, consumerism, inequality, Kaua'i politics, and my own off-grid experiences-- I've never attempted to unify those issues or explain why I care. Maybe because of its complexity, or because of my own glaring complicity, or because it makes me anxious beyond words, but I've avoided explaining the motivation behind my blog; the one thing that unifies every post on here; the reason that I ride the bus and live off-grid: climate change.

Every aspect of climate change is complex: from the science, to the politics, to the solutions. It's impossible to just jump in in the middle (as I've done with every other post) and try to engage in a solutions oriented dialogue. So, I have to start at the beginning. I know you're busy, I know you've seen climate change headlines before, I know that this subject is politically polarizing, I know that this post is excruciatingly long, and I know that there is plenty of engaging online faire competing for your attention, but, before you close this browser window, please hear me out. 

The Science
The basic concept of the greenhouse effect has been around since 1824.  Rather than re-hash high school biology for you, I'll skip an explanation of what exactly is happening. If you want to learn more, check out Bill Nye the Science Guy's Explanation, or the EPA's, or Wikipedia's, or NASA's. The important take aways are:

• Greenhouse gasses (Methane, Co2, etc) trap heat in the atmosphere and create the foundation for all life on earth.  
• However, higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses cause higher temperatures.  
• Industrial activities (anything that relies on combustion-- i.e. driving, electrical generation through coal, oil, and natural gas, etc) have caused atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane to be higher than they have been in 650,000 years.  
• Because of that, global temperatures are rising faster than they have in human history.  
• Rising temperatures lead to atmospheric instability, sea level rise, lower crop yields, and increased likelihood of severe storms and draught. 
• These basic tenets are endorsed by the 192 member countries of the UN, the Scientific agencies of every industrialized country on earth, 97% of climate scientists, The World Bank, the IMF, major insurance companies, the Pentagon and even the fossil fuel companies. 
• The only people that continue to deny the science behind climate change are members of the US House of Representatives Committee on Science Space and Technology. (I'm only half-joking). 

The Politics

Since there is widespread agreement in the scientific, business, and financial community, it only makes sense that politicians adopt binding international emissions agreements in order to stay on the safe side of the warming curve. In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Energy and Development resulted in a non-binding treaty to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Over the past 22 years basically every country on the planet has signed that treaty. And, over the same time period annual global emissions have risen 61%. In 2010, the same annual global conference agreed that to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, global temperature change needs to stay below 2 degrees celsius from pre-industrial levels (temps. have already risen .8 degrees).  

While the regional effects of climate change are notoriously hard to predict, scientific models can predict long term trends based on the Co2 concentration of the atmosphere. And, the Co2 concentration of the atmosphere can be accurately predicted based on the amount of Co2 that we emit. So, using the best science available, in order to keep warming below 2 degrees celsius we have a carbon budget of 565 gigatons of Co2.

The Business
Here is where we encounter a problem. It's a little complicated, but it's the most important part of this entire piece, so bear with me.

Fossil fuel companies (Shell, Chevron, etc) are publicly owned. In order to keep the value of the company from dropping (to keep share prices high) they need to have at least a 100% reserve ratio. Meaning that whatever volume of oil and gas they are currently sucking from the ocean floor, dissolving from shale, or fracking to get, must be matched by an equal or greater amount in reserve. If the reserve ratio falls (less in reserve than in current production) then share value falls.

Why is this important? Because if the companies were to extract all of their reserves, they would emit 2,795 gigatons of Co2. Remember our carbon budget of 565 gigatons? The 2,795 gigatons that the fossil fuel companies have in reserves is nearly five times more than can be burned while staying below the 2 degree limit agreed upon by every nation on earth. As Bill Mckibben elaborates on in this must-read article, without government intervention or divestment, the fossil fuel companies are going to drive us to 6 degrees of temperature change.

The science of climate change necessitates a restructuring of our energy economy, the way we do business, and the role of government in our lives. Which is why the fossil fuel companies spend more than $400,000 per day lobbying congress and untold amounts funding climate change deniers. They are literally fighting for their right to continue on as the most profitable companies in the history of the world.

And, they're winning the fight. The number of Americans that believe that climate change is not occurring is increasing and the Republican Party is firmly entrenched in an anti-science stance. Instead of balking at the threat of regulations governing carbon emissions, Exxon recently spelled out in a report that restrictive climate policies are highly unlikely and "based on this analysis, we are confident that none of our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become stranded." Meaning that the fossil fuel companies plan on burning every ounce of the 2,795 gigatons of stored Co2 that they have sitting in the ground.

The Economics
So, with a carbon budget in mind, how do we keep temperatures below 2 degrees? As climate journalist David Roberts spells out:

Right now, global emissions are rising, faster and faster.  Between 2000 and 2007, they rose at around 3.5 percent a year; by 2009 it was up to 5.6 percent.  In 2010, we hit 5.9 percent growth, a record.  We aren't just going in the wrong direction-- we're accelerating in the wrong direction.  If emissions peak in 2020, then, in order to stay under 2 degrees, they need to drop by 10% every year until we reach a zero carbon economy by 2045.

As you can see in the graph below, the longer we wait, the steeper the necessary emissions drop.

And, in the words of David Roberts again: 

Just to give you a sense of scale: The only thing that’s ever pushed emissions reductions above 1 percent a year is.. “recession or upheaval.” The total collapse of the USSR knocked 5 percent off its emissions. So 10 percent a year is like … well, it’s not like anything in the history of human civilization. This, then, is the brutal logic of climate change: With immediate, concerted action at global scale, we have a slim chance to halt climate change at the extremely dangerous level of 2 degrees C. If we delay even a decade — waiting for better technology or a more amenable political situation or whatever — we will have no chance.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development projects that:

By 2050, the Earth's population is expected to increase from 7 billion to over 9 billion and the world economy is projected to nearly quadruple... A world economy four times larger than today is projected to use 80% more energy in 2050.  Without more effective policies, the share of fossil fuel based energy in the global energy mix will still remain at about 85%.

Pushing us far, far beyond the 2 degree target adopted by every nation on earth.

The Alternatives

So, what happens if we don't make the 2 degrees target? James Hansen, the most prominent climate scientist on the planet (head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for over 20 years) says that 3 degrees could mean: "no return within the lifetime of any generation that can be imagined, and the trip will exterminate a large fraction of species on the planet." How about 4 degrees (which would mean 3.5% reductions from 2020 forward)? According to Kevin Anderson (Great Britian's most prominent climate scientist): 

For humanity it's a matter of life or death... We will not make all human beings extinct as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive. But I think it's extremely unlikely that we wouldn't have mass death at 4C. If you have got a population of nine billion by 2050 and you hit 4C, 5C or 6C, you might have half a billion people surviving.

Yet, as the International Energy Agency predicts, we're currently on track for 6 degrees of temperature change.

The Implications for Kaua'i
At last night's election forum in Kapa'a, not a single one of the eighteen candidates (mayor, state legislature, county council) mentioned climate change (every question was a variation of GMOs, marijuana, traffic, homelessness, and property taxes). Our General Plan makes no mention of climate change. The Garden Island Newspaper repeatedly publishes editorials denying the science of climate change from a known fossil fuel lobbyist.

Yet, on the other hand, our news is full of the current affects of climate change.  From the most active hurricane season in history (including the one barreling down on us right now), to the record breaking water temperatures and coral bleaching, to declining trade winds, to this summer breaking all global historic temperature records.

Significantly (and very under-reported by the media), UH Seagrant, at the request of the Kaua'i County Planning Department, just did the first comprehensive report on the affects of climate change on Kaua'i and recommended specific adaptation strategies.

It addressed increasing ocean acidity (caused from absorbing Co2), increasing prevalence of major storms and hurricanes, increasing levels of erosion on already stressed beaches (71% of Kaua'i beaches are currently eroding), increasing levels of drought (main Hawaiian islands have all seen more severe drought since 1950s), negative impacts on tourism (related to loss of beaches), threats to our water table from sea level rise, threats to agriculture in low-lying areas, and, most importantly, sea level rise.

The report made it clear that climate change exacerbates our current problems. For example, while pesticide run-off and cesspools are a current concern, climate change magnifies them:

Because the Pacific Islands are almost entirely dependent on imported food, fuel, and material, the vulnerability of ports and airports to extreme events, especially typhoons, is of high concern... Increased coastal inundation could bring toxic soils from agricultural or industrial practices into the marine environment. Flooded wastewater systems, including treatment plants, cesspools, and septic tanks, could bring untreated sewage into waterways. In addition, saltwater intrusion into valuable water supplies affects household and agricultural water quality and supply...

While the report gave a range of possible sea level rise scenarios, it landed with this: "based on the best available science, a range of sea-level rise of 1 foot by 2050 and 3 feet by 2100 is a reasonable, and possibly even conservative planning target for Kaua'i and other Hawaiian islands." What does that optimistic 3' feet look like?

Much of Kapa'a town will be under water; our prime agricultural lands in Mana, the Hanalei river valley, and in the Kealia river valley will be threatened; and all low-lying residential areas in Anahola, Hanapepe and Ha'ena will likely have to be abandoned. And this optimistic sea-level rise scenario will occur by the time my child (if I were to have one in the next year) is 85 years old.

The map of Kapa'a below accounts only for high tide levels at 3' and not for increased erosion (100' of erosion for every 1' of sea level rise) or storm surges (check out NOAA's database for a look at the effects of sea level rise for all of Hawai'i).

 

The Seagrant report recommends numerous adaptation measures, such as updating the General Plan to include the effects of sea level rise, taking steps towards community resilience, and using climate change and coastal hazards as a "major driver for land use decisions." They also recommend that the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fund Commission utilize the fund to finance "the acquisition of vulnerable shoreline lands that can protect natural resource areas for public use, including areas that could serve as refugia for species impacted by SLR, or areas that could be appropriate sites for coastal habitat creation or restoration."  

While the report focused heavily on the effects of sea level rise and adaptation to those effects, there was also a very short piece on mitigation (written by Ben Sullivan of the County of Kaua'i). The mitigation section reiterates the importance of moving to renewable energy, highlighted KIUC's success in doing so, and mentions the importance of mode shifting (getting people out of cars) and alternative fuels. Yet, it admits defeat when it comes to tourism and air travel: "The local economy is dependent primarily on tourism, which is in turn wholly dependent on air transportation. Very few solutions to this challenge have surfaced to date."

While Hawai'i ranks relatively high among the US on per capita energy consumption (32nd in the US), when we account for the fact that 20 cents of every dollar spent in Hawai'i comes from the tourist industry (which, in turn, is wholly reliant on air travel) and that 90% of our goods come from overseas we skyrocket to having the largest carbon footprint in the nation.

The Point
As I mentioned in my opening, the issues that I have been writing about for the past year are important to me because of climate change. We need to reduce inequality, strive for community resilience, reduce our usage of fossil fuels, and increase local agriculture and manufacturing because of the imminent threat of climate change. As Naomi Klein writes in her latest book,

if these sorts of demand-side emission reductions are to take place on anything like the scale required, they cannot be left to the lifestyle decisions of earnest urbanites who like going to farmers' markets on Saturday afternoons and wearing up-cycled clothing. We will need comprehensive policies and programs that make low-carbon choices easy and convenient for everyone. Most of all, these policies need to be fair, so that the people already struggling to cover the basics are not being asked to make additional sacrifice to offset the excess consumption of the rich. That means cheap public transit and clean light rail accessible to all; affordable, energy efficient housing along those transit lines; cities planned for high-density living; bike lanes in which riders aren't asked to risk their lives to get to work; land management that discourages sprawl and encourages local, low-energy forms of agriculture; urban design that clusters essential services like schools and health care along transit routes and in pedestrian-friendly areas; programs that require manufacturers to be responsible for the electronic waste they produce, and to radically reduce built-in redundancies and obsolescences.

Most importantly, we need to figure out how to do all of this while we contract the economy. Some drivers of growth can be positive (for example the growth of renewable energy). Tourism, in limited form, can help provide financial incentive to preserve resources that may otherwise be exploited. And biotech can drive our local food industry, by adapting locally developed seed to a rapidly changing climate and by financially supporting mutually beneficial local initiatives towards self-sufficiency (such as a food science department at KCC).

But, how do we take the difficult steps that will become increasingly necessary? How can we wean ourselves off of tourism? How can we achieve 100% clean, renewable energy for Kaua'i? How can we produce all of our own food? How can we manufacture our own goods? How can we ensure that those who can afford it least (our low income families) aren't hardest hit by the effects of climate change? And how do we do all of this before crop failures in the mid west cause food prices to spike, before the waves lap over Kuhio Hwy, and before the complete collapse of our coral reefs?

Complex questions require complex answers; they require visionary leaders who can make hard decisions; they require active engagement in the democratic process; and they require consumer support. There is no environmental bill of rights or one step solution that will get us there. For Kaua'i, the answers lie in billions of decisions from our mayor, to our state representatives, to our county council members to our own personal consumer habits.

And, because Naomi Klein says it best, I'll close with her words:

...the measures we must take to secure a just, equitable, and inspiring transition away from fossil fuels clash directly with our reigning economic orthodoxy at every level. As we will see, such a shift breaks all the ideological rules-- it requires visionary long-term planning, tough regulation of business, higher levels of taxation for the affluent, big public sector expenditure, and in many cases reversals of core privatizations in order to give communities the power to make the changes they desire. In short, it means changing everything about how we think about the economy so that our pollution doesn't change everything about our physical world.