"Is it not madness... to want so much though you can hold so little?"

Louis CK may not be our modern-day Seneca, but his message is just as strong.

The body's needs are few: it wants to be free from cold, to banish hunger and thirst with nourishment; if we long for anything more we are exerting ourselves to serve our vices, not our needs. We do not need to scour every ocean, or to load our bellies with the slaughter of animals, or to pluck shellfish from the unknown shores of the furthest sea. May gods and goddesses destroy those whose luxury passes the bounds of an empire that already awakens envy... What need for importing, or laying waste the woodlands, or ransacking the ocean? All around food lies ready which nature has distributed in every place; but men pass it by as though blind to it, and they scour every country, they cross the seas, and they whet their appetite at great expense when at little cost they could satisfy it. I want to say to them: 'why do you launch your ships? Why do you arm your bands against both beasts and men? Why do you tear around in such a panic? Why do you pile wealth upon wealth? You really must consider how small your bodies are. Is it not madness and the worst form of derangement to want so much though you can hold so little?

-Seneca, 49AD

- Louis CK, 1967

An Earth Day Summary

"When I was eighteen I was in an automobile accident and went through a near-death experience. I was actually taken away from the scene, presumed dead, and it wasn’t until I reached the hospital that the doctors revived my heartbeat and brought me back to life. This is the kind of experience that molds people’s beliefs. But I have found that most of my conclusions have evolved from observing life since that time. If I’ve come to know anything, it’s that these questions are as unknowable for us as they would be for a tree or for an ant."

- George Lucas, The Meaning of Life

Everything that I've written has come from a seed that sprouted while I lay face down in a growing pool of my own coagulating blood in the bottom of a fishing boat. "You're lucky, just one millimeter more..." said the surgeon. With death comes life, or something like that. 

Since it's Earth Day, (or, in 2015 terms #earthday) I woke up this morning feeling compelled to pull some type of tangible lesson from the 145 posts I've written. To try and understand for myself what I've been trying to say, here are some excerpts from the last four years of blogging:

In my first ever attempt at writing about myself, I recorded my initial thoughts regarding the accident and its implications on my psyche. In a feeling that I've long since forgotten, I wrote:

I could literally feel a wave of love connecting me to everyone and everything. Even though I was staring at the bottom of a boat, I felt as if it was the first time that I could really see. I know that we always have that ability, I'd just buried it underneath the rest of my life. But, once everything else crashed down in the face of death, it's all that was left. It's all that I wanted left and I was sad that I'd only just noticed. 

I then read Walden, built a Yurt, started a blog, and went off-grid. The idea, in Thoreau's words, was to "live deep and suck out all the marrow of life."

Periodically I would do my best to deconstruct the experience, my thoughts on sustainability, and my conflicted relationship to progress. Such as when we installed our water pump:

I went to sleep thinking that we'd finally reached the pinnacle of off-grid living and joined the ranks of the civilized. We had every amenity that you could ever hope for in a grid-tied house. But, something was wrong… Our barely dripping faucet used to be a constant reminder that we could live with less; that water pressure was a luxury that we didn't need… That water couldn't be rushed. That it would move with a pressure mathematically pre-determined by the height from the waterline in the catchment tank to our faucet. And there was no bending that.   

But, I did more than bend it. I took our laminar flow and cranked it up 700%. The roar of the shower and the kickback of our faucet are now reminders that, no matter how hard we try, we are not peacefully co-existing members of this Earth. We are hard-wired to lord over the elements and all of nature. 

The scary part is that I could undo all of it with a simple turn of three valves. Cut off flow to the pump and let gravity do its thing. But, there is no going back now. As much as my Thoreauean ideals tell me to turn it off, I can't do it. Something deep inside of me just woke up. And I can admit that I love my screaming pipes.

And then I took a life changing trip to Cambodia. As I wrote about in late 2013:

When we first started on this "path" I had some simple delusions. The goal was self sufficiency, so, in my mind, that meant put up solar panels, drink rain water, and grow food… I had this vision that within a few years I'd just walk into my yard for a bit of grazing when I got hungry. The vision was so strong that, for a moment, I thought I was a farmer…  

I don't think I've ever been more wrong on anything in my life… For the vast majority of human history people grew their own food. With access to the internet and some gas powered tools, how could I fail so miserably?…  

I was beginning to think that self-sufficiency was a pipe dream. Then we went to Cambodia, and my view of food was turned completely upside down. The country is nearly entirely agriculturally self sufficient. And you can see why from the instant you get off the plane.  

Every inch of land is cultivated… But, the biggest single difference is that nothing is wasted and everything edible is eaten. What we see as weeds are eaten. What we see as pests are eaten… I realized that my problem isn't that I'm a terrible gardener (which I am), it's that my relationship to food is skewed. I'm used to looking at food as it comes out of the grocery store: perfect, predictable, and plastic looking… 

Our acre is overflowing with food. Just not the food that I intended. I've been approaching the problem from the wrong end. I will continue to be an abysmal failure if I'm trying to replicate our current food system in my backyard, because it's not possible…

I expanded on this idea and tied it back to Kaua'i in my next post on our complicity in supporting unsustainable ag:

In order to transition to an island of sustainable local agriculture, we all have to be able to turn our back on the luxury of choice that a supermarket provides. In a supermarket there is no scarcity, there are no bumper crops, and there definitely are no seasons. That's not the case if you're growing your own food. You eat what you have and nothing else. And that is the most difficult step to take: to turn away from the culture of convenience that we've inherent from generations of refining the behemoth of industrial agriculture… 

Our problem on Kaua'i is compounded by the fact that land is incredibly expensive. The county encourages (through taxation) developers to purchase ag land, split it up, and sell it as a neighborhood or luxury estates… Unless you're independently wealthy or just insanely committed to growing food, there's no reason to not make a small windfall by subdividing your land. We have done everything we can to disincentives the growing of food while incentivizing development….  

… I believe that the only way that we can make progress in creating a truly sustainable food system for Kaua'i is by acknowledging our own complicity in the complex web of industrial agriculture and pushing our policy makers to incentivize local farming. At the end of the day, farmers need adequate compensation for providing us with food, and we as consumers need to give it to them.

As I was on the topic of complicity and the forces of the marketplace, I couldn't help but attempt to tackle capitalism in a post titled Stop Feeding the Beast. After an oversimplification of the complex market forces that dictate our lives, I wrote:

If capitalism is the beast, then we are fodder. We spend our lives at work so that we can convert our paychecks into manufactured goods. We complete the circle… As long as we keep consuming from unaccountable corporations, the ecocide will continue… the planet will continue to warm. All under the guise of progress.  

But, we do control the inputs. If I cut off water to my garden, the plants will wither. If we "opt-out" of the system, then we stop feeding the beast. We have options. Everytime we make a purchase we are choosing who we are working to support. Do we want to support a company that is legally bound to improving its bottom line for shareholders (any publicly owned corporation)? Or do we want to support a local artisan? Do we want to buy from the low-cost provider of food, or from the family down the road who has been farming the same piece of land for hundreds of years? Consumer choice is the greatest power that we have. By leveraging the power of choice, we can starve the beast and begin to balance out the power of corporations. 

Michel de Montaigne famously wrote: "If others examined themselves attentively, as I do, they would find themselves, as I do, full of inanity and nonsense. Get rid of it I cannot without getting rid of myself.” At this point in my writing I began to understand that my idealism wasn't going to solve anything. Co2 emissions are still rising. The quality of life on Kaua'i is continuing to get worse. Lihu'e is rapidly becoming an extended strip mall. Local agriculture is still declining. I realized that the art of rhetoric is self-centered "inanity and nonsense" if it fails to present viable solutions. I challenged myself to acknowledge my own idealism, to recognize the failures of that idealism, and to use that idealism coupled with its failures to present viable solutions. 

In that vein, I came out heavily in support of smart meters as a tangible solution to our energy crisis. I wrote this: 

…When oil was cheap, the effects of climate change unknown, and distributed PV (i.e. rooftop solar panels) nonexistent, the system worked perfectly. However, none of these are true anymore. We are beginning to the realize the true costs of oil and coal in the form of incessant foreign wars, climate change, pollution, oil spills, deforestation, and mercury poisoning… And, most disruptive to the model is the fact that anyone can install a photovoltaic panel on their house which promises to supply them with free electricity. These factors are quickly necessitating a paradigm shift in our utility model….

… We have a dwindling customer base which will result in either the utility going bankrupt (and not being able to maintain the grid) or the lowest income families being pushed into destitution with higher rates...  

The system is inherently flawed and bound to fail.   

In order to live within our means, we need to incentivize electricity when it's readily available (when the sun is shining) and discourage it when it's not. We have to change the way that we look at the flow of electrons. Instead of a one-way line from utility to us at a set price, we need to democratize or energy so that elections become a commodity which we buy, sell, and trade at a market price based on the current supply and demand. We can very quickly revolutionize our island by becoming fully participatory members of a completely distributed energy system. Our utility can transition from being an energy supplier, to being merely the middleman in a market of electrons. 

But it starts with smart meters…

And so began my first brush with controversy. In advocating for the first tangible solution of my entire blog, I became a "KIUC shill," or, even worse "that guy who doesn't like solar power." I could rant about the big picture evils of capitalism and how our food system is broken, and my readers could nod their head along in agreement. Yet, I opened Pandoras box by delving into the details. 

So, in my next post, I attempted to "distinguish between systemic change and mere patches to the system" and the interrelatedness of our deepest issues: 

...over development is related to a lack of available farm land, which is related to too much pesticides being sprayed, which is related to a dearth of affordable housing, which is related to extreme inequality. None of these issues can be addressed in a vacuum… and none of these issues will be addressed unless we all become active in advocating for sweeping and far reaching change.

Which brought me to one of the two most important posts I've ever written. In arguing for the merits of the horizontal well in Wai'ale'ale, I wrote that: 

Our relationship with nature is not black and white and our decisions can't be made in a vacuum. Humanity is pushing beyond the limits of Earth's support systems and we need to figure out a way to live within our means. That means framing our decisions based on the paradigm of reducing our impact on the planet by working towards sustainability and self sufficiency for our island. That needs to be the goal, and every decision needs to be weighed against that. We can't continue to say "no" (smart meters, Maha'ulepu dairy, HDD well, etc) without looking at the global impact of our current status quo.

And, from there I found my stride. I wrote about my dismay that the county continues to pursue a strategy for growth at all costs, despite increasingly dire warnings from the scientific community: 

We need to come to terms with the fact that unsustainable growth is the root of our problem. And that paradoxically we are making the planetary mistake of trying to solve that problem with even more growth. We need to start listening to the near unanimous advice of every scientific agency on the planet. We even need to heed the advice of the World Bank when they say that "the solutions lie in ensuring that all our work, all our thinking, is designed with the threat of a 4°C world in mind. 

In the vein of understanding our complicity, yet exploring solutions that reduce our impact on the planet, I wrote about the controversy behind the Maha'ulepu dairy in these terms: "We can externalize the environmental and ethical costs of milk production to distant lands, or we can do it at home and mitigate those real costs."

Next, in a post exploring the power of acknowledging our complicity, I clarified what I feel is the true failing of capitalism: 

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…. 

Because I am infatuated with the democratic process and believe in the power of dialogue to change society, I wrote about my hopes for the 2014 Kaua'i mayoral election as either: "an unprecedented opportunity for dialogue and engagement on Kaua'i's deepest issues. Or, we can continue with our current path, driving a deeper rift through the heart of our community because of an insistence on blind rhetoric; leaving us no closer to any solutions for our most pressing issues." 

And, in growing dismay as the conversation on Kaua'i devolved into emotional appeals over science, I wrote:

All science does is explain the world as it is. It has the dual power of muting irrational fears that are overblown, while amplifying rational fears that aren't being taken seriously enough (i.e. climate change). The job of politicians and policymakers is to take the objective findings of science and use them to create a better world. Yet, the constant barrage of emotional appeals at the expense of fact and logic end up shifting the entire political spectrum into fantasy land….

As Bill 2491 exploded, leading genetic modification to overshadow the real threats to local agriculture, I wrote that: 

… by focusing entirely on criticizing genetic modification, we are missing the opportunity to find real solutions to our most pressing agricultural issues. The valid arguments for increasing local food production and minimizing some of the harmful affects of industrial agriculture are overshadowed by heated argument over a breeding technique. We need to address the market failure that allows industrial agriculture to displace local food production.

And, because I often take myself too seriously, I wrote a satirical piece to expose my own hypocrisy in living off-the-grid. 

After feeding my chickens their daily allotment of organic pelletized corn and soy from the midwest, I harvest my breakfast tax of their newly laid unborn chicks. And so that our three humane society cats don't resort to eating our happy chickens, I feed them their "naturally formulated" diet of factory farmed chicken along with 64 other dehydrated ingredients that I can't pronounce.

In a departure from all of my previous writings, I wrote Asphalt Graves as an expression of grief for the steady degradation of Kaua'i. 

When the black dust fences come down, the sudden unveiling effectively erases our memory of the coconut grove that used to stand before. As the sadness and anger fade, we complete the story with our complicity. The next time I need new $3 slippers, I will park my truck on the asphalt graves of "exceptional trees," walk into the cold fluorescence and barely audible music of the polynesian themed CVS Longs Drugs, and retroactively sign the death warrant of 54 coconut trees as I hand the teller my money.

When an anonymous commentator called me out for my lack of vocal activism in regards to my lamentation over the CVS development, I wrote a post clarifying my position and concluded that:

The death warrant of the trees was a web of factors and I was forty-one years too late to testify. As much as I appreciate community activism and engagement, protesting the development or demonizing the land owners isn't a solution. This is a systemic issue with capitalism, planning ordinances, and tax policies at the heart. If we fight the symptoms without addressing the root, then we accomplish nothing except divisiveness.  

So, my solution? On a personal level, to limit my contribution to the endless growth paradigm of capitalism which necessitates development and, more specifically, to understand the system well enough to support political candidates who are dedicated to systemic change.

I jumped at an opportunity to take a tour of Pioneer Seed, and, in the realization that I'd had no idea what they actually did, I wrote a research based post on hybridization that, interestingly, ended up being the second most viewed post on my blog. 

And, finally, I come to the single most important post I've ever written. Climate Change: why I write. If you follow any link on this page, please make it this one. I did my best to summarize the science behind climate change and its possible effects on Kaua'i. 

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… 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… 

In the spirt of climate change, and recognition of the fact that four times more people read my post on corn hybridization than global climate change, I wrote this:

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 zones to start combatting 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. 

In a bout of self reflection, I explained why the focus of my blog had changed from yurt-life to larger environmental and social questions:

… by focusing my writing on consumer choice and portraying a false glorification of our off-grid life, I was contributing to the 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 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 here).

While I continually tell myself to "write for yourself, not for others" I couldn't help but brood over the lack of hits that my previous post on climate change generated. In that mood, I wrote about how we've failed to frame climate change in a manner that creates effective solutions:

The biomess plant on the south side, the Anahola solar farm, Smart Meters, the Ferc Debacle, and the Wai'ale'ale horizontal well are all steps towards 100% renewable energy, yet all were met with organized community resistance. Our contribution to climate change forces us to analyze each of our energy decisions with the frame of: does this put us on the road to 100% clean energy? We don't have the luxury of continually saying no… 

Because I love to digress, I wrote my own story in The Death of Local Manufacturing:

Because our island home is incomparably beautiful, we're losing it. We have made tourism, and the low wage service jobs it 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 crated a market field 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…  

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...

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.  

In December, while sitting at the inauguration of Kaua'i's elected officials I was dismayed at the lack of a coherent vision for the future. I sat there in the audience trying to figure out the simplest way to communicate my disappointment in one sentence, and I doodled into my iPhone: "When fixing potholes becomes our government's main priority, then fixing government must become our main priority." The post that came out of it lamented that:

...when we give the market too much control to dictate our direction, as we are doing on Kaua'i, we lose the ability to foster diverse and viable alternative industries…

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 agriculture 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.

And, as a change of direction I shared something that my wife wrote while in college. Because it breaks the monotony of my own thoughts, and highlights the importance of cultural diversity and the power of language, it is my favorite post.  

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…. 

Yup this is me. A first generation/half Americanized, last generation immigrant of my family's misfortunes…

…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.

After yet another climate change post, this one on the power of reforestation, I was criticized by an anonymous commentator for my own lack of conviction. And, I wrote a post on the moral mud of sustainability as an attempt to critique my own writing:

As I've written about before, the awareness of climate change forced me to adjust my perspective. My contribution to the problem wiped away my moral superiority. I, as everyone who lives in the developed world, am the problem. Living off-grid wasn't a solution and removing myself from society was even worse. As the hypocrisy of moral judgement fell out from beneath me, I was forced to re-evealute my entrenched positions. And my writing evolved from simple yurt building and tree planting to what it is today; a painful wade through the moral swamp land of sustainability. The journey of my thoughts are akin to the American pacifist in World War II who is suddenly aware of the horrors of the Nazi regime and who's entire life philosophy is suddenly thrown into question. The morality of abstaining from war is worse than entering the war, yet both are abhorrent. We don't have the satisfaction of choosing between good and evil, right and wrong: we have a slew of shitty options.

Normally when I write it feels as pointless, stilted, and painful as performing long division. However, I finally had some fun with a post when I wrote the Antidote to Becoming an Internet Asshole (something that I know all about). 

Thankfully the conversation had moved on and the sexually liberated high schoolers were now comparing the amount of Instagram followers they each had. All six of them finally lifted their downturned eyes away from their phones when one of the boys exclaimed with disgust that he just got a follow request from a girl who only has 70 followers of her own. "Ew" one of the other girls said, "you know dat Spenc get 10,000 followers? 'As why he get all da chicks." With her prophetic words hanging in the air, their heads went back down in unison to continue the hard cultivation of their online personas…  

The biggest transition that our island is facing isn't ag, hotels, or residential development-- it's our newfound ability to isolate ourselves into self contained opinion bubbles. Instead of the integration that made Hawai'i a melting pot and humility a way of life, our new digital separation makes empathy and compassion handicaps in the increasing fervor of our verbal warfare and simplified memes.

Recently, since I'm tired of my own opinion, I wrote a few research based posts on energy. The first was on Waste to Energy, where I wrote that:

… and there lies the problem with waste to energy: It incentivizes the creation of waste and disincentives recycling of plastic, cardboard, and composting… The County's Zero Waste Resolution and the current proposal are incompatible simply because following the resolution ensures that there won't be enough waste available to use as feedstock.

And then another one called Fanning the Flames of Waste to Energy about the politics behind the movement for a gasification plant on Kaua'i. And, while I've accepted that there is just a slim chance of the county pursuing the folly of waste to energy, I followed those two posts up with a true threat to a 100% renewable energy future: liquified natural gas. 

Because oil prices are higher here than the rest of the nation, Hawai'i is at the forefront of renewable energy integration. So, our experiences (successes and failures) have a disproportionately large impact on the world. As other utilities reach the same crossroads that we are at, they will look to Hawai'i for answers on how we're dealing with the renewable energy transformation. Which is why the decision on whether or not to double-down on fossil fuels is so important. LNG is the wrong answer for Kaua'i. Future investments, even if they cost more upfront, need to go towards renewable base-line energy sources such as pumped storage and hydro. If we can accept the basic science of climate change, then natural gas is a bridge to nowhere...

As the gold/blue dress took the internet by storm, and since I was on a streak of writing research based posts, I wrote Stop Trusting Your Intution:

Buried beneath the bullshit, the flaming arrows, and the moral mud are some truths. Sometimes they are aligned with our mental reasoning and sometimes they are not. The challenge is to go beyond our intuition to find those truths. And, in so doing, to get to some solutions… 

I am in a camp. I see blue and black. I voted for Obama, and I am pro-vaccine. But, when I see contrary evidence I have to force myself to step out of my mental comfort zone. It's what scientists, by definition, have to do. It's what a good journalist does. And it's what makes for effective leaders. Camps define us as human beings. They allow us to empathize with similar individuals and create cohesive tribes. But, our ability to step out of our individual camps and accept evidence, even when it assaults our subconscious, is what moved us from rain dances to meteorology and human sacrifices to modern medicine.

Finally, because the image of mainland celebrities with "We Are Mauna Kea" painted across their bare chests represented everything that I feel is wrong with mass movements, social media, and cultural genocide, the last post I wrote proclaimed:

No. I am not Mauna Kea. No matter how much I want to, or how many 'olelo Hawai'i classes I've taken, or how much I paddle outrigger canoe, there is a geneogolical divide that can not be bridged with a hashtag. Papa and Wakea are not part of my family's history. I was born on Kaua'i. I love Hawai'i. I know no other home and will never leave. But, I am not Hawaiian. In the dialogue over the Thirty Meter Telescope I have to recognize my own otherness because, as a resident of the State of Hawai'i, I am complicit in the colonization of Hawai'i… pretending that we're all Mauna Kea is just another form of colonial disempowerment. 

On a journey that began under a fishing boat in the Kaiwi channel, what have I learned over the last four years of attempting to live consciously? 

Nothing. 

On this Earth Day, all I can do is acknowledge my ignorance, my hypocrisy, and my complicity in the destruction of our only home. Every post I've written has taken me one step further down that path. To the readers of my blog, thank you for taking this journey with me.

As Albert Einstein said "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.

"We are Mauna Kea"

Am I Mauna Kea?

In the social media war of links, hashtags, and sexy celebrity photos that we're all becoming accustomed to, nuance and neutrality don't exist. We have no choice but to leap off the irreconcilable precipice: on one side there are 237 years of cultural genocide, dispossession, and disenfranchisement and, on the other is the future of astronomy. Am I Mauna Kea? Or do I support science? Do I click "like" on the article that explains why astronomy is sacred to the Hawaiians? Or do I click "like" on the powerful protest videos of hula blocking the summit road? Do I sign the petition to protect Mauna Kea (43,432 signatures), or the petition supporting TMT (666 signatures)? And, then do I show my support by hash-tagging #wearemaunakea (14,903 photos) and #aoleTMT (13,191 photos)?

Does proclaiming "we are Mauna Kea" on Facebook allow me to jump the barrier of my genealogical divide? Or, does announcing my support for the Thirty Meter Telescope prove that I am the oppressor described by Haunani Kay-Trask in Lovely Hula Hands?

Hawai'i itself is the female object of degraded and victimized sexual value. Our 'aina, or lands, are not any longer the source of food and shelter, but the source of money. Land is now called real estate; rather than our mother, Papa. The American relationship to land is that of exploiter to exploited. Beautiful areas, once sacred to my people, are now expensive resorts... The point, of course, is that everything in Hawai'i can be yours, that is, you the tourist, the non-native, the visitor. The place, the people, the culture, even our identity as a 'Native' people is for sale. Thus Hawai'i, like a lovely woman, is there for the taking... The State and counties will give tax breaks, build infrastructure, and have the governor personally welcome tourists to ensure they keep coming. Just as the pimp regulates prices and guards the commodity of the prostitute, so the State bargains with developers for access to Hawaiian land and culture... 

Hawaiians, meanwhile, have little choice in all this. We can fill up the unemployment lines, enter the military, work in the tourist industry, or leave Hawai'i.

No. I am not Mauna Kea. No matter how much I want to, or how many 'olelo Hawai'i classes I've taken, or how much I paddle outrigger canoe, there is a genealogical divide that can not be bridged with a hashtag. Papa and Wakea are not part of my family's history. I was born on Kaua'i. I love Hawai'i. I know no other home and will never leave. But, I am not Hawaiian. In the dialogue over the Thirty Meter Telescope, I have to recognize my own otherness because, as a resident of the State of Hawai'i, I am complicit in the colonization of Hawai'i.

While the Mauna Kea protests are about UH's failures as a steward of the mountain, state laws regarding conservation land, the overdevelopment of a unique and abused ecosystem, and the State's continuous steamrolling of Native Hawaiian rights and concerns-- the real issue is colonization. And, as conflicted and sympathetic as I am-- living in Hawai'i makes me a colonizer. As Trask wrote in 1993: "When awareness begins, then so too does de-colonization. Judging by the growing resistance to geothermal energy.. and to increases in the sheer number of tourists, I would say that de-colonization has begun..."

It's not about the TMT. It's about Native Hawaiians standing together and proclaiming their rights as indigenous peoples. As a non-Hawaiian, more important than saying "we are Mauna Kea" is to say "I am not Mauna Kea." The decision on whether or not to build the TMT should rest with Hawaiians. And, pretending that we're all Mauna Kea is just another form of colonial disempowerment.  

Fanning the Flames of Waste to Energy

Momentum for waste to energy is still building. Our chronic fixation on simple fixes (burn trash) for complex problems (limited landfill space on a small island) is driving our state and county leaders to support an unproven technology that is oppositional to the County of Kaua'i's Zero Waste Resolution. In my last blog post I explored the technology and ramifications of waste to energy but I brushed over the politics. Which is the key to understanding why plasma gasification is being warped from experimental technology to touted solution for our landfill crisis.

A few days ago an anonymous comment was left on my waste-to-energy blog with a link to a Hawai'i Free Press article with this opening:

If approved, Hawaii taxpayers could find themselves providing $44M in loan guarantees to an Indian company's jet fuel deal in England. HB1515 and SB1047 would provide up to $44M in Special Purpose Revenue Bonds for Pelatron Q, LLC. According to the text of the bill, 'Pelatron Q, LLC's power plants will use a patented gasification and vitrification process which will be used to convert waste to jet fuel in London, to convert waste to energy in Hawaii.'

According to the state, "Special purpose revenue bonds (SPRBs) are a type of municipal revenue bond authorized by Hawai'i's legislature that can be issued by the State to provide loan financing to assist qualifying private capital improvement projects (for example, certain hospital or school construction) in the public interest." While funding for SPRBs comes from private investors (and not taxpayer funds), they must be for projects which are "in the public interest." How is a technology that has never been commercialized, that will derail current diversion efforts, and that has failed repeatedly at the municipal level in the public interest? It's politics.

Hawai'i Free Press (HFP) elaborates in another article that the Pelatron Center for Economic Development (PCED) is chaired by OHA Chair Robert Lindsey with Hawai'i Senator Brickwood Galuteria also on the payroll. According to HFP the "PCED is a non-profit corporation wrapped around a for profit subsidiary, Pelatron, inc." In their view, that makes Senator Galuteria an unregistered lobbyist for Pelatron. Which partially explains the state's support for waste to energy. But, what about the county?

Joan Conrow recently published a blog showing air travel expenses for the mayor and council members. The County of Kaua'i paid for Mayor Carvalho and Councilmember Kagawa to fly to London. In the words of Councilmember Kagawa (as quoted by Conrow):

I went on the trip with Mayor Carvalho to meet with representatives from British Airways and Pelatron to meet and discuss a proposal to solve our landfill problem regarding MRF and waste to energy. British Airways will be producing jet fuel from the waste in London, which currently sends their waste to Switzerland. Jet fuel is very similar to diesel, is my understanding. It is a very new technology that uses plasma arc to a higher level with practically no emissions and a much smaller end product called slag, unlike the large amount of emissions and ash that is the result of older technology like H-power.

They also have newer science that cleans the gasses to a higher level that produces more energy than current waste to energy plants produce. We have approximately 6.5 years left at Kekaha landfill. This project proposes to extend the life of Kekaha another 30 plus years…

From his quote it's not clear why they flew to London when the waste to energy facility doesn't yet exist and when Pelatron is based out of O'ahu. How does it benefit Kaua'i for our leaders to meet with British Airways when construction hasn't even begun on their proposed plant? While Councilmember Kagawa referenced biomass to liquid (BTL) in his quote above ("jet fuel is very similar to diesel"), from all of the available Pelatron Q literature, it seems clear that BTL (producing diesel fuel from waste) is not the technology that Pelatron Q is pursuing for Kaua'i.

Though special interest groups and well connected politicians are an integral part of understanding state support for waste to energy, I do not think that county support falls along the same dubious motives. While I can understand the political attraction of a quick technological fix to our landfill crisis, it's important that we differentiate between good politics and good policy. Flying to London seems way beyond due diligence for an unproven technology that is oppositional to our Zero Waste Resolution.

Mina Morita (previous chair of the PUC) also recently expressed hesitation towards the proposal. She assessed Pelatron Q's proposal based on the US Department of Energy's Technology Readiness Assessment Guide and came to this conclusion:

...where level 1 reflects basic technology research and level 9 indicates the actual system operated over the full range of expected conditions. In reviewing the Pelatron Q website and its link to to Solena Q website, there is no indication that there are any Solena Plasma Gasification and Vitrification (SPGV) technology projects in commercial operation… with the limited information available on-line, it appears SPGV may not have progressed beyond a Level 5 at most. Key decision makers must be prepared to address and assess risks of early adoption of new technologies and seek unbiased review of these technologies to better understand what side of a hype curve a technology falls. 

So, with all of that, this is is a summary of what I know:

• While Solena (Pelatron Q's partner) has signed letters of intent with at least 11 waste to energy partners (municipalities and airlines), none have gotten off the ground. While many have tried, there are currently no plasma gasification plants in the US and the technology has never been done commercially with the scale and efficiencies claimed by Pelatron Q.

• Waste to energy at the scale proposed by Pelatron Q for Kaua'i is clearly oppositional to our island's Zero Waste Resolution. 

• The Solena Q facility in London was first announced in 2010 and was supposed to be operational by 2015. Yet, construction has not yet begun. All proposed plasma gasification plants in the US have been plagued by delays until they were ultimately cancelled. If there are any currently under development, I am not aware of them.   

• The county of Kaua'i flew Councilmember Kagawa and Mayor Carvalho to London to "meet with representatives from British Airways and Pelatron." Despite the fact that Pelatron is based out of O'ahu and the British biomass to liquid (BTL) facility doesn't yet exist. 

• Pelatron Q's Kaua'i proposal opens with this line: "Pelatron Q is prepared to arrange a capital investment of $43.5M to design and construct a clean plasma gasification system on the Kekaha landfill." 

• Sequentially, the state legislature is poised to approve "special purpose revenue bonds in a total amount not to exceed $44,000,000… for the purpose of assisting Pelatron, Q, LLC.."

• The chair of OHA and a state senator are part of a non-profit closely affiliated with Pelatron. 

Regardless of the motives for waste to energy, momentum is building behind closed doors. If we act as test subjects for Pelatron Q and the technology works then our county's Zero Waste Resolution should be the first thing that they incinerate as we're committing our island to producing a level of waste that is incompatible with wide scale diversion. The more likely scenario is that Kaua'i ends up like every other municipality that has tried plasma gasification: we waste a decade and countless financial resources in pursuit of a technology that doesn't yet exist. All while our landfill continues to grow and actual solutions (like a Materials Recovery Facility used in conjunction with Pay as you Throw under the guide of the Zero Waste Resolution) get pushed aside. In pursuing waste to energy, we are heading down a dangerous path with no positive outcomes for Kaua'i.

Liquefied Natural Gas: Bridge or Barrier to Renewable Energy?

The Environmental Defense Fund calls it a bridge fuel in the transition to renewables. The American Gas Association says that it's driving our country's economic recovery. Civil Beat has been covering it extensively and even NPR and Time Magazine have jumped on the media bandwagon. While a lot remains to be answered, one thing is clear: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is coming to O'ahu. And with proponents saying it's cheap and clean, KIUC is currently doing its due diligence in looking at whether it is economically feasible for Kaua'i:

According to a 2012 report commissioned by the Hawai'i Natural Energy Institute, bulk LNG yields fuel savings of 40-50% compared to oil on Oahu, and 22-44% on the neighbor islands. LNG also has a lower carbon footprint on a smokestack basis, with roughly half as much Co2 emissions as coal and 25% that of oil… Besides potentially delivering substantial cost savings to the State, LNG is clean and flexible. It complements the growing share of intermittent renewable energy since gas turbines can be quickly ramped up and down.

Like all things too good to be true, there has been a lot of contention over the high infrastructure costs, the price and sourcing issues, and the environmental effects of fracking and emissions from LNG. Part of the problem, acknowledged by the media, the university researchers, and the utilities is that so much is undecided. It's not clear where the LNG will come from (Jones Act makes it difficult to find domestic sources), how it's going to get here, or what the actual emissions are (its extraction process is notorious for leaking unknowable amounts of methane). Because the figures are so debateable and have been covered so extensively in the media, for the purpose of this blog I'll take the State and industry's word* that it's cheap and clean.**

So, let's step away from that contentious debate and look instead at our energy objectives. Is there an economic or moral imperative to reduce our dependence on overseas fossil fuels? Is it our responsibility to minimize our contribution to climate change? Are we looking at what's best for the next generation? If those answers are "yes," then is LNG good for the future of Kaua'i? 

The answer lies in amortized power plants and the economics of climate change. With that buried, wonky, and off-putting lede, I urge you to bear with me. Because what follows is vitally important for the long-term future of Kaua'i.

When a power plant gets built it's amortized over its life span and the customers (us) pay for that power plant with every unit of electricity that we consume. When we pay an electric bill, we're paying for not only the direct cost of fuel, but also all of KIUC's overhead. The extremely high cost of retrofitting for LNG (gasification plants, holding tanks, pipelines, new generators, etc) means that the per unit cost of that electricity is somewhere around 80% amortized overhead and 20% direct fuel cost. Because the infrastructure already exists for oil derivatives, the cost structure is reversed: 20% for infrastructure overhead (including amortized debt) and 80% for direct fuel cost. LNG is so cheap, that even with the extremely high cost for new infrastructure the total cost (overhead + fuel cost) still works out cheaper than oil and on par with renewable energy. Sounds good, so what's the problem?

You might remember from my post on climate change that if we want to keep climate change on the "safe" range of 2 degrees celsius, then we have a planetary budget of 565 gigatons of Co2, yet if the current reserves held by the major fossil fuel companies are burned, we will release 2,795 gigatons of carbon. What does that mean? That, at some point, we need to say "no" to new fossil fuel infrastructure. According to the best available climate models, that means that emissions need to peak in 2020 and decline by 10% per year until 2045. The longer we wait, the faster emissions have to fall. And, as you will see, retrofitting our island for the costly infrastructure of LNG will ensure that we will fail to make the timely transition to renewables.

The life-span for LNG generators are 35 years. Their high infrastructure cost gets amortized over the entire 35 years, regardless of whether we're using it. Remember, carbon emissions should start declining by 10% per year in 2020 and we need to reach full decarbonization by 2045. Yet, we will be paying for the LNG infrastructure well past 2050. Assuming that LNG stays cheap, it ensures that renewable energy won't compete because every unit of renewable energy will be bundled with the debt burden of the natural gas infrastructure. Because that is the crux of this entire piece let me say that again in different words: as we displace 10% of our fossil fuel infrastructure per year after 2020, the overhead for that infrastructure will fall on the new renewable energy products.

As a quick aside, let me clarify that the big problem with renewable energy is its inconsistency, so one unit of solar power is not the equivalent of one unit of fossil fuel generated base line power because clouds and nighttime stop the flow of electrons. So, when I put "renewable energy" in direct comparison with LNG I am talking specifically about hydroelectricity (including pumped storage) and biomass, which can provide power 24/7. If you're not thoroughly confused yet, then back to the argument. 

Even if additional renewable energy is cheaper per kilowatt than LNG (when amortized over its lifespan), if it results in decommissioning our LNG infrastructure (as we start converting 10% per year in 2020) the renewable energy source will have somewhere around 80% tacked onto the price from the LNG infrastructure debt. And, because this is so important, let me give an example:

Imagine that you buy a car for $35,000 and plan to pay it off over 35 years with a 0% interest rate (your friend must be the bank manager). The only catch with this fantastic deal is that you can't ever sell the car. So, you're paying $1,000 per year for the car and every year, without fail, you drive 1,250 miles. Which works out to an overhead of $.80 per mile driven. Let's assume that Costco gas averages $3.50 per gallon over the next 35 years and your car gets 17.5 MPG--  so your fuel costs are $.20 per mile and total cost per mile cost = $1, which works out to $1,250 per year. Still with me? In ten years a solar powered car comes out. This car costs nothing to drive, but it's $43,500. Your friend at the bank again offers you 0% interest over 35 years, which works out to an annual payment of $1,243. So, you do the quick math and the new car will cost you a total of $.99 per mile driven-- one cent cheaper than your gas guzzler.

Cheaper and better for the environment, it's a no brainer, right? Except, remember the devil's bargain? You can't sell the original gas guzzler-- even if it sits idle in your garage you still have to pay it off. So, even though you would be paying nothing for fuel, the new solar powered car would cost you $1.79 per mile because you're sitting on the overhead for both cars. No matter how attractive renewable energy looks or how much you want to preserve a habitable planet for future generations, the outrageous overhead of owning both cars ensures that you stick with the gas guzzler. From an economic perspective, the solar powered car can only displace the fossil fuel car if it's less than 1/4 the price ($8,750 for the solar powered car-- or $.20 per mile driven). Whereas, if you avoid investing in the fossil fuel car to begin with, renewable energy can compete on even terms.

Replace the gas guzzler with LNG and the solar powered car with renewables and you get the point. If we adopt LNG, then conversion to renewable energy becomes economically untenable and we're stuck burning fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. As the most fossil fuel dependent state in the country, it would inextricably link us to unstable world markets and increase our contribution to climate change. The renewable industry, which has provided such an economic boom (and helped bring down electricity prices) to Kaua'i would stagnate as soon as it began to infringe on our LNG infrastructure. With high overhead and low fuel costs, homeowners with excess PV generation (in other words, lots of solar panels) will likely see their per KWH credit rates decrease (as the credit is based off the avoided cost of fuel). Decarbonization by 2045 would become virtually impossible. 

But, since I'm just a blogger, please don't take my word for it. A report in the journal Climate Change reiterates the basic idea that a natural gas "bridge" to a stable climate would be very short:

Many have recently speculated that natural gas might become a "bridge fuel", smoothing a transition of the global energy system from fossil fuels to zero carbon energy by temporarily offsetting the decline in coal use… Yet global climate stabilization scenarios where natural gas provides a substantial bridge are generally absent from the literature, making study of gas as a bridge fuel difficult. Here we construct a family of such scenarios and study some of their properties. In the context of the most ambitious stabilizations objectives (450 ppm Co2), and absent carbon capture and sequestration, a natural gas bridge is of limited direct emissions-reducing value, since the bridge must be short…***

And, a recent report on pathways to deep decarbonization in the United States highlights the danger of short-term thinking:

…to achieve emissions goals and avoid the costs of early retirement, it is critical to account for economic and operating lifetimes in investment decisions… For some important kinds of long-lived infrastructure-- for instance, power plants-- there is likely only one opportunity for replacement in this time period. Adding new high carbon generation creates infrastructure inertia that either makes the 2050 target more difficult to reach, requires expensive retrofits, or puts investments at risk.

And, more directly related to Hawai'i, a report by the Economic Research Organization at the University of Hawai'i (UHERO) clearly states that:

...we estimate that importing LNG can reduce the amount of renewable energy adopted within the market. Particularly when natural gas prices are low, it crowds out solar PV… This suggests that LNG is unlikely to serve as a 'bridge fuel' unless policies protecting renewable energy adoption are enacted and/or enforced. 

David Roberts of Grist.com sums it up perfectly:

There's an argument to be made that a temporary shift to natural gas would positively affect the political prospects for clean energy; there's an argument to be made that it would offer an economic boost; there's an argument to be made that it would reduce non Co2 pollutants like soot and mercury… But there is no credible argument that a temporary switch to natural gas is a direct means to reach a safe level of carbon in the atmosphere. It is not. It's a hedge-the-bets strategy, a way to soften the coming blows. If we're serious about the welfare of future generations, we won't keep casting about for bridges. We'll screw up our courage and make the leap.  

Because oil prices are higher here than the rest of the nation, Hawai'i is at the forefront of renewable energy integration. So, our experiences (successes and failures) have a disproportionately large impact on the world. As other utilities across the world reach the same crossroads that we are at, they will look to Hawai'i for answers on how we are dealing with the renewable energy transformation. Which is why the decision on whether or not to double-down on fossil fuels is so important. LNG is the wrong answer for Kaua'i. Future investments, even if they cost more upfront, need to go towards renewable base-line energy sources such as pumped storage and hydro. If we can accept the basic science of climate change, then natural gas is a bridge to nowhere. But, as I've written before, we don't have the luxury of just saying no without viable alternatives. What are our options for decarbonization by 2045? Can renewable integration increase while prices continue to decrease? Both are questions for next time.


* While it worked for the purpose of this blog, blindly listening to industry funded university reports is generally a very bad idea. For a relevant example, please read this article on how the "University of Oklahoma and its oil industry funders were putting pressure on OGS scientists to downplay the connection between earthquakes and the injection of fracking wastewater underground." Remember, fracking is the source of a lot of US natural gas. 

** On a similar note, it's important to highlight the mis-direction of the HNEI info cited at the top: "LNG also has a lower carbon footprint on a smokestack basis, with roughly half as much Co2 emissions as coal and 25% that of oil." In UHERO's official report (cited just above), they clarify that "if considering only out-of-stack emissions (as required by the State of Hawaii's GHG emission reduction rules for the electric sector), then introducing natural gas lowers electric sector emissions in all cases. The State's law requiring emissions reduction (Act 234), however urges the minimization of 'leakage' or the export of emissions from Hawaii elsewhere…" And, when you look at total life-time emissions (from extraction to burning) natural gas has as much as twice the emissions of oil, (though, that is also debatable depending on the emissions time scale, as methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere). This all goes to show that attempting to directly quantify emissions between LNG and oil is extremely difficult and the information is very easily misconstrued. However, UHERO ultimately concludes that "we find that introducing natural gas increases overall GHG emissions."

*** 450ppm is increasingly thought of as too high of a target to avoid the worst effects of climate change. 

Stop Trusting Your Intuition

If you haven't looked at this dress yet, then you've either just come out of a cryogenic freeze or somehow you've managed to avoid the rest of the internet on your online journey to my blog (in either extremely unlikely event, read this before going any further). We each look at the same picture and because of some evolutionary differences in the way that we perceive colors 68% of people see white and gold and 32% see blue and black. So, since we live in a democracy does that make the dress white and gold? No. Even though most people's intuition is screaming that it's white and gold, the dress is in fact black and blue. The color we see is just our brain's interpretation of the visual evidence, and facts (such as the actual color of the dress) don't change what we see.*

Our upbringing, experiences, and mental wiring all contribute to our experienced reality as our brains continually sort through an overwhelming amount of data. The different ways we interpret information lead to our individual biases (liberal/conservative, pro-GMO/anti-GMO, blue dress/white dress, etc.), and the online media and social bubbles we surround ourselves with just reaffirm those biases. When trying to bridge that widening chasm we cite facts and then shout at each other in frustration, condescension, and self-righteous indignation. As I wrote about a few weeks ago, we become internet assholes. And, after all of that, some people still see blue and black and some people see white and gold.

But, just as the dress is in fact blue and black, there are core truths out there. As this National Geographic article clearly articulates, it's counter intuitive to believe that the earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around), that humans evolved from sea creatures, and that carbon dioxide (which we all exhale) is changing our climate. We are notoriously bad at accepting what the truth is rather than what we want it to be. Which is why Galileo spent the last nine years of his life under house arrest, four in ten Americans continue to believe humans were created by God 10,000 years ago, and we continue to catastrophically alter our climate. 

Science can give us truths (or get us near to them), but we're still often left with shitty answers. Knowing that the only solution to climate change is a drastic reduction in carbon emissions doesn't get us any closer to reducing emissions. Only government can do that. 

And, with those five words I have successfully alienated half of my potential readers. The expansion of governmental authority necessitated by the climate crisis sets off alarm bells in the neural pathways of all conservatives. The same alarm bells that inevitably go off in 62% of the population when I say that the dress is blue and black. 

"Trust your intuition," is the response I most commonly hear when arguing the merits of genetic modification. And, yes, my intuition sets off a quiet alarm bell every time I consciously take a bite of food that I know has been genetically modified. And, for years I opposed the technology and the seed companies who perpetuate it. If your intuition also tells you that genetic modification is an assault on nature, then we're seeing the same color dress.** But, because I trust the scientific method and I understand the incredible benefits of biotech, I now go beyond my intuition to support genetic engineering. With no physical evidence to support the notion, I also believe scientists when they tell me that the earth revolves around the sun.  

In our new age of extreme tribalism, we discredit sources who we disagree with. Because I've shown my hand as a liberal by saying "only government can do that" and because I'm a committed evangelist for genetic engineering-- I have alienated myself from the large majority of people. About half the country is conservative and 80% of remaining liberals are "concerned" about genetic engineering. That doesn't leave very many people in my lonely camp. If you still regularly read my blog (or if you've gotten this far) chances are that you agree with me (somewhere around 10% of the population is in this camp). Those who disagree are back at Foxnews.com or Naturalnews.com. 

The internet makes it too easy to isolate ourselves in like minded groups and enables us to search out a limitless amount of literature and news sources that agree with us. As we drift further apart the other side looks increasingly illogical and immoral. I've repeatedly been called an industry shill for my defense of both Kaua'i Island Utility Co-op and the seed companies. Employees of the seed companies have been called baby killers. Vehement pro-GMO activists have called for the "absolute destruction of the anti-Science movement" and a testifier at a recent Kaua'i County Council meeting said that government consists of a "bunch of scum sucking parasites." If we don't understand the other side, it's easy to subscribe simplified notions to their motivations. Mayor Carvalho must be in the pocket of the seed companies and Councilmen Gary Hooser is just a self-serving politician.*** Our biases and intuitions lead us into opposing camps, those camps spit out simplified reasoning for why the other side is wrong, and it reinforces itself until we are so polarized that we can't even have a dialogue. 

But, once again, the dress really is blue and black. Buried beneath the bullshit, the flaming arrows, and the moral mud are some truths. Sometimes they are aligned with our mental reasoning and sometimes they are not. The challenge is to go beyond our intuition to find those truths. And, in so doing, to get to some solutions. 

As Larry Tool wrote in a recent Civil Beat article: "No matter how right we think we are, we need to remember that we may still be mistaken. More important yet, even if our opponent is wrong, we still need to defend his or her right to participate on equal terms. Once we forget that, we are on the way to losing the free society which makes activism possible."

I am in a camp. I see blue and black, I voted for Obama, and I am pro-vaccine. But, when I see contrary evidence (as in the case of GMOs) I have to force myself to step out of my mental comfort zone. It's what scientists, by definition, have to do. It's what a good journalist does. And it's what makes for effective leaders. Camps define us as human beings. They allow us to empathize with similar individuals and create cohesive tribes. But, our ability to step out of our individual camps and accept evidence, even when it assaults our subconscious, is what moved us from rain dances to meteorology and human sacrifices to modern medicine.  

While it may be as futile as putting on a seatbelt while at a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, and this was a much longer introduction than I had intended, I hope to start systematically digging deeper into each of the monstrous issues we face as an island. What fundamental truths are at the base of our deepest problems, and how can those truths illuminate a path forward?**** Most importantly, how can we change the status-quo? 

Because my mind is still swirling around waste to energy, I'm going to start with energy. What are the options and can we realistically move to 100% renewable energy? I don't have much free time, so, like always, my posts will be sporadic and far between. If you're looking for moral outrage or good vs evil justifications, you won't find it here. For the small camp of readers that are still with me, thank you for reading. As much as I hope to challenge you in my writing, I encourage you to challenge me in the comments.    

* For the record, I see blue and black. But, for about 30 seconds it switched clearly to white and gold and then back again. I understand both perceptions, but I also know there is only one right answer.

** That was meant figuratively, not literally. 

*** Obviously I disagree with both of those simplified moral judgements. But, interestingly, in trying to find the term of speech for moral judgements like that, I stumbled into the Galileo Gambit: just because someone is persecuted for their belief doesn't make their belief any more true. It's tangentially relevant and worth the quick wikipedia read.   

**** Just for clarification, I am not an investigative journalist or a science reporter. Luckily, we have both on Kaua'i (check out Joan Conrow at Kaua'i Eclectic and Jan Tenbruggencate at Raising Islands). I'm just someone who likes to research and is committed to spending a few hours a week regurgitating information that is readily available online.