During my workshop at Liberate Earth Day events at the Info-shop, there was one last example that I wanted to talk about, but Klee moved my notes, then quickly lost them. Here is the ad.

I really geeked out with my dictionary and etymology dictionary trying to figure out how a bus can be “ecological.” Lets take a look.

Ecological is defined as “of or relating to the science of ecology.”

okay, so ecology is defined as “the branch of biology dealing with the relations and interactions between organisms and their environment, including other organisms.”

Hmmm, the “relations and interactions between organisms and their environment.” Can a fuel efficiant bus help us understand these relations and interactions? No, it’s rediculous. In fact, if we go back to the original meaning, ecology doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with science.

If we look at the etymology of “ecology,” we discover that although it was coined in 1873, by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel as “Okologie,” it originally came from the Greek word “oikos” which means “house, dwelling place, habitation” + -logia, which is “the study of.”

So stripped down, ecology really means understanding where you live. And a bus, by definition, accomplishes the opposite. It takes us from point A to point B in a contained vehicle on top of asphalt, disallowing us to experience the world outside as we travel. If a bus did travel on this grass, it would tear it up within seconds.

In my talk, I discussed “sustainability,” “eco-friendly,” and “green.” None of these words have standard industry definitions. It is more important than ever to develop what I like to call, your “green” bullshit detector.

If anyone comes across “green” ads like this, please send them to me. I’m starting a collection.

I will be giving a presentation and facilitating a discussion on “green” consumerism as part of Liberate Earth Day events at the Taala Hogan Infoshop in Flagstaff tonight.

Check out the flier here

This was one of the first books I ever learned to read, and I was obsessed with it. Learning to read was no easy task for me, but I remember feeling intimately acquainted with the main character, Max, who was sort of a shy, dreamy kid that didn’t care for school much and had a hard time making friends. Max, like me, spent a lot of time in his head, living a in a world where he didn’t have to meet other people’s expectations, he didn’t have to conform to roles that made him uncomfortable, and where he ruled as king.

The book starts out with his mother sending him to bed without supper, calling him “a wild thing.” Then he created a world where his “wild” side was not only accepted by the other “wild things,” but it was nurtured. I think there is a beautiful message in that for children. Life would be pretty boring if we didn’t let out the wild in us every now and then.

All this said, watching this trailer brought tears to my eyes. Spike Jonze has been working with Dave Eggers (author of the fantastic book, Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius) for the last 4 years making this film. Alas, we still have to wait until October.

Like many people, I’ve been trying to get a hold of this Somali piracy issue. When this first got media attention, a few months ago, Somali pirates intercepted a Saudi tanker full of oil and demanded money. While much of what I read portrayed them as senseless money grubbing militants, some fell back on a more “Robin Hood” scenario. There is a really good BBC article that attempts to explain piracy as a symptom of a bigger problem.

One aspect of many that has just come to light that could be driving the piracy is the issue of toxic waste.

Somali pirates have accused European firms of dumping toxic waste off the Somali coast and are demanding an $8m ransom for the return of a Ukranian ship they captured, saying the money will go towards cleaning up the waste.

The ransom demand is a means of “reacting to the toxic waste that has been continually dumped on the shores of our country for nearly 20 years”, Januna Ali Jama, a spokesman for the pirates, based in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland, said.

“The Somali coastline has been destroyed, and we believe this money is nothing compared to the devastation that we have seen on the seas.”

Allegations of the dumping of toxic waste, as well as illegal fishing, have circulated since the early 1990s.
But evidence of such practices literally appeared on the beaches of northern Somalia when the tsunami of 2004 hit the country.

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) reported the tsunami had washed up rusting containers of toxic waste on the shores of Puntland.

Nick Nuttall, a UNEP spokesman, told Al Jazeera that when the barrels were smashed open by the force of the waves, the containers exposed a “frightening activity” that has been going on for more than decade.

“Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there,” he said.

“European companies found it to be very cheap to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a tonne, where waste disposal costs in Europe are something like $1000 a tonne.

“And the waste is many different kinds. There is uranium radioactive waste. There is lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes – you name it.”

I read a response from a freelance journalist who writes about African issues from a western point of view. In response to all this, he says, “Somalia is largely run by thugs and gangsters out to make a fast buck and that any claims to be striking a blow for Somalia sovereignty are largely bogus.”

It’s hard to tell who or what to believe, but we do know that successful pirate raids can yeild up to $10,000 or more each and evidence of this kind of financial gain is not evident in any of the photos of pirate towns I’ve seen. Evidence of toxic waste on Somali beaches, on the other hand, is very clear. Maybe these “thugs and gangsters” are giving the money away to fund the ongoing civil war, but I don’t see how that would be in their best interest. Because these towns are on the beach, among the toxic waste, I can however see how it would be in their interest to try to clean it up and try to hold the dumpers accountable.

Maybe I’m just being naive here, but when people risk their lives, they usually do so with good reason. And to brush it all off as the work of militants, thugs, and gangsters is to deny the complexity of the issue.

BBC said, “as long as a state with grinding poverty, hunger, no law enforcement and no effective government sits beside a rich trading route piracy will continue.”

Piracy is illegal, it is dangerous, and their actions have indeed hurt people, but it is clearly a desperate response to a desperate situation. And it won’t stop unless these underlying issues are addressed first.

The public lands bill that was defeated early last month was reworked and signed yesterday.

This afternoon President Barack Obama signed the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, one of the most sweeping pieces of conservation and public land management legislation in decades.

The measure protects two million acres of wilderness in nine states and a thousand miles of rivers, a 50 percent increase in the wild and scenic river system. It establishes new national trails, national parks and a new national monument and provides legal status for the National Landscape Conservation System, which will protect some of the country’s most spectacular landscapes.

This is fantastic news, but Obama’s “environmentalism” makes me a little uncomfortable. He said:

“As Americans, we possess few blessings greater than the vast and varied landscapes that stretch the breadth of our continent,” said President Obama.

Which is cool, but read on.

“Our lands have always provided great bounty – food and shelter for the first Americans, for settlers and pioneers; the raw materials that grew our industry; the energy that powers our economy.”

Ugh. Obama is great at using vaguely agreeable terminology. To me, it seems to confirm that age old theory that wilderness is protected, not for the sake of wilderness, but to secure future development of natural resources. It’s like buying a big meal, taking a bit, and saying, “wrap it up for me, I’ll finish’er off when I’m a little more hungry.”

There is nothing wrong with using a resource – by definition, a resource exists so you can use it. That’s problematic of course, because that is our word for the trees, animals, rocks, and others who do not see themselves as resources. Still, even if we are to think of a resource as something that exists for our use, like all resources, they must be preserved so that others can also use them. They must be used wisely and sparingly if we expect future generations to be able to live here too.

Then Obama quoted President Teddy Roosevelt, who nearly 100 years ago said, “I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”

Right on. That’s a great quote, but the truth is, resources have been wasted. They continue to be wasted, and we steal them from other countries now too. The quote is a 100 years old. We are the future generation he is speaking of and we are pissed. We are pissed that previous generations made rivers and streams unsuitable for drinking. We are pissed about the radiation, the cancers, and the chemicals. We are pissed about the clearcuts and the death of the oceans. We’re still building coal plants and pulling uranium out of the ground. We’ve banned some toxins and created some new ones. And they still want to talk about “generations that come after us?” They’ll be horrified, you can bet on that. If we really care about future generations, we need to create a world that will support their lives. And this one won’t.