EconomicsUSA: Environment: Mega-Corps will work to re-balance world's ecology, says geographer

New York Times (Dec5,2k9) Op-Ed reported by Olga Orda (Dec17,2k9) for the ecology website Green Options. Dr Jared Diamond, professor of geography and physiology at the University of California at Los Angeles, is the author of Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (1997) (which I've read and deeply appreciate) and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive (2005):

[Diamond's] article struck me as unusual -- both with its street smarts and nuanced analysis -- for two reasons.

One, the author ... [has] a real ear to the street and clearly, the boardroom, [and, of course, he is now a target whom] stoic environmental advocates immediately write off as nothing but “greenwash”. [Err, "greenwasher," shoud I re-write? -- rW]

I am talking about household names like Coca-Cola, Chevron and Wal-Mart that the author says [is a corporation] “many critics of business love to hate, in my opinion, unjustly.”

In the case of Chevron: “Not even in any national park have I seen such rigorous environmental protection as I encountered in five visits to new Chevron-managed oil fields in Papua New Guinea [on the geography-attuned anthropological history of which Diamond is a/the leading expert - rW]. (Chevron has since sold its stake in these properties to a New Guinea-based oil company.) And, the publicly traded company gives five savvy reasonson why it needs to care and is spending the money to prove it cares.

And then there is Wal-Mart, for whom scale is both a beast and blessing. Case in point: “This is what Wal-Mart did with fuel costs, which the company reduced by $26 million per year simply by changing the way it managed its enormous truck fleet. Instead of running a truck’s engine all night to heat or cool the cab during mandatory 10-hour rest stops, the company installed small auxiliary power units to do the job. In addition to lowering fuel costs, the move eliminated the carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to taking 18,300 passenger vehicles off the road.”

Second, Diamond states exactly what underpins and is attractive about the whole "sustainability means consuming less" argument. It is that consumption rates and standards of living are only loosely correlated, because so much of our consumption is wasteful [the waste does not meet the norm of optimality; see Hendrik Hart, Understanding our world: An integral ontology (1983, subsequent editions) - rW] and doesn’t contribute to our quality of life. Hello, Western Europe with less of our American stuff and more happiness due to more access to medical care, financial security after retirement, infant mortality, life expectancy, literacy and public transport. So, happiness is more complex than that, but definitely the social foundation matters.

Third, Diamond spoke with striking clarity on some of the actions Washington, D.C. can take to stimulate more businesses to adopt sustainability practices that keep the planet healthy. Namely:

“My friends in the business world keep telling me that Washington can help on two fronts: by investing in green research, offering tax incentives and passing cap-and-trade legislation; and by setting and enforcing tough standards to ensure that companies with cheap, dirty standards don’t have a competitive advantage over those businesses protecting the environment.”

So, if you have not already, read Diamond’s article. It will grab your attention too.

I join her in urging you to read it, and to click on and read Ordo's own write-up in Green Options (see above for the live-link to her article).

The fact that Diamond's main book is atheist historiography, is no obstacle to recommending that author to those who are, like me, of Christian faith or other non-atheist religions (atheism is equally religious in its own ways, and there are several varieties incompatible with one another -- that is, atheism actually is several religions, all of which  have arisen in history, in future some may die and others may be born). I discount the unrelieved atheist undertone as I read Diamond, which may not be possible for all readers. It is work to do so.

My biblical interpretation, unlike that of so-called "creationists," proceeds from Creator and a law-order for His creation (also a creation law-order for the creatures which appear over time, in a Christian evolutionary way of thinking, which is quite different from evolutionism and its atheist religions).   No to atheistic theories of cosmic, earthic, and humanic evolution(ism).  Yes to Christian philosophical explanation to bridge the narratives in the Bible and various sciences relevant to evolution.  But, at the same time, in my view these stories cannot be fruitfully and integrally reduced to one another.  I think this is the mistake, however much a valiant one, as introduced to reformational thawt by Roy Clouser's The myth of neutrality: An essay on the hidden role of religious belief in theories (2005 rev ed, paperback) which seeks to meld these two different narratives, but which Christian philosophizing shoud first respect in their distinct ownnesses (eigenheiden) in accord with a philosophic explanatory bridge-analysis of both.

This has taken us far from focus on the role of mega-corporations in "saving" the world from ecological collapse, but to Christians who have biblistic-historistic tendencies of thawt and who thus tend to over-historicize these chapter of Genesis -- it must be said that neither the hermeneutics of confession (Spykman), covenant (classical and new), nor the classical historical-literary hermeneutics, has offered us sufficient grounds to faith-affirm the ecological-cultural mandate for human maintenance of a genuine human stewardship over Earth as commanded in Genesis 1-3 (thus, the ecological element that shoud be powerfully motivating in our reformational reading of Scripture and our reformational ecological organizations).  Reviving the confessional hermeneutics approach more recently, Craig Bartholmew tends to the "problem" of the rise of yet another hermeneutical approach Scripture, called "Canon Criticism" (Brevard Childs and Bernhard Anderson).  Albert Wolters seems to be of this view, as well.  But I have not yet acquired the necessary books to read these latter writers on the subject.

-- EconoMix

Enviro: Pollution: Climate-changers overlook pollution

I just saw a roundtable discussion show on a Christian TV channel on a specifically Christian programme (in Canada our Christian TV channels by law carry shows originating from other kinds of religious commitments as well, or from common-ground themes, or from presumably neutral ones). The subject tonite was "Climate Change." The show featured an international/local panel of 3 PhDs (Matt Khandekar, Olev Trass, Andrew Roberts--I hope I've spelled correctly), one journalist (Lorrie Goldstein who's written critically and extensively on the subject matter at hand), plus the host who supplies the name for the Michael Coren show.

I learned that I have not been wrong in my self-education on enviro (environometics) in trying more and more carefully to distinguish these often conflated concepts: 1.) climate change; 2.) global warming; and 3.) pollution.

Climate change is the area where the public is being stampeded into the arms of a vast propaganda machine, but where the sciences directly involved (like climatology, a young science) keep reducing their forecasts of doom (like the reduction from a hysterical 17-feet increase in world ocean-levels to the current prediction of a 1-foot rise). Climate change is real, but not what it is presented to be by stampeding science-cattle. That's most of us, cattle who gobble doomsdaying fodder by cowboy "science."

Global warming relates to climate change, but is not the same thing. Indeed, global warming is accompanied by global cooling, when we look at the locations and weather events that are involved in the two sorts of phenomena. We should always speak of globaly warming/cooling, neither without the other. But more than that, global warming is tied to the upper-atmosphere physics of "greenhouse gases," which in places and occasions of cooling, even freezing, are not heated into a greenhouse effect burning us alive, but do become a cloud cover that protects us from the more dreadful activities of the sun, while we continue to benefit (as now we do) from the ben+n solar activities. Climate change includes both warming and cooling, and is currently undergoing huge relocations and unanticipated events of both kinds. Not incidentally, the sustained overall temperature of the earth and its oceans have been decreasing since 1998. On average. Per square mile/hectare.

Meanwhile, there's the very different phenom of particulate matter in the air since the Industrial Age (in ancient Rome some neibourhoods were polluted by lead, poisonous to humans). Particulate matter these days, refers to those particles of alloys (not "pure chemicals" but mixed) that heat up and cool down but do not rise into the upper atmosphere as gases. Instead particulate matter remains behind with us mortals who breathe them into our lungs from our polluted air. This is a major element of pollution. Another is the more chemically-singular sulphuric acid which comes from burning coal (for instance), the burn-off of which rises into the forming clouds, and descends back to earth to poison habitats, as acid rain, capable of killing forests of trees. Then there's mercury poisoning that comes from over-usage of a particular element to be found on the Periodic Table of Elements where all chemicals are classified in their hypothetical pure states as constructed by chemistry according to standards of purity the science sets (Michael Polanyi). Other chemicals, elements and alloys are identified/created over time--so the Periodic Table to changes.

Pollution results in dirty air and dirty water. Not every single life-form is threatened by the known pollutants (there are ancient microbial life-forms still on earth that thrive in h+ temperature acidic water which to the contrary you and I mite consider toxic; so there are significant variations in what pollutants in relation to what life-forms/species are life-threatening, according to the various species affected negatively).

The big confusion I entertained was that between CO2 (carbon dioxide from oxidized carbon) which is a greenhouse gas and rises into the upper atmosphere, and the particulate matter that can be seen close to the ground on the horizon in a smog-filled cityscape in summer (and sometimes in other times of year).

The International Panel on Climate Change--a h+ly politicized body that selected out the participation of scientists who hold views out of step with the conjured consensus--does not deal with pollution. It does not deal with what we breathe and drink. That's the first lesson on these questions that we must distinguish from others. Yet, there are other lessons as well.

Climate change, too, must be dealt with, but there's no need to make it appear as a human responsibility in regard to which "deniers" (a labelling that exploits the Holocaust for mere metaphorical utliity) and "perpetrators" (usually the major pollutors like auto users and various manufacturers (but not major climate-changers like the sun, moving magnetic poles, etc) are constructed as enemies of humanity, haters of living creatures, of the biosphere, and of creation as a whole. The ideologists obsessed with climate change put the whole world's solar givens on the shoulders of ordinary people (de kleine luyden, then these blamers who are also, all too often, Christians within the climate-changist elites go about guilt-tripping ordinary Christians for not being the Atlas of mythology.

Enviro: Canada: Why did Libs (Chretien, Martin, Stewart, Dion) not demand equal carbon-fuel constraints on China?

The irrepressible publisher of the China e-Lobby's email newsletter, JD Maguire offers some astute remarks on Communist China's now-leading role in worldwide pollution.

Whatever one may think of the Kyoto agreement, the fact that it exempts Communist China, has long been a chief argument of its critics against the deal. Proponents have argued that Communist China's emission levels wouldn't challenge America's for years to come.

Well, that line of argument has passed its best-by date, literally. New figures from the Communists themselves (of all people) have revealed that the United States will fall behind Communist China in carbon-dioxide emissions as early as this year. In fact, emissions from Communist China have nearly doubled since 2001 (San Francisco Chronicle). Or, to put it another way, "China's greenhouse gas emissions have recently been growing by a total amount much greater than that of all industrialized nations put together."

Even those who fervently believe in man-made global warming must now agree that Kyoto is useless without including what will soon be the largest carbon emitter on the planet. All it will do is allow the Communists to continue to rapidly overdevelop, destroy its ecology, build up its military, and arm or otherwise aid terrorists without any qualms while the free world geopolitically handicaps itself.

I checked out the live-links with which Maquire documents his remarks. In the SanFransisco Chronicle, Robert Collier, "A Warming World: China about to pass U.S. as world's top generator of greenhouse gases" (Mar6,2k7).

Far more than previously acknowledged, the battle against global warming will be won or lost in China, even more so than in the West, new data show.

A report released last week by Beijing authorities indicated that as its economy continues to expand at a red-hot pace, China is highly likely to overtake the United States this year or in 2008 as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

This information, along with data from the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based alliance of oil importing nations, also revealed that China's greenhouse gas emissions have recently been growing by a total amount much greater than that of all industrialized nations put together.

"The magnitude of what's happening in China threatens to wipe out what's happening internationally," said David Fridley, leader of the China Energy Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

"Today's global warming problem has been caused mainly by us in the West, with the cumulative (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere, but China is contributing to the global warming problem of tomorrow."

New statistics released in Beijing on Wednesday by China's National Bureau of Statistics show that China's consumption of fossil fuels rose in 2006 by 9.3 percent, about the same rate as in previous years -- and about eight times higher than the U.S. increase of 1.2 percent.

While China's total greenhouse gas emissions were only 42 percent of the U.S. level in 2001, they had soared to an estimated 97 percent of the American level by 2006.

Maguire also puts us on to a telltale graph accompanying Collier's article but on another page. The graph makes clear that China has well-surpassed Europe, has rapidly risen to American levels, and is now a rapid projectile that is moving without check either to protect its people, air, water, and cities; but is becoming a menace to the whole world.

Meantime, Japan has reached equilibrium and is, for the good of the whole world, manufacturing hybrid-fuelled battery-driven cars that are slowly gaining increased public favour there. While that be true, India which was close behind Japan in the production of carbon-increasive fuel emissions, now without equilibrium it has surpassed Japan on India's upward climb on the chart. But this should be clear, neither Japan nor India come near to producing what Europe, USA, and most/worst of all China are doing. The pace and time factors of China's climb threaten the world's air and water--even if all the other countries mentioned manage to reduce their carbon-incresive emissions to Zero!

Now, Canada doesn't even appear on the lists. However, while Canada under the Liberal Party govts of the last 40 years has slaveringly touted among its own entrepreneurs and abroad thru "trade missions" sponsored mass siginings of Canada/China business deals and investments, became signatory to the Kyoto Protocols without requiring its dubious trade partner China to undergo the same restrictions required of all signers to reduce carbon-increasive emissions. China should have had its feet held to the fire with all the rest of the signers. Instead, Canada was complicit in China's carte blance, free pass, whatever you may wish to call it. This lack of analysis and fores+t regarding China, was the result of extremely poor plannning on the part of the Liberal government, its prime ministers Chretien and Martin, and its environment ministers Stewart and Dion (who is now leader of the Fed Libs). In truth, Dion never cared for the environment and he never cared about either China's or Canada's meeting the targets of the Kyoto Protocol. Allowing China to go scot-free was a kind of Munich that his party's China boosterism foisted on the Canadian people thru short-term thinking. It was a most astounding betrayal of environment.

Dion now talks grandiosely about his commitment to longterm planning, but he's all along been part of unleashing China's rapid-increase worldwide lead in destroying the global human heritage of air and water. He was a cabinet minister of a govt which signed on to giving China a free hand, because he and his party had no longterm plan; now China is repaying Canada by making our own signing of Kyoto irrelevant to the world's sink into deep environmental sickness.

Whether Stephen Harper's minority Conservative govt will make a really positive difference for environmental concerns in Canada longterm (given that any plan from Harper will have to be effective in the huge quintupling of the Alberta oil fields and refining of tar and other impurities out the carbon-increasive oil products, consequently thereby increasing the longevity of carbon emissions from traditional autos [etc]) on Canada's roads--all that remains to be seen.

But Stephane Dion has had his chance. He has proved a lousy steward of the environment, now that the Liberal past is exposed for lack of longterm planning inherent in its signing on to Kyoto while exempting China, all to the world's longterm extreme damage. Dion should not be rewarded for this perfidy by being elected Prime Minister.