A hurried, half-considered question to the reader

There's been a great deal written about Ponzi schemes over the last few weeks, as the case against Mr. Madoff (and potentially others) unfolds. In very brief (for those unfamiliar with Mr. Ponzi's legacy), this scheme is fraud in which a financial advisor collects money from investors, does little or nothing with it (and probably spends a lot of it), and pretends to be making a killing. The financial advisor touts his fake success to attract new investors who add new money to the scheme, thereby creating the illusion that it's actually making money. Investors believe that they'd be stupid to take their money out of a "fund" that's making so much money, so they simply keep reinvesting.
The party eventually runs out when the criminal advisor dashes-off with the money, or it becomes painfully evident that the "fund" is insolvent.
So that brings me to my hastily concocted questions to the reader:
Is a growth-only economy just a giant Ponzi scheme? Is a mindset that falsely pits economic well-being against environmental and human health a Ponzi scheme? Is reliance on increasing consumption of finite resources to run the economy a Ponzi scheme? Would a sustainable economy right the books?

Religion and environment: What gives?

Many religions and many religious organizations and communities value some kind of community service, whether that be supporting soup-kitchens, alms-giving, building homes, supporting disadvantaged families, &c. The existence of organizations like the Evangelical Climate Initiative and Greater Washington Interfaith Power and Light demonstrates that believers in various faiths are beginning to recognize the connection between the natural environment and community service in a religious context. The growing list of books that focus on (or at least address) religious underpinnings of environmental action, such as Earth-Wise, God in the Wilderness, Care for Creation, This is My Father's World, A Greener Faith, and Last Child in the Woods, suggests that an increasing number of people are exploring these connections.
At the same time, the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics still declares that environmentalism is idolatry. Less than a year ago, evangelical leader Rich Cizik was censured for advocating that his religious community make battling climate change a priority. And, in my personal experience, I've encountered dozens of people who become furious at the suggestion that there is a religious mandate for improving environmental quality.
I call upon the reader to serve as a research assistant: Why does so much anger and opposition remain on this issue? Why do religious communities avoid adding environmental action to their portfolio of community service? Would your religious community be open to studying this issue? Why / why not?

Image Source: US National Gallery of Art

How do you feel?

Image source: National Museum of American History

The great pumpkin

Halloween was a big event at my house when I was growing up. My mother donned a tall black hat and a black cape and became a witch, attended by our two black cats. My brother and I would, weeks in advance, sketch plans for our costumes with particular attention to the faces, and get to work repairing or building moulds and pouring liquid latex. This would yield flexible scars, open wounds, heavy brows and jaws, and other ghastly bits. On the big night, we'd adhere this stuff to our faces and hands, cover it with grease paint in some putrid color, don meticulously-torn clothing amended with dirt and charcoal dust, and tour the neighborhood as zombies or ghouls.
This holiday seems to be in a state of flux, with communities pushing trick-or-treating toward more convenient days and times, many communities doing away with it all together, and people instead attending parties here and there.
I’ll put some questions to the reader and ask, “How can one be the solution for Halloween?” What are some easy ways that people can green all of the accoutrements of this most excellent holiday?

Image source: Some flickr page that I randomly looted

So, what is it?

I heard a college kid explain to her father that "...sustainability is just another term for environmentalism", as I rode home on the Metro yesterday evening. The word "sustainability" has been bandied about here and there, especially since the UN's World Summit on Sustainable Development dispersed the idea in 2002. But, it seems that lots of people still don't get it.
So, what is sustainability? Is it purely an environmental idea, as our student suggests? Have sustainable ways of life ever existed? Do any exist now? If we were to shift our current way of life to a sustainable one, who would win and who would lose?

Image source: Wikipedia

On walking and chewing gum

For a number of reasons, environmental issues have enjoyed a central place in policy debates and decisions, elections, business, and the public consciousness for the last few years. With troubling economic changes afoot, particularly in the financial and housing sectors, will the environment again retire to obscurity? Should leaders and communities shift their focus away from environmental issues?

Longhorns and snakeheads and bees- Oh my

Over the weekend, I found a moment to peruse the Sant Ocean Hall online exhibit on the National Museum of Natural History website. I'm thinking ahead to some opportunities to get the little one to an exhibit that will catch his attention. I happened upon a page about the rapa whelk, a fairly recent exotic pest (some might say a menace) in the Chesapeake Bay region. It's been in various conservation groups' publications for a while.
What in the heck is a rapa whelk? It's a type of marine snail that has some nifty adaptations that allow it to spread itself around very quickly. Unfortunately, it's not from around here. It hails from Asia, almost certainly arrived in the bilge water of ships, preys on clams and oysters, and is a threat to the local marine snails. This presents yet another problem for the region's shellfish industry, not to mention the already badly degraded Chesapeake Bay ecology.
The rapa whelk is what's known as an invasive exotic species. This isn't a new idea. You've probably heard of many others, perhaps without realizing it: The fire ant, the Asian long-horned beetle, the gypsie moth, the zebra mussel, the European house sparrow, &c. This short list is merely the tip of the iceberg.
There are others that don't get peoples' hackles up, though: The honey bee, chickory, and the cattle egret, for instance. These pollinate many of our crops, make a proper cup of coffee for folks in New Orleans, and get rid of some of the fire ants that wouldn't have been here in the first place if we hadn't been so careless. (And, while we're at it, basically everything we eat comes from somewhere other than here.) These species are our friends, right?
I put some questions to the reader: Is it worth the effort to try to stop exotic species from invading new areas or to drive them out before they take hold? Is it appropriate to get rid of exotics that have been in an area for a long time? Does the usefulness or harm of the new species weigh on this? Should we hesitate to introduce an exotic crop? Should we simply accept that people will change the biosphere and make do with those changes?

Image source: Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Sant Ocean Hall

Drill pickle

More a matter of politics than government, the Congress is voting on a measure to relax the off-shore drilling ban in place since 1982. Under the measure before lawmakers (as of this morning), drilling would become legal at a distance of 50 miles from shore with the consent of adjacent states, or at 100 miles without such permission. The bill has already passed the House. I'm curious to see how the reader feels.
Is relaxing the drilling ban a good idea? Would lifting it altogether be better? Is the rate at which oil will be extracted too low to bother? Does the value of the oil outweigh the potential damage to fisheries and tourism? Do most people understand the issue? Should people in a landlocked state like Arizona be making this decision for people in a coastal state like Delaware?

Image source: Minerals Management Service

All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall

The yellow buses have been back out in force for the last few weeks. This inspires me to lob some questions at the reader:
Is the prevailing model for public schools the right one? What can change? What should change? Who should decide what top educational priorities are? Are private schools better? Is home-schooling better? What about unschooling? Should students pay tuition?

Image source: National Archives and Records Administration; ARC Identifier: 541288

Georgia on my mind

In recent days, we’ve stopped hearing much, if anything about the pseudowar in Georgia. Before Juno MacGuff became center of the media universe, the news seemed to be talking about diplomacy, official actions and reactions of national governments, and troop movements. In the dozen or so articles I’ve read in various publications since the conflict escalated a month ago, I’ve seen little discussion of the petroleum industry and virtually no mention of the Russian state-owned gas company Gazprom or the several oil and gas pipeline segments that cross Georgia. This has gotten a little better recently.
For readers unfamiliar with this contentious little piece of the world, Azerbaijan and the former Soviet republic of Georgia happen to be situated in such a way as to allow for the transport of oil and gas from the productive Caspian Sea region to the Black Sea, a major transportation hub to Europe and a petroleum source in its own right. For those who don’t know Caucasian geography nor have a map in front of them, this corridor snubs Russia and its massive gas industry that supplies much of Europe. (A primer on energy in the Causasus region, if you're so inclined)
With this in mind, I put some questions to the reader:
Why is Russia supporting the break-up of Georgia? Is Russian support for the break up of Georgia at all similar to the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein? Is Russian support for an independent South Ossetia materially different from US support for a semi-autonomous Kurdestan? Would anyone care what was going on in Georgia or Iraq, if these countries’ major industries were fruits, nuts, hand-woven rugs, and wool?

Image source: CIA World Factbook

Big request from Big Three

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 authorized up to $25 billion in federal government loan guarantees to auto manufacturers in the US. It also increased the CAFE standards 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.7 mpg for trucks to a fleet-wide 35 mpg by 2020. For reference, Toyota’s Prius, Corolla, and Yaris, the MINI Cooper, Honda’s Fit and Civic Hybrid, and everything made by Smart already meet or beat this.
GM now claims that the industry needs $50 billion in loan guarantees, in part because consumers are demanding more fuel efficient cars and because CAFE standards are placing an unfair regulatory burden on the auto US industry. With Michigan and Ohio as presidential battleground states, candidates seem to think that this is a great idea.
I pose some questions to the reader: Is it appropriate to loan $50 billion in public funds to private companies? If German and Japanese auto companies can successfully build and market fuel efficient cars, why do US companies seem to struggle with this? Is this the same thing as the 1980 bailout of Chrysler (which would be valued at $3.7 bn in today’s dollars)? Is this capitalism? Socialism? Good business? Is this a matter of lobbyists exploiting an election? Is this necessary for US firms to remain competitive?

Image sources:
National Archives and Records Administration; ARC Identifier 547699
Car and Driver

Windfall

Over the last few months, excited murmurs have given way to boomtown glee over a bed of rock called the Haynesville Shale. In truth, it’s not the rock that has caused this hysteria, but what may be the world’s 4th largest natural gas deposit locked-up in it. Extraction companies are clamoring for mineral rights that have been made relevant by this discovery and by recent developments in extraction technology.
It’s in Dubai? The rich Canadian gas fields? Siberia? Nope. The Haynesville Shale spreads out around Shreveport, Louisiana, a burg of around 200,000 people. What’s interested the press lately is the fact that the shale also extends into some economically depressed areas in northwestern Louisiana. Stories have begun to appear about small-towners turned overnight millionaires by leasing their mineral rights. Unfortunately, there’s also been talk here and there about people being swindled out of mineral rights for a few thousand dollars.
I happened to read an article about the Haynesville rush today, moments after reading an article about the use of cyanobacteria to produce ostensibly carbon-neutral fuel. This begs a few questions, some of which I’ll put to the reader:
Should landowners in this situation lease their mineral rights? Is there an ethical question here vis-à-vis climate change? Does anyone outside the area being drilled have a right to weigh-in on this? Can anyone hold it against someone living in or near poverty for accepting an offer to make outlandishly rich? How about if the offer simply makes that landowner less poor?

Trinity

Sixty-three years ago today, the US tested the first atomic weapon. The device was a plutonium bomb, very much like the one that would be dropped on Nagasaki, Japan on August 9 of the same year. This isn't one of those round-number anniversaries that usually prompts people to think about where we've come from and what this means for us now, but it does raise for me a few questions about nuclear technologies. Does their pedigree, having begun as weapons of mass destruction, make them ethically unsuitable for practical or peaceful purposes? Does the danger of their potential use or misuse outweigh their benefits? Who should get to decide who uses nuclear material for what purposes?
I've posted here the admittedly dry account of the Trinity explosion by physicist Luiz Alvarez, who was observing the test from a B-29. While not hugely interesting in and of itself, it illustrates how easy it can be to get information directly from the original source. A good source also allows us to understand its own bias.
Politics is perennially guilty of putting human-made "truths" ahead of objective facts. Likewise, many people and groups seem to work to recast history in their own image, selectively highlighting and suppressing events, memories, and outcomes in an attempt to legitimize their present situation and aims. People repeat these half-truths, these convenient omissions, Convincing Numerical Factoids, glimmering generalities, and the flat-out lies until they become their own truth. In most cases, we don't know where they came from and we don't care, because they support the conclusion that we started with. Instead of wandering like so many sheep, shouldn't we get as much information as possible directly from the source? Shouldn't we question the objectivity and authority our sources?

Image source: National Archives and Records Administration; ARC Identifier 594933

Take that, St. Louis!

And so, it came to pass. The Belgian firm InBev purchased the American Anheuser-Busch for $52 billion, the third largest foreign takeover of a US firm in history. With this consolidation, an iconic American brand becomes an asset of a nominally European (though in most respects, a transnational) company. While the newly dubbed Anheuser-Busch InBev plans to hawk Bud the world over, production and marketing decisions are ultimately made overseas. Likewise, profits will also filter toward the other side of the pond.
So I put it to the reader: Does this make any difference? Will the movement of profits overseas affect the US economy? Does the purchase of other foreign-sourced goods and commodities, like cars and petroleum, have a negative impact on the economy? In light of the buyout, do you plan to serve steamed mussels and pommes frites at your next Super Bowl party?

Image source: Wikipedia

On limitless growth

In my brief respite between semesters, I’ve been revisiting HBR’s Business and the Environment. I was particularly struck by an interview with former Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro, who expresses concerns about a booming world population, depletion of mineral and agricultural resources, and the ability of a large company to turn a profit in this environment. He delves into natural limits on renewable resources and posits some innovative, though questionable solutions to a number of resource problems.
I pose some questions to the reader:

Can humans continue reproducing at the same rate they historically have? Can people, on average, consume at a rate the equal (or similar) to historical rates of consumption? How do we know how much each person can consume? Should people consider their children or other future generations in how they consume?

Image source: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education

Atoms for peace

The Greenpeacers were canvassing the neighborhood around my office the other day. I don’t know what prompted me to do so (everyone sells their politics in this neighborhood, and it gets old fast), but I stopped to talk with one of them. As I knew I would, we got into a spirited discussion on the topic of nuclear energy. So, I offer some questions to the reader:
Is nuclear energy bad for the environment? Is it good for the environment? Is nuclear energy sustainable? Are there any other direct replacements for fossil fuels in generating electricity? What should we do with high-level waste? Why does nuclear energy seem to generate so much fear?
As always, responses to any number of these questions are welcome, as are other questions.

Image sources:
Wiki Commons
Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, Division of Public Affairs

Δημοκρατία

Can democracy work as a system of government in every culture or every country? Do democratic countries have a responsibility to encourage democratization, or to subvert nondemocratic governments? Should democracies allow monarchies, theocracies, and other autocratic or otherwise repressive regimes to continue without interference when it’s in our economic best-interest? Can the ideal of individual rights and self-determination be upheld if democracy is foisted upon a state that has never wanted it?

Image source: Composite of images in CIA World Factbook

Scorpions in the Constitutional Bottle: Uncivil Speech, Civil Society

I shamelessly rip-off today's questions from the description of an American studies course at Georgetown:
Tensions exist between the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and the goal articulated by the Framers in the Preamble of The Constitution of establishing a society that would “insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare.” What happens when these goals collide? What is permissible under the constitutional protection of free speech? In pushing the free speech envelope, how far is too far? When is speech so uncivil that domestic tranquility takes precedence? What is lost and what is gained as a society in resolving these tensions?

Says who?

There's been a good deal of discussion here about how we decide what is right. There's been concern over moral relativism, moral or religious law, and the roles of government, society, and community in making these determinations. I find a number of nagging questions amidst these discussions, which are worth addressing in some detail. Those questions beg a few preamble questions that frame the discussion. I ask the reader:
Does a deity, or do deities, exist? If not, would people have invented one (or several)? Do morals other than providing for one's own interests exist if there is no higher power? Or, do other people become more inherently valuable in the absence of such a power? Are there other metaphysical phenomena that could promulgate a moral framework?

Image sources:
Freer & Sackler Galleries
US National Gallery of Art

The right to pollute

Whether you're a global warming true-believer, iconoclast, or somewhere in between, the subject begs questions about the tragically unglamorous, hugely important question of pollution in general. Among them:
Do individuals (or groups, or corporations) have a fundamental right to pollute? Do economic and business activities (including personal business) necessarily result in pollution? Do I have the right to not accept someone else's pollution? Do I have any particular recourse if someone else's waste winds up on my property? What if I am only a part-owner of that property?

Image source: National Archives and Records Administration (ARC Identifier: 557246)