Just an update.
I have been busy lately with a variety of tasks. This has prevented me from updating this blog as much as I would like. Things should settle down in the near future. When this occurs I will be updating this site on a regular basis once again. For now, I will be limited to 3-5 post a week… in a couple of weeks I expect this number to increase quite dramatically.
Diet, energy, and global warming.
During the President’s state of the union address, he expressed the need for America to reduce it’s appetite for gasoline. He proposed cutting our consumption by twenty percent, which in turn would provide security for the country by cutting back on the importation of energy resources. Such a change would also help combat global climate change, and help clean up our environment.
Much like last year’s speech, this statement will most likely be followed with little or no action concerning energy policy. This sobering fact led me to write this blog, and point out a change that we can make at an individual level to combat climate change. There is in fact a decision we can make about our own lifestyle that if adopted widely, will do more to combat global warming than say… purchasing a hybrid car and cutting gasoline consumption.
There has been numerous studies that conclude that becoming a vegetarian is one of the most effective ways to combat global climate change. In fact, a recent report from the United Nations concluded that “the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”
So what effect does the consumption of meat have in the United States? Kathy Freston writing on the subject, highlights the significance of the meat based diet in relation to global warming:
…the real kicker comes when looking at gases besides carbon dioxide–gases like methane and nitrous oxide, enormously effective greenhouse gases with 23 and 296 times the warming power of carbon dioxide, respectively. If carbon dioxide is responsible for about one-half of human-related greenhouse gas warming since the industrial revolution, methane and nitrous oxide are responsible for another one-third. These super-strong gases come primarily from farmed animals’ digestive processes, and from their manure. In fact, while animal agriculture accounts for 9% of our carbon dioxide emissions, it emits 37% of our methane, and a whopping 65% of our nitrous oxide.
It’s a little hard to take in when thinking of a small chick hatching from her fragile egg. How can an animal, so seemingly insignificant against the vastness of the earth, give off so much greenhouse gas as to change the global climate? The answer is in their sheer numbers. The United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year, all to sustain a meat-ravenous culture that can barely conceive of a time not long ago when “a chicken in every pot” was considered a luxury. Land animals raised for food make up a staggering 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. We are eating our planet to death.
What we’re seeing is just the beginning, too. Meat consumption has increased five-fold in the past fifty years, and is expected to double again in the next fifty.
Also worth noting, is the overall benefits for the community when vegetarianism becomes more common. Kathy Freston also highlights this in her blog when she points out that a cleaner planet will also result from a societal (starts with the individual) change:
Not just a cooler planet, also a cleaner one. Animal agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in this country, emits two-thirds of the world’s acid-rain-causing ammonia, and it the world’s largest source of water pollution–killing entire river and marine ecosystems, destroying coral reefs, and of course, making people sick. Try to imagine the prodigious volumes of manure churned out by modern American farms: 5 million tons a day, more than a hundred times that of the human population, and far more than our land can possibly absorb. The acres and acres of cesspools stretching over much of our countryside, polluting the air and contaminating our water, make the Exxon Valdez oil spill look minor in comparison. All of which we can fix surprisingly easily, just by putting down our chicken wings and reaching for a veggie burger.
If you need even more convincing evidence, the University of Chicago has also done a study on the topic. This study takes a scientific approach, comparing and contrasting the environmental costs of animal production and slaughter with the use of fossil fuels. The results of this study support what the recent United Nations report concluded.
I am not implying that those who decide to eat meat are immoral or unethical, it’s simply important to know all of the facts when making lifestyle decisions. I have been a vegetarian (due to what I learned in an environmental ethics class) for a while now, and see it as purely a personal decision.
It is however something for everyone to consider, given the fact that meat lacks nutritional value (must eat meat to get protein is a myth) and its consumption has been proven to damage our environment… and there is also the fact that meat consumption is now centered on a questionable ethical foundation. Is it ethically acceptable to eat the flesh of another living thing simply because it tastes good?
Again, this is a choice that needs to be made at a personal level. I simply wanted to provide some facts about the meat industry and its effect on our environment. If you want to personally help combat global climate change, changing to a vegetarian lifestyle is a great way to start (even more effective than reducing your use of fossil fuels).
Bush asks for larger military.
During the state of the union address Tuesday night, we heard something that had already been brought out into the open: Bush is hoping to expand the military in order to ‘prepare for future threats.’ Here is what he had to say about this expansion during his speech:
One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military, so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years.
Source: Time - transcript
While I personally believe we do need to expand our military (I agree with Bush), the question now becomes how we go about doing so. Recruitment becomes difficult during war time, especially a war as unpopular as the war in Iraq. Something along the lines of a draft or conscription is out of the question, given its political implications. So what are we left with?
The answer seems to be a lowering of standards in our military, along with a willingness to accept individuals of questionable character. So what effect have these changes had on our military? And what will happen when we are forced to lower standards even further in order to recruit the 92,000 soldiers Bush has asked for? The answer to the first of these questions can be found in this illustration:
As you can see, the U.S. military is literally being transformed from the robust force it once was, into something that is much less familiar to this country. What will we have to do in order to recruit the 92,000 the president has asked for? I hate to imagine the effects a further lowering of standards will have on our military. But that seems to be the only avenue we have left to explore, besides further raising enlistment bonuses and pay (which should probably occur despite this current demand).
Unless the president has a unique, ingenious plan to add to the ranks of our military we should avoid pushing for such an expansion. While it is needed, sacrificing the character and ability of our military in favor of sheer numbers is a mistake.
Corporations urge Bush to take action.
It’s a sad day when corporate America begins to ask our government to take action to protect the planet and it’s citizens… and our government says no. Today CNN has an article that highlights CEO’s of 10 major corporations, all of which are pleading with the government to take action to combat climate change. These corporate entities are asking for mandatory carbon reductions.
The chief executives of 10 major corporations, on the eve of the State of the Union address, urged President Bush on Monday to support mandatory reductions in climate-changing pollution and establish reductions targets.
“We can and must take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection,” the executives from a broad range of industries said in a letter to the president.
Bush, who in the past has rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases, was expected to address climate change in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, but has repeatedly argued that voluntary efforts are the best approach.
Major industry groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers continue to oppose so-called “cap and trade” proposals to cut climate changing pollution, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
But the 10 executives, representing major utilities, aluminum and chemical companies and financial institutions, said mandatory reductions are needed and that “the cornerstone of this approach” should be a cap-and-trade system.
The officials, expected to elaborate on their plan at a news conference later Monday, include the chief executives Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp.
It will be interesting to see what these corporations have to say when they meet with the media to elaborate on their plan. I never thought I would see the day when corporate America would be serving the interests of the people, while our government (by the people, for the people?) would continue to fight for policies that are dangerous to the country and the world as a whole.
Fiesta Bowl victory celebration.
I simply wanted to post a picture of the Fiesta Bowl victory celebration in downtown Boise. Overall, the event was well organized and was truly an enjoyable event. Butch Otter’s ramblings were the low point of the event, while the expressions on the Boise State players faces proved to be the high point. They deserve all the recognition they are receiving from the community.
I do wish however, that people were willing to gather and express their political views with passion equal to or greater than the passion I witnessed on Saturday at the celebration. Hopefully someday the priorities of our society will be re-aligned, and true democratic action sparked by political activism will become the norm. Not likely, but a guy can dream.
Worthwhile spam… it’s my lucky day
Someone calling themselves Charles left a comment on my most recent post related to climate change. Although this comment could be described as “spam,” it’s useful spam so therefore I am going to highlight it.
Here is the comment:
Next week Bush is going to deliver his State of the Union address. We want him to get serious about global warming this year.
We have heard his plan for Iraq. Let’s try to influence his plan on the environment by gathering 500,000 signatures stating that we want America to invest in renewable energy and address climate change - NOW.
Please sign the petition and send it to your friends.
We have one week to be heard! Thanks!
It’s definitely a worthy cause. Use the link below to sign the petition and join the thousands who already have.
Let us unite and tackle global warming.
It seems that evangelical leaders and scientists have joined forces in an attempt to tackle global warming, as well as force our current President to put his ignorance and love for business interests aside for the sake of humanity. While the article indicates there is little hope for the latter, at least the evangelical community is beginning to act… they are a powerful voice in modern day America.
Here is the transcript of an interview with Richard Cizak (national association of evangelicals), Eric Chivian (director of the center for health and global environment at harvard), and David Sandalow (from the brookings institution).
EMMA ALBERICI: In the United States, scientists and evangelical Christian leaders are joining forces to help battle global warming.
The unlikely alliance was struck after they agreed to put aside their differences about the origin of life to work together to protect the environment, and it seems their timing couldn’t be better.
The US President’s annual State of the Union address next week is likely to offer some minor changes in climate change policy.
Washington Correspondent, Kim Landers, prepared this report.
(sound of organ music)
RICHARD CIZIK: We will not allow the creation to be degraded, destroyed by human folly.
KIM LANDERS: Richard Cizik is from the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents millions of Christians in the United States. What sounds like a church sermon is in fact a political message.
RICHARD CIZIK: God will judge us for destroying the creation. We as evangelicals are saying that science can be an ally in helping us to understand what creation is telling us about itself and about its maker.
KIM LANDERS: Scientists and evangelicals have put aside their distrust to form a new coalition, because both sides agree that human activity is putting in danger the earth. Eric Chivian is the director of the Centre for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
ERIC CHIVIAN: We agreed that there was no such thing as a Republican or Democratic, a liberal or a conservative, a religious or secular environment. That we all breathed the same air and drank the same water and relied on the same organisms for our survival.
KIM LANDERS: President George W Bush is expected to offer some slight policy change on global warming in next week’s State of the Union address.
But the White House insists he won’t be dropping his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
In last year’s speech the President said the US was addicted to foreign oil. This year, he’s likely to again call for an increase in the use of ethanol.
American evangelicals have been credited with helping George W Bush win and hold onto the Presidency.
David Sandalow from The Brookings Institution says their decision to join forces with scientists is significant.
DAVID SANDALOW: Churchgoing Americans are a powerful political force in this country and when they get mobilized to take on the issue of global warming it’s going to make a big difference.
KIM LANDERS: The leaders of this new alliance have already written to the President calling for action.
DAVID SANDALOW: President Bush’s global warming policy is almost as unpopular as his Iraq policy. Members of the evangelical community are raising concerns as well.
KIM LANDERS: The group is also having meetings on Capitol Hill and it plans to craft a “pastor’s toolkit” which will include biblical references to the need for humans to protect the environment.
This is Kim Landers in Washington for PM.
Source: PM - Christians and scientists unite to tackle global warming
Hangings fuel sectarian split.
The New York Times has an interesting article detailing the affects that the execution of Saddam Hussein and his two lieutenants have had in the middle east.
The botched hanging of Saddam Hussein and two lieutenants in Iraq by its Shiite-led government has helped to accelerate Sunni-Shiite sectarianism across an already fragile Middle East, according to experts across the region.
The chaotic executions and the calm with which Mr. Hussein confronted the gallows and mocking Shiite guards have bolstered his image among many of his fellow Sunni Muslims.
I do not have time to write about this issue now, but simply wanted to point it out to those of you who may be interested. You can find the full article here.
Boise, ID vigil to shut down Guantanamo.
Thursday afternoon I made a trip to a vigil at the Idaho statehouse aimed at persuading both Idaho citizens and local leaders to take a stand concerning torture, extraordinary renditions, and the legacy of Guantanamo. This local event was just a small part of what Amnesty International deemed the international day of action to shut down Guantanamo.
While I applaud the willingness of those who attended to fight for such a cause in such difficult weather conditions, I was disappointed by the event. Little or no time was spent discussing the critical problems of the prison. Instead the focus was religious; every speaker at the event tended to focus on their belief that acts such as torture are “un-Christian” and therefore a sin.
While this may be true, such convictions fail to motivate given its dependency on a specific religious doctrine. The focus should have been on both the role that Guantanamo plays in the so-called war on terror, and on the abandonment of basic human rights, which the prison represents. Reasons such as these would motivate anyone concerned about their future as an American citizen, the security of American troops, and the homeland.
The fact is that holding detainees for an undefined amount of time without trial or release is troublesome for American security. Those who are being held have little or no contact with their families, and are subjected to questionable treatment that many have defined as torture. If those taken to Guantanamo were not terrorists going in, they are without a doubt going to be terrorists for the remainder of their lives. The prison has become a center for radicalization.
The existence of such a prison, along with the Bush administrations willingness to use what many define as torture also puts our troops at risk. This point has been argued by Colin Powell, John McCain, along with others. If we are in fact violating the Geneva Conventions (and we are even with the new legislation, Bush determines what constitutes torture), we are therefore providing other nations with the justification needed to violate them themselves. This will place our men and women in a brutal environment in future conflicts with other nations.
These two issues are two of many that the organizers of this vigil could have focused on during this international day of action. While religious conviction is important, and pointing out to those who are part of the Christian tradition that torture and abuse violates the basic teachings of their faith is also important, such a focus isolates much of the community from the event.
Again, I am not taking anything away from those who attended, I simply wish the focus would have been different.
President unveils new Iraq policy.
The Bush administration has offically announced its plan to stablize Iraq. While the surge aspect of this plan has been known for a while, a few more specific policies were hinted at by the President. The New York Times summarized many of these new policies:
Troop Levels:
Mr. Bush announced he would send five additional brigades to Baghdad, an increase of about 16,000 combat troops that would roughly double the number of troops in the capital. The new troops would act in support of Iraqi forces, and would have the authority to clear and secure neighborhoods in both Sunni- and Shiite-majority areas. An additional 4,000 troops would be sent to Anbar Province, which the president described as a “home base” for Al Qaeda.
Economic Strategy:
Mr. Bush announced plans to double the number of provincial reconstruction teams and to give commanders and civilians more flexibility in spending on local improvements. He also announced that Iraq will allocate $10 billion to assist with reconstruction projects.
Political and Diplomatic Strategy:
Mr. Bush stressed that regional stability would be necessary for success in Iraq, and warned that the U.S. would “interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria” to extremists in Iraq. The president said he had ordered an additional carrier strike group to the region and would deploy Patriot missile systems in order to reassure U.S. allies. Mr. Bush also noted that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would travel to the Middle East on Friday as part of a broad diplomatic effort to rally support for the Iraqi government.
Iraqi Benchmarks:
Mr. Bush announced that the U.S. would hold the Iraqi government to a series of benchmarks, including the completion of a national oil law, the setting of a date for provincial elections, the influx of more Iraqi brigades to Baghdad, and the reforming of de-Baathification policies. Mr. Bush did not specify what he planned to do if Iraq failed to meet the agreed-upon measures.
While I am not going to analyze these policies in this blog, I do plan on doing so in the near future. I just found this New York Times article useful, and figured I would share it with those of you who may be interested.
One quick observation though… Does anyone else find it disturbing that these policies are part of a “new” strategy? For the most part, these are things that we should have prepared for prior to the invasion in 2003.