I'm all for Soylent Oil. I'd like to top off my Honda Civic, manual transmission, with "paultheyuglydog" to start.

I don't care about how much I waste. Here in America, we can be as wasteful as we want to and it doesnt affect us.

unknown-arts.org,

It is difficult to place oneself in others shoes, but I believe that much of the seemingly irrational behavior of US business elites may be explained by considering who it is that they think they are competing with and trying to impress -- their fellow business elites! I doubt that many of them give the future of the earth, the future of the human race, or the welfare of Americans or people living on the earth today a moment's thought. But they want to show their buddies at X corp., or in their exclusive neighborhood, or at the Country Club that they have the "right stuff," and all those comments made at that fraternity party long ago about them being weak or inadequate were way off base. And maybe dad was wrong too! They are reacting to their own demons, and will not react to pressure from outside interests unless they are made to feel it.

As for going vegan, it all depends what you eat and where you live. . .

Most vegans I know here in New England (and until recently I counted myself among their ranks) are heavily dependent on soy products trucked in from California and other distant places. Consuming wild meat and fish or locally produced organic meat and dairy from small scale farms actually results in less fossil fuel consumption than eating tofu. (And thus indirectly in fewer animal deaths, a figure that increases when you take into account species displaced by large scale soy production. And increases even further if the soy in question isn't organic.)

Livestock actually play an important role in boosting soil fertility in northern New England.

If I lived in a warmer climate with a longer growing season and richer soil I probably would go back to being vegan.

The answers are seldom simple.

I am definitely all for individual lifestyle changes . . .

But the ones who are driving the largest scale environmental destruction are governments (especially militaries) and corporations. They are also the ones who limit the choices that individuals -- especially poor people -- are free to make.

Guilt focuses us inward instead of moving us outward and forward in the struggle. It distracts us from looking at power structures.

In this case it also locks us into self-identifying as consumers, accelerating our dehumanization.

Earth is a no "deposit-no return" planet to be consumed in order to sustain our lifestyle. Enjoy the ride!

It's so much easier to just refuse to buy overly packaged crap in the first place. I purchase the majority of my fruits and vegetables at the farmers market and put most of those in cloth shopping bags I bring myself.

Don't buy soda's, they make you fat, rot your teeth and destroy your kidneys. Filter your water at home and carry a water bottle. If you want something flavored add juice or tea to your water. It's a hell of a lot cheaper.

Personal Rapid Transit systems could replace much of our driving and give us more time to talk on our cell phones or work if we wanted to. It could also be modified to automate freight distribution.

Geo-exchange systems could heat and cool our houses far cheaper than existing furnaces.

Airships and high speed rail could displace much of our jet air travel and still get us where we wanted to go.

The fact is that our culture has so much built in waste that most of us can't see it no matter how hard we try. We could cut our emissions and eat as much food, have as much play time, live in houses warmer in winter and cooler in summer and still get everywhere we wanted to go.

The EU does it, the Japanese do it. We could do it too.

Volvo used to add a recycling fee to the price of their cars. I don't know if they still do but it sounded like a good idea that can be applied to lots of products.

Not too long ago, I watched the film "Who Killed the Electric Car." In the film, it was suggested that one possible reason for the death of California's electric car was that automobile makers simply resented being TOLD what to do. I assumed it was an absurd point of view. The car was selling and profitable. It would have been great PR for an industry with pretty low credit on public concern. It really was one of the most senseless acts committed by Corporate America UNLESS you assume collusion between auto makers and the oil industry (which I do). It also seemed an absurd argument, given that automakers have had at least 30 years of warning to change find alternative fuels and have not made any effort at all. In fact, I would argue that they have gone backwards on fuel standards since the early years of Reagan. So, obviously, FORCE is required to make change in the industry. Blaming the required force for causing a backlash from a position which never would have been achieved in the first place without that force is a logic I cannot comprehend. There is absolutely no evidence that automakers are making an effort based on crisis of conscience and a trip back down the industrial timeline will show that industry NEVER self-regulates in a way that serves the public (campaigns for child labor, OSHA, the weekend, the eight hour work day...).

Now, I assume that parties act logically. That they have motivating factors and they work for their own (however short-sighted) benefit. I assume that automakers acted to destroy the electric car so completely because it PROVES it can be done, and that they were protecting the OIL industry, because the alternative answer is just too incredible: That they are childish little brats who resent being told what to do to the extent that they would destroy the only known human habitat in order to assert their three-year old's version of free-will. But perhaps I am wrong.

Locally, we had a medical marketing firm (Finelight, if anyone is interested) who bought out a large section of our downtown and planned to make an office building. In so doing, they evicted a beloved local business rather than provide the same space in their new development. It seemed unnecessary. They were providing store fronts, but they refused to give a space to this particular business. Perhaps, being a mom and pop diner, it was not sexy enough for the new building? When the local population reacted with protests, one would have thought it the best thing that Finelight could have done to ease potential opposition to their development plans, to please the public and save that little diner. But they fought it tooth and nail. Declared their rights to choose their tenants, use their property as they saw fit, and so on.

The project marched on, and Finelight announced they needed a giant parking garage attached to their new building and that, in exchange for their keeping jobs downtown, the city should pay for the parking garage. Now, we have a parking garage that is ONE block from the potential building site. A local transportation organization called BTOP monitored the spaces for a period of several weeks and discovered that, at the most, 40% of that parking capacity was being utilized. The majority the time, that percentage was considerably lower. A new parking garage was completely unnecessary. After a lot of public outcry, the plan for the parking garage was denied by our city council and Finelight withdrew its entire project, moving its plans out to Wal-Mart territory where no law reigns. They snubbed the city and have condemned their empoyees to an extended commute and left they without the amenities of the city workplace (no restaurants to walk to for lunch, no walking errands, no convenience to schools). And this because they had been told they couldn't have parking HALF A BLOCK closer. They have lost all goodwill with the local population. And I cannot see what they gained, nor what they would have lost if they had accepted the existing parking.

The point of this very long aside is that I begin to wonder if a logical, if selfish, self-interest cannot explain these destructive behaviors. If it is possible that Corporate America is peopled by mean-spirited individuals with some elementary school grudge. Some need to show, at all times, that they are in control, whatever the costs to themselves or others. Is it possible that the inability to live within the planet's means is not simply GREED, but a sociopathic need to cause harm?

Andersdl: Good point. Profit and sound stewardship of resources need not be mutually exclusive, but in America, shortsightedness regarding returns is already shooting one of our key industries in the foot.

Correction:
The fifth paragraph identifies the California population at 36 million. The actual population is projected to reach 38 million during 2007. During the 1990's 10% of the US population lived in California. Today more than 12% of the US population lives there and that percentage will continue to grow, further demonstrating Detroit's delusional disconnect with the potential impacts likely to result from changes made in California .

To add insult to injury, on 6/6/07 the Detroit heavyweights were in DC fighting CAFE fuel-economy standards.

For half a century Detroit has turned to their lobbyists and lawyers to solve problems, Toyota and Honda have turned to their engineers to solve problems.

Awesome article Patt, thanks.

Dont forget meat.

Go vegan to help climate, says Government

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 30/05/2007

It would help tackle the problem of climate change if people ate less meat, according to a Government agency.

Adopting a vegan diet dramatically reduces one person's impact on the environment

A leaked email to a vegetarian campaign group from an Environment Agency official expresses sympathy with the environmental benefits of a vegan diet, which bans dairy products and fish.

The agency also says the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is considering recommending eating less meat as one of the "key environmental behaviour changes" needed to save the planet.

It says that this change would have to be introduced "gently" because of "the risk of alienating the public".

David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, has raised the issue that farm animals are blamed for producing large amounts of the powerful greenhouse gas, methane, and told farmers they need to do something about it but the agency's response appears to go further than official advice.
advertisement

It has provoked an immediate response from the National Farmers' Union, which said the suggestion was "simplistic" and "a cause of concern".

The agency's official was responding to an email from the vegan group Viva, which argues that it is more efficient to use land to grow crops for direct consumption by humans rather than feeding them to dairy cows or livestock raised for meat.

The campaign group entered a comment on the Environment Agency's website saying: "Adopting a vegan diet reduces one person's impact on the environment even more than giving up their car or forgoing several plane trips a year! Why aren't you promoting this message as part of your [World Environment Day] campaign?"

An agency official replied: "Whilst potential benefit of a vegan diet in terms of climate impact could be very significant, encouraging the public to take a lifestyle decision as substantial as becoming vegan would be a request few are likely to take up.

"You will be interested to hear that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working on a set of key environmental behaviour changes to mitigate climate change. Consumption of animal protein has been highlighted within that work. As a result the issue may start to figure in climate change communications in the future. It will be a case of introducing this gently as there is a risk of alienating the public majority.

"Future Environment Agency communications are unlikely to ever suggest adopting a fully vegan lifestyle, but certainly encouraging people to examine their consumption of animal protein could be a key message."

Juliet Gellatley, director of Viva, said: "I think it is extraordinary that a Government agency thinks becoming a vegetarian or vegan could have such a positive impact for the environment yet it is not prepared to stand up and argue the case."

A Defra spokesman said: "The Government is not telling people to give up meat. It isn't the role of Government to enforce a dietary or lifestyle change on any individual."

**not even if it helps stop catastrophe apparently

No amount of belt tightening on the part of the as yet privileged higher standard of living populations such as ours is going to avert the ultimate collapse of the planet's finite support system, so long as millions of newcomers are allowed to cross the [birth] borders onto this earth day after day:

Viewed from afar, planet Earth seems like a big round cheese beset by fungus of various colors: black, white, red, yellow, and many shades in between. The various fungi appear to be vying for predominance, all of them constantly growing, branching out onto one another's domain, engaged in never ending combat, ruthlessly killing each other and devouring ever greater quantities of cheese along the way.

Closer up, the various competing factions translate into a multitude of tribes of two legged 'earthlings', a mostly white skinned minority of which, - by design, and/or by default - happens to inhabit a sliver of prime cheese- territory mostly in the northern hemisphere of the great ball. The majority of aforementioned tribes with their vast and ever growing numbers continue to populate all the decidedly poorer rest of the finite real estate, ever harder put to nurture and sustain themselves.
Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so it does an imbalance. This explains the ongoing assault by the latter groups on the former. With the richer minority seemingly safely ensconced in their castle keeps, those outside are knocking at the gates. They are climbing over the walls; they are burrowing in from below; they are slowly working their way towards the few northern stores of wealth. Those on the inside have little recourse. They can either surrender and share their riches, thus leaving little to nothing for anyone in the end; or they can keep their draw bridges locked and use up all their wealth toward defending their privileged position, which will bring about their bankruptcy, in which case ultimately there won't be anything left for anyone either.
Neither scenario bodes well for the future of the fungus either, or the cheese, for that matter.