America & the Environment

Wow. I just finished watching the Inauguration on my DVR. Regardless of political persuasion, America's environmental future looks promising.

"Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age...and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."

"For everywhere we look, there is work to be done...We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together...We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."

"And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it."

(From Obama Inauguration Speech)
Read more on "America & the Environment"

Thank you Rush Limbaugh

The local news last night shared the story of the One World Everybody Eats Cafe in Salt Lake and how Rush Limbaugh attacked it during his show because they are a not-for-profit restaurant. It’s true the restaurant model is very different than others. They let people choose their own portions and then pay what they feel it’s worth. The vision statement includes goals of feeding and including all members of the community, only using organic unprocessed food, eliminating waste in the food industry, and ending world hunger. I simply ask – what is so wrong with this? You can choose not to eat there, but is there anything wrong with a place that has lofty ideals for bettering our community? He stated in his broadcast,

“I’m probably doing more for the One World Café than anybody possibly could. I’m sure there’s people in Salt Lake that listen to this program and despise me and hear me making fun of this humanitarian effort here that it’s an embarrassment to American business and they’re going to go flood the place now and make sure that it stays open. I’m giving them free advertising. They’ll probably overpay for what they’re getting…I doubt that. Liberals don’t go that far. They still want other people’s money to pay for what they do and what they get. But they’ll still stream in there to show a measure of support…” (Rush Limbaugh radio program 10 Nov 2008)

He’s right there. My curiosity was killing me so I had to try it out during lunch today. I thought the food was delicious and the service very friendly. Seeing as how Rush Limbaugh has never been there, I’m not sure how he can say the following,

“I don’t want [beef from Allen Brothers] wasted on a bunch of long-haired maggot-infested dope-smoking FM types walking in to the One World Café.” (Rush Limbaugh radio program 10 Nov 2008)

Interestingly, the idea for the restaurant began with an epiphany. Denise Cerreta developed the café to nourish both the body and the soul. She began the restaurant in 2003 and, “After a couple of months, and a lot of mental anguish, she had an encounter with the divine. She calls it inspiration from a higher power, her own ‘Field of Dreams’ experience, where she ‘just knew’ if she followed it, customers would come…It told her to get rid of her price board and cash register and let customers decide how much to pay for their food…‘I think we all have that ability’ to hear a prompting from a higher source. ‘But I don't think we listen to it.’” (source)

According to the Deseret News, the café doesn’t even do any type of advertising. “Her clientele has simply grown by word of mouth.” Why would she need to do any advertising when she has Rush Limbaugh advertising for her for free…so thanks for lunch Rush, I guess God really does move in mysterious ways…


Read more on "Thank you Rush Limbaugh"

Loving our Stewardship

I heard this quote yesterday in Management Principles training and loved it. Especially when read in context of our stewardship with the earth and all living things thereon:

“No stewardship can be fully filled without divine direction. This involves study of the scriptures, the words of the living prophets, and calling upon the Lord for intelligence beyond your own…Under true stewardship there is no room for vain ambition, pettiness, or status seeking. One’s ambition is to serve the Lord and His kingdom first. Carelessness, mediocrity, feigned effort, or inconsistent performance have no place where true stewardship is manifest. Love is the motivating force—love for God and love for others.” President Ezra Taft Benson (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 381, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988.)

When I think about the beauty and the good that I see all around me in this world, it is refreshing to hear from a prophet that love is the motivator behind all stewardship. This Creation is the Savior’s stewardship, and love is His motivator in His dealings with the earth. As we learn about our individual stewardships regarding this planet, love will likewise motivate us to action.
Read more on "Loving our Stewardship"

Three Reasons Population Control Doesn’t Help the Environment

My wife and I had a baby boy several weeks ago – our fifth – so I have been pondering and meaning to write this post for some time. Apparently some environmentalists favor having no children or using sterilization as a method to lower the earth’s population. Additionally, some governments have mandates in place to control the number of children each couple has. As a father of a large family I am not advocating for people to have large families. Nor am I an advocate for not having any children. I believe that the most appropriate response is what has been given by LDS Church leaders – it is up to you. “The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.” (1998 Church Handbook of Instructions) What I will address is the lack of correlation between the number of people on the planet and how eco-friendly we are. Unlike Paul Simon, I do not agree that “the planet groans every time it registers another birth.” (Born at the Right Time) So here are my reasons for believing population control doesn’t help the environment:


1) Fewer people don’t equal greater stewardship. Even if there were only one person on the earth, that doesn’t automatically make mankind environmentally conscious. As early as Cain, “all the forests of the earth rapidly disappeared, while that hero wandered through the earth with his bow for 130 years, looking for anything to kill—‘a human angel of death.’” (Nibley, Man’s Dominion, or Subduing the Earth) A single person could travel the world cutting every tree down, or killing every animal they see.

“If large parts of our country are polluted, it is not because we are too numerous, but because we pollute. The way to stop that disgrace is not to stop having children, but to start cleaning up. The growth of the GNP, sometimes now referred to as gross national pollution, gives us the resources for the job.” (Henry Wallich H. C. Wallich, Newsweek, June 29, 1970) This quote was found in an Ensign article by Philip F. Low from May 1971 titled, “Realities of the Population Explosion.”


2) It is impossible to determine how many people the Earth can sustain because social organization and technology continue to affect the number of people an area can sustain. The change from hunter/gatherer to farmer to city dweller to suburban life has changed the density of living. This will continue to change over time. Next on the horizon are potentially vertical farms in a single skyscraper that can feed an entire city. With technology and social arrangements changing every generation, how can anyone possibly say a specific maximum number that the earth can sustain?

Where people tend to get hung up is projecting our current levels of consumption, pollution, and sprawling cities into the future. What is involved is rethinking what it means to live in a city, how large our cities should be, the role of nature in our cities, how much we consume, where and how we use our energy, what types of fuel sources we have, living locally, and growing our own food, etc. It is a lack of knowledge, a lack of faith, a lack of dependence on God, and a lack of understanding why we are here. If fewer people are better for the planet, then natural disasters, disease, famine, and plagues are ultimately good things since they rid the planet of excess people.


3) Having children is the most human and natural thing we do here. “The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World) This doesn’t say anything about the number of children, but does say that it is human and natural for us to have children. “It takes faith – unseeing faith – for young people to proceed immediately with their family responsibilities in the face of financial uncertainties.” (Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle) Fertility rates in developed countries are already at the lowest they have ever been in the history of the world.

If the planet has too many people, then ‘replacing yourself’ doesn’t solve the problem of over population. Actor Jason Alexander (George on Seinfeld) is promoting this. He says, “This planet was never intended to support the number of human beings we currently have residing on it…So our family talks about responsibility in family planning. We talk about replacing ourselves on this globe, rather than doubling or tripling our numbers.” That is fine if he chooses this for his family. I have no problem with that. But he is advocating for far less people on the planet than we currently have, and the solution he states is for us to replace ourselves only. But this does not get us to the goal of far less people on the planet. He continues by stating, “We will never be able to really get control of the destruction of our planet's valuable resources until we realize that we have an enormous responsibility and obligation to control the size of the human population.” So even though there already exists far more people than the earth can sustain, in his opinion, all we need to do is get control of the human population, and everything will be fine. What is clear to me is that the number of people is not most critical to control, but the over-consuming, irresponsible, polluting lifestyle that is most critical to control.


People are the solution
Barring epic destruction, we cannot lower the earth’s population. Replacing ourselves or only having one child per family will not solve any problems, but create additional problems. I choose to have children, and do not feel guilt or feel that I am being irresponsible or increasing my carbon footprint in this regard. One error of the popular carbon footprint calculators is that they assume a high number for a large family. This may be true, but doesn’t have to be. In fact, in many cases larger families are more frugal and responsible out of necessity. It is as difficult for a family of six to be carbon neutral as it is for a family of one. There doesn’t need to be any extra burden on society. Education and environmental responsibility is the key. A sheer large number of people doesn’t equal irresponsible anymore than a small number equals responsible. If each individual is independently carbon neutral, then all of humanity is also – no matter what the number of that population is. Moving away from finite resources such as oil and towards infinite and renewable resources, such as solar, hydrogen, and electricity will ensure a bright future for all.

Looking at people as part of the solution gives us hope and a positive outlook on the future. “Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world…” (Ether 12:4) Good things happen when we think optimistically. Interestingly, those who choose not to have children, which tend to be the wealthy and educated, are naturally selecting themselves to extinction. As such, the poor and uneducated are increasing rapidly. As an educated and not low-income family, I feel it is my responsibility to be a part of the solution by bringing intelligent, thinking humans to the earth who will make a positive difference in the future of this planet.


How are people the solution?
The solution to all of this is for the poor to be exalted and the rich to be made low. The creation was given to us as an “earthly blessing,” a portion to provide the necessities of life. “I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine. But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low. For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare…” (see D&C 104: 11-18)

Regardless of how many people are on the earth, there will always be enough and to spare as long as the rich are made low in attempting to exalt the poor with the necessities of life. Those whose portion is in abundance, for the sake of the creation and all living on it, must give to those who do not have a portion in order to preserve the earth. If we don’t do this “in [God’s] own way,” then we will lose the blessing of an earth full of life with enough for all and to spare. God’s own way is to limit the sin of overconsumption in order to protect and preserve His creation as well as provide for all His children. Everyone will have enough if there is social equality and we all share what is here. This is what governments and religions should be promoting, rather than worrying about the number of children someone has. The warning for not sharing our abundance with the poor is clear. “If any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.” (vs. 18)


In conclusion, the number of children you have has little to do with how environmentally conscious you are. Whether you have a small or a large family is a personal decision and matters little in the grand scheme of things. Overconsumption, not overpopulation is the real problem. If you want to be more eco-friendly and lower your carbon footprint in a real and meaningful way, the best move you can make is to give to the poor. This is the Lord’s plan for reducing, reusing, and recycling.
Read more on "Three Reasons Population Control Doesn’t Help the Environment"

How Does the LDS Church feel about Sustainability?

The sound bites in the video are from Bill Williams, director of architecture and engineering for City Creek Reserve, Inc. These are posted on the LDS Newsroom site, and below is the transcribed text of his words:

"When you think about sustainability it’s beyond just green roofs, if you will. But those, in and of itself are probably the most visible because as you rise up in an office building instead of looking down on black tar you see something that’s growing. And what that does for us, is it captures rainwater, it absorbs it so it doesn’t run into the streams at a rapid rate and erode, it cools the building itself because green roofs have a natural cooling ability; shade, things like that."

"As a Church we have always been interested in sustainable efforts. We’ve never sought for public attention in that regard, but sustainable efforts from a Church-wide is something that is just prudent because it means we pay less over a long term for our structures and for our buildings, especially in terms of maintenance and operating costs. So it’s just a prudent thing to do."

"It illustrates that we truly uphold these values; that we try to be good stewards of whatever we do. And that we try to give back to the community. We don’t take from the community, but we give in terms of our time, our efforts, service. But we also look at the environment and say we’re going to be here for a long time. We’d like to ensure that there is a future and it’s a future that we all like and so we participate in the sustainability effort that is going around the country."


(City Creek Center)


(City Creek Center)

Source credits in the video are as follows:

Conference Center:
Flickr user bsmart - Green Rooftop of the LDS Conference Center
Flickr user - New LDS mormon Conference Center
Utah.com article - Atop a New Monument, an Ancient Forest
Greenroofs.com database - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Conference Center
Flickr user jonnojohnson - IMG_4638 and IMG_4630

City Creek:
Callison
LDS Newsroom
Wikipedia - City Creek Condominium Tower


(Conference Center by deanrich_99)
Read more on "How Does the LDS Church feel about Sustainability?"

Highlighted Environmental Artist: Chris Jordan

Paper Bags, 2007
60x80"
Depicts 1.14 million brown paper supermarket bags, the number used in the US every hour.


Partial zoom:


Detail at actual print size:



Running the Numbers
An American Self-Portrait

"This series looks at contemporary American culture through the austere lens of statistics. Each image portrays a specific quantity of something…My hope is that images representing these quantities might have a different effect than the raw numbers alone, such as we find daily in articles and books…This project visually examines these vast and bizarre measures of our society, in large intricately detailed prints assembled from thousands of smaller photographs. The underlying desire is to emphasize the role of the individual in a society that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible, and overwhelming."


Cans Seurat, 2007
60x92"
Depicts 106,000 aluminum cans, the number used in the US every thirty seconds.


Partial zoom:


Detail at actual size:



Plastic Cups, 2008
60x90"
Depicts one million plastic cups, the number used on airline flights in the US every six hours.


Partial zoom:


Detail at actual size:


"My only caveat about this series is that the prints must be seen in person to be experienced the way they are intended. As with any large artwork, their scale carries a vital part of their substance which is lost in these little web images. Hopefully the JPEGs displayed here might be enough to arouse your curiosity to attend an exhibition, or to arrange one if you are in a position to do so. The series is a work in progress, and new images will be posted as they are completed, so please stay tuned."

~chris jordan, Seattle, 2007
http://www.chrisjordan.com/
Read more on "Highlighted Environmental Artist: Chris Jordan"

The Pollution Market: Capping and Trading Emissions

As a follow-up to my last post in which I mentioned the need for laws limiting environmental destruction, I have finally learned about this ‘cap and trade’ issue I keep hearing about. I wasn’t exactly sure what people were talking about, so here’s the low down. The cap part is a government-mandated restriction on emissions. The trade part provides a profit incentive by creating a new commodities market. A power plant that cuts its pollution more than required could sell the extra allowances to plants that could not cut emissions enough. While it may sound counter-intuitive to be able to buy pollution on the free market, this system allows us to reach environmental goals with the support of business.

The 1977 Clean Air Act had a ‘command and control’ approach, offering a one-size-fits-all solution that didn’t solve the problem of emissions control. By the late 80’s, Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp proposed the first emissions cap and trading system which was written into the Clean Air Act of 1990 to help curb acid rain from sulfur dioxide emissions. The law required a 50% cut in sulfur dioxide emissions to help bring rivers and lakes back to life. It set a permanent upper cap on emissions and split up the quantity of pollution among the power plants. "But it was the second part of the law – the emissions-trading system – that completely transformed the paradigm that had historically pitted environmentalism against economic growth." (*page 5-6)

Two months later PG&E CEO Richard Clark said, "…now that there’s a way to make money from cutting pollution, I have a dozen proposals for emissions reductions from my own employees on the shop floor, and a dozen more from outside consultants. The environment isn’t just a money loser – it’s a profit center." (*page 6) "Within five years, U.S. utilities cut emissions 30 percent more than the law required, even while increasing electric generation from coal by 6.8 percent and reducing retail electricity prices." (*page 7) This type of innovation allows the cap, over time, to be lowered in order to reduce overall emissions, which is the goal in all of this.

With such results from sulfur dioxide, this same type of system can and should be applied to carbon dioxide emissions as well. Venture capitalist John Doerr said, "Every single day, we dump 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere like it’s an open sewer, like it’s entirely free to do that. It’s really hard to change consumer behavior when consumers don’t know how much their behavior costs." (*page 8)

*From the book ‘Earth, the Sequel: the Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming’ by Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn, published in 2008.
Read more on "The Pollution Market: Capping and Trading Emissions"

Who is Building Green?

Wondering what types of organizations are building green, I went through the list of LEED projects that have been registered, but not yet completed. This list is already one year old, but as of April 2007, there were over 6000 such registered projects. The comprehensive ‘Green Building Materials in the U.S.’ report appears to be the best resource out there for tracking the trends of green building and the green market. Unfortunately it costs $2750 to download the pdf, so I have not been able to access it. I did my own informal research going through the 116-page list of LEED registered projects. Here is the breakdown showing the number of green projects categorized by owner type:

LEED Registered Projects (through April 12, 2007)
Government (Local, State, Federal) – 1848 (30%)
Non-profit Organization - 1103 (18%)
Profit Organization – 2520 (41%)
Individual – 229 (4%)
Other – 424 (7%)
TOTAL - 6124

Government and non-profit represent roughly half (48%) of all green building projects out there, while the profitable sector represents less than half at 41%. These results show a fairly good balance of profit and non-profit projects. The free market encourages profitability, and the incentives and restrictions in place encourage non-profit and government work. However, it will not always be profitable to be green, and when the profit margins disappear, so will those green projects. We need to have further regulations in place requiring responsible building practices. It should be illegal to build environmentally irresponsible projects. No different than a building code concerned with safety or restrictive covenants concerned with aesthetics, an environmental code would be available for government jurisdictions to adopt requiring that developments address environmental concerns. Organizations need to be held responsible for their buildings and the impact they are making.
Read more on "Who is Building Green?"

Does Global Warming Motivate You?

The main environmental motivator these days seems to be one of fear. The press is jumping on every alarming article relating to the environment. Additionally, authors like James Kunstler, promote fear and despair through his best-selling books. In my opinion this is turning many against the environment and sustainable living. This leads me to think about what motivates us in our lives.

As a Mormon missionary, my two years were spent under two very distinct mission presidents. The first had a military background and would pound his fist on the table during zone conferences, raising his voice to inspire us to greater diligence. The second was soft spoken, telling us often of his love for us and expressing appreciation for what we were doing. Both were effective. Some responded better to one over the other depending on their personality.

Fear, as a motivator, doesn't work in many cases. This study shows how positive messages, rather than threats, are more likely to help smokers overcome their habit. Other powerful motivators include duty, love, and selfishness; a soldier on the front line, a father caring for a sick child, a worker doing well in order to receive a promotion. I think that each of these has a place even though we may view certain motives as loftier than others.

How does this relate to the environment? I have summarized my list of Environmental Motivators below:

Global Warming – based on fear (we are destroying the earth)
Personal Gain – based on selfishness (we can benefit from the earth)
Stewardship – based on duty (we are responsible for the earth)
Sacred Creation – based on love (we are connected to the earth)

Global warming and eco-trendy products seem to get all the coverage. Stewardship and the sacredness of creation rarely make headlines, but they still exist. In the end, isn't the most newsworthy report that when millions of people resolve to "rise a little higher, be a little better" (Gordon B Hinckley) all forms of life on the earth will benefit?

An example from my own life: I have used public transit to commute to and from work for many years because the purchase, gas, and maintenance of another vehicle was expensive. My motive was purely based on saving money, but it helped the environment regardless of my intent. There are many ways an environmental benefit can be gained, even if we may be driven by very different, and sometimes opposing, agendas.

What motivates you? Have you changed any part of your life or habits relating to the environment? If so, what motivated you to make the change? If not, what is holding you back? Read more on "Does Global Warming Motivate You?"