Earth Day. Whether it is celebrated on April 22 or on the day of the spring equinox (around March 21), it is celebrated all over the world.
The first official Earth Day began in the United States in 1970, when Senator Gaylord Nelson passed a bill designating April 22 as a national holiday to celebrate the earth.
It is a popular concept, made evermore dear to our species as we look out upon the changes we inflict upon our planet and realize just how much we depend upon the Earth for our survival. A popular quote directly pertains to this:
This we know - the Earth does not belong to man - man belongs to the Earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected.Whatever befalls the Earth - befalls the sons of the Earth. Man did not weave the web of life - he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.
1
Let's hope that today marks the first day where we, as a species, truly take these words to heart, before we ruin the only home we've ever known.
Originally posted Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:46:12 PM EST on ePluribus Media.
Every nation, every people, every culture on the planet shares this planet. Competition for resources vary depending upon where the people are concentrated and the conditions native to those locations. Survival of the species in any area usually meant survival for the winners and extinction for the losers. The same is true, and often mimicked, within human societies. It is a natural evolutionary principle, one which is altogether undeniable by all but the most myopic of people.
It is also a predictor of humanity's fall back into the evolutionary chain as a failed species, if we refuse to acknowledge our common roots and embrace the changes that make us a species apart from "ordinary animals."
If the human animal is to rise above its roots as a warlike species that uses knowledge to conquer and destroy instead of integrating and co-existing -- if we are to remain a dominant influence, in control of our destiny because of our intelligence, not in spite of it -- then the pell-mell rush to force our limited understanding upon nature must end. Nature, consisting of the environment and the planet's multitudinous ecosystems, is our keeper and our teacher. The constant refusal to acknowledge the lessons we are faced with, coupled with the tendency to push difficult problems off onto future generations, is the mark of a recalcitrant child undeserving of the respect of others. In the unforgiving world of "kill or be killed" it's an all too deadly fault.
True survival means recognizing and neutralizing the dangers all life must encounter; often, the challenges arise from external forces -- food, water, shelter from the elements and the protection and training of the young. As human society advances, it is often easy to forget these threats to our existence until catastrophe strikes. Until that occurs, many of us can sit warm and safe in the comfort of our homes, secure in the belief that we have conquered the factors that most creatures, great and small, must confront on a daily basis. There is an inherent error in such thinking, and it comes from the belief that we have conquered the outside forces that separate us from "common animals."
The most dangerous elements now facing our species do not come from outside forces.
The most dangerous elements confronting us today come from within, beginning with elements of the populace who are unable to tear themselves away from the comfort of non-thinking and ending with so-called "captains of industry" and "leaders" in government.
Through their resistance, they doom us to the empty belief that we can indeed live apart from the world that sustains us. They claim the capacity to provide energy for our needs, to shelter us and keep us warm. They claim the power and ability to transform the earth, to make it give them what they want and to accept their wastes in return.
And they claim that the price is not too dear for future generations to pay for, that to undertake efforts to mitigate the damage now would cripple us and reduce us to a level of life and living that nobody could accept.
Those are the claims which challenge us, and which we have permitted to drive the debate about how we continue to live, about how we live in this world, about what we can and cannot do about the conditions we create and augment.
Those are the claims of fools, and the delusions of grandeur born of selfish greed and evolutionary competition within societies that are not worthy of the title humanity or the entitlements that accompany it. The voices they speak with are rife with hypocrisy, and the roads they build are not paved with good intentions but with the blood of others -- plants, animals and humans. Everything that walks, flies, swims, wiggles or jumps. In short, the roads paved by the captains of industry and leadership of today are the roads to Perdition, to Infamy and to Apocalypse.
Check the signposts up ahead. It is time to get off this hypocritical, twisted road through the Twilight Zone of unreality, and find an off-ramp back to sanity. We've watched as the recent Republican majority was shattered, the dreams of a permanent majority lost, and the vapid exhortations of the Rabid Religious Fanatics -- the Dobsons and Robertsons -- chattered into overdrive to drive their faithful masses forward to shore up the still-collapsing walls around their neoconservative leadership. As gaps and breaks in the walls grow, we gain a more complete view of the interplay between these groups, and find out just how close to oblivion born of self-interest they have brought us.
Having Seven Heads and Ten Horns
Energy. Potential or kinetic, it's the stuff that makes the world go 'round. And the cars go "vroom!" and the planes go "zoom!" and the light that goes on in the darkest of rooms. It is powerful. It is Power.
In this day and age -- the Industrial Age -- energy equals power. Much of that power comes from oil, natural gas and coal. As the internal combustion engine became a major player in the industrialized nations of the world, so too did the growth of demand for oil and petroleum products. It wasn't long before the entire oil industry became dominated by several key corporate players on the world stage -- the fabled "Seven Sisters" of the oil industry.
Exxon, Shell, Mobil, Texaco, British Petroleum, Standard Oil of California and Gulf.* Though the sorocracy had ruled the international oil trade since it began, the upheaval in the business that started with the Arab embargo of 1973 threatened to end this reign. Flushed with their success in quintupling the price of petroleum, the OPEC countries were about to nationalize their oilfields, which would strip the Sisters of ownership of much of their crude reserves. Some governments talked aggressively of also muscling in on the companies' "downstream" refining and marketing operations. In the consuming countries, meanwhile, the Sisters faced painful marketing adjustments brought on by high prices and, in the U.S., a strong congressional drive to bust the oil majors into many smaller pieces. Worst of all, the companies seemed trapped in an over-the-hill business: all sorts of "experts" were saying that world oil production would peak as soon as the early 1980s, then start on an irreversible decline.
Time passes, and all things change. The changes aren't always big -- sometimes, children grow to take up their parents' work, so the faces change but the core families remain the same. So, too, has it been with the oil industry. The original Seven Sisters established the foundations; they have changed slightly, diluting their numbers, but their efforts still hold sway over the Western energy czars. Over the course of these changes, mainly through mergers and acquisitions, the Sisters became more collectively known as "Big Oil." In the meantime, a new set of Seven Sisters has arisen to dominance in the energy arena, and forced the old guard to hunker closer to their corporate and governmental sponsors for protection -- namely, the Republican Party.
Big Oil has consistently tied itself to the Republican Party, exchanging campaign financing and perks for favorable legislation, ranging from tax breaks to protection (at least initially) from having to swear to tell the truth before Congress during an investigation of price gouging: (Click here for video.)
When Energy Committee Chair Ted Stevens (R-AK, $102,190) announced that he would not require the executives to give their testimony under oath, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA, $9,400) asked for a vote on the issue. Stevens shot back: "There will be no vote . . . It's the decision of the chairman, and I have made that decision."
"I move that we swear in witnesses," Cantwell persisted.
"I second the motion," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA, $9,450).
"That's the last we're going to hear about that, because it's out of order," a piqued Stevens replied. When the two women continued their protest, the chairman informed them that "I intend to be respectful of the position that these gentlemen hold."
Note: according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Stevens has received $369,890 from the oil and gas industry, his top industry contributor, since 1989.
Public unrest and an active grassroots effort began to poke holes through the cover that Republicans in Congress were providing; four months after the above exchange took place another hearing was held. This time, the six executives who were called on the carpet were sworn in.
When asked whether mergers and acquisitions in the industry contributed to higher prices at the pumps, Congress received this familiar answer:
"We need U.S. energy companies that have the scale and financial strength to make the investments, undertake the risks and develop the new technologies necessary to provide Americans with greater energy access and greater energy security."
-- Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil chairman and chief executive, on 14 March 2006 in sworn testimony before Congress.
Truer words -- speaking toward "motive" in this case -- were never spoken. (At least, not outside of an infamous PNAC report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses," but that's a different (though very much related) story.)
The relationship of Big Oil to the Republican party can be additionally illustrated by the levels of funding provided to work their agenda -- an agenda that doesn't warm to the notion of their main products as a major contributor to global climate change. In keeping with the Biblical allegory to the beast with "Seven Heads and Ten Horns," here are the ten favorite Congressional members of Big Oil, circa 24 October 2006 (Hat-tip JimP of DailyKos.):
...recognize anyone?
Some of the biggest anti-environment, anti-climate change bozos ever to disgrace our nation's capitol grace the list. That's no coincidence.
Big Oil is one industry that stands to lose the most if a precipitous, monumental effort is made to reduce carbon emissions and find alternative means to feed our energy-hungry nation. The potential loss of billions that could be earned now and the interruption of their gravy train has led them to take drastic measures to undermine the efforts of those seeking to educate the world about the effects of human-induced climate change, while simultaneously teaming up with the Republicans for coordinated resource theft and war profiteering -- a match made in...well, not heaven.
With the Bush Administration's propensity for cronyism and politically manipulating branches of the federal government for partisan gain, Big Oil has found itself a willing and eager partner in the quest to derail intervention by state and local governments over their capacity to rein in efforts at wild expansion while simultaneously neutralizing the threat of foreign competition. The giddy gusto with which the industry rushes forth to new areas of conquest already signals the rise of significant threats to the environment, and in particular raise concerns that some efforts may actually speed up global climate change.
The relationships between government, industry and the military is not a new one, nor is the use of propaganda spawned to hide or obscure the incestuous relationships at the cost of untold lives. Indeed, history itself may be skewed to obscure the roles played by such relationships. There comes a time, however, when the hypocrisy of attempting to "secure America's defenses" by increasingly undermining the security of not only our nation but the world at large must come to an end.
In a perfect world, that time is "now" -- before the world itself ends.
Johnny Appleseed -- Alien Terrorist or Earth Angel?
Just as the saying "there's more than one way to skin a cat" implies, so too are there more than one way to ruin the environment. You don't have to raze forests or burn fossil fuels, or even dump tons of toxic waste or create mountains of non-biodegradable garbage. Even arbitrarily reclaiming swampland, damming rivers and streams, strip mining, mountaintop removal, using depleted uranium for warfare or heedlessly sinking injection wells in populated areas won't destroy the planet alone. All of these things, in exquisite excess, will take a while to have an effect. They'll all do the job, but time and a consistent pursuit of ignorance are required for them to ultimately succeed.
There are even worse ways to muck up the environment -- methods more subtle and ever-more prevalent that can alter birth rates, reproductive cycles, fetal development and post-natal growth.
Surely, rising pollutants in the form of mercury in fish (and perhaps even in medicines) as well as arsenic and steroids in the drinking water will have an effect on reproduction and development of the young across multiple food chains, but an even more insidious predator awaits -- ill-controlled human-generated bio-engineering, in the form of chemical food additives and, most particularly, in the use of genetically modified organisms (in this case, crops). In addition to the spread of gmo foods, the rise of the agricultural industry behemoths like Monsanto give aid and comfort this new assault against the species.
It didn't have to be this way.
Many of the changes affecting the agricultural industry today can be found in the good intentions of those who introduced them. Unfortunately, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" -- don'tcha hate it when there's an old saying for everything? Let's look back a bit, to one particular example of American conservation in action -- a legend from America's days of old: Johnny Appleseed.
An early pioneer in American conservation, John "Johnny Appleseed" Chapman had become a legend while he was still alive:
Johnny Appleseed, born John Chapman (September 26, 1774–March 18, 1847), was an American pioneer nurseryman, and missionary for the Church of the New Jerusalem, which is based on the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.
He introduced the apple to large parts of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois by planting small nurseries. He became an American legend while still alive, portrayed in works of art and literature, largely because of his kind and generous ways, and his leadership in conservation.
Johnny Appleseed's legend grew quickly into American folklore, surviving to this day and likely far beyond it. The importance of his story, however, has more implications for Earth Day than simply teaching about things green and growing, or conservation or even climate-changing or climate-impacting activities. Read the following excerpt (also from Wikipedia) and imagine, if you would, what his reaction would be if he saw the extent to which people were subjected to genetically-modified crops:
Supposedly, the only surviving tree planted by Johnny Appleseed is on the farm of Richard and Phyllis Algeo of Nova, Ohio. Some marketers claim it is a Rambo, although the Rambo was introduced to America in the 1640s by Peter Gunnarsson Rambo, more than a century before John Chapman was born. Some even make the claim that the Rambo was "Johnny Appleseed's favorite variety", ignoring that he had religious objections to grafting and preferred wild apples to all named varieties.
..."Rambo"...? "Johnny" Rambo...? ~sigh~ Now I get it...
John Chapman, a.k.a. "Johnny Appleseed," had a religious conviction against grafting2. I strongly suspect he'd be against tinkering with the makeup of crops at the genetic level. He could, in essence, be one of the first "organic farmers" in America.
Not so Monsanto.
A company that claims "Food biotechnology is a matter of opinions" and that "you should hear them all," they've positioned themselves as an agricultural company instead of a biotechnology firm:
Monsanto is an agricultural company. We are focused on applying innovation and technology to assist farmers around the world to be more successful, helping them produce healthier foods, better animal feeds and more fibre, while also reducing agriculture's footprint on our environment. The company's corporate headquarters are located in St. Louis, Missouri in the United States of America.
So, how 'bout that? Healthier food, better feeds, more fiber. What on earth could be wrong with that?
Mmm...let me count the possible ways:
The above doesn't paint a rosy picture, and it's not intended to. Are there advantages to learning to enhance food production, incorporating resistance to disease and insects? Yes -- there most certainly can be. However, as with all things, care must be taken. Caring takes time and costs money. Usually, a lot of both. Most companies can't survive long enough to bring a product to market if they must account for a whole slew of factors, so it becomes easier to test in small isolated samples. Unfortunately, a small isolated sample generally lacks the complexities of an ecosystem's inherent biodiversity that an altered product or transplanted organism will have to adapt to.
Remember the opening quote to this piece? Here's the bolded part of it again:
"Man did not weave the web of life - he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. "
That "web of life" of which we are but a single strand is an excellent analogy for biodiversity. Here are some good working definitions on biodiversity:
- U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, "Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity," 1987:
"Biological diversity is the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different items and their relative frequency. For biological diversity, these items are organized at many levels, ranging from complete ecosystems to the chemical structures that are the molecular basis of heredity. Thus, the term encompasses different ecosystems, species, genes, and their relative abundance."
- Jones and Stokes Associates' "Sliding Toward Extinction: The State of California's Natural Heritage," 1987:
"Natural diversity, as used in this report, is synonymous with biological diversity... To the scientist, natural diversity has a variety of meanings. These include: 1) the number of different native species and individuals in a habitat or geographical area; 2) the variety of different habitats within an area; 3) the variety of interactions that occur between different species in a habitat; and 4) the range of genetic variation among individuals within a species."
- D.B. Jensen, M. Torn, and J. Harte, "In Our Own Hands: A Strategy for Conserving Biological Diversity in California," 1990:
"Biological diversity, simply stated, is the diversity of life...As defined in the proposed US Congressional Biodiversity Act, HR1268 (1990), "biological diversity means the full range of variety and variability within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur, and encompasses ecosystem or community diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity."
Genetic diversity is the combination of different genes found within a population of a single species, and the pattern of variation found within different populations of the same species. Coastal populations of Douglas fir are genetically different from Sierran populations. Genetic adaptations to local conditions such as the summer fog along the coast or hot summer days in the Sierra result in genetic differences between the two populations of the same species.
Species diversity is the variety and abundance of different types of organisms which inhabit an area. A ten square mile area of Modoc County contains different species than does a similar sized area in San Bernardino County.
Ecosystem diversity encompasses the variety of habitats that occur within a region, or the mosaic of patches found within a landscape. A familiar example is the variety of habitats and environmental parameters that constitute the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem: grasslands, wetlands, rivers, estuaries, fresh and salt water."
OK, got that?
Everything -- every thing -- is connected. Everything.
Does that mean that we, in our ignorance, should not marshall onward in search of the meaning of life, the universe and everything? No. Nor does it mean that genetic engineering -- food or people -- is wrong. It does mean that we cannot be guided and limited by base desires in our pursuit of things which require a broad understanding of the world and place within it. The simple act of introducing a new plant or animal to an ecosystem where it may have no natural predators could initiate a disastrous change to the balance of that ecosystem.
As human beings overtake the planet with faster, ever-increasing rates of change, it's natural to attempt to tame each new area rather than adapt to conditions. It's normal and natural to want to tinker with things to attempt to achieve a local balance more amenable to survival. As a species that prides itself on intelligence, however, we need to err on the side of caution in these areas. Tinkering with everything from the building blocks of life -- our DNA and the genetic code of plants and animals -- to the virtual terraforming conducted by mountaintop removal or even building up over swampland to expand cities has an impact on the environment around us.
We have to keep an eye on those who are at the forefront of such technologies, and ensure that they have the right balance of concern for the environment and ecosystems impacted by their actions. Right now, this is the only world we have. As our scientists begin to explore other worlds and experiment with growing our own food, the lessons we learn on our home world -- or the lessons we should learn on our home world -- may be the main difference between our becoming a "Johnny Appleseed" to the stars or a dangerous alien terrorist intent on invading and subjugating other worlds through their ecology.
Our world, and any future world we plan to co-exist upon, is counting on us to do this right.
Gort! Klaatu Barada Nikto!
A classic science fiction film, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a 1951 release adapted from the story "Farewell to the Master" by Harry Bates. It tells the story of an alien who comes to Earth to tell them not to take their warring ways into space, or they would be destroyed. [Spoiler Warning!!] At the end of the film, the alien is shot, but not before giving an earth-friend the commands needed to instruct his huge alien compatriot not to destroy the earth: "Gort! Klaatu Barada Nikto!"
We aren't faced with a single entity about to destroy the planet, but we could certainly use a straightforward wakeup call to our fellow humans, government leaders and corporate heads. For many years -- at least since the sixties, when it apparently became fashionable -- conservationists and ecologists, vegans and "health food nuts" all served as the butt of many jokes. "Tree huggers" were jeered; warnings of global climate change were ridiculed. The Earth wasn't some mamby-pamby fragile flower -- it could absorb anything that we threw at it and recover.
That was the conventional wisdom of the loud, the proud and the clueless.
Now we know better. Now we know that we may be too late to mitigate some of the worst effects. And now we know that even the World Bank and the Pentagon have recognized the need to consider global climate change as a threat to national security. Regardless of this, the George W. Bush Administration relentlessly pursues a "Global War on Terror" in the interest of national security, fomenting more chaos and anti-American sentiment in the world. Regardless of this, the George W. Bush Administration peevishly pursues a policy of continued presence in Iraq, where the former absence of terrorists has now been wholly rectified and improved upon.
Regardless of this, the George W. Bush Administration has continually thwarted and undermined attempts by our own scientific bodies to properly report the impact and effects of human activity upon climate change, while giving massive tax breaks to Big Oil.
It's time to take the message of Earth Day to the White House. We have only one planet, and the efforts to actively deny and refute the studies of hundreds of the worlds leading scientists are endangering us. The efforts to protect the captains of industry from accountability, to shield corporations from scrutiny, and to push an agenda that flies in the face of an intelligent, sustainable energy policy and economy are worse than treason.
Such efforts constitute negligence, dereliction of duty to the nation and a betrayal of the entire human race.
We have only one world, one planet Earth. It's the only thing that sustains us; it is the only thing we can truly leave our descendants. On this Earth Day, let's resolve to work together to take back our planet, and to set course for an evolutionary destiny that is true to our beliefs that we are, indeed, more than well-adapted apes with larger, mushier brains and a tendency for warlike conflict and destruction.
Tomorrow, and every day thereafter as part of our daily routine, let's confront the White House and all those in Congress who continue to rail against proper ecological, environmental and energy standards. Whenever you have the chance, let them know how you feel. Phone, fax, shout or walk right up to their faces and say "Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!"
We have only one world. It's the best we've got, and it's in need of our support. If we fail to act, we'll not only be out of luck.
We'll be stranded on a barren rock in the middle of a cold, dark expanse.
Happy Earth Day, folks.
_____________________________________
Acknowledgements:
Many, many thanks to Roxy of ePluribus Media for her assistance with the graphics, and many many many thanks to Cho for her editing and sage advice.
_____________________________________
Footnotes:
1 Many people incorrectly attribute the words to Chief Seattle, the leader of the Suquamish and Duwamish Native American tribes in the mid-1800s. In 1854, he gave a speech to his people in the area now known as the state of Washington. The US President wanted to buy their lands, and promised a safe place to live in return. The chief's original speech was never accurately transcribed, but several versions have surfaced over the years. None are believed to be accurate, but a screenwriter penned the most famous reinterpretation in 1971. His name was Ted Perry, the screenwriter for Home, a 1972 film about ecology. Click here for other known versions of Chief Seattle's actual speech.
Note: there are no original, believed-to-be-accurate translations.
2 From Biology Online dot org:
- to insert scions from one tree, or kind of tree, etc, into another; to practice grafting.
- a small shoot or scion of a tree inserted in another tree, the stock of which is to support and nourish it. The two unite and become one tree, but the graft determines the kind of fruit.
- a branch or portion of a tree growing from such a shoot.