NOLS helped develop the Leave No Trace organization and they practice its low-impact ethics on every expedition. I would say that as a result of people participating in these learning expeditions in majestic, far-flung places, they are gaining a respect and sense of responsibility for the world they exist within every day at home.

After all, say the GOP, the Natl. Manufacturers' Assn., the Business Roundtable, the airline lobbies, etc.,  if the most environmentally ethically advanced beings in the universe think it's ok to keep on traveling to far away places just because of some offsets, then it must be ok for the rest of us to keep right on trucking ...

At some point, people who profess concern for the environment have to stop helping to screw it up in the name of consciousness raising.

The 5% Project

Do you think about the root causes for global warming or do you like to complain?

But perhaps I'm not thinking about the right things--what should I be thinking about?  

Should I follow the course blazed by tens of millions before me and decide that carbon emitted by those with a pure heart (whose values are similar to my own) is less damaging than carbon emitted for base reasons?

Should I decide that carbon emitted from jet travel by people who are clearly aware of and take global heating seriously is less damaging than carbon emitted by H2 drivers?

The phrase "root causes" strikes me as odd, because I've been trained and am quite proficient in root cause analysis as a method for improving safety and in improving organizational performance.  I know what I mean by the term, but what do you mean by it?  What do you think the "root causes" of global heating are that I should be concerned with?

Part of me probably does like to complain, though.  I admit to having always had a fondness for Oscar Wilde's observation that "Discontent is the first step in the progress of a man or a nation."

The 5% Project

Singling out travelers, who once arriving at the destination hike for hundreds of miles is unfair. Jealous?

Those of us who love the outdoors are going to have to change, just as everybody else will.  For example, we probably should do most of our outdoorsing nearby - get to know our own hills and lakes  and deltas, rather than jetting off to Peru.

SF writer Kim Stanley Robinson had a wonderful story about this at GORP: The Future of Adventure

Sports fan Bill Henderson is envisioning how sports need to be re-thought in light of global warming and peak oil: The relocalization of sport.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

I suggest that none of your list of activities that contribute to global heating (the billion cars and people and machines and industry and land clearing and Amazon deforestation and a hundred other[s]) are "systemic causes" at all.  

Rather, those are symptoms of a greater root cause, our ability as individuals to rationalize anything we wish to do that benefits us or our kin as good/justified/worthy while we ignore or minimize costs that we impose on others outside our kin group (living now or later).  That, I suggest, is a lot closer to a root cause for global heating.

You ask:  "Singling out travelers, who once arriving at the destination hike for hundreds of miles is unfair. Jealous?"  

How does the fact that NOLS folks hike for hundreds of miles change the equation?   What's the difference between them and people who fly to Bali to lie on the beach, or people who fly to Patagonia to climb, or people who fly anywhere to pursue their own private pleasures?

As for my feelings, I experience a feeling closer to despair when I see the NOLS ad, not jealousy.  It tells me that even the folks who might be expected to be the most dedicated to reducing global heating carry the same "de minimus" fallacy in their heads as the SUV drivers and the Amazonian loggers:  the belief that the damage that I do is so small as to be inconsequential.

The 5% Project

So sorry, I am feeling very miserable and cranky.

Rightly so, though, as any writer would understand.

To Bart: By "SF," you apparently mean "sci-fi."  Be sure to specify, in the future.  "SF" by itself means too many things in different contexts, e.g. San Francisco, Santa Fe, self-feeling, sans-farine, subwarp-frequency, and So Forth.

Kim Stanley Robinson, back in 2000, published a piece, not exactly a story, which deserved to have been received popularly better than it apparently has been received.  I like this meaningful fragment:
<<
This is called commodification, turning things you do into things you buy, and it's long since been true that experiences in America are as commodified as things.
>>

I have no knowledge whatsoever of who NOLS are and what they do. I do know that the aspect of the Sierra Club that I like by far the least is their travel industry, in the name of green values and eco-education.

Why in the world is it that young(ish) Americans, with a goodly amount of bucks in their pockets, do not feel that they have truly "experienced Nature," until they have spent a lot of money traveling to distant continents whose names begin with "A," and who expend lots of jet fuel getting there, and who take lots of pictures once they have got there?

There is so much of beauty and interest to see right here in North America.  As the old saying goes: "Do you learn more about mountains, by climbing a hundred mountains, or by climbing the same mountain a hundred times?"

Robert H. Mohlenbrock is a terrificly underestimated environmentalist hero.  For decades, he has been writing the "This Land" column in Natural History, a great magazine published in some relationship with the American Museum of Natural History here in NYC.  Mohlenbrock's blurb reads, "Robert H. Mohlenbrock is distinguished professor emeritus of plant biology at Southern Illinois University Carbondale."

IMHO, I think he is fantastic.  He has been researching for decades the national, state and provincial forests of North America, and describing them carefully, mostly with an interest in flora but also in fauna, geology and hydrography.

In each of his columns, he includes transportation information for the place that he has described.

Really, his work is astounding.  And we must do much more to assure clueless young well-meaning Americans that there is plenty right here for them to look at and study.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Copy and paste into a "draft" in your email and it's safe even if the computer crashes.  Belt and suspenders.  

It's the only way to be sure of preserving ones creation in the wacky world mr gates hath wrought.  I know, apple machines are not designed to facilitate commercial hacking and spying and thus frequent crashing.

But most internet technology does run on the gates model.  Easy for corporate, goverenment, and just plain old vandalism to destroy.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

That's just good green business.

Your critique is in the popular talking point mode, like the fauxnews attack on Gore's home energy use, of claiming personal hypocricy.  And this comes nowhere near even the faux credibility of that claim.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

What I would like to hit upon is the following point that you made:
Rather, those are symptoms of a greater root cause, our ability as individuals to rationalize anything we wish to do that benefits us or our kin as good/justified/worthy while we ignore or minimize costs that we impose on others outside our kin group (living now or later).  That, I suggest, is a lot closer to a root cause for global heating.

This is the basis for human success as a species, at least during the period of time when we were Homo sapiens var. sapiens. This is the healthiest attitude that an individual can have without being a martyr, and delving into the religious bullshit that goes along with that. We are mammals, whose sole reason for existence, if boiled down to one reason, is to procreate and insure the survival of our progeny.

Granted, flying thousands of miles to faraway lands in order to undertake risky ventures is not a part of that, BUT while we are here on this planet, we have to occupy our minds with something besides 'sky blue', 'leaf green', and 'river food'. We have become successful as a species by using our legs and minds in order to spread to places where no other primate or great ape has been and have been capable of sustaining our populations in these places with a good consistency.

And on top of that, the people who explore, people who take risks are also the same people who may do better in terms of reproduction, or at least the quality of reproduction, as in finding fit partners, and raising healthy offspring. I know that there is more than one way to spin this tale, but biology is my forte', and that is how I'm going to spin it.

As far as my systemic causes, people who undertook these tasks were not people who did this for the sake of luxury, in many cases they did it out of necessity and that's how they felt about it at the time of the undertaking, especially in a constantly changing world. After all, twenty years ago no one used computers, and now few people in most western circles consider internet a luxury. Anyway, I'm not an apologist for NOLS, I'm sure that the few thousand people that actually took their courses would be able to give you much better arguments, if they chose to do so.

As I'm sure you are all aware, it's quite thoroughly impossible to participate in modern society without externalizing costs and ecological damage left, right, and center.

You can minimize your personal contribution, of course.  But once you have eliminated major systematic contributions, like daily car commuting or a 3-meals-a-day McDonalds habit, such efforts become an exercise in making a very, very small contribution to the problem ever so slightly smaller.  In the meantime, we each have to live our lives, do our work, and keep ourselves sane and happy enough to be functional in the midst of a world going mad.

The (il)logical extension of the principle I quoted above would have those who are most concerned about the environment undertake a lifestyle of minimum negative impact, which in the context of our current infrastructure equates to minimum activity, minimum travel, minimum communication, and minimum participation in the mainstream society that we are trying to change.

In the meantime, the world continues on its merry way, destroying itself microscopically less quickly thanks to the silent sacrifice of the eco-hermits.

Personally, I think that it is far more important to make as much positive impact as possible, whether that's on the design of infrastructure (my work) or the way that people think about the natural world (NOLS's approach).  If this activity  leads to a greater-than-minimum negative impact, that's acceptable (within reason).

If anything is going to save us, it will be the positive impacts of caring and involved activists (using the term very broadly).  Those impacts will include persuading mainstream citizens to reduce their own most egregious impacts.  But arguing that the first duty of every environmentalist is to make their personal impacts an absolute minimum is a good way to get tied up in irrelevancies.  It also sounds very much like the "hair shirt" school of environmentalism, the problems of which have been discussed at length elsewhere in Gristmill.

Dear ATreyger, do you really need to fly to Patagonia to find a "fit partner"?  Are there no good women (or whatever you are in the market for) in upstate NY and vicinity?

As for condemning religion-based ethics, which all too often do indeed deserve condemning, I cannot figure out what you mean in this paragraph:
<<
This [as per JMG, benefiting kin as a prevailing motive of human behavior, with disadvantaging non-kin as a morally insignificant consequence] is the basis for human success as a species, at least during the period of time when we were Homo sapiens var. sapiens. This is the healthiest attitude that an individual can have without being a martyr, and delving into the religious bullshit that goes along with that. We are mammals, whose sole reason for existence, if boiled down to one reason, is to procreate and insure the survival of our progeny.
>>

One wonders if even Friedrich Nietzsche could have been satisfied with so purely physical and anti-intellectual a manifesto.

Sure, human beings are mammals, and very many of them are much of the time engaged in begetting brats, giving birth to them, raising them, wiping up after them, and getting them into prestigious colleges.

But could that really be all that our existence is about?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

My problem is that I have observed reasonably long time that everyone considers themselves wonderful people and what they do justified by the rewards that it brings them vs. the costs.

As for whether I advocate a "hair shirt" environmentalism, I would like to note how comfortably that charge would fit on Rush Limbaugh's program or in the materials of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  Apparently when we talk about what "THEY" have to stop doing (factory farming, building superfreeways, coal burning ethanol plants, enormous V8 SUVs, etc.) we are only advocating common sense, but when someone suggests that WE also have to modify our activities then we're guilty of advocating "hair shirt environmentalism."

I'm afraid that, in the absence of a unified global response to global heating, individuals are left to cobble together their own responses, which means making decisions in the face of uncertainty and in the face of evidence that "they aren't cutting back, why should I?"   Each person must inquire into their own actions and the ethics of their own choices,including asking that most important question "What is the result if everyone did what I propose to do?"

Just as GW Bush likes to point to China and India whenever it is suggested that the US needs to go on a carbon diet, rich first-world environmentalists like to point out that lots of other people aren't doing enough the instant that someone suggests that they too are overspent on their carbon budget.

What I think "leadership" --as in a "leadership" school-- requires is that anyone who aspires to the title must be willing to face hard truths and to examine their own actions against their values, not just the actions of others.

I'm guessing that NOLS helps produce people who serve the global tourism industry at some level--a small niche, to be sure, but part of that industry nonetheless.  People who take spendy and arduous courses in "outdoor leadership" probably don't just allow in those scientists who have to travel and live on  glaciers to study them (although, presumably, some NOLS students are such people).  

Rather, using the internet to promote their "Get it while it's cool" message suggests that they are mining the same niche market for high-end eco/adventure tourism as Sierra Club and others, and that they are about creating demand for their service rather than just serving it.  That's what advertising does: build demand.  Thus, presumably, they want to build demand, and if the response is there, to serve it.  

I think that the kind of outdoor leadership we need is a lot closer to what Canis suggests--leaders being people who help others identify worthy goals and to attain them.  When I see NOLS offring courses in outdoor leadership in Newark and NYC and Oakland and Dallas and OK City then I'll revise my opinion.  But in the meantime they seem just like Princess cruises with a green veneer to me.

The 5% Project

I am not particularly fond of philosophical reasons for existence of life, me and everything else around. The reason is not that I do not buy it or that I do not like to think about them and have my own conclusions; it is that they are as ephemeral as that particular school of philosophy, despite the fact that these schools hang on for thousands of years.

My statement comes as close to the ultimate TRUTH as possible. Our existence is quite seriously and unequivocally based on reproduction and continuation of self-organization that is life. I have no problem with people finding their own meaning within this framework; I know I have found it for the meantime, and I will continue finding it throughout my lifetime. But anything besides this TRUTH is really as ephemeral as the individual organism, in our case 80 years if lucky. That is hardly a long enough period of time to have MEANING, considering that known life has existed for 50 million times that period.

JMG,
The problem with voluntary individual responses are that this approach will not work. It's really quite simple, because reasonable people WILL do things that benefit them despite their environmentalist inclinations. Only zealots (or true followers, depending on the perspective taken) will do things that are detrimental to themselves in order to better everyone else. The rest of the five point nine nine nine billion people in the world will do everything to benefit themselves. The true change will not come from cessation of the Sierra Club's or NOLS' or any other eco-tourist organization, which account for a minimal portion of the problem; it will come from political and market forces that change the infrastructure of GHG induced climate change. And in the meantime, it seems almost ridiculous to not take advantage of what is available to us.

Your reason for disliking Sierra Club's/NOLS''green veneer' is that it still creates demand for tourism. True enough, but is education about survival in the wilderness, or education about the ecology of a faraway place bad? Because without education, some people would not be aware of a disappearing species, or people would not bring environmental injustices or problems in those lands. Anyways, this bone that you pick seems like a very minor component of nearly any environmental agenda.

The opposite phenomenon is what I think of as the hy(pe)drogen syndrome: the perception that we can go on living just as we are without destroying the earth if we just deploy the right technologies.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.  We can live very well with a greatly reduced (or negative; i.e. ecologically beneficial) footprint, but TANSTAAFL.

... our ability as individuals to rationalize anything we wish to do that benefits us or our kin as good/justified/worthy while we ignore or minimize costs that we impose on others outside our kin group (living now or later).  That, I suggest, is a lot closer to a root cause for global heating.

This may be the root cause for all 'unintended' evil done by man; we see the benefit to those near us but not the harm done to those far away (especially if they are separated from us by time yet to pass).

Atreyger claims, as many have:

This is the basis for human success as a species, at least during the period of time when we were Homo sapiens var. sapiens. This is the healthiest attitude that an individual can have without being a martyr, and delving into the religious bullshit that goes along with that. We are mammals, whose sole reason for existence, if boiled down to one reason, is to procreate and insure the survival of our progeny.

Really, have we not evolved beyond the 'kill or be killed' rule of the jungle? Can we not sympathize with those outside our immediate sphere of interaction, without becoming 'religious martyrs'? I'll not argue that this animal instinct has enabled us to survive difficult times, but those times are long gone from our lives. To continue to survive, in the modern world, we've got to change this attitude to one of understanding and compassion that goes beyond those we can touch and see; in fact, it must go beyond concern for our own species, if the ecosystem which supports life on Earth is to survive (in any fashion we would recognize) our conversion of resources into human flesh and toxic waste.

I find it hard to believe that by flying across the world to trek across a glacier, I would become a more potent force for change in the world. Most of the 'takers' are more likely pleasing themselves, while dumping carbon into the atmosphere. I also seriously doubt that mankind will benefit from their superior genetic contribution. If we are to survive the result of our animal instincts, the next step in human evolution will be societal, not genetic.

a liberal in redsville

Can I ask where will these magical "political and market forces" that you imagine will "change the infrastructure of GHG induced climate change" come from?  From Delta and United?  Nope?  From Exxon and the oil industry?  Nope.  From Virgin Airlines?  Nope.  From the tourism industry?  Nope.  OK, then where then?  If you say "Government," then I ask where government will get the cajones needed to impose carbon caps and taxes if the Greenies won't even stop flying around to "educate" themselves.  
==

Atreyger:  " And in the meantime, it seems almost ridiculous to not take advantage of what is available to us.

Your reason for disliking Sierra Club's/NOLS''green veneer' is that it still creates demand for tourism. True enough, but is education about survival in the wilderness, or education about the ecology of a faraway place bad? Because without education, some people would not be aware of a disappearing species, or people would not bring environmental injustices or problems in those lands. Anyways, this bone that you pick seems like a very minor component of nearly any environmental agenda."

(1) Is it not possible to educate people without travel?  Isn't it odd that the generation of people who have the most educational technologies and resources available to them are also the ones who insist on travelling the most?

(2) Are those "some people" who would "not be aware of a disappearing species" the ones taking the eco- and adventure tourism trips?  Really?  

(3) I weary of trying to make this point but I'll try one last time:  If this "bone that [I] pick" is "a very minor component of nearly any environmental agenda" then please explain how we can expect any progress on the big hard bones if we aren't able to progress on this one.  You've got a totally discretionary activity that produces essentially no social good at a high environmental cost, and we can't even agree that this is the social equivalent of the canned HC-134 and needs to be banned--then how in heck do we take on pulverized coal plants and plans for 18 lane superhighways to bisect the continent?

I ask again:  What are you willing to give up to preserve this activity in a carbon-constrained world?  And if the answer is "nothing, it's too small to worry about" or "nothing, until that guy over there stops doing the much worse activity," then please explain how you're going to persuade that guy, whose livelihood might well depend on his bad-for-climate activity, to knock it off?

At a meeting today the speaker said that there are 100,000 new autos registered in Beijing alone (I think he said per month).  Given that we are the energy pigs of the world, insisting that we should be able to fly and drive whenever and wherever our budgets allow, how are we supposed to suggest anything else to the Chinese and the Indians?

The 5% Project

I'm the admission and marketing director for NOLS. I'm hopeful that you all will read for a few seconds while I try to address some of the concerns raised in this thread.

Grist is the only venue in which we have run the advertisement in question. All of us in our office are avid readers of Grist and we enjoy the "tongue in cheek" humor that Grist employs in bringing us very serious news about our environment. This ad was designed not as a "glacier fire sale", but instead as a way of highlighting our courses in what we thought was a "Grist-like" style. Obviously our attempt at humor has been misunderstood (or was too feeble to stand the scrutiny of this audience). I apologize and we will replace this ad with something more routine on Monday.

We at NOLS view global warming as the most important environmental issue of our time. All of us at our non-profit school feel that the best way to create change is through education. Our goal is to turn out strong, positive leaders with an environmental ethic and our curriculum focuses on three areas: outdoor skills, practical leadership and environmental ethics. Our format for teaching is on extended expeditions (30 days to 6 months in length) in remote wilderness areas.

Our outcomes are well documented and the stories of our graduates who are making a difference in the environmental arena are compelling. The founder of Grist, Chip Giller, is a proud NOLS graduate as is the president of the National Parks Conservation Association, numerous directors for the Nature Conservancy, leaders of the Wilderness Society and many other more grassroots environmental activists.

We recognize and acknowledge that NOLS courses have an environmental footprint. This is from the NOLS website (www.nols.edu), "Let's face it.
NOLS students travel the globe to far-flung locations. We use outdoor gear and clothing made from synthetics derived from petroleum. We hike and paddle in pristine wilderness. NOLS is making a mark and not just with the incredible education our students receive."

We recognize the impact, and yet we persist. We believe that our world needs reasoned ethical leaders. People who have seen how simply they can live in the backcountry, "unplugged" from their email, blogs and websites. Away from the cars, and other conveniences that we take for granted.

And yes, our students travel. We feel that while some gains can be made by "acting locally", this is a global problem. It is not one that will be solved by turning inward. We believe that to truly appreciate our planet people need to experience some of it. To understand the reach of our environmental issues we need to meet, talk and learn from people from other nations, regions and tribes. This is what happens on a NOLS course.

As referenced above we know our courses have an environmental impact and we are working hard to mitigate that. This is more from the NOLS website: "Since 1965 NOLS has constantly refined its environmental practices to minimize the footprint we leave, whether it's educating students in the backcountry or conducting business around the world. We research, reduce, reuse, recycle and repent.

Organic gardens, solar, wind power, even the vegetable oil powered "Creating a Climate for Change" bus--NOLS is investing in sustainability, but climate change is happening, carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is the culprit, and we can't change all of our practices fast enough."

As a result we are in the early stages of an external environmental audit to better understand all of our impacts and to develop strategies to lessen our footprint. We are offsetting our electric, heating and on the ground fuel use through a partnership with NativeEnergy.

Again, my apologies to anyone who was offended by the tone our message in the NOLS advertisement on Grist. It was our intent to use humor to get people interested in our courses, not to rile them up.

Just this week I attended a gathering of 15 of Wyoming's environmental leaders and 15 of the state's spiritual leaders.  It was the start of a dialog to find common ground between the environmental and faith communities. This meeting was interesting and informative. We found many shared values and intend to work on some initiatives together. This is how our world's environmental issues are going to be solved. Finger pointing and divisiveness are what got us where we are; cooperation and understanding are what will move us forward.

Thanks!

Bruce Palmer
NOLS director of admission and marketing

My prior statements may have appeared black and white, but I stated them with all shades of gray in mind. But, I would like to respond to JMG:

1) Is it not possible to educate people without travel?  Isn't it odd that the generation of people who have the most educational technologies and resources available to them are also the ones who insist on travelling the most?

While one can write a computer program simulating a 'wild' experience, I find this preposterous.

2) Are those "some people" who would "not be aware of a disappearing species" the ones taking the eco- and adventure tourism trips?  Really?

Name one disappearing species in Uruguay and tell me something about its habitat, oh and describe it to me, include its smell if its a plant or the kind of a sound it makes if it's an animal.

3)  I weary of trying to make this point but I'll try one last time:  If this "bone that [I] pick" is "a very minor component of nearly any environmental agenda" then please explain how we can expect any progress on the big hard bones if we aren't able to progress on this one.  You've got a totally discretionary activity that produces essentially no social good at a high environmental cost, and we can't even agree that this is the social equivalent of the canned HC-134 and needs to be banned--then how in heck do we take on pulverized coal plants and plans for 18 lane superhighways to bisect the continent?

I agree with this in principle, but you have to put this in perspective: cutting out travel by itself is impossible. You're talking about jets and flying. Well, the ship industry is underdeveloped. Biking down to Patagonia is impractical in our days of schedules and deadlines. What's left?

Our society and infrastructure is what set us on this course, and without a major disruption (from the goverment or a war?) it will not change. Incremental changes in terms of people who are most aware of their impact and who usually fly once a year at most is likely to do little.

On the substance, I'm completely with atreyger on this one. JMG, I think you're being a bit of a crank, which normally I love, but in this case it looks like you're making a stylistic point and trying to pass it off as a substantive one.

First, on this:

If you say "Government," then I ask where government will get the cajones needed to impose carbon caps and taxes if the Greenies won't even stop flying around to "educate" themselves.

The two are utterly unrelated. Since when has the gov't looked to greenies for inspiration? You really think congressional aides somewhere are asking, "hey, are the greenies suffering for this? If not, how do we know it's a serious problem?" That would be an absurd basis for public policy if they did, but if course they aren't.

So, yes: government. Mostly. That fact is that there are thousands of tiny changes governments could make that would avoid more climate gases than grounding the NOLS program, with no perceptible sacrifice on anybody's part. Why not start with those?

And, to make another point that seems obvious: yes, traveling can open minds and change hearts and educate in a way that reading an encyclopedia never could.

You're buying into a right-wing frame if you try to impose a set of rules that would leave NOLS students and Al Gore and Sierra Club conference participants grounded and isolated while the world went on its merry way burning up. Right now we need a change in global opinion more than we need the tiny increments of GHGs that would be avoided by keeping our best leaders and educators out of the air.

Laws and regulations that raise the price of flying will affect NOLS just like everyone else. But until those rules are in place, NOLS closing up shop helps absolutely nothing and measurably hurts efforts to create engaged, committed environmental leaders.

grist.org

DR wrote:
<<
And, to make another point that seems obvious: yes, traveling can open minds and change hearts and educate in a way that reading an encyclopedia never could.
>>

Well of course, that is classic, it goes without saying.  And who in the world said that a nice reference book could substitute for real physical experience?

Really, the contrast is not between "travel" vs. "no-travel."  There is no contrast, actually.  It is a matter of a considered judgment: How much travel is it worth while to do?

My own opinion is that a certain amount of extra-continental travel is always educative.  But really, such trips should not be habit-forming, certainly not prestigious-seeming, as in that disgraceful Travel section of the NYTimes.

We can dig deeper, everywhere we are.  There are very interesting places to dig, everywhere around us.  As I tried to emphasize before, with reference to the excellent work of Robert Mohlenbrock, for most Americans, these places are relatively close by, throughout North America.  To suggest that we cannot learn, we cannot educate ourselves, we cannot improve ourselves, unless we fly first to a distant continent, is simply crazy.

People-wise, that is a different subject, perhaps.  Frankly, as a New Yorker, I feel a fair amount of nausea as I drive westward and enter the Susquehanna and Ohio valleys.  But then again, I generally pass out during general election returns on TV, when I hear them announcing from Georgia, and Idaho ...  

But really, foreign-language-learning ought to be a much more important part of our curriculum than it historically has been.  And we would all do well, to spend some time in another country, in which a language other than English is spoken.

That is why Herodotus is a hero.  He went to a number of non-Greek-speaking countries, and learned a great deal.  And his sympathy for those non-Greeks ("barbarians"?) is remarkable.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

What I actually suggested was that NOLS could and should conduct its programs in Newark, NYC, OK City, Dallas, Oakland, and all the places in between rather than in places that require jet flights.  As Canis has posted several times, it's a big continent.  You don't have to fly anywhere to have a leadership school in spectacular settings.

Further, I suggest that NOLS taking credit for "engaged, committed environmental leaders" is nonsense---who signs up for NOLS classes in the first place, people who were otherwise going to go build coal plants or hunt big game?  I think not.  Taking credit for having produced the quality that people had when they entered your program is as old as Harvard University and beyond--but it's still circular reasoning.

In fact, what I came away with after exploring the NOLS website for a long time is that the outfit boils down to giving rich people what the military used to provide to a thin slice of them (and that it now tends to attract the poor): a chance to join a gang, learn the interpersonal skills of leadership and teamwork, and, with luck, to test oneself against limits while, with luck, not getting hurt or killed doing it.

As for buying into the right-wing frame, not a bit--what I am buying into is the idea that we're never going to get anywhere limiting jet travel if the denialists, confusionists, and millenialists who think that the Rapture is any minute now can correctly note that we're not actually against jet travel enough to stop using it, we'd just opposed to jet travel for purposes we don't approve of (i.e., jet travel by other people).

Here's a question:  if NOLS is actually committed to its leaderhip purposes (rather than to its "format" of spending time in distant wilderness places) then wouldn't limiting NOLS trips to North America be a lot BETTER for the organizational goals, since a lot more people could take part and the overall environmental footprint of the activity would go way down?

Moreover, are you saying that NOLS stops when flying stops?  If not--and if you actually believe that, as Hansen says, we've got to really get serious about cutting carbon now--then hadn't NOLS better start figuring out a whole new localized model ASAP, rather than trying to build a model based on an unsustainable mode of travel to distant places?

(Also noticed that, according to the NOLS website, the CO2 offsets that Bruce mentioned actually only apply to NOLS bases and ground travel--hmmmm, what huge climate destabilizing activity does that leave out?)

The 5% Project

Also an outdoor leadership class in NYC? I can only imagine the types of lectures and learning expeditions: dumpster diving, sleeping in the tunnels, fighting off the insane panhandler, finding the best soup kitchen. Come on, clearly there is a difference between the K-12 education that everyone in any urban environment should receive and an actual experience where complete disassociation with the amenities of our civilization teaches very important lessons drastically different from: 'where do apples come from?'.

As for what people can learn about outdoor leadership in NYC, what is your point?  That the "environment" is somewhere "out there" and not in NYC?  That there are no 'actual' experiences' civilized amenities available to people in North America without aid of jet engines?  

As for the name calling, if you want to go there I'll see your "pro-isolationism" and raise you a hypocritical elitism as "the appropriate response."

The 5% Project

But the daily evolution of this city is "Nature" too.  Including the occasional dumpster.

To suggest that no decent course for a naturalist could be conducted in NYC and vicinity is extremely unimaginative and anti-urbanly prejudiced.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

0. NOLS and environmentalists can be instrumental in developing new ways of relating to nature. The NOLS approach was innovative decades ago; now it's time to be innovative again.

1. 95% of outdoor time should be spent within one hour of home.  

2. The other 5% should be very important trips whose purpose cannot be achieved in any other way. Key word: *selectivity*.

3. Almost all outdoor skills and knowledge can be imparted in areas that are close-by. It is a waste of time/money/energy to go to Baja California to learn to kayak. There are ecosystems and flowers in NYC, as well as in the Sierras.

4. The emphasis should be on "going local, going deep." Traditionally, people developed close ties to their own area. Required reading: the essay "The Long-Legged House" by Wendell Berry.

5. We should model should model ourselves after those in-depth travelers who prepare for a year before going on a trip, and then get the most from their time.

• Native Plant Society walks and lectures.

• Sense of Place - a yearlong course in getting to know your watershed.

• Outdoor classes in kayaking, hiking, ultra-lightweight backpacking, cross-country skiing, rockclimbing, sailing.

• "Primitive technology" - activities that introduce you to the skills of native peoples (basket weaving, arrowheads, using native plants, etc.)

• Herbal medicine from local herbs and weeds.

• Local history - talks, books, walks.

• A treasury of local parks and museums.

As Cliff Stoll eloquently put it in "Silicon Snake Oil," there's a REAL WORLD not far from your door, with real people to interact with and real nature to study.

Ultimately, the twin carbon challenges of climate change and peak oil require that we drastically learn to relocalize, and part of that means that the world gets bigger again, and the expectation that middle class people (in a world where the middle class numbers more than a billion people) should expect to be able to set foot off the continent of their birth as a matter of right will recede.

Every jet trip to Uraguay to visit the endangered species there helps further endanger that species and thousands of others.  

Further, people who have months to spend hiking in the wilderness can hardly plead that they don't have the time needed to travel lightly over long distances--heck, wouldn't sailing and long-haul biking be a fine way to teach all those leadership skills that NOLS wants to teach?

The 5% Project

Now we are all supposed to stay home and explore the local park. Yes, I said park. I suspect that my road-trip from Wisconsin to the Black Hills of South Dakota a few summers ago was a big no-no, even though I learned about natural environments I had never encountered before and arrived home with a strong desire to become a better steward of the land and give more thought to the people displaced by Europeans. Was I supposed to ride a bicycle there?

This summer and fall I'll be exploring parts of Wisconsin and neighboring states a few hours from my home. That too is probably a no-no.  Sorry, not everyone is wealthy enough or obsessed enough to devote months to traveling somewhere. We have other interests, like planting and caring for gardens or devoting  time to preserving local flora and fauna. Sometimes a person just wants to see something else, but not necessarily everything between home and something else.

And are the folks criticizing air travel, the same folks who want everyone to live in an urban setting? Aren't those people, those who spend their lives surrounded by concrete, going to want to do a little exploring? They'll go bonkers if you cut them off from travel.

Now, I'm not very fond of flying -- for reasons I will not go into right now, accept to say I'm afraid some idiot might decide my highest pupose in life would be fulfilled by becoming a martyr for Islam or some corporate executive will get a bonus by spending less on rivets -- but I'm certainly not going to deny someone else the joy of visiting strange lands. And I would look forward to them telling me about their experiences when they return. I learned much on a trip to England and Europe over a decade ago and hope to travel to China someday.

Once again, a subgroup of environmentalists want to deny human nature. Our species appears programmed for roaming... for traveling... for intereacting with other cultures... and now we are supposed to suppress another feature of our species that emerged from millions of years of evolution.

It is lovely to say that human nature must change. The world is different now. But it is very difficult, in my opinion, to jettison such deeply rooted evolutionary "baggage". Discussions that wish to find ways of suppressing desire for nature, desire for travel, desire for stuff, desire for security, are destined to failure. We have to find ways of meeting our natural needs without killing ourselves, each other, or the ecosystems that support us.

Rather than condemn the travel industry, perhaps the focus should be on creating a sustainable travel industry. Or impose a tax that goes toward conservation. Perhaps resurrect travel by boat. Or improve rail and ferry travel across North America and to neighboring continents. Come up with a means of permitting humans to continue being human.

It is lovely to say that human nature must change. The world is different now. But it is very difficult, in my opinion, to jettison such deeply rooted evolutionary "baggage". Discussions that wish to find ways of suppressing desire for nature, desire for travel, desire for stuff, desire for security, are destined to failure.

True, it can be difficult to modify our atavistic nature. Nevertheless many of us manage to do it all the time: individually it's called being a grownup and collectively it's called civilization. I do so hope that your final sentence quoted above will be proved wrong: if it's not we're really in trouble. In the last few years it has become very apparent that if we cannot collectively learn to manage and limit our desires for the various kinds of goodies you mention then we are, as a civilization, totally screwed.

That said, I don't wish to join the ranks of NOLS-bashers. It appears to be a fine (and small) organization whose activities generate a specific environmental cost of which they are very conscious and do their best to limit, and a considerable environmental educational benefit which they do their best to maximize. Would that such a balance applied to a tenth of one percent of all the jetting around the globe with which we have recently learned to indulge ourselves.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

I really hope that the above is untrue, because if we as a civilization get to that point, we will have tons of boring people around. I will quickly agree that some people get too far with the 'stuff'.

It is not human nature to expend tons of GHG gratifying a desire for recreation. This is a modern development... widespread air travel for the middle classes only really got going in the late 70s or 80s.

The GHGs from a foreign airflight outweigh all GHG savings from compact fluorescents and Prius cartrips you can make in a year.

The styles and fashions established in America and Europe will be taken up by people throughout the world. Environmentalists are setting the cultural agenda - so if we don't set a good example, if we don't develop a vision of a good life without GHGs, who will?

In particular, environmental leadership means thinking deeply about these issues.


Bart
Energy Bulletin

Agreed, land-locked illiterate peasants definitely had no reason to travel, either because they lacked money or motivation. Although at the same time, I doubt that 20 miles was that magic number, it likely varied greatly and up to hundreds of miles with proximity to lakes, rivers, sea shores, affordability or culture of horse posession and presence of land masses.

I agree with your point regarding air travel and I'm mostly posting this for procrastination purposes.

I'm a climber, a biker, a mountaineer, a surfer, a kayaker, a runner, a hiker - yes, I can do most of these things within 2 hrs of my home, and do so, often.  But I can't scale a 14,000 ft peak in New York.  I can't pit myself, my endurance, my skill, my commitment, against the toughest mountain ranges in the world (Himalaya, Patagonia) in New York.  I can't experience Tibetan culture, practise my Thai, or go deep-water soloing in New York.

I love the area in which I live.  We have an embarrassment of riches, both urban and wild.  But I also love to travel - to experience other cultures, meet people from around the world, connect with a time and a place and a culture the way that you simply can't do from your reading armchair or your computer desk.

I recognize the harm that air travel does to the environment, along with all the other harms that I inflict on a daily basis.  And much like in every other area of my "consumptive" lifestyle, I try to reduce my impact as much as possible - and when I hit the wall of reduction, I try to change public policy so that my habits are not destructive.

Frankly, I dislike being told what to do, and dislike being told that I'm not a good enough greenie if I would still consider flying for "frivolous" purposes.  Whatever - one woman's "frivolous" is another's "essential."  Flying to far-flung places and experiencing the wild beauty therein is one of the things that made me green in the first place, and still one of my major motivations for protecting the Earth - so that I can preserve these fabulous wild places for me, and future generations, to enjoy.

So I'll keep flying off to fabulous places to surf that perfect break, to climb that fabulous line, to drink fermented coconut juice and eat completely unpronounceable foodstuffs and meet like-minded people;  all the while trying to influence government and business alike to make air travel less or non-destructive to the Earth.

None of us likes to think that we're doing something wrong. It's painful and it makes us feel bad.

We lash out at the people who bring up the issue. We call them names. We justify ourselves. We say that our actions are small in the grand scheme of things. We point to other people who are worse.

And deep down we know that we're doing something wrong, something contrary to our values.

May I suggest sticking with this issue, even though it is uncomfortable? Discomfort is the price of personal growth.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

"Analysis of the population problem as a function of population density uncovers a not generally recognized principle of morality, namely: The morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed. Using the commons as a cesspool does not harm the general public under frontier conditions, because there is no public; the same behavior in a metropolis is unbearable."[emphasis original]

The point that I try to make fairly consistently is that in italics. Morality is VERY relative. I see no problem with what NOLS does, but if all 6 billion people in the world wanted to bag all the high peaks in the Adirondacks, I would find that to be a problem. Moderation in our world is key, cessation or prohibition is not, as it only leads to negative effects. If there were all of three hundred people living for three thousand square miles, taking five caribou per season per person will not have any effect on the population. If the population bumps up to thirty thousand and the limit is the same, then we're in trouble.

Similarly, there's little wrong with one flight per year or two per person... on a cessna or something similarly efficient. I would like to find out how many flights per year our sphere would be able to tolerate without a significant impact.

'Nazis had little pieces of flair that they made Jews wear' in little communities called concentration camps.

But seriously, global community? Are you freaking serious? I have a hard time finding a community in the place where I live, but across the entire globe?

Before you change your lifestyle, you must first change your mind.  NOLS is changing minds.

"The idea of revolution coming from outer conditions, in the industrial field or the so-called reality of economic conditions, can never lead to a revolutionary step unless the transformation of soul, mind and will power has taken place."  -Joseph Beuys

"May I suggest sticking with this issue, even though it is uncomfortable? Discomfort is the price of personal growth."

Then we need more information. Not having a background in sociology, I cannot advocate one position or another. But I can ask questions.

(1) Does travel foster cross-cultural understanding, generate compassion, and reduce hostility between nations? I view international tension as a threat to the environment.

(2) Does travel to relatively pristine wilderness foster better appreciation of the natural world? Is this communicated in some way to the rest of the culture? Does such an experience enhance the possibility that those returning from such trip will become advocates for endangered ecosystems and species?

I doubt anyone would deny that travelers who write articles and books about their experiences motivate others to preserve Earth's ecosystems. How do we decide who can and who can't travel via jet? Is it only for the fabulously wealthy? Lottery system? Just writer? Appointed ambassadors?

wiscidea: How do we decide who can and who can't travel via jet?

For me personally, I try to be selective. I've probably already used up my "share" of airplane travel, in going to Europe and Guatemala many years ago. The first trips really opened my eyes, but at this point more trips wouldn't be that significant.

If one is going to go, then I think it's important to make the experience as meaningful as possible. Learning something about the language, the history as well as the natural history.  A great model to follow are those adventurers who spend a year preparing for a trip. When I went somewhere, I wanted to stay for as long as possible.

As far as outdoor activities, there are so many things close by that I find there's no need to go far afield, despite the advertising from the recreation industry.

The thing that makes me feel conflicted is what George Monbiot calls "love miles" -- seeing family or doing things together. I find it very hard to say no.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Charles Darwin travelled around the world on a completely sustaianable form of transportation known as a sailing ship. I have it on good authority that this form of transportation is still available. Lewis and Clark mostly walked their way across the US. Is there any doubt that they had an adventure.

I would absolutely in favor of packing US youth off wholesale on sail/rail/bike (NO CARS or PLANES) tours of the world for 18 months each. With laptops and a satellite dish a group of 30 students could easily study along the way and form a mobile college.

The kids who returned would have a deeper respect for their relative place in the world. Their parents might not be so inclined to damage a planet they were sending their children out to explore.


Put the Carbon Back

"The thing that makes me feel conflicted is what George Monbiot calls "love miles" -- seeing family or doing things together. I find it very hard to say no."

This raises an issue separate from the eco-travel problem. One might say the genie is out of the bottle. Extended families -- often on different continents -- were constructed during an era of cheap air travel and lack of concern about global climate change. It is a bit of a bummer that those people will now have to feel guilty about traveling to spend time with their loved ones.

There are parallels, in my opinion, found in other areas... other problems we have to find solutions for. For example, an entire culture built on automombile travel. How do you tell a generation that grew up using automobiles that their habits are no longer acceptable? How do you reorganize an entire nation essentially overnight? The large number of parallel cases -- some subtle and some not so subtle -- is the reason I prefer to focus on finding ways to preserve things like our 1200-square-foot homes and personal automobiles AND reduce harm to the environment. How much cultural upheaval can a population tolerate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/us/01climate.html?_r=3& ...

The 5% Project

Lao Tzu, Tao te Ching

Is this what the majority of "environmentalists" want?

Or do we put on our moralist hats and hector a laudable organization that accounts for about 0.0000001% of international air travel? Do we get in the business of lecturing families about how much they should travel, and where, and for how long, and who is and isn't environmentally proper?

grist.org

On a related note, I wonder if anyone has any figures on the percentage of air travel that is directly business-related, vs. the amount that is for recreation.  That would be kind of interesting to know.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/006611.html


The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.