The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/ass ...

Kilimanjaro's ice seems not to be succumbing to climate change.

"The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence. But the special conditions on Kilimanjaro make it unlike the higher-latitude mountains, whose glaciers are shrinking because of rising atmospheric temperatures. "

Neverthless, if anybody has the patience to wade through this piece to find that point, the point is very good and true.

And important.  This is how our society is going to be judged: How the hell did we tolerate the kind of poverty that brought death to so very many people?

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

I give you:

"Five Minds for the Future"
http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=1133

Canis, if you would like to start your own blog devoted to unsolicited aesthetic critique of the writing style of Gristmill contributors and commenters, you should feel free. You certainly produce enough material, and I'm sure it would gather a devoted readership. I would prefer, however, that your comments on this site be devoted to matters of substance. You might even consider, if you have nothing of substance to say on a given post, not commenting on it.

grist.org

Is there any microfinancing being done around renewable energy (small solar/wind/hydro installations, etc.) that you know of?

Those in the Grist stable who post original posts on subject matters of their own choosing are a quite separate and higher class from us plebeian commenters.  In fact, I do not regularly comment on their style either, save occasionally to praise it.  I have more than once praised your own style, for example, and I do not remember that you wrote a complaint afterwards.

The people in Grist's "Contributors" list are professional writers, and whatever they choose to post in Gristmill is a published work.  As such it should be open to review, as any other published work is open to review, in every way.

On "substance": Let us not be too Stalinist in determining what is or is not "substantial."  Every post has many aspects to it, not all of them under the control of the author.  But all of them are most certainly worthy of discussion by commenters.  And then of course the commenters' comments add yet more aspects worthy of further discussion.  Do you honestly think that a code of etiquette within Gristmill ought to limit that sort of exuberant free thought and free speech?  Is that true to the spirit of "a beacon in the smog"?

In the case of this post by James Dailey, "Western civilization?," and my earlier comment, please note that I did indeed comment on his (?) central point, praising it, and saying further that it was an important one.  But it was precisely because it is so important that I was moved to protest the muddiness of the presentation.

I might add, again in praise of James Dailey, that I like very much his catalogue of Asian places in trouble, and his charming photo of Mohandas Gandhi, one of the world's greatest converts to religion.  I think little of his dismissal of polar bears, but let us postpone that issue.

He clearly has been to all sorts of places, and has observed all kinds of things.  His second-hand paragraph about Chittagong is excellent.  We need that kind of reporting.

To return to my point, which is one of principle: The people in Grist's stable of contributors are professional writers.  Whatever they choose to write and post is subject to scrutiny, in every regard.  They are putting themselves out for the world to read.  They have no right to complain, if some crank criticizes their style: that is what comes with the life they have chosen for themselves, no?

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

Anyhoo, this is a blog, right? Style definitely counts, but a blog is something of its own kind, to my mind.

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

And I was lost on his metaphor of the used car salesman.  I read it trice and finally just skipped over it.

Having been in that part of the world I know that reality as quite muddy (or dusty).  I can understand the difficulty spanning the gap between there and here in just a few paragraphs.

Of late I have been too focused on the disaster USA coal will cause the world.  I have mentally skipped over the parallel disaster of the chaos cause by fossil fuels among the billions of people struggling to live and move in very poor environments.  

Clearly James has thrown the gauntlet at our feet.  We must supply future energy to all while withholding the carbon from all.  The status quo must not continue.  All in all, a very sticky story.

Here is the U.N. report detailing "Livestock a major threat to environment"

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.ht ...

If people are serious about preventing climate change they need to switch to a vegan diet.

According to that report, the poor of the world rely heavily on their livestock for sustenance. If the average American were to increase gas mileage or otherwise reduce how much oil they use by 25% they would reduce CO2 emissions the same amount as going vegan. Double your gas mileage and you will be 25% better than going vegan and so on.

1. Americans consume 15% of the world's meat.
   
2. We consume 25% of the world's oil.
   
3. Livestock produces 18% of the world's greenhouse gases.
   
4. About half of our oil goes to cars and light trucks
   
5. So, 3% from livestock, 12% from our cars. Increasing the average American's gas mileage or reducing the miles driven by 25% would save as much CO2 as going Vegan. Increase mileage 50% and you would be 25% better than going vegan etc.

Dead carbon comes from fossil fuels, dead because it was protected from gamma radiation, all C12.  Live carbon comes from the atmosphere via grass and corn and has some C14.  If livestock did not eat these plants then bacteria would.  The release of carbon from these plants is the same in any event.

It is the dead carbon that will kill if we continue to exhume fossils.

"If livestock did not eat these plants then bacteria would.  The release of carbon from these plants is the same in any event."

You are suggesting that eating meat does not exacerbate global warming. I would agree if these cows were eating grass from natural grasslands as fast as it replaces itself. But cows don't store nearly as much carbon as mature rain forests. The difference can be found floating in the atmosphere.

C12 and C14 both contribute to global warming. As far as the atmosphere is concerned, CO2 is CO2 regardless of the source.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

I have read somewhere a long time ago that plant and soil respiration greatly exceeds fossil emissions.  The biosphere cycle was historically stable and balanced until recent increases caused by warming climates.  That, frozen methane, and massive tree death are tipping points.

Is there more live carbon in the air?   Probably.   I don't know.  I also don't know what happened to C13.  I am not a chemist.

Because you're a big fat American consuming 6 times more oil (per capita) than the rest of the world, if you "cut back" to 4.5 times more oil, then you're entitled to kill innocent animals to satisfy your priviledge...

Of course, I'm not Gandhi...

"If Gandhi were around today... he would challenge the moral integrity of so-called western civilization."

This sentence is interesting. The author suggests that Gandhi would challenge the moral integrity of "so-called western civilization". Yet the overall post appears less restrained and simply blames, in no uncertain terms,  "western civilization" for global climate change.

So my first set of questions:

Have the heirs of the civilization that emerged in southwest Asia, developed around the Mediterranean, and rose to become a global power in Europe, North America, and elsewhere in the world lost touch with their roots? Have they recently discarded certain values and are no longer worthy of the title "western civilization"? What are those values?

Because if that is the case, if we have strayed, then there is an opportunity for redemption. We can examine our historical roots, educate our children, taske advantage of the human tendency to respect tradition, and restore our moral integrity.

And my second set of questions:

Assuming the author actually wants to blame "western civilization", rather than a bunch of deliquents who have lost touch with the past, exactly what must we jettison? What unique features of "western civilization" are contributing to global climate change?

It seems most humans have always had a tendency to extract as much from the land as possible and move on to new territory. This is not "western". E.g., who exterminated most of the Pleistocene megafauna of North America? It also seems most humans are interested in finding the most convenient, not the most environmentally sound sources of energy. They also like to move as quickly as possible and exploit mobility when the opportunity arises. E.g., as soon as the Mongols mastered the art of fightening on horseback, they took advantage of the new technology and expanded their empire all the way into Eastern Europe. They even employed biological warfare by hurling diseased corpses over city walls.

I'm NOT suggesting "western civilization" is morally superior! But I'm not convinced it is morally inferior. If it is inferior, I would like to know why and where that value arose. Fertile crescent? Egypt? Greece? Rome? France? Where? We have to identify this "flaw" and its origins if we are going to correct the problem.

Unfortunately, if there is an inherent flaw in "western civilization", correcting the problem is going to be a tough row to hoe. It must have very very deep roots. It might even be biological.

I hope the author can clarify who's really to blame for all of the problems in the world.

Based on some of the other discussions on the Grist website, I'm surprised the most ardent environmentalists aren't demanding Inuit hunters reject violence, stop terrifying warm fuzzy animals, and move to a warmer climate where they can live in compact urban communities and tend organic gardens.

LOL, the west has no moral integrity, yes, it is a so-called civilisation.

>>  How the hell did we tolerate the kind of poverty that brought death (and misery) to so very many people?  >>

Oh "unawareness" is easy when you do not have a mind.

The summertime blog stats are normally not as brisk. Maybe that's it?

Considering the fact that he has only referred to me once here and as "some guy on the internet", maybe your style critique of some of the writers is not the problem with reduced participation.  Just a guess.

Maybe he needs to get some exersize and lose some attitude?  Hehehey.

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

Tax those very bad SUV, truck driving voters!  This is music to Karl Lyle Rove's ears.  He could even get Gulianni appointed if that is our strategery.

So Ghandi would mount a nonviolent protest movement to raise taxes and create a carbon trading setup that allows corporate futures traders to reap whole new fortunes?

Hmmmm, I think someone needs to spend some time talking to actual voters.

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

The Mesopotamian/Mediterranean/European tradition has unfortunately tended toward exploiting animals, and the elimination of wild animals considered threatening or competitive.  On the other hand, fortunately, glimpses of sympathy and of recognition of fellowship shine through, from time to time.

The story of the Native Americans, or First Peoples, including Inuit, is also interesting but complicated.  I do not know enough about it.  You are certainly right, that they are (or, were) as exploitative as any other group of people, in terms of hunting when and where they pleased.  And as with so many other aspects of our Euro-American reconstruction of Native American ways, we tend to romanticize their attitudes toward animals.

E.g.: do you know what a buffalo jump is?  Are there any sites in Wisconsin and thereabouts?  There are a few in Montana.  Prior to modern methods of inhumane exploitation, buffalo jumps must have been among the greatest sources of anthropogenic animal suffering.  So much for all that stuff about praying a prayer of thanks to the animal that allowed itself to be killed.

Of course, catching fish in nets and hauling them to the surface, a very ancient practice, is equally horrendous.  Jesus of Nazareth got Peter and his pals out of that line of work; but it is not at all clear that he did it out of concern for the fish.

And speaking of fish, Eileen's recommendation of veganism in uncompromising terms is rather a red herring, not deserving to be pursued so keenly.  She perhaps went too far, I think, in saying that the only possible moral course for true, committed environmentalists is to go vegan.  But let us not get into numbers, and the rather academic comparison of "dead carbon" and "live carbon," as interesting and important as that is.  She is absolutely right in principle, we would all be better off eating lower down in the food chain.  For a number of reasons, including moral ones.

On What Gandhi Would Do: Sure, WiscIdea, I agree that Dailey may be too easily wielding the Gandhi icon for his own purposes.  It is very likely that Gandhi would certainly support Dailey's central point, about the injustice of the rich West's tolerance of poverty and inequity in the rest of the world.  But it is not at all obvious that Gandhi would attribute that to a radical flaw in Western civilization.

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

As for DR: Let us not worry overmuch about DR, he is just a big pussy cat.  To be sure, the kind of pussy cat that throws up on the carpet from time to time, to make sure we all know he is there.

More interesting is Erik Hoffner's comment, to which I have put off responding.  I withdraw my original statement, about how Gristmill's "contributors" are "professional writers," because that attribute "professional" has various connotations.  For one thing, if "professional" means you get paid for what you do, I have no idea if anybody gets paid much, or anything at all, for being a Gristmill "contributor."  For another, I have no idea how many would answer the question, "What do you do for a living?," by saying, "I am a writer."

However, it seems clear enough that everybody who is a "contributor" has related the function of writing regularly (though they seem to drop in and out, don't they; e.g., what ever has happened to our great pal, the ever-lovable Jason Scorse?), and  to whatever that person is centrally concerned with, "professionally."

As for being an English major: God forbid that we should be dependent solely on English majors to do our writing for us!  My point is, whether or not we like writing, whether or not we did well in English composition in college, writing clearly is something we need to do, if we believe strongly in the value of what we have to say, and if we respect our potential readers enough to want them to grasp our meaning.

And in that regard, it seems fair to assume that anybody who sets himself or herself up as a "contributor" in a blogging forum such as Gristmill believes that he or she has something worthwhile to say, and that there are people out there (out here!) who will want to read it.  That is a dual responsibility.  And so, in keeping with that dual responsibility, those writers need to understand: Style counts!

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

If your goal is to build readership, the question should not be whether it is appropriate to suggest improvements in a posting's style, but how to do so.  For example, a friendly reminder that many posters are not professional writers is helpful context.  

In the town where I live the standard line about environmentalists is that we tend to "eat our young."  I hope that's not going to happen at Grist.  It seems particularly odd to censure caniscandida when John Bailo all too rarely gets slapped for his frequent exercises in contentless aggression.

A subsistence African pastorialist family does its share of damage to the environment. Maintaining herds of cattle on the edges of wildlife game parks isn't the most environmentally friendly occupation on the planet. They survive on the blood, milk and meat of their "innocent" animals. Go read the UN report. Billions of poor people on this planet owe their existence to their innocent animals.

Correction, "we" are big fat Americans. Are you challenging me to an ecological footprint pissing match? ; )

 

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

I was trying to paraphrase what Gandhi might think of us all (myself included). (He would probably not call us big, fat Americans, though!)

Nothing personal at all. Though you did seem to set up the situation as a "competition" (either/or) for cutting carbon emmissions. This is totally valid, I just wanted to bring in a different perspective, something to think about...

I appreciated your math! And the fact that humans have always eaten animals.

Have human beings "always" eaten animals?  Perhaps in most societies, animal flesh -- or blood, or milk -- was consumed regularly.  But not necessarily every day.  In ancient Greece, the meat of mammals was rather occasional; cheese and fish however were more available every day.

As for India: The subcontinent is a huge place, bigger than North America, Europe and Russia combined, population-wise.  There are indeed all kinds of religious concepts and practices, apparently.  If there are certain severe environmental problems in India, is it BECAUSE so many Indians are vegetarians?  I doubt there is any connexion.

In fact, whatever may be the veneration with which Indians hold cattle, they hardly deserve to be called animal-lovers in general.  They (most of them, apparently; but there are many dedicated individuals) seem to be doing not nearly enough for the sake of their tigers and elephants and lions.

And the pollution of the Ganges with human waste and human remains has nothing to do with vegetarianism.

So the suggestion, that "This is what happens, when everybody becomes vegetarian, the environment gets trashed as in India," does not make much sense.

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

So the suggestion, that "This is what happens, when everybody becomes vegetarian, the environment gets trashed as in India," does not make much sense.

... that doesn't make sense. Just for the record, although it is in quotes, nobody actually said that. Diet is just one factor that can impact the environment and India is just an example of how a country of vegetarian farmers can still destroy the entire ecosystem of an entire subcontinent while simultaneously living in abject poverty.

One might speculate that things would be worse if they ate as much meat as Americans but that would not make much sense either. An increase in meat consumption would be an indicator of poverty reduction and poverty reduction goes hand in hand with lower fertility rates.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

cheers

My reading of Indian history and ecology is more in line with yours than with BioD's. But I'm limited to a few speeches of Vandana Shiva in my knowledge.

The current spate of farmer suicides seems to be caused by indebtedness to seed companies and other agribusinesses that owe their practices to corporate capitalism. The small village model that has survived intact for many thousands of years is now under attack by Western approaches based on industrial-scale, monoculture practices that endanger the livlihoods of hundreds of millions of farmers. When these farmers are forced off their lands they have nowhere to go but the slums of the big cities. All because it makes a few more rupees for the big landowners and corporations.

The model is not sustainable for many reasons including the coming end to cheap energy.

But I think it's fair to say that no culture is perfect or can be a model for how we produce a sustainable planet. We need to find new ways of setting up economies that are equitable for all and function within ecological limits.

Traditional cultures may have been less destructive of the environment. They may even have had social relations that valued cooperation and devalued individual greed. But many were also narrow, parochial, superstitious and patriarchal. Western cultures have freed the individual but also freed the individual to exploit others and nature (and who are then exalted as our business leaders).

If we don't find a way reign in corporations, militarism and greed, and develop new models of living, the current century will be an unimaginable nightmare. Surely this is something Gandhi would agree with, rather than a blanket condemnation of Western Civilization?  

If folks are going to condemn one civilization and glorify others, it would be nice to see them present some unique and very specific examples of the offensive or desirable behaviors.

Modern greed???!!!

Hah!!! The West did not discover the concept of upper class vs. lower class, the West did not discover the concept of a few powerful families exploiting the the masses, the West did not discover the pleasures of accumulating wealth and power. What is the "modern greed"? What makes it modern?

And traditional values???!!!

Tribalism? Infantifice? Subjugation of women? Honor killing? Human sacrifice? Culling the "weak"? Hereditary rule? Genocide? Extracting every last bit of value from agricultural land and moving on to fresh territory? Killing wildlife simply for decorating one's body, proving your valor, or removing one small part of an animal to consume as an aphrodisiac and disgarding the rest of the rare beast? Exterminating predators that threaten livestock? Extermining large herbivores that threaten cultivated crops? Accumulating additional land via aggressive warfare? Accumulating additional land by arranged marriage? Child labor? Forced military service? Slavery? Driving vulnerable animals to extinction because it is just so !@#$ easy to collect their eggs? Deforestion of land beyond repair?

It seems to me that the issue is not that "modern values" are a problem. It is that we are still struggling to free ourselves from tradtional values no longer appropriate for a modern civilization. We have discovered that individuals have rights, that warfare no longer solves problems, and that there is not enough space for moving on to new territory when the land is degraded. We have to learn to live sustainably... this is a modern value, not a traditional value.

JUST MY OPINION.

Feel free to present a list of EXCLUSIVELY modern values that are causing trouble -- and should be discarded -- and a list of traditional values that, if widely adopted, can help us survive.

As India's own animal protection laws are blatantly ignored, unsanitary slaughterhouses continue to pollute the environment; unlicensed, illegal slaughterhouses remain in operation; and the widespread abuse of animals persists. In direct violation of the Constitution of India are marched for days without food or water. Those who collapse from exhaustion have their eyes smeared with chili peppers and tobacco and their tails broken in an effort to keep them moving. Crammed into extremely crowded illegal transport trucks for the long journey to slaughter, many are trampled or gored during the ride.

Because India's animal transport and slaughter laws are not enforced, many of the animals used for leather are so sick and injured by the time they arrive at the slaughterhouse that they must be dragged inside. Once inside, their throats are cut open--often with dirty, blunt knives--on floors that are covered with feces, blood, guts, and urine. Some animals are skinned and dismembered while they are still conscious.

Raising animals whose skins are eventually made into leather creates waste and pollution and consumes huge amounts of fossil fuels. Most leather around the world is tanned using chromium and other hazardous waste. Among the disastrous consequences of using this noxious waste is the threat to human health from the highly elevated levels of lead, cyanide, and formaldehyde in the groundwater near tanneries.

Most of the millions of animals slaughtered for their skin endure the horrors of factory farming before being shipped to slaughter. Buying leather directly contributes to factory farms and slaughterhouses since skin is the most economically important byproduct of the meat-packing industry. Leather shares all the environmental destruction of the meat industry, in addition to the toxins used in tanning.

Here is the link to an important video on the Indian leather trade.  I think most viewers will forget who the narrator is after a few minutes.
http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/US_indian_leather?sour ...

For more information see Bruce Friedrich's "Leather: Dead Skin, Environmental Nightmare" on Common Dreams:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/30/863/

I was aware of the leather industry problem and wanted to mention it here, but I lacked the precise information you were able to bring to everyone's attention... including the gory details and supporting documentation.

I don't know about the hides, but scan the following article to learn what happens to the rest of the animal...

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/aug/featcow/

EVERY last molecule of a cow is used for something! No waste.

An interesting point to ponder... if American's consume less meat, what happens to all of the industries that consume the "waste" from the meat processing industry?

Notice that in the text beneath the video, the reference to China as in fact the principal producer of leather, and also to the abuse of dogs and cats in China for their skins (for the fur trade).  There are videos as horrible as this video about cattle, showing terrified dogs and cats packed into low cages, on which the workers beat with rods to cow them; and then, when the end is at hand, the cages are plunged into vats of boiling water.

WiscIdea, you make an excellent point, that modern Western civilization should not be singled out as the only destructive or immoral civilization.  And you are absolutely right, that we are everywhere disgracefully maintaining the deplorable conduct of traditional pre-modern cultures.

Still, I think James Dailey would say that right now, we in the West bear the responsibility for certain global injustices, such as the poverty that he talks about, and such as the globalized trade in leather and fur discussed in the Pamela Anderson video, involving the unspeakable abuse of animals.  Anderson says that it is the market for leather especially in the US, the UK and Germany that drives this abusive industry.  And the "Get active!" part of the video involves raising the awareness of people on a midtown street right here in NYC.

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

India's environmental destruction is a consequence of modern greed being imposed on a traditional society.

No, it is the result of poverty and the needs of 1.3 billion people, and there is no difference between modern greed and old fashioned greed.

That is, the destruction of habitat and environment is not a consequence of its agrarian or vegetarian society.

That's a strawman argument. I never said that and I'm not bashing India, I'm just using it as an example of the limits of veganism.

And your timing is off. India was methodically destroying its rivers and ecosystems long before the present upturn in its economy. In fact, its growing economy might finance protection of what remains and eventually clean the rivers up.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

>>  (though they seem to drop in and out, don't they  >>

 >>  anybody who sets himself or herself up as a "contributor" in a blogging forum such as Gristmill believes that he or she has something worthwhile to say, and that there are people out there (out here!) who will want to read it. >>

Seems Gristmill has all the answers and any dissenter is treated as a heretic.

IMO, PLEASE realise that most if not all posters that come here come for good reasons.... if their intent is not good then time will tell.  But posted content and opinions should be more respected here than they seem to be.

Welcome opinion that is not just yours and STOP creating a climate of fear.

>>  What unique features of "western civilization" are contributing to global climate change?  >>

Ghandi would not see western civilisation as good in any way.  I will say this again, the West is very poisoned, its body and genes are poisoned, its thoughts and actions and lack of concern are all poison generated.  

This intoxicated "unawareness" will lead to the extinction of LIFE on Earth.  

Your concern is that this whole unfolding of events on Earth is happening as it should and extinction SHOULD be the final outcome.  You are complicit, you are the masses pushing towards the cliff's edge.

Now if someone wants to swim the other way, y'all jump and try to squash and drown the dissent, such is your sick state.

Well jump all you like, I can assure there are not that many jumps you have left.

Meanwhile for all those readers that wish to face the outcomes of the problem of global climate change straight on, read "The Death of Clouds"

omegafour.com

Secondly, I don't believe in any notion of "noble savage", which you may well know is deeply entrenched in our culture.  Instead, I believe that all people, regardless of where they are born, should be given an equal chance to make of themselves what they will, within a sustainable vision.  Easier said than done of course, but this is one reason I invoked Ghandi who did not believe that the "normal" status quo of worker exploitation was the natural order of things, as his opponents argued.

I ask:  Is it thus the natural order of things to burn a limited resource, effect all peoples and most especially the poorest people on the planet with the centuries long impacts of climate change, and shrug our collective shoulders and say "yes, but only so much carbon taxation is politically acceptable"?  

At some point, there is a need for unreasonable people.  I would hope that we can follow Ghandi - who knew that the contradictions within a society were unjust and thus held the seed of a solution - not through violence but through perseverance.  I applaud Oxfam's calculation of proportional responsibility.  

{aside: Sorry about the used car salesman analogy - sometimes us non-professional writers blog in unclear terms. }

Third, I would propose something that should be obvious, that we need, as activists, writers, business people, etc to engage the rest of the world in the solutions to climate change.  And that means, I believe, in placing people and culture at the center.  It also means inviting more international perspectives to this space.

Lastly, and to get down to what I hope was taken as a key point - we need mechanisms vis a vis the Clean Development Mechanism of Kyoto to capture village level decisions around energy usage.  In another post I will expound on that, since additionality is the biggest issue.    

I suspect the problem is not "Western Civilization". The problem is "Human Civilization". Environemtalists have to get beyond self-loathing, get beyond believing there was once something better that "Western Civilization" displaced. We are all equally responsible for the awful state of the environment.

a sane poison-free society, driven by compassion, empathy and a need to co-operate with each other, ensuring at all costs a future for the children.
Where self is not held dear, and the whole of LIFE is held sacred.

Mmmmh, totally alien isn't it !

>>  I believe that all people, regardless of where they are born, should be given an equal chance to make of themselves what they will, within a sustainable vision. >>

Unfortunately there is a saying

"You are what you eat"

You live in a rubbish dump, chock full of genotoxic and neurotoxic and biotoxic accumulatable substances.

Why do then expect that you are sane ?
Why then do you expect your offspring are the way they would be in a non poisoned world ?

Why do you not understand "you are what you eat, drink and breathe"

So you must understand people are SICK and do not know it... unfortunates that naively trusted the society around them to look out for them.

Instead they were all shafted,,,, all, from the very top to the muddy bottoms.... traded for illusion.... money !!!

To even have such levels in society betrays the toxic state of grubby mad affairs.

omegafour.com

Are people and culture at the center?  Well, yes, but we need to understand how.  The healthy moral evolution of human beings moves in the direction of our recognizing the worth of all living creatures, and especially our responsibility for the well-being of all sentient beings.  That is what it means, truly, to be humanist, IMHO (the word is much abused, though).  There are plenty of popular ways, and cultures, and traditions, which abuse animals, as we all know.  I say, in the name of humanism, for the sake of our own moral well-being, we have the right and the responsibility to criticize and to intervene.

E.g., in response to that Pamela Anderson video, which is giving me nightmares, I would have no problem to sending in some Special Ops-type people to one of those horrific truck-transporting operations, knocking all those guys on their backs in the dirt, and rescuing the cattle, and sending the cattle to a decent pasture.  If that is what culture does, you can have it.

"So what are all those guys knocked on their backs in the dirt supposed to do now, for a living?  Sell their sisters into prostitution?"  (Right, move from one form of exploitation to another.)  Well, whatever the solution is, it must not include the abuse of animals.

As for the other subject, the meta-subject, which we might let pass, but James Dailey continues being provocative: There is an ancient cliche', "Denial is not a river in Egypt."  You tap away at a keyboard?  You do it a lot?  You do it every day?  Maybe more than once a day?  You hit the "send" key after you wrote blocks of written words?  You expect perfect strangers to read your words with understanding?  Then, look yourself in the mirror, Sweetheart, that shiny flat thing over where your sink is where you get a drink, -- right!, that's you!, looking back at you! -- and look into your eyes, and say carefully, "I am a writer."

Sure, drop "professional" overboard, if by that you mean somebody who went to school to get a degree in "writing," and now gets paid for doing a job called "writing."

Every student in every field ought to be educated in how to write for that field.  And every graduate from a college, in every major offered within that college, by rights should know how to put words together and make a meaningful sentence.

Where does this pathetic anti-writing prejudice come from?  If you write, hoping that people will read your written words, then you are a writer, it is that simple.

And if you do anything online, then you should be prepared for any and all kinds of response.  And I do not see how calling yourself a "blogger," rather than a "writer," defends you against such comments as this: You apparently consider Mohandas Gandhi, at some point given the honorific title "Mahatma," a hero of yours.  Well, fine, you are in the company of some very good people.  But, then, why the hell can you not find the time to learn how he spells his name?  And do so consistently?  Why not spell it "Hgandi"?  Or, "Hading"?  Or, "Di-hang"?  For someone with a professed respect for a "civilization that had existed for thousands of years," you seem to have very little concern for how South Asian languages work, such as how the aspirated mute consonants, both voiced and unvoiced, are transliterated.

Which means, you do not care at all about Gandhi, you just mean to use him as a weapon against people whom you dislike.

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

There is an enormous amount of information available via the internet, books, journals, magazines. If I have difficulty comprehending someone's essay because it is poorly written, I'm inclined to look for informtion elsewhere. There is not enough time in the universe to waste it slogging through poor writing to figure out the author's intent, especially when there is actually some very good writing out there. Everyone with a desire to share their ideas should strive to improve their writing ability and at least consider some of the constructive criticism offered by others. Try not to take it so personally. It is in your best interest.

Furthermore, sloppy writing is often perceived as a indication of sloppy thinking. Do you really want to put effort into an essay only for it to be dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic who could not possibly, given the incoherent sentences, have a single coherent idea worth paying attention to?

Suggesting that good writing should only be expected from English majors (or other language majors), is akin to expecting good driving only from driving intructors, automotive historians, mechanics, and engineers! (Not the best analogy, but I tried.)

Now, regarding whether the Grist contributors are "professional" writers. I'm both DISAPPOINTED and RELIEVED to learn from Mr. Roberts that most of them are amateurs and should not really be held to the highest standards of professional journalism.

Disappointed:

I visit this site because I enjoy seeing thoughtful analysis of the environmental issues of the day, from professionals and the general  public. But if the Grist commentators are no more enlightened and respectable than any other person, I might as well get my information elsewhere. This might be a waste of time. Can I even trust the information they present? Is it reliable? Or just something they heard and elaborated on using their imaginations?

In the end, I will continue visiting this site. But not because I trust the official contributors. I've realized that their role is simply to  post topics for others to discuss. I learn the most valuable and thought-provoking information from all of the non-official contributors. The "users" are a very diverse group and help me understand enviromental issues from very different perspectives. Thank you.

Relieved:

I generally practice some restraint when I criticize the official contributors. I have some respect for them. I view them as having a bit more knowledge than I do. I tend to give them the benefit of a doubt, even if their ideas are not fully supported by the information they present. But now I know they are no more capable of writing than I am -- not even trying to become better writers! -- and probably no brighter than I am!

RETURNING TO TOPIC...

If Western Civilization is failing, one contributing factor is probably a general decline in what we expect from our leaders, citizens, and journalists. No one is being held accountable for problems. Journalist themselves are using the phrase "mistakes WERE made". By who?! TELL US WHO! It is difficult to save the environment, when our leaders and citizens do not have the information they need for making decisions... and journalists are not interested in effectively getting that information to them.

The Grist contributors have an opportunity -- you have a platform -- to change the situation. Set an example for others to follow. Don't blow it! Either turn yourself into professional writers, accept constructive criticism, or invite others on board to give it a try.

It is nor Christ.  That is a title, like Sheik or King.  Mahatma means महात्मा mahātmā: महा mahā (great) + आत्मं or आत्मन ātman [soul]

In the NYTimes Magazine of June 10, Matt Bai says that an A.P. interviewer asked the presidential candidates "what their dream job would be, if they weren't in politics.  It was meant to be an amusing exercise."  Obama: architect.  Richardson: Yankees center fielder.  Rudy: sports announcer.  Edwards (the clunker): mill supervisor.

I would have said, I want to be lead singer/dancer in the Bollywood production of "All About Eve."  Not that that is the way to get elected president in the US of A, but you never know.

And by the way, "Bride and Prejudice" is our favorite Jane Austen movie by far.

To WiscIdea: Thanks very much for your kind message.  Of course I agree with you.

I would just want to point out, though, how painful this thread has been for me, not only on account of that Pamela Anderson video, but also in needing to criticize James Dailey.  He writes about some excellent things, which we should not in the least overlook, and for which we should greatly admire him, e.g.:
<<
In May I was in Pakistan, and I have traveled in that region for several years working on microfinance strategies aimed at bringing people out of poverty and -- I would suggest -- building local financial institutions that can survive the coming climate onslaught.
>>

OK, it is a fairly muddy sentence; who knows what the last part means; but obviously microfinancing is one of the world's best new ideas.  The last Nobel Laureate for Peace, Muhammad Yunus of Chittagong, Bangladesh, has brought it to the attention of the world.  And if James has had success in putting capital in the hands of clever, industrious people who otherwise would be doomed to a life of poverty, then God bless him.

And better he should occupy himself with that, and get somebody else to ghost-blog for him.

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