Jan, I share your concerns. For a while I used to agonize over what to do with a gum wrapper. Paper recycle? Garbage? Just toss it whereever. Yee gads, could get nutty. Of course we're dealing with all the hazards you mentioned. And we certainly need to confront the more dangerous ones with all the power and regulation we can muster.
Just a few thoughts about what I see: While the idea of "trash cops" for household waste really grates on me, I think of what Noam Chomsky said about what to do about war and injustice in general: educate, organize and agitate. As the writer of the article said, he agreed with 90% of what was being suggested by the environmental movement and I think the vast majority of people also would go along with a real program to see waste as an inefficiency and a hazard that needs to be dealt with. The contrarian in all of us sometimes has a way of asserting its "liberty" and necessarily make life harder for us all, including life that doesn't necessarily speak our language. Irrationality rears its ugly head in all the wrong places and times. I try to be non-judgemental and keep a sense of humor whenever possible. I'm more worried about the "big polluters" like industries that just dump in the cheapest ways possible (mountain top blasting to get to coal; vermiculite mining for asbestos is still legal in the US & Canada, etc). I know someone who used to work for NYSEG who confessed to me (after he left his employ there) that he and a crew dumped hazardous waste at the end of one of the runways at TC Airport. I told him to say 10 Hail Marys & 20 Our Fathers, and figure out a way to dig the shit up and process it properly. I don't know how that illegal dumping got worked out. The fact of the matter is that we are losing the war against the earth. The environmental movement needs to do other things, be more creative. While it is important that we continue to offer alternatives solutions, we need to confront directly that (big & small) which is destroying the life systems of the planet. The current economic, political and ultimately spiritual crises we are facing (and by we I mean everyone on the planet) will force us to re-evaluate how we live and consume. Whether either presidential candidate likes it or not, we have to let those industries that are producing junk and unnecessary materials fail, collapse completely. That means big trouble for China & India as well as the US. Planned obsolescence is no longer an option. I think there's a revolution going on throughout the world that is not being told in the news. As The Last Poets rhymed in the '60's, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." We need to push harder to keep this revolution moving for the sake of future generations and still maintain our democratic values. That can only happen if we're compassionate and rational. A tall order in these times. Tony On 10/24/08, Jan Quarles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tony, > > What scares me even more than paying workers to sift through trash is what > we have now: the complete freedom to dump anything, no matter how > hazardous, > into a concealed bag that gets thrown into a landfill or burned in an > incinerator. Marine life is choking on all those billions of plastic bits > that eventually wash into the ocean. A plethora of drugs are showing up in > public drinking water because hospitals and citizens have the liberty to > dispose of them freely. These are just some examples of our rapid > self-destruction, as global population and industries continue to increase. > Given total freedom, it's part of human nature to chose what's convenient > and gratifying, but not necessarily in our collective longterm interest. As > CO2 levels continue to rise, at what point would you recommend we put > controls on human behavior? We don't have the luxury to do whatever we want > because, for one thing, we simply can't afford to anymore. We do 'need' to > cut back on our consumption of energy, reduce the waste we produce, buy > more > fuel-efficient vehicles, bag our own food instead of buying it in plastic > packaging, etc., etc. Those choices are simply no longer optional because > if > we don't make those choices, the human race is not going to survive. So if > the majority manages to arrive at a consensus that favors long-term > interests, and yet an individual continues to favor total liberty or > convenience at the expense of the whole group's long-term interests, do you > think things should be decided democratically? > These are difficult questions. Thanks for bringing the issue forward and > discussing it openly. > > -Jan Quarles > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Del Plato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "postingsustainabletompkins" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:47 PM > Subject: [SustainableTompkins] Signs of the Coming Green Dictatorship > > > Signs of the Coming Green Dictatorship > > http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2008/10/signs_of_the_coming_green_dict.php > The SF Weekly > Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM > > *Have environmentalists gone too far when they tell you when you can run > your air conditioner? How about when they tell you if you can keep your > job? > Or who you should be dating?* > > *By Benjamin Wachs* > > At what point does "environmentalism" become "fascism?" > > Yeah, that's a deliberately provocative question – but it's a fair one. We > know that nationalism is good in small doses but leads to McCarthyism in > large ones; we know that religion can become theocracy, and capitalism > oligarchy. > > So OK: Environmentalism is a good thing, but at some point can too much of > it become a bad one? Could it lead to a "Ecologarchy?" > > We don't like to talk about that, but the answer is yes. And the signs are > already coming. > > The first one came a few months back when Gavin Newsom announced that he > would propose mandatory recycling and composting > > < > http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2008/08/give_me_liberty_or_give_me_com.php > >for > > all citizens: it would be enforced by your trash collectors, who would root > through your garbage to make sure that you'd deposited the right trash in > the right bins, and fine you if you didn't. > > If this proposal ever becomes law, it means that – in the name of > environmentalism – agents of the government would be paid to sift through > your trash looking for evidence to use against you. > > If these are the bad ideas Gavin shares with the public, imagine the shit > he > thinks is too stupid to put in writing. > > This second sign of the coming ecologarchy came out this week, when the * > Guardian* devoted its entire issue to sustainability. > > Now, unlike the Mayor, the *Guardian* has editors and professional > standards, so I must emphasize that they didn't say anything nearly so > stupid as our mayor (whose idea of "sustainability" is to pay private > security contractors $2,000 a week to look after a small garden). In fact, > I > enthusiastically agree with 90% of what the *Guardian* proposed. > > But there were, around the edges, signs that something ugly may be coming > out of all these good intentions. > > It began with Amanda Witherll's piece on green > > power< > http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7339&catid=&volume_id=398&issue_id=402&volume_num=43&issue_num=04 > >. > > In the future she envisions, a "smart grid" would adjust to intermittent > power reductions (like clouds blocking the sun from solar panels or a lack > of wind to drive turbines) by automatically shutting off people's air > conditioners or changing their thermostats until full power generation is > restored. > > Once again, environmentalism goes from a voluntary effort to do good and to > an enforced regime. What if I don't want the government shutting off my air > conditioning? What if I don't want a bureaucrat at city hall deciding what > temperature my house is? Or what if I actually have a good reason to want > my > own house climate controlled at the time? Maybe I'm tending to rare > flowers, > my kid is sick, or I'm having a romantic dinner? The fact that personal > choice in the matter is assumed out of the equation isn't trivial: smarter > city policies is one thing, and giving government support to people who > want > to generate green power is one thing – but the minute the government starts > making household decisions for you, we've got a problem. > > Next came a truly terrifying line in Sarah Phelan's piece on smart > > development< > http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7341&catid=&volume_id=398&issue_id=402&volume_num=43&issue_num=04 > >. > > She quotes SPUR Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf on the importance of > public transit to job location: > > "Metcalf said he believes people should be able to work where they want, > provided that it's reachable by public transit." > > How nice of him! > > But what happens to the rest of us? Do we lose our jobs? Or need to move? > Or > must we apply for a government permit in order to keep the privilege of > living and working where we choose? > > Was Metcalf misquoted, or are we now suggesting that government regulation > of the workforce means someone in city hall decides who can and cannot live > and work here on the basis of their carbon footprint? > > Either way, it's the ecologarchy at its finest. > > A similar comment came in Tim Redmond's piece on encouraging local > businesses > > < > http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7345&catid=&volume_id=398&issue_id=402&volume_num=43&issue_num=04 > >– > > again, something that I am all for. Redmond writes: > > "The owners of businesses need to live in the community. They need to > interact with their customers and neighbors, to see the local schools where > their tax dollars go." > > That "need" has me worried, because it suggests the force of law. I'd have > no problem with "it's best if the owners of businesses … " or "it's > desirable," but they "need?" When we say "need" it suggests that we are > justified in punishing those who keep us from meeting our "needs," instead > of encouraging their participation through tax breaks, investment programs, > and civic support. > > But by far the most disturbing piece of green fascism to come out this week > didn't come from San Francisco: it came from Slate magazine contributor > Barron Young Smith, whose article on the ecological cost of long distance > relationships demands the creation of a "Date Local" > > movement.<http://www.slate.com/id/2202431/> > > > He writes: > > "Let's start thinking about "sex miles": Just how far was this person > shipped to hook up with you? And how many times more efficient would it be > to date someone within a 100-mile radius? If the movement spread globally, > mirroring either the decentralized development of Local Food co-ops or the > manifesto-and-chapter model that built up to the Slow Food movement's > mega-confab this summer, its environmental benefits could multiply many > times." > > I'm just going to say this flat out: No. > > No. This goes too far. I will not subject who I love to an environmental > purity test, or ask that of anyone else. > > In fact, the very notion that who I "can" love should be determined by an > environmental calculus makes me want to fly to Nova Scotia for sex. > > This is not a condemnation of environmentalism, only of extremism. Despite > the best efforts of some friends and colleagues, I plan to vote for Prop H > – > and encourage you to: the arguments for municipal power are too convincing > not to at least give it a real hearing. Well planned growth is essential; > taking steps to increase municipal sustainability is a good thing – and all > of that can be done without demanding that people relinquish their free > will > to carbon impact calculator. > > We can encourage people to take public transit by making it more > convenient; > we can support local businesses by supporting them, rather than demonizing > ones that don't pass muster; we can create public power with a smart grid > that people opt in to in exchange for credits – I doubt most people will > mind, most of the time. And most of this is what the environmentalists, the > *Guardian*, and even the mayor are talking about, most of the time. > Encouraging people to live sustainably, and making it easier for them, is > not the same thing as demanding they relinquish their freedom. > > But we're also seeing people put environmentalism directly against liberty, > and when that happens I'm going to choose liberty. A lot of us are. It's > counterproductive to demand that we make that choice. > Oh well - at least I have the consolation of knowing, should I ever be sent > to a gulag for my political views, that it will be made of 100% recycled > human dignity. > > -- > Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through > love. This is an unalterable law. - Buddha > > _______________________________________________ > For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, > please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ > > RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: > [email protected] > http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins > free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1743 - Release Date: 10/24/2008 > 8:33 AM > > > _______________________________________________ > For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, > please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ > > RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: > [email protected] > http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins > free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org > -- Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law. - Buddha _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
