Undeniable Peace

               There is a peace in nature that is undeniable.   The absence of humanity, the rhythmic cooing of rippling water, and the serenity of wind whistling through pines are calms that quiet the soul.  Simplicity.  Solitude.  Grace.   The organic simplicity of it all – it must stem from some greater being.  Irrefutable divine presence exists in nature – in the rush of water, in the coolness of grass, and in the melancholy of a loon’s call.  One must be spiritually bereft and blind to overlook God’s residence in nature.   

                Worship in the cathedrals of green.  Seek the grandeur that lives in the trees.  Listen for God’s voice in the call of the wild.  Find the Son’s face in the crimson glow of the setting sun.  Search for purpose in the roar of a gushing mountain stream.

                One wouldn’t burn down a great cathedral.  One wouldn’t tear down a cathedral and use its stones to construct another building.  A cathedral is not up for sale to the highest bidder.  It is not simply a resource intended to be exhausted.  The reverence of a cathedral cannot be quantified. 

                There is a peace in nature that is undeniable.  Recognize it.  Abide by it.  Protect it.

Efficiency Motivation

            I discovered that I have changed my driving habits.  I have reduced my overall speed, I don’t zip in between stoplights, and I don’t pound on the gas pedal when I accelerate.  I’m trying to maximize my fuel efficiency.  I want that little Hyundai of mine to get every last mile possible out of each gallon of gas.  Currently, I’m averaging 33 miles per gallon.  Not bad, right?  I’m fairly certain I can’t improve it anymore.

            While I’m proud of my fuel efficiency consciousness, I’m a little ashamed of my motivation.  As an Environmental Studies major, one would think I’m doing this strictly to benefit the environment and reduce pollution.  Granted, I did buy my car with this in mind.  It is even rated on the lower end of smog emitting vehicles index.  However, the environment isn’t the sole motivator this time.  Gas is expensive.  I can’t afford to go off to the races every time I get behind the wheel.  My pocketbook can’t handle the expense of speeding by the SUV in the other lane.  Gosh, I’m motivated by money.

            My shameful moment must be noted though.  I’m fairly certain that my motivations align with the majority of Americans.  We don’t change our lifestyles and habits until the consequences of said lifestyles directly affect our lives.  We are so accustomed to hidden consequences; they’re out of sight and out of mind.  The true cost of our consumer lifestyles are often hidden as well.  We pull up to the gas pump and habitually fill our gas tanks without a second thought.  Gas is cheap and therefore not a concern.  Never mind the emissions that contribute to global warming, the smog that chokes local environments, and the oil spill that devastated the Gulf of Mexico only a year ago.  Gas is cheap.  Why worry?

            Education is often seen as the solution to pollution.  Educate the public about the consequences of our actions and we will choose to alter our lifestyles to prevent further pollution.  Sadly, I am a prime example of how this strategy does not always work.  I am an educated individual who is aware of the causes of pollution yet it still took an economic motivator for me to truly change my lifestyle.  While I would love for environmental education to be the panacea to our pollution problem, I doubt its full effectiveness.  There must be more.  Either all of America must directly and immediately suffer from the harms of pollution or all of America must pay the full cost of pollution causing goods and practices.   The second option is much more preferable.  I simply do not see how we can proceed without utilizing some sort of economic incentive or disincentive.  Economics always seems to play a role.

Shining Beacon

            The Highwater Ethanol plant opened in August 2009 in Lamberton, MN.  Lamberton is about fifteen minutes from my hometown, Tracy.  The plant opened with the promise of dozens of jobs (something in short supply in the area) and in support of local corn farmers.  Highwater was a shining beacon in the area.

            Just last week Highwater Ethanol agreed to pay a $150,000 fine and take action to correct numerous violations of its pollution permits.  The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency fined Highwater for repeatedly dumping unpermitted waste into a overfilled storage pond and for spreading the waste on cropland, both of which pose a threat to groundwater and surface water quality.  The state also ordered Highwater to regularly monitor its air emissions and its effect on local air quality.

            The shining beacon from within the corn field has dimmed slightly.  The very plant that was posed to benefit the area is actually harming it – nevermind the fact that corn-based ethanol is not that efficient or beneficial to the environment.  So, not only is corn-based ethanol not the answer to America’s energy future, the plants themselves are guilty of outright harming the environment.  Some beacon, huh?  There are jobs though, right?

Glory of Monsanto

           When I went home for Easter break, I returned to the land of Monsanto.  I come from Southwestern Minnesota – farm country.  The last hour of my drive home is spent cruising through corn and soybean fields.  Every town I go through has a grain elevator and it is not uncommon to pass a tractor along the way.  Seed companies are a significant source of employment and Monsanto regularly places advertisements in my hometown newspaper.  Monsanto, along with genetically modified crops and pesticides, is a way of life in Southwestern Minnesota.  People like Monsanto.

            I hate Monsanto. 

            What am I to do?  I want to take down the very corporation that provides my community’s livelihood.  My friends’ families depend on conventional agriculture.  I can’t very well destroy their way of life.  However, if I could persuade them to pursue a different way of life, then perhaps I could sleep more easily.

            Only half of Monsanto’s story is told in farm country.  It provides jobs, increases yields, and donates to community functions.  There is nothing to dislike there.  However, the other half of the story is much different.  Monsanto has a monopoly on GM seeds, promotes increased pesticide application (which is detrimental to the environment), and has patents on life that often restrict farmers from saving and planting their own seed.  Monsanto forces GM seeds on ill-suited environments and nations.  People are unaware of this regrettably under-told story.

            I have come to know both sides of Monsanto’s story.  Perhaps it is my duty to share it.  As someone coming from within Monsanto’s stomping grounds, perhaps I am the best suited to spread the under-told story.  I grew up with the glory of Monsanto – I have seen the good that it has done and am thereby not as eager to dismiss the company as purely evil.  However, I cannot sit by idly as the public goes uninformed of the company’s darker side.  I may have a job to do.

Best of Both Worlds?

            I’d like to have a family in the future.  I have dreams of a family life – a home, a husband, and America’s standard 1.8 kids.  I’d also like to have a stable and sustainable future.  I have dreams of a sustainable life – renewable energy, clean water, and America’s new standard of organic food.  Can I truly have both?  Can I have a family while the very fact that I’m “going forth and multiplying” jeopardizes my environmentally friendly future?  Are both possible?

            Many environmentalists struggle with this conundrum.  Exponential population growth has been proven to be detrimental to the environment.  Now, as an environmentalist, I ought to practice what I preach.  If I truly value the environment, then I should take active measures to not contribute the population problem.  I worry I may be a hypocrite.

            What then, can be done?  Should the United States enforce a one child policy similar to the one in China?  Personally, I do not think this is a viable option.  The reason this policy works so well in China is because it is a communist nation.  Since the United States is averted to any shade of red not paired with blue or white, there is simply no way this could succeed.  Societal change, via social pressure, may be the only feasible solution within the US.

            What about in regards to the rest of the world?  Often environmentalists, especially deep ecologists, are criticized for being too willing to “sacrifice” marginalized individuals from third world countries in particular.  Advocating for a devastating famine that exterminates millions of people hardly breeds public support. 

Birth control and the empowerment of women, in contrast, appear to be feasible solutions.  Many of the countries that struggle with overpopulation are, by in large, patriarchal societies.  Women are marginalized and subsequently do not have control over their own reproductive health.  If we, the developed world, were to somehow make birth control more available to women in developing nations, population could be managed significantly.  For instance, India, a patriarchal nation, has a pyramidal population distribution.  The young significantly outnumber the old.  It is not uncommon for women to have ten children.  If birth control were made available, a more sustainable rate of population growth could be achieved.

The challenges to this possible solution lie in how, exactly, to supply this birth control, how this service will be paid for, and how India will react to such actions.  It is certainly no easy task.

Sink or Swim

People give me grief about climate change all the time.  Remarks like, “global warming doesn’t exist!” or “people are so hysterical about something that isn’t even real,” or even “go join Al Gore,” come up quite often.  It sucks – flat out – it sucks.  Climate change is real and it is something we have to be concerned about.  We, as a global society, must realize the ways in which we are impacting the environment and strive to minimize said impacts.  Changes must be made in the way we live.  If we fail to change then we are doomed to negatively and irreparably change our environment.  The health of our planet, including ourselves, hangs in the balance.

            Now, I say all of this in complete confidence.  I know that climate change is real.  It is a factual occurrence.  This is not true for others.  They paint it as some dramatic scheme conjured up by hysterical liberals and granolas with apocalyptic predictions and dreams of extinct hummers.  Ok, maybe that’s extreme.  There are those who simply do not think that climate change is fact.  They do not agree with the scientists.  “Global warming isn’t real and Al Gore is annoying.”

            Here in lies our problem.  How are we to mitigate climate change when a substantial portion of our society does not even believe that it is a problem?  What are our options?  Well, we could try to persuade them.  We could try to educate them.  We could make them change their lifestyles through government mandates.  We cannot afford to simply do nothing though.  What do I do?  I try to educate and persuade those skeptical of climate change.  I don’t get angry and I don’t accuse them of being defeatist conservatives or something crazy like that.  I don’t convince them to like Al Gore either (he can be annoying at times). 

Essentially, the only way we’re going to mitigate climate change is by working together.  We need to unite, make compromises, and realize that (to be cliché) we’re going to sink or swim together.  If we fail to work together then we might as well be made of lead. 

Blinding Fervor

            To say he was simply passionate is to offer a great disservice to his memory.  As the self-proclaimed guardian of Alaska’s grizzly bears, Treadwell repeatedly immersed himself in the spectacular and untamed domain of the bears.  He lived among them, conversed with them, and developed his own personal relationships with each bear.  They were his friends and confidants.  They were his life’s work.  They were his reason to breathe.  The grizzlies were his life.   Treadwell’s zeal - his ardent fervor – his love could not be contained.  He loved these animals.

            However, this extreme love blinded him.  While Treadwell may have had the best of intentions to shield the grizzlies from the dangers of society, he lost sight of reality in his efforts.  Compounded by emotional instability born from a troubled past and failed personal relationships, Treadwell’s love for the grizzlies distorted his vision.  At times it seemed that he truly yearned to become a grizzly bear – to shed his human identity and join these great creatures of the North.  He plunged into an idealized world of harmony, not a place of very real, guttural danger.  Treadwell anthropomorphized the grizzlies to such an extent that the possibility of attack never seemed to be a real idea. 

            Perhaps it was his repeated trips that bred his fanaticism, his recklessness, and his false sense of security.  Yes, Treadwell acknowledged the danger of Alaska, but it is unclear if he truly believed it.  He had survived amongst the bears for such a long time that complacency could have emerged.  His choices to camp in a risky area and to stay later in the season exemplify this.  His emergent distrust and blatant retaliation against authority is also concerning.  In fact, he seemed to feel this way towards all humans – towards society.  While this also could have been a product of his failed relationships and difficult past, his extended stays amongst the grizzlies must have played a role.  Treadwell was paranoid and angry.

            Now, it is easy to impose judgment upon Treadwell from this perspective.  Was he simply a grizzly fanatic who got what was coming to him?  Absolutely not.  Treadwell was a son, a friend, and an adventurer.  He had tremendous love and was clearly intelligent.  He shared his love for the wild and educated the public.  He did not die in vain. 

            Could his story have ended any other way?  Yes.  Should it have ended any other way?  Maybe.  Treadwell loved the bears.  It almost seems wrong to imagine him ending anywhere else.  His home was in the wild.  He died for the bears.  While martyrdom may be too extreme of a term, his death seems fitting.  Treadwell would not have wanted it any other way.

John Deere Sprayers

            My childhood home was surrounded by corn and bean fields.  Our home was essentially surrounded by agriculture.  We had a long, gravel driveway that led to the main road.  I used to ride my tricycle up and down that gravel driveway everyday in the summer.  I can clearly remember one summer day when my parents and I went down to the end of our driveway - I was on my tricycle of course. 

In the field adjacent to us, a John Deere sprayer was opening up in the field.  My parents looked over at the sprayer; they were clearly concerned.  At that moment the sprayer started moving through the field, spraying some sort of pesticide over the soybeans.  My dad put his hand on the seat of my trike, frantically pushed me back down the driveway, and rushed me to safety within our house.

That was the greatest of our worries – that and blizzards.  We didn’t have toxic water, a garbage mound in our backyard, or air unfit to breathe.  For the most part, our environment was hospitable and safe.  We were fortunate. 

It is a difficult thing to comprehend – living in a toxic environment.  Home should be safe.  For as foreign of a concept this is, my recent trip to Guatemala truly opened my eyes.  One of the first things I noticed about Guatemala was, unfortunately, the immense amount of trash and litter.  It was everywhere – in the streets, in parks, even in the water.  In fact, the only area devoid of trash was the mission.  Another concern is that of water.  Not all homes have running water.  Bathing in the lake and buying water are common practices.  Homes that do have running water still have to be cautious.  Water in Guatemala is not chlorinated and thereby contains a harmful amoeba that can cause serious digestion problems. 

I was shocked by the amount of trash.  How in the world could there be so much?  Then it hit me.  The people of Guatemala have more pressing issues to deal with.  How will they make a living?  How will they put food on their table?  Will a mudslide wipe out their entire town?  Controlling litter simply is not a priority. 

I am fortunate.  I live in a clean environment.  I have consistent, running water that is safe to drink.  I am surrounded by trash bins.  My water is clear and chlorinated.  Blizzards and the occasional John Deere crop sprayer are the greatest of my worries.  Very fortunate indeed.

Evading Society

            Chris wanted to escape.  He wanted to escape the fallacy of his childhood and the pretentious rigors and hypocrisy of society.  The expected linear life progression was essentially strangling him and depriving him of real truth.  Chris yearned for truth.  He needed to flee from society – from family – from expectations - and find candor within the wild.  Human civilization was simply too much. 

            In Into the Wild, Chris viewed human society as something that obscured, contorted, or hid the truth which is housed in nature.  In Chris’s eyes, the belief that man is superior to the natural world was stifling and false notion.  He was very much a deep ecologist and was incredibly adept at “the art of evading society.”  However, this evasion of society, from the perspective of Bookchin, is just as sinister.  Bookchin asserts that deep ecology reduces rich histories and traditions to their simplest denominator.  It ignores the social aspect of humans and reduces them to a simple, biological species.  Chris disregarded his social self in exchange for a more biological approach.  He wanted to be another member of the greater biological community, not a Harvard Law student.

Bookchin insists that deep ecology completely overlooks human social history thereby also overlooking the very roots of ecological destruction.  It fails to consider the social and ideological developments, such as social hierarchy, which Bookchin states are the roots of the ecological destruction (PP 169).  Essentially, by fleeing society, Chris not only escaped from the demands of society but also from the very roots of the problem he tried to evade.  By going into the wild, Chris ignored the truth of his problem - the truth of society’s ecological mess.  While he searched for the wild’s truth, he turned from the very problem masking it. 

Failed Courtesy

            Respect is something I highly value.  It is something I was raised with, something I hope to perpetuate, and something which I hope to receive in return.  I believe that every person has the right to dignity and respect.  Viewpoints, ideas, and individuals, evening those in contrast to my own beliefs, deserve a certain level of courtesy.  I truly do try to embody this virtue.

            I have never had to try so hard in my entire life than I did at Ann McElhinney’s lecture on the hypocrisy and fallacy of the Green Movement.  I anticipated disagreeing with the majority of her statements.  I predicted it would be a challenge – a challenge to remain calm and collected.  However, I did not expect the gross level of disrespect she directed towards environmentalists and the CSBSJU community.  I felt as though she took every opportunity to point her finger at both groups and yell, “shame!”  She insulted the Abbot, the Abbey’s mission, and the practicing Catholics on campus.  She called environmentalists “elitist” and, essentially, heartless hypocrites who willingly kill five-year-old African children.  She asked if her bottled water was hurting us.  It was almost too much to handle.  There was no respect.

            Perhaps the root of this tremendous challenge was the fact that McElhinney’s lecture was intended to be defeatist.  Her purpose was to disagree with and discredit the environmental standpoint rather than prove her own.  I went into her lecture with the intention of discovering what she wanted – not what she did not want.  What was she advocating for?  Amidst all of her disparaging comments about environmentalists and all the “stuff” we preach and own, I pulled out a few key ideas.  First, DDT needs to be used in countries plagued by malaria as a disease prevention agent.  Second, the Bible needs to be interpreted literally.  Third, the Earth possesses resources that are strictly intended to be utilized and consumed.  The rest of her lecture, I felt, was dripping in disdainful comments about bearded environmentalists, erroneous (peer reviewed) science, and sandals.

            DDT – I can agree with that.  If used wisely, sparingly, and precisely, DDT has the potential to save lives.  It simply cannot be applied in massive clouds such as it was in the United States in the 1950’s.  The Bible and theology is an individual concern and should only be determined by the individual.  It must be a free decision.  The Earth’s resources, however, are not strictly intended to be commoditized by humans.  From my perspective, that is a selfish, wasteful, and unsustainable process.  We cannot continue to use coal for the next 300 years assuming we will eventually invent a replacement.

            Honestly, I just do not know how to respond.  She dismissed any outside facts, insulted and used religion as a fighting point, and blatantly tried to provoke the environmentalists within the room.  In addition, McElhinney repeatedly used one argument to dodge questions.  I honestly tried to go in with a respectful mind.  I tried to hold myself back and not fall into the hateful polarization of society.  I tried to be courteous.  I do not think I succeeded.

One Bead to Another

“We need to be as beads of a chain.  Different people can be doing different things as long as we hang together.” 

Brilliant.

Dr. Vandana Shiva is a figure within the Environmental Studies community.  She stands amongst Wendell Berry, Rachel Carson, and Maude Barlow.  She has been a constant fixture of my collegiate education.  While I have not always agreed with all of her controversial and pioneering reasoning, I admire her.  She is an adamant, confident, and knowledgeable advocate for the environmentally and socially marginalized of the world.  It was truly an honor to meet her. 

I thoroughly enjoyed her lecture and found myself nodding in agreement for the majority of it.  However, one particular statement, the quote above, struck me especially.  It fully embodied every ideal she was advancing.  The Food Movement, the Gender Movement, and the Environmental Movement are all interconnected in one global and societal web.  It is one holistic - Gaia-hypothesis – social movement.  One cannot be an advocate for one cause and not for another. 

The chain of beads also reflects upon the world population.  While we are free to act as individuals, we must always be mindful of the greater community and remember to “hang together.”  We are all individual beads strung upon the thread of life.  We come in different colors, designs, and materials; together we create one beautiful piece of art.  If one of us chooses to attack the thread (drastic pesticide use), add greater weight (increased consumption), or attack those around us (bio-piracy), we will break the thread.  The integrity of the thread relies upon the equality of each bead. 

From one bead to another: let’s hang out. 

Animal-loving Omnivore

            I love animals.  I really do.  I grew up watching Animal Planet, reading dog breed encyclopedias, and perpetually wanting another pet.  My dog, Copper, was one of my best friends during my childhood and the purple finches at our bird feeders provided endless entertainment.  Even now I find myself embracing that same passion for animals.  I support wildlife management and Endangered Species Act, I am entirely in favor of organic agriculture, and ASPCA commercials break my heart. 

            I love bacon, barbecued chicken, and steak too.  I love the smell of a roast baking in the oven and the sound of sausage sizzling in a frying pan.  Summer just is not complete without hamburgers and hotdogs from the grill and beef jerky is, by far, the best snack food during ROTC labs.  I am, by no means, a vegetarian.  I happily smash mosquitoes and I detest roosters (loud and mean).  I would save my roommate over my dog and I would give water to a dying person before a dying horse.    

            I have a bit of a problem.

            Where do I stand with animals?  I clearly do not put animals on the same level as humans, but I also do not see them as purely a resource for human use and consumption.  Although I would love to identify as a holistic vegetarian, I cannot.  I guess I would like to consider myself as an animal-loving omnivore.  I do not want to see animals needlessly suffer, but I also want to eat meat.  Sentient animals, such as cows, should not be forced to live in conventional feedlots.  Healthy, wild animals should not be captured and locked away in zoos.  Grass-fed or organic beef is the way to go and animals should only be placed in zoos if they are incapable of surviving in the wild. 

            As an animal-loving omnivore, I believe that the dolphin slaughter in Taiji needs to stop – for the sake of the dolphins and the people of Japan.  These clearly sentient animals should not be brutally slaughtered in the thousands only to supply unaware consumers with unsafe food.  Both lose.  Even if the meat was safe or if the dolphins were not sentient, I would not support the dolphin massacre.  There is nothing right about what is happening in The Cove. 

Monarch Land Ethic

            I grew up in two, seemingly endless acres of maples, snowmelt rivers, and snapping dragons.   There was not a single tree I did not attempt to climb nor a grove I did not transform into a fort.  It was my home.  Each season brought new wonders that seemed to surprise me every year.  Be it the flaming fall leaves or the hoarfrost donned winter limbs, I was amazed.  We had a grove of cedar trees on the edge of our property that came to life in late summer.  The monarch butterflies would come in the hundreds and congregate amongst the cedars.  I would walk through the grove, startle the monarchs from their respite, and skip in a vortex of black and orange. 

            Over the years, some of the cedars lost their vitality.  I remember my dad saying something about disease and spreading to the other trees; I did not quite understand it.  He had to cut a couple of them down.  At first I was worried about the monarchs.  Would they come back to a smaller grove?  He told me not to worry, but, as a little kid, naturally I did.  Sure enough though, the butterflies came back the next summer and I once again danced in black and orange.

            Although I did not understand it at the time, my father acted in the best interest of our two acres and the monarchs.  He embodied Aldo Leopold’s land ethic.  First, he eliminated and utilized individual trees in order to maintain the integrity of the entire cedar grove. Second, he used the cut cedars to fuel our wood-burning fireplace.  Third, by eliminating the diseased cedars, he preserved the habitat of the monarch butterflies.  He maintained a chain in a migration and pollination that spans the entire continent.  He acted in the best interest of the entire biotic community – including one frolicking little blonde girl.

            My life in those two acres and my interactions with my dad, in particular, instilled within me a love for nature.  My dad made a conscious effort to craft a respectful relationship with nature and to bring me along.  He brought me to bird nests to watch turquoise robin eggs hatch into incessant chirping mouths.  He helped me dig up earthworms for fishing bait.  At dusk we sat on our deck and listened to the cooing of mourning doves and the calls of killdeer.  He taught me how to live amongst nature – how to be a member of the biotic community.

Perspectives

            As an Environmental Studies major I have learned about vicious natural feedback loops, immense food chains, and the surprising interconnectivity of the world.  I have investigated the Gaia hypothesis, delved into Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac, and tackled Gregory Bateson’s ideologies on existence.  Based on my studies and personal experiences, Holism is by far the most appealing approach to Environmental Ethics.  The natural world and everything that exists within it, including humans, are connected in an inconceivable and fluctuating web. 

            I prefer Holism because it identifies humans as simply another member of the greater biotic community, not something superior to it.  So often we humans separate ourselves from the natural world and believe we supersede any environmental aspect or organism.   We fail to recognize that although we have developed extensive technologies, cultures, and infrastructure, we are still biological beings subject to fluctuations and challenges within the natural world.  As equal members of the biological community we must be mindful of our personal choices and how they impact the greater community.  Holism focuses on the health and condition of the whole – the community – the entire planet.

            Holism also allows the sacrifice (for lack of a better word) of individuals for the good of the whole.  While this could be interpreted to the extreme, such as condoning human sacrifices, I support a more practical and realistic approach.  The brilliance of Holism is that it can work in tandem with Sustainability.  It can pertain to, yes, selective hunting, but it can also pertain to one’s personal decisions.  Forgoing certain luxuries, such as purchasing a Hummer, can result in a better ecological community.