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.