The Greening Of Rich...Sort Of...

One of the interesting things about living on a small island for a couple years is that I learned a few things about scarce resources (***see footnote at bottom). Water was not aplenty. While it did rain in Okinawa more than I would have preferred, there was not infrastructure sufficient to provide and endless supply of fresh water for drinking, showering, cooking, washing my bike, watering the lawn, etc. Being from Oregon - where it not only rains a great deal, but also where there are numerous lakes, reservoirs, watershed basins, and impoundments to deliver an obscene amount of water to my tap - I never developed the habits of water conservation. It took time, patience, and the constant reminders from an island friend in order for me to reduce my use of water to the amount I needed, and not too many drops more.

Nor was room to put trash. On an island, there's only so much real estate. In Okinawa, as I recall, we separated our trash into "burnable" and "non-burnable" bags. This separation was strictly adhered to. If we didn't separate the trash into clear bags, the trash company didn't pick it up. They just left it piling up (we learned this the hard way). Honestly, I don't really know if they recycled the stuff, burned it, or what they did with it. But, like being mindful of my water use, I got into the habit of separating my trash.

Recently, I went to a "waste to energy" facility that takes otherwise landfill-bound trash, tosses it into a furnace that torches the stuff, produces a few megawatts of energy, and filters the steam byproduct before sending it back into the atmosphere. Pretty cool, I thought. Rather than digging a hole out in the middle of nowhere, throwing a ton of garbage into it, then covering it up with dirt, why not burn it and produce some electricity? Landfills, it seems to me, are the rough equivalent of going camping in the woods, eating ramen, then throwing the wrapper, the flaverpack, and spork in little hole off to the side of the campsite, and pushing some dirt over top of it. There's gotta be a better way to handle it.

Some time ago on a Friday it occurred to me when I got home from work that I didn't drive my car once to work that week. I rode my bike. I started doing this some months prior, riding when I could, driving when I had to for meetings and the such. For the most part, I was able to ride just about every day because we had an office car I could use if I planned ahead and reserved it. Also, I lived close enough to work that I could coast down hill in the morning without breaking a sweat and arriving at work all nasty (sadly, the commute to work is far too distant to use my bike now – I ride the bus). Mid-way through the week, I was actually sort of pumped that all of my groceries fit into my bicycle bags (though, I only had to peddle 4 blocks back from the grocery store). I didn't even have to use grocery store bags. But the cool thing is, I didn't have to drive my car that week.

Now, some of you may be thinking that Rich as been living in downtown Portland too long, and the greenies are rubbing off on him/me. Let me, perhaps provide an alternative (whoops, a "Portlander" term) explanation:

1) I ride my bike because I like it. I don't have to pay for gas (can put it toward more worthy things, like steaks), and because I can (I lived close to work, I have bike bags to carry my work stuff, etc).

2) I separate my trash because I don't like contributing to the landfills. While I know that recycling most forms of material (breaking it down to it's basic form, then reproducing it into a useful product) is far more costly (in a monetary sense and energy expenditure), than just tossing it and chopping down another tree (which, in general, I support the chopping of trees - they grow back); while I know all that, I was also raised with the Boy Scout ethic of "leave it better than you find it." And just as burying my ramen wrapper under some dirt near my campsite is lame, so too is the concept of landfills.

3) Water...well, I need to get back on that train. I don't think that I'm terribly wasteful, but I'm sure there are ways for me to improve. Either way, embracing the concept of conserving water, electricity, or whatever, is simply a matter of being a good steward of resources that are out there.

_______________________________________

"Resource." That's a great word. Wiktionary = "noun: something that one uses." What makes America the greatest nation on the planet (in my biased opinion) is an equal measure of: 1) great people; 2) great form of government (freedom based); and 3) a huge variety and quantity of...natural resources. We've got everything in abundance. In the most rudimentary forms: a) soils to produce food, b) rock/ore to produce metals, c) timber to build things, d) fossil fuels to fuel (literally) the engine of the industrial revolution (***see second footnote below). This is how our forefathers built this nation. Many of history's wars have been fought because even though nations had great people and/or effective governments, they didn't have the natural resources to allow them to grow. We have it in the United States. We used it for many years, and perhaps even abused it for a time. Because of the abuse (or perceived abuse), we aren't using it anymore. We're importing it. Lumber from Canada, oil from everywhere but here, etc.

The popular perception of Teddy Roosevelt creating the National Forest system is for conservation purposes. Teddy didn't define conservation as "preservation for museum purposes where people can look, but not touch". Rather, he sought to conserve resources (national forests, in this case) so that the resource (remember Wiktionary's earlier definition) could be used in perpetuity. The Forest Service, and National Forest system was designed to manage the forests so that we would have an endless (regenerative) supply of a basic and necessary commodity: wood (for use and enjoyment).
_______________________________________

But I digress (as I often do). Back to the subject of "the greening of me". As I am wont to do, I was watching C-SPAN one day. A Member of Congress was giving a speech on "Global Climate Change." I love that term, especially when Republicans use it, because when they use that particular term, the unpardonable sin (for Republicans) of acknowledging "global warming" is plausibly dodged. For "Global Climate Change" can justifiably mean just about anything, including the temperature change that occurs from sunset to sunrise.

Again, a tangent. I watched a Republican make a speech on "Global Climate Change", acknowledging its reality, then proposing a number of reasons to address it in Congress, and a number of ways to address it (we'll get back to these). I listened carefully to his remarks, then decided to watch the media coverage (and opinion pieces done on this speech) in the Congressman's region of the country. Of course, he was accused of flip-flopping by the D's. "An election year conversion." The R's accused him of losing his way, or his mind. The reaction from the public was rather predictable. And, of course, rather incorrect as well.

I listened to his speech, then went to the Congressional Record and read it. He did, indeed, acknowledge "Global Climate Change"- again, a blurry term that may or may not mean "global warming". He then listed three reasons why Congress should address it: 1) reduce America's dependence on foreign oil; 2) develop the emerging sector of the economy around alternative energy sources (solar, wind, bio-fuel, wave energy, etc); and 3) reduce greenhouse gases in the environment.

Let's take those on one at a time. First, reducing our dependence on foreign oil: who's against this? As a local Prius dealership commercial recently reasoned, "because oil comes from totally screwed up places, buy our car...." Second, development of an emerging sector of the economy: Again, who's against America owning a corner of market that is clearly emerging? Jobs, folks. 1,500 landing in Hillsboro and Albany over the last year. Third, cleaning up crud in the air: Who wants the China air (or anything like unto it) in America? They had to take half the cars off the roads and shut down factories to clean out the smog for the Olympics. Clearly cars and industrial facilities put crud in the air. Leave the debate over "man made global warming killing the planet" to the same people who debate if stupid people should be allowed to procreate. Let's focus on something we all can agree on: the less crud in the air, the better. Let's find a way to wander in that direction.

So, the Member of Congress got criticized for wanting to do things that every normal person on this planet can agree with because what he wanted to do was in the context of the global warming debate. Here's the best part: his proposed solutions to these 3 issues was to pass a suite of tax incentives! Tax cuts, folks. The Conservative Republican took what many believe to be a "liberal" issue, found "universal" reasons to address it, and then used "conservative" principles to fix it. Genius!

And no one (judging by what I was able to find on the Internet about the story) got it. He was roundly criticized! I love it. Truly, I do. Because what this does is come back to "the Greening of me".

I recycle, ride my bike, find ways not to take bags at grocery and retail stores, conserve resources (electricity, water, etc), car pool, and love the fact that a politician is looking to address "Global Climate Change." I'm either a liberal of the Portland variety, or I've found practical, "conservative" reasons for being green.

- Rich


(***I believe the "earth is full, and there is enough and to spare". Who's to say, however, that that principle isn't based on the assumption that we are good stewards over the earth...?)

(****Modernize this last category of fossil fuels and we've got the geography for great wind resource, solar, wave, hydro energy. The next frontier of energy production - though, in my uneducated opinion, I think oil will be with us in some reduced capacity for a long, long time.)

Good Policy Makes Good Politics

So I walked into the Ben & Jerry's ice cream shop near my apartment several months ago and heard the two employees debating something I found intriguing. They stopped debating (a friendly debate) long enough to take my order, and then to ask my opinion on the matter.

The question was, "are all good acts by people motivated by self interest?" "Person One" took the position that people do good things for others not because they want to do good for others, but because they want the "feel good" that comes from doing good things. "Person Two" in the shop argued, rather ineffectively, to the contrary.

"Person One" made a compelling argument, but I disagreed, suggesting that while many people may do good things only so that they may feel good about themselves, there an equal number of people out there who practice what Aristotle defined as "true friendship": that is, doing good to another for the other's own sake.

I added, "it naturally follows that doing good things for other people produces a good feeling for the do-gooder, just as the laws of physics require that an action results in an equal/opposite reaction" (the laws of the universe - be they spiritual or karma - dictate that by doing good things, you will feel good as a result). But the "feel good" that comes from doing the good thing for another person is only an afterthought (or, side benefit) to Aristotle's "True Friend."
_______________________________________________________________

Transitioning from the world of friends to the world of politics, it is said that "good policy makes good politics." The idea being, if you make the correct decision about a matter of policy, the people (who define politics) will eventually see the correctness of your decision, and thereby support you. Hence, good policy makes good politics.

Now, if you're like Person One in the ice cream shop who argues that people do good things only out of self interest, you would then look at the actions of a policy maker and think cynically: "what's his self-interest in this? There must be an angle." Truly, one who looks at life through these cynical eyes does not believe that good policy makes good politics. Rather, "good politics makes good politics." Sadly, it has been my observation that there are many people in this world who look at the world through the prism, or philosophy, of "good politics makes good politics."
___________________________________________________________

Narrowing this down a little more: Mitt Romney dropped out of the Presidential Race today. (Now, don't get distracted by Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, or the rightness or wrongness of certain issue positions. Stay with me here on the big picture.) As soon as Mitt's speech was done today, the commentators were abuzz about what his motivations were.

In dropping out now he has: 1) saved himself millions of his own money; 2) dropped out on a high note with the conservative base of the Republican Party; 3) garnered untold admiration from the moderates in the Republican Party for handing the early nomination to McCain; and 4) positioned himself beautifully for another race in the future. Did he do all of this for those self-interested reasons? Certainly, these are all upshots of his decision.

Or, did he do it for the reasons he stated: that he loves this country, and finds it more important for the Republicans to quickly coalesce around one candidate whose position on one central issue - the war on terror - is in stark contrast with that of the other two candidates still battling it out in the Democrat primaries?

So, the question is posed: What motivates Mitt Romney? Self interest, or doing things for the good of others?

This question has vexed just about everyone on the right and left side of the political spectrum since he threw his hat in the presidential race. His positions on certain issues have changed during his campaigning for the Kennedy Senate seat back in 1994, for the Gov. of Mass. in 2002, his governance in Mass, then his campaigning for President in 2007. Many have noted that he has changed his positions on certain key issues during this 13 year span in politics from more liberal-leaning positions to conservative positions. These changes in positions have been at convenient times for his political career, but have also corresponded with other events.

The National Journal ran a cover story on Mitt on February 9, 2007 called "Journey To The Right." I read this article with interest back when it was published, and have referred back to it many times since. While it offers observations that support both that Mitt could be a "good politics makes good politics" type or a "good policy makes good politics" type; I couldn't shake a few statements made in it: "From 1994 to Goodridge [a court case involving gay marriage in MA], he was a Republican businessman in Massachusetts who had conservative sensibilities on some things, but not on everything, because he had never been forced to grapple with them."

It goes on to offer another observation: "Other Romney friends think, however, that he was seduced by what one called the "cheap applause" of conservative audiences."

In other words, it could be either one. But on the issue of stem cell research, and the issue of abortion, he made changes in his positions under the same conditions as he did with gay marriage.

The article reads on: "Almost a year after Goodridge, Romney says, he had another epiphany, again derived from his impending confrontation as governor with a burning moral question [embryonic-stem-cell research]."

When I completed the entire article (which drew no conclusions as to Mitt's motivations), I went back and reread those passages. Something about that seemed familiar. Indeed, as I thought about it, it made sense. How many times have I laid out my beliefs or positions on certain issues (be they political, religious, or otherwise), and then changed them once I actually had to "grapple with them for the first time"? It is interesting, I think, what first-hand experience with an issue can do to your perspective on that issue. Sometimes, I have noticed, my positions have changed. Sometimes they have been solidified.

Did Mitt do it to enhance his future ambitions, or did he do it because he, for the first time, grappled with them, gained a better understanding about the nature of the issues, and changed his positions based on those lessons learned? No one but himself can really know what his motivations were for changing his positions on these key social/political issues.

But, I'm a believer in giving people the benefit of the doubt - especially when I've had similar experiences. I can safely say the same for Obama whose time in the Illinois Legislature has been characterized as a left wing radical politician. However, in the US Senate, his record and rhetoric has moderated. His voting record in the Senate still is on the left wing of the party (as outlined by this week's National Journal), but the careful observer will notice he has moderated over time. Could this moderation be a result of political expediency? Perhaps. Could it be because experience in grappling with these issues is actually moderating his opinions? Perhaps.

Just as I offer Mitt the benefit of the doubt, so I must with Obama. I don't necessarily agree with Obama's positions on several issues, but I won't accuse him of political expediency until there is a record replete with "I'm for it, now I'm against it, now I'm for it, now I'm against it." As the beloved Peggy Noonan once wrote, "Everyone should be afforded the right to change their position once."

What's the point of all this? Well, I guess I have a couple conclusions:

First: Just because a person appears to have "self-interested" reasons for doing something, it
doesn't mean that self interest is the reason why that person did it.

Second: Just because someone does something solely because it's the right thing to do, it doesn't mean they won't benefit from it.

Like I argued with the ice cream guy, sometimes people do the right thing because they think it's the right thing to do...then, as a side benefit, good things happen.

Same thing with Mitt today. He did the right thing, I think, because he thought it was the right thing to do for his party and country. And, as a side benefit, he's made himself a god in the Republican Party.

Good policy does make good politics.