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
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.)
No comments:
Post a Comment