Google Groups Subscribe to BlueOlives
Email:
Browse Archives at groups.google.com

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Plastic Gyrations: Science Stirring Up Plastic Soup

Source: PynkCelebrity.com
It's been described as "plastic soup" in a bowl twice the size of Texas and 30 feet deep. Or how about a three-story Walmart streaming from the border of Mexico up along the Rockies and out to California all the way up to Canada? Plastic soup -- the Pacific Plastic Gyre/the Garbage Patch/the Trash Vortex -- proof positive that our love affair with disposable petroleum polymers is out of control.

At least it's not being called a stew. Plastics stew implies goo, and that wouldn't be good at all. Go here to the Chic Ecologist and to the Algalita Marine Research Foundation to learn about this awesome manmade miasma. Of course, if you're a real environmentalist, I'm assuming you know all about this situation.

Source: CafeMom.com
But note something important that's just come up in the past week: recent findings by Oregon State University researcher Angel White point to the actual quantity of plastic being closer to about 1% the size of Texas. In a press release from OSU, she says, “If we were to filter the surface area of the ocean equivalent to a football field in waters having the highest concentration (of plastic) ever recorded, the amount of plastic recovered would not even extend to the 1-inch line.”


See a very interesting and detailed press release on Dr. White's research here.

Dr. White is clearly concerned about the impact of plastic in the ocean, both the positive and negative sides of the equation, but she's also helping create a bit more of a sense of reality about the "plastics problem" in our seas -- which seems kind of important, if you ask me. 

As long as decision makers operate in the realm of myth and hyperbole, it's hard for good policy and practical solutions to get outside of the lunacy of politics. 

Source: TreeHugger.com
Plastics in the ocean, regardless of the actual geography of the problem, are not being studied enough and may represent one of the best examples of "out of sight out of mind" we can find on this earth (don't get me started on space trash). That plastic bag or clamshell salad container you just threw away? Where is it going to be five years from now? Or, check out this wonderful book that goes on sale in the spring, "Moby Duck," that originated in an article for Harper's (January, 2007, in which we realize that Donovan Hohn is one of the best writers in America). The very indestructability and light weight of plastic is a major cause of this plastic soup problem, isn't it? Ah, the trials of ubiquity! 

It's too bad the American Chemistry Council is so busy defending plastic. One of the most impressive and interesting components of this massive, floating river of random debris is that there couldn't be a better lab for understanding how plastic breaks down naturally. They may start off as whole objects, but the effect of intense solar radiation, microbial infestation and the titration effect of sea water -- along with sea life eating and picking at this flotsam -- means a gradual disintegration of the whole object into pieces and specks that can, of course, be further ingested by smaller and smaller members of the ecosystem. 

It would seem, then, that perhaps there is a function of science that gets lost too often. Environmentalists attack so much with hyperbole and overstatement (not always, but far too often), and industry attacks and defends with rhetoric, data manipulation, and lobbying dollars. 

Here we have science, though, looking at this problem and trying to separate out the truth from the twisted. One can only hope that all sides can work together to figure out how to deal with the reality of this situation. It's certainly not good enough to let this toxic situation fester out of sight and out of mind.  

Keep Recycling!


Monday, December 27, 2010

Can Measurement Save the World?

Photo Source: Boston Globe (Creative Commons registered)
I love our family Prius. It tells me in real-time what our average miles per gallon are for every tank we buy. There are other cars out there with trip computers measuring fuel efficiency, but not enough. I imagine if every car in America came with an on board metrics system gauging efficiency there would be a lot fewer muscle cars and SUVs on the road.

This measurement thing is also a big deal in the recycling world. The best recycling programs around the country tend to be those in so-called "Pay As You Throw" districts where people are charged by volume or weight for trash service. EPA has documented the effectiveness of PAYT. And the most exciting feature of RecycleBank's incentive program to folks like me (I coordinate Philadelphia's recycling efforts) is not so much the discount coupons you get for recycling but the fact that they weigh how much material you put out on the street every week. If ever there was a reason to recycle it would be to beat my family average weekly rate of 48 pounds of recyclables (and 17 pounds of trash).


The big game over the next decade in the energy world is going to be creating "smart grid"applications for home and office use that give real-time energy consumption and load data. We read all this stuff about putting lids on pots of pasta, and re-lamping with CFLs, and washing clothes in cold water, but our family has been doing those things for more than 20 years (and I bet yours has too). 

What I want is an app that lets me control every outlet in my house and lets me remotely set my thermostat, turn on my dishwasher during my commute home, pre-heat the oven, and just simply know at any given moment how much electricity and natural gas we're using -- especially my kids with their video games (I want to charge them). 


We hear about solar, wind, geo-thermal, biomass, and hydrogen constantly. Alternative and electric vehicles are all the rage. But what about intelligence? Measuring things -- in real-time -- and really getting detailed information is how we get smart about energy use. Using an iPhone or Droid to control appliances and electrical systems is actually cooler than solar and has more sex appeal if you ask me.


Check out this video by the CleanTech people for starters. And also this article on iPad and iPhone potentials for remote control personal energy management systems. 


But note that a great deal of effort is still going into the power generation and transmission side of things (read "utilities" here) and not the end user side of the equation. See this piece from GreenBiz.com as an example. There is a movement underfoot and it's clear and obvious that iPad/iPhone apps make a helluva lot of sense once the infrastructure is in place, but the idea has to be to let consumers monitor their own usage and also to give them control over each piece of their home's energy system. 

Note as well that visits to websites for the Natural Resource Defense Council, Edison Electric Institute, Rocky Mountain Institute, and Sierra Club don't point to the logic of monitoring and measurement as first priorities. They all talk about "clean energy" and demand side energy management, but there's nothing about the value of simply knowing what you need to know to make rational decisions about energy use. 

Without doubt there are complications in making all of this work. For one, home circuitry is going to have to get smart, and, yes, grids will too. Likewise, industry leaders are going to need to establish standardized systems and open architecture-like protocols that allow all things electrical to talk to us on our iGadgets. All of that costs money. But the whole idea behind saving energy is saving money...isn't it?


The entrepreneurial opportunity here is phenomenal, though. And the savings could be profound. Imagine leaving your house and actually being able to check that you turned off all the lights and the stove while you buckle up for a flight to Florida. Or how about turning the lights on in the house from Florida to make people think you're home? Yes, I know that won't save energy, but what would you pay for that kind of peace of mind? 

And let's take it one step further. Why are we not embedding touch screen computers (read iPad here) in refrigerator doors and kitchen cabinets? Forget the little iPad screen here. Think big and think smart: try a 20" screen and converge TV and Internet applications all in one...and let me monitor every little kilowatt in my house while I make dinner for my family. 


Measurement is the first line of environmental defense.

If only Toyota built houses. If only Apple ran the nation's transmission system. If only Bill Gates was CEO of my gas company!


By the way, Keep Recycling!

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Why Green Jobs Don't Count

In ten years, if we're still talking about green jobs, we will have failed to transform the world economy to a more sustainable and egalitarian set of markets. For many of us who have been invested in the so-called "green revolution" for the past three decades, the fact that we're talking about jobs with special hues even today is disconcerting. As has been documented here at Blue Olives, efforts to modernize technology and establish a more democratic and benign form of productive capitalism have been in the pipeline since at least the early 1960s. 

Indeed, "green jobs" should not be something special; they should simply be "good jobs" that are part of the status quo. Mining and logging jobs should long ago have given way to recycling and re-manufacturing jobs; autoworkers should be building nothing but high mpg/low emission cars and trucks; power plant operators should be managing non-fossil fuel electricity systems; and manufacturers should only be making photovoltaic panels, recycled bottles, super energy efficient appliances, and recycled content building materials. Dinosaur products and technologies that harm the environment, contribute to climate change, and support special interests (rather than global villages) should be relegated to the trash bin of history -- lobbyists and major advertising campaigns notwithstanding. 


The key to success for the sustainability/environmental/green movement is inevitably going to mean creativity and proactive change in every sphere of business activity, pushing the need for "revolution" out the door and initiating new perspectives and standards from the assembly line to the delivery truck to workbench to the cubicle to boardroom. One good example of this purposeful mindset would be in the world's of bookkeeping and accounting. It's very likely that climate change solutions won't work without CPA's and bean counters who know what they're doing. So far, documenting and tracking environmental costs and benefits has been the purview of activists, progressive business people, and environmental scientists. Nothing against the science side of things here, but folks in the business accounting world have  a deep history of ethical practice and methodologies specifically designed to create fair, apples-to-apples comparative evaluations of financial systems. Moving from numbers with dollar signs to tons (tonnes) of chemical emissions shouldn't be that hard

What may be hard is for business schools around the country -- and the world -- to grasp the importance of beginning the process now of developing proper environmental bookkeeping and accounting standards for future teachers and students. Once again, informed proactive thinking is dependent on seeing an established marketplace for emissions trading that is supported by a predictable regulatory environment (please read here that as long as the global community can't get it's act together on greenhouse gas emissions limits -- especially the United States and China -- then everything remains dicey and chaotic). 


Make no mistake about it though, without a well-schooled and enlightened accounting community it is hard to envision an adequate mapping of emissions and emissions standards. If you can't measure it, you can't manage it. 


But should we call this new breed of business professional "green accountants?" To my way of think, no. Their world should always be about the black and the red. Businesses only succeed if they're in the black. Investors really only want to see the black. Green may be the color of "feel good" corporate marketing and environmental logos, but black is the color of profits and the color of truly sustainable endeavors.

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Short-Sighted Buffoonery: Send me in coach!

I'm getting ready to re-enter the fray. I recently agreed to take on a job in the City of Philadelphia that I can't provide details on, but it's not soon enough apparently. Leaders in Washington and state governments all over the country are doing their best to turn solving the climate change problem into another example of oafish, mercenary, short-sighted, buffoonery. Check out the rather direct posting at the Center for American Progress today, "Facing Reality."

I'm fighting mad. You should be too. Personally, I've been on the sidelines way too long and I'm itching to get back in the game. Yesterday, I listened to the news that President Obama is authorizing $54 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear power industry. Now, I'm not going to argue against nuclear power per se, but what I'm still waiting for is a strategic plan, a truly intelligent approach, to tackling global warming once and for all. And we're not seeing it. The approach that's being taken all throughout the country is scatter shot and smorgasbord and shows a remarkable lack of wisdom on both sides of the aisle.

The logic for this rather unorganized set of solutions is that we have to let The Market decide what technologies are going to work. However, the reason we have a planet with rising average temperatures and changing climatic conditions is that we've let The Market decide. It's failed us here. Everyone knows that. The idea of cap and trade (definitely pay attention to this link and what happens with cap and trade this week; things are getting very weird) is a compromise. Everyone knows this too. The only way the market can solve this problem (technology choices that move away from fossil fuels), is with a so-called carbon tax -- or set of fees that force the market to quantify the environmental cost of burning fossil fuels and emitting other greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. There's no way around this. If we don't get a carbon tax, we won't see climate change go away...that is, unless we develop a plan that strategically addresses all the big issues.

I'm not going to do that here. And it's so frustrating trying to argue for a carbon tax, since there are no testicles to be found in state and federal government buildings anymore.

What I am going to say is that we need to start off with two very simple investment strategies as a nation. One would be directed at energy efficiency and conservation. The other at re-tooling our industrial system to use recycled material and to capture all urban organic waste (yard debris, food scraps, wood, etc.) for conversion to soil and compost. Both of these strategies can take us a long way towards slowing greenhouse gas emissions. Both can save businesses and homeowners money in the long-term (although trash companies and utilities will suffer). And both are profound economic development opportunities that create real, lasting jobs.

Instead we get massive investments in high capital, low labor technologies like nuclear plants, biomass energy systems, and landfill gas recovery. These investments may be necessary, but they aren't going to have a real impact for years -- probably decades. We need solutions that work now. Recycling and energy efficiency measures are proven and can start working immediately -- regardless of the lunacy in the District of Columbia and out in state capitals.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

This Sucks

Experts have been saying it's too late to avoid climate change for some time now. Today's news (it's Groundhog Day, for goodness sake!), is kind of obvious then.

Janos Pasztor, the UN Secretary-General's point person on climate change, has come out with the not so surprising statement that:
"It is likely, according to a number of analysts, that if we add up all those figures that were being discussed around Copenhagen, if they're all implemented, it will still be quite difficult to reach the two degrees."

At issue is the so-called two-degree (that's Celsius) target set at Copenhagen. If the earth's average temperature goes above this level (using pre-industrial 18th century temperatures as a baseline), we will be in deep, hot doo-doo.

Read the referenced material for the details. Suffice it to say that a botched and pathetic campaign in Massachusetts, the Haitian earthquake crisis, the health insurance reform debacle, and the coming Super Bowl are all in league to distract us (immensely) from job one which is immediate and continued reduction of fossil fuel emissions worldwide.

In the words of Ross Perot, I hear a giant sucking sound.

Who the heck is in charge here anyway? You?

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Boy, You're Going to Carry That Weight

Yesterday, our local paper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, reported on a little skirmish at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen between the U.S. and China over climate change policy. In essence, the U.S. wants China to open its books in order to determine whether the world's most populous nation is adhering to the voluntary greenhouse gas reductions they are committing to (as a so-called developing nation, China is not confronted with the same requirements as the U.S., European Union countries, Japan, Australia, etc.).

According to the article, both countries are in stalemate mode with China scoffing at verification demands and the U.S. stressing the need for clear definition and an "international agreement." The face-off is about money and China's concern over international sanctions. While China is deemed a developing nation, the U.S. and other industrialized countries are not offering financial support for climate change assistance. More to the point, China's fear of penalties for not meeting it's goals is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, kind of like saying: "Yes, we agree climate change is a problem and we are planning to do something about it, but don't hold us to our plans and don't whatever you do expect us to share with you whether we're doing well or not. We don't trust you to not hold it against us -- the world's leading carbon dioxide emitter -- if we aren't successful."

Today there is no mention of this ruckus in the paper. Instead we get an article letting us know that Barack Obama, who arrives tomorrow, is the last hope for a meaningful set of agreements. Indeed, it would seem that any significant resolutions are out the window and have been since the conference opened. Binding, formal commitments are being put off until 2010. This is being called a "political agreement."

Besides the stalemate between China and the U.S., plans to slow and then stop deforestation in developing nations are still up in the air (20-percent of global carbon dioxide emissions are created when forests are clear-cut to make cattle ranches and plantations); and it's still not clear what kind of funding the U.S. is willing to pledge to developing nations in overall climate change aid -- not just for greenhouse gas reductions but for remediation and protection from the effects of climate change.

According to the Associated Press, early goals of a 50-percent reduction in deforestation by 2020 and a full end to it by 2030 have been set aside. As much forest is leveled each year as to be equal to the area of New York state (32 million acres -- that's 3,653 acres an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week).

These are big issues with huge quantities of money at stake. Africa is asking the developed nations for $30 billion a year for now, moving up to $100 billion annually by 2020. Japan has pledged $15 billion for short-term support to developing nations. All of this makes the U.S. pledge of $1 billion for deforestation seem rather paltry, to say the least.

So, Obama arrives tomorrow with a heavy-duty job. Fred Krupp, head of the Environmental Defense Fund, said yesterday: "If the pieces are here, President Obama is the only person who can pull them together into an agreement." Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton arrives today, presumably to pave the way for her boss with negotiations. We'll see.

Whatever this Nobel Prize-winning president accomplishes, real numbers for the U.S. and a serious financial mechanism to achieve them are still up to Congress. There's nothing like the American democratic process to solve a massive, incomprehensible problem like global warming and climate change. The only thing worse, possibly, is global democracy. Can someone say, "Chaos?"

The photo? Well, that's Copenhagen of course!

Friday, November 13, 2009

Ann Leonard and Karl Marx... Or Is It Frederick Engels?

The following commentary piece is a welcome addition to the public discourse on our current economic malaise. All too often environmental activists and green business enthusiasts ignore the intellectual heritage from which they came.

Commentary by Neil Seldman, Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Recently on Fox News, Annie Leonard, creator of The Story of Stuff, was likened to Karl Marx with a ponytail. I do not know how Annie is wearing her hair these days, but she reminds me far more of the young Frederick Engels than of Karl Marx.

Let me explain.

Annie's widely circulated animated video makes the connections between overproduction and ecological damage as well as between sustainability and job creation. In all of this, she is following in the footsteps of Frederick Engels, not Marx.

Although Karl Marx is a household name, Engels may have played a more important historical role. Firstly, he all but invented Marx, supporting him financially, emotionally and politically, and introducing him to the dismal subject of political economy that would dominate his life. Engels was Marx's source of the historical examples that allowed Marx to create his world changing theories. Further, Engels made Marx' writing accessible.

Engels interrupted the life of Marx, an itinerant philosopher who jumped from one intellectual activity to another, and set him at his life's work. Finally, Engels was the public face of Marxism from 1873 on, as Marx battled diseases that claimed his life in 1883. Engels died in 1895, the leader of powerful national political parties and unions.

Engels was charming, good-looking, athletic, popular, and fluent in English. Marx was none of the above. Generations of students learned about Marxism from Engels' shorter, more popular works, which were more immediately understandable: they provided working people with intellectual tools to understand their historic era and the role they might play in its future developments. Always ready with a military simile, Engels likened his concise booklets to grenades thrown into the enemy camp. "Why can't you be like me?" he would exhort Marx, who struggled to write.

Of course, Marx, the brilliant intellectual and trained philosopher, added to Engels' insights his pioneering ideas about conflicting class interests, the economic interpretation of history, materialist philosophy that integrates ideas and actions, the fetishism of commodities that hides human virtue, and class struggle. Perhaps, most relevant were Marx' concepts of ideology, alienation and false consciousness, which speak to us daily in our modern predicament. Marx' vision of un-alienated labor in a modern industrial society, inspires hundreds of millions of people to this day.

It was the self-educated Engels, however, who was the first Marxist. Engels' youthful insights into burgeoning capitalism were accurate, and, he thought, could be scientifically proven as the basis for optimism for change in the near future. Engels focused on real people. As a textile mill manager and owner in Germany and England, he saw, up close and personal, the raw radical nature of industrial capitalism and the new political economy that it spawned.

He arrived in England at the age of 23 -- after a short career as a military leader against the Prussian monarchy, censorship and hatred of democracy -- to oversee his father's interests in Manchester. This city in the 1840's was perhaps the only place in the world at the time that could reveal the true promise and perils of industrial capitalism. England was at the heart of industrial capitalism. The textile industry was its heart, and Manchester was the heart of the textile industry. If one could transform Manchester, one could transform the world. And Manchester was the critical center of the Chartists, who had a valid democratic, non-violent strategy for change that would transcend the dualism posed by the creative destruction of capitalism. Engels loved the English workers, for he thought they were capable of changing the world, transforming competitive industrialization with cooperative industrialization.

As a child Engels wandered through his hometown of Bremen, dominated by his family's textile mills, built up by three previous generations. Despite the liberal views with which the family ran its mills, Engels was confronted daily by the Wuppertal River polluted by the mills' bleacheries. Nor could he ignore the workers' living conditions; warrens where human misery, crime, drugs and sexual depravity, were the only visible outlets for its inhabitants. Where the family could not be sustained. When he got to Manchester and saw even worse conditions, he feared for the future of his homeland, and for the rest of the world should this industrial system spread.

Engels introduced Marx to Manchester--to its new class of industrial workers, and to the Manchester Library, the working people's library, recently founded by Charles Dickens. Here, Engels laid in front of Marx the classical works of political economy and ordered him to study them. This ignited the decisive historical force of Marxism. Marx' and Engels' relationship developed into the most unique partnership in intellectual and political history.

All the core principles of Marxism were present in the young Engels before he ever met Marx. He marveled at the power of large-scale capitalism: how it multiplied human labor a thousand fold with its new energy forms and technology; how it created the greatest wealth in history; and how, simultaneously, it created the greatest poverty and anguish in history. How the owning class captured the state to promote its own interest and neglect all others. How the owners loved the law because it protected them. And, how the poor feared the law because it suppressed them.

Engels was the world's first industrial economist and first industrial ecologist: the first sustainability activist. He also was the most prominent student of the English Chartists, the first civil rights movement in the world that continues to inspire today's Chinese dissidents to totalitarianism.

Classical economists, reflecting the worldview of the owning class, Engels succinctly wrote, put selfish interest above those of "trees and children," or nature and people. Their ideas hid their practice of treating nature as a free warehouse for goods and a free sink for disposal of noxious byproducts. Children and families were also dispensable. Engels called out the owning class as both immoral and inefficient: immoral because trees and children are essential for human growth and happiness; and inefficient because trees and children are the most productive of resources if their inherent value is respected and accounted for in political economy.

Engels worked as a mill manager, but spent his free time with the workers, rather than the owners, who were his father's friends and partners. He recognized and provided statistical documentation of the new class of workers emerging; their conditions, fears, aspirations, democratic organizations, and how they cared for their own with the meager resources they had. He studied closely and categorized their struggles through crime, strikes and riots. Unlike other contemporary observers, he realized the potential power of democratically organized and self-aware workers, and saw it as a positive force for change. He incorrectly assessed that radical change was imminent.

Engels was a very accomplished autodidact; he had conquered Hegel and other philosophers in his teenage years. Having graduated from philosophy, he proceeded to look at the facts on the ground. Even the work Engels did while he was Marx's graduate research assistant still impacts our thought. His book on the rifle in 1864 won the prize as the best book of its kind in 1964. His military analysis of the US Civil War, written in Europe, is still studied today, as are his manuals for the defense of Paris during the 1871 Commune: Lenin and Trotsky used them in the urban warfare in Russia of 1905, the dry run for the successful revolution of 1917. Engels' inquiry into the evolutionary theories of Darwin (competitive naturalism) versus Kropotkin (cooperative naturalism) continues to inform modern scholars. The most prominent evolutionary biologist and science writer of our time, Stephen Jay Gould, considered Engels' The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man the most important work in rejecting the "idealistic" and "Western" prejudice regarding the primacy of the brain in human evolution. Engels' analytical writings on women and the family are also the subjects of conferences and colloquia to this day. His Origin of the Family presented evolutionary anthropology that tied family history to economic history in a linear, causal relationship. The 1884 book serves as a primer for his and Marx' theory of the family.

In some matters of deep philosophy, Engels struggled without Marx to guide him. Some historians trace the origins of Soviet Totalitarianism to Engels' concept of dialectical materialism, a term he never uttered or wrote. In fact, Engels is to Soviet Totalitarianism as Christ is to the Spanish Inquisition.

Engels understood the facts of capitalism; he even saw the basic structure of society that it created -- the state captured by the owning class. He felt unable, however, to put his ideas into a historic or scientific framework. Engels was a true heir to the Enlightenment. He needed to use science to conquer religion and bogus philosophy. Engels and Marx grew up in Westphalia in the Rhineland, the outer reaches of Napoleon's empire, as part of a generation deeply influenced by freeing intellectual influences of the Great French Revolution. Heir as he was to the Enlightenment, Engels rebelled at the overemphasis on individualism, and held community and social commitment as inalienable aspects of human happiness.

Engels needed Marx to scientifically confirm his moral insights. Marx needed Engels to be his remarkably gifted researcher. Engels would learn ancient languages so that he could detect and explain land ownership and social relations to Marx. When Marx would marvel at his ability to learn languages quickly, in the evenings after a full day's work at the mills, Engels would quip, "it is not hard work, I enjoy it." Marx also needed Engels' friendship and generosity to survive.

Few people actually read Marx: many found him too confusing. Marx's prose was often a patchwork of passages written by his current philosophical enemies. One had to be familiar with the work of these enemies in order to comprehend Marx's attacks. Marx's economic writings in Das Kapital (completed by Engels after Marx' death), were undecipherable; Das Kapital remains important today because of its brilliant and invaluable depiction and analysis of history, literature, art and psychology.

Engels' writing was clear and popular in style, where Marx's was verbose and full of vitriol. Engels wrote the first draft of The Holy Family. It was 12 pages. Marx returned to him a 300-page manuscript that bordered on diatribe. There were always contradictions to interpret within Marx's work. Scholars shied away from discussions with this mean-spirited curmudgeon; he eviscerated any who disagreed with him, including former allies and teachers.

Engels wanted an ounce of action rather than a ton of theory. In 1848, when the democratic nationalist revolutions erupted throughout Europe, Marx went to the printing press. Engels went to the front, where he fought bravely and led military actions. Engels transformed dense prose into simpler messages. His use of biological similes (such as the withering away of the state, and violence as the midwife of revolution) captivated the working public's imagination and admiration. This popularity, coupled with his cunning political skill, allowed Engels to win the 20-year struggle against Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor of Germany. In 1870, Bismarck outlawed the openly Marxist German Social Democratic Party, which had some 500,000 members. By 1890, after Bismarck's fall, the party's membership had grown to four million. With his prestige and power to persuade workers of all nations, Engels could have stopped the world war he predicted in 1888. He died in 1895, however, leaving his German Social Democratic Party and all the others (except the Danish) in the wilderness. These organizations eventually fell victim to World War I in 1914. This event caused by the combined forces of industrial capitalism and the remnants of feudal monarchies, killed a generation of Europe's working people; never before seen in history. The war unleashed technological savagery whose devastating consequences remain to this day, as we still await the end of what Engels called the prehistory of the human race and the dawning of true human history: a history in which humans are allowed, as part of nature, to achieve their full potential. The failure of leadership in the Social Democratic movement was the greatest moral failure of the left in history.

Engels' ideas are important today because the ravages of capitalism that Engels saw in 1840s Manchester are still with us. The support system of industrial capitalism is based on human and environmental exploitation around the world. This machinery now threatens to contaminate with industrial waste the very air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat beyond human capacity to survive. The system sustains itself on the joyless labor of hundreds of millions of workers living on subsistence wages.

Engels' proposed solutions, as well as his observations, are still pertinent today. Engels pointed out that productivity increases when natural resources and open space are respected, and when workers are given decent food, water, education, housing and medical care. If these conditions are not met, needless hardship will weaken the workforce physically and psychologically. Engels was a zero waste thinker. He taught that the byproduct of one factory should serve as the feedstock of another, and that organic matter must be returned to the land to preserve fertility. Small farms, he explained to Marx, are the best way to accomplish this. He advised that industry should be decentralized and integrated throughout the world, with each region capable of its own production, distribution and consumption, to the greatest extent possible.

Under capitalism, Engels believed that "women were the proletariat's proletariat," and that a society that does not protect women and the family is unworthy of survival. Women, according to Engels, hold up more than half the world. In his view, a man who did not recognize the importance of independent women could never reach his full capacity.

In an essay he sent to Marx in 1843, Engels concluded that capitalism is inefficient because it does not invest in the two most productive things on earth: trees (nature) and children (the next generation). For these reasons, he stated, capitalism is morally bankrupt. He identified unions, worker cooperatives (production and consumption), civic associations and credit unions as the institutions forming the bedrock of a cooperative industrial society.

Without the transformation of industry that he assumed was inevitable, Engels believed industrial capitalism would destroy the world, its nature and its people. He hoped working people and people with common sense could drive a stake into the heart of this monster and reform industrial production and relations for good. If not, Engels foresaw, giant corporations as the only citizens of the world.

Annie Leonard stands for, and works for, exactly these principles. She is an international organizer on environment and labor issues -- the very issues that catapulted Engels to world fame. When we put her characteristics and Engels side by side we can see that they were both self-sacrificing, both combine theory and practice and listen to and speak to regular people. Both are strategic. Both are optimistic. Both interconnect ecological and labor issues.

The Story of Stuff is radical in that it deals with the very same causes that emerged 300 years ago when unregulated capitalism first burst upon the world. Annie Leonard has identified problems of rampant consumption, and its impact on nature and people. The Story of Stuff opens the door to inquiry among people young and old. The story leads directly to the solutions that the grassroots recycling movement has found and continues to implement. These successes are being replicated throughout the US, from Hawaii to Puerto Rico, and California to Maine. Zero Waste (90% diversion from incineration and landfill disposal) is an achievable and necessary goal for the US economy and for the entire planet. Recycling and composting are the foundation of a safe and ample future for all.

Annie Leonard's goal is to change people's consciousness and promote economic investment patterns that are good for people and nature, not billionaires and concentrated corporations. Her work points out that the mundane world of garbage is a clue to, and a powerful tool for, sustainability throughout our political economy. She reflects the values of our widespread and deeply rooted US recycling movement.

Conclusion: There is no latter-day version of Karl Marx that springs immediately to mind -- but Annie Leonard could well be a latter-day Frederick Engels.

Annie Leonard is on the right course, and bringing along many others using her talent for communicating with the public, especially young people. Her message is straightforward and transparent: By using resources efficiently, we can create a new industrial economy that does not threaten the earth or its people. This is an economic argument as well as a moral argument: it is the same one presented by Engels 150 years ago, as modern capitalism first started to flex its growing muscles and implement its powers of mass persuasion.

Thanks again, Annie.

*

Neil Seldman is co-founder and president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Since 1974, ILSR has developed and implemented scores of policies, programs and enterprises that promote sustainable local use of raw materials. Recycling and economic development have become standard planning tools as a result of Seldman's 35 years of work in the field. He was the first to recognize the fiscal danger of waste incineration, and he pioneered the organization of citizens, elected officials and small businesses owners to prevent their implementation, thus opening the door for more cost-effective and environmentally sound alternatives. Seldman's business experience comes from factory management and industrial training. He is also a trained political theorist who has taught university-level history and political science. He is a postdoctoral student of the history of ideas.

For references and footnotes, contact the author at nseldman@ilsr.org or go to the bibliography at the bottom of the page for this essay on the ILSR web site.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Whither Recycling?


Recycling got it's modern start in the late 1960s and early 1970s both as a common sense New Economy idea -- mining urban ore -- and also as a practical solution to the lunacy of the "Throw Away Society." The pioneers of the early recycling movement often don't get enough credit in the annals of environmentalism. While saving spotted owls and whales has been the rage since 1970, recycling has been a center piece of the early urban environmental equation going back to the early parts of the 20th century. Unlike wildlife conservation and wilderness protection, recycling addresses the environmental impact of each and every person in a given city or town -- at home, at work and at play.

It might come as a surprise, then, that the National Recycling Coalition (NRC) -- the premiere group that spearheaded major partnerships and initiatives back in the 1980s and early 1990s including The Buy Recycled Business Coalition; The Electronics Recycling Initiative; RecycleMania; the Chicago Board of Trade Recycling Exchange; The Climate Change Initiative; and America Recycles Day -- is about to go belly up in either Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The NRC, host of the greatest recyclers' party of the year -- the annual National Recycling Congress; voice to thousands of waste reduction professionals; and long the center of national recycling policy (for better or worse), pretty much got mismanaged and mistreated into the ground by a combination of incompetence, sloth, and foolishness. Some of this may have been the result of a hands off board of directors. Some may have been an executive director with a personal agenda. And some may just be the result of too many masters with too little money.

How is it possible to run a recycling organization dedicated to reducing waste and resource efficiency with money from the trash industry, soft drink companies, and other corporate interests whose very profits depend on excess consumption and disposable products?

The story of the NRC's demise is long and rather sordid. I won't go into it here. You can get a good dose of that here and here. What is important to know is that the slack is in part being picked up by the GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN). Formed some 15 years ago as a direct result of the NRC's growing ineffectiveness, GRRN is focused on the concept of Zero Waste and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

The struggles for the NRC, and recycling in general, might seem surprising given the nation's newfound affection for anything green and sustainable. But in a very real sense, a number of us have been warning about the demise of recycling as part of the environmental toolkit for years. As a public works principle, recycling seems to work at least on the residential level. 30% or so of this country's household garbage is either recycled or composted every year. This has been the case for well over a decade.

But recycling as a field has never adequately addressed specific structural issues that continue to make waste diversion a difficult row to how in the public policy sphere as it relates to trash economics. Most specifically, recycling calls forth the need to measure and manage waste and recovered material using high-tech scales that allow haulers to charge a certain rate per pound for trash and another charge for recycling services. Presumably, measurement along these lines would allow for truer market comparisons between disposal and recovery.

Similarly, in the mid-1990s the US EPA came out with two seminal publications that should have revolutionized recycling in America. The first was called "Full-Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Handbook." The second was a set of case studies and prescriptive rules for re-writing the rules of institutional waste management systems, moving trash companies from the job of filling landfills and feeding incinerators to making profits from total resource management systems, optimizing waste reduction and recycling, and minimizing waste. This book, called "Resource Management: Strategic Partnerships for Resource Efficiency," seems never to have been read by anyone on the commercial side of the trash equation.

Numerous other issues have not been adequately addressed over the years. Recycling markets are the key to the economic viability of materials recovery. Over the past two decades the North American recycled product industries have taken a back seat to China and other Asian nations. US bottling, plastic packaging, paper packaging and scrap steel commerce has taken a dramatic nose dive, while China's recycled products infrastructure has exploded. With relatively modest competition from domestic North American companies, China has been able to call the shots on pricing, material quality and environmental impacts.

All of which is to say, that the NRC did not do the job it needed to in order for recycling to remain the primary urban environmental initiative on every business, institution, and household's agenda. These days folks want roof gardens, solar electricity, biofuel vehicles and permeable driveways. It is a shame. State of the art recycling , composting and waste reduction systems should mean a 90% or greater level of waste diversion. Instead we get watching the demise of the National Recycling Coalition as a diversion.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Climate Change: Unskilled Rolling of the Dice?

Sunday's reporting on Friday's passage of the House climate change bill, at least in the New York Times, seemed a bit odd (check it here). The first paragraph of the article says: "Democrats...were dogged by a critical question: Has the political climate changed since 1993?" That's kind of dumb thing to write.

Regardless, Republicans appear miffed that the bill passed (I assure you there a number of liberal environmentalists who are livid as well) and were in such a tizzy that they harkened back to the BTU tax malaise Bill Clinton struggled with in 1993, which some believe backfired on the Dems, providing conservatives the political fodder they needed to jump start Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract with America."

Republicans are said to have chanted, "BTU, BTU, BTU" as the bill passed in Congress on Friday (ironically, I had a dinner conversation that same night about how annoying it is when inept, losing teams in Little League baseball chant nursery rhyme curses at opposing pitchers and hitters).

For more on this supposed parallel with Clinton in 1993, read (better reference material) Andrew Revkin's "Dot Earth" blog site entry dated Sunday. Revkin points out that in 1993 Clinton was simply looking to come up with revenue for a struggling federal government, whereas, here in the present, the House has proposed their legislation to begin the process of curbing climate change once and for all.

I would add that whatever bill eventually comes out of Congress, policy had better be crafted so as to once and for all shift the nation's energy economy in a direction that reduces our dependence on both foreign oil and the inherently destructive coal industry within our own country. This is no loger a moral issue or a question of values. It is about survival and meaningful economic growth into a long-term future.

President Obama, the NYTimes reported online yesterday, addressed his own concerns about the Republican's odd glee over the seeming parallels between the House climate change bill and President Cinton's energy tax of the last century. Those Republicans "
are 16 years behind the times," he said. Obama also commented on an odd little piece of the bill slipped in at the last moment seeking to control U.S. economic involvement with countries that don't share our minimum standards for greenhouse gas mitigation. The Prez was none too pleased with folks messing around with import-export business policies.

On a side note, the media is a bit confused that global warming came to the fore when last week there was so much emphasis and ink spilled over health care reform. Congress, of course, is running the show right now with respect to climate initiatives, while the White House has been out in front the past few weeks on heathcare.

Whatever the issues this week, the Senate still has to grapple with their own version of climate legislation and this may take months. The gauntlet, though, has been laid down: cap and trade is the policy choice politicians think will work
politically (that's why they call them politicians). They're wrong, of course. A progressive and aggressive tax on fossil fuels that cuts across the industrial, transportation, commercial, and residential energy sectors is the only way we're actually going to solve our end of this problem meaningfully. Now's the time to do it too while energy prices are down.

What matters is not that we try to do something, but that we actually succeed in doing what we've known for years we have to do. If you don't believe me, check out last week's New Yorker piece by Elizabeth Kolbert on James Hansen, the grandfather of global warming. "The Catastrophist." (you will need a subscription to read online, but you can also obviously go buy the magazine at a newstand or bookstore). Hansen continues to say over and over that we have one chance to fix this climate problem and it has to happen within the next 10-15 years. One chance. How much do you bet as a gambler if you know you're only going to get one chance?

Monday, January 12, 2009

Zero Culture: Stop Trashing the Climate and All That...

As we gear up for a new world in the war on climate change and global warming (meaning that the Obama Administration will soon provide laser-like, focused leadership for both this nation and, eventually, the global community), the idea of Zero Waste needs to have a major seat at the table. While mainstream energy and environmental policy groups talk about high-tech technology solutions not quite here yet like fuel cells, carbon sequestration, plug-in hybrids, smart transmission systems, and, of course, the magic of bio-fuels, Zero Waste solutions are fully loadable today.

Zero waste is not so much a single technology, but an approach to manufacturing and resource utilization that seeks to maximize recycling, reuse and reduced material inputs. As Philadelphia Dumpster Diver Neil Benson has said, "Waste is a failure of the imagination."

Indeed, while many people recycle most of their paper, cardboard, bottles and cans, another 70% of the nation's waste stream still gets thrown in landfills or burned in incinerators. A report published by the environmental/resource management advocacy groups Institute for Local Self-Reliance, GAIA, and Eco-Cycle, called Stop Trashing the Climate, shows that taking zero waste principles seriously can impact about a third of the nation's economy through reduced energy requirements in manufacturing, mining, and timber harvesting. The authors posit a national goal of 1% reduction in a waste generation each year up to 2050 and show that the energy use reduction effect is the equivalent of taking 20% of our coal fired power plants off line.

Important to note as well is that recycling, composting and reuse businesses create far more jobs than the trash and incineration industries. If the Obama Administration is serious about "green collar" jobs, some of that investment should go to new, regional organic waste composting systems, reuse management centers, and retooling of the nation's recycling industries so that they can use state-of-the-art manufacturing processes to compete again in the global marketplace.

See an article on this topic and others ready to publish at EzineArticles.com