April 22, 2005
Earth Day Every Day
EARTH DAY 2005: Core of All Concerns U.S. needs to end wasteful ways; individual acts can make a difference
April 22, 2005
The battles may have seemed more obvious 35 years ago, on the first Earth Day: dirty air, dirty water, visible challenges to health and well-being.
But environmental challenges rage at the core of even more issues in this new millennium. In a world of terrorism and instability, uncertain oil supplies in the face of growing globaldemand, the buildup of chemicals in dumps and people's bodies, concerns about freshwatersupplies in much of the world, and the possi-bility that human activity has reached a magni-tude that may affect the climate, the simple idea of taking care of the planet ought to resonate more than ever.
Instead, America seems to want to party as if it's 1999.
How else to explain an energy bill working its way through Congress that barely scratches the surface of what could be done to encourage alternative sources and energy efficiency -- and simultaneously cut dependence on foreign oil? Or an administration that won't work with the rest of the world on global warming, which conceivably could cause even worse international security problems? Or lawmakers who spend more time figuring out how to give polluters breaks than investigating the harm the emissions and discharges may cause their constituents? Or federal agencies that step away from protecting wetlands or sensitive areas of the public's forests?
If anything, the job of Earth Day people has become far bigger than it was in 1970, because disrespect for the planet seems to have grown even as more studies show that natural resources are not limitless. The United Nations' Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, released last month, found enough pressure on various planetary "services" that abrupt, drastic and unpleasant changes will occur if current trends continue. Already, fisheries have begun to collapse, and obtaining clean water is a tougher, not easier, struggle in some parts of the globe. Rapid deforestation brings dangers such as the emergence of new diseases.
Sure, the Earth will survive whatever humans do to it -- it just may no longer be the kind of place humans can comfortably call home.
But one of the great lessons of Earth Days past is the old slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally." Lots of small actions to save energy, reduce waste, plant a tree or slow the runoff of rain can build into a plus for the planet. Even a short hike through a natural area will remind you of the glories the land still offers, and why it's worth fighting to save them.
Today, Earth Day 2005, you can resolve to speak out about the foolishness in Washington, but also promise yourself that you'll make your own difference this year -- and have an Earth Day attitude all year long.
Why have environmental issues failed to resonate with the public?
Environmentalists grapple with the question while Republicans Bicker Over US Energy Bill and George W. Bush commemorates the day at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Technorati tag: Environment
I forget what the statistic was. Something to the effect that opening up the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge would by us in the U.S. a month worth of driving--in other words, a completely insignificant solution. Much could be done if there were political leadership that was aimed at finding solutions for global problems instead of finding ways to put money into the hands of corporations. The windmills in your picture are a great example of an excellent solution. Wind-power works. And it's clean. Installing the infrastructure creates jobs. So why not bring the troops home and have them put up windmills in South Dakota instead of having them fight in Iraq.
Posted by: Karlo at April 25, 2005 09:24 PM"So why not bring the troops home and have them put up windmills in South Dakota instead of having them fight in Iraq."
Because that would be the wise course. But as we both know, Bush isn't hard-wired for wisdom. He's a dope peddler to the oil junkies of America. He'll steal it, he'll even kill to give corporations and gas-guzzling Americans their daily fix. Now that his war for oil has failed to produce cheap oil, watch his popularity ratings plummet.
Oil drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge is just a smokescreen to distract everyone from the war and its failure, and to give false hope in the face of an impending disaster. From what I've read, Karlo, it will take ten years to extract oil from the refuge. Yet even then, it will only provide 6 months of usable fuel, at the most. It's a desparate and futile attempt to forstall the inevitable.
Posted by: diana at April 26, 2005 07:33 PM
Yep. Oil seems to be a better means of effecting the transfer of wealth from the people to the plutocrats. Wind-power and alternatives require too much labor (in other words, too much distribution of wealth to average working-class blokes).
Posted by: Karlo at April 26, 2005 08:03 PMIndeed. That's he bottom-line.
Posted by: diana at April 26, 2005 08:41 PM