Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome, add a great deal to a blog, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled insults, or links (unless pre-approved) To contact me with questions: rainnnn7@hotmail.com.




Tuesday, February 12, 2008

It's our environment

Every day I hear new debates on what is happening with global climate. It's changing. It's not changing. It's changing but it's not our fault. Storms are due to global warming. We always had storms. We all have to switch to new light bulbs to stop greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases aren't it. Yes, they are.

Whenever anything is claimed (and the claims can be confusing), some dismiss it all if the expert is labeled an environmentalist (to some synonym for party-pooper at the least and communist at the most ). They are not to be trusted because their goals are suspect. So what does being an environmentalist, as I consider myself, mean?

The dictionary says first it's an expert on environmental problems. (Well, I am no expert. I am, however, an observer of life and an explorer of issues, does that count?) Second definition: any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects. (By that definition, I am one, supporting such efforts on a broad scale and working on them in my own life on a small scale.)

Some right wingers lose it before they get to the word environmentalist. Just saying environment triggers defense mechanisms, but what is environment? 1. the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences; surroundings; milieu. 2. the air, water, minerals, organisms, and all other external factors surrounding and affecting a given organism at any time. So it's what we live with and within.

The problem some have with environmentalists is a word missing in the list above. Where is making money or maintaining the stock market's growth? Profit is not a factor in assessing environment. No wonder environmentalists are such impediments to a fully functioning society. Given the deification of capitalism, it's no surprise some have seen environmentalists as the stumbling block on their way to Utopia.

To see how this impediment interferes on a practical issue, let's take highway construction. Who doesn't like wide, safe roads? Not surprisingly, when a new road is proposed or even an existing road going to be widened, the questions environmentalists would ask would not be asked by truckers, those who make construction materials, nor by people in a hurry to safely get to a new ski resort or a development tucked into a beautiful, wooded terrain.

If you look at the environmentalist's list of concerns, the freeway will be considered for how it impacts air quality, community life already there including animal, and water (as roads cut through natural drainages). The developer won't care about whether there is an elk habitat that this cuts in half. They won't even want to know it. Besides, what is an elk to a developer who only sees progress in terms of building?

The extreme environmentalist would develop nothing while the extreme developer would develop everything. The need is compromise so that nobody gets it all while we try to balance the needs of environment with those of growth.

Some environmentalists go too far with their demands as a way to stop any development. Protecting an endangered three-toed squirrel when there are plenty of four-toed squirrels is silly. Don't dare plow that field because the habitat is of a striped scorpion that is almost extinct while ignoring the fact that the environmental niche is filled by tan scorpions which are everywhere.

We are living on this earth that some call Gaia. We do not understand totally how it works. There could be many reasons for observable changes, but isn't it conservative to go slowly figuring out when it we might be us doing that would impact our environment in a way from which we can't come back or it takes centuries?

When environmental issues are closer to home, they are easier to see the consequences. I faced an unpleasant one on this farm recently-- too many cattle on too small of acreage. I have shown pictures of the cattle herd. I take great pride in watching and tending them, but walking back in the pasture this winter has shown a problem impossible to ignore. It isn't like reading about the ocean or the air quality thousands of miles away or an ozone layer overhead, it was right here-- ground getting chopped up. Grass down to 1/4" in places.

The problem was evident and undeniable. The solutions were repugnant to me. We try to market our beef direct to buyers. This means healthy, grass-fed beef for the consumer as well as good, quick death for the animal. The market this year has not supplied enough customers = environmental problem = emotional one for me.

The only real solution, since buying more land was not possible and would only delay the issue, was selling animals at auction. I have written here how much I value giving our animals a good life. It's called husbandry. There was no way to solve this problem, however, without sacrifice-- the animals and mine.

Last Friday, we sold at auction 13 young animals. My heart hurt for this, but I had to grit my teeth and bear it because their environment had reached its limits and only a hard solution would solve the problem. Any less painful solutions would have had to be enacted months ago, even a year. We tried but it hadn't worked and so here we were with a solution that was painful but had to be done. The herd seems relieved as their life is now better with less pressure for space and food. I still feel sad; but solutions don't always come without cost.

When it's immediate, most people can see environment as mattering. Like when we were driving into town one morning last week and suddenly a small black and white critter came scurrying out from the side and crossed the road right in front of us. Oh no, oh no, were the vocals while brakes were applied and a swerving mechanism avoided the skunk. Talk about a risk to our immediate environment!

Sometimes we have to do things, that might cost us individually, to improve our environment in a worldwide sense. Cute movie on this topic is Happy Feet, give it a try. It is a sweet, animated story with a lot of good music and a lesson about how one group can impact another. Even there some argued, who cares! We all should.

A blog coming soon will be on something science is observing regarding the environment but over which we might not have a choice. No light bulb solutions. No sale of animals. Maybe no way to swerve around. When such things happen, then we, as a world community, need back-up plans. Do we have them? Yes, they cost money. :)

6 comments:

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

Thinking and questioning our actions in relation to the whole world environment is what we (all nationalities) need to be doing. Your You are a marvelous example to set the course for others. "It's our environment" series with personal observations and feelings is just the kind of testimony world perspective programs need to televise. Don't be shy! Go for the essay contests.

Anonymous said...

Rain call up Al Gore. He has all of the answers. :-)

Rain Trueax said...

I wrote about an Inconvenient Truth when I saw it and didn't think he did. I have always felt global warming has a problem attached as a name given it's really climate change and people often don't understand that global warming might actually mean different things than one would expect; but what I am looking at are solar storms and polar shifts. So much of this earth science can only observe, but can't predict-- like volcanic eruptions. So my interest is more in what could we do as a world community to have plans in place for major climate readjustments which we know earth does periodically. That and as individuals, be thinking, what can we do? Are we living wisely in case things change drastically? That old-- 'Think globally! Act locally!' concept.

Dick said...

I think we all should be concerned about our environment and do what we can to improve it. What bothers me about much of what we hear is that there seems to be reasonable answers that do not relate to man's "destroying" the world, but say most of what is happening is nature at work and repeating things that have happened in the past. I understand there was quite an increase in world wide temps during the Middle Ages that caused some problems but you rarely hear about.

I think what I'd like is to get the truth from some source that isn't trying to grind their own axe.

robin andrea said...

I'm sorry you had to make such a tough choice about the herd. You have conveyed such a deep commitment to your cows and their well-being.

Interesting about swerving to avoid hitting a black and white critter. On our recent journey, Roger and I saw (and smelled) at least twenty dead skunks on the road (700 miles round trip). We wondered what that was all about, could it have been something with food? water? mating? We were baffled.

I don't know what is causing global climate change, and I suspect it is a combination of many factors. I would like to think we could all work together to be good stewards of the earth.

OldLady Of The Hills said...

What a dilemma Rain...I mean, ALL Around! I know it had to be truly painful to sell those thirteen cattle at auction, but, what was the alternative...That is the awful problem, isn't it? So, one must 'bite the bullit', so to speak....I sometimes sit and wonder where it will all end....And when, and how? OY!

BTW: Your evaluation of the two videos is right on the mark...The first uses more pixels...The second use a little more than half the number of the first and therefor the videos can be a bit longer with the loss of sharpness, etc....! Another dilemma, but one that does not have the serious and severe consequences of environmental issues!