Interesting factoids;
Of all the water on earth only 3% is fresh water.
Of that 3% the vast majority is locked up as ice in the polar ice caps.
Only .036% of the planets fresh water exists in liquid form in our lakes, rivers and reservoirs.
And only .001% exists in the atmosphere as vapor.
Courtesy of Bill Bryson in "A Short History of Nearly Everything".
Posted by muckcat at April 22, 2005 11:12 AMI think I'll run my car through the car wash today, and return to The Earth all the dirt that is attached to my car, windshields, etc.
Posted by muckdog at April 22, 2005 03:57 PMDon't forget to smoke marihuana. Man.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 22, 2005 03:58 PMWell, I do recycle all of my cans and I drive a pretty small car, but that's about it. I love nature, you know, but I give her all the space I can.
Grow hemp. Stop cutting down trees. All else is commentary.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 22, 2005 04:50 PMI didn't even know it was earth day. Didn't seem to get much attention.
Posted by muckdog at April 22, 2005 06:02 PMEarth Day evaluation & suggestions
Yes, the first thing is that Earth Day has been heavily coopted by corporations seeking to greenwash their images, and by politicians doing the same. One of the particularly perverse features of Earthday is the inordinate focus, in schools, for example, on individual and micro actions, like 'recycle your garbage' (a good thing but not the main issue) and not on an evaluation of what policies are needed. All the individual actions in the world won't make a lick of difference if the policies at the macro level continue as they are, leading to ecological destruction. It's the old notion that if you have any complaints, just look into your own backyard, and don't hassle the powers that pee too much. In no way does this suggest that individual actions are irrelevant or unworthy or even unimportant, only SECONDARY to policy issues -- when you hear someone say that policy issues are "also" important, or that they are "both" important, you are looking at someone evading the problem.
Incidentally, when Earth Day started, the brainchild of a US Senator, Nelson, it was decried by an attempt by the Nixon Administration to distract from the Vietnam War. Earth Day was NEVER a radical holiday, so it didn't have far to go to actually be coopted. The best solution is not for progressives to ignore or merely criticize Earth Day, but to make it a basis for an annual march on Washington, and an annual gathering like the spring mobilization in San Francisco for Jobs Peace & Justice. At these protests, which can be just militant enough to steal the spotlight, the proper prioritization of Earth Day could be regularly put forward.
This large protest could supplement smaller ones around the country. But a large and boisterous protest in the tens of thousands or more in DC -- not just a large gathering or concert -- could help set EarthDay on what ought to be its political trajectory. A "state of the Earth" speech would be a part of every year's rally.
There are a number of suggestions and issues that need to be made. "Eco-industrialization" is a broad umbrella concept for the total makeover of our society, a new phase of industrialization, that is needed. Alternative energy is advocated wisely, but specific plans should be outlined, for example, focusing on the fact that automotive vehicles run on metallic hydrides have been available and economical for 20+ years (see 'someone doesn't like hy-fuel' from The Nation magazine IN 1981!). Cars can be transferred over to run on hyfuel quite cheaply. The main problem is that cheap hydrogen (cheaper than gas) is in limited supply given current technology, but at least 10% of automotive use could be transferred over AT A COST SAVINGS now. This should be mandatory for ALL public buses, licensed taxis, and government vehicles, as well as government subcontractors where feasible working on government contracts (like privately contracted garbage pickup), especially in cities like Denver and LA with terrible pollution problems. There could be further incentives, like much lower tolls in NYC and other advantages to promote hydro-vehicles, as well as availability of the recyclable magnesium hydride canisters that run them. Similar concrete proposals for solar thermal, solar voltaic, and wind energy, including the size and scope and cost should be put forward, including for third world development. Regardless of "political feasibility" the existence of such a comprehensive plan for energy, including conservation, would show clearly that an alternative is possible concretely to current energy policies. It could be advertised in say the NY Times to counter the usual dismissal of these in oil company ads.
Another politically beneficial idea is pollution and scarce resource taxes. Taxes on agriwater, by the acre-foot, in CA could raise revenue and conserve water. Wherever toxic pesticides are permitted, and many should be banned or radically restricted, like DDT or methyl bromide are, they should be taxed heavily, even where limited also. Mercury emissions, sulfur, and other pollutants, could be heavily taxed to help meet state and local budget imbalances while curbing pollution too. Such pollution taxes would be very popular.
Taxes on new automobiles in proportion to their mileage under, say 40 mpg, with a complex formula, like a $3000 tax credit every time you buy a new car or SUV with $150 subtracted for each mpg estimated in overall average use less than 60mpg. A car getting 40mpg would pay a net of zero. A hydrogen car would automatically have a $3000 credit. And an SUV getting 20 mpg would face a $3000 tax! This would be more feasible than a gas tax, as mostly people around or above median income buy NEW cars, and those who do could avoid the tax by buying more efficient ones. It might become known as an SUV tax.
There are many other ideas, from tradeable fishing quotas (usually tradeable credits for toxic pollutants is a BAD idea, one originally introduced BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION) but for scarce resource use it's relatively OK. There could be a similar approach to redwoods, with a heavy tax on redwood trees cut, (always by the selective cutting method, as in the Forests Forever initiative of 1990 that I was active on), using the income stream from the tax to buy virgin lands and to engage in land restoration and to find forestry jobs for lumber workers.
Exposing and opposing the "nuclear option" is another essential focus, along with an absolute ban on ANY nuclear materials being shot up into space. There are many other issues, including large subsidies to third world countries to end all ozone-destroying chemical use and their measures to avoid Greenhouse gas increases. A carbon tax on new cars could supplement the mileage tax.
There are more dramatic issues, like finding ways to clean the atmosphere of excess CO2, ODC's (ozone-destroying chemicals) and other pollutants, not only on the ground but in the air, eg over Antarctica, reforestation, land restoration throughout the world, promoting organic and humane farming etc etc. All these can and should be the focus of the annual authentically progressive EarthDay megarally.
cloudy the scribbler