Our Lifestyles—Her Life

Dr. Jonathan Harrington Journal Entry, July 1, 2030:

My wife Kathy and I are having a wonderful time at Glacier National Park. Yesterday, my daughter Kela, her seven-year-old daughter Maria, Kathy, and I rode in a hydrogen-powered tour bus along Lake McDonald. We were on our way to the newly built Glacier Lodge. The old one burned down during the Great Montana Fire of 2027 when 50 percent of the National Park’s forest was destroyed. Dark brown swaths of dead trees still linger in the distance. The mountains still stand tall, majestic reminders of God’s handiwork, but the Park’s alpine ecosystem is under severe stress. The lake level has also dropped over the years because of declining snow pack and glacial runoff.

As we walked around the grounds of the lodge Maria asked me, “Waigong, [Chinese for “grandfather”] where did they get the name Glacier Park?” I responded, “Well Maria, Glacier Park used to have glaciers. They were beautiful sights, and could be seen right here from the road.” She inquired, “Like the ones they used to have on Mount Shasta?” “Yes,” I responded.

“Did I ever tell you about the first time I visited here?”

“Yes, Waigong you did,” she said, thinking to herself, “here we go again, another boring story! “

I continued. “What do you think happened to the glaciers?”

She answered, “It was probably global warming. I heard all about it in school. The teacher said that in the olden days people used to use too much coal and oil and it made things warmer. Everyone knew that this was hurting Mother Earth, but they did not do anything about it until it was too late.”

Curious, she then asked, “Grandpa, did you use too much oil?”

“Yes, I did. We all did. We tried to stop, but old habits die hard.”

Maria added, “I really don’t like global warming. All the trees around our house are sick. The Orca whales are almost gone. I saw a video at school about all the little children around the world who do not have enough food to eat or water to drink because the hot air has made the water float up into the sky and turned their land into desert. Hurricanes are getting bigger and more dangerous every year. I’m scared. Are we going to die?”

That last comment reminded me of something that Kela said to me almost twenty-five years before. We had gone to watch a movie about global warming called An Inconvenient Truth. After the show I asked Kela. “What do you remember most about the movie?” She had been especially affected by a graphic showing what would happen to Shanghai if sea levels rose by twenty feet. She blurted. “We are going to die. We live on an island. And what about Grandma and Grandpa in Shanghai? They will drown!”

I reassured her that our house was high enough on the hill that it would not be swallowed up by the lake we live on, Lake Washington. As far as Shanghai was concerned, I told her that people there would probably try to build a big wall around the city to protect it. She responded. “Baba, do you mean like the one in New Orleans?” I did not know how to answer.

Finally, I reassured her. “Well, they can come live with us.”

Twenty-five years later, little Maria wondered out loud. “Grandpa, when will the glaciers come back?” I grimaced. “I don’t know, honey. It could be a long, long time.”

Is this the future we want? I remember when I was in high school, we constantly worried about the great and powerful weapons of mass destruction invented by the “Greatest Generation.” Politicians, East and West, kept building more and nuclear bombs, and threatened to use them. The World we knew stood at the precipice of destruction. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. Nuclear weapons are still around, but the likelihood that they may be used to destroy the planet is remote.

Well, a new generation faces an even more threatening crisis; and one not of its own making. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that human-created greenhouse gas emissions are warming our World, causing mass extinctions and destroying global ecosystems; captains of industry, politicians, parents and consumers continue to hoard, pump, scrape and extract the Planet’s dwindling resources like there is no tomorrow.

Stoking the fires of global warming is a bit like shooting craps in Las Vegas. On a good day you might win a few bucks, but the longer you play, the greater the chance you will roll snake eyes. In the end, the House usually wins. Well, humanity has been playing the global warming game for almost two centuries. Yes, it is true that past generations have benefited from cheaper energy and resources. But now our luck is running out.

We need to step away from our game of ‘cosmic dice’ before it is too late. Some scientists say the upward march of global water and air temperatures may become irreversible in as little as ten years. But we still have a window of opportunity to change the way we live; to reduce our use of fossil fuels, buy less, conserve more, recycle and reuse, take public transportation etc. to save the World that we know. I am filled with hope that my daughter’s generation can take the lead and forge a better, more sustainable future. But time is short. We need to act now.

United States tosses away 30% of all food produced

United States tosses away 30% of all food produced: report
Article can be viewed at: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=88ef5435-97e3-4f83-b234-68d74a3c19ed

STOCKHOLM (Reuters Life!) - The United States and some other developed states throw away nearly a third of their food each year, according to a report that said on Thursday the world was producing more than enough to feed its population...

"Have ever wondered why there are so many starving people and persistent fresh water shortages around the world? Careless misuse of the Earth's scarce resources is one of the main culprits!"

Check out some recent blog entries at www.basilandspice.com!

Author & Book Views On a Healthy Life! - LIVING GREEN - Why Buy Locally Grown Produce?

http://www.basilandspice.com/living-green/
Check out some of my recent posts on food and climate at www.basilandspice.com!

Food production and global warming

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Feeling the heat of food security
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7553958.stm
Reforming the economics of food production and supply would be beneficial for a number of environmental and social problems, argues Peter Baker. A key issue, he says, is understanding the energy involved in putting food on your plate.

Price, taste and nutritional value are the main driving factors behind most consumers’ decisions about what foods they eat. But many environmentalists believe that they should also consider the amount of “embodied” energy; or energy used to produce, transport, consume and dispose of agricultural products. One way of measuring this phenomenon is to compare the amount of embodied or “lifecycle” energy (measured in calories) required for fruit or produce production with the energy received by consumers when they ingest a product. For instance, tomato production in the USA requires four times as much caloric energy as the caloric value of the tomatoes created. In a fossil-fuel driven world, food production is a growing contributor to the greenhouse gases that are warming our world.

Fighting Global Warming with Food - Environmental Defense Fund

There are lots of ways Americans can help fight climate change and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Buying a car or truck with better gas mileage. Using compact fluorescent bulbs. For those who choose it, even eating just a little less meat can help. View article at http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=6604.

More scientific research is being done every day on the relationship between food consumption and GHG emissions. Conclusions of this U. Chicago study mirror my own analysis in The Climate Diet, which states that even minor changes in diet can have a big environmental impact. The main culprit here is meat, and especially beef. In my book, I compare two meals cooked for a family of four, one with a steak main dish and the other with a fish fillet. Choosing fish over steak reduces the GHG impact of the meal from 99.9 lb (45.5 kg) to 15.2 lb (6.9 kg). These figures only include emissions from food production, processing and distribution, not preparation. Avoid cooking and you can reduce your climate impact even more!

Climate Talks Lag on CDM Reform

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Mechanics of curbing climate change
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7444881.stm

Negotiators from more than 172 countries are meeting in Bonn to hammer out a deal that may culminate in a new global climate agreement. In this week's Green Room, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer argues that negotiators want to see more of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, not less...

While the climate crisis continues to deepen, political leaders continue to delay real changes in policy that will make a difference. One case in point is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows heavy polluters to pay firms, mostly in the developing world, to reduce their GHG emissions in return for carbon credits. Sounds like a good idea? Maybe, if in fact, the investments really do result in additional real reductions in emissions that would not have otherwise have been achieved without the CDM agreements. But the current system is so lax, that many of these investments may not bring the real reductions they promise. Countries need to find the political will to make sure that CDM really works as advertised before expanding the system in any post-Kyoto agreement.

Wind power trumps nuclear

While much of the US economy continues to lag, there are a few bright spots. One is wind power. Wind power investment and production is booming globally. It shows how forward thinking and investment in new technologies can create economic growth while helping the environment. Firms and governments that ignore alternative energy and higher efficiency do so at their own peril in an increasingly globalized marketplace. It should also be noted that wind power investment is far cheaper than nuclear power, and brings a much faster return on investment. The typical nuclear power plant takes more than a decade to build. The first new batch of US plants will not come online until 2017 at the earliest, while other technologies can start paying dividends right now, at lower cost and with greatly reduced risk to the public. Here is a recent article on progress made in the wind power industry http://www.enn.com/energy/article/36949.