Ecomorality Manufacturing, Inc.

"The problem is we have so many stupid enterprises."

- Li Junfeng, deputy director general for energy research at China’s top economic planning agency and the secretary general of the government-run Renewable Energy Industries Association, on companies that deliberately underbid new renewable energy projects. "Green Power Takes Root in the Chinese Desert." NY Times. 2 July 2009.

"Well-meaning attempts at pursuing global peace can have very counterproductive consequences when these attempts are founded on a fundamentally illusory understanding of the world of human beings."

- Amartya Sen. "What Clash of Civilizations? Why Religious Identity Isn't Destiny." Slate. 29 Mar. 2006.

Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, used to supply the slave trade with a seemingly inexhaustible count of humans, sent everywhere from the West Indies, to Mississippi, to Greece. Abolitionism infiltrated the area much later than most of the African slave world (1880-1950's, and can we so easily glance over seventy years?), and in fact, human trafficking of predominantly women and children is still a major human rights struggle today. But if we Americans learned anything from the industrial revolution, was it not that fossil fuel power is so much more valuable and interesting and easy than that of humans?

Chevron certainly thinks so.

Oh, oh, but here's an even better idea! What if we used the Nigerians to get the Nigerian fossil fuels for us?

Chevron holds a 40% interest in Nigeria's oil and natural gas production. This includes the Agbami Field, the largest deepwater oil resource in Nigeria, which is no small, peddling matter for the US's fifth largest oil exporter. Chevron exalts itself as a community savior of the Nigerian people, promoting itself as an encourager of scientific education, generous employer, and provider of clean water and electricity for villages near the company's operations. But two such villages, Opia and Ikenyan, sent people to the Parabe platform to peacefully protest the ways Chevron conducts its business -- not least of which includes environmental damage that contaminates the villagers' own water and fish supplies, threatening to undermine what little independence they have.

Chevron recruits professionals for positions in Nigeria, ensuring applicants that "individual growth is encouraged, with robust opportunities for both personal development and making a contribution to company-wide success." But they certainly do not encourage individual voices, especially when they might hinder any of that success. And thanks to a cozy relationship with the national government, in part due to its joint-venture agreement with Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (who holds the other 60%), Chevron can count on its militant buddies to suppress such voices.

This is what one might believe happened to those at the Parabe platform -- on board a barge, nine miles off the coast of the Niger Delta. Read the San Francisco Chronicle article here: "Chevron trial over Nigeria protest gets started." by Bob Egelko

Maybe someone saw a knife on someone's belt. Another person may or may not have poured diesel on the deck. But tell me, what sort of weaponry is this against helicopters and automatic weapons bought with economic growth derived almost exclusively from oil and natural gas exportation? And these first shots, killing two people, were fired before the eyes could detect the glint of sharp metal or the nose could draw the whiff of flammable gases. This language of justification and fear looks familiar to me. It looks like the language of the oppressor. And so it is not surprising that Chevron would interpret as a threat (rather than a demand for dialogue) a letter that asks: "Which language do you now understand -- is it violence or sea piracy, war or peace?"

Abouts:
Slave Trade in Nigeria
UN Human Trafficking in Nigeria Report
Nigeria Energy Profile
Amnesty International on Chevron's 2005 Massacre
CorpWatch on Chevron invoice for soldier attacks
Chevron Nigeria FactSheet (pdf)
Job Opportunities with Chevron Nigeria

I was under the impression that coal as a primary energy source was a desire of the past. In the graphs in my mind, coal use relative to other sources peaked sometime in the mid-20th century and then gave way to oil, which then ideally transitions into something else (which failed to occur following a significant drop in the 1970's). Granted, in 2005 the United States derived 49.7 percent of its electricity from coal and proposals to build new coal plants are submitted consistently, but this is mostly because of increased per capita consumption. And suddenly I start seeing people's bright ideas about "clean" coal popping up around the globe, such as:
The Tata Mundra project in India
Resurgence of Coal in Europe

If I were a psychologist, and World Society were my deranged patient, I would most certainly diagnose a classic case of Regression. Encyclopedia Britannica defines Regression as:
A return to earlier stages of development and abandoned forms of gratification belonging to them, prompted by dangers or conflicts arising at one of the later stages.
Doesn't that just about sound right?
earlier stage = building coal plants and increasing mining projects
abandoned forms of gratification = electricity is on the house, tonight, folks!
dangers or conflicts = demand for cultural and consumptive change, without clear alternatives and pathways
later stages = oil is $119.48 per barrel and climate change is for real

Now, I'd like to briefly vent about things I don't get when it comes to coal, brought to mind from the coal resurgence article linked above.

1) I am an opponent of nuclear energy as an answer to the oil crisis. However, in what bizarre world is nuclear energy banned prior to banning fossil fuels of any sort. Apparently this is the case in many European nations. Does this make any sense at all? Ultimately fossil fuel dependency is (at least reliably) more devastating to both natural and human environments, and it creates political complications that historically outpace even arguments over uranium access. I know Chernobyl was terrifying, but I bet it's nothing next to the consequences of following current carbon emissions projections into the next century. But hey, it's all a fun experiment, right? We just might find out which is worse.

2) Carbon capture and storage makes me laugh. I'd really like to get the inventors drunk and find out if deep down they really thought it was just a joke, too. So man went running around industrializing and manufactured on a scale never before witnessed on Earth, but his industry spewed billions of tons of waste. Naturally, he looked for the biggest places around to dump it where it wouldn't be in his way: the sky and the ocean. Here we are about 150 years later realizing the error of our ways, yet we think a good idea is to find another place to dump it. Yes, yes, underground. The only problem? It is even smaller than the other two and happens to be under our feet (and our homes). The whole mentality is just so "sweep it under the rug." Willfully blind to the limitations of both space and time.

3) Some newer coal plants try to paint a pretty green picture of their operations. The new Enel plant in Italy even features an on-site desalination plant so that it can get water for operations without competing with local drinking and agriculture needs. What is insane about this you might ask? Desalination as a process is still very energy intensive - so Enel is using massive amounts of energy to run its supposedly more efficient energy plant. Hmm...

I'd love to hear your responses if you chew on the same thoughts. In the meantime I'll be trying to get my patient to overcome Regression before he hurts himself. Maybe if the dangers or conflicts of later stages can be alleviated, so can the stifling fear. Ah, but what a vicious cycle to break.

Abouts:
The American Coal Foundation
Per Capita Coal Consumption by State
DOE Clean Coal
NPR Article on Clean Coal Technologies
Washington Post Article on "Clean" Coal
MIT's Carbon Capture Research Program
LiveScience Article on Desalination Plants

Thanks to Dr. Paul Uster, who delivered an excellent speech on ethics in the pharmaceutical industry, I know that the nation has come a long way from cocaine and alcohol-containing syrups and guarantees on magical snake-skin concoctions. Nonetheless, the current-day FDA has quite a stretch before it can consider itself ethically sound.

Specifically, I'm writing in response to the recent Bush Administration push to consider all drug-related legal cases "pre-emptive," and shove the FDA to acrophobia-inducing heights, beyond the reach of the Justice system.

Read about it:
NY Times "Drug Makers Near Old Goal: A Legal Shield" April 6, 2008

This situation raises two questions:
1) Has the FDA demonstrated that it is capable of restraint from industrial influences and is devoted to scientific integrity?

Though my impulse is to say, "I would not trust them with my life," the truth is I already have. However, I would not give them any more leeway than granted under the threat of legal responsibility - a process already too blind and inefficient for my taste. My thoughts on the subject are informed by the even brief acceptance of DES; industry-driven conclusions about Bisphenol-A's risks; unfounded approval delays for Plan B birth control; and a slew of concealed side-effects of drugs such as the birth control patch, Zyprexa, Depakote, Vioxx, and Ambien (just to name a few).

2) Is the Justice Department scientifically and ethically informed enough to judge the FDA?

Though this is a question the administration and pharmaceutical companies put forth, I do not really believe it matters. There is not an individual, company, or department considered too specialized to fall within the legal system - what on earth makes the FDA an exception? The whole point of suits presented on a case-by-case basis is that prosecution and defense can equally inform the judges on the relevant scientific facts at hand. And certainly ethics is the constant rumination of every judge. Sure, it's costly and laborious, but it is often the only route by which corruption in profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies and the power-hungry FDA is exposed.

Do we really want to pull another blanket over our heads? I'm certainly not comfortable with the prospects of paying to die when the classic "cure is worse than the disease" scenarios are common enough. Oh, but would it not be ironic for the Supreme Court to rule on its own ineptitude? Then I really won't know which department is more dysfunctional...

In light of the recent protests against China that have resulted in more than 80 Tibetan casualties, I started wondering - how much of China's interest in Tibet might be due to its natural resources? After all, historically, strangle-holding an unwilling people was often a matter of securing valuables - be it the people for slavery, the land itself for agriculture, under the land for minerals, or its geographic location for trade routes and political strategies.

It turns out that Tibet is quite the sparkling gem of the natural world. Its wild mountains are covered with forests (through which China has steadily munched over the past 55 years) and brimming with exotic life, including over 5,000 higher plants. Buried in its heart is a wealth of copper, lithium, and boron, the content of which rivals the most productive regions in China. To top it all off, Tibet helps to quell one of China's greatest functional challenges: electricity. This little mountainous region provides for some 40% of all of China's hydroelectric power (figure may not include any statistics from the Three Gorges Dam). And that is not even factoring in its untapped potential for wind, solar, and geothermal power.

Stunning, isn't it? Granted, there is a cultural history about which I am vastly ignorant, but if China has ulterior motives for occupation, Tibet's natural resources will not be deflecting its interests any time soon.

I can't help but wonder if the unthinkable becomes thinkable, and that an oil crash results in a resource panic and global chaos, how many other peoples will be subjected to political dominance for their resources? What new ecomorality questions will we be forced to ask ourselves? It sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel.

Let's keep it that way.

Abouts:
Most Recent Article on Tibet Protests
Tibet Awareness Site
International Campaign for Tibet - Economic Rights
Embassy of PRC, Nepal - Natural Resources

A recent Earth Liberation Front ecoterrorism attack on Seattle suburban homes surfaces the ugly face of violent environmental interests. They supposedly were targeting luxury homes that were attempting to greenly coexist with the surrounding wooded wetlands. Even if such an idea contradicts the concept of living simply, how does this community's sustainability failures make it a target more worthy than blatantly damaging housing and business operations?

When considering on which subject I should ruminate tonight, I was first thinking about closed-loops in a multi-loop and -line society and what individuals, groups, and governmental bodies can do to adjoin individual loops with a larger loop to ultimately eliminate waste on mass scale. Alas, I do not have the answer(s) to that one. But rethinking this question in terms of ecoterrorism is frightening. Destruction breaks loops. How can I be considering integrating loops when some of my fellow environmentalists are intent on smashing them?

I am constantly affronted with questions as to what change is possible, and if possible, how to make it happen. Beyond that, what are the real consequences of a particular alteration, and is it the most desirable in a series of methods and outcomes? Who, what, where, when, how, why? However, all of this reasoning includes an assumption: society should change.

As far as I can deduce, ecoterrorists like those in E.L.F. reject this assumption. Possible bases for the rejection could be that they do not believe that any change is possible, which nulls the imperative, or that they do not believe change is preferable to destruction.

The former shoots straight to the heart of world view. In considering history, has any real change been made for the sole purpose of preserving the environment? It takes an optimist to seek out and hug tightly the examples of these successes, but in doing so, we can create a new track record that illuminates our own history in a different light. I do not believe everyone has to be that optimist. I do not believe that denying possibilities makes dreams come true.

The latter, though, brings some more concrete concerns to the table. Even if we make change, will it be quickly enough, and will it be encompassing enough to save the things we love (species diversity, ecosystem balances, cultures, etc.)? Maybe not. It breaks my heart to contemplate how many aspects of the life we know we might lose. The difference between myself and an ecoterrorist of this colour, though, is that I do not consider destruction to be a viable alternative to change.

Surely enough, seedlings can emerge from ashes, but even ecological destruction comparisons falter. Breaking systems leaves them vulnerable to attack, and the new systems are not necessarily stable or even functional. As much as I give credence to inherent worth of all life, we are still humans considering the future of a human world. The hopes I cling to are those of moving entire peoples to want to live in a plentiful world and to be willing to become functional parts of the world they want. This takes vision of recreation, and we all have the capacity for it. The answer can't lie in destroying disagreement. It has to come from addressing it, instead.

The environment is everything. The world is everything. Attacking it damages the very thing you are trying to liberate. You do not like your Lego building? I'll tell you one thing - just knocking blocks on the floor is not going to get you very far. You will just have fewer pieces to work with...

Abouts:
Article on Seattle Housing Attacks
Earth Liberation Front
Background on Ecoterrorism

The sort of failed mercury disposal I had feared:

Chicago Times Article

The point of organic is as much as 40% more antioxidants in fruits and vegetables and up to 90% more antioxidants in milk from organically herded cattle. So really, toss the outdated, pesticide-riddled mess out the window and head down to your local organic farmer's market next time you get a hankering for tomatoes and hummus, or one of my personal favorites, brussel sprouts in apple vinegar. Just imagine overcoming the quandary of getting all your nutrients without overeating or force-feeding yourself vitamins (though Trader Joe's makes some tasty chewables). Who would have thought that Nature actually made that possible? Genius.

The EU's Quality Low Input Food Project has and will continue to rake in fascinating data on the application of organic and low-input methods in agriculture and communities. Finding the name of this project disappointingly took some poking around, but the website is definitely something worth bookmarking. These antioxidant findings, I believe, can be attributed to Workpackage 2.3 of Subproject 2, and I am particularly looking forward to Subproject 6: Transport, trading and retailing.

Abouts:
The London Times Article on Organic Benefits
Quality Low Input Food Project Research Page

Finally the media acknowledges the unsound nature of CFL mercury levels, and GE in fact is attempting to reduce the average 5mg currently contained in each bulb.

Reuters Article on GE and CFLs

But I still insist that there is no good reason that the public should accept any level of mercury whatsoever in their lightbulbs. Thanks to good folks like those in Ann Arbor, MI, LEDs are gaining popularity and increasing public awareness as to the feasibility of using them en masse. The city will be replacing all of their old street lights with LED bulbs, which use approximately 50% of the energy of iridescents.

CNN Money Article on Ann Arbor and LEDs

Such conjunctions are representative of many environmental issues we face today. Yes, we find solutions, but sometimes too many -- with little solidarity in thoroughly researching which is the safest route to take. I find this is especially true in regards to green purchasing since individuals play such a powerful role in moving the market. These conflicts lead some interests to suggest that society refrain from making change before agreement has been made. However, I think the best method would be to pursue change, learn from it as we go along, and quickly implement adjustments to policy as needed. In this particular case, I would consider that adjustment to be leaning towards LEDs for our electricity reductions rather than CFLs because they involve fewer threats to public and environmental health.