updates

Zardoz is becoming quite prolific of late!

Future topics planned:

The real principles underlying American foreign policy
Ethanol and the bankruptcy of environmental policy
Working with the market not against it
The promise of child care

Enjoy the new format. I hate Blogspot! Can't work out why it chooses to ignore my paragraph breaks sometimes and not others. At least now it is showing my bullet points.

The results of the 2006 survey of political bloggers are now available. Use the following link to get there; http://www.doleinstituteblog.org/survey.pdf .

footprint 1 or footprint 2 ?

The concept of the ecological footprint was a great invention, providing a comparative measure of ecological sustainability. Unfortunately the inventors of the original concept took it upon themselves to improve upon it. The goal was admirable. But in my view the academics responsible merely succeeded in butchering the original idea. The result, Footprint 2, is likely to do real harm and sends out the wrong message.

Footprint 1 was better described as a food footprint. It focused on unsustainable agriculture as the primary threat to the world's eco-systems. It may not have been academically perfect but it was a very useful measure. Footprint 2 expanded the base from a defined biologically productive area (about a third of the world's total surface) to the whole of the world's surface. No problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with other relatively minor changes, like the inclusion of a space allocation for other species. My issue comes with the introduction of a carbon footprint component. This new component massively dwarfs all the others.

I have no issue with a carbon footprint as a separate and distinct ecological measure. But attempting to roll the food and carbon footprints together is logically flawed and highly misleading. The flaw lies in the method chosen to convert units of energy into units of land. It equates carbon output with the area of forest which would be required to absorb that amount of CO2. This premise is scientifically indefensible. There are numerous alternative ways of reducing atmospheric carbon that have minimal implications in terms of land area. In the real world, it is also wrong to equate a negative on one side of the equation with a positive on the other.

Here's an example of the math. With Footprint 1 you could reduce your footprint from about 5 acres to less than 3 acres by switching from a diet high in animal foods to a vegetarian or vegan diet. That is a 30-40% reduction. With Footprint 2 the saving is still about 2 acres, but out of a total average global footprint of about 54 acres. Minimal. You could make the same savings by things like growing your own food, living closer to work, or riding a bicycle or taking a bus rather than driving. All very commendable. But here's the lie of it. The only thing you reduce is the need for more forest, to absorb all that CO2. In terms of actual forest nothing changes, unless you can achieve reductions of the order of 80%. Indeed, if you chose to continue eating meat you must continue to hasten the destruction of real rainforest.

Reducing the need for a second or third earth is meaningless if you continue to gobble up the real one. That is what Footprint 2 encourages. It completely plays down the importance of diet, the one thing people can change to really make a difference (see my post for April 2007 in my Archives). It must also increase people's sense of hopelessness. Because most of the things which contribute to our carbon footprint are beyond our personal control. The size and structure of our cities, with their dependence on the car. The climatic zone in which we live. The ability to live closer to our work. And how can we grow more of our own food, and live in a smaller house on a smaller block at the same time?

This is the way we should be approaching it. We face two catastrophic ecological challenges. One has to do with climate change. The other has to do with the biologically productive capacity of the land and the sea. The two are inter-related but each calls for its own separate set of policy solutions.

Fossil fuels will eventually run out. Before that happens they will become prohibitively expensive. By introducing a carbon tax today we can accelerate this inhibitory process. We can increase our efficiency of carbon use and develop viable alternatives including nuclear and solar. The limits on the supply of productive land are more absolute. With the notable exception of becoming vegetarian, there are few options left for increasing efficiency. And no alternative sources. Once we destroy the last rainforest and overfish the sea we face mass extinctions, land degradation on an incomprehensible scale, and seas in which only jellyfish survive.

Keep the math real and let common sense prevail.

about this weblog

Our present path leads to global self-destruction. But the solutions remain within our grasp. Technically the solutions are easy. Our only problems are problems of attitude. Our present public policies, both moderate and conservative, are a recipe for social, economic and environmental disaster. It's time to start thinking outside the box.

My goal is to outline the solutions and to change attitudes. I believe in peace, progress, prosperity and the pursuit of happiness. But to get there we need to move quickly. If we fail to seize the present opportunity our children, and our children's children, if they survive, will never forgive us. I want our legacy to be one of hope and promise. I don't want to see the last tiger die in my lifetime, knowing there is something I could have done to prevent it.

This weblog works much like a website. There are a number of solution based themes. These themes are set down in my early posts, "for a better america" and "for a better world" (go to July 2006 in my Archives). New posts flesh out these themes and old posts will be continually updated in the light of developments. Constructive feedback is encouraged. Anonymous comments are accepted by this weblog, or you may e-mail me personally at zardoz2000@verizon.net.

five good reasons for legalizing drugs

Here's five reasons why it's time to legalize drugs:

• Prohibition doesn't work. Never has. Never will.
• Drug laws make criminals out of the victims, mostly poor, and rich men out of the operators.
• Save billions in wasted public spending. Money better spent on counselling, rehab and fighting poverty.
• Reduce funding for terrorists. The Taliban earn an estimated 40% of their funds from the illegal drug trade.
• Put an end to organized crime and a lot of disorganized crime. End prison overcrowding and make the streets safer. Not just in the US, but in countries like Mexico, Columbia and Afghanistan.

Moral principles are all very well, but you cannot make people good by passing laws. We can no longer afford to pay the price of this moral righteousness.

Legalizing drugs and liberalizing the supply is not going to lead to an increase in problem drug taking or a massive descent into addiction and depravity. All the evidence points the other way. Most drug takers are people who are isolated and unhappy in their lives. That's the real problem we should be addressing.

And legal drugs do not need to be heavily regulated. No more than alcohol or tobacco.

Drug laws are just another example of the triumph of ideology over good sense.

can't we draw the line at genocide?

The world's liberal democracies all pay lip service to human rights, but there is precious little consistency in addressing violations. Whatever principles we say we apply in foreign policy, human rights rank well down the list when it comes to meaningful action. And the targets are so selective it is impossible to discern any principles at all when the record is looked at objectively. Sins that are so glaring in the case of Cuba, are hardly noticed in Israel or Saudi Arabia.

The West simply doesn't have the resources to police all the world's human rights violations. But couldn't we set priorities for action based on clear, consistent, moral principles? Shouldn't the number one priority be intervention to prevent genocide? The Nuremburg trials of the immediate Post-War period relied for their legitimacy on this fundamental principle. That the world has a right to intervene in the affairs of individual nations when it comes to genocide. Indeed, it is more than a right. It is a moral obligation.

Isn't this the answer to China every time it trots out it's "internal affairs" slogan? Genocide is more than an internal affair. To deny the Holocaust is a crime in many countries. In France it is also a crime to deny that Turkey was guilty of genocide against the Armenians 90 years ago. The Democratic controlled US Congress now agrees. Which is all very well and good, except that America still denies its own genocide against the American Indians. America, and the rest of the world, also refused to acknowledge the genocide in Rwanda until well after it was obvious from the intelligence. Just as today governments stop short of acknowledging the glaringly obvious in Darfur. Because if it is genocide, there is an international obligation to act.

Look at all the excuses for inaction governments come up with. "We need to give diplomacy time to work." "The situation is complex. We need to tread carefully." "There is no point intervening without the full support of the UN Security Council." But those things never stopped us going into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Surely in the case of genocide, individual countries do have an obligation to act, with or without a Security Council resolution. It is true those countries who oppose intervention can undermine the efforts of those who act. But that is no excuse for not doing everything reasonably possible.

Which brings us back to China. Any country that does not subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't belong in the United Nations, let alone be entitled to a seat on its Board. Look at China's record, in Tibet, Cambodia, North Korea, Burma, and Sudan. China, in its search for business opportunities, has been quite transparent in its policies. "What you do to your own people is none of our business." China not only refuses to place economic sanctions on other countries for human rights abuses, it usually profits from sanctions busting.

When China does bring pressure to bear on nasty regimes, it is usually only where things are so bad Chinese interests are threatened as well. These interests now include a desire for an international leadership role. It's this, not an awakening conscience, that now guides China's diplomacy.

By all means do business with China, but that does not mean we defer to them when it comes to genocide. China needs the West as much as the West needs China. China not only wants our trade, it wants our acceptance as well. That's why it is pinning so much on the success of the Beijing Olympics.

And there lies our historic opportunity. A boycott of the Beijing Olympics can help drive the message home, without running a serious risk of economic retaliation. I would not stop the athletes from attending, but spectators should stay away. And so should George Bush.

if I was Hamas

My advice to Hamas:

• Declare independence! No one is going to give the Palestinians their independent state. Do what Israel did. Create it yourself.
• Renounce indiscriminate attacks on civilians (ie, terrorism). But reserve the right to attack legitimate military targets in self-defence.
• Negotiate a ceasefire to create space in which to build a strong economy.
• Reign in the militias who will not tow the line and discourage the suicide bombers.

The Palestinians have to learn something from history. What would Lenin have done? What would Mao have done? What for that matter, would Bill Gates have done? Make concessions, surrender territory. Whatever you need to do to buy time. Then use the time to build strength and consolidate.

Declare independence from both Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (West Bank). End the sham that Israel forced upon Egypt and Jordan after the 1948 war. Israel got its state by declaring independence. Why can't you? Most of the countries in the world would probably recognize you. But you have to force their hand. Even the Arab states fear the Palestinians achieving statehood.

This is the only way out for you. Hamas is the legitimate, democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people. But your support and legitimacy will be eroded away as Israel strangles Gaza and talks up Fatah. A bold initiative is your only hope. You have to seize the high ground.

Call Israel's bluff. Agree to put an end to terrorism and see how they respond. You know they will never give up an inch until America forces them to. And this isn't going to happen under this US President or the next. The current round of peace talks can only end in humiliation for Fatah and deeper despair for all Palestinians. Only Israel wins from playing the stalling game. The best way to defeat Israel and Fatah is for you to give the Palestinians their own state. Now!

now here's an even more inconvenient truth

A simple lifestyle change could reduce your ecological footprint by two to three acres, your greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, and your water consumption by several thousand percent. It costs you nothing, and actually improves your health and well-being.

What do you do? You give up, or substantially reduce, your consumption of animal foods. The harvesting of animals for food is the single most unsustainable of all human activities. It causes more environmental degradation than heavy industry, urban expansion and automobiles, combined.

A 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned:

"Livestock's contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency."

In the United States raising animals for food consumes:

• 80% of all agricultural land
• 50% of all freshwater
• 30% of all other raw materials, including fuel

In addition, our billion plus farm animals produce 130 times as much excrement as the entire human population. Some of that is recovered as fertilizer, but enough of the remainder escapes to significantly pollute our soil and water. In total, agriculture accounts for 70% of our water quality problems. Better treatment of urban sewerage, and reduced urban runoff, won't save our estuaries and offshore marine environments, if the animal waste problem isn't addressed. Amazingly, farmers are exempt from most of the regulations which apply to other industries.

By far the resource most severely impacted is land. 80% of all agricultural land in the USA is taken up by animal food production. It takes anything from four to six times as much land to feed a meat eater as it does to feed a vegetarian. If we reduced animal food consumption by 80% in this country we could get by using less than half the land area. That's a bigger chunk of land than the Louisiana purchase.

If the freed up land were used to produce food and timber for the rest of the world, there would be no need to clear another acre of rainforest until the year 2060. This figure is based on the present rate of rainforest destruction. Of course if China's meat consumption continues to increase, as it has been, the world's rainforests will disappear at an increasingly rapid rate. China has less agricultural land than America but has four times its population. In the US, livestock consumes two thirds of all grains and hay grown on its farms. Livestock in the rest of the world consumes only 21% of grain production. If the Chinese were to eat like Americans, the math becomes truly frightening.

Whether it is beef, pork or chicken, the figures are much the same. And it makes no difference whether the animals are free range or housed in feed lots. It's growing the feed for the animals which takes up all the land. It takes six to ten calories of grain to produce one calorie of meat. The ratio varies depending on the edible proportion of the animal and, more critically, the age of the animal when it is slaughtered. Whether the animal is two years old or four, it yields about the same amount of meat, but the four year old will have consumed twice the amount of calories.

The type of animal does make a difference however, when it comes to water consumption. Beef production consumes massively more water than any other meat product, at around 18,000 gallons per pound. Other meat products in turn consume massively more water than grains, fruits and vegetables. All told, production of food crops consumes four times more water than industrial, commercial and domestic users combined. The amount of water saved in the home by recommended water saving measures is insignificant in terms of the savings which could be achieved by reduced beef consumption. Eat one less pound of beef, and you save as much water as your family consumes in seven weeks. Eat eight pounds less, and you have saved a whole year's consumption.

If Americans alone were to reduce their consumption of meat, seafood, eggs and dairy their would be a massive positive benefit to the entire planet. Land savings would be global. Locally wildlife, forests, rivers and marine ecosystems could recover and thrive. Huge acreages would become available for wildlife habitat, recreation, and food and timber for export. If the Canadians and Europeans did the same, and China kept much to its traditional diet, the health of the global environment would be greatly assured. More would still be needed with respect to climate change, but even there we would be better able to deal with the consequences. More land for example would be available to facilitate wildlife migrations.

Think of all the expense and inconvenience that goes into sorting paper and plastic for recycling, cutting down on gas, or reducing household water consumption. All for relatively miserable benefit. All we are talking about here is a change of diet. And changing to a demonstrably healthier life extending diet at that. How hard is that?

No sacrifices are necessary in terms of gross domestic product, or living standards. Quite the contrary, there would be a net improvement in living standards and productivity. Vegetarians are healthier and live up to three years longer. In distribution terms the worst affected, farmers, make up only a tiny proportion of the population. The government could buy up farms instead of paying farmers to overproduce. Additional revenue should also be realized from savings in health costs.

No one has to give up meat entirely, or dairy, or seafood. But these should be substantially reduced in quantity to provide flavor rather than bulk.

Will it happen? Not until the reality begins to displace the deep seated myths about meat as a measure of status, affluence, strength and machismo. By which time it will probably be way too late. Look how hard it is for people to give up smoking, something that is even more demonstrably harmful to health. And we haven't even begun to achieve the necessary awareness we achieved with smoking in the 1960's. Blame no doubt will be laid at the feet of the meat and dairy industries, but the real problem is a public which doesn't want to know. Talk about an inconvenient truth. All that is required is a change of attitude. How tragic it will be if that failure to change costs us the earth.

Most of the figures quoted above will be found in the publication, "Six Arguments for a Greener Diet" published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. This is no radical vegetarian group. It is an independent organization, entirely funded by member subscriptions, and it accepts no advertising. And while it favors a greener diet, it does not advocate a completely vegetarian or vegan diet. The six arguments it puts forward are:

• less chronic disease and overall health
• less food borne illness
• better soil
• more and cleaner water
• cleaner air
• less animal suffering

The case made is overwhelming, the figures staggering.

I also did research and calculations of my own, mostly from internet sources. The above publication lists some of these websites, in addition to its extensive bibliography. Where I came across differences in figures for such things as land requirements for meat eaters and vegetarians, I traced the figures back to the basics. Calculating how many calories a typical steer consumes, how much they weigh at slaughter, and how many calories their carcasses provide. It all checked out and the differences can be explained by different assumptions about the age of the animal at slaughter, and the yield in terms of edible protein per animal.

In the light of all this, how insane is the current rush to produce ethanol for fuel? This initiative can only increase the rate of rainforest destruction. Either that, or we make do with the land we have and grow less food. The policy has already placed pressure on food prices. So here we are subsidizing an economic activity that increases total demand for energy, creates pressure to expand the amount of land under cultivation, increases economic inefficiency and hugely exacerbates our environmental problems.

What does that say about our political progress in addressing environmental problems? Why are we doing this? Because we are worried foreigners will start restricting our oil supplies, and we want to throw even more money at our inefficient farmers. The oil is going to run out anyway folks. And we're burning it faster to produce the ethanol! Can't we start looking at options that make economic and environmental sense?