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.