Showing posts with label Alaska. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alaska. Show all posts

26 November 2014

10 Favs; 10 Years: The Evangelical Environmental Awakening, Part 1

I've long been concerned by the exclusiveness of the environmental movement and was especially struck by the suspicions aroused in the deep greens when the Christian right started getting interested in climate change and the environment, as if the environment was an exclusive club of left-leaning liberals. It's one of the reasons I agreed to go on Fox Business when they asked me. I didn't want to preach to the converted. I wanted to open the tent and let all the human family in.

Here's Part 1 of my post on The Evangelical Environmental Awakening from 2005:

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Several years ago I attended a conference hosted by one of the country's progressive environmental and cultural institutions.

Invited were writers and artists, environmental activists, conservation practitioners, and a host of others.

The event was held on the beautiful campus of the National Conservation Training Center in West Virginia, a venue which exists because a forward-thinking Republican from that state marshaled the resources necessary to bring it to reality.

I arrived on that first evening with a sense of excitement; we were in for a few days of intense dialogue, debate, and communion among the conservation concerned. After checking into my room and making a quick tour of the grounds, I walked up to the first evening's festivities, an invocation and series of readings by some of the nation's best and most influential "nature" writers.

After the reading, we all ambled up to a high point on the property for what was described as a "Summer Solstice Celebration." A bonfire was lit, a circle of the tribe gathered, and there was song and words of inspiration shared by the mostly white, mostly male participants, decked out in what ranged from outdoors uniforms to neo-hippy chic. This was the Birkenstock and granola crowd.


Bonfire
As the celebration continued it spiraled into what I can only describe as pagan ritual, with a few diatribes against those who were not in attendance – the despoilers of the land.

I had a sinking feeling that I didn't belong and started to move away from the crowd. This was despite the fact that I am both a writer who draws inspiration from the natural world and a professional conservation practitioner.

Why did I feel like an alien in my own land, among what should have been my tribe? As I observed the group from down the hill, its music and dancing seemed to take on a decidedly Gaia-worshipping tone, as participants gyrated and "grocked" to their own brand of eco-spiritual convergence.

The discomfort I felt at that celebration was that of a stranger in a strange land. I felt like an outsider, an interloper, like I didn't belong there. I almost left that evening, but the promise of four days of learning and connecting kept me from the road.

My feelings were compounded by questions that began to form in my head: What if I was an outsider, observing this ritual from another, differently held worldview? How would it appear to me?

"I see the pagans are at it again," said a voice off to my left.

I was a good hundred yards or more from the site and hadn't noticed anyone else around me. I didn't catch this fellow's name, but there he stood shaking his head between drags on a cigarette. He looked like a federal employee; at least, he was dressed like a park ranger.

"Why does every one of these gatherings have to kick off with rituals like this?" I asked.

"Because we think prayer circles are for psycho-Christians," my neighbor quipped. "Imagine if we tried to start a conference like this with a prayer circle, we'd be ridiculed – or stoned."

And, yet, I thought, we're comfortable with these types of displays, as if they are desirable because they are so patently other than more traditional, western religious practices.

In fact, anything but rituals adopted from Judeo-Christian traditions seemed to be completely acceptable, a matter of tribal integrity. What were the religious groups in attendance thinking? And where were they?

My companion for that brief, revelatory moment had disappeared, as if he were a visiting alien or a prophet in modern clothes.

His words stuck with me; in fact, his words came back to me a few days later when I listened to William J. Wade, the former president of ARCO, address the group in a plenary session.

He was talking about the impact of reading Barry Lopez’ Arctic Dreams as he prepared to take ARCO's top job in Alaska in the mid-eighties. Later, he got to meet Lopez and fly over the state's many natural wonders. He was a committed conservationist and was talking to us as one who had converted to the cause, like Saul on the road to Damascus, and was doing what he could to care for nature.

The audience reaction to having such an alien in our midst was tepid and suspicious. How could an industry representative – one of "them" – deign to speak to "us" about appreciation for the natural world? We were the keepers of nature not the despoilers. And yet, Mr. Wade's experience was among the most genuine and authentic of the entire conference.

The session was followed by the next speaker, Peter Matthiessen, who fired rude salvos at Mr. Wade, the oil industry, and all conservatives who wanted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. It was an embarrassing moment, but one cheered by the majority of the crowd.
Peter Matthiessen, Ed Betz/AP

I felt sick. Mr. Wade was a brave fellow who had wandered into "enemy territory" without even realizing it. How could we treat another human being this way? Where was our ethical integrity and respect for other human beings?

Had we welcomed Mr. Wade to the conference only to belittle his worldview, attack his politics, and make him a whipping-boy for our gripes against industry? Where was fairness and liberal morals? Clearly these were checked at the door.

After the conference, I wrote Mr. Wade a letter of apology and sent it to him care of ARCO. I'm not sure he ever received it.*

I was embarrassed by my own, some of whom I considered colleagues and even friends. If an environmentalist were to be invited to speak to a conservative group or association and was attacked like this, we would most assuredly cry "foul" and decry the manners of the group at large. And yet, we were not "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Perhaps we should have started with a prayer circle instead of a pagan rite; perhaps then we would have remembered the manners we learned in childhood.

I write this now because the environmental movement is confronted with a new "alien in our midst" - Evangelical Christians. Many environmentalists are suspicious and wary of this group's motivations and, indeed, some have questioned their sincerity in articles and the electronic print media.

This is wrong. We need to apply the same sort of tolerance and respect for diversity that we espouse in our daily lives and work. We need to adapt our liberal moral tendencies to be accepting of this group as a partner. They may not join our organizations and certainly will not put aside their moral visions or worldviews to fit ours, but they have an important voice and perspective on the work ahead of us.

We could learn a lot from their way of knowing this earth, despite what knee-jerk environmentalists might assume. We have not cornered the market on stewardship and care of the earth, regardless of whether you believe the earth as we know it exists through divine creation or evolutionary adaptation.

The diversity of human experience of the earth can be as diverse as the fabric of life itself. We must take heed of this still, small voice in the wilderness and nurture it, welcome it into the good fight.

___________________________________________
*Seven years after this was originally posted, I heard from Mr. Wade, who had found my post. It was nice to be in touch with him and to apologize again.

09 November 2011

Alaska and United Make For Greener Friendly Skies

This Eskimo has reason to smile.
As one of the worst storms in the last 40 years heads for the Alaska coast, Alaska Airlines prepares to storm the future by launching the first of 75 scheduled biofuels-powered flights.

The first will depart from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEATAC) heading for Washington Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC.

The second will head from SEATAC to Portland, OR. Both will be powered by a blend of jet fuel and 20 percent biofuel derived from used cooking oil.

Using social media to promote this flight, Alaska will host a Twitter-based discussion onboard the first flight, which the airline is calling "#FlyGreen Chat," to talk about the future of aviation, sustainability, and environmental awareness.

United Continental made history on Monday when the first commercial biofuels-powered flight completed a trip from Houston to Chicago's O'Hare Airport.

United announced Monday that it signed a letter of intent with Solazyme Inc., which provided the biofuel for Monday's Continental flight, to buy 20 million gallons of algae-derived biofuel annually.

Solazyme is one of the US Navy's partners supplying jet and other fuels for its fleets in the air and water, as I wrote about in The Energy Collective in September.

You can learn more about Alaska Airlines Greener Skies Initiative and its biofuels program at Greener Skies Initiative and join the conversation on Twitter by following #FlyGreen.


Enhanced by Zemanta

18 February 2011

Green Skeptic LinkFest - 02/18/11 - Bristol Bay Edition

Fishing Lower Talarik Creek, Alaska
Today, I am giving over my entire Friday LinkFest post to an important issue that I was reminded of this week: protecting Alaska's Bristol Bay. 

I want to thank my StockTwits pal Brian Shannon (@alphatrends) for bringing back to my attention this ongoing  threat to one of the world's greatest resources up in my old home of Alaska.

Back in the 90s, I worked with The Nature Conservancy on a deal to protect a significant stretch of one of the greatest fly-fishing streams in the world, Lower Talarik Creek, in the Bristol Bay area in Alaska's southwest.  

Bristol Bay is America’s richest salmon fishery and the heart of a $2.2 billion regional fishing industry. Amazing indigenous rainbow trout grow to significant size in Lake Iliamna, which is fed by the 55-square mile watershed of LTC and other streams in this 1.1 million acre fish and wildlife habitat, and then follow the salmon into the waters during spawning season. 

A proposed a large-scale, open-pit, copper-gold-molybdenum mining operation threatens the watershed of the most productive salmon rivers in the world.

"The people of Alaska came close to blocking the project themselves in a 2008 referendum," according to a New York Times editorial this past Monday. "Three former governors, including two Republicans, and Senator Ted Stevens spoke out against the mine. Industry, however, spent $12 million on advertising about the mine’s economic benefits; that, plus a last-minute pro-mining push by Gov. Sarah Palin and her administration, turned the tide in industry’s favor."

The EPA has announced it will make an assessment of the risks to the bay from mining and other commercial projects.

Here's a link to a National Geographic story on Bristol Bay, to an appeal by the outfitters Orvis, which was a contributor to the Lower Talarik Creek project, and Trout Unlimited's Save Bristol Bay site.

The Nature Conservancy also has some great resources on the importance of Bristol Bay, including a great selection of Salmon Ecosystems and Mining research and a story about the fight from 2009.

Environmental Leader reported last week that Zale Corporation, along with 54 other jewelry companies, with a combined $5.75 billion in annual sales, have pledged not to use gold from the mine.

"Gold will not be the mine's major product," according to the project's backers reported in EL. "The mine will offer 80.6 billion lbs of copper, 5.6 billion lbs of molybdenum, 107.4 million ounces of gold and commercially significant amounts of silver, rhenium and palladium."

The Pebble Partnership was set up by Anglo American PLC and Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd, to promote the benefits of the project, including the potential for jobs and production of precious metals to meet global demand.

While I recognize the need for precious metals -- copper is of particular importance to the green technologies we feature here on The Green Skeptic -- it is unclear whether a project of this size can be developed in a way that will ensure the long-term natural, economic, human, ecological and traditional values of this area.



Enhanced by Zemanta

09 September 2008

Clean Tech: Why Some Believe McCain is Best Choice for Clean Tech Investors

PORTLAND, OR - MAY 12:  U.S. Senator John McCa...Image by Getty Images via Daylife This is not a political blog and I am not going to make an endorsement of either the Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin ticket. (Not yet, anyway.) Cop-out? Nada. Why?

I am decidedly Independent, with a capital "I." I've never been a party man and have never voted a straight party ticket or platform. I have friends on both sides of the aisle -- and more who are in the middle, like the majority of Americans. I have both moderate-Republican (Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite president) or Reagan-Dem leanings (Lincoln and Jefferson share second place).

I believe in free and fair trade; am for free market capitalism and early supports (credits, incentives) for market creation. I think the playing field should be level; so, if we're going to give huge subsidies to one group in a sector, the others should be given the same or similar benes, or no one should. I believe in the production tax credit and am against a windfall profit tax (better to just get rid of the oil subsidies).

I am a globalist who wants to see America lead the new green economy. I believe the US was right not to ratify Kyoto Protocol without concessions from China and India; but I also believe that those countries deserve to accelerate their economies by virtually any means necessary to get their people out of poverty. (And further, I think they can leapfrog their way to it without destroying their environment.)

I also believe that we need a multitude of solutions, what British economists Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner called a "silver buckshot" rather than "silver bullet" approach to energy independence and reducing climate change risks and impacts.

That means wind and nuclear; solar and natural gas; biofuels and clean coal; cellulosic and corn-based ethanol; smart grid and more oil drilling; it means hybrid electric vehicles and stricter CAFE standards; it means a tax credit for R&D and promoting energy efficiency.

In other words, as is true with my politics, it's not an either/or question, but an and/both question.

Which is why I was intrigued by Neal Dikeman's assertion in his Cleantech Blog that the McCain-Palin ticket is the best choice for cleantech investors.

Wow, how can that be? From what I've heard, Obama has the most aggressive energy plan going. He will (according to his website)

  • Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
  • Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
  • Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
  • Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
  • Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  • Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
How can McCain beat that?

Dikeman calls Obama's plan the "shiny copper penny" plan, by which he may be referring to the negotiator's art of persuading your opponent to take the nice shiny copper penny and give you the wrinkled old paper money, which has more value.

His conclusion? That while Obama's plan is indeed the most aggressive, that is also one of its faults. Dikeman argues that Obama's plan puts green goals ahead of costs to the economy or the American people and has the US tackling climate change solo, rather than bringing the world together to solve it.

He also notes that Obama has a "very limited resume of actually authoring any legislation on energy or the environment; no experience in domestic energy policy; and was anti-drilling (or was until he realized that like two-thirds of Americans support it)."

Obama, in Dikeman's view "supports [a] climate change plan that would represent a wealth transfer from the central US to the coasts and result in a several hundred billion dollar per year new tax on energy (that's on the order of the Iraq war size)."

On the other hand, McCain's platform includes

  • Expanding domestic oil exploration;
  • Promoting and expanding the use of domestic supplies of natural gas;
  • Changing how we power our transportation sector;
  • Becoming a leader in a "New International Green Economy";
  • Committing US$2B annually to advancing clean coal technologies;
  • Constructing 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with ultimate goal of 100;
  • Creating a permanent Tax Credit equal to 10 percent of wages spent on R&D;
  • Proposing a Cap-and-Trade system that sets limits on Greenhouse Gas Emissions while encouraging development of low-cost compliance options;
  • Greening The Federal Government A Priority Of His Administration.
  • Move The United States Toward Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy.
  • Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil , but not imposing a windfall profits tax.


Dikeman's conclusion? McCain's "energy plan is balanced, focuses on the force multiplier's like R&D tax credits, batteries, and smart grid, and cleaning up cheap domestic resources like gas, coal, nuke, and ethanol, not the shiny copper pennies like a US Venture Capital Fund, PHEVs, and cool sounding names like 25x25." (Wow, tell us how you really feel, Neal!)

He also notes that McCain is the "only candidate to actually author a climate change bill...[and has] picked a VP with lots of domestic energy experience (the state of Alaska is basically an oil company) who while pro drilling is not pro Big Oil."

Where Dikeman faults McCain is for his spotty legislative record on environmental protection and the fact that he hasn't pushed CAFE to the extent that he should. McCain could also be more aggressive on the production tax credit, according to Dikeman; where Obama supports a five-year extension.

The bottom line, according to Dikeman, a founding partner at the boutique merchant bank focused on cleantech sector, Jane Capital Partners LLC, and chairman of Cleantech.org, is that McCain's plan gets "the crown on energy and cleantech, because it's real and focuses on the long term force multipliers that will keep us competitive, clean and safe in the most economic manner, not Obama's shiny copper penny plan."

Read more at: http://snurl.com/3ofkc

What do you think?


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

28 June 2008

Alaska: As Colonel Norman Vaughn used to Say, "Dream Big and Dare to Fail"

Last weekend while Twittering about my trip back to Alaska -- a place I left 10 years ago this August, one of my stalwart followers, globalgirl, revealed that she is the great niece of one of my heroes, Colonel Norman Vaughan.

For those of you not familiar with the man or the legend, Norman Dane Vaughan dropped out of Harvard in 1928 to pursue Admiral Byrd's Expedition in Antarctica. He was the chief dog driver on the two-year Byrd expedition and later Byrd named an Antarctic mountain in his honor.

He also mushed as part of a search and rescue unit in World War II, in the Olympics, and in the Iditarod, as well as in three Presidential Inauguration ceremonies.

On 16, 1994, Vaughan climbed his eponymous 10,302-foot peak, three days shy of his 89th birthday. National Geographic documented this trip in a film, Height of Courage

My encounters with Colonel Vaughan via my work with the Nature Conservancy in Alaska were inspiring and humorous. The humorous included bringing him to a TNC party in New York as part of an Alaska exhibit where he posed with a sled dog team from Long Island.

He was a man of tremendous courage, opinion, and drive. And he gave me three things that I still hold as inspiration: a zipper pull he had designed for clumsily shod gloved hands, which now dons my sleeping bag; words of wisdom he imparted to my young son when they first met; and a playing card he had developed bearing his face, bio, and motto: "Dream Big and Dare to Fail."

Vaughan died on December 23, 2005, 4 days after his 100th birthday. (Hear an interview with Colonel Vaughan from NPR, recorded just prior to his centennial birthday.

How wonderful to be reminded of Colonel Vaughan, and to be back in the Alaska we both once called home.

(Thanks to globalgirl for reaching out about her Great Uncle!)