I heart Joel Achenbach

His piece in today's Washington Post on Dick Cheney is called "Dick Cheney: No Fish Left Behind, Or Alive."

Freegans and free fruit

I'm a little slow on getting this posted, but the NYT has an interesting article on freegans (dumpster-diving vegans). Not sure it's practical for a lot of things, but it's interesting to read about nonetheless.

The article also lists a good site for getting (or getting rid of) stuff:
freecycle.org

In my area there's free astronaut ice cream, a Piggly Wiggly stress reliever, a metal liquid nitrogen tank hose, and an unused time capsule wedding journal book, whatever that is.

And, because it's summer, here's a link for maps of places where you can legally pick fruit that overhangs public property. Ok, so there aren't too many maps yet, but it's still a fun idea.

fallenfruit.org/maps.html

Alien invaders!

Just posted this reponse to the lengthy discussion on Grist over an article questioning whether invasive species really are as evil as we think they are. Short answer: probably. Long answer:

As someone who spent one hot summer waging a futile battle against exotic invasives plants (Japanese honeysuckle and tree of heaven, mainly) in a national park, and a semester studying the effects of goats on the flora and fauna in the Galapagos, it would be fair to say I think exotic invasive species are a serious threat.

I also think it's fair to say that the best policy is to "keep them all out", as burger suggests, provided burger means preventing any new exotic species from entering an ecosytem. And I agree with NJD that the "wait-and-see" approach is irresponsible; if newly introduced population is still small enough that eradication is feasible, better to be safe than sorry.

I don't think it's fair, however, to dismiss Erik's arguments as they apply to established exotic invasive species. It's easy to say, yes, let's get rid of kudzu. Not so straightforward if we bring herbicides into the picture. Or when we have to kill golden eagles to protect the foxes on California's Channel islands. (The eages are protected under the Eagle Protection Act but are not native to the islands).

We have a limited number of resources with which to manage exotic species and it's not cheap or easy. So it makes sense to evaluate the costs and, yes, the benefits, of an established invasive species to an ecosystem, as well as the costs and benefits of trying to eradicate it. That way we can make the most out of the limited resources we have.

At the national park, my two coworkers and I barely made a dent in cutting back the exotic invasive plant species, and I'm sure most of plants grew back the following year anyway. Perhaps if we had focused on just getting rid one of the most noxious species, we could've successfully eradicated it from the park. Perhaps if we'd also focused more restoring disturbed areas and preventing further disturbances, rather focusing solely on the symptoms--invasive population explosions, we'd have been more successful.

That said, I think Erik is right on to question whether a "pristine" ecosystem ought to be our ideal. The vast majority of forests in this country are not virgin forests and are constantly changing due to forces of nature and man. Deeming one moment in history as an ecosystem's "pristine" state to aim to replicate seems rather arbitrary and silly. Perhaps "healthy" is a better adjective to work towards.

As a side note, what about native invasive species? Whitetail deer, juniper, red maple...

Betcha can't guess where this depressing passage is from

In his book The End of Work, Jeremy Rifkin notes that until the 20th century the word consumption evoked negative images; to be labeled a "consumer" was an insult. (In fact, one of the deadliest diseases in history, tuberculosis, was often referred to as "consumption.") Twentieth century merchants realized, however, that in order to prosper, they had to convince people of the need for things not previously needed. For example, General Motors made annual changes in its cars so that people would be discontented with the cars they already owned. Thus began consumerism.

Today consumption describes the U.S. lifestyle in a nutshell. We consume twice as much today per person as we did at the end of World War II. The amount of U.S. retail space per person is vastly greater than that of any other country. It appears we live to shop.
That's from my accounting textbook, of all places. Depressing stuff, huh?

Zinn on Vonnegut

In this month's copy of The Progressive, Howard Zinn pays tribute to Kurt Vonnegut. Zinn recounts a memory from of Vonnegut that seems especially pertinent as tens of thousands of Iraqis die in the name of our "War on Terror":

"When the newspapers were full of alarms about Iran possibly developing a nuclear bomb, Kurt sent me a copy of a very short letter he wrote to The New York Times: 'I only know of one nation that has dropped nuclear bombs on innocent people.'

The Times did not print the letter."

Golf gone country

I've never actually golfed. Something about paying lots of money to try and hit a tiny ball into a tiny, faraway hole never seemed like anything more than a recipe for frustration to a klutz like me. But boerengolf, or farmer's golf, which is played on existing farmland in European countries like Holland, sounds like my kind of game. From "You can golf 'til the cows come home" on Marketplace:

Boerengolf is certainly simple. Two teams compete. [Using a wooden shoe on a stick], each hits a ball towards Hole 1. The team that's behind keeps hitting 'til they're ahead, so the teams stay together. The object: sink the ball using the fewest strokes. Repeat 10 times, with a break in the middle for beer. The end.

What's not to like about that? Plus, it beats supporting the environmental enemies that are regular golf courses.

The 18,000 golf courses in the U.S. cover more than 1.7 million acres. Las Vegas alone has 60 golf courses. According the Worldwatch Institute, the world's 35,000 golf courses used 2.4 billion gallons of water per day, the same amount it would take to provide 4.7 billion people with daily UN minimum. Each course uses an estimated half ton of pesticides each year, and undoubtedly plenty of fertilizer, too. Both pollute the water. Course landscapers use noisy lawn mowers and leaf blowers, which can each create the same amount of air pollution in one hour as a small car does in four.

On the boerengolf courses, course maintenance is a different story. Rain waters the grass. The landscapers (also known as cows) eat the grass. Then they turn it into fertilizer (manure) for the grass. That's it.

Of course, you could argue that cow pastures are not exactly the most environmentally friendly places, and you'd be right. (The EPA estimates that ruminant livestock produces 28% of the methane from human-related activities globally and EarthSave states that methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all the other greenhouse gases put together. Runoff from fields with animal waste can also contaminate water and overgrazing degrades the soil). But cow pastures probably aren't going away anytime soon. Nor do I think they should as long as people continue to consume dairy and beef and to use leather--cow pastures are a infinitely better for the cows, the environment, and beef eaters than are industrial feedlots (read The Omnivore's Dilemma if you don't know what I mean). I'm just happy that people can enjoy golf without degrading the land additionally.

Ok, and I also just think golfing with a wooden shoe on a stick and a bunch of cows sounds like a lot of fun.

Putting animal testing to rest... sort of

According to a piece on Marketplace (American Public Media), the number of animals used in experimentation has declined by 50 percent over the last 25 years, due at least in part to software that allows researchers to input data about the chemicals they're testing and get an output of just how toxic it is.

Ok, so a 50% decrease is good news, right? Not to be all the-glass-is-half-empty (or should I say still half full... confusing metaphor, sorry), but that means that there are still tons of animals enduring cruel experiments that can only be called torture. Just how many animals, you ask?

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which is part of the USDA, reported that researchers tested on over a million animals in 2004, which was the most recent report I was able to find on their site. The number does not include birds, mice, or rats bred for testing because those animals are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and researchers are not only not required to report the numbers of birds, mice, and rats they test on. (They're also not required to comply with the few protections offered to the animals that are covered under the AWA). The ASPCA estimates that researched experimented on 14 million rats and mice in 2002 in the US alone, and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) puts the worldwide estimate at 100 million animals a year.

The problems with animal testing are twofold. First, it's obviously cruel. (If you don't know what I'm talking about see: The Earthlings, PETA, BUAV, Johns Hopkins University, CaringConsumer.com, etc., etc. Second, the results of experiments on rats, mice, and other animals don't always correlate to people. The results don't always even correlate among more similar animals:

When rat and mouse carcinogens are compared, the tests in rats agree with the tests in mice only
two thirds of the time.
-- Dr. Martin Stephens, Vice President for Animal Research Issues at The Humane Society and Dr. Andrew Rowan, Senior Vice President for Research, Education and International Issues, "An Overview of Animal Testing"

Fortunately, in many cases alternative experiments can be done with computer models and human tissues grown in the lab. These experiments are not only cruelty-free, but often much more accurate. But yet research on animals continues.

So what can we do? Lots. To encourage companies to stop animal testing, check out CaringConsumer.com's list of the companies that still do test on animals. We can stop using their products and write them a letter to let them know why. And choose to support companies that don't test on animals when we need to purchase something. We can also write letters to our representatives, medical schools, and local papers, invest only in cruelty-free companies, and spread the word to friends and family members.