INSIDIOUS SHADE$ of "GREEN"
It happened so suddenly. Out of nowhere, it almost seems, everyone is talking about global warming. Presidential candidates, corporate moguls, media pundits—the news is saturated with the latest climate change buzzwords. My current favorite is ‘carbon footprint’...I wondered what I’d stepped in....what we’ve all stepped in. It’s a lot messier and more insidious than you might think.
When you listen closely, you’ll discover that most of the current solutions to our global crisis are technical and entrepreneurial in nature. We don’t need to really change our lifestyle—we just need to fix the wrapping. Hybrid cars and ethanol fuel lead the list, but there’s more—solar power, wind power, bio-diesel, carbon credits (MY GOD!!!) and, it goes without saying, organic condoms---I recently read this, from the CanWest News Service:
For those who like to make love to the soundtrack of the global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Greenpeace has released a list of strategies for "getting it on for the good of the planet," suggesting "you can be a bomb in bed without nuking the planet." TreeHugger, an online magazine edited by Ontario’s Michael Graham Richard, has just published a guide on "how to green your sex life." The famed adult store Good Vibrations announced last week they would no longer sell sex toys containing phthalates, controversial chemical plasticizers believed by some to be hazardous to humans and the environment alike. And throughout Canada and the U.S., people who want to pleasure the planet can now buy everything from bamboo bed sheets to organic lubricant and "eco-undies."
"Green living is getting sexy," says Jacob Gordon, author of TreeHugger.com’s recent green guide for the bedroom.
Or consider these observations from NEWSWEEK, from a story titled, "How to Make a Buck Green:"
So where’s the money in climate change? Investors sense a tumultuous market in the making, if they can only hit it right. "Sometimes I feel like a fly on the wall, watching a new era unfold," says Rona Fried, editor and publisher of "Progressive Investor," a six year old newsletter that follows the field...Wall Street’s own change in climate is nothing less than astonishing. Save-the-planet investing has suddenly. Well, heated up.
Indeed. Just a week earlier, the same periodical featured the "Green Giant" on its cover, California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. NEWSWEEK proclaimed, "California’s Hummer-loving governor is turning the Golden State into the greenest in the land, a place where environmentalism and hedonism can coexist."
It really said that. The Gov had been a guest on MTV’s wildly popular "Pimp my Ride" television program and had come to promote a 1965 Chevy Impala with an 800 horsepower engine, but which had been revamped to burn bio-diesel fuel. Arnold said, "You can have an engine that’s fast and furious and still reduce greenhouse gases by 30 to 40 percent. This," Schwarzenegger proclaimed, "is the future." He explained that it was important, "to show people that biofuel is not like some wimpy feminine car, like a hybrid."
NEWSWEEK suggests that Arnold’s view "is a world away from Al Gore’s alarming climate lecture, ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’" But is it?
I was first drawn to Al Gore almost 15 years ago, with the publication of his book, Earth in the Balance. I remember one passage that impressed me so profoundly, I re-printed it in the Zephyr, a few months before he was picked by Bill Clinton as his running mate.
Gore wrote:
I believe that our civilization is addicted to the consumption of the earth itself...our industrial civilization makes us a promise: the pursuit of happiness and comfort is paramount, and the consumption of an endless stream of new products is encouraged as the best way to succeed in that pursuit. But the promise is always false because the hunger for authenticity remains.
For me, this meant so much more than a call to reduce greenhouse emissions. Or for technical solutions to save the world. Al realized, even then, that it would take much more than new technology to restore our planet and our humanity. It was about the way we live our lives. He was asking us to re-examine the things that truly matter. He challenged us to take a hard look at the "endless stream" of diversions that we have allowed to define our success and even, supposedly, our happiness. I took heart in his words and his quest for "authenticity."
Now jump ahead a decade and a half.
From an Associated Press story:
BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Former Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday praised Wal-Mart for a newfound focus on environmental sustainability, saying the retailer showed there is no conflict between the environment and the economy.
"I believe that this kind of commitment is so important that the rest of the world is likely to be listening and learning," Gore told an auditorium of more than 800 Wal-Mart employees, suppliers and outside experts who are advising the company.
Chief Executive Lee Scott last October said Wal-Mart would become a leader in sustainability, with three goals: reducing waste to zero, moving toward using only renewable energy and offering more products made in a way that preserves the environment.
Gore said some people questioned whether Wal-Mart was serious about the environment, then added: "Have you ever known Wal-Mart not to follow through on a big commitment of this kind? I have not."
Is this the same Al Gore? The man who recoiled at the myth that "an endless stream of new products" might enrich our lives? Does he think these new products might be more palatable, if only we used "greener" technology? I doubt Al Gore believes any of this.
In his heart of hearts, I’d bet Gore is the same man he was in 1992. But the world has changed around him. We have changed. Al Gore’s search for "authenticity" somehow sounds quaint in 2007. He knows this better than anyone, and it’s why, I think, he will choose to stay out of politics. He’ll keep doing what he does, but his enthusiasm will be dimmed, though skillfully masked, by the realities of 21st Century American Culture.
He’ll keep trying though, not because he thinks we can win, but because he could not live with himself if he didn’t.
And more than anyone, it’s us, the progressive environmental community, that created this honesty vacuum. When did we stop being ‘conservationists?’ If I can plagiarize myself for a moment (from Brave New West), keep this in mind...
Most liberal Democrats aren’t a lot different from conservative Republicans in one regard. Neither group wants to see us live with less---Republicans think we should continue to live extravagantly and are convinced our energy resources will last forever. Democrats want to be able to live as extravagantly, but think we can live extravagantly in a more energy-efficient manner. When critics asked Democratic presidential candidate Kerry how he hoped to pay for his massive health care bill, his answer was simple. He said, "We’ll grow the economy to pay for it." That means more big homes and expensive cars and massive shopping malls and extravagant lifestyles and a materialistic society that sees more value in "things" than anything else. And I see no one out there on the political landscape willing to ask his countrymen to live with less.
Until we get serious, I have a hard time even trying to be. Today I found more amusement in the green-tintedheadlines---Toyota is offering a hybrid version of its Lexus LS---only $124,000, loaded. Ah yes, getting back to basics! Meanwhile I’m off to find some phthalate-free condoms and a bottle of cheap wine—I promise I’ll recycle the glass.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: Is all this just too damn depressing? Take heart! The next issue is titled: "The Brighter Side of Global Warming!" Everytjing is going to be just fine.)
MORE GREEN ‘STUFF’--- THE POLITIC$ of MONEY
The First Primary. That’s how the media described the first quarter financial reports of the 2008 presidential candidates. Whoever has the most money wins. Senior NPR correspondent Dan Schorr recently suggested, with only a hint of sarcasm, that we do away with voting altogether and allow the size of the campaign coffer to determine the next Commander-in-Chief.
And why not? It’s been said that any presidential candidate in 2008 will need $100,000,000 by the end of this year, if he or she hopes to be taken seriously. ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. The mind boggles.
Someone as independently wealthy as Robert Kennedy may not have been able to compete, had the same rules applied when he became a late entry in the campaign of 1968. Forty years ago, presidential primaries began in February and ended in June. Over those five months, candidates had the opportunity to slowly but steadily build a case for their candidacy and their views. They could start in New Hampshire with small budgets but with a lot of enthusiasm and if they were well-received, had time to gather momentum.
In one primary after another, across the country, Americans had the opportunity to watch their next president grow and mature and gain strength.
Now, for reasons that elude me, all the states want their primary to be first. And so it now appears that almost all the primaries will be held, nation-wide, by mid-February, with a flurry of them on February 9.
Imagine, by early February, we’ll most likely know the identity of the Republican and Democratic candidates, who can then bore us to death for another NINE months, until the general election in November.
Sounds like the electoral version of premature ejaculation to me.
Campaign reform isn’t just a good idea. It’s almost too late to worry about it. The public has been so anesthetized by the never ending drone of 30 second sound bites (we don’t even get a minute bite anymore), we are beginning to look like the Stepford Electorate. Is it too late, like the climate itself, to turn this nightmare around?
I remember a story Barry Goldwater told, a few years after John Kennedy was assassinated. Goldwater was the presumptive Republican candidate for president in 1964 and President Kennedy was sure to run for re-election. In the summer of 1963, JFK invited Goldwater to the White House for a private dinner---just the two of them. Goldwater had no idea why he’d been invited; the two were personal friends but abhorred each other’s politics. To Kennedy, that was the point.
What he proposed to his conservative rival would have re-defined presidential campaigns forever. Just thinking about it today, almost half a century later, is exhilarating. The President believed that the differences between them were clear and that all of America should be able to accurately measure those differences. Kennedy wanted Goldwater to travel with him, on Air Force One, for at least part of the campaign. They’d jet from city to city and debate the issues, again and again, and without all of the rules and regulations that have come to rob most presidential debates of any spontaneity. They would debate in the grand style and tradition of Lincoln-Douglas. In the end, we’d know who we were voting for. And why.
November 22, 1963 killed that dream, along with Kennedy himself. But can you imagine how that idea might have transformed our country?
Is it too late to hope for visionary ideas like that again? I don’t know, but somebody better do something soon, or we’re going to lose everything. Again, to quote our old friend Abbey, "What we need is something entirely different."
FUTURE ISSUES:
I NEED YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS!
I’ve been thinking ahead to themes and ideas for future issues of The Zephyr and I’d like your help and participation, if possible. After 18 years, I thought it might be a nice diversion in these grim times, to propose the following ideas...first:
A TOTALLY FICTION edition. Mudd, Murie and I are already at work on our versions of un-Reality, but I’d like to open the door to all of you as well—or at least some of you. The stories can be of any type of fiction you prefer, including science fiction. Obviously I cannot print your novel, so we’re talking about very short stories—maximum length 2000 words. It would make a more favorable impression if the stories had some relevance to the themes we hammer away at relentlessly in these pages. But it is not absolutely mandatory.
I’ll print the best two or three (if I receive that many entries) in the print edition of The Zephyr and other worthy submissions would at least find the light of day on the web site.
Second idea: JOURNALS: Windows to our Past. For years, I’ve been accumulating journals---my grandfather’s, my great-grandmother’s, Herb Ringer’s and his dad’s, and some extraordinary submissions from Zephyr readers—not too long ago, Vennie White of Austin, Minnesota sent me the journals of Frank Silvey via her father Bob White,a reporter with the Durango Herald in the 1950s.
I’d love to run some excerpts and include photographs when possible. If you have an old journal or diary, and you’d like to share an excerpt with The Zephyr, let me know. You would not need to send the journal itself; in fact, I’d prefer if you didn’t. I’d hate for anything to happen to something so rare and precious. But a scan of some of the written material, or a clean copy of it would work.
Finally, as we move precariously and deeper into the brave new world of the 21st Century, and as we travel (sprint it seems) farther away from the simpler life many of us still remember and long for, into a world of techno superficiality, I thought it might be valuable to ask if any of this "stuff" is really making us happy.
So here’s the request: Tell me about your most PERFECT MOMENTS. When you look back on your life, would you be willing to share the event that you cherish the most.? You may not be able to select just one (if you’re lucky); if that’s the case, then choose one of your Top 10. I’d even accept a Top 10 List, now that I think of it. But let’s not get too Letterman-ish here. And these comments must be succinct and short. No more than 200 words. Ten words can work if it conveys your feelings and the spirit of your memory. And please enclose a photo of yourself if possible.
Because I am lazy and cannot type worth a damn, email submissions will make me very happy. But I won’t reject anything, simply because I have to re-type it. My schedule now calls for the TOTALLY FICTION issue to run in October/November, so there is some urgency that you get creative right now. I would need submissions by August 10. No later. But if this proves to be too daunting and the number of submissions not adequate, I will delay it. The PERFECT MOMENTS issue would run in the next issue. I thought it might fit well during the holidays, when we are often so otherwise totally depressed.. But don’t wait. Send me your ‘perfect moments’ any time you feel inspired to record them. I will put them in a safe place, for publication in a few months.
And while the JOURNALS issue is slated for next winter, let me hear from you soon if you have something worth sharing. The email address is everywhere on these pages, but just to be sure:
cczephyr@frontiernet.net or moabzephyr@yahoo.com.The phone is: 435.260.1273.
Thanks. Let’s see what you guys can come up with.
