On Politics, Weakness, And The American Vote

A large reason why people will get so riled up when it comes to American politics is that what Americans do at the polls can have a lasting effect on the rest of the world. Believe it. No where in the world is that more true than in the US of A.

We cannot forget that citizens of the United States of America are Americans. Americans in that they live in a divided country, the world’s most powerful divided country, and many of them are politicians at heart. Many of them, I said. And that is where they excel. I can probably handle about 20 minutes of political talk before I start to feel sleepy, and truly slutty.

I have a weakness when it comes to discussing politics, and that is I am not a true citizen. I’m an international, “3rd Culture” white dude who grew up in countries famous for shoddy politics. In the Philippines: a Catholic government trying to subdue a Muslim population to their south; and in Bangladesh, a largely impoverished Muslim population trying to come to terms with barrels of empty political promises thrown their way since their independence from Pakistan.

I’ve been through coup attempts in my youth, and seen many a hartal face to face. I know first hand that teargas stings like a bitch because of riots too close to home. I’ve had armed guards working at my homes when things got out of control. I was mostly unaffected, but obviously affected.

Now, can you see why I don’t put much faith in politics?…or religion for that matter?

I really suck at taking politics seriously, and I have limited belief in the fact that what I do makes a difference. But I’m learning. I’ve been in Canada for 8 years now and have officially started voting for my own future. Through university I voted Green or Liberal mostly to show support, and probably in the hopes of legalizing marijuana.

Now where was I…Oh yea, Americans. They’re very good at talking shop, shop being internal politics. They love and hate their government’s ideals, they bicker and bend - but at least they bicker! There’s nothing worse than silence.

Several months ago I was speaking with a fellow American-international friend of mine who now lives in Seattle. He said that as infuriating as it can be, it’s wonderful to live in a nation so politically active. Not that us calm Canucks are inactive, we just have a smaller effect on the rest of the world and we know that. We too are divided, we too bicker and boil…but we’re also oddly accepting of our 4 years of frustration when we make mistakes at the poll.

Not all of my generation cares so passionately about internal politics, but the young Americans sure do, and they should all be proud of the opportunity they hold.

When you vote, do so with a cause. Also, vote knowing that the rest of the world must come to terms with your government.

That Fancy Green - more than just a colour of underwear

LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, indicates a property’s overall sustainability by awarding points for just about any sustainable feature imaginable, from bike racks and rainwater collection and reuse systems, to energy-efficient lighting and low-flow plumbing fixtures. It is comprised of specific programs tailored for new buildings, existing buildings and tenant build-outs, and awards different tiers of certification such as Silver, Gold or Platinum, the highest.

Over the past few years, LEED has emerged as the industry’s de facto sustainable property rating system and become nearly synonymous with the term ‘green building’.

As much as I respect bike racks and rainwater collection, don’t mind me as I call LEED on certification shenanigans (in the simplest of terms) in awarding ‘certification’ for Green Building with low ratings in perhaps some of the most important categories.

See Orchard Garden Hotel. 26/69 points, 37%. A pass?

Enegry and Atmosphere, 1/17. Yea, not important, “energy”.

Neither is water efficiency at 2/5.

I only just ran into their site while researching something else and wanted to take note. Things labelled ‘green’ should be planned from the ground up, not just labelled and certified later in their lifetime to increase investment and occupancy.

Is Green much more than a pansy-ass word? I thought greenwash would be towed away…not yet it won’t.

All Quiet - and empty of excuses - On The Western Front

If you read this blog regularly you’d have noticed little beyond silence and mediocre attempts at posts. Much like the tired environmental sector, exhausted stock market, and ever fluctuating findings on climate change, I’m going through a quiet period.

It turns out that my thoughts and energy are elsewhere. See: work/school/life.

Maybe I’m in a recession. In the red. And, hopefully, I’ll come back with returned vigour and attitude when something kicks me in the buttox.

I even have three drafts looking to be completed. They wait with links selected and even a partly formed conclusion, but I haven’t the gumption to really push them through.

Perhaps this post is an attempt by a mildly conscious part of my brain at pushing through that barrier.

Grrrrrrrrr…POW!!!

….ouch. (zzzzzzzzzzzz)

On Solutions, Bikes, and Tax Rebates

Carrying my bike up the stairs to my apartment I ran into a neighrbour on his way down, also carrying a bike. I backed off, letting him through, and he said, “What are the chances!?”, “Pretty slim”, I said, adding “…but getting better with gas prices and all”… It’s the modern pill - take to the solution when the problem has finally come far enough.

So while some move to bikes, in suburban America houses are losing value as gas prices go up. What used to be a good trade off and selling point - cheaper house for added commute - is no longer adding up.

Rack up a new inverse correlation: gas prices to real estate value…what exciting times we live in!

————————————————————————————–

In other news, I got my $100 Climate Action Dividend rebate from my friendly Provincial government last week. It is supposed to be an incentive to “help British Columbians live a lower carbon lifestyle”. That said, they’d like us to spend it on something to help us become (or continue to be) environmentally friendly. I like the idea, and I may spend it either on bike parts which I needed anyway, or one of those apartment (balcony) worm farm composting trays…yet to be decided.

Some potential problems with the friendly rebate:

• People will spend it on gas, directly or indirectly
• It will get lost in their chequing account, and spent on food. Or on gas getting to food.
• They were all sent out on paper cheques, in envelopes. Accompanying those cheques was a pamphlet with ideas on how to spend your carbon friendly rebate.
• Free-ish money sends mixed messages.

The population of British Colombia is approx 4.3 million, that’s:

• 4.3 million pamphlets wasted (or hopefully recycled)
• $430 million back to taxpayers, at least $200 million back to oil companies (sigh)

Positives:

• Conscious people will spend it on the right things, i.e. change light bulbs to energy efficient bulbs, water saving technology, etc. - and I like to think British Columbia is packed with conscious people.
• $430 million injection into the local economy, layered throughout the summer.
• We can look forward to more rebates/savings, this time available through the actual gas/carbon tax now (as of July 1st, Canada Day) officially implemented in British Columbia.

So, will we start to see more personal and government action? Will it be, again “the more things change, the more they stay the same…” ? From what I’ve seen and heard, Canadians are ahead of their government when it comes to environmental consciousness. That’s normal, as bureaucracy takes time, especially implemented through dinosaurs.

But here we have the chance, with ‘free’ money, to make a personal change thanks to the government.

If you’re in BC, what will you spend it on? If not, what would you spend it on? Do express.

Post at Living the Start-Up Life: From Services to Product

Thanks in part to my near-obsessive idea of eventually starting and running my own consulting group, I have been reading Jun’s Living the Start Up Life blog for the past few months. Recently, I asked him if I could guest post with him. Not only did he agree (probably because creating and writing a blog on your own is challenging), but he’s added me to his network, and asked that I try to contribute regularly.

Read my first post with JunLoayza.com here.

[...Beyond mere potential though, are the elements that make businesses successful; two of which are marketing and product creation. Last month I wrote about the differences between product-based businesses and service-based businesses in my given industry - forestry. At the risk of creating an “easier said than done” situation, in this post we’ll explore some tips and steps for taking a service-oriented business, and marketing it as (or making it) a product...]

The Words ‘Global’ and ‘Climate’ Shouldn’t Lead to Political Babble

I’ve been hearing some chatter, as well as read a little, about the US decision to put polar bears on the ‘threatened’ list. Some of the comments I hear, and from journalists who don’t know shit-all, say that it’s ridiculous because that population is apparently thriving. They can’t believe that the polar bear is a symbol of the threat of global warming, and can’t help but call out the ‘eco-radicals’ on their shenanigans.

Here’s a segment from an “article” I found (among top of Google search, which makes it all the scarier):

“What’s really going on here?

Kenneth Green at AEI exposes the politics behind the eco-radicals’ polar bear campaign and the consequences:

Listing the polar bear as a threatened species would have significant public policy consequences. It would set a new precedent, representing the first linkage of species endangerment with global warming. Such a listing would basically wall off the entire Arctic region to exploration, resource extraction, and development–at least by U.S. companies–and a threatened species listing would give environmental groups the ability to sue future U.S. governments to force them to reverse climate change by whatever means necessary.”

AEI - who chose to ‘expose eco-radicals’ (above) and write about how our bears are ‘just fine’, is funded by Exxon Mobil. Go figure.

I recommend only visiting that site if you want to continue to browse radical conservative shyte. I’ll save you the pain, and here are some comments regarding that post above which I found silly and misguided:

**WHAT?!? The polar Bear population is 5 times MORE than it was in 1960!!! WTF does an animal whose population is INCREASING land on the endangered list?!

**When will people wise up to this global warming farce? What a joke…

**I have lived in Alaska since ‘74 and I can tell you first hand it is NOT getting any warmer here. Of course we are sometimes influenced by the warm currents from the Pacific Ocean and so even in winter we can sometimes have a warm spell. I am all for a little warming, but it a’int happening!

**The polar bears at the Houston zoo do fine in the summer,average temp of around 95 with 90% humidity.

After throwing-up a little, I figured that it needs to be understood that the concern is more than imagery of a warming planet, and an ice-less polar bear (a threatened list doesn’t have the power to influence climate policy, yet): There should be focus on protecting land from further, and unprecedented development. So, lets say all that arctic ice melts back and polar bears die off. Saying that the concern is the bears themselves puts their previous habitat at risk of development free-for-all. That gives us all the more reason to protect what might be a future forest or grassland. Thanks, global warming.

An important step in curbing public opinion is creating a monument that opinions rally around. For example, how much would you care about the Bald Eagle going extinct if it weren’t a symbol of a nation? The bird may be a glorified crow when it comes down to it, but its bold eyes and American-esque wingspan make it a symbol of freedom and power. Like magic, we care.

Can we not leave human development out of at least selected habitats? It seems that when an initiative does so, there’s always a way to complain. We are perfectly capable of turning land into ecological disasters in every-which way, so don’t give me your politics to screw this one up.

Politics and ‘eco-radical’ bashing utterly confuses the situation and makes no sense. We should be seeing the habitat as fragile, and not focusing on just the bears.

Four Weekend Things

ONE:

I’ve introduced a new widget on my sidebar where I’ll replace words with pictures, then back it up with some more words. Scroll down a little and have a look, or go straight to the V.I. Flickr space.

TWO:

The Onion writes on Green Space, and its immediate effect on cities:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/3_by_4_plot_of_green_space

“What we’ve seen here is amazing,” Warrendale Beautification Committee chairman Michael Pulowski said of the $150 city-funded initiative. “Not only do residents feel better about themselves, but our streets are now totally safe, employment is up, and our children’s test scores are through the roof. It’s hard to believe this is even the same neighborhood anymore.”

THREE:

Computer and electronics recycling is on the rise. Not only is it keeping plastics and metals out of landfills, but materials recovered are worth something - and creating diesel fuels that help run the plants.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/small-business/recycling.html

“…we extract about 300 litres an hour of diesel fuel. We want to get 500 litres an hour.” It takes about 10 per cent of the diesel produced to drive the turbines that distill the plastic. Hambsch plans to use the balance of the diesel fuel to fire two one-megawatt generators at the site, creating electricity and making the operations self-sufficient.” (and)

“The commodity prices are good now,” he says. “So it makes more sense to recover those metals, the gold, silver, copper, aluminum than to mine them from the ground.”

————————————————————————

and FOUR: Go see Kung Fu Panda, if only for the kung-fu training montage goodness.

Gen Y: Think back to the basics, choose your own brand of sustainability

There’s a ‘fog of war’ surrounding all things green. We don’t know what green really means, are confused about how it affects us on a personal level, and it leads to literal competition: who’s greener than who. That’s enough to make any ‘green’ and climate-change skeptic drool; but doesn’t mean that we should give up hope. Some initial problems with green environmentalism are:

One: green has become expensive and elite, and those pushing it know how to collect its cash flow.

When green is about technology and living sustainably, it comes down to trends and spending. There’s nothing wrong with that in theory, but it certainly takes a certain brand of sustainability away from our generation. I like the thought of sustainable-living developments, but don’t have $350,000 for a self-sustaining bachelor condo.

Two: green definitely has its heart in publicity, which has its perks but is not eco-focused.

Besides the slight chance of pollination, things like green roofs will never connect themselves to other ecosystems, a key element driving ecosystem health. But, they do provide a cooling effect vs. the city’s concrete, and at least some benefit to air quality. I’m never against such initiative, but the benefits are only slightly more than peace of mind.

So, for now, forget green and get back to the basics:

1. Ecosystems

The first thing I’d like to reflect is that our cities don’t actually separate us from nature. It may appear that way because of the infrastructure or the way we live day-to-day, but we are very much in there. In fact when you look at our input, output, and the energy it takes to maintain urban economies - we are very much an ecosystem in ourselves. A big dirty one.

Simple advice? Think of your (that’s right, your) environment as a system of climate, land and water. Along with ‘green’, the ‘environment’ picked up some bland meaning so that recycling and going easy on gas mileage was becoming enough. It takes the input-output mindset, and ecological awareness to realize how we affect our surroundings.

Also, Zen-up your office work space by buying some plants. Not only is green a relaxing colour, but having plants can demonstrate the care needed to sustain life.

2. Keep doing what you’re doing

Don’t stop now, because your habits are improving and you’re doing great, I know you are. Your new-found travel habits are soft on your bank account, and that’s critical in your saving years. The fact that you are recycling shows you just how much you’re consuming (because taking it out back is a bitch), forcing you to consume less packaging.

Take the opportunity to compost too, so that ever-important organic matter doesn’t go to waste. Even if you live in an apartment. (<< I love how they mention that the worms eat through your compost “and junk mail“, that’s productive recycling!)

3. Basic, and Early Education is Key

Start educating yourself and kids now. Many Gen-Yers complain that right now, in this stage of their life, ’saving the planet’ comes after family and career. Fair enough. But what if every child grows up to pass on that same mindset? What a disaster our world would be, seriously. We could all use some time outside, where nature counts, to show us what our grandchildren need to survive.

Young parents, have a look at this site promoting early education in fun and eco-friendly ways.

Take some time: At the bottom of this recent post are some links to get your curiosities flowing.

And finally, don’t get caught up in ‘buying green’. Your actions are still more important than which green movement you’re supporting. Customize a sustainable life to fit your priorities, because every bit counts.

Does the Brazen Careerist network represent the majority of GenY bloggers?

Probably not. It may come close, but it could be closer by representing some broader concerns. Counter to the ideals of democracy (in that the majority is represented), the Brazen Careerist network only represents the ‘brazen’ bits. Even the brazen need a leader, so give us a hand and listen up.

Ryan Paugh and Greg Rollett wrote near perfectly-timed posts on how they address change, and which bloggers really have authority in the blog world. I think Greg makes a good point in saying that those who carry the real voice and influence are older than “us”, and have more experience to back it up. That leads me to say that Gen Y still has a lot to learn, which is a good thing. Those who help us to represent ourselves, Brazen Careerist that is, need to roll with the times and cover important issues past those self-help ones.

On Brazen Careerist, the current categories available for browsing and writing within are:

News, Books, Culture, Entrepreneurship, Journalism, Marketing and PR, Money, Non-profit, Personal Development, Politics, and Technology.

I asked several weeks ago if Brazen could perhaps add ‘Environment’ to their category list, (or a category pertaining to it) as all my posts regarding the environment and related issues were turning up under ‘Culture’…Culture?!! I mean, really…

The problem is not that the answer was no not yet, it is that I was told they would add one if people wrote about it more. That leads to a slew of problems:

• People will only address mainstream, or ‘newsworthy’ topics;
• Not enough people work in the land/environment sector;
• Gas prices and/or taxes are the only things leading to environmental discussion; and
• They haven’t taken sciences since grade 10, at which point they were focused on girls, snapping pencils, and shooting rubber bands, etc…

Give them a place and they will come

Believe me, the fact that I may have a slight monopoly in that area on Brazen is not the only reason I want this category to exist. It will give people an opportunity to share experiences, and add another reason to write posts other than how to fit in, be productive, and stay married (all of which are good topics).

Give us a place to go, and we will tread there. New leaders will emerge because - after all - are we not curious, problem-driven, and motivated people?

Like our social media - it has to exist before people can flock there.

LA River Part II: Restoration vs. Social Enhancement

Today, ecosystem care is a response. When we’ve trashed something enough that people start to feel the effects, it’s time for a ‘fix’. When it’s time for a fix, it is usually up to money - and whether it’s there or not - to decide which direction a project moves. Usually, when projects won’t turn quick profit the money won’t show up. The LA River group is likely led by business groups and advised by scientists; to find the money and think long-term, respectively.

The LA River project is one that I’ve written up as being rather groundbreaking. Its goals are listed below, and are predominantly social and economic. It is only groundbreaking because the publicity it will get - and following movements it will spark could be great. But I’m afraid that it may not be as landscape focused as it should be. Landscape restoration (which is what ‘restoration’ should be) takes into account the natural systems that surround a system, as well as the ecosystem at hand. That’s called connectivity, and should be a part of the initial planning phase for any restoration project no matter its size.

LA’s river project looks more like an ‘enhancement’, and much of the riverbank may turn out like this project in San Antonio:

Fair enough. It cannot be denied that the river is highly urbanized. Can we hope that the project will be designed to allow for the river to maintain itself naturally, through natural steam flow and tributaries? Probably not. What I do like is the community awareness and pride aspect. I just hope it encompasses some eco-based pride, and not just prime picnic space.

Are the project leaders seeing, but not particularly focusing on the greater story of the ecosystem? One needs to remember that Los Angeles rests on what was in fact a wetland and river system. All of which was eventually paved over, even the rivers. Where do rivers run? How will the ocean react? One of the first things that should be planned and assessed is the river enhancement’s effect on the ocean. To name but a few we should be seeing increased sedimentation, perhaps less water, and more organic matter. All of which would be okay (with an adjustment period), but the effects would have to be accounted for very early on in the process.

As it stands the publicized goals of the project are largely social, and mildly natural:

• …create economic development opportunities to enhance and improve River-adjacent communities by providing open space, housing, retail spaces such as restaurants and cafes, educational facilities, and places for other public institutions.
• Improve the environment, enhance water quality, improve water resources, and improve the ecological functioning of the River.
• Provide public access to the River.
• Provide significant recreation space and open space, new trails, and improve natural habitats to support wildlife.
• Preserve and enhance the flood control features of the River.
• Foster a growth in community awareness of the Los Angeles River, and pride in the Los Angeles River.

On restoration background, this is a good story showing that by restoring one element, others will naturally follow suit:
…”Part of the reason the Picayune Strand (Florida Everglades) is succeeding is because its objectives and strategies were sound. The project’s core initiative, to restore water flow, was right on the money. Restoring the flow of water impeded by canals brought back the flora, and now the fauna follows.

Though we have yet to see its real development, the LA River project stinks of visual enhancement. Like filling a lake with a certain species to ‘enhance’ the fishing experience, I fear ‘open green space’, (read: grass) so that people can walk and enjoy the scenery whilst shopping. It does have its charms, but serves a human purpose first. It’s no secret that they’re calling it revitalization, and if it weren’t so community oriented I’d bitch even louder. Oh, the horror!

re Revitalization : What do you think should be most vital to the LA project? Any comments regarding if city planning, in general, is natural systems focused at all?