OCR Text |
Show THE ZEPHYR/DECEMBER 2005-JANUARY 2006 going to become a nation of 400 million people by the middle of this century?" For instance, if we can tind a way to more etticiently use and produce electricity, so that a United States with double today s population would use no more energy than now, would that be considered a great environmental victory? I otten hear liberals say that ‘conservation technologies' will actually stimulate economic growth and create more jobs and expand the despair,” then so be it. _ Despite our ditferences I appreciate the opportunity to discuss those differences. As you ow, many da bunkermentality when itcomes to the truly hard questions....J§ Gross Domestic product. Is thata good thing? You recently wrote, in an email to Ray Wheeler, "Yes, population increase is the problem that undoes all ettorts to build a sustainable, ecologically-compatible life-support system for homo sap.Given what I see in the modeling of the Limits of Growth and other sources like Murfin, I think we are already past the point of no return for massive population reduction by 'natural" forces. All you have to do is look at the declining per capita production of grains, fish, and all other forms of food to read the writing on Malthus‘ wall. We are very close to the point where there will be no "surplus" grain or food to send to third-world nations suffering famine from drought, pestilence, and/or war. We haven't taken care of the population and carrying capacity overshoot problem intelligently, so Momma Gaia will do so in her usual fashion." If that's true, why do we waste our time doing things like praising the Pitkin County, Colorado commissioners for requiring more energy-efficient homes for the billionaires in Aspen? If a world-wide economic collapse is coming, does it really matter if we replace all gas-powered SUVs with more efticient hybrids? Isn't this just 'Band-aid on the avulsed wound’ stuff? Why aren't we demanding that we ALL pursue a simpler, less consumptive litestyle? Why not encourage us to prepare for the inevitable? Those of us who are living that simple lite when the hammer falls would be much better prepared to deal with ‘Momma Gaia,"so why do we continue to promote (or at least remain conspicuously silent on) an environmental strategy like the amenities economy,’ for example,that encourages unlimited growth and development and the ever increasing consumption of natural resources instead of demanding sacrifice and true economic reform? I dont think being honest amounts to ‘hopeless despair." I know that you're trying to find something positive in all of this, Lance, but how can you, for example, defend the likes of Cloudrock, the mega-resort development being planned near Moab? You recently commented in the Moab Times-Independent: "As to Cloudrock, I think demonizing the development is misplaced energy. To give credit where credit is due, every firm Mr. Liss has hired to do engineering, planning, or architectural work for Cloudrock is first rate. In every encounter I've had with him he came across as sincere and gave voice to progressive ideas and values.” What is progressive about a $600,000 building lot? Despite his public relations claims that he will downsize the project, his development targets clients who consume massive amounts i of natural resources. Mr. Liss'’s attempts fo assuage the concerns of the fal ity have been incredibly successtul. How can that be? Itmay be true that his "engineering, planning and architectural” associates are top notch. But it’s still a mega devilopment, to be built on hundreds of acres of open space and out of the economic reach of 90% of Moab's current population. It begs the question, "Is rape also ok if it's done well?” Liberal Democrats aren‘ a hell of a lot ditterent 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 tor 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 thatsees 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. [plan to publish in an upcoming Zephyr some population projections by the US Census Bureau, prepared in the early-90s. In predicting future US growth, they offered three models. The worst case scenario envisioned a U.S. population exceeding ONE BILLION people by 2100. It also projected, in its worst case scenario, that the US population would reach 295,911,000 by 2005. In 2005 we are approaching 298 million...we are running three mullion ahead of the worst case scenario! So while, for instance, you continue to believe that the Great Plains will remain empty because "the climate sucks" and "there's nothing interesting’ to do there," if our countr grows to a billion people by 2100, finding a place where there's nothing ‘interesting'to do might well become the most cherished kind of landscape to experience, regardless of the inclement weather. It would seem to me that if Armagedden is the only viable answer to the population problem, we at least have a responsibility to prepare for it. And that means being painfully honest. Instead most environmentalists seem to be embracing teel-good' causes that allow them to think they're contributing to "The Cause," while continuing to ignore the problem. “HATES ED ABBEY... Dear Mr. Stiles: Please consider printing the following “alternative view’ of Abbey in your feedback section: Commenting on the state of environmentalism in "The Road Goes On Forever" (Canyon Country Zephyr, Oct/Nov 2005) Mike Roselle asserts "Ed Abbey is still the best example of what is good about our movement." This is one of many accolades for Ed Abbey found repeatedly in the pages of the Zephyr and other tal publicat Edward Abbey a model of environmentalism: nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, everything about his life screams HYPOCRITE. If he was concerned about overpopulation, he certainly did not have the self-discipline to keep his libido in check (or use birth control), having had multiple children with multiple women. His outdoor excursions were the antithesis of low-impact, generally consisting of cross-country forays in a Ford pick-up, at the end of which he would stagger out, torch a bonfire and pass out. (Lest we forget, he was an irresponsible alcoholic who died from complications of cirrhosis of the liver). I admit Desert Solitaire is a good read if a bit juvenile, but most of his work is misogynist tripe. A true conservationist ethic embodies discipline and unglamorous hard work. In contrast, Abbey represents the worst type of environmentalist: all talk. Sincerely, James F. Lombardo Layton, UT Editor’s Reply: I tind these kinds of hate letters bewildering. As far as I can determine, Dr. Lombardo 1s, otherwise, an intelligent and progressive man who has publicly opposed the Iraq War and toxic waste incinerators. Yet he seems to personally despise Ed Abbey, to the point he would take the time to write a letter like this. For the record, Ed Abbey never called himself a ‘model environmentalist." He called Aunself a writer and a human being and always acknowledged his own shortcomings. He complained frequently about being called an ‘environmental guru. "I'm not a leader," he otten said, "I'm not an activist, I'm not a role model...I just like to throw words around." He did THAT very well obviously, because 17 years atter his death, Abbey still gets under the skin of people like Lombardo, who respond in a most malevolent and bitter and unpleasant way. People like him never got' Abbey. Some of his staunchest supporters didn't either. My take on Abbey was always that he looked at life with a wink anda nudge and many, at both ends of the political spectrum, took him way too seriously. It's why in the last year of his life he went out and bought a gas-guzzling red Cadillac convertible, just to annoy and bewilder his friends and enemies alike. : =o : If other people like Roselle and me, among many, choose to honor Abbey, it's not something that Ed sought or should be attacked for. It's our choice. Bottom line. Ed's personal lite should have NOTHING to do with his role as a reluctant public figure. Fis stature, whether interpreted to be large or small, should be based on his writing, not his drinking or sexual behavior. Following Lombardo’s line of thinking, I can only assume that he also supported Republican efforts to impeach Bill Clinton. My take was always that Clinton’s personal life should never have come into play with Ken Starr and his henchmen. Clearly, for Lombardo to be consistent, he must also align himself with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who takes demented pleasure in trying to destroy good but imperfect men....JS SEND YOUR FEEDBACK COMMENTS TO: ecezephyr@frontiernet.net moabzephyr@yahoo.com The fact is, in this Global Economy, an expanding population is absolutely hecessary---it requires that we constantly think of new products and services for that burgeoning population to buy. That's where the cycle has to be broken. It would be painful in the shortterm but no more so than waiting for Momma Gaia. Environmentalists at least have the responsibility to say all this out loud. If that kind of plain speaking causes "hopeless 7 a — Wy! WHAT A DAY I'M HAVIN... Meet me at McStiff’s... : ee CONDEMNED TURKEYS OF THE WORLD! Eat your ‘last meal; with us! We promise not to eat YOU ‘til Va if1 of iy Restaurant & Microbrewery 57 S. MAIN in the WESTERN PLAZA 259-BEER Wy 4\ you've finished your dessert. |