Valley Futures

On Thursday, April 30th from 7:00 – 8:30 p.m. at the Big Picture Theater in Waitsfield, Sharon resident Dee Gish will deliver an educational slideshow on climate change, updating the information presented in the film “An Inconvenient Truth.” Ms. Gish, one of 1,000 Americans personally trained by Nobel Laureate Al Gore to spread the message about the challenges of and solutions to the climate crisis, is connected with “The Climate Project”, a non-profit organization with the mission of increasing public awareness of the climate crisis at a grassroots level in the U.S. and abroad. The evening’s events will be presented by the Mad River Valley Interfaith Council and generously underwritten by Carbon Shredders and the Mad River Valley Rotary Club. There will also be an opportunity to learn more about the nearly twenty organizations who are making unique and particular efforts to provide a sustainable and hopeful future for our immediate and worldwide community. Waitsfield Cable’s channel 44 will be airing Al Gore’s original film, “An Inconvenient Truth” the week of April 19th, a week that includes “Earth Day” on April 22 – originally celebrated for the first time in 1970 by over twenty million people. The presentation is free of charge, there will be free CFL’s available, and a simple, affordable supper will be offered in the Big Picture Café prior to the event.

For further information, contact Amalia Veralli at 496-3162

Q. What is “The Climate Project,” and how did you get involved?

A. The Climate Project, a nonprofit organization based in Nashville, TN, began operations in June 2006 with the mission of increasing public awareness of the climate crisis at a grassroots level in the U.S. and abroad. By April 2007, a diverse group of 1,200 volunteers from throughout the U.S. had been trained by Al Gore himself to present a version of the slide show featured in the Academy Award-winning film An Inconvenient Truth. As of October 2008, we have delivered nearly 20,000 presentations and reached a combined audience of 2 million people. I was fortunate enough to get selected for the 5th training session in January, 2007. Since then, I’ve given over 30 presentations to varied audiences – from civic groups, churches, colleges and universities, and open public forums.

Q. When did you first see “An Inconvenient Truth,” and how did it impact you?

A. I actually read the book first, when it was first published in 2006. The book did not contain any information that particularly surprised me, since intuitively I knew just by casual observation that climate change/global warming was happening now, and at an alarming rate. The book did inspire me, however, to learn more, to see the film, and to sound the climate change alarm to anyone willing to listen. The most surprising thing, to me, about the book and the film, was how many people at the time were NOT willing to listen and to dismiss An Inconvenient Truth as politically motivated.

Q. To what extent have you yourself researched the conclusions surrounding anthropogenic climate change?

A. I try to keep on top of the latest research as it emerges. The Climate Project is great at providing internal notices and links to many relevant scientific studies. I have the NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center), GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) and other research sites bookmarked on my web browser and refer to them often. I’ve also tried to beef up my basic ecological knowledge base by reading environmental classics like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, and I’m currently reading Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman. I am neither an climate expert, nor a scientist, however, and so also truly appreciate mainstream sources on climate change such as National Geographic and Scientific American.

Q. How do you respond to critics who suggest that global warming is caused by sunspots, or other non-human-caused phenomena?

A. There are definitely historical cycles to warming and cooling periods of the earth. For example, every 40,000 years, the tilt of the earth on its axis changes by nearly 1 degree, then back again. This small change in the tilt of earth’s axis has corresponded with some of the conclusions of the 100,000 year ice age cycles. We are currently in one of these interglacial, cyclical warming periods, with the last ice age ending nearly 11,000 years ago. The dramatic rise in global average temperatures that we have seen especially in the last 30 years, however, falls well outside of any warming that scientists can explain by natural and cyclical phenonemon such as changes in the earth’s orbit, axis tilt, or sunspot activity. Skeptics also need to revisit their elementary school science concerning the greenhouse effect. There is not a single reputable scientist that does not agree that when greenhouse gases are increased in our atmosphere, higher temperatures will result. Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, nitrous oxide, and methane, trap more of the sun’s infrared radiation that would otherwise radiate back into space. By burning fossil fuels and deforesting many areas of the planet, mankind has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to 385 parts per million. The current level of CO2 in our atmosphere is much higher than any time in the past 650,000 years of earth’s history.

Q. What suggestions and solutions do you have for anyone interested in becoming involved in these issues?

A. Do not wait. Jump in with both feet. The climate crisis is such an immediate emergency. After educating yourself on the science behind climate change, the most effective (and simplest) thing individuals can do is to correspond with your elected officials and urge them to pass sweeping emissions reduction legislation. Write or call your local selectmen, State Representatives, Congressmen and Senators. Send them pictures of your children, write personal stories, tell them why you are concerned about global warming. Do whatever it takes to persuade them to initiate and vote for legislation that invests in energy efficiency, renewable energy, coal plant moratoriums, and CO2 emission reductions. Sign up with organizations such as The League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, 1Sky, 350.org, and Sierra Club. These organizations will notify you when an important piece of relevant legislation is coming to a vote. They will also prompt you to get involved with international, national and local environmental activities. 350.org, for example, is organizing an international day of activities on October 24, 2009, six weeks ahead of the world-wide climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December. 350.org wants everyone to understand that scientists believe the “safe” upper limit of CO2 in our atmosphere is 350 parts per million. This day of action is intended organize global citizens to call for a fair global climate treaty. You are welcomed and encouraged to be a part of the movement, by visiting www.350.org.

Tags: Energy, Habitat by Rob Williams
No Comments »

“We suffer from a fiscal cancer,” explains U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. “It is growing within us. And if we do not treat it, it will have catastrophic consequences for our country.”

So begins I.O.U.S.A. – one of the most disturbing documentaries of the past year.

 

The film spotlights our nation’s mounting fiscal crisis – providing both a contemporary lens and historical context for understanding how today’s “debt-driven society” emerged, and what we might do to resolve one of the most intractable difficulties of our time.

“The facts aren’t liberal or conservative,” as one of the film’s observers, explains, “The facts aren’t Democrat or Republican.”

This is an issue that affects us all.

Begin with a question: how high is the federal debt?

Millions?

Billions?

Try 8.7 trillion dollars.

Just how much money is that?

One way to wrap your mind around the enormity of this number is to compare it with the United States’ GDP.

The federal debt, as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), is 64%.

Put another way, the U.S. government is now borrowing 22 cents of every dollar it spends.

The film’s heroes are Americans working tirelessly to educate the country’s citizens about the nature of the crisis: the Concord Coalition, a think tank focusing on the fiscal crisis, concerned young people, politicians like Paul Tsongas, Ross Perot and Ron Paul (no mention of Ralph Nader, oddly). The villains? Gutless government officials seem to bear the brunt of the film’s quiet outrage.

I.O.U.S.A. suggests that the 21st century United States faces four serious deficits at this particular moment.

1. A Budget Deficit

In 1789, the national debt was $70 million dollars – 40% of the federal budget. The Founders worked quickly, the film suggests, to pay this down. A series of wars – Civil, Great, World War II – brought cycles of financial hardship to the federal government. During the last thirty years, the U.S. government has seen more than 30 annual budget deficits, and only five surpluses. But it was the Reagan years, oddly enough, given the “Morning in America- Government is Bad” rhetoric, that saw the federal budget deficit skyrocket, with a moment of sanity during the Clinton/Bob Rubin “go go” 1990s.

2. A Savings Deficit

This section opens with the brilliant “Saturday Night Live” skit mocking “saved money” (Steve Martin at his best – “Shouldn’t I buy stuff before I have the money”?) and focuses on Americans’ propensity to spend cash they don’t have. Citizens’ savings rate is the lowest it has been in decades, a result of our “live for today, easy credit, consumption-oriented” attitude. Is this a result of personal choice? The film suggests that a variety of forces are at play here: the collapse of a “sound money” supply and the Federal Reserve’s tendency to encourage enthusiastic paper money printing and debt-driven spending in the name of fighting inflation. The film channels Texas republican and maverick Ron Paul here, the champion of a strict/hard money policy, taking on Alan “irrational exuberance” Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, in Congressional hearings.

3. A Balance of Payment/Trade Deficit

The U.S. is dead last among all nations if the world in terms of a “trade deficit.” Which is to say – the United States is buying more than we are selling, with foreign creditors carrying much of our borrowed debt. China, the country (along with Saudi Arabia and Israel) with whom the U.S. has a special relationship, is the second largest holder of U.S. T-Bills, and makes all of our stuff in their factories, saving us the trouble of doing little more than buying their manufactured goods. Need I say more?

4. A Leadership Deficit

So – we owe roughly $70,000 per American family in debt, according to Seymour Hersh’s “National Debt Clock.” And, while the deficit doubled on Mr. Bush’s watch (such as it was), it is too easy to blame one party or another for a systemic and long-term problem that has a variety of roots: see the very heart of our national banking system, for example, and our own personal predilections.

As this crisis’ “toxic mix” deepens – entering 2009, we’re staring a $10 trillion federal debt in the face – what can we do?

As individuals, we can pay down our own personal debts, stop spending money we don’t have, SAVE money (huh?), do more with less, explore local currencies, support local and employee-owned businesses, and explore other financial alternatives to the current status quo, including living within our means. Easier said than done, of course.

At the national level? Full disclosure: I’m a secessionist who believes that the U.S. Empire is too deeply broken to fix. The Roman Empire fell, the film suggests, for three reasons: moral decay, imperial overstretch, and domestic financial collapse. No easy answers here, especially because elite lending classes (read: the rich and powerful) have figured out how to game the system to their best advantage, leaving the rest of us poor slobs holding the “debt bag” and wondering: what the heck is going on?

I.O.U.S.A. helps to answer this very important question.

Tags: Arts and Media, Land Bank, Local Currency by Rob Williams
No Comments »

This article below was written by Jens Hilke and printed in the winter edition of Natural Heritage Harmonies, a publication of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. The regional, or valley, perspective of habitat fragmentation underscores the importance of the MRV’s Forests, Wildlife, Communities Project.

Several years ago, I was involved in a project to reshoot a series of aerial photos of washed out bridges and flooded buildings taken just after the 1927 flood . Our team logged many hours in a small Cessna flying the river valleys of Vermont trying to capture the same angles that a photographer had used some eighty years prior so that we could document the changes seen in the landscape, creating a matched pair of “then and now” photos. Flying affords an incomparable macro perspective. Terrain details blur and you’re left with a mosaic of towns and forests and farmland. The more we looked at the photos and then at the distant terrain out the plane window, the more history blurred as we imagined how clearing for farming in the 1800s led to the flooding and erosion seen in 1927, and how those fields have grown up into today’s varied habitats.

So, when we ask the question “what is good quality fish and wildlife habitat on our land,” we should begin by “looking out the plane window”—adopting the birdseye view of the mosaic and patterns of forests and fields, as well as the history of an ever changing landscape.

A few landscape patterns jump out immediately. We are likely to see broad expanses of forests that haven’t been developed. They are bordered by roads and buildings but include continuous mixes of natural communities, from evergreen and deciduous forests to meadows, streams and wetlands. I call these areas contiguous habitat blocks and use them to represent biological diversity. The mix of varied topography, climate and physical features (such as bedrock), produces niches in which more wildlife species can find homes.

So, bigger blocks of contiguous habitat generally have more species diversity than smaller blocks. This gives us a sense of biological diversity based simply on the size of the blocks. It isn’t an absolutely comprehensive measure since there are many rare species and significant natural communities that fit in small parcels. But this landscape perspective gives us a quick and easy sense of where diversity might be greatest.

Now these blocks often include working forests, and lands important for recreation and other values compatible with wildlife habitat. So we’re not defining lands that are free from human use, but simply lands that aren’t developed.

In many places in Vermont we see isolated forest “islands” surrounded by development and agriculture. This forest fragmentation is a problem of both reducing the size of the forest patches as well as degrading the quality. We’re still losing wildlife habitat as development continues to isolate forest blocks and as development creeps into forest blocks, hiding under the canopy but still reducing habitat quality.

Landscape context is important. There is no minimum or maximum number of acres to define contiguous habitat. Instead consider the size of the contiguous habitat block as well as all the associated species of plants and animals, within the context of the level of fragmentation in the region. Habitat configuration also has an impact. For example, an area of forest habitat that is highly irregular in shape, with a high degree of forest edge may be less functional for some species than forest habitat of the same acreage with a regular shape. So as these contiguous blocks become more isolated and have more edge, they become less diverse and functional.
We can see from our birdseye view that many of our forests or contiguous habitat blocks are often connected by narrow bands of greenspace. Sometimes these “connecting lands” follow river corridors, sometimes they are upland. Connecting lands (corridors) may include roads, lightly developed lands or even less suitable lands but still allow wildlife species to cross between big blocks of forests and wetlands. On this landscape scale, this connectivity function is incredibly important, effectively increasing the size of habitat blocks. Even though it might be clear that these connections aren’t as good quality habitat as the bigger blocks, they are incredibly important functionally.

At a landscape scale, we often look at the needs of far-ranging species such as black bear or moose as representatives for a variety of the smaller-ranging species that live within the bear’s home range. If we manage enough land in a way that allows for these far-ranging species to survive, we’ve also allowed for the host of smaller-ranging, often lesser-known, species within that block.

As we look at our birdseye view, we must keep in mind that it is the history of the land use that has helped form this mosaic. For example, some of today’s white pine stands were badly eroded sheep pasture in the 1800s and prior to that they were likely mixed hardwoods. This serves to remind us that the landscape is constantly changing, reacting to people’s decisions for hundreds of years now. Our mosaic is in large part a pattern of our own making and has shown many other patterns over the land’s long history. The land use decisions we make today, that improve or degrade wildlife habitat quality, will be clearly visible in the patterns of our landscape tomorrow.

Tags: Forest Wildlife Communities Project, Habitat by Joshua Schwartz
No Comments »

In director Stephen Daldry’s film “The Reader,” a fifteen-year-old boy named Michael Berg (David Kross) growing up in post-WW II Germany finds himself in lust with an attractive if mysterious thirty-six-year old woman, Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslett, in an Oscar winning performance).

By day, Berg is a high school student and Schmitz a tram conductress. By evening, the two are lovers who strike up an unusual relationship, one in which Michael finds himself reading the classics – D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Anton Chekov’s The Lady With The Little Dog, Homer’s The Odyssey – to Hanna, who loves to be read to. “Let’s change the order, kid,” she says early on. “First you read to me, and then we make love.” Literature and lust define their secretive relationship, with the occasional bicycle ride into the summer countryside, paid for by Berg’s sale of his stamp collection.

But there is much more to this story.

The film is told as a series of flashbacks, of sorts.

We see an older Michael Berg, six years down the road, in law school at Heidelberg, in which he attends the trial of six former Auschwitz guards who allowed Jewish women in the camp to burn to death. One of the guards turns out to be Hanna, and Berg discovers that she is illiterate, and had the prisoners read to her. She is scapegoated for the crimes of the guards, and, accepting her fate, is sentenced to life in prison, while Berg refuses to visit her, ashamed of their past together.

As an adult, Berg (played by Ralph Fiennes) marries, has a daughter, but remains emotionally distant. He discovers the books he read to Hannah in his youth, and dictates their contents into a tape recorder, sending the tapes to Hanna in prison, who uses them to teach herself how to read. Intense, yes. And the film’s climax, which I won’t reveal here, is even more so.

Neither of the two main characters is all that likeable in this film, and the second half of the story unfolds too quickly for the viewer to feel any sense of sympathy for the situations our two protagonist find themselves in. But Winslett is solid in this story of truth, reconciliation, and justice, and Fiennes more than holds his own. And, while not a film for the faint of heart, “The Reader,” like “Lives of Others” and other historically contextualized films that explore the boundaries of human relationships under extreme conditions, is worth the time.

Tags: Arts and Media by Rob Williams
No Comments »