Archive for the 'Environmentalism' Category

Babies, family planning, environmental stewardship and the needs of the preborn: the real roots of the culture war

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 05, 2009
in Birth control and contraception, Christianity, Environmentalism, Faith, Favorite Posts 2009, Feminism, Global Feminism, Kabbalah and Science
. 82 Comments

Regular readers know that I tend to discourage my conservative commenters from derailing threads by questioning the very suppositions on which this blog is based. This is a feminist blog, for example, and one which seeks to explore various things from a feminist perspective. This is not a place to question whether the feminist lens is an appropriate one through which to see the world; similarly, a Calvinist blog which seeks to offer a Calvinist perspective on current events is not the place to question the essential tenets of Calvinism. This is why I read quite a few very conservative blogs, but rarely — if ever — comment there. I’m interested in what is said, but since I reject the fundamental premises on which their worldview is based, I don’t think I have much to offer to the conversation. It would be like insisting on speaking Finnish to a group which prefers to dialogue in Thai.

That said, reading all these blogs, I’m increasingly convinced that the core of the split between social conservatives and progressives in this country revolves around not abortion or gay marriage, but a more fundamental disagreement: population. Religious conservatives have become increasingly vocal about their desire to see larger and larger families; indeed, their arguments against abortion and gay marriage seem less couched these days in an assumption that these are intrinsic evils, and more in the language of concern that these practices pose a threat to the large families which the right venerates above all else. Hostility to feminism is surely a sine qua non of contemporary social conservatism, but reading what the pundits on the other side have to say, it seems more and more obvious that their hatred of feminism is rooted in the recognition that increased sovereignty for women over their own bodies is inextricably linked with the reasonable desire to not have, in Amanda Marcotte’s happy phrase, their “vaginas turn into clown cars.”

Feminists and environmentalists have formed common cause over the vital issue of family planning. Those who believe that the world’s resources are already over-taxed by humans whose behavior is frequently parasitic have allies in those who believe that women can and should be encouraged to find fulfillment in pursuits other than motherhood. The longer women wait to marry or reproduce, the less likely they are to have large families; the more opportunities we can create for women to pursue happiness outside the home, the greater the likelihood they will delay marriage and childbirth. The intersection of sound environmental policy and the campaign to give women the precious right of personal autonomy is a fortuitous one indeed! And almost to a man and woman, social conservatives despise this alliance, one which is changing family structures across the western world — and increasing the possibility for greater happiness for the earth and its creatures.

Here, replete with grammatical error on top of grammatical error, is a piece by David Goldman in First Things: What Should Conservatives do about Obamanomics? It takes the “we must have big families” argument to a new level, by suggesting that the collapse of the real estate bubble is due — wait for it, can you guess? — to, yes, birth control:

The first thing that conservatives have to tell Americans is: “You are poorer because you failed to bring up enough children. The decline of the traditional family is undermining the American economy.”

Right. Apparently, that’s why the countries with the highest birth rates, like Sierra Leone and Chad are so rich, and countries with among the lowest, like Sweden and Switzerland, are so desperately poor?

This isn’t the place to point out the risible foundations of the “we must have more babies or the world will collapse” argument. Plenty of economists have pointed out that the “growth” model can be replaced by a healthy “sustainability” model. The transition may be wrenching, but far less so than the apocalyptic impact on our planet of ever-growing voracious human appetites.

What I’m wondering — to get to the point of this post — is why religious conservatives are so eager to have large families? I get the economic argument (we need more future workers to maintain retired ones), but the churches were urging their flocks to “be fruitful and multiply” long before anyone thought up modern pension schemes, or modern feminism. Beyond the instinct to reproduce and survive, what are the theological roots of this obsession with making babies?

I know my Mormon friends believe, or so they tell me, that there are countless billions of “pre-born souls” wandering around up in the ether, each longing to be born. Thus, having a large family is an act not of irresponsibility but of self-sacrifice: parents give up their freedom in exchange for the satisfaction of helping as many of these pre-born souls as possible become incarnate. (My LDS friends, please tell me if I’ve misrepresented the idea.) Some of my friends in the Kabbalah Centre believe that in the Beginning, God created a “vessel” which then shattered into trillions of tiny sparks. Each of these sparks is a sentient soul, and each longs to be born into human flesh for the sake of reassembling the broken vessel and completing what in Hebrew is called tikkun olam, the repair of the world. Thus for Mormons and Kabbalists, family size limitation is selfish on an eschatalogical level — it delays the final redemption and robs the “pre-born” (the term sends chills down my spine) of their shot at participating in the glories of incarnation. Continue reading ‘Babies, family planning, environmental stewardship and the needs of the preborn: the real roots of the culture war’

“We must unhumanize our views a little”: on Kotkin, California, and the parasitical human animal

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 23, 2009
in California, Environmentalism, Poetry and Politics
. 9 Comments

A deeply misguided story in this week’s Newsweek magazine about my state: Death of the Dream, written by Joel Kotkin.

For decades, California has epitomized America’s economic strengths: technological excellence, artistic creativity, agricultural fecundity and an intrepid entrepreneurial spirit. Yet lately California has projected a grimmer vision of a politically divided, economically stagnant state. Last week its legislature cut a deal to close its $42 billion budget deficit, but its larger problems remain.

California has returned from the dead before, most recently in the mid-1990s. But the odds that the Golden State can reinvent itself again seem long. The buffoonish current governor and a legislature divided between hysterical greens, public-employee lackeys and Neanderthal Republicans have turned the state into a fiscal laughingstock. Meanwhile, more of its middle class migrates out while a large and undereducated underclass (much of it Latino) faces dim prospects. It sometimes seems the people running the state have little feel for the very things that constitute its essence—and could allow California to reinvent itself, and the American future, once again.

It doesn’t get much better. Continue reading ‘“We must unhumanize our views a little”: on Kotkin, California, and the parasitical human animal’

30 days in, and hope is very much alive

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 19, 2009
in Environmentalism and Politics
. 3 Comments

Barack Obama has been president for thirty days, and to believe some reports, has proved a disappointment to liberals. Though I am far from a full-fledged political junkie any more (in high school, I could name all 100 senators; now I could probably get 60-70 at best), like a great many people I’ve been following these early hopeful days of 44 as closely as I can.

Remembering the old adage about politics being the art of the possible, I count myself very pleased with how things are going — particularly on the environmental front. These stories have had me pinching myself with excitement:

EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

Oil and Gas Leases Needed Scrutiny

A Green Stimulus that Wins Praise from the Sierra Club

Vilsack calls for Stricter Food Labels

And the right-wing is worried about increased animal rights influence from within the administration. May their fears be well-founded, and may the estimable Cass Sunstein live up to his billing as an advocate for non-human sentient creatures.

I haven’t loved everything Obama has done; some of his cabinet appointments have left me crestfallen, though Hilda Solis at Labor and Steven Chu at Energy were the two perfect nominees for their respective posts. I’m increasingly optimistic about Eric Holder, our new AG, after his frank and brave “nation of cowards” speech yesterday. And I think Lisa Jackson will do a terrific job at EPA. Get us a strong family planning advocate in at HHS, and we’re in business.

I never believed Bill Clinton (the only other Democrat to hold the presidency in my adult life) was a progressive. The left forgave him over and over again, largely because he was a man so lucky in his enemies. We mistakenly believed that anyone who could arouse the wrath of the likes of Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde and Bob Barr and Jerry Falwell had to be “one of us”. But the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, and Bill deceived progressives more than once with that tack. I sense Obama is well to the left of the 42nd president, perhaps our most genuine progressive since FDR, to whom he is often compared. That may be overly optimistic, but at least some of what has been said or done these past thirty days has given me cause to believe it might be so.

Obama’s Green Team: Grade B so far, but still incomplete

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on December 16, 2008
in Environmentalism and Politics
. 5 Comments

President-elect Obama has rounded out his cabinet with the announcement this week of appointees for the departments of the Interior, Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

I’m not a single-issue voter, but I certainly elevate the environment to a place of primus inter pares when it comes to the factors I weigh in selecting a candidate for whom to vote. And while the line-up which Obama has presented is not without its flaws, at first glance it seems like a good group. Of course, in the aftermath of the disastrous Bush Administration’s environmental policies (particularly at Energy and Interior) almost anything would look like a whopping improvement. Though like most progressives, I would have preferred Raul Grijalva of Arizona at Interior (rather than the apparent nominee, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado), I don’t see anyone unacceptable in the lot.

I’m still waiting for the post I care most about: Agriculture Secretary. Considering that animal agriculture produces more carbon emissions than all the jets in the sky, it’s screamingly obvious that agriculture and environmental policy are closely intertwined. Given the coming battles over genetically-modified foods, crop diversity, water policy, animal rights, farm worker rights and so forth, it’s clear that the Ag Secretary will be one of (if not the most) vital players in advancing a progressive agenda on the domestic front. I’m happy to say the Nation agrees with me today!

So far, I give Obama’s environmental team a B. Depending upon whom he selects at Agriculture, that final mark could move up or down one full grade. I know it’s too much to expect Gene Baur, but Michael Pollan would send me over the moon. On the other hand, if Obama picks someone in the pocket of Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, or Hormel — then the chance of progress for workers, consumers, the earth and its creatures is much reduced.

The Best and the Good Enough: Abolitionists, Welfarists and the agonizing quarrel over the Humane Farms Initiative

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 23, 2008
in Animal Rights, Environmentalism, Politics and Veganism
. 8 Comments

The initial polling looks good for Proposition 2 here in California, the Humane Farms Initiative. Backed by a coalition of animal welfare, veterinary, and family farming groups, the proposition is modeled on initiatives already successfully passed in New Jersey, Florida, Colorado, and Arizona. It’s just about the simplest initiative in town, requiring that every farm animal in California be allowed the freedom to stand up, turn around, and spread its wings (or other limbs.) Implementation will not be required for nearly seven years, until 2015. The proposition is endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, most of the leading veterinary groups in the state, and a variety of small family farms that struggle to compete with the heavily mechanized agricultural behemoths (the ones, of course, who use the harshest confinement practices.)

The proposition has attracted bi-partisan support. No one would call congressmen Elton Gallegly (R-Ventura) and John Campbell (R-Orange County) liberals; both have written to their colleagues asking for congressional backing for Proposition 2. (See PDF here). Gallegly in particular represents a district with a heavy agricultural presence, making his support all the more noteworthy. The primary public opposition comes, of course, from the biggest of the agricultural producers, along with a loud minority of veterinarians who insist that current confinement practices (in which veal calves cannot stand up, and chickens in battery cages cannot spread their wings) are humane. But there are others, normally on the opposite side of the issue from Big Ag, who are also strongly against Prop 2. Continue reading ‘The Best and the Good Enough: Abolitionists, Welfarists and the agonizing quarrel over the Humane Farms Initiative’

Primates on limits

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on July 28, 2008
in Anglican Communion, Christianity and Environmentalism
. 0 Comments

The 2008 Lambeth Conference in England enters its final week, and it is still unclear whether the worldwide Anglican Communion will hold together. I blogged my thoughts ten days ago. Many sites are covering the conference; check out Episcopal Life, the Guardian, Integrity USA’s, or Kendall Harmon’s.

Fights over women bishops and same-sex marriage are getting most of the coverage, but I’m relieved that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself is still willing to focus on other, perhaps even more vital issues. In Saturday’s Guardian, Rowan Williams offers a terrific reflection: A New Spiritual Politics of Limits. The archbishop writes:

We live in a world of finite space and finite resource. Endless trajectories of growth are not realistic; and our own rising “oceans” of food and fuel prices are a stark reminder that scarcity is not someone else’s problem in today’s and tomorrow’s world.

Somehow, conventional political discourse has not dealt with this very successfully. Time was when part of the wisdom of conservative politics was about limits, realism, adjusting to certain givens in the social and material environment, and moderating expectations. Unfortunately, this proved all too often to be a way of recommending the disadvantaged to accept their fate; and progressive politics was thus frequently allied to a passionate belief in endless possibilities of self-improvement and more sophisticated control of the environment. You have only to think of the utopian aspirations of the French Revolution or of the Soviet Union in the 1920s.

And when a drained and abused environment takes its revenge, we seem often very confused. Rather bizarrely, the environmental family of issues is seen in some quarters as a sort of liberal conspiracy, another turn of the screw for liberal guilt, and therefore to be treated with the same robust scorn as all other fashionable and self-indulgent moralising. But at the same time, a progressive politics still finds it very hard to let go of its legacy. If emancipation and the advance of human capacity don’t simply mean economic growth without limit, what do they mean?

Excellent question, and I appreciate the dig at so-called “conservatives” who are, in practice and in theory, anything but when it comes to their attitude towards conservation for the good of our planet and all the life upon it.

The Archbishop wrote in response to something raised by the Bishop of Polynesia: rising ocean levels are, within a short time, going to make much of his island-chain diocese uninhabitable. In that light, some of the quarreling over pelvic morality seems, well, self-indulgent at best and shamelessly irresponsible at worst. The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA raised this same issue in her Easter Sermon this year. Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote:

We are beginning to be aware of the ways in which our lack of concern for the rest of creation results in death and destruction for our neighbors. We cannot love our neighbors unless we care for the creation that supports all our earthly lives. We are not respecting the dignity of our fellow creatures if our sewage or garbage fouls their living space. When atmospheric warming, due in part to the methane output of the millions of cows we raise each year to produce hamburger, begins to slowly drown the island homes of our neighbors in the South Pacific, are we truly sharing good news?

And all God’s creatures said, Amen!

Christians are fond of saying things like “God will provide.” And yes, as a believer, I trust that God will provide. But we make a huge theological error when we confuse divine provision with carte blanche to exploit the earth and its creatures. Scripture grants humans dominion over the earth — but to exercise dominion is to be, literally, like the Lord. When God gave Adam and Eve stewardship over all of creation, it was in order that they might love and cherish it with the same intensity and care that He showed and shows for His creatures. And when we fail to exercise “just dominion”, we fail to honor the God who commended this earth and all of its creatures to our care.

Archbishop Williams concludes:

Contrary to what some would say, religious belief is in significant measure a way of acknowledging limits that are shared by all human beings – the limits involved in bodily dependence on a friendly environment, and in the fact of death. Faith proposes that finding your way within these limits (including awareness of death) is how we lead lives that have some claim to rationality and – to use the religious word – grace.

That’s a message desperately needed.

Loving the whole earth, loving the single place: a long response to Gregory Rodriguez, quoting Abbey and Hauerwas

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 27, 2008
in Books, Christianity, Environmentalism, Ethnicity, Globalism and Traveling
. 5 Comments

I normally like the perspective that L.A. Times’ columnist Gregory Rodriguez takes. But he wrote an op-ed eleven days ago that really irked me: Rootless to a Fault. Here’s a portion of it:

Here in the U.S., highly skilled workers and wealthy entrepreneurs from around the globe contribute mightily to this nation’s productivity and creativity. Their presence in our cities, and ours in theirs, has fostered a greater appreciation of global cultural diversity. It has spawned a vibrant cosmopolitanism that broadens our collective concern for people who live beyond our borders.

But this cosmopolitanism is not without its dark side. Increasingly, many of our big cities’ creative elites — both native and foreign-born — see themselves as citizens of the world. Our intellectuals are exploring the declining significance of place in the new globalized world order. And this brave new world cries out for an answer to the question: Does a person who swears loyalty to all cities and nations have any loyalties at all? I’ve always been struck by the fact that the same people who rightly criticize multinational corporations for having no sense of responsibility to place never seem to express the same concern about the equally “unplaced” creative elite.

A few years ago, I was at a fancy dinner party and found myself the only one at the table who held only one passport.

Rodriguez goes on to make a jarringly wrong premise: those who see themselves as “citizens of the world” are somehow dramatically less engaged in civic activity than those whose horizons are smaller and whose loyalties more narrowly defined. He opines:

Without denying the benefits of globalization, we should remember the beauty and strength of parochialism.

It’s all well and good to love the world, but real social solidarity is generally found on a smaller scale. And it’s not just the unskilled immigrants we should be concerned about. We need to find ways to encourage the highly skilled ones to form a sense of attachment and commitment to their new homes. On top of that, we natives must remember that there is no honor in escaping engagement by becoming a citizen of the world.

First off — and I could be wrong — I smell a tiny whiff in Rodriguez’s piece of an old anti-Semitic canard: the notion that the “wandering Jew”, cosmopolitan to a fault, undermines the stability of whatever society in which he finds himself, because his loyalties are eternally elsewhere. Though that is surely not Rodriguez’s intent, there’s no denying that jeremiads against “jet-setting elitists” who have no commitment to place are not new, and that in the past, many of those attacks have been aimed quite explicitly at Jews. Gregory ought to have known that.

But what I resent about the piece is the notion that loyalty to the world and all of its creatures is somehow incompatible with deep concern for the well-being of particular places. Rodriguez posits what is frankly a monstrously false dichotomy: parochial and engaged or cosmopolitan and unconcerned. Indeed, I assure Greg that there are those among his readers who are devoted to Los Angeles and its well-being without feeling any need to elevate the needs of L.A. above those of the entire planet!

I am a dual citizen, holding UK and US citizenship. My brother, his wife, and children hold a serious array of passports: Mexican, Austrian, British, and American. I have many friends who also have two nationalities, and I have a few acquaintances who have three. And no, we are not all part of some transnational global elite. I’ll be waiting a long time for my invite to rub elbows with the super-rich at the Davos Economic Forum. Of course, my dual citizenship is not without significance to me: it not only gives me and my family options about where to work and live, it reminds me that I do indeed have multiple loyalties and multiple commitments. But my devotion to any one place is not less because of a devotion to many. I have been fortunate to have been able to see much of the world, and am fortunate to have friends and family scattered across many continents. But that sense of belonging to the globe rather than to a country doesn’t mean I am any less passionately devoted to the well-being of Pasadena, or to my students, many of whom have never been on an airplane much less outside of the Western Hemisphere. Continue reading ‘Loving the whole earth, loving the single place: a long response to Gregory Rodriguez, quoting Abbey and Hauerwas’

Of pears and plants, rebellion and depravity: a response to Augustine and Richard Mouw

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 24, 2008
in Christianity, Environmentalism and Youth
. 13 Comments

Fuller President Richard Mouw is perhaps the one modern theologian who can make Five Point Calvinism seem not only winsome, but reasonable.

The first “point” of Calvinism is the doctrine of total depravity, the notion that wickedness extends to our deepest self. It doesn’t mean, of course, that each of us is incapable of doing good. Total depravity, the way most Calvinists explain it, is the idea that there is no aspect of our person that is not touched by sin. None of us can, in this life, escape from the influence of wickedness by our own efforts; grace alone is the one thing that keeps us from being totally consumed by depravity.

In a post this month, President Mouw shares how depravity manifested itself in his own childhood:

Recently I went through some old family photos and saw a picture of myself riding a tricycle in the backyard of the first home that I can remember. I know I could not have been older than four years old at the time—probably closer to three—because we moved away from that home (actually an upstairs apartment) not long after my fourth birthday. My mother planted a small garden plot in that yard, and one day she worked with me to plant some seeds. She showed me how to dig holes and do the planting, and she instructed me about regularly watering the ground. She also helped me to block off that area with sticks and string, so that no one would walk on the planted area. And she warned me: “Do not ever step on this ground where you have planted the seeds, or the plants will not grow!”

One day when I was playing in that yard, I looked to make sure my parents were not watching, and then I stepped over the stretched string, and I deliberately stomped on the ground where I had planted the seeds. I can still remember the spirit of rebellion that motivated me. I was stomping on the ground precisely because I knew it was an act of disobedience. I also remember often lying awake in my bed in the weeks after I did that, fearful that the plants would not grow and worried that my rebellion would be revealed. I even prayed some childish prayers for deliverance, although I do not think they included any elements of confession and repentance—just something like, “God, please, please, make those plants grow!” I was greatly relieved when one day the green shoots suddenly appeared in the place where I had stomped my feet.

I tell that story to say that while I did not go from a wicked lifestyle to a pattern of holy living in my youth, I did need to be redeemed from a rebellious spirit that was grounded in my sinful nature. And it was not a rebellion that was motivated by any particular angry feeling I had toward my parents. It was a spirit of rebellion against authority as such, one that was grounded in a very basic desire simply to do something that was wrong.

It’s a similar story to the one St. Augustine, writing 1600 years ago, tells about his famous pears:

There was a pear tree close to our own vineyard, heavily laden with fruit, which was not tempting either for its color or for its flavor. Late one night–having prolonged our games in the streets until then, as our bad habit was–a group of young scoundrels, and I among them, went to shake and rob this tree. We carried off a huge load of pears, not to eat ourselves, but to dump out to the hogs, after barely tasting some of them ourselves. Doing this pleased us all the more because it was forbidden. Such was my heart, O God, such was my heart–which thou didst pity even in that bottomless pit. Behold, now let my heart confess to thee what it was seeking there, when I was being gratuitously wanton, having no inducement to evil but the evil itself. It was foul, and I loved it. I loved my own undoing. I loved my error–not that for which I erred but the error itself. A depraved soul, falling away from security in thee to destruction in itself, seeking nothing from the shameful deed but shame itself.

Bold emphases are mine.

My mother is a retired professor of philosophy, and was a good friend of the Mouws in the early 1960s. Year after year, she taught Augustine to her students — and though she didn’t always do so publicly, she regularly expressed exasperation with the way in which the bishop of Hippo (and now, her old friend the president of Fuller) interpreted childish rebelliousness as so inherently depraved. My mother, an atheist from adolescence on, found Augustine’s self-flagellation wildly unnecessary at best. As she pointed out, if he condemns pear-stealing with such venom and self-loathing, what vocabulary will he have left for greater sins? What words are left for murder, for rape, for acts of genuine cruelty against sentient creatures, when the strongest possible language has already been employed to describe a puerile act of third-rate vandalism? Continue reading ‘Of pears and plants, rebellion and depravity: a response to Augustine and Richard Mouw’

Schwarzenegger gets it right on oil: another reason to praise the recall

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 19, 2008
in Environmentalism and Politics
. 15 Comments

For all his many faults, I want to say again that five years on, Arnold Schwarzenegger has turned out to be a much better governor than many of us feared. In some not intangible ways, the former movie star has helped move California farther to the left than would Gray Davis had the latter stayed in office rather than suffer the indignity of the October 2003 recall election. I certainly have a great deal of schadenfreude when I contemplate how frustrated many right-wingers in the state are with Schwarzenegger’s bi-partisanship!

The governor is on record as opposing the November initiative to overturn gay marriages, and he came out forcefully this week against any oil drilling off our coast.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday he opposes lifting a ban on new oil drilling in coastal waters, breaking with President Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed McCain’s presidential bid, said the federal offshore drilling ban was not to blame for soaring gas prices. A federal moratorium has been in place for 27 years.

“We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement that referred only to Bush’s call for the ban and did not mention McCain. “The direction our nation needs to go in, and where California is already headed, is toward greater innovation in new technologies and new fuel choices for consumers.”

He said that is how fuel costs ultimately will be reduced.

I was born in Santa Barbara. When I was still a toddler in that town, a Unocal rig off the coast of my birthplace leaked 200,000 gallons of oil, wreaking environmental catastrophe. Every Santa Barbaran over 45 remembers that terrible winter, and the scenes of devastation. The oil companies claim that their drilling techniques have improved substantially since then, but spills still happen even in first world sites. The safety improvements seem over-sold, and our coastline is not worth the risk.

Fortunately, with the exception of Santa Barbara County there are few other areas of off-shore drilling in the Golden State these days. After we left Santa Barbara, I grew up in Carmel by-the-Sea, one of the most beautiful spots in the world. I’d rather pay $25 a gallon than see a rig in Monterey bay.

And whatever his myriad shortcomings, our good governor agrees with me.

A run aborted, a rabbit cradled

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 19, 2008
in Environmentalism
. 19 Comments

It’s 6:30AM, but I’ve already been up for over two hours. I went out early to do an eleven-mile loop through the hills of Pasadena and La Canada. While running near the Rose Bowl, before dawn, I came across a small wild rabbit that had just been hit by a car. She had one broken leg (with obvious massive fractures) and was sitting quietly in the road, helpless.

It was one of those “Oh God, why me?” moments. I’m ashamed to say that I stood there for a second, trying to decide what to do, fighting the impulse to continue my run and let another car — or a dog — finish the little creature’s life. But of course that isn’t what I could do. I sat in the road with her, talked to her for a while, and then gently stroked her. She tried to escape, ineffectually, and I could see she still had some life (as well as pain and shock) in her eyes. So I gently scooped up her broken body and carried her home. It was a mile and a half back home, and on that walk, I waited for the little one to die. So many wild creatures die quickly in these situations; prey animals usually relax into death quickly after major trauma, part of their defense mechanisms against enduring pain. But the little grey girl, so much like my chinchillas, nestled against me, still blinking, heart still beating, whiskers still moving.

With the Humane Society closed, I drove her down to my 24-hour vet in South Pasadena, wrapped in a towel. The after-hours receptionist started giving me a spiel about the office’s institutional reluctance to treat wild animals; I’ve heard that speech before. We had what in diplomatic circles is called a “frank exchange of views”, which involved my repeated requests to see the doctor on call while waving my Amex card with my free hand, insisting that I would happily pay all charges. The doctor did examine the little girl, and gave me the news I was fairly certain I would hear — the massive compound fractures were very serious, and though she still showed signs of energy, her chances of making a decent recovery from such a rear-leg injury were rare. Dogs and cats can do three legs; rabbits and chinchillas have a much tougher time when they lose a rear limb. The vet and I agreed to euthanize the rabbit, and that was done just minutes ago.

I’m still in my sweat-soaked, blood and tear-stained singlet. I’ve got to jump in the shower and go off and teach three classes, have coffee with friends after school, hit the gym for a make-up treadmill run in the early evening, dinner with other friends in the later evening, and chinchilla “out time” before bed. It will be a busy day.

I could not save this little creature’s life. But I did all that I could, all that I should have done. Death is part of nature, but cars aren’t. Had I come across an injured rabbit in the wild, I might have gritted my teeth and moved on, knowing that its little body would be food for a hungry predator soon enough. But where a human has inflicted the injury, a human must do the rescuing to the best of his or her ability. I could not save this rabbit’s life, but I know she died a gentler death than she would have otherwise. And though I know the terror that we people strike into small wild mammals, I am convinced that on our walk home, as I sang softly to the little broken girl in my arms, she found some tiny degree of comfort in the warmth of my body and the softness of my voice and the stroking of my trembling fingers.

I’m not sorry I missed my run today. I’m grateful I got the chance to be there for this creature to the best of my ultimately insufficient ability. In the end, all we can do is all we can do. I will have the feel of her weight in my arms with me for the rest of the day.

Note: I have now opened comments on this entry, but anyone who makes light of the death of an animal, or even hints at misplaced priorities, will find themselves banned.

A small profile in courage: $4.50 gasoline, and McCain still stands for the wild places

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 12, 2008
in Environmentalism and Politics
. 7 Comments

I joined Republicans for Environmental Protection at the same time that I re-registered as a Republican last year. I was explicit about my goal: to do my part to move the GOP back towards the political center, and to help break the ideological stranglehold on the party held by Christian conservatives on the one hand and the Wall Street Journal editorial page on the other. Quixotic, yes, but not impossible.

Less than a year ago, the pundits had given up on the chances of John McCain winning the GOP nomination. Some progrnosticators started a “McCain deathwatch”, and trusted voices in the conservative world predicted he would drop out by Labor Day 2007. McCain, they said, was too unreliable on issues that mattered most to conservatives. And while right-wingers despised him for McCain-Feingold (the campaign finance reform act) and his opposition to water-boarding, their greatest ire often seemed directed at his environmental positions. For over a decade, McCain has been among a small band of Republicans opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, opposed to increased drilling on the continental shelf (at least without the consent of the nearest state), and in favor of increased fuel economy standards for American vehicles. Most importantly and heretically, he has stated time and again that he is convinced that global warming is “anthropogenic”: caused in large part if not entirely by human activity.

REP endorsed McCain and worked hard for him when other GOP groups were looking elsewhere, flirting with the Romneys and Giulianis and Thompsons of the world. There aren’t many in the Republican party who see “green issues” as vital, but REP does, and they saw McCain as the first Republican in forty years with a commitment to at least some environmental protection. McCain is an imperfect environmentalist of course, but he has been a firm opponent of new drilling and a strong supporter of conservation and the development of alternative fuel sources. Time and again, he broke from the pack of pro-business candidates to articulate a message more in keeping with that espoused by Democrats. And thus I voted for McCain in the California primary, not out of tremendous enthusiasm for him, but out of the hope that he would represent a move away from the rigid pro-development position held by most in his party. Continue reading ‘A small profile in courage: $4.50 gasoline, and McCain still stands for the wild places’

$138 a barrel, and mixed feelings

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 06, 2008
in Environmentalism and Money
. 49 Comments

I’ve got the business channel on; oil has risen more than 10 bucks today, and is at $138 a barrel. At the Chevron near campus, I filled up the Volvo (which likes premium gas) for $4.74; regular was 20 cents lower.

I have mixed feelings about the rise in oil prices. On the one hand, I like the fact that more people are using public transportation. I like disincentives to environmentally destructive behavior, and I like incentives for conservation. That sales of large trucks and SUVs are plummeting, and sales of hybrids and smaller cars are rising, strikes me as a very pleasant and helpful consequence of skyrocketing fuel prices. The real hope, of course, is that the high cost of gas will lead to more rapid development of alternative, renewable, environmentally sensitive fuel sources. (I have mixed feelings about biofuels, both because I’m worried about the conversion of more undeveloped land for agriculture and because of the impact on food prices for the poor.)

On the other hand, I have no interest in seeing oil company profits skyrocket, and certainly little enthusiasm about seeing the likes of the house of Saud and Vladimir Putin get richer and richer. I worry too that some folks will draw exactly the wrong lesson, and use the rising price of gasoline as an excuse to advocate for driiling in ANWAR or off the coast of California. Conservation and the development of sustainable alternatives, not increased petroleum production, is the only viable long-term answer. Fortunately, all of the major candidates for president, including the unreliable and mercurial John McCain, oppose drilling in the Arctic. With the likelihood that the Democrats will continue to control Congress after the fall election, the chances are good that we can restrain the desires of the oil companies to expand drilling.

I am also keenly aware that the rising cost of gas has a direct and deleterious impact on the lives of my students. Public transportation networks in the San Gabriel Valley are poor at best, and many of those in my classes have little choice but to drive to and from school and work. The cost of filling up hurts them. It’s deeply insensitive for me to wax eloquent about “price disincentives” when those who consume the least and live closest to the margins are the ones being most powerfully affected.

So as I see the prices rise — 50 cents a gallon in the past four weeks alone — I have mixed feelings. I’m excited and enthusiastic when I see the numbers go up, because I’m thrilled about the increased reliance on public transportation. I’m pleased that the American love affair with big cars is showing signs of fading, perhaps for good. And I’m delighted that the often-ignored voices that counsel conservation and alternative energy sources are at last being heard. But rising prices — and rising oil company profits — are blunt and ineffective instruments for lasting social change.

Oprah, veganism, and the real inconvenient truth

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on May 22, 2008
in Environmentalism, Food and Veganism
. 15 Comments

It’s been a happy birthday so far. I admit I really appreciate Facebook, which I didn’t have for my last birthday — all the kind notes showing up on my “wall” make me very happy.

The vegan world has been abuzz with the news that Oprah Winfrey is on a 21-day cleanse, using only plant-based foods. The queen of all media is blogging about her experience here. I love what she says in her first entry:

Wow, wow, wow! I never imagined meatless meals could be so satisfying. I had been focused on what I had to give up—sugar, gluten, alcohol, meat, chicken, fish, eggs, cheese. “What’s left?” I thought. Apparently a lot. I can honestly say every meal was a surprise and a delight, beginning with breakfast—strawberry rhubarb wheat-free crepes.

Now, most vegans don’t go as far as Oprah’s going. I eat wheat and sugar everyday, and my wife likes a nice glass of wine quite regularly. Those of us in the animal rights community respect Oprah’s enormous cultural power; we know what she can do for books and presidential candidates. We also know that she’s been very candid about her many years of struggle with body image issues; the world has watched her weight fluctuate for two decades. Though veganism is much more than a weight-loss regimen (and indeed, there are plenty of plump vegans), I’m confident Oprah will be amazed by how much energy and “bounce” she has over the next seventeen days or so. Continue reading ‘Oprah, veganism, and the real inconvenient truth’

Ecofutures and big, green houses

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 28, 2008
in Environmentalism and Family
. 0 Comments

My second cousin Eric Doub lives in Boulder and is the principal behind Ecofutures Building. He just got a very nice write-up in the New York Times yesterday. Cousin Eric shares some interesting tidbits, including the little-known fact that it is harder to have a “zero net-energy” small house than a big one.

Entirely coincidentally, I just spent a few minutes chatting with one of the WAM work-study employees, an MIT undergraduate majoring in civil engineering. She’s also interested in “green building.” I may have to do some email exchanging.

Anyhow, hurrah for Eric, and hurrah for Ecofutures.

Against sociopathic vandalism

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 10, 2008
in Environmentalism
. 2 Comments

Chris Clarke writes about the threat to the Desert Cahuilla Prehistoric Area. He links to this piece posted by the Desert Protective Council.

Check out the links for more explanation, but bottom line, the threat comes from recreational off-road vehicle use. Chris says:

I regard off-road vehicle driving as a socially sanctioned form of sociopathic vandalism, especially in the fragile desert. In southern California especially, the ranks of OHV enthusiasts contain a disturbing proportion of actual thugs. Expanding their access to irreplaceable and fragile desert lands would be an atrocity.

Chris, as usual, is absolutely right, both about the connection between off-roading and vandalism and about the very real threat these folks and their awful machines pose to the wild. (The only people who infuriate me more than off-highway vehicle enthusiasts are those in the fur industry. A repeated willingness to waste fossil fuels while tearing up nature in your ATV is grounds for the termination of friendship in my book.)

In any event, go here and take action.