The Clean Alternative

Now for the second, less humorous, political post.  I am sick of hearing that natural gas is the clean alternative to gas and coal because I question the validity of this statement.  I would love to see someone do a carbon footprint study of natural gas production like the one that disproved the cleaner production of ethanol.  Is the overall production of natural gas better for the environment and us, or is it all hype so that a lot of people can keep their high paying jobs and we consumers can continue wasting energy?

Not only do I question the total carbon footprint, but I also think it is important to consider the waste products the industry produces, including the drill lubricants that end up in our rivers, ground water, and aquifers.  Is the cleanliness of the energy produced by natural gas offset, as is my guess, by the destruction used to produce the product?  Can anything really be done?  Like big oil, Big Gas has deep pockets and lots of people depend on the paychecks of Big Gas.  The typical recipe for short term gain with long term costs.  The same people who are paid by Big Gas love their children, which is one reason they want the big paycheck, but they don’t stop to think of the future where no amount of money can alter the facts of the devastation left behind.  For a glimpse of the truth, there is a tv series that looks at ghost towns in the world (I will add it in a comment tonight).  The first episode deals with a city near Chernobyl and a city built around lead mines in America.  Look at the American city, but Chernobyl is just as accurate.

 

P.S.  The documentary series on ghost towns is “Forgotten Planet” and the city is Picher, Oklahoma.

P.P.S. The truth is people are willing to put up with or condone something that does not roost in their own home as long as they are making money.  They only cry foul when someone does something similar that ends up in their back yard.  Here is a challenge for all you Frack supporters, if Fracking is so safe, then take a tanker truck full of the waste and waste water from the process and store it in an open pit in your cellar instead of someone else’s back yard.  Let your children play around it.  This should be mandatory for any CEO of a manufacturing business.  If you can’t live with the results, neither should anyone else.

Workload

I am going to give you two posts today.  The first one pertains to my cat who works very hard at his job of being a cat.  I often wonder how stressed out he gets about work decisions like where to nap for the day.  Should I take the effort to jump on the bed, maybe with a toy, or pick the chair?  Life is hard that way.

Another Way to Look at People in the General

I know most of you have probably heard humans/civilizations categorized as either hunter/gatherers or takers with respect to aggressive tendencies.  Hunter/gatherers tend to be less aggressive while takers are more war like and tend, well, to take things from others.  Takers are your conquerors and dictators.

Well, I have lately been thinking of another way to make these same broad classifications.  One that not only explains aggressiveness, but also their interactions with nature.  I was thinking humans should be classified as either those that view nature as something to be overcome/conquered and those that view it as something they are a part of.

Humans that see nature as something to overcome will tend to be more aggressive and destructive to the land and its people.  They will view natural phenomenon such as weather, wildlife, and resources as something to be controlled and exploited, including other humans.  They will feel that man is above nature and can live without it, showing little concern for the environmental messes they leave behind.  Those that feel they are part of nature will be less aggressive and view the earth and its cycles as a way of life, striving to find harmony in their interactions with nature and others.  They will plan their society around the rhythms of nature to minimize their impact on the world.

To me, there is a subtle difference between how I am trying to make these broad classifications and the current method.  I see the old method as an expression of human interactions with other humans, while my classifications encompasses not only this interaction, but also their interaction with the world they inhabit.   In addition, their attitude toward nature is also reflected in their reactions to others.  Of course, we humans don’t fall neatly into two categories; however, I think these broad classifications can help people to step back and look at why people do what they do.  Even with our deeply tangled personalities, some fundamental truths pertain to all of us to one degree or another.