<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
    xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
    <title>Your Ecological House</title>
    <category>Your Ecological House</category>
    <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/section/columnists-your-ecological-house/feed/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://www.durangoherald.com/section/columnists-your-ecological-house/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description>Stay informed with the latest breaking news, local stories, sports, business, weather, and community events from Durango, Southwest Colorado, and the Four Corners region.</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 23:26:49 -0600</lastBuildDate>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/round-up-your-weeds-with-vinegar-not-glyphosate/</link>
        <title>Round up your weeds with vinegar, not glyphosate</title>
        <description>– Pedram Esfandiary, attorney representing cancer victims suing Monsanto corporation Meanwhile, back in your backyard, the glyphosate saga continues. You remember glyphosate, right? It’s the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, the most widely used weed killer in the world....</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:30:55 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">55A30EA8-6127-773B-E053-0100007F8B19</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“The known dangers of glyphosate warrant extensive investigation before Californians are exposed to any amount …” – Pedram Esfandiary, attorney representing cancer victims suing Monsanto corporation Meanwhile, back in your backyard, the glyphosate saga continues. You remember glyphosate, right? It’s the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, the most widely used weed killer in the world. And, guess what? Roundup is so safe, a neighbor once informed me, you could drink the stuff. (Who informed him of this “fact” is unclear.) Well, it turns out that glyphosate might not be so safe after all. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. In the IARC’s five-level classification scheme, “probable” is one notch down from the top level of “definite,” so the label is to be taken seriously. So far, the principal fallout from the designation has been threefold. First, Monsanto and other companies that sell glyphosate-based products predictably have tried to delegitimize the classification and attack the messenger, the IARC itself, for bias. Second, based largely on the IARC classification, more than 1,000 people in the U.S. who have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of cancer, have filed lawsuits against Monsanto for exposing them or their family members to glyphosate. Third, on July 7, 2017, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment classified glyphosate as a carcinogen, “known to the state to cause cancer.” Under California law, businesses must inform the public, usually by labeling, if they sell products that contain known carcinogens. While many environmental and consumer groups consider California’s classification a huge step toward protecting the public, the labeling fight is far from over. Which products are labeled, and how they’re labeled (on the packaging itself or just with signs on store shelves) depends on the COEHHA’s assessment of the exposure risks for glyphosate – how much of the chemical your system can tolerate. Credible scientific studies have pegged that amount at zero. For example, a 2015 study published in Environmental Health shows that liver and kidney damage afflicted lab rats that were exposed to chronic ultra-low doses (0.05 parts per billion) of glyphosate. That level of exposure can occur not just by using glyphosate, but by eating food grown in fields where Roundup or similar products are used for weed control. For example, the Nation of Change website reports that tests by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency “have revealed levels from 3,000-6,000 parts per billion on garbanzo beans and wheat.” Eating 12 ounces of those foods daily would expose one to 15,000 times the amount of glyphosate that damaged the rats’ livers in the Environmental Health study. So, the COEHHA could require that not only glyphosate products, but also some glyphosate-exposed foods carry the carcinogen label. Naturally, Monsanto and other glyphosate product manufacturers are resisting any and all labeling by taking the issue to court, where, so far, they have been ruled against; by meeting with officials of the COEHHA; and by arguing their case in the court of public opinion through advertising campaigns and tactics such as feeding cherry-picked statements from legal depositions to sympathetic journalists. Who should you believe? While the evidence against glyphosate keeps piling up, you don’t have to wait until you have definitive proof of its dangers (until you have cancer?) to take the “better safe than sorry approach” with your home weed control. Instead, mix regular household vinegar with a little liquid dish soap (for “stickiness”) in a spray bottle and apply it to your weeds. They’ll die in a few days. Then you can further minimize your exposure to a “probable carcinogen” by encouraging your neighbor to use vinegar, not glyphosate, at his ecological house. Philip S. Wenz is the author of the e-book Your Ecological House, available at all major electronic book distributors.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/plastic-lovers-may-solve-our-waste-problem/</link>
        <title>Plastic lovers may solve our waste problem</title>
        <description>Under optimal growing conditions, many bacteria can clone themselves in 20 to 30 minutes, producing 50 to 75 generations and hundreds of millions of new individuals in 24 hours. This incredible rate of reproduction creates ample opportunity for the genetic...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:41:50 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">530DA696-9328-41A9-A1C0-FB7562D138C0</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Bacteria capable of eating plastic were an inevitability. The tiny cells are evolutionary dynamos. Under optimal growing conditions, many bacteria can clone themselves in 20 to 30 minutes, producing 50 to 75 generations and hundreds of millions of new individuals in 24 hours. This incredible rate of reproduction creates ample opportunity for the genetic mutations that drive “standard” evolutionary change. Additionally, bacteria “swap” genes with each other through a form of direct transfer resembling sexual reproduction in higher organisms and by absorbing genetic material other bacteria release into the environment. Thus, in a period of a few years, there are literally quadrillions of opportunities for bacteria to evolve that can produce enzymes and develop biochemical pathways that allow them to digest any new source of food they might encounter – plastics, for example. Plastics are made up of long strings of carbon-based chemical compounds that are similar in their essential structure and composition to sugars, life’s basic food stuff. In fact, some plastics are made by stringing sugar molecules together, and those tend to be relatively biodegradable – meaning they can be broken down (digested) by soil or water bacteria. But most plastics today are made from petroleum and have been synthesized in laboratories during the past century. Their novel chemical makeup is unfamiliar to the planet’s bacterial population, and rather than breaking down in nature, they have piled up. And piled up. It is said that in 20 years, there will be more plastic bottles than fish in the sea, and more plastic than any other material in our landfills. The ubiquity of plastic waste is nothing short of an environmental disaster – unless you’re an opportunistic species of bacteria. Then it’s a feast waiting to be devoured. It’s no surprise, then, that in recent years, plastic-eating bacteria have been discovered in diverse environments and locations. In 2011, marine biologists discovered microbes colonizing and eating bits of plastic floating in the Sargasso Sea, the home of one of several oceanic “garbage patches” filled with floating plastic waste. In 2014, researchers in China found that a species of waxworms, a type of Asian mealworm, a beetle larva, could chew, digest and live entirely on polyethylene plastic bags. Taking their research further, the same team discovered in 2015 that related worms could thrive eating Styrofoam. Digestion is accomplished by bacteria living in the waxworm’s gut. Then in 2016, Japanese researchers announced they had discovered bacteria eating scraps of the plastic known as PET in the wastewater pond of a plastic bottle recycling plant. One of the most ubiquitous forms of plastic, PET is used to make bottles of all types, blister packs, pens, syringes, ink cartridges, electronic components and, in its “polyester” form, the majority of the world’s synthetic fibers. On the surface, these discoveries are good news. It appears that we might finally have a solution to the world’s plastic waste problems. All we have to do is cultivate and perhaps “refine” these bacteria with a little genetic engineering and we can sick ’em on our bourgeoning landfills and polluted oceans. However, like all environmental “solutions,” bacterial waste remediation can be a two-edged sword. For example, the new PET-eating bacteria have slow metabolisms, so they don’t eat much plastic. Speeding their metabolic and reproductive rate through genetic engineering has been proposed. But do we want to create a superorganism that potentially might develop an appetite for our clothing, medical equipment and computers? Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Email him at editor@ecotecture.com or visit his website, www.ecotecture.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/super-weeds-rise-in-defiance-of-herbicide/</link>
        <title>‘Super weeds’ rise in defiance of herbicide</title>
        <description>He’s capable of growing 2 to 4 inches per day until he’s 8 feet tall. His weed stalk is as thick as a man’s wrist and tough enough to damage farm machinery. Palmer’s friendly to humans. Native Americans grew him...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2015 07:02:02 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">45D21096-393E-4ED6-A639-957E165E08CC</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Meet Palmer Pigweed. Palmer’s a hearty fellow. He’s capable of growing 2 to 4 inches per day until he’s 8 feet tall. His weed stalk is as thick as a man’s wrist and tough enough to damage farm machinery. Palmer’s friendly to humans. Native Americans grew him for food. But he’s highly competitive with other plants, sucking up their water and nutrients and shading them out with his thick, bushy leaves. And talk about sexual prowess: Palmer’s prolific releases of airborne pollen can fertilize hundreds of his female favorites who each disseminate about 600,000 tiny seeds. But most important to farmers, Palmer’s a survivor. Recently, he survived a massive campaign to poison him with the herbicide glyphosate. Although many of his kind died in that campaign, Palmer was naturally resistant to glyphosate, and not only did he survive but he and his progeny began to spread at an incredible rate. Palmer made his first appearance as a “super weed” – a weed mostly or wholly resistant to glyphosate – when he was discovered in North Carolina in 2005. By 2014, Palmer’s progeny had spread to 32 states in an unbroken chain from Florida to California, throughout the Southeast, up the Atlantic coast and to most of the Midwestern “agricultural heartland” states. Palmer can be devastating to agriculture. As Stanley Culpepper, an agronomist with the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension put it, “(Palmer’s) the first real weed pest that can come on your farm, you see it in year one, and by year three, it dominates the entire landscape.” Even moderate infestations can destroy half to two-thirds of cotton and soybean yields and significantly damage corn fields. Palmer already has cost farmers billions of dollars and is a threat to the America-dependent global food supply. Worse, Palmer is not alone. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds lists 13 species of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the U.S., 32 worldwide. While not all the weeds are as potent as Palmer Pigweed, many are quite robust and cumulatively they represent a huge threat to agriculture. This burgeoning disaster originated with the overuse of glyphosate, distributed mostly by the Monsanto company under its “Roundup” brand. In 1996, Monsanto began introducing glyphosate-resistant, “Roundup Ready” crops, including soybeans, corn, cotton, alfalfa and sugar beets, and much of the U.S. agricultural community thought it had discovered a panacea. Farmers could spray Roundup on their fields, kill weeds without damaging crops and save money by skipping traditional weed-management practices such as crop rotation and tilling. Also, glyphosate is arguably the least environmentally damaging herbicide, and the no-till agriculture it enabled benefited the soil and the environment. Soon, most of the country’s soybean, corn and cotton acreage was Roundup Ready, and many weeds were eradicated. Shortly thereafter, however, a few Roundup-resistant weeds began to appear. Most farmers responded by significantly increasing the amount of Roundup they used, which, in a losing effort, eliminated some but not all of the resistant weeds. Exasperated and endangered, many farmers began using stronger herbicides, returned to tilling to control weeds – and began to question why they were using Roundup and Roundup Ready crops in the first place. By 2014, Monsanto’s competitor Dow AgroScience had come up with a solution. It got the USDA and EPA to approve its new line of genetically modified corn and soybean crops that are resistant to two herbicides, glyphosate and “2, 4-D,” an ingredient of the Vietnam-era defoliant Agent Orange. According to Dow, this new one-two punch will prevent the continuing evolution of weeds – just like glyphosate did at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/widely-used-herbicide-tied-to-cancer/</link>
        <title>Widely used herbicide tied to cancer</title>
        <description>While “probably carcinogenic” might not sound too threatening, it’s important to understand that on the IARC’s scale of five assessment levels, it’s just one step below the highest level of “carcinogenic to humans.” The glyphosate assessment should be taken seriously....</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2015 10:06:33 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">CE3342C9-B7AC-4585-B7EE-AFAC41F79BA2</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[On March 20, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the prestigious World Health Organization, announced its assessment of the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” While “probably carcinogenic” might not sound too threatening, it’s important to understand that on the IARC’s scale of five assessment levels, it’s just one step below the highest level of “carcinogenic to humans.” The glyphosate assessment should be taken seriously. It certainly was taken seriously by the giant agrochemical corporation Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, the world’s most widely used herbicide. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, and if it were firmly established that glyphosate causes cancer, Monsanto’s stock could crash. Monsanto’s line of Roundup-related products – including major food crops such corn, soybeans and sugar beets that are genetically modified (GM) to be resistant to the herbicide – represents about half the company’s gross margin. The business model for this critical piece of Monsanto’s profile works as follows: Farmers plant the GM crop seeds, which the company calls “Roundup Ready.” When weeds appear in their fields, the farmers spray them with the herbicide. The weeds die; the Roundup-resistant crops grow. In 1996, Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready crops. Their use spread quickly. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that by 2014, 94 percent of soybean acreage and 89 percent of corn acreage in the U.S. was planted with herbicide-resistant (mostly Roundup Ready) crops. There was a concomitant per-acre and overall increase in the use of glyphosate (mostly Roundup). The total volume of glyphosate applied annually to the three biggest GM crops – corn, soybeans and cotton – increased tenfold, from 15 million to 159 million pounds between 1996 and 2012. The increase in glyphosate use has intensified concerns about increased human exposure to the herbicide and its possible negative health effects. An Internet search for “health effects of glyphosate” yields an array of credible, peer-reviewed studies that link long-term exposure of varying doses of the herbicide to sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, low sperm counts, miscarriages and cancer in laboratory rats. Studies also have shown that glyphosate can damage human embryonic and placental cells. Although exposure to glyphosate health risks is highest among farm workers, it has increased in the general population, which can ingest small amounts of the herbicide by eating GM foods. Monsanto and other defenders of the glyphosate/GM crop technology – including some independent and university scientists – have responded by pointing to numerous studies that show that glyphosate is (almost) completely safe, and, perhaps most significantly, that the EPA has not yet regulated it. The debate will doubtlessly continue. But I’d bet on this: As the use of glyphosate keeps growing, so will the evidence of its adverse health effects at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where writes about environmental issues. www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/new-invasives-threaten-our-farms-the-wild/</link>
        <title>New invasives threaten our farms, the wild</title>
        <description>Prosperous farmers grew many varieties of conventional crops, and sold great quantities of their yields at markets in faraway countries. Other farmers proudly grew crops that were certified by the government as “organic” – free of pesticides and other toxins...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:18:40 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">9A3CBED7-B468-4504-9F8B-1B1717069FCB</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Once there was a fertile valley that was blessed with mild climate, abundant water and good soil. Prosperous farmers grew many varieties of conventional crops, and sold great quantities of their yields at markets in faraway countries. Other farmers proudly grew crops that were certified by the government as “organic” – free of pesticides and other toxins that controlled agricultural pests but also harmful to humans and the environment. Organic products were sold mostly to local, health-conscious consumers. One day, a salesman came to the valley peddling the seeds of an entirely new type of plant. “Nature could never create plants like these,” he boasted to a gathering of farmers. “They’re ‘GE,’ that’s ‘genetically engineered’ in a laboratory. They’re really two very different organisms joined together – like a mermaid. “You don’t need pesticides to grow them because we’ve attached genes from pesticidal bacteria to their genes. They’ll kill bugs that try to eat them. That will save you money and protect the environment from pesticides.” “But I don’t use pesticides,” said a skeptical organic farmer. Nevertheless, a few of the conventional farmers decided to try the new plants and found they grew well and repelled insect pests as advertised. But no one foresaw that wind and insects would spread pollen from the GE plants to related plants on nearby conventional and organic farms and even to wild plants. Once pollinated, those plants passed their pesticidal GE genes to their offspring. Then the conventional farmers whose crops now carried GE genes made a shocking discovery: They could no longer sell their yields on the international market because many foreign countries, fearing genetic contamination, banned GE foods. These farmers lost money dumping their yields on secondary markets. Many organic farmers quickly lost their certified-organic status, because the GE genes their crops now harbored were officially labeled as a pesticide. Frequently, these small farmers went out of business, and were forced to sell their farms to large landholders at reduced prices. Farmers naturally tried to destroy the contaminated crops by burning, plowing and replanting their fields. But the GE genes persisted year after year, perhaps being reintroduced from contaminated wild plants. Ultimately, the valley’s farming economy was devastated. Thus ends my cautionary parable about GE plants. I hope it’s entertained you. But is it plausible? We know there have been many documented cases of reciprocal “gene flow,” the exchange of genes between GE and non-GE crops and wild plants. One telling example is the virtually complete despoiling and disappearance of Canada’s organic canola farming industry caused by genetic contamination of its crops by GE canola introduced in 1996. Clearly, GE genes can spread uncontrollably and with unpredictable implications for agricultural sustainability and wild plant evolution. Along with compromising the genetic makeup of conventional plant varieties and devastating organic seed stock, GE/non-GE cross-pollination can negatively affect the value of plant yields in certain markets. This was amply demonstrated in 2013 when some uncultivated GE wheat plants mysteriously appeared in a field in eastern Oregon. Japan and Korea immediately banned some Oregon wheat imports for a few weeks, costing Oregon farmers millions of dollars. Their losses were partially recovered through a lawsuit against Monsanto, which had originally planted the GE wheat in nearby experimental fields. Every so often, I read a cheery article about intrepid volunteers who remove non-native, invasive plants from our local ecosystems. If we continue to spread GE crops across our agricultural landscape, their progeny will inevitably be counted among those invasive plants at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/how-should-we-question-safety-of-gmos/</link>
        <title>How should we question safety of GMOs?</title>
        <description>That’s the question GE food advocates love for us to ask. Why? Because if we look only at the narrow issue of food safety when deciding whether GE foods should be labeled, regulated or even banned, we will fail to...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 08:34:20 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">D6ED8994-C871-4488-AFCC-1AD6A3F76368</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“Is it safe to eat genetically engineered foods?” That’s the question GE food advocates love for us to ask. Why? Because if we look only at the narrow issue of food safety when deciding whether GE foods should be labeled, regulated or even banned, we will fail to ask questions about their other potential dangers. Also, the food-safety question can’t be answered definitively at present – and perhaps it never will be. All we know is that people don’t drop dead a few hours after eating GE foods. So if the public debate about GE foods is limited to the currently unanswerable question of whether they’re safe to eat, their advocates probably can defeat attempts to have them labeled or regulated. Why impose regulations when there’s no clear danger? Besides, wouldn’t labeling be unfair to the GE food industry, frightening its potential customers? But what if we were to ask this question: “Are genetically modified organisms – the plant stock from which GE foods are derived – potentially harmful to your family, the economy or the environment?” That’s the question GE food advocates would rather we don’t ask, because it leads to more questions – questions that could shed light on the risks of spreading GMOs throughout our environment. For example, we might start by asking a question with an easy, unambiguous answer such as, “How many countries require labeling of GE foods?” The answer is 64 countries. Learning that could lead us to ask, “Do these countries require GE food labeling because they think citizens have a right to choose which food industries they support, regardless of specific food safety issues?” To answer that questions, we need to learn a little about genetic engineering, how GMOs interact with their environment and whether potential problems with those interactions have been or can be addressed. Understanding what genetic engineering is not helps us understand what it is. Contrary to an often-repeated misconception, genetic engineering is not an extension or enhancement of traditional plant-breeding methods that farmers have practiced for thousands of years. Those methods allow plant breeders only to combine the genes of related organisms – two varieties of corn, for example – to produce a new organism that has some of the desirable traits of its parents such as drought resistance. Genetic engineering, by contrast, enables us to combine genes from entirely unrelated organisms – insecticidal bacteria and corn, for example. This is done not by breeding the organisms – which is impossible because of natural biological barriers – but by splicing their genes together under laboratory conditions. However, once a GMO is produced by these methods, it is perfectly capable of breeding with related wild plants and non-GMO crops, randomly spreading its experimentally engineered genes. The potential consequences of this uncontrolled “gene flow” is a primary concern of GMO regulators around the world. We’ll explore them in my next column. Meanwhile, as well as asking whether GE foods are safe to eat, you might ask if they are safe to grow at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/great-tech-hope-will-not-solve-climate-change/</link>
        <title>Great tech hope will not solve climate change</title>
        <description>For example, what if you smoked and developed a persistent cough? You could decide to stop smoking and get a medical checkup. Or you could say, “Some big scientific breakthrough will probably banish cancer soon. Enjoy yourself and light up...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:19:54 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">725B2728-C327-4913-89F5-0BCE759D7961</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Wouldn’t it be nice if we could ignore the root causes of our problems and rely on technological wizardry to fix them? For example, what if you smoked and developed a persistent cough? You could decide to stop smoking and get a medical checkup. Or you could say, “Some big scientific breakthrough will probably banish cancer soon. Enjoy yourself and light up that cigarette. Life’s short.” We can apply this attitude about cigarette smoke to greenhouse gas emissions, according to the recent Orange County Register editorial with the headline “Technology changing the climate debate,” which I read reprinted in my hometown newspaper. According to the Register, “Our best technologists have begun to lay the groundwork for scientific advancements that can upend stale debates about capping (greenhouse) emissions and the like. “… scientists … have broached the idea of tweaking our climate the way Google’s Nest thermostat keeps a handle on your Heating, Venting and Air Conditioning. In a study … the National Academy of Sciences has called for experiments in geoengineering …” The editorial concludes, “In light of these developments, the climate policy debate of the rapidly approaching future isn’t about how we need to live, but how we want to live.” We can keep loading our atmosphere and oceans with carbon dioxide (CO2) and geoengineering – the Great Technofix in the Sky – will save us from ourselves. Well, not quite. To understand why this wishful thinking is dangerous, we need to learn a little bit about “geoengineering,” and what the recent National Academy of Sciences report actually recommended. Geoengineering proposals are of two types: (1) removing and sequestering atmospheric CO2, and (2) “albedo (reflectivity) modification,” or cooling the Earth by reflecting incoming sunlight back into space. This could be done by spraying aerosol particles into the upper atmosphere, mimicking the global cooling effect of massive volcanic eruptions. Environmentally beneficial CO2 removal – growing more forests, for example – is a sound idea. However, scaling up programs that could even partially reduce our massive CO2 surplus would take decades. Albedo modification schemes – the Register’s “thermostat tweaking” – amount to playing with dynamite. In the staid language of the NAS report, “... deploying albedo modification techniques at climatically important scales would bring an array of environmental, social, legal, economic, ethical and political risks. “These include decreases in stratospheric ozone and changes to the amount and patterns of precipitation” the report said. Many climate scientists predict that said changes in precipitation patterns would likely cause destabilization of the Asian monsoons that bring life-giving rain to almost 2 billion people (possibly leading to nuclear warfare in the area), flooding across vast regions of the northern hemisphere and severe drought in others and disruption of the crucial timing of weather events. In short, the climate chaos caused by geoengineering could quickly exceed that which is anticipated from global warming. In light of this, the NAS report stated that “research is needed to determine if albedo modification could be a viable (component of) climate response in the future” – while insisting that drastic emissions reductions is the fundamental, indispensable response. So why did the Register editorial suggest that geoengineering can replace emissions reductions while spuriously claiming that the NAS supports that position? Perhaps like many pundits who formerly denied and now reluctantly accept the reality of global warming, they are parroting a new meme. Originating in fossil-fuel-industry-sponsored think tanks that supply talking points to the media, the meme goes something like this: “Yes, global warming is real. But don’t worry. We’ve got a (profitable) technofix” for our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/stone-throwing-wont-build-a-movement/</link>
        <title>Stone throwing won’t build a movement</title>
        <description>The upbeat piece described the house that the woman and her husband had built themselves incorporating numerous eco-friendly features and using local and/or recycled materials. It also discussed her work and leadership in community energy conservation. (Disclosure: I know this...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:28:04 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">9E9611A3-2A4E-4608-976E-DDA97084EC10</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[The stone throwing began shortly after an article about a local environmental engineer appeared in my Oregon hometown newspaper. The upbeat piece described the house that the woman and her husband had built themselves incorporating numerous eco-friendly features and using local and/or recycled materials. It also discussed her work and leadership in community energy conservation. (Disclosure: I know this person and have worked on some community sustainability committees with her.) So far, so good. The newspaper chose to spotlight someone who is trying to live more lightly on the Earth and is devoting much of her time and energy, both professionally and as a volunteer, to helping others do the same. But shortly after the article was published, a letter to the editor appeared, criticizing the engineer’s house and lifestyle. The letter started with some legitimate questions: “How ‘green’ is it to build (the engineer’s) 2,000-square-foot house for just two people? How ‘green’ is building said house on the edge of town, making driving a necessity?” On the whole, I agree with these critiques. I’m an advocate of downtown and infill development. One of the first articles I wrote for this series, eight years ago, encouraged people to convert their existing home into their ecological house rather than build a new house. However, the letter’s author went on to attack “so-called ‘environmental leaders,’ who are generally white, privileged and utterly clueless about their own hypocrisy.” She then stated that she and her husband live in a 900-square-foot house, close to the center of town, from which they can conduct their daily business by literally walking the walk of environmentalism rather than just talking the talk. The letter concluded: “some believe such greenwashing displays of conspicuous consumption (like the engineer’s house) are virtuous, but so far as I know, gluttony is still a sin.” The letter’s author might want to know that almost half the world’s population lives in houses of less than 180 square feet per person, and the United Nations’ recommended minimum house size for a family of four is about 450 square feet. Also, she overlooked the part of the article that described how a portion of the engineer’s house was used as office space for her business and that of her husband, who operates a solar company. And one could ask if the letter writer’s downtown house is energy-efficient, water-conserving and generally environmentally friendly. My point isn’t to throw stones. My point is that we’re all in this together and need to applaud and encourage each other’s environmentally beneficial behavior, even as we question and debate differing approaches to sustainable living. Constructive criticism builds vibrant movements. Can you reach a point where, on balance, you are doing more good than harm to the biosphere? It’s easier for us to struggle with these dilemmas if we have the support of an empathic community at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon. Reach him through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/land-seizures-create-path-for-pipeline/</link>
        <title>Land seizures create path for pipeline</title>
        <description>These questions arise because currently a foreign corporation, TransCanada of Calgary, Canada, is trying to use the legal procedure known as eminent domain to seize private land in Nebraska along the planned route of its Keystone oil pipeline. (TransCanada already...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:38:54 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">0597EEF9-9EEC-40FC-8134-622ED7E1AE67</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Is your domain eminently defensible? Or can a private corporation take your home and land for profit? How about a foreign corporation? These questions arise because currently a foreign corporation, TransCanada of Calgary, Canada, is trying to use the legal procedure known as eminent domain to seize private land in Nebraska along the planned route of its Keystone oil pipeline. (TransCanada already has seized more than 100 properties in Texas for the pipeline.) TransCanada wants to build the pipeline to transport crude oil from the northern U.S. border to the Gulf states where it will be refined and shipped to foreign markets. Standing in its way is a group of about 90 Nebraska landowners calling themselves “Bold Nebraska.” They have sued the company, claiming its attempted seizures are unconstitutional. As of this writing, a Nebraska district court judge agreeing with the plaintiffs has issued a temporary injunction against the seizures. TransCanada is expected to appeal the ruling to the Nebraska Supreme Court. But how did things get to this point? Why is a foreign company allowed to seize American land so it can build anything – a pipeline, port or amusement park? The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government – the “eminent domain” under which we all live – the right to take land for use deemed beneficial to the public as a whole, provided the landowner is justly compensated for the loss. As a practical matter, that right also is delegated to states, counties, municipalities and even corporations so they may appropriate land for building publicly owned facilities such as highways, harbors and dams. Most people have agreed that such eminent domain takings are a legitimate use of government power. However, a controversial 5 to 4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the 2005 case of Kelo vs. the City of New London (Connecticut) redefined the “public use” intent of the Constitution’s authors. In Kelo, the court determined that the private development of a poor (but not blighted) area of the city of New London justified eminent domain takings of lower middle-class homes, including that of the plaintiff Susette Kelo. The court’s ruling set a precedent for transferring property from one private entity to another – in that case, Kelo’s home to a private development corporation – when justified by the city’s desire to garner higher tax revenues from development. In an interesting twist, the giant international drug corporation Pfizer had promised New London that in exchange for deep tax breaks, it would build a job-creating headquarters on the land, if the development corporation could procure it. Pfizer came through, spending $294 million on a complex where 1,400 people worked. Eight years later, as its tax breaks were expiring, Pfizer moved to another city, leaving an empty 750,000-square-foot building surrounded by vacant lots where homes once stood. International trade agreements such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) have been interpreted to supplement the Kelo precedent by giving foreign corporations such as TransCanada the right to initiate eminent domain proceeding on American soil. But questions remain. Property-rights advocates excoriated the Kelo decision. In response, 27 states passed laws forbidding seizures for private profit and/or raising tax revenues; however, those laws remain uncontested in court. Ironically, some of those same voices now champion the Keystone pipeline and have gone silent concerning the Nebraska eminent domain seizures. Conversely, environmentalists, who generally believe eminent domain should be used to protect the environment, are supporting Bold Nebraska’s struggle. Perhaps Americans of all stripes should recognize a common enemy and seek common ground in the wisdom of the Constitution’s “public-use” clause – before eminent domain notices appear at their ecological houses. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/calculating-your-ecological-footprint/</link>
        <title>Calculating your ecological footprint</title>
        <description>But how can you know what your actual impact is? Or how much you should reduce it to make a difference by beginning to balance your consumption with the rest of humanity’s, and your needs with nature’s ability to provide...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:01:13 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">DA1641A4-DB3A-4944-AE40-4038DFFBE7C1</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Congratulations! You have recently resolved to reduce the impact you and your family are having on the planet’s ecosystems. You’ll consume less, reuse and recycle more, and generally live more sustainably. But how can you know what your actual impact is? Or how much you should reduce it to make a difference by beginning to balance your consumption with the rest of humanity’s, and your needs with nature’s ability to provide for them? Can you make a reasonable estimate of what your consumption of resources means to the planet? One way to answer those questions is to calculate your “ecological footprint,” the amount of the planet’s ecologically productive land needed to provide for your resource consumption and assimilate your wastes. By expressing the impact of your activities in terms of the productive acreage of farmlands, grasslands, wetlands and forests needed to support them, you can calculate how much of the Earth’s renewable resources you are using. Thus you can see how your footprint relates, proportionately, to those of your fellow humans in terms of its share of available resources. (Difficulties in correlating ocean surface area with productivity precludes oceans from footprint calculations.) Borrowing an analogy from the readable and delightfully illustrated book Our Ecological Footprint by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees helps us understand the ecological footprint concept. Imagine that your house and yard are covered with an impenetrable dome that prevents the flow of air, water, food and materials into or out of your property: How long do you think you and your family could live? The answer is something like a couple of days at most, because you would breathe in the oxygen inside in the dome, change it to carbon dioxide and suffocate. If you had lush vegetation on your property you would last a little longer because it would convert some of the carbon dioxide you exhaled into oxygen. But even if the dome let oxygen in and carbon dioxide out, you would still perish soon because you would use up your water and food reserves. Now imagine the dome to be larger. How large would it have to be to support you and your family at your current rate of consumption? That acreage, roughly, is the size of your ecological footprint. Fortunately, you can calculate your footprint without building a dome. By using relatively simple formulas explained in Our Ecological Footprint and taking surveys at one or more of the many websites that feature ecological footprint “calculators,” you can get a pretty good idea of your resource use and where it fits into the big picture. Since your overall footprint is calculated as the sum of individual components – CO2 emissions, paper and cloth consumption, fresh water withdrawal and so on – you can decide which items to reduce to have the greatest effect. If, for example, you have a small house and don’t drive much, you might find that reducing your water use is the key to reducing your overall footprint. Distressingly, humanity’s total footprint is larger than the regenerative capacity of all the planet’s ecosystems combined: It would take an area equal to 1½ Earths to continue to support us. We are living, temporarily, on the surplus ecological productivity of the recent past, but we can’t continue doing so for long. Unsurprisingly, the average American’s ecological footprint is large – the largest in the world. We each need about 13 acres of ecologically productive land to support our lifestyle, compared with about 4½ acres for the average global citizen. Clearly, most of us can do a lot to reduce our footprints at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via e-mail through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/taxing-carbon-would-help-you-environment/</link>
        <title>Taxing carbon would help you, environment</title>
        <description>Before answering those questions, let’s explore some of the objections people have to paying a carbon tax. Their reasons tend to fall into two groups: (1) We don’t need a tax because carbon pollution isn’t a problem, global warming is...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:16 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">223E99ED-2C3B-411A-B20A-8A5CF9F38164</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Should we each pay a carbon tax, a fee assessed on the relative carbon content – and therefore the pollution potential – of coal, oil and natural gas? If so, how would such a tax help the environment? Before answering those questions, let’s explore some of the objections people have to paying a carbon tax. Their reasons tend to fall into two groups: (1) We don’t need a tax because carbon pollution isn’t a problem, global warming is a hoax and so on; (2) the affects of the tax would be to hurt poor people and the economy by raising the price of fuel and commodities and to “grow” government, which already is too large. I’ll answer the first group of questions briefly. Carbon pollution is real. In addition to the overwhelming scientific consensus that it causes global warming/climate change, there is incontrovertible evidence it directly harms human health is acidifying our oceans. If a carbon tax can reduce carbon pollution, that’s good. The second group, which challenges effects of the tax, tells us if we decide to impose a carbon tax, we must do so carefully if we want to speed the transition to a green economy without causing serious economic disruption. The guidelines for levying an equitable and effective carbon tax are plain enough. First, any carbon tax would need to be revenue neutral: It would not yield additional funds for government coffers. Second, that neutrality must be created not by a trade-off that reduces existing government revenue sources (taxes and fees), thus reducing the availability of services, but by redistributing the carbon tax revenue as a direct “dividend” to every American taxpayer. Each household’s dividend would be an equal “slice of the pie”: that is, each household would get the same amount of money regardless of how much energy it used. Setting up a revenue-neutral carbon tax is simple enough: The revenue goes into a special fund (similar to Social Security), not the government’s general fund. After administrative costs are deducted (they’re about 3 percent for Social Security), every taxpayer is sent a check for an equal share of the revenue. How does this protect the poor, who would see some increase in their cost of fuel for heating and driving? Although it’s an imperfect metric, there is a close correlation between a person’s or family’s income and the amount of energy they use to heat their (usually larger) houses, consume goods, drive, travel and so on. So if everyone gets the same amount, the poor will get, on average, disproportionately more. Yet people will not suffer unduly, because any additional energy costs they incur because of taxation will be at least partially offset by their dividend. Additionally, a properly designed carbon tax would increase gradually, so our fossil fuel-based economy would have time to adjust. Concurrently, investment in fossil fuels would shift toward other forms of energy or economic sectors as the price of carbon went up and people used less and less polluting energy by conserving and turning to green energy sources. As carbon revenue ramped up, those who use less energy through conscious lifestyle choices would be rewarded by having proportionately more money with which to “grow” the green economy, something I think most people can support at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/the-gas-glut-may-add-to-climate-chaos/</link>
        <title>The gas glut may add to climate chaos</title>
        <description>The recent tapping of America’s unconventional oil reserves, mostly found in shale deposits, has had the short-term effect of reducing gasoline prices in most of the country from well more than $3 per gallon to just more than $2. Whoopee!...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:02:28 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">4EAF3856-2BEA-48C5-AD06-A5960555CFA0</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[The price of gas at the pump has dropped dramatically, and that has many folks jumping for joy. Sorry to be a party pooper, but I’m not one of them. The recent tapping of America’s unconventional oil reserves, mostly found in shale deposits, has had the short-term effect of reducing gasoline prices in most of the country from well more than $3 per gallon to just more than $2. Whoopee! We’ll have more cash with which to buy more stuff, thus creating more jobs, which will create even more cash and stuff. We can drive to the mall, go on a spending spree and “grow the economy.” What’s not to like? Plenty, if you think about the not-too-distant future of both the economy and the environment. First, we need to understand that our current oil glut is symptomatic of the longer “peak oil” trend were experiencing. Misinterpreted by some to mean that we would “run out” of oil in the early 21st century, “peak oil” actually means that we’re rapidly running out of oil from conventional sources – big reservoirs that are easy to tap. While it might appear that shale deposits contain ample petroleum reserves to secure our future, much of that oil is hard to get at, many of the wells peter out quickly, and profitable yields will become scarcer. Meanwhile, the oil companies are busily building or connecting to seaports to sell America’s oil on the international market, hastening the depletion of reserves. In short, we can expect the oil glut to be temporary. The environmental concerns ultimately are more important, since we can’t eat oil or the profits it generates. Fracking creates a series of local disasters, overusing and permanently polluting ground- and surface-water while destabilizing soil strata. Globally, if cheap oil translates into more American driving and consumption – and thus more foreign manufacturing – our carbon pollution output will increase just at the time we are crossing the threshold into irreversible climate change and catastrophic ocean acidification. We already are seeing the results and feeling the pain of pushing carbon pollution over the limit most climatologists and oceanographers deem safe. Developments that threaten to further endanger us are highly risky. What can you do about it? Put simply, drive and spend less, not more. Ask yourself, “Does a volatile petroleum market tell me to spend my ‘oil-glut bonus,’ perhaps by going further into debt, or to save money? Do I really want to contribute to climate chaos and long-term food insecurity with unnecessary discretionary spending?” Finally, while gas prices are at a low ebb, taxing carbon pollution would have a minimal impact on the economy. Consider supporting a progressive, revenue-neutral carbon tax to fund a clean energy future at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/listen-closely-for-sounds-of-change/</link>
        <title>Listen closely for sounds of change</title>
        <description>– Edward Lorenz, chaos theory pioneer Recently, I’ve reflected on the truism that “nothing is guaranteed.” This is because a friend challenged the premise of my latest column. There I compared the current environmentalists’ struggle to change “the system” –...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 09:45:57 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">83CB4EFA-A8D1-41B8-B2DF-7B9DF0F48FBF</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?” – Edward Lorenz, chaos theory pioneer Recently, I’ve reflected on the truism that “nothing is guaranteed.” This is because a friend challenged the premise of my latest column. There I compared the current environmentalists’ struggle to change “the system” – the environmentally destructive way we pursue commerce – to the 19th-century abolitionists’ struggle to end slavery. I said that by writing, lecturing and demonstrating the abolitionists raised the American public’s awareness about the evils of slavery. Over a few short decades, they created a social milieu from which strong, unprecedented anti-slavery forces arose to abolish the deeply entrenched institution. I argued that by creating a similar milieu of environmental awareness, activists could at least hope to reverse our downward slide into global environmental devastation and climate chaos. Thus, everyone should do his or her part to help create that milieu – become informed, educate others, propose alternatives, protest – knowing that those efforts are part of a larger whole from which solutions can emerge. But my friend pointed out that even if environmental awareness and activism grows to the point where it could spawn narratives and movements with enough power to bring about change, there is no assurance that they would emerge. True enough. There are no guarantees, and many social movements have failed. The Luddite movement of the early 18th-century England is of special interest in this context, because of both its failure and the nature of its objective, which was to slow the development of the industrial revolution. The Luddites were traditional artisans who used a variety of tactics, including guerilla actions and sabotaging machinery, to try forcing industrialists to abandon mechanization in favor of more traditional methods of production. Unlike the abolitionist movement, however, the Luddites not only failed in their objective but brought the wrath of the British government, which was controlled by the industrialists, down upon their heads. An 1812 law made destroying machinery a capital crime, and a number of Luddites were executed or deported to penal colonies, effectively ending the movement. Although the Luddites’ methods of destroying property and taking up arms are against the principles of almost all modern environmentalists, their cause – humanizing and slowing the means of production – still resonates. But modern environmentalists, by contrast, have a global perspective, and want to slow mechanized production not just to provide more meaningful, secure employment but also to slow the depletion of resources – ideally, to balance their depletion with their replenishment. It has been argued that without the imposition of a global dictatorship – and indeed some people mistakenly fear that environmentalists seek just that – any such reduction of commerce will prove impossible in the face of the overweening materialism of the world’s “haves” and the material yearnings of its “have nots.” Perhaps. Environmentalists face the arduous task of convincing people that enough is enough: that once they securely have met their basic needs – food, clothing, housing and so on – further material acquisition is not only unnecessary but can be unhealthy, a form of addiction to “stuff” that interferes with their social and spiritual life; that we can live a better life, one where a sustainable economy preserves our planet while providing for our material security and emotional and spiritual well-being. Is it possible to bring about such a shift in consciousness? At a recent gathering, a friend explained what “keeps him going” in the face of what appear to be overwhelming odds against saving the planet. “It’s the butterfly effect,” he said. “The idea that if the conditions are right, a tiny perturbation, like a butterfly flapping its wings, can bring about a huge change in a system, such as a hurricane in a distant ocean. If we continue to create the conditions for change, perhaps that butterfly will flap its wings at just the right time. That’s how I find my purpose in life.” So it turns out there is one guarantee, the exception that proves the rule: If we do nothing, nothing will change. But if we do what we can to foster change, and listen very carefully, we just might hear the sound of a butterfly dancing through the air at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via e-mail through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/doing-your-part-can-improve-our-future/</link>
        <title>Doing your part can improve our future</title>
        <description>He was talking to two other friends who had been to the “People’s Climate March” held in September in New York City. They had joined more than 400,000 others to protest our government’s failure to curb the greenhouse gas emissions...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:43:39 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">F271B7F4-4B12-4A82-BF84-96142F7BB883</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“Marching won’t change anything,” my friend said. “It won’t change anybody’s mind about climate change, or anybody’s habits. It won’t change government policy or the carbon-based economy.” He was talking to two other friends who had been to the “People’s Climate March” held in September in New York City. They had joined more than 400,000 others to protest our government’s failure to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that are rapidly driving us toward a dangerous “tipping point” in global climate change – the point beyond which there will be no return to a stable, beneficial climate system. On the surface, my pessimistic friend was right. Four-hundred thousand people walking with signs, chanting and beating drums in and of itself is unlikely to change how much people drive, China’s industrialization policies or the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists in Washington. But that’s only if the People’s Climate March and all the other ongoing protests, writing, talks, classes, campaigns and initiatives aimed at changing our current “energy regime” are considered in isolation. Taken together, they have the potential to rewrite what one pundit called “the end of history.” How? By creating a gestalt, a whole system of beliefs from which a new paradigm can emerge. If your response to that is, “Huh?” or “Whoopee! What’ll that do?,” let’s look at an example of an emergence from a gestalt in action. The institution of slavery once dominated much of America’s economic and social life. To eradicate slavery, its opponents had to create a major shift in public morality. They needed to convince enough people of the merits of their cause to elect a president and congress that would outlaw bondage. To an observer in the 1820s, building an adequately strong abolitionist movement probably appeared impossible. Powerful economic interests including cotton and tobacco farming, shipping, English dry-goods manufacturing and the slave trade itself grew more entrenched and influential by the year. Their paid apologists ran a polished propaganda machine that spun the economic, “natural” and even “moral” virtues of slavery to the press, much of which they controlled. Widespread indifference to slavery’s immorality in the “free” Northern states appeared to suppress any hope of change. But the abolitionists persisted. Their movement grew and, of equal importance diversified. It came to include churches, communities of escaped slaves, business associations and startup political parties. They wrote and published, discussed and lectured, marched and prayed, agitated and aggravated. They established underground railroads and built havens and schools for escaped and freed slaves. And in so doing they created a new gestalt, a complex whole of related ideas, sentiments and their proponents which, taken together, became stronger than the sum of its parts. Once that gestalt became broadly and deeply established in American culture, it gave birth to even stronger expressions: the bestselling autobiography of the escaped slave Frederick Douglass; the novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin; the Republican party of orator Abraham Lincoln. In a few short decades, these emergences won enough hearts and minds to turn the tide against slavery, and the rest is history. Today, the climate-awareness movement is growing apace. A decade ago, who would have thought 400,000 people would march in New York – and millions more around the planet simultaneously demonstrate – in defense of the environment? And the environmentalists don’t just carry signs. They write, lecture, form alliances, lobby, pressure institutions, practice civil disobedience. They explore and discuss proposals ranging from levying a carbon tax to building clean-energy smart grids to reducing atmospheric carbon with organic-farming practices. They are everywhere, and each concerned citizen is using the time, energy and resources at his or her disposal to make a unique contribution to the new gestalt of climate awareness – which can lead to meaningful climate action. Each contribution is needed, because there is no telling which one will spur the next major emergence – the book, speech or political platform that could become a major tipping point in the struggle to keep the planet intact. So if you’re doing your part, no matter how insignificant it might seem, no matter how overwhelming the odds against success appear, take heart, because you hold the key to the future of your ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/hollow-days-show-we-have-exceeded-limits/</link>
        <title>Hollow Days show we have exceeded limits</title>
        <description>What society tells us we should be doing is getting into the “holiday spirit” and giving gifts, gifts and more gifts while we participate in a variety of seasonal activities meant to keep us cheery. But our “supposed to” feelings...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:37:30 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">E145053B-7F87-431F-951C-296EB5005AF0</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[At the risk of sounding like Scrooge or the Grinch, I often call our season of winter festivities the “Hollow Days” – the time of year when we get busy doing what we “should” but don’t always feel as we’re “supposed to.” What society tells us we should be doing is getting into the “holiday spirit” and giving gifts, gifts and more gifts while we participate in a variety of seasonal activities meant to keep us cheery. But our “supposed to” feelings don’t always jibe with our actual experience. We often feel as though we’re on a treadmill of social expectations where we’re asked to dig out our credit cards, shop till we drop, stage or attend the obligatory rituals and eat and drink more than we should to subdue our performance anxiety and stress. Where did we go wrong in our celebration of the season? Many pundits, of course, have pointed out how commercialism has elbowed out spirituality, how consumption has come to define the holidays. I believe our current anxieties have evolved – or must evolve – to stem from the recognition that we have exceeded our limits. The planet’s capacity to provide for our perpetually burgeoning consumption and even our own capacity to absorb what we consume has been surpassed. We know it; and it scares us. To recapture the meaning of the holidays, we must re-establish our spiritual and emotional connection to the Earth. We must celebrate in ways that enhance rather than degrade life. Here much more is required than taking a pleasant hike in the woods with family and friends – although such activities might be just the way to enjoy the holidays without acquiring more stuff. Communing with nature, while personally uplifting, remains an isolated act that does not in and of itself engender the shift in global consciousness needed to put humans and the biosphere into sustainable balance. We need a new revelation, one that appeals to both our rational and spiritual sides. It is found, I believe, in the recognition that everything on this Earth is connected – and that this interconnectivity is both scientific fact and a mystery, comprehensible but simultaneously nothing short of miraculous. Rationally, this revelation could be called “biosphere consciousness, ” although I prefer to call it “biospirituality.” To contemplate our connections to one another and everything else in our environment, to deeply understand and come to terms with those connections, is to free oneself from oppressive – opposed to supportive and sustainable – materialism. Gently urging others to such contemplations can be your gift. But how can this gift of a new biosphere consciousness be given to and received by a world that is racing toward oblivion? Can it come in time? The hopeful answer is inherent in how connected beings interact, a topic we’ll explore in upcoming columns at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via e-mail through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/be-grateful-for-loved-ones-our-biosphere/</link>
        <title>Be grateful for loved ones, our biosphere</title>
        <description>Unless you believe that you were put on this Earth by a conscious entity for purposes known only to that entity, you probably share the contemporary view that you are the result of a series of propitious accidents. First, there...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:06:59 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">D01664B8-44D6-4EF9-A608-C82F74977D82</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[If you’re looking for something to be thankful for as the holidays draw near, consider your own lucky existence. Unless you believe that you were put on this Earth by a conscious entity for purposes known only to that entity, you probably share the contemporary view that you are the result of a series of propitious accidents. First, there was the Big Bang, which gave birth to a septillion stars organized into 170 billion galaxies. The Milky Way, our smallish galaxy, encompasses around 400 billion of those stars. Among these celestial lights, we have identified but a handful of planets we believe could support life. One of those planets is our dear terra firma which, more than 4½ billion years ago, was formed from ice and dust particles at just the right distance from the sun to enable life to emerge. About 1 billion years later, the first proto-bacterial life forms arose from the interaction of organic chemicals found in pools across the planet. Life hung on – although it was almost extinguished twice. After 3½ billion years of chancy evolution – which easily could have failed to produce any species with linguistic skills and higher consciousness – your parents were born and eventually met – by chance. We’re all amazingly lucky to be here, and unless we are absolutely miserable, we have the experience of living to be thankful for. That experience includes loving and being loved by our family and friends and at least appreciating, if not loving, strangers, all of life and the planet that nurtures us. Which brings us to the idea of thanksgiving for our good fortune. Thanks can be given verbally and through benevolent actions. Both require an attainment of personal grace, which has the same root as gratitude, and the mature recognition that love is a two-way street: You can’t get it, or at least take it in, without also giving it. If you seek contentment and a full life, give back as much as is given to you. But how do we return the gift of life to our sanctuary in space, the planet that shelters and nurtures us? How can we show gratitude toward Mother Earth? The obvious answer is that we can live more lightly upon her. By making Thanksgiving less about stuffing ourselves, and especially by making Christmas less about stuffing our stockings and more about nurturing the Earth and each other. We know which practices are called for: Buy less and buy locally, grow your own, reduce, reuse, recycle. But before those practices can become sufficiently widespread to make a difference, we must cultivate the sensibility that gives such actions moral authority and makes them as rewarding as participating in our consumer culture. I call this new attitude “biosphere consciousness,” or “biospirituality.” The holidays will make the perfect background for exploring it in upcoming columns at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/escape-route-from-wildfire-is-best-defense/</link>
        <title>Escape route from wildfire is best defense</title>
        <description>Although these cautionary tales mostly recount the misadventures of people who text while driving and go boating without a life jacket, I’m especially dismayed by accounts of someone trying to defend his house from a big wildfire with a garden...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 10:15:33 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">296701B2-317C-4A71-84BD-E7627D686A8B</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[There’s a category of stories I call “What was that guy thinking?” Although these cautionary tales mostly recount the misadventures of people who text while driving and go boating without a life jacket, I’m especially dismayed by accounts of someone trying to defend his house from a big wildfire with a garden hose. In that instance, defending the indefensible becomes indefensible. It’s indefensible because this homegrown firefighter is potentially putting the lives of others at risk. While it might appear that a wildfire is approaching from a certain direction, large wildfires tend to be erratic: They can shoot burning embers from treetops and start secondary fires far from the main conflagration; and a fire can shift suddenly as the wind changes. Thus a fire can surround a particular location and burn toward its center. A homeowner surrounded by fire needs to be rescued, if possible, by firefighters – who are usually willing to put their own lives at risk to save a potential victim. They could die because he is unwilling to evacuate and abandon his possessions. (This is why firefighters are empowered to issue mandatory evacuation orders.) However, in defense of the defending homeowner, there is some confusion about just how dangerous big wildfires are. The confusion is generated in part, and inadvertently, by the somewhat misleading concept of “defensible space” surrounding a dwelling. Generally, fire authorities define defensible space as an area extending 100 feet from a dwelling cleared of fuel – flammable debris (including firewood), brush and the lower branches of large trees. Fire studies have established that houses with properly maintained defensible space are easier and safer to save from wildfires than those surrounded by flammable material. But two critical facts can be obscured by the term “defensible space.” One, in a large fire, such spaces are only marginally defensible, even by professional firefighters. Two, the purpose of defensible space is to save houses, not people. If there is a large fire, people should clear out. Start planning by thinking about what’s most precious to you. For most of us, of course, that’s our family and pets – and perhaps an extended family that includes neighbors and their pets. Next, list your material possessions in order of importance. Think in terms of what you can carry in a small backpack, because that might be all you can save. It’s critical to realize that fires often close roads, and you might need to evacuate on foot. Where will you go if the main road to your area is blocked by fire, fallen trees or abandoned cars? Are you capable of getting your family members out on foot? Are you familiar with the street that leads to the next road out or that footpath over the hill? Can you find it in the dark with the electricity out? Mapping escape routes, assembling a kit of emergency clothes, flashlights and particulate masks and earmarking your essential possessions in advance can save crucial time. Whatever you do, don’t try to wait out a large fire. Leaving sooner rather than later could save your life. Never play with fire at your ecological house. www.your-ecological-house.com. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/the-danger-of-living-on-forests-edge/</link>
        <title>The danger of living on forest’s edge</title>
        <description>Her home, in a pleasant development in a hilly, forested Urban Wildlife Interface Zone (UWIZ) at the edge of our town, could have burned down. One hot, early September night a wildfire roared through a park adjacent to her development....</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:34:35 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">586D32B7-BE0D-4FC9-AAF0-F105074CA583</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[My wife’s friend spoke of her fear. Her home, in a pleasant development in a hilly, forested Urban Wildlife Interface Zone (UWIZ) at the edge of our town, could have burned down. One hot, early September night a wildfire roared through a park adjacent to her development. Only the rapid response of 12 regional fire departments and what one firefighter called some “good luck” kept the blaze from consuming her neighborhood. “There was no way out,” my wife’s friend said. “There is only one road to our area, and the fire was getting close to it.” Hearing this, I recalled witnessing the 1991 “Oakland Hills” fire which killed 25 people and destroyed 3,354 houses. In that case, the region’s fire departments had no control over the situation; only a major shift in the wind’s direction kept the blaze from being far more destructive. As a resident of Berkeley at that time, I had a “front-row seat” during the conflagration, although I made it a point to stay away from the actual fire zone: The firefighters didn’t need an idiot gawker getting in their way. However, I actively participated in the fire’s postmortem, spending several days hiking through the burned area after the blaze was extinguished and, with some colleagues, organizing an event called the “Phoenix Conference” to educate those who had lost their homes about rebuilding options. By hiking, I learned something that astounded me: The fire, which mostly burned in hilly, forested UWIZs, was so hot (up to 3,000 degrees) that it not only obliterated almost every home it neared, it even baked their concrete foundations, so they crumbled if I gave them a gentle kick. I also learned a great deal from the Phoenix Conference – which drew on the expertise of firefighters, architects, engineers and others – about making homes less vulnerable to wildfires by cutting back encroaching brush, installing metal roofs and so on. But on reflection, my bottom-line takeaway from the conference and the fire was this: Creating UWIZs is a big mistake. (And now, as the climate in many regions becomes increasingly hotter and drier, living in UWIZs will prove a catastrophic, if not fatal mistake for thousands of people.) Everyone wants the good life, of course. What could be better than to live in a forested setting just a few minutes from a shopping mall? What beats sipping a latte or a glass of Chardonnay on your (flammable) wood deck and listening to the birds sing in that big (flammable) tree above your head? Developers and planning departments have been happy to accommodate these “needs” by building highly profitable (and taxable) neighborhoods in natural areas – conveniently forgetting that nature is rather fond of wildfires as a means of regenerating itself. The result is that millions of Americans now live in UWIZs, and most of them don’t know, or don’t want to think about, the danger they’re in. And while few want to pay the taxes needed to provide fire mitigation services such as brush clearing and upgraded fire departments, there could be a bit of folk wisdom in their recalcitrant attitude: protecting an isolated dwelling from a wildfire is an endless, and often losing battle. Why not just take your chances? While this hopeful approach to the safety of their families, possessions and properties might be all that someone who has invested his or her life’s savings in an UWIZ home can muster, a wakeup call – in the form of thinking about what’s really at stake in an out-of-control wildfire – just might save quite a few people’s bacon – from frying. If you live in an UWIZ, you should realize that if there is a big wildfire in your area, there is only a slim chance that it can be contained. And if the fire comes your way, there is practically no chance that your home can be saved, despite any mitigation measures you might have taken. Perhaps you’ll get lucky, but your most prudent course – the subject of my next column – is to start planning just how your family and pets can escape with your most valuable possessions if a 3,000-degree blaze approaches your ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/the-wildfire-next-time-how-hot-will-it-burn/</link>
        <title>The wildfire next time: How hot will it burn?</title>
        <description>It exploded in the middle of the night, burning 86 acres in a hilly Urban Wildlife Interface Zone, destroying most of a park and damaging two homes at its edge. It could have been a lot worse, if not for...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:31:36 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">FB5D870A-0410-4991-946D-28AD90007BE6</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[In my town, there was a fire. It exploded in the middle of the night, burning 86 acres in a hilly Urban Wildlife Interface Zone, destroying most of a park and damaging two homes at its edge. It could have been a lot worse, if not for the response of no less than 11 fire departments from nearby towns that rushed to help our overwhelmed local firefighters contain the blaze. The proximal cause of this conflagration was two teenage boys who were smoking pot in the park on that extremely hot, early September night. On a dare, one boy lit some tinder-dry grass on fire just to see what would happen. They saw – and one of them called 911 on his cellphone. The call was traced, leading to the boys’ arrest. All was confessed and revealed, and the community had its answer to: “How the heck did that happen?” No pot-smoking boys, no fire right? Sure. But there will always be boys (and pot to smoke or illegally obtained alcohol to drink). There will always be the homeless guy with his cigarette stub, the barbecuer with too many beers in his belly, the random spark from a passing truck. So, what’s different? Why, when most sparks simply die out, was there a near disaster this time? (The fire was a disaster for some local wildlife, just not for many people and their property.) Three weeks after the fire, I attended a lecture about the future of water availability in our region of Oregon. The talk, given by a renowned hydrology expert, covered the essential aspects of water supply and demand: the supply, in our case, being from local rain and snowfall, the demand being primarily from the region’s many forests; and then from agricultural and urban use, in that order. Not surprisingly, because of a variety of factors, the supply – specifically the amount of water available during the hot, dry summer and early fall months – is predicted to diminish as the demand grows. Population growth and expansion of the agricultural sector are anticipated to increase demand. No surprise there. But on the supply side, we have climate change, and its pernicious effects – already being felt – will affect water availability in surprising ways indeed. Although common sense tells us, and scientific predictions confirm, that as global temperatures rise we can expect longer, hotter dry seasons, our particular region should actually get more wet-season rainfall as the decades pass. However, more rainfall doesn’t necessarily translate into more available water. It works like this: With higher temperatures we can expect more precipitation, but less snow – and our mountain snowpack is our main water storage “facility.” (Most of the rest is stored in dams.) So the rain will come down hard in the winters, but their water will flow to the ocean. That means that there will be less water in the streams and rivers in the summer, increasing the severity of the dry season. Although the hydrology expert didn’t draw this conclusion, possibly because he ran out of time to speak, common sense tells us that significantly diminished stream flow and a drier environment will make wildfires – both “out in nature” and in Urban Wildlife Interface Zones – more likely and more destructive. (The lecturer did jokingly mention cutting down our forests as one way to reduce water demand. However, he didn’t mention burning down our forests, a specter that appears grimly inevitable.) We’re already in a prolonged and worsening drought. It was 95 degrees the morning after 12 fire departments and some lucky changes in the wind’s direction saved the possible destruction of hundreds of homes. But what if there had been simultaneous fires in other towns, requiring each department to fight its own battle? The day is not far off when dry-season temperatures frequently will exceed 100 degrees. Water for fighting fires will be scarcer, and resources to enhance water availability – new dams and reservoirs, for example – will be stretched past the limit as similar problems engulf the entire West. When will we pass the point of no return? Let’s hope we have time to adapt – the topic of my next column – before there’s another fire near your ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/these-zombies-are-everywhere-and-nowhere/</link>
        <title>These zombies are everywhere – and nowhere</title>
        <description>They began to talk, then one of them made the “wait-a-minute” gesture with her index finger. She pulled her cellphone from her purse, placed it on the table and stared at. And stared at it … and stared at it....</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:18:34 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">A45BB074-22DA-4020-B008-7BAABBF3A382</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Two young women sat down at the table next to mine in a restaurant. They began to talk, then one of them made the “wait-a-minute” gesture with her index finger. She pulled her cellphone from her purse, placed it on the table and stared at. And stared at it ... and stared at it. Eventually, she entered some text into the phone, then smiled and said a few words to her companion. Then she stared at her phone again while her companion sat, studied the menu, sipped her drink, fidgeted. When the waiter came to take their order, the companion shook her head, got up and quietly left. The woman on the phone didn’t notice. The next day, I was in a store where I happened to see the same woman standing in front of me at the counter, still staring at her cellphone. “May I help you?” the clerk asked her. But the woman continued staring at her phone. After a long pause, the clerk started helping me. Then it hit me. I was witnessing a bona fide “trombie” (electronic zombie) in action – or inaction, as it were. And a chill crept over me as I realized: The zombies are already among us! They are multiplying, and they are taking over. It’s too late to prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse, it has arrived – under the guise of connectivity. You’ve seen trombies, too. People talking to themselves as if they’re deranged; but they’re actually talking on a cellphone. Then there are folks staring into their little screens at a baseball game, an art gallery, a dance or while driving. They’re everywhere you are. But at the same time they’re not anywhere you are because they’re not where they are. They’re not in the present, not in their environment, not in their bodies – they’re not even in their minds. For their minds have been sucked into their tiny devices, and are imprisoned in some faraway place. The whole phenomenon could be fodder for a short absurdist drama wherein trombies mill about on the stage staring at their phones and bumping into each other. (Someone walking while texting knocked a friend’s friend off a curb: She broke her ankle, but the perpetrator texted on without stopping.) At the play’s climax a character drops her phone, which screeches like a dying bird and goes silent. The other actors look up, drop their phones and stare at each other blankly as the curtain comes down. Unfortunately the trombie phenom is not just perversely humorous – and its serious side has environmental implications. As someone who does what he can for the environment by riding a bicycle, I take one of them personally. The Oregonlive website recently reported that Patrick Linden of St. Helens, Oregon, was riding in the bicycle lane (a marked shoulder) of U.S. Highway 30 and wearing his helmet when he was hit by a truck and killed. The report states, “An initial investigation indicates that (the truck’s driver) became distracted while looking at a text message on his phone, according to state police. His vehicle traveled onto the shoulder, where it struck Linden.” Jeez. It’s hard enough negotiating roads where actual human beings are driving the cars and trucks. The trombies take the game to a whole new level. Then there are the larger environmental issues to which the trombies are likely to contribute more than their share: cellphones, which typically work for about five years, tend to be used for one year and then discarded, increasing their impact in terms of resource depletion for manufacturing and pollution. Along with non-biodegradable plastics, cellphones contain enough toxic metal, mercury and other nasty stuff to exceed by 17 times the federal threshold for hazardous waste. And billions of cellphones are discarded worldwide each year. You can find volumes of information about the environmental downsides and possible health hazard of cellphones using the Internet search words, “cellphone environmental impact.” It’s sobering reading. And speaking of sobering, perhaps its time to re-evaluate the social and ethical mores that have made trombie behavior fashionable – or even acceptable – at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/enjoy-exercise-without-a-stable-of-pricey-gadgets/</link>
        <title>Enjoy exercise without a stable of pricey gadgets</title>
        <description>I’m glad I did. By the end of the term I could do “trades,” “crossovers” and a variety of other rope-jumping tricks at high speed. And I was in great shape, because it turns out that skipping rope is one...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:45:07 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">99D10598-61F3-4FCE-AD85-04A4466368FF</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[I’m not sure just how I wound up taking a semester of rope skipping to fulfill my 1960s-something college freshman physical education requirement. Suffice it to say that once I found myself in this unwelcome circumstance, I accepted my fate and determined to give it my best shot. I’m glad I did. By the end of the term I could do “trades,” “crossovers” and a variety of other rope-jumping tricks at high speed. And I was in great shape, because it turns out that skipping rope is one of the best overall conditioners. Fast-forward 35 years and, in considerably worse shape than I was in college, I’m walking through the Oakland (California) Museum’s “White Elephant Sale.” Held in a huge warehouse, this annual fundraiser sports donated items ranging from a 50-foot solid mahogany sailboat to Tupperware without lids. But most prominent, occupying about one-third of an acre of the floor, was a maze of home-exercise equipment. Donated by people who had “outgrown” their need for the exercise, the equipment presumably once facilitated, the items ran the gamut from treadmills, rowing machines, exercycles, ellipticals, “spinning bikes” and the ever-popular “vibration trainers” to apparatuses that, with their wires and poles going every which way, are really difficult to describe but come under the general heading “home gyms.” Little of this equipment existed in the 1960s – or at least it was seldom found in people’s homes. Gyms were attached to schools, and mostly used by students, though they were sometimes open to the public as night-school facilities. Few gyms, even at colleges, had prototypes of the high-tech equipment that has become ubiquitous today. In the weight room, one lifted weights. Then, between the 1960s and 1990s, there was an explosion of interest in all sorts of physical activities. Backpacking, jogging and “cross training” became commonplace. Accompanying this renewed interest in physical culture – there had been similar developments in the 1890s and 1920s – was a parallel explosion in the variety and quantity of “sports equipment.” Suddenly, the all-purpose “sneaker” morphed into 40 types of expensive athletic shoes. Every activity “required” its own uniform, machinery, specialized storage rack – all pricey. And of course there was the proliferation of home gym equipment mentioned above. All of this would be good and well but for two factors: Manufacturing all that athletic equipment, much of which is used for a short time and then discarded, is hard on the environment. The equipment doesn’t seem to be getting us in shape ... there are more obese Americans today than at any time in our past. What gives? I think, as with many aspects of our material culture, our “sporting goods” fetish has led us down a false path. We’ve bought into the fantasy that we can develop healthy bodies by owning more stuff rather than by actually working out. On the former, we spend money, getting the temporary satisfaction of owning yet another thing – though in and of itself it does nothing for our health. On the ladder, we must spend time, but that time rewards us with weight loss, increased vigor and an improved self-image. As someone who has achieved his weight-loss and conditioning goals in the last six months, I can assure that you don’t need a $500 to $2,500 piece of home gym equipment, $150 shoes or special clothes to get in shape. To lose weight, I rode my bike a lot. My bike’s not particularly expensive, as bikes go, and I use it for about half of my transportation, so I don’t consider it a dedicated “exercise machine.” Other than the needed safety equipment – a helmet and some bright-colored T-shirts – I own no special bicycling gear. I ride in jeans and “sneakers,” the same “uniform” I wear for yard work and organic gardening that improves my strength and diet. I seldom skip rope these days; it strains my aging knees. But by investing under $5 in a piece of rope and some tape to bind its ends as “handles,” you can skip rope at your ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/divest-or-desist-are-you-doing-the-right-thing/</link>
        <title>Divest or desist: Are you doing the right thing?</title>
        <description>The Titanic sails at dawn And everybody’s shouting “Which side are you on?” – Bob Dylan, “Desolation Row” We each arrive at a time in our lives when we must decide between doing what’s convenient and what our conscience tells...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:04:42 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">8B18FEC7-41F5-4FEC-824E-8C017F256383</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Praise be to Nero’s Neptune The Titanic sails at dawn And everybody’s shouting “Which side are you on?” – Bob Dylan, “Desolation Row” We each arrive at a time in our lives when we must decide between doing what’s convenient and what our conscience tells us is right. At that moment, there are a number of factors to weigh. We must ask ourselves if we’re picking the right battle; if our intended action is likely to produce the desired effect, or might have unintended consequences; if the action (or inaction) will be taken for ourselves, for the sake of others or both. But most important, we must consider that morning when we take a long look in the mirror and ask, “Do I know right from wrong, and am I going to do the right thing?” For only by answering that question in the affirmative can we respect ourselves, and know that any respect given us by our family and friends is truly earned. For me, the question of divesting in any and all fossil fuel holdings is a simple one. In order to avoid disastrous, as opposed to what is now merely disruptive climate change, we must leave most of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground. Three years ago climate activist Bill McKibben, in a Rolling Stone article based on the calculations of the scientific community, wrote that as an absolute maximum we can burn 565 gigatons more carbon. But the world’s private and state-owned fossil fuel reserves are more than 2,795 gigatons. Those reserves, not drilling rigs, pipelines, ships and office buildings, make up by far the greater part of a large fossil fuel company’s net worth. And only if those reserves become worth less will fossil fuel companies’ ability to control the energy sector and thus the world’s economy diminish, making way for investment in a clean energy future. There are those who disagree with me, of course. Some people think that global warming is a hoax, a socialist plot and so on, rather than the carefully deliberated conclusion of the world’s scientific community. I fully respect their right to their opinions, though I’m not sure they should be given too much power over everyone else’s future. But if you are someone who sees rapid climate change as a clear and present danger, and you happen to have an investment portfolio, you might want to make sure it is free of any holdings in fossil energy concerns. This can take some work. Mutual funds and related investment vehicles typically spread their investors’ money across many sectors, and ferreting out exactly where your money is parked might take a few phone calls. Then you have to go through the divestment process which could take a little work as well – but it fortunately shouldn’t hurt your fiduciary prospects, especially if fossil fuels represent a small portion of your portfolio. Reinvestment in greener technologies will likely bring you greater returns in the long run. However, while those considerations are important, they are not fundamental. They are peripheral to the main question: Am I doing the right thing at my ecological house? Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via e-mail through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/refrigerator-crisis-solved-by-cool-local-business/</link>
        <title>Refrigerator crisis solved by cool local business</title>
        <description>– Andrew Mason, entrepreneur Thursday, 10:15 p.m.: I’m sitting by the open window in my home office enjoying a cool, quiet evening after enduring a long, hot summer day. Suddenly, my wife calls anxiously from the kitchen, where she is...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:53:04 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">C92928B8-AAB3-48AD-BA39-FACA107B199C</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“Most small business owners are not particularly sophisticated business people. That’s not a criticism; they’re passionate about cutting hair or cooking food, and that’s why they got in the business, not because they have an MBA.” – Andrew Mason, entrepreneur Thursday, 10:15 p.m.: I’m sitting by the open window in my home office enjoying a cool, quiet evening after enduring a long, hot summer day. Suddenly, my wife calls anxiously from the kitchen, where she is hovering over our refrigerator’s freezer drawer. “The food’s all melting,” she says. “We’ve got to get it out of here.” Fortunately, we have a second freezer, which we use to preserve the vegetables from our organic garden, so we transfer the food there. The refrigerator compartment also is warming, but it seems like its contents will last the night. Friday, 7:45 a.m.: I call two local, independent businesses: a new appliance dealer and a used appliance repair shop. My wife calls a neighbor to see if we can store some food in her refrigerator. Friday, 8:15 a.m.: The new appliance dealership returns my call and immediately puts me through to its serviceman. Although we had purchased our refrigerator at another small business, he spends half an hour discussing our problem; suggesting possible diagnoses; explaining how the warranty works on our brand of refrigerator, which his company happens to represent; and instructing me how to find the serial number so I can call the manufacturer and find out more about the warranty. The only downside to this dealership’s service is that it can’t work on the refrigerator at our house, nor can it pick up the refrigerator to take to their shop until the next Tuesday. Meanwhile, the fridge is barely “keeping its cool.” We fear losing all our food and spending a lot eating out. Friday, 8:45 a.m.: Our neighbor calls and suggests we keep a big bag of party ice in the fridge. She drops one off within the hour. Another neighbor brings us some plastic bottles to fill with water and freeze in our working freezer to keep our “ice box” going. This works well until Tuesday – no food is lost. Friday, 8:50 a.m.: The used appliance guy calls. He can come out this morning and work on the machine at our house, so we discuss the problem at length. But as soon as I tell him that there are still a few months left on our 10-year parts warranty, he turns down the job. (Ten years?! Fridges used to last 30 years!) “If I touch it, you’ll void your warranty,” he volunteers. Friday, 9:15-10:15 a.m.: I spend an hour on hold trying to get through to the warranty department of our refrigerator manufacturer’s parent corporation. I give up and call its sales department, which picks up immediately, and squeeze some information out of them. Tuesday, 10:30 a.m.: The small, local appliance dealer picks up our refrigerator and leaves us a free loaner. While repairing our fridge, it saves us $500 by making sure the manufacturer honors its parts warranty. Today, 10 a.m.: The business returned our refrigerator, working like new. I gave thanks that we still have small businesses near our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via e-mail through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/innocent-actions-at-home-creating-deadly-superbugs/</link>
        <title>Innocent actions at home creating deadly superbugs</title>
        <description>– Dr. Stuart B. Levy, professor of molecular biology, microbiology and medicine, Tufts University Is your evil alter ego working to create superbugs, those antibiotic-resistant bacteria that could wipe out humanity? Is your home a chemical warfare lab that uses...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:08:19 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">9DBFEC3A-23F3-40AB-B001-E8BAB1F8E40F</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“Antibiotic resistance exemplifies par excellence Darwinism: Surviving strains (of bacteria) have emerged under the protection and selection by the antibiotic.” – Dr. Stuart B. Levy, professor of molecular biology, microbiology and medicine, Tufts University Is your evil alter ego working to create superbugs, those antibiotic-resistant bacteria that could wipe out humanity? Is your home a chemical warfare lab that uses an underground network to disseminate dangerous agents into the public water supply? Probably not. But some of your innocent actions might inadvertently contribute to the same environmental problems as those plotted by the Doctor Doom I just described. By using “antibacterial soaps” and improperly disposing of antibiotics – especially by flushing them down the toilet – you could be helping to create superbugs through the process of evolution. That’s because antibacterial soaps and antibiotics don’t just kill their targeted disease-causing bacteria; they kill any susceptible bacteria they contact, on or in your body and in the environment. But some bacteria are resistant to the antimicrobial chemicals, and they survive and continue to multiply. And when they find themselves in a new, favorable environment because their bacterial competitors have been eliminated by our “chemical warfare,” their populations explode. This is “Darwinism” or evolution in action: One species of bacteria (or, since bacteria commonly swap genes and are classified differently than more-complex organisms, one “group” of bacteria) has a selective advantage, resistance to specific chemicals, that allows it to increase its numbers over its bacterial competitors. Over time – a very short time because bacteria reproduce quickly – the drug-resistant bacteria dominate the environment and become the group to which we are most likely to be exposed. The chemicals in antibacterial soaps and most antibiotics both dissolve in water and persist in the environment, at least for long enough to affect the evolution of the bacterial population, and often for decades more. So each time someone washes his or her hands with antibacterial soap or disposes of leftover antibiotics by flushing them or dumping them in the garbage, the chemicals find their way into the water supply through the sewer system or the ground and contribute to the growth of superbugs. If only a handful of people committed such sins against nature (and us), the effects would be nil. But it is estimated that up to 75 percent of all U.S. households use antibacterial soap. Also, since antibiotics were discovered in the 1940s, billions of people worldwide have used (or overused) them and, for the most part, disposed of them carelessly. This, along with the extensive use of antibiotics in agriculture, has resulted in the evolution of vast populations of superbugs that are threatening to cause a full-blown health crisis – the great epidemic of the early 21st century. Thus far, 2 million people in the U.S. are infected by antibiotic-resistant bacteria annually, and 23,000 of them die. What can you do? First and foremost, stop using antibacterial soaps and related products, especially those that contain the antimicrobial agent “triclosan” and its close relative “triclocarban.” Triclosan can pose health risks to its users and to anyone who becomes exposed to it through the water supply. The risks include, ironically, reduced bacterial resistance and hormonal effects in the user. (Another irony: Some bacteria thrive in a triclosan-rich environment, and others actually eat the stuff!) Next, dispose of antibiotics and other drugs and chemicals properly. The best method is to drop them off at a “drug take-back” event such as the National Take Back Initiative. Sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the initiative occurs twice annually throughout the U.S. Additionally, some pharmacies and hospitals will recycle your leftover drugs. The next-best method of disposal, recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency, is: Remove the drugs from the original container (and remove your name, Rx number, etc.); Mix them with used cat litter, coffee grounds or some other undesirable substance; Put them into a disposable container such as a margarine tub with a lid or a sealable plastic bag and; Dispose of the container in the trash. Finally, by searching online using keywords such as “antibiotics and bacterial resistance,” and “antibiotics in the water supply,” educate yourself so you can better inform others about the problem at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/hand-sanitizers-dirty-record-let-soap-do-the-job/</link>
        <title>Hand sanitizers’ dirty record; let soap do the job</title>
        <description>– Sir William Osler, M.D., “the father of modern medicine” I was both amused and distressed as I watched a 20-something mom hastily pull a bottle of hand sanitizer from her purse and squirt some on her baby’s pudgy paws....</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:47:00 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">0CD364DB-F186-41AD-B910-A55868DB7442</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“Soap and water and common sense are the best disinfectants.” – Sir William Osler, M.D., “the father of modern medicine” I was both amused and distressed as I watched a 20-something mom hastily pull a bottle of hand sanitizer from her purse and squirt some on her baby’s pudgy paws. Until then, I was merely entertained as I sat in a park sipping coffee and watching the kid crawl toward a concrete dog watering bowl attached to a fountain. He had grasped the edge of the bowl and pulled himself up to peer inside when his mom whisked him away and initiated the emergency treatment. “It’s good for his immune system,” I ventured to comment, thinking of how exposure to germs builds antibodies in children. “Oh, but we don’t know what dogs have been at this fountain,” his mom responded as she smushed an “antibacterial” towelette into his face. True enough, I thought. Maybe one of the dogs carried rabies. Of course, antibacterial products won’t affect rabies, a viral disease, which in any case is transmitted when the infected animal’s saliva directly enters the recipient’s blood stream – by biting. But why spoil a well-intended medical intervention with facts? While there is only a slim chance that the mom’s apparently incessant attempts to repress bacteria will make her kid safer, I mused, there is a very good chance it will make him neurotic. Unfortunately, it could also make him dead. This could happen in one of three ways: Chemicals in many over-the-counter antibacterial products – hand “sanitizing” sprays and gels, hand soaps and wipes – can affect his endocrine and immune systems and have even been connected to cancer. The overuse of antibacterial products can weaken his immune system, making him susceptible to preventable diseases. He could fall prey to one of the many “superbugs,” bacteria that have evolved to be unaffected by our antibiotics – partly because of our excessive and sloppy use of antibacterial products. (Note that alcohol-based hand sanitizers are relatively safe for you and the environment, if they are used sparingly so they don’t lower your resistance to disease. Ideally, use them only when you’ve clearly been exposed to dangerous bacteria and can’t readily wash your hands. They must contain at least 60 percent alcohol to be effective, and unlike hand washing, they are ineffective against viruses you pick up by, say, shaking the hand of someone with a cold.) The primary chemical culprit that makes many antibacterial products potentially dangerous is “triclosan,” which is also found in personal-care products such as body wash, shampoo, acne medication and even toothpaste. (Triclosan is used in liquid products, while a related chemical – triclocarban – is used in bar soaps.) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has warned that rather than protecting us against disease, ongoing exposure to triclosan can cause or contribute to a variety of health problems. “Some data suggests that long-term exposure to ... triclosan ... could pose health risks, such as (reduced) bacterial resistance or hormonal effects,” the FDA said in December 2013. That statement was included in a notice issued to pharmaceutical and hygiene-product manufactures that the FDA could soon require them to prove that the use of triclosan products is more effective in preventing disease than washing with plain soap and water. Meanwhile, in May 2014, Minnesota passed a law banning all products containing triclosan. But while triclosan could be on its way out, other chemicals such as parabens, which can cause similar problems, and numerous unregulated fragrances are also used in “antibacterial” and other hygiene products. Unless the industry becomes properly regulated, your safest bet is to read and understand the product labels and avoid suspicious substances. Which brings us to the environment, which is more difficult to avoid than risky products. Each year, 2 million Americans get infections that can’t be treated by antibiotics: 23,000 of them die, and the numbers are rising. While some of these diseases are picked up in hospitals and clinics, which are working on the problem, others come from a variety of unpredictable sources such as shared computer keyboards. There’s only one safe and generally effective antidote: Using plain soap and water, wash your hands frequently and thoroughly when you’re out and about and at your ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/anything-goes-during-epic-game-of-extinction/</link>
        <title>Anything goes during epic game of ‘Extinction’</title>
        <description>– American soccer star Mia Hamm I got out of my environmental writer’s box a couple of weeks ago and wrote my first-ever editorial about sports. Well, not sports per se, but an essay about what I considered to be...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:35:25 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">27AACD03-62DF-4E5A-A4BD-4A468F60FF61</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“I am building a fire, and everyday I train, I add more fuel. At just the right moment, I light the match.” – American soccer star Mia Hamm I got out of my environmental writer’s box a couple of weeks ago and wrote my first-ever editorial about sports. Well, not sports per se, but an essay about what I considered to be the unfair media bashing of my local university’s head basketball coach, who was fired when the team failed to make the NCAA “March Madness” tournament. After the coach, who had really been a credit to the university and its basketball program, was let go, nasty editorials and comments about him continued to appear in three local papers. Incensed, I came to his defense, and also to the defense of collegiate sports as a venue for building not just winning records, but also young people’s character – a skill the coach excelled at. My opinion piece was published in my local newspaper, where this column also runs, and, man, did I get a lot of response. People wrote letters to the editor for and against my position; folks I bumped into thanked me; somebody even left a message of support on my answering machine. Now, I usually write about issues I consider important: environmental threats to human civilization and our legacy to coming generations – that sort of thing. And the usual response is: Yawn. The end of the world? “Whatever.” Resource wars? “Um, I’m busy at the moment.” Drought, famine, pestilence? “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.” My columns elicit one or two responses each month. So, dear reader, I’ve learned my lesson. It’s clear many folks don’t give a hoot about tedious topics such as climate change or their children’s futures. But basketball (football, baseball, etc.), now there’s something to get excited about. Who cares about hunger riots when you can read about sports riots? But the silver lining to this cloudy lesson is that I’ve discovered a way to get people excited about environmental issues. I just need to couch them in sports terms, and people’s passions will flare. Make it a game, and global warming can arouse all the optimism and angst you feel when your home team is locked in a fourth-quarter tie. I call my new game “Extinction,” an extreme sport pitting humanity against the biosphere. The human team’s name is “Saps,” from homo sapiens, and the biosphere’s team is the “Nats,” short for “Nature.” The object of the game is the extinction of the opponent: The Saps destroy Nature, or the Nats doom humanity to extinction. The rules are simple: Anything goes. There have been many games of extinction in the past, with the biosphere winning against all comers. The era’s dominant species die out, but life goes on. This time, however, although the Nats are generally favored, the outcome is in doubt. The current championship game started about a million years ago when the proto-Saps emerged from their primate gene pool. For most of the game, it looked like a blowout for the Nats. Fiercely competitive, especially when it comes to eliminating new species, Nature brought her “A” game throwing hunger, disease and predation at the mostly rookie Saps. But the Nats couldn’t quite finish off the Saps and let them chip away at the lead. Then late in the fourth quarter, with only a couple decades left to play, the Saps came up with a new, industrial-strength strategy that literally tapped the Nats own deep reserves to use against them. The Saps have set a fire called global warming that’s torching the whole of Nature in a few short decades and have built up a commanding lead. Forests will die, glaciers will melt, oceans will become lifeless, and the entire planet could become a sterile desert. With just a few decades left to play, the Saps can smell blood, taste an historic victory. But, sports fans, you know it ain’t over till it’s over. And as they say, “Nature bats last” at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him by email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/climate-change-is-upon-us-so-now-what/</link>
        <title>Climate change is upon us: So now what?</title>
        <description>– 2014 National Climate Assessment report to the U.S. Congress Well, in a weird way, it’s nice to be validated. For the last several years, I, along with other environmentalists and many climate scientists, have been saying what the most...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2014 12:13:10 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">87D41F21-647F-41EE-B84A-9A0CE1790BB1</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“Climate change is already affecting the American people in far-reaching ways. ... (It is) disrupting people’s lives and damaging some sectors of the economy.” – 2014 National Climate Assessment report to the U.S. Congress Well, in a weird way, it’s nice to be validated. For the last several years, I, along with other environmentalists and many climate scientists, have been saying what the most recent National Climate Assessment has confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt: Global warming-driven climate change has arrived. I say the validation is weird because I wish it were otherwise. Who wants to be validated for writing dozens of columns from, essentially, Dr. Doom’s perspective? Lately, I’ve been billing myself as the guy nobody wants to hear from. I say “beyond a shadow of a doubt” because of the way the assessment was conducted. It was written by 250 leading scientists from every relevant field – climatology, hydrology, soils science, agronomy, ecology and so on. They were overseen by an advisory committee that, along with a number of scientific “superstars,” included representatives from a private equity firm, the Rockefeller Foundation, ConocoPhilips and Chevron oil companies, Monsanto and the U.S. departments of Defense and Homeland Security. It is important to note, too, that the assessment wasn’t commissioned by the White House. The U.S. Congress, where the lower House is controlled by a clique of business-as-usual climate-change deniers, authorizes the periodic assessment. The assessment’s findings are based on exhaustive documentation of current climate conditions and their effects throughout the U.S. – and the picture isn’t pretty: unpredictable extreme weather, rising tides, droughts, floods, snowpack loss, the northern migration of disease vectors, ecosystem collapse – you already know the picture if you’ve followed the climate news. Still, I highly recommend Googling the National Climate Assessment and, at a minimum, reading its excellent 12-page overview along with your area’s regional report. You’ll find it sobering, and you might start thinking about how we can respond. Recently, I’ve been asked to give talks on that very topic – how to respond – at a local university and my town’s Chamber of Commerce, which wants to hear about climate-related business opportunities. But as much as I’d like to change out of my Dr. Doom costume and into my “Solutions Guy” clothes, the truth is that I don’t have a clue – other than the obvious (and unlikely) drastic and immediate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate at least some of the anticipated damage. The problem is, despite paying the overblown fees of some “risk-management consultants,” nobody knows what to expect. Climate change is erratic by nature. Maybe the Western drought will be alleviated by the currently developing El Niño, which could bring increased precipitation to the region. But maybe that precipitation will be so severe that it razes half the 2015 crops. What I do know is species that generalize (rather than becoming over specialized) and gene pools that diversify tend to be survivors in the evolutionary rat race. Next time, we’ll explore what our species can learn from them at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/should-we-pursue-a-new-generation-of-nuclear-power/</link>
        <title>Should we pursue a new generation of nuclear power?</title>
        <description>– James Buchan A line from an article in my local newspaper caught my eye. After describing a three-day meeting of small, “modular” nuclear-reactor developers from around the world hosted by Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon, where I live,...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2014 12:50:44 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">687F6C92-B445-43F8-ACE7-80698774EF82</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“They leave to future generations the task, and most of the cost, of making safe sites that have been polluted half-way to eternity.” – James Buchan A line from an article in my local newspaper caught my eye. After describing a three-day meeting of small, “modular” nuclear-reactor developers from around the world hosted by Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon, where I live, the author commented that the event was not open to the public. One wonders why. Perhaps the meeting was closed to insulate “those in the know,” the nuclear experts and entrepreneurs, from the uninformed populace. The latter might waste the former’s precious time with frivolous questions about the safety of this “new generation” of nuclear reactors – none of which has ever been built – and the wisdom of the developers’ plans to situate them all over the country and the world. After all, why should those in the know engage with the public when they’re already engaged with people whose opinions actually matter through their connections in Washington and other capitals? That’s where the hundreds of millions of dollars in development grants and the green lights for implementation are to be found. Since the opportunity for public discourse at the OSU meeting was “overlooked,” I thought I would take this opportunity to ask a few questions that you might also want answers to – before you find yourself living next to a nuclear reactor. What are these small modular reactors (SMRs)? They are designed to power an average-sized town, not a metropolitan area. Therefore, they would require much less fuel than the lumbering earlier reactors – a factor that some think makes them safer. The “modular” in SMR means that rather than being built on site, the reactors would be built in a factory, then shipped to a site, installed and then loaded with radioactive fuel. This would certainly make them cheaper and faster to set up. However, it also means there would be much more handling and transporting of nuclear fuel as trains and trucks that currently supply about 80 nuclear power plants around the U.S. would potentially supply hundreds. Of course, each train would carry only enough fuel to “wipe out a town,” so why should we worry? The next major benefit claimed for SMRs is that they will employ “passive cooling systems” that eliminate the need for most of the pumps and pipes that tend to fail in traditional nukes. Can one ask if such systems are 100 percent fail safe? Is any lower level of risk acceptable? Statistically – comparing the number of nuclear power plants and their years of operation to the number of their minor and major accidents – nuclear power has one of the worst safety records of any industry. But the industry wants you to believe that, based on their calculations, SMRs will be truly different, truly safe. Who are you to start asking silly questions at your ecological house? Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/this-summer-let-a-solar-oven-cook-for-you/</link>
        <title>This summer, let a solar oven cook for you</title>
        <description>– Thomas Alva Edison Science is all “whiz-bang!” to today’s media-saturated kids. They think everything flies, transforms and explodes, Hollywood style. So when my granddaughter was assigned to conduct an experiment for her fifth-grade science fair, she wanted to build...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:32:36 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">B76929A7-AB51-4077-BC92-C2B4D78CDA34</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy, what a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out, before we tackle that.” – Thomas Alva Edison Science is all “whiz-bang!” to today’s media-saturated kids. They think everything flies, transforms and explodes, Hollywood style. So when my granddaughter was assigned to conduct an experiment for her fifth-grade science fair, she wanted to build a robot. Said android – to be built in six weeks – would set and clear the dinner table, her main household chore. I was to be her assistant in this endeavor. After some discussion, we settled on the slightly less ambitious goal of equipping a couple of identical jars of water with thermometers and warming them in the sun. My granddaughter hypothesized that if sunlight warms an object, focusing more sunlight on that object will get it warmer faster. To test her hypothesis she modified two identical apple boxes to hold the jars: one retained its plain cardboard surfaces and the other she lined with reflective aluminum foil. Then she placed the boxes next to each other facing the sun and put the jars in the boxes. Sure enough, the jar in the reflective box got 10 to 15 degrees warmer and heated up faster than the jar in the plain cardboard box. While hardly technological wizardry, her experiment was real science, which mostly involves taking careful, repetitive measurements and fussing over their statistical interpretations. But demanding and boring though it can be in the details, science becomes exciting when all the grunt work yields tangible results that are informative and useful to humanity. In my granddaughter’s case, the grunt work is paying off in several ways: She’s leaning how science works and beginning to appreciate the sun’s quiet power. Also, she’s proven that with a little help even a fifth-grader can construct a deceptively simple device with enormous potential for addressing global problems. By Googling “solar-oven images” as she designed her project, she learned that devices similar to her reflective apple box are being deployed in many regions of the developing world where scavenged firewood is used for cooking fuel. Cooking with wood causes many environmental and social ills including deforestation, which destroys ecosystems and reduces our global carbon sink; emitting soot which lands on glaciers, darkening them and speeding their decline; causing deadly lung diseases for those who cook indoors; and forcing women, the principle cooks, to range ever farther from home in search of increasingly scarce firewood. A number of organizations are addressing this problem by introducing inexpensive, reliable, fuel- and pollution-free solar cookers – capable of cooking everything from roast chicken to stew in pots – to the affected areas. Google “solar cookers for developing countries” if you want to help. But think, too, of building your own solar cooker from one of the many free plans you can find online. If you use your cooker just a few times each summer, you’ll reduce your carbon footprint a little. But if you also invite your neighbors, especially their kids over for some savory solar stew, your demonstration solar cooker could make a big difference at our ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/columnists/global-pollution-bound-to-become-a-local-problem/</link>
        <title>Global pollution bound to become a local problem</title>
        <description>– American adage Because local news is often most relevant to readers, I had planned to write a column focused on environmental issues close to home. But just as I was pondering an appropriate topic, I read about ocean-borne radiation...</description>
        <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:15:53 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">CF9148E3-02A5-4D8C-BFAC-8F324F37808C</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[“What goes around comes around.” – American adage Because local news is often most relevant to readers, I had planned to write a column focused on environmental issues close to home. But just as I was pondering an appropriate topic, I read about ocean-borne radiation from the 2011 Fukushima, Japan, nuclear disaster reaching the west coasts of Canada and the U.S. this April. Because of the vastness of the ocean, the concentration of the radioactive particles arriving stateside is expected to be very low, and public safety is probably not an issue – this time. A salient fact about the Fukushima disaster is that the nuclear plant was designed and built as a joint project of various Japanese entities and the U.S. General Electric Corp. (GE). Despite numerous warnings by nuclear experts about the plant’s design flaws and the vulnerability of GE’s reactors to an accident just like the one that eventually (inevitably?) occurred, nothing was done to head off the disaster. And we now see the consequences of our flawed technology exports arriving at our shores. Meanwhile, there is a large push for the U.S. and Canada to export their growing surpluses of fossil fuels. Canada hopes to export its heavy tar-sands oil to international markets through U.S. ports and refineries in the Gulf of Mexico via the controversial “Keystone” pipeline and other conduits. Currently, U.S. fossil-fuel companies are mostly targeting markets in eastern Asia, where they can get the best price for their products. These include oil from the North Dakota region, coal from Wyoming and natural gas from several areas. The master plan is to ship these products through the Pacific Northwest, along the Columbia River corridor – a process that’s already underway on a relatively small scale. Unless this plan is realized, the U.S. fossil-fuel industry could stagnate economically. So the industry is spending millions of dollars on public-relations campaigns and lobbyists to promote fossil-fuel exportation, claiming it will create more domestic jobs and so on. There are local environmental consequences of this energy extraction, of course. Areas of Wyoming are being strip-mined for coal. North Dakota and other areas are increasingly subjected to fracking, which permanently pollutes huge quantities of water. But the most pervasive consequences are global. When those fossil fuels reach their destination, they will be burned, creating various wind-borne pollutants and adding to global carbon dioxide emissions. We already have surpassed the safe limit of emissions, and we are reaping the consequences in the U.S. in terms of ongoing droughts, severe, unpredictable weather and so on. Our energy exports will come back to us, but not only in the form of value-added manufactured goods: The pollution of our atmosphere will lead to value-destroying health consequences and exacerbated climate change. Everything is connected on our small planet: There are no strictly local environmental issues. Heed your actions and those of others that you may support or resist because the chickens inevitably come home to roost at your ecological house. Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Ore., where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
</channel>
</rss>
