It also strikes me that the moral failure of a portion of the "founding brothers," to use Ellis' term, was based in a world view framed by their current economics - that of slavery. It was so ingrained, and so large, that it seemed impossible to imagine a world without it. Thus the thought of the impact to their "lifestyles" overwhelmed any moral sense. We face that same issue today, but the slave today is fossil fuel which moves our increasingly soft bodies about, warms our homes, cooks our foods, entertains us. We become blind to the moral failings and the incredible pile of moral debt.
I think humans are, by nature, not terribly imaginative. There is a failure to imagine the world that we are making by not changing our ways, yet we fail even worse to imagine the possibilities. I am an optimist. I believe we can design and build our way out of this. And we will end up a richer nation and world in the bargain. But I am also a pessimist. There are so many closed minds out there, and no leadership.
03 January 2010
02 January 2010
Fly Ash?
Fly ash is frequently touted as "sustainable" and "green." It is used by manufacturers of cement and concrete products, and claim LEED credit for recycled content.
Fly ash is a by-product of the burning of coal. Once it was released into the atmosphere following combustion, it is today scrubbed from the exhaust. The srubbed fly ash is used in the manufacture of concrete and cement products, usually as a substitute for Portland cement.
Problem one: We need to stop the burning of coal altogether. The green movement and now green industry should not support the coal industry in any way, shape or form. Granted, while we wean ourselves of our dependency we will continue to make mountains of the stuff, and its use in cement redirects the material from its other potential destination, which is the landfill. However, we cannot continue to allow it to be considered green.
Problem two: Fly ash contains significant toxic impurities, including arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, strontium, thallium, vanadium. The potential health effects are currently unknown. Strontium levels are particularly high.
I understand the arguments as to why its use is a good thing. I'd rather see it in cement and concrete products than in a landfill. But to consider it green and credit it as a LEED point, giving boasting rights to the coal industry, is pure illusion.
Fly ash is a by-product of the burning of coal. Once it was released into the atmosphere following combustion, it is today scrubbed from the exhaust. The srubbed fly ash is used in the manufacture of concrete and cement products, usually as a substitute for Portland cement.
Problem one: We need to stop the burning of coal altogether. The green movement and now green industry should not support the coal industry in any way, shape or form. Granted, while we wean ourselves of our dependency we will continue to make mountains of the stuff, and its use in cement redirects the material from its other potential destination, which is the landfill. However, we cannot continue to allow it to be considered green.
Problem two: Fly ash contains significant toxic impurities, including arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, strontium, thallium, vanadium. The potential health effects are currently unknown. Strontium levels are particularly high.
I understand the arguments as to why its use is a good thing. I'd rather see it in cement and concrete products than in a landfill. But to consider it green and credit it as a LEED point, giving boasting rights to the coal industry, is pure illusion.
Behind - as usual
I'm really behind on these form poem posts. I'm also behind on the drawings. I wish this was my job to put these and other things out every day.
31 December 2009
An Old Story
I've been reading Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis. I haven't read extensively about the founding of the United States, but I am struck by the political compromises that took place, and how the avoidance of conflict and the justifications lead to larger problems and greater conflict in the future. The most conspicuous of which was the question of slavery. Ellis will give a much more nuanced description, but there were two arguments for not upsetting the status quo that struck me as resonating today. One was the issue of compensation for slave holders for the loss of their property, and the other was that slavery was woven into the fabric of southern life.
In 1790, opponents to abolition had a "relentless focus on the impractical dimensions of all plans for abolition." The estimates for the cost of emancipating the slaves at the time was ranged between $70 and $140 million. At a time when the total federal budget was $7 million annually, this had the appearance of an insurmountable obstacle. However, Ellis goes on to describe how a gradual emancipation would have worked, and the numbers seem much more reasonable when looked at over time. With 20/20 hindsight, we see the subsequent 200 years of internecine strife in the Civil War, and the barbarism of segregation and the struggle for civil rights, the history of which affects us to this day.
The other argument was that slavery "was grafted onto the character fo the southern states during the colonial era and had become a permanent part of American society south of the Potomac" and that it was "one of those habits established long before the Constitution, and could not now be remedied."
Thus the reasons for not addressing the single most obvious moral failure of the founding of this country could not be addressed for economic and cultural reasons.
This old story continues today, and echoes of this argument exist today in two contemporary issues: that of health care reform, and that of climate change.
The opponents of health care reform, in particular the opponents to the public option, frequently cite the costs of such a program, and use inflated numbers and fail to recognize the societal benefit and the long-term savings. They portray the expense as an insurmountable obstacle.
The same are the arguments regarding fossil fuel use: that such use and the cheap cost of energy are long established, and to try to change would be a terrible burden on the American people. These arguments perpetuate the inertia. Yet, as we see with the Civil War, that inertia ultimately leads to an explosive result, untold death, destruction and misery. We already see the results of our moral failure on the health care issue. The pain from climate change will be far more severe and final, and potentially threaten the survival of our species. Our "leaders" are morally derelict. They are unwilling to make the hard decisions to change the behavior of this nation because of political patronage and the status quo. In the face of a common enemy our political system has provided positive leadership that has significantly altered past patterns. We need this leadership again.
In 1790, opponents to abolition had a "relentless focus on the impractical dimensions of all plans for abolition." The estimates for the cost of emancipating the slaves at the time was ranged between $70 and $140 million. At a time when the total federal budget was $7 million annually, this had the appearance of an insurmountable obstacle. However, Ellis goes on to describe how a gradual emancipation would have worked, and the numbers seem much more reasonable when looked at over time. With 20/20 hindsight, we see the subsequent 200 years of internecine strife in the Civil War, and the barbarism of segregation and the struggle for civil rights, the history of which affects us to this day.
The other argument was that slavery "was grafted onto the character fo the southern states during the colonial era and had become a permanent part of American society south of the Potomac" and that it was "one of those habits established long before the Constitution, and could not now be remedied."
Thus the reasons for not addressing the single most obvious moral failure of the founding of this country could not be addressed for economic and cultural reasons.
This old story continues today, and echoes of this argument exist today in two contemporary issues: that of health care reform, and that of climate change.
The opponents of health care reform, in particular the opponents to the public option, frequently cite the costs of such a program, and use inflated numbers and fail to recognize the societal benefit and the long-term savings. They portray the expense as an insurmountable obstacle.
The same are the arguments regarding fossil fuel use: that such use and the cheap cost of energy are long established, and to try to change would be a terrible burden on the American people. These arguments perpetuate the inertia. Yet, as we see with the Civil War, that inertia ultimately leads to an explosive result, untold death, destruction and misery. We already see the results of our moral failure on the health care issue. The pain from climate change will be far more severe and final, and potentially threaten the survival of our species. Our "leaders" are morally derelict. They are unwilling to make the hard decisions to change the behavior of this nation because of political patronage and the status quo. In the face of a common enemy our political system has provided positive leadership that has significantly altered past patterns. We need this leadership again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)