Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Solutions that aren’t, The Secret, Nimbys,
ScareCity, and AbundanceHave you noticed lately that we are being bombarded with “solutions” that have been around forever.
Nuclear energy, for instance, is making a comeback and we're hearing that that only nuclear energy will solve our energy needs. Especially now with the rising monetary and human costs of energy from oil, we need to return to nuclear. And while not everybody will like it, we have to do this. Humm.
We still don't know, however, what to do with nuclear waste. People are certainly not clamoring for a plant to be built close to their homes. So whom do we impose this “solution” on? And whom do we entrust with the radioactive, toxic waste byproduct that will outlive us?
At the end of May there were articles in the newspaper about how California 's dwindling water supply will be more and more of problem for us. We're told that we have to do something. “It's now or disaster,” said one.
Supporters of building new reservoirs plan to put a proposition on the ballot to fund new dam building—or new damn building depending on your viewpoint.
Again, however, it's a polarizing issue. The new delivery system would probably go through the environmentally fragile Sacramento Delta. Obviously dams'drastically change the landscape and ecology of an area. It's not just environmentalists who oppose new dams. Organized trout fishermen oppose them. But, while not everybody will like it, we're told we have to build dams.
We also hear the same argument from SDG&E, who would really rather be doing something else, I suppose, but they have to build the Sunrise Powerlink—through some—beautiful areas now without gigantic, and at the least, “potentially” unhealthy, power lines.
There are common threads to these problems that all “require” us to do something. The”“new” solutions—building new dams, electrical transmission lines and nuclear energy plants—are all approaches that think bigger is better; and these big solutions, far from us, are best. Yet no matter how far, they each attract NIMBYs—not in my back yard.
They also ignore that our current Middle East policies creates revenge seekers who may want to sabotage their massive projects.
Is having only one solution smart? Are these old approaches really solutions? If they are, why are they still being debated? Why haven't they received universal accolades? If the problems these solutions were supposed to solve are still with us—maybe they aren't very good solutions.
I wonder. When we have two options that really polarize people and give rise to intense arguments on both sides, maybe neither one is the answer. Maybe we haven't found a good solution.
Or maybe they are there and we just haven't looked close enough or'recognize it yet. The news helps this along. Instead of continuing to look for more options the media quickly defines us by defining the extremes, puts us in opposing camps and reports on the power struggle. If it's really a solution, should we have to force it on others? How about honestly exploring other options?
The Secret
I mentioned The Secret in the title for a couple of reasons. It's interesting how people react to it. Some call it too focused on material things. Others say it's that same ole positive thinking crap. (Obviously not positive thinkers.)
It's funny, when I saw The Secret I thought of the examples of manifestation that dealt with money simply as examples. The Secret looked money, and health and relationships. It also looked at how our feelings influenced us more than our thinking. Positive thinking? Wasn't it more feeling positive?
Isn't it fascinating though, that people can come away from it with so many different interpretations and feelings? Kind of proves the point doesn't it? Isn't The Secret about how the way we think and feel, guides us through life. Looking individually some probably are into money. Isn't it good that we all define happiness differently and don't all want the same home, relationship, or meditation spot?
And, there are many other laws. It helped me to remember not to think in terms of scarcity, when we live in an incredibly abundant world.
Think of all the dire problems we are supposed to be faced with. We can continue to reside in ScareCity and think we “have-to” accept these tired old solutions that never were; or we could think in terms of abundance, and know there are solutions everywhere.
The beauty of solar, for instance, is it's everywhere and falls on all of us equally—or at least region by region.
While environmentalists get accused of being NIMBYs they're the opposite. Looking from a conservationist perspective, don't we want to'conserve energy, water, and fuel? Don't we want the most effective and less polluting option? That's often the most local solution.
Energy? If we're talking solar panels I'm an IMBY. In my back yard! Please! On my roof! Forget building targets for terrorists. Why ship in sunshine from the desert to sunny Southern California? We know why. My choice—my IMBY solar panels—reduces my monthly SDG&E bill.
As much as we've heard the opposite from those who know, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, part of the California Public Utilities Commission, said in May that Sunrise Powerlink was not needed.
Water solutions? Depends on if you look East or West. Those looking east see less rainfall and a dwindling water supply. Their solution is more dams. As I understand it, we spend an enormous amount of money to catch “less rainfall.” Make sense? Isn't there a dwindling returns law too?
Look west, and there's water. Every camper knows how to clean it and drink it. We could even build underground pipelines to bring it inland a few blocks and avoid desalinization plants on the beach.
Unfortunately, the utility companies and dam proponents both use Scare City PR firms that tell us that global warming is making conditions more uncertain and require us to buy their solution. They only thing certain is that huge money is involved.
Why not take a page from that pr manual on “how to use the fear of global warming to get what you want” and tell people the bigger problem is the ocean”is rising we have to drink it down or be submerged? Use more water, please! We could make drinking eight glasses a day mandatory. Increase it to ten. Increase good health and property values at the same time. Ship water to the desert and Colorado where there's less rain and sell them water for a change.
On a smaller scale, I mentioned in May's solar column that Spectra Solar Cubes produces 3,500 gallons of water a day; runs on a 24-volt battery charged by solar or wind power; and the final filtering removes bacteria, salts, and viruses. Without naming anyone, that would be enough for the showers of one of my roommates. If we looked, could we find a use for these small, trailer-sized units somewhere along the coast?
Isn't runoff from rain and irrigation also a problem for us? Rain is also part of the solution. Instead of funding a dam, why not IMBY water tanks? Put a water tank under rain gutters and water gardens from that. I read that one person is doing that, collecting rain, in Escondido—a hot and dry place—and successfully fulfills his landscaping needs. (More later.) Water drips off my metal roof and solar panels onto my balcony plants—even when it doesn't rain.
In some areas people clean that rainwater, and drink it or use it in their homes. As R. Buckminster Fuller pointed out, engineers didn't design the plumbing systems in our houses. Building houses with smart plumbing systems that recycle water could make the difference almost by itself.
The president just said reservoirs were a problem and potential. Why build more? Imagine those terrorists having to go door to door to sabotage the water system.
Are you beginning to see the real problem here? There are really so many solutions they start to get in the way of each other. It's hard to get people behind just one. They're abundantly everywhere—when you look. When we have these—“big problems” in front of us—especially the ones that are supposed to have only one solution—I have to wonder who really benefits.
In California over the last quarter century, (San Diego Union-Tribune, 5/20/07 ), water storage has been increased tenfold and water use has remained steady. While we can't put off exploring new ways or ignoring trends, dams are currently at normal levels. If we have time to build dams, we have time to look at other solutions.
There's a lot being pushed on us these days. Does it reflect the wants of a few, being called the needs of the many?
What's next is what it often comes down to—our daily choices. So let's take smart steps. Taking conservation steps first will help us determine our real needs.
Then: “Hey, just thought I'd tell you that I buy over there'now rather than from your store because they have solar panels over there. Put me on your notification list so when you build yours and I'll know.” And: “I shop at that mall because . . .””
Have a great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
