Dallas, from the four years I’ve lived here, has always had hot summers. Most everyone knows that. But doesn’t it seem to be getting hotter as each summer roasts by? I recall moving here in August 2004 and instead of frying and praying I wouldn’t get a heat stroke, I was actually pleasantly surprised to see the temperature gauge read 81 degrees! It was 4:00pm when I read the temperature. It was truly an amazing, beautiful and not-hot day! Now, I realize, that was an anomaly.

I guess why I feel this hot topic needs to be addressed is because as you’ve read on Culture Feast  before, we have people complaining about high energy costs as well as protecting our environment by conserving energy. But isn’t it really difficult to be green when the temperature is so highly in the red?

As a pro-greener, I decided I’d do some research from the National Weather Service’s website here in DFW. I calculated the high temperature for today (June 28th) for the last 10 years as well as the last 20, 30, and even 60 years. I was expecting a dramatic increase in temperature and, finally, I would be able to PROVE global warming once and for all.

Interestingly, I was surprised with my findings. True, the highest temp for June 28th has occurred today (in regards to my own experiment, with a high of 99F), but it definitely didn’t sound any warnings. The year of 2005 had a high of 98 degrees. One thing worth noting, though small, is the rest of the 2000s had low 90s for June 28th’s high temperature. Maybe we are warming up, degree by degree, as the years pass? If you’d like to see the temperature experiment, click here.

Regardless of global warming, unusual weather trends or the fact that it’s summer in Dallas, one thing we can all agree on is that it is hot outside. What do you do to relieve the heat? Leave your favorite “beat the heat” tips in the comments below!

That being the case, I am confused by many similarly minded individuals rejecting any kind of green technology.   While I may agree that the climate “crisis” is by and large a lot of hyper inflated nonsense, I have no philosophical qualms about supporting green technologies.  The beauty of capitalism is that if a product or service is better, it survives, if its inferior, it gets plowed under. 

Green tech has a lot going for it, and a lot against it.  Let the market decide the fate of green technology, and leave all of the politicking out of it.  What we absolutely DO NOT need is a whole lot of red tape corralling us into using green technology.  There is no quicker way to destroy a great idea than to remove it from any form of competition. 

Michael mentioned in his post the fact that the mercury and nickel in many of today’s green tech will do far more harm than good, and he’s right.  The solution to that problem is to continue to expose that industry to market forces.  The market will figure out that using toxic substances in its products is not good for sales, and will work out a solution. 

My fear is that the powers that be (perhaps Michaels “They”?) will create a stagnant, government subsidized pit in which nickel and lead filled technologies can languish forever.  Free from the impetus to change that is competition.  All of these attempts to legislate our environmental morality are merely the latest form of the ivory tower socialistic worldview.  That worldview is that we the people are idiots and we need the government elite and the academia to legislate our lives in every conceivable manner. 

The truth is that we the people are much brighter than the elites give us credit for.  We recognize the usefulness of green tech, and we want to be good stewards of our home.  If we are allowed, I feel that our money will speak for us, and a healthy, dynamically improving green tech industry will be the result. 

But for the sake of all that is holy, don’t remove the competition!

It seems like every magazine must have a “green” or Earth Day issue these days. My favorite story on this subject is about the New York Times Magazine which just published its first “green issue”. It called itself a “low-carbon catalog” and dispersed bon mots for living an environmentally conscious life. The only thing is, according to foliomag.com, the magazine wasn’t printed on recycled paper. The magazine’s editor, Gerald Marzorati was quoted as saying, “Our printing is a very particular method, and these machines use a very old, not terribly good paper stock. It just wasn’t feasible…”   

National Geographic has two lovely magazines, one for kids and the adult one which is familiar to everyone. The National Geographic society didn’t produce a green issue but the network has been beating the loudest drum on global warming. The Nat Geo network has aired fascinating programs such as The Human Footprint which shows how much food, clothing, water and energy a person uses in a lifetime and then makes you feel guilty for being a greedy consumer of the Earth’s resources. When I use the word fascinating to describe the show, I’m not being snarky. It was truly interesting, but I got tired of being preached to.

Now one would think that the people who promoted this program would be behind recycling. But the thing about the Nat Geo mags is that they aren’t printed on recycled paper, either and on their website, which features a green guide, they answer the question of what one does with old issues by suggesting that people donate them to prisons, nursing homes and libraries. Recycling past magazines doesn’t appear to be an option as far as National Geographic is concerned.

Two notable magazines, out of the many green issue publications, were Time and Vanity Fair. But you didn’t have to be a subscriber to these titles to know that they were putting out special Earth Day issues. You could have watched television. Much was made of the Time cover which featured a replica of the iconic Iwo Jima picture, only instead of an American flag, the soldiers hoisted a redwood tree in the air. Morning news shows breathlessly announced that this was the first time in the magazine’s history that the red border that has always framed the cover was turned green! Vanity Fair’s green issue featured many hand-wringing articles on how we simply must “do something.” But then doesn’t that describe every single green issue publication?

All of this enviromania isn’t going to go away anytime soon. In early August, Positively Green magazine will launch its inaugural issue. It will fill the niche market of women who want to live a more eco-conscious life and will have features on fashion, gossip (can one gossip greenly?), home décor, and juggling work and children.
 
Do all of the doomsday articles in these magazines help the environment? No. Do they make people more aware of environmental problems? I suppose, but then again, who hasn’t heard of global warming? The magazines are preaching to the choir but not providing solutions.

How could we average schmoes live without the benefit of their wisdom and expertise on everything from global warming and environmental issues to the US policy on the war in Iraq?

And why is it the media is all too willing to keep giving these self-anointed experts air-time?

I pondered these questions on April 1st as I watched Charlie Rose, on PBS, interview the founder of CNN and founder and chairman of the UN Foundation, Ted Turner.

During the interview, Rose pelted Turner with softball questions such as, “Why are you the way you are?”  And he was able to coax Turner into singing his acappella renditions of My Old Kentucky Home and Somewhere over the Rainbow. What a tough interview.

However, Ted didn’t need much coaxing to air his astonishing theories about global warming. But don’t despair, people. Clear your gloom-addled minds. Ted’s a celebrity and he has a solution for our problems.

During the interview, Turner said, “Only the people that don’t understand it [global warming] think it’s going to—not doing it [anything about global warming] will be catastrophic. We’ll have eight degrees – we’ll be eight degrees hotter in 10 – not 10, but in 30 or 40 years. And basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died, and the rest of us will be cannibals.

“Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad, there will be no more corn growing. It will – not doing it is suicide. Just like dropping bombs on each other, nuclear weapons, is suicide.”

So Ted, whatever can we possibly do to save ourselves from resorting to cannibalism? What can we do to save the Earth? Ted’s answer: population control.

“We’re too many people. That’s why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people, they’d be using less stuff.”

I guess it’s just that simple.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would be able to spot the dubiousness of Ted’s cannibalism theory. And even a middle schooler would know that his solution to global warming is simplistic. But he spouted all of this as if he were stating a fact. Rose didn’t even challenge him for making such outlandish assertions.

It’s the hypocrisy that makes me mad. Turner is saying everyone should have just one or two kids and he himself has more than that. Imaging how much energy his mansions consume. I know I don’t have a private jet whisking me all around the world, but I’m sure Ted does. How many pounds of carbon does that jet emit? And he is now in the restaurant business. If you’re ever in New York City on 51st street you can stop by his “Ted’s Montana Steakhouse”. Just don’t think about the waste the restaurant is generating and the methane gas the cows have spewed into the air before they were butchered.

Isn’t it great that all these celebrities can point to us average people and tell us that WE have to do something?

I don’t know who to believe on all of this global warming thing. Yeah, I think it’s a good idea for everyone to recycle as much as they can because we only have a limited amount of room in landfills. And I think it would be great if we all could afford to drive, and did drive, hybrid cars because oil is a finite resource and the place from where we get it now is unstable and always will be.

But I know I don’t need, and I resent, any celebrity telling me what I should do.  

So here is my plea/contribution to Blog Action Day: it's a plea to you to change JUST ONE THING in your life that won't cause you much money or discomfort.

Are you ready for it? Here it is: Go buy 2-3 cheap canvas bags to do your grocery shopping with. It's that simple. No more paper or plastic! If you use paper, you're using up trees. If you use plastic, you contribute to the massive pollution that plastic plants produce.

The solution is simple. Reuse canvas bags, and drop off your collection of plastic bags to a recycler! If you can't find one, look for a local Whole Foods Market, where you can drop off your plastic bags AND buy canvas shopping bags. It's simple. It's cheap. And over the course of the next 20-50 years that you shop, you'll save a LOT of product and nature from being wasted.

Why NOT do it? It's so easy that it's not even an inconvenience. I bought one last week, and I'll buy another canvas bag or two. Then i'll leave one in my car at all times, and after emptying my groceries, I'll leave the bags by the front door so I'll remember to put them in the car for the next trip to the grocery store.

See?!?!?!? That was easy. You can make a difference too.