Climate Bill Passes the House

As this article talks about, the climate bill just passed the House - the first time either house has passed a bill which would limit greenhouse gas emissions based on the fact that they contribute to global warming. So... yay!!

BUT it still needs to pass the Senate. Also, the bill has been significantly watered down since the original version. The bill would require utilities to secure 15% of their electricity from renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal) by 2020, but this is down from the original amount of 25% by 2025.

The bill includes a cap-and-trade system, but instead of all the credits being auctioned off to the highest bidder, 85% of the credits would be given away at the beginning of the program. Isn't that nice of the government. Oh, and the refineries will even receive money to help them adapt to the new standards.

So the bill's not great, but it's the best thing we have, so it needs to happen. I disagree with Thomas Friedman on a lot of things, but according to his new op-ed piece, we agree on this. There is never going to be a bill that pleases everyone, especially one that pleases both the environmentalists and the refineries. But this bill is an important first step in the right direction. Just simply regulating greenhouse gases is an important statement that the House is making. There's no turning back now. Basically the U.S. government is finally admitting that greenhouse gases are causing climate change / global warming / whatever we are calling it and that the government has a responsibility to reduce the impact of U.S. industries on the climate.

So I will take what I can get. A weak climate bill is better than no climate bill, and hopefully it will lead to bills that actually make a bigger difference.

Some Thoughts on Meat and Hunting

A recent conversation with a friend has gotten me thinking about the meat industry again.  Both of us have been vegetarian and/or vegan and different points of our lives (including now) and for mostly the same reasons.  We both disagree with the way that meat in the U.S. is raised for the sake of the environment, our health, and the wellbeing of the animals themselves.  So I have always thought that if I don’t like the meat industry, I just won’t support it.  However, my friend’s argument was that there has to be a better way to change the meat industry than to just take yourself out of it. 

Maybe he’s right.  No matter how many vegetarians there are in Austin or in California, the meat industry isn’t going away, and they’re certainly not going to change their practices in any significant way. 

But I can’t help but think that not eating meat is making a difference.  It may not change the meat industry, but it does make it a tiny bit smaller.  And I know that one person’s meat consumption isn’t going to make a difference, but eventually it does make a difference.  There is a snowball effect because each vegetarian has some potentially vegetarian friends.  And every time someone new decides to quit eating meat, it becomes that much easier for someone else to do the same.

But there will never be enough vegetarians to put an end to the meat industry.  And the way meat is raised and killed NEEDS to change.  So maybe everyone should just hunt for their food.

Right… hunting.  Most “hunting” in the U.S. is a joke.  My dad used to go on “business” “hunting” trips.  Basically some guy with a LOT of money and a LOT of land paid to have deer and elk on his land so he and his buddies could be driven around in Jeeps shooting at animals that were so tame they didn’t even try to run away from the cars and people.  But at least the animals were raised outside instead of in confinement. 

So what if everyone got their meat this way?  Yeah, I think it would be better for the animals, but the amount of land that would be required for that would be ridiculous.  It’s just completely unreasonable unless meat-eaters agree to cut their meat consumption way down, which I don’t see happening (unless their meat consumption were directly related to their hunting skills).  The amount of land that is dedicated to raising animals is already extremely high, which is the reason I choose not to eat meat, but it is also a completely different topic.  

Watch this Movie

Some of you have porobably already seen this, but I was recently reminded of how great this short movie is: http://storyofstuff.com/
This is something I think about a lot: where stuff comes from. I think this video does a really great job of showing the whole system of production and consumption, especially how we are tricked into buying new things all the time. Annie Leonard divides the "story of stuff" into a few categories: extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal. In class we did a small activity to see what specific examples we could add to each different stage of the story. Not surprisingly, we had a much harder time finding personal examples to extraction, production, and distribution. However, consumption was not hard for us to talk about at all. It's obvious where we are most involved along this process, and it's exactly where the producers want us to be. The reason it is hard to think about everything that happens before we see the products is because advertising and the media works so that we only see what we want to see and we can ignore everything that went into making our favorite stuff. Thank you. I would like to think that if the extraction and production processes were more visible to us that people would make different consumer choices, but I don't think that would actually happen. Most people only want to see their favorite things in the stores and they don't care how they got there.

The N-word

Ok, this might be a difficult post, and I apologize in advance if I offend anyone, but I would rather talk about it than not talk about it because I think it is important.  

Recently two of my good friends (both people of color) were arguing about the n-word and whether or not it can be used in certain situations or never.  One was arguing that in some situations, the meaning of the word has changed and that it can be used in a positive way to refer to a friend or whatever.  The other was saying that the history of the word can never be separated from the word, and therefore it should never be used.

About the first argument:  

First, I hate censorship.  Not only because I like cussing (which I do), but also because I think it is dangerous to limit freedom of expression.  Huckleberry Finn was one of the most commonly banned books during the 20th century because of the number of times that the n-word appears.  People that argued for the book to be banned would often use the fact that the n-word appears however-many hundred times.  However, if you actually read the book for it's content instead of counting "n*****," you know that the book was actually ahead of its time in terms of race relations (especially in the South) and carries a very strong anti-racist message.  Just because Mark Twain actually used the language of the people doesn't change that.  This book was really commonly banned from being taught in schools, but I would rather my children read books like this that show a more accurate history than one that has been censored and polished.

Second, I love word reclamations.  I love that languages are always changing.  The word "queer" was originally a derogatory term given to homosexuals and people perceived to be homosexual, but the LGBT community has reclaimed the word, which I think is absolutely beautiful.  The word can no longer be used against them because they own it.  This is what my first friend was arguing had already happened with the n-word.  He says that his family and friends use it all the time and it never has a negative connotation.  I think that's great - who am I to tell them what to call each other?

And about the second argument:

The n-word is VERY offensive.  And people have a right to be offended by it, especially people that identify with the people that the word was used for.  And as much as the word as been popularized and as much as it shows up in music and in movies, the word is still often used in a very hateful way toward Blacks.  My second friend told me that once at a party, her friend asked some people to stop singing the n-word in Kanye West's song "Golddigger" because it was really offensive to him.  They laughed and kept singing all the words.  This is unacceptable.  Whenever someone politely asks you to stop saying one racially-charged and very offensive word, why the hell wouldn't you stop?  There is no situation in which you NEED to say it, and it's pretty easy to just not say it, so when someone asks, just don't.

So I don't know who's right.  I still think it is dangerous to say we absolutely cannot say the n-word in any situation.  This would only make the terrible history associated with the word invisible.  And who am I to tell Kanye that he can't use the word as he wishes?  But as a white person with no personal connection with the word, who am I to tell someone that they shouldn't be offended by it?  Comments welcome of course.

Social Status and Equality in the U.S.

In American Culture Patterns, authors Stewart and Bennett argue that "most Americans see themselves as members of an egalitarian middle class" and everyone is presumed to have "equality of opportunity" although "not everyone is presumed to be of equal talent and ability." Of course this is why some people are so in love with the U.S., and of course this isn't true. Most people in the U.S. think they are part of the middle class, even if they are far more privileged. And most people think of their money as completely self-earned, even if they were born into an already wealthy family. Both of these show the value of "equality" in the U.S.. The authors contrast this with other countries, such as Germany, Great Britain, and Japan, in which social status can allow or deny a person the ability to wield more influence. But since when do wealthy Americans not get to "wield more influence" than poorer Americans? The U.S. emphasis on equality is extremely superficial because when people think about their peers, they are probably thinking about the people that live in their neighborhood and travel the same social circles. So this emphasis on equality really only masks the inequalities that exist.

In Mexico, people tend to be more aware of their social status. Poor people know they are poor and are more likely to talk to you about it, even if they know you of from a wealthier class. The Spanish language also perpetuates inequality between classes. Their are two different forms of "you," and which one is used can often depend on whether or not you are speaking to someone of a different class than yourself. For example, the owner of a house would never refer to their cleaning person with the more respectful and distant "Usted," but the cleaning person would be expected to use that when they were talking with the homeowner. Therefore, in an interactions between these two people, they are both aware of their respective classes.

So I am wondering which is a better way to look at class differences. In U.S. we tend to ignore class differences, while in many other cultures, they are much more prominent. But to what extent does hiding class differences ignore structural problems and possible solutions? And to what extent does openly talking about class perpetuate class differences and stereotypes?

Need a New Car?

Honda just came out with a new fuel-cell technology car called the FCX  Clarity.  It is completely fueled by hydrogen, so the only by-product that the car actually produces is water.  On their website, they boast that the car only uses hydrogen, which is produced domestically - either extracted from water or reformed from natural gas, so it will be a boost to the U.S. economy.  However, they are only releasing about 200 over the next 3 years and only in Southern California, so nothing is going to change quickly.  

Obviously it's great to have zero-emission technology on the market, but I'm not convinced that this is the solution we've been looking for.  The first problem is that right now only the rich in California have access to the new technology.  Understandably, they need to test out the new cars and new refueling stations, but even if this new idea catches on like Honda is hoping, the switch to this new technology is going to take a LONG time because it requires building an entirely new infrastructure of refueling stations.  Even more than that, mechanics would need to be trained in this completely new technology.  Even with the economic stimulus package that includes $13 billion for renewable fuels, this new infrastructure cannot be developed quickly enough to make the technology affordable for the average car-buyer.  To some extent, new technology is always going to be exclusively for the wealthy, but for some reason I don't see this type of technology ever trickling down and becoming affordable for everyone.

The EPA Finally Does Something Right

The EPA is finally (probably) going to declare that greenhouse gases are "pollutants" under the Clean Air Act.  This could possibly lead to much-needed regulations on car emissions and other industries that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases.  

I've never been the biggest fan of the EPA because I think it just loves big business too much to make any of the "radical" changes that are needed, but maybe this will be its chance to make me change my mind...

White House Veggies

The newest addition to the White House: a vegetable garden.

So obviously this isn't going to change the world, but if anyone needs to have a vegetable garden, it's the Obama's who have any entire kitchen staff.

Van Jones in the White House!

Obama has just recruited environmental justice activist Van Jones to join the Council on Environmental Quality as a special advisor for green jobs.

I cannot overstate how much I LOVE this man.  He has been an advocate for green jobs as a solution to the environmental crisis and the growing economic inequality in the U.S. since before the economic crisis, but his work is even more important now.  He is the founder of the advocacy group Green For All, which advocates for government commitment to creating jobs and providing job training - especially for people from disadvantages communities - that will move the US toward a clean energy economy.  He is also the author of the New York Times best-seller, The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems.  To top it all off, he is also an amazing and inspirational speaker.  

Most importantly, I think Van Jones and Majora Carter and other activists like them represent the beginning of the end of the racially-exclusive environmental movement.  Up until very recently, the mainstream environmental movement has been very limited to upper middle class white people, and some would even argue that women were kept out of the leadership of the movement as well.  Now environmental leaders like Jones and Carter (both black) are changing all of that.  Van Jones advocates changing the whole system - not just the pollution.  Taking the pollution out of a broken (read: racist, sexist, violent, etc.) system will only leave a racist world with solar-powered wars fought over the lithium for batteries.  ...And yeah, it's really easy to recognize that we have a lot of problems, but Van Jones also has a solution, which is why I'm glad he's starting at the White House next week.

Money, money, money

So this NY Times article talks about how the "Rising Dollar Lifts the U.S. but Adds to the Crisis Abroad." Ok, duh. The value of the dollar is going up, so everyone living on a different currency is hurt. But what does this mean for countries that depend on remittances from the US? For Mexicans with family members working in the US and sending money back, the rising dollar is both a blessing and a curse. The falling peso means that it is even more necessary for family members to work in the US, but it also means that the money sent back from the US will go a lot further compared to the peso. So, are we going to be seeing more immigration because of the value of the dollar? Or less because jobs are so hard to find right now in the US?

And on a slightly related yet different topic: right now the peso is at around 15 to the dollar (up (or down?) from 10 pesos to the dollar less than a year ago). Most Mexicans know the exchange rate because unfortunately the global economy demands that they know what their currency is worth compared to the dollar standard. Aside from other study abroad students, I don't know any on the US that knows any current exchange rates at all. Such is the luxury of living in the US...

How History Has Ruined Everything

The introduction paragraph to Lynn Foster's A Brief History of Mexico, Revised Edition states 

"The democratic reforms in 2000 that ended 70 years of party domination in Mexican politics by the Partido Revolutionario Institutional (PRI) have swept in a new era in Mexican history..... The corrupt party leadership that so long ruled Mexico has ended, and everything from labor relations to indigenous rights has been affected.  Moreover, these momentous changes, unlike so many others in Mexican history, were accomplished peacefully.  The political confidence of Mexico today could not contrast more sharply with the ominous foreboding described in the earlier edition of this book."

Yeah, it's true that some things have changed now that there is a new party in power, but there is certainly no more "political confidence" now than when the PRI was in power, and the Mexican distrust of their government is not going to change any time soon.  If you ask any indigenous person, nothing has changed.  They are still discriminated by almost every government policy and regarded as backward people who don't want to "develop."  

We visited with some members of the indigenous community of Amatlán in the state of Morelos.  They told us that not long ago, some people from the government wanted to come visit the community to offer a proposal for a development plan, and the community welcomed them.  But when they proposed a program for developing fish farms in their town, the community members just laughed.  Every year, there is a period of 5 months where water is so scarce that they barely have enough for their basic needs!  How are they ever going to develop fish farms?  Of course they refused the proposal, and no doubt the government reps when back to their people and told everyone that those damn indians don't even want to develop...  So clearly, there are still problems with the Mexican government.

This is the problem capital-H History and history books in particular: they always portray history as a past struggle that has resolved itself already.  In elementary school, we learned (a little bit) about the struggle for women's rights, which basically went like this: "Women used to not have the right to vote.  Can you imagine?! But now they do!  Yay!  Thanks to the women of the past, women don't have to fight for their rights anymore!"  Similarly, the history of race relations in the US goes like this:  "Black people used to be slaves, but then they weren't!  Then they were segregated, but not anymore!  Yay!  Everything is perfect!"  History books teach us not to recognize current systemic problems because it only shows us how they have already been fixed.  No different than a fairy tale, history books only feed our need for a happy ending.

So basically, history teaches us to be complacent and to accept the status quo - Thanks!

My New Favorite Photographer Must Really Like to Count...

My friend just showed me this artist: Chris Jordan.  His collection called "Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait" looks at contemporary US culture through statistics.  And the numbers are staggering (3.6 million SUV sales in one year and 32,000 breast augmentation surgeries every month), but they really don't mean anything until you can see them.  His giant photographs are composed of thousands or millions of smaller photographs to correspond with the statistics.  I would post some of the pictures, but you really have to go to the website so you can see the zoomed-in versions to really get an idea of what they are showing.  They are clearly not meant to be seen on the computer instead of in person, but sometimes you have to work with what you have...

Because a lot of his pieces have to do with consumption and over consumption, Jordan has been labeled an environmentalist - which I'm sure he is.  But it interesting to me that pictures of oil barrels and junk yards inspire more of an environmental ethic than landscapes.  Landscapes are mass-produced and sold in stores like Hobby Lobby so people can hang them above their couches, but they certainly do nothing to inspire an environmental consciousness.  And landscape painters have certainly never been called environmentalists.  Why is it that images of the thing we are supposed to be protecting (nature) do not affect us, but pictures of our trash can be so profound?

Also, here is a link to a video of Chris Jordan speaking.

Happy Singles Awareness Day!

I woke up this morning to one of the best Valentine gifts I can think of.

Finally, congress and our president realize that we can solve two of the biggest problems in the U.S. with one bill. 

The bill includes $71 billion for clean energy programs—more than three times the current spending for these same programs... H.R. 1 also adds $20 billion in clean energy tax incentives. The bill would “spark the creation of a clean-energy economy” that President Barack Obama promised during his inaugural address.

This will put people to work doing what we need to be focusing on most: reducing our dependence on petroleum and reducing our contributions to climate change.  But instead of losing US jobs, we will be creating much needed jobs that cannot be outsourced.  The constructions markets have been hit really hard by the recession, but this bill could directly and indirectly create as many 1 million jobs that focus on energy efficiency in federal buildings and low income housing.  So not only will we be creating jobs that stimulate the economy and reducing our impact on climate change, the taxpayers will also be saving money on heating and cooling federal buildings - up to 2 billion dollars.  

The bill will also provide much needed money for public transit.  The $16 billion for transit projects and high speed rail will create up to 20,000 jobs for every $1 billion invested.  Public transit will also make it easier for people to get to work where they can find higher paying jobs and make it easier for people to stretch their paychecks.  

So, I may be alone on one of the lamest and cheesiest holidays ever, but I can think of at least one reason to be really happy.  <3

To Hell with Good Intentions

Sorry I haven't been writing, but I haven't had internet access since last weekend...  On Sunday all the students in my study abroad program traveled to a small rural town called Ixtlilco el Grande, where we stayed until Wednesday.  While we were there we stayed with families, many of whom didn't have running water or refrigerators let alone any luxuries.  Then we moved to an ex-hacienda which had been turned into a resort/hotel, where we stayed for two nights.  At the ex-hacienda, we had various conversations about cultural issues and such, one of which was based on Ivan Illich's article "To Hell with Good Intentions."  

Many of the students in my program are Social Work majors, so they obviously rejected the notion that there is nothing we can do to help other people.  But I also think it's really important to recognize that even trying to help often does damage.  One student told a story about a village where a bunch of do-gooders put in a well for easier access to water, and they probably expected a giant "Thank you, you've saved our lives."  But actually the women were really unhappy with the well because it took away the time that they previously had to bond with the other women in the village when they went to the river for water everyday.  

Similarly, I heard of someone who visited a small rural town (much like Ixtlilco) and noticed that there weren't any recycling bins.  So in her quest to "green" the town, she organized a project to have them collect their recyclable materials, but it took eight months for them to gather enough to make it worth anyone's effort to haul it off to be recycled.  Because the people of the town were forced to make their money stretch as far as possible, they lived by the first two R's of "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle."  And because of that, they most certainly are much "greener" than any city with a shopping mall and a lame-ass recycling program.  

I don't agree with Illich that there is nothing we can do.  I think that there are a lot of really good programs that are doing a lot of good things for the people of Latin America.  But successful programs need to based on the needs of local peoples, not the "needs" that foreigners see.  Solving Latin American problems with U.S. solutions will never work.

Intro to Socioeconomics in Mexico

The other day, we went to the market for an activity in small groups.  We were supposed to buy certain items and price some others.  Then we did some calculations to figure out how many hours a person earning the Morelos minimum wage would have to work in order to be able to buy them.  Then we figured out the price U.S. consumers would have to pay if they had to work the same numbers of hours as a Mexican worker in order to purchase the same thing.  Here are the calculations from my group:

1 kilo of avocados = 25 pesos = $1.92 = 4 hours of work = $26.20

1/2 kilo of green chiles = 8 pesos = $0.62 = 1.3 hours of work = $8.52

Magazine "Uno más uno" = 10 pesos = $0.77 = 1.6 hours of work = $10.48

Kids school shoes = 120 pesos = $9.23 = 19.3 hours of work = $126.42

Shampoo = 50 pesos = $3.85 = 8 hours of work = $52.40

People think that the cost of living in Mexico is really low, but that is only because things are really cheap compared to what we earn in U.S. dollars.  In actually the cost of living here is really high if you are living off the wages paid here.  It is also estimated that 50% of Mexicans work in the informal sector, which means that they don't receive a paycheck or benefits.

The minimum wage in the state of Morelos is 49.5 pesos per day ($3.80/day), which is the highest minimum wage in Mexico.  So even if Mexican immigrants in the U.S. don't earn minimum wage (which many don't because they can't complain if they are undocumented), they can earn more money in an hour of work in the U.S. than for an entire day of work in Mexico.  And people wonder why they try to work in the states....

Is the airport in Mexico City...composting?

I flew into Mexico City yesterday, and almost nothing made me happy about that airport.  After waiting in line for 45 minutes at the immigration line, I finally got my luggage, which I had a feeling was about to go into the unclaimed luggage pile.  Going through customs was actually really easy, but when I got out of there, I was bombarded by guys asking me if I needed a taxi.  They were probably right in asking because I'm sure I looked pretty damn lost...and as a tall girl with red hair, I stood out pretty well, too.  The restaurant where I was supposed to meet someone had apparently changed names, so I walked up and down the same corridor 4 times where the same guys asked me if I finally needed a taxi.  I finally asked information, and she confirmed that the restaurant had changed names, and I was actually standing right next to it.

Ok I'm getting off track, but the one thing that made me really happy about the airport was that I noticed all the trash cans had two compartments, labeled "inorgánico" and "orgánico."  That's right, the airport in Mexico city actually composts!  Apparently Mexico City is behind this effort, which isn't going that well so far, but at least they're trying.  Also interesting: there was a noticeable lack of "advertising" for their composting program.  Certainly, if a U.S. airport started composting, there would be some cheezy signs around saying something like "We're going green!  Help us compost!"  But there was none of that, for better or for worse...

I've never seen composting in any city in the U.S., but maybe it's out there somewhere.  Southwest airlines started including recycling bins at their gates, so I guess they're trying too, but I don't know how much success they're having.  It seems like composting would be a lot easier to control and implement, but maybe I'm wrong.

The Inauguration

Hi! Perhaps it is a bit cliché to write my first post on the first day of our new presidency, but I can live with that...

As I sit watching the inauguration, I am amazed at how much religion is still present in the ceremony. Even though President Obama explicitly stated that the United States is a nation of Christians and Muslims and even non-believers, the ceremony opened and closed with Christian prayers, and the oath was taken on the Christian bible. Obama also quoted scripture in his address, calling on the American people to "turn away from childish things."

I guess there are no specific contradictions to the constitution, which states only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." But it still seems odd that Christianity plays such a large part in the traditions of the inauguration. Don't get me wrong - I think the prayers were great, and I liked how the cameras showed people in the crowd during the prayers, which reminded me of being a kid looking around the dinner table at Thanksgiving to see whose eyes were open during the blessing. But during an inaugural address that seemed so focused on inclusion, it seemed to certainly exclude a large part of the American people.

I began to wonder how people would react if those religious elements were taken out of the ceremony, but then I realized that I don't think a non-Christian candidate would be elected. Is religious diversity really more of an obstacle to the presidency than race?