But what about fish?

As a vegan, this is a question people commonly ask me concerning my diet. It's true, the issues surrounding the consumption of sea creatures are slightly different from those surrounding traditional farm animals like cows, pigs, and chickens. Admittedly, sea"food" was the last animal product that I removed from my diet, even after turning from eggs and dairy milk. But there are important issues, and once I became aware of the truth about fish consumption, I could not justify consuming it anymore. The seafood industry may very well be the most environmentally devastating aspect of modern-day animal consumption.

The following information is taken directly from a pamphlet published by Farm Sanctuary, and it covers the topic of fish consumption so well that I thought it would be best to share their words with you rather than try and phrase it myself.

For millennia, fish have been taken from the world's oceans, lakes and rivers and consumed as food. Long gone, however, are the days of individual fishers seeking out a catch. Today, global fish production exceeds that of cattle, sheep, poultry, or eggs, and consumer demand for seafood is driving ocean life to extinction.

Over the latter half of the 20th century, new technologies have enhanced the ability to locate and entrap fish, and wild catches have increased to nearly 90 million tons of fish per year. High-tech fishing fleets use props, such as airplanes, radios, seafloor maps, and video sonar, to track down fish schools. Large nets are used to drag up coral and every living creature on the sea floor. As a result, wild fish and sea life populations have been decimated.

In addition to profitable fish sought by factory trawlers, "economically useless" sea life, including nearly 1,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises, drown in fishing nets each day. The dead and dying "bycatch," comprised of marine mammals, seabirds, sea turtles, and invertebrates, are thrown back into the water. Worldwide, 30 million tons, or one in every four caught sea life, are unwanted and discarded each year. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences states that fishing--not global warming or pollution--is the greatest single threat to the diversity of ocean life in the world's oceans.

The Problem of Overfishing

Many people have the impression that fish are a renewable or inexhaustible resource, but the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization reports that 70 percent of the world's commercially important marine fish stocks are fully fished, overexploited or depleted. In addition, the ocean habitat is being destroyed. Once-common fish are now approaching endangered levels, including tuna, salmon, haddock, halibut, and cod.

During the 19th century, codfish weighing up to 200 pounds were routinely caught. Nowadays, a 40-pound cod is considered a giant. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization estimates that merely to maintain existing rates of fish consumption would require an extra 15.5 to 20 million tons of fish by 2010.

Fish Farms--The Nasty Reality

Farm-raised fish account for one-third of the world's seafood, including nearly all the catfish and trout, and almost half of the shrimp and salmon, consumed in the U.S. Fish farmers commonly feed wild fish to farmed fish and destroy fish habitats by collecting wild fish to stock fish farms. It takes about three pounds of wild-caught fish to grow only one pound of shrimp or salmon.

Raised fin-to-fin in excrement-laden saltwater feedlots, the penned fish are fed ground up fishmeal and oil pellets engineered for fast growth, treated with antibiotics to fight disease, and commonly stimulated with growth hormones. The overcrowded fish are susceptible to disease and suffocation. The FDA Veterinarian Newsletter reports that fish farmers "...use chemicals as disinfectants and to kill bacteria; herbicides to prevent the overgrowth of vegetation in ponds; vaccines to fight certain diseases; and drugs--usually combined in the feed--to treat diseases and parasites."

Densely packed salmon farms in British Columbia, Canada operate in coastal estuaries and produce massive quantities of waste each year, including manure, fertilizer and fishmeal, equivalent to the levels of waste generated by half a million people, destroying fragile estuaries.

Hatchery-raised fish spell trouble for their wild-born cousins by spreading genetic traits that impede survival. Science magazine reveals that, compared to wild salmon, farm-raised salmon laid significantly smaller eggs within just four generations, and these eggs were less likely to survive. Farm-raised fish typically escape or are released and breed with wild-born fish.

And Yes, Fish Are Animals Too

Though commonly assumed that fish do not feel pain, the Roslin Institute and the University of Edinburgh report that fish respond to damaging stimuli and chemicals, and that injured fish experience "profound behavioural and psychological changes" comparable to those seen in mammals.

Anatomical, pharmalogical and behavioral data suggest that affective states of pain, fear and stress are likely to be experienced by fish in similar ways as in tetrapods, or land-living vertebrates. This indicates that fish have the capacity to suffer and that their welfare should be taken into account.

A few other things to note: When we go into a restaurant and order wild-caught fish, chances are that fish was caught in far-distant waters. Overfishing and bycatch aside, just imagine the resources consumed in moving that fish from its native waters to your plate. On the other hand, your fish may be farm-raised--in which case, as we've already seen, raising that fish likely increased pollution of marine waters and even groundwater, endangered the survival of its wild-born populations by spreading diseases and genetic mutations, and imposed horribly cramped, painful conditions on other living beings (which, of course, are capable of suffering just like any other creature).

I grew up on the coast, dining on fresh flounder and shrimp and crab, and sea creatures were my favorite food for most of my life. When I began considering becoming vegan, I thought I would never be able to give up fish. But I did give them up, and I know that it was the right choice--knowing the consequences of consuming sea"food" products, my excuse of I like it too much to give it up held no relevance. And trust me, life goes on--your tastes change, you begin to love foods that you never gave a chance before, and you come to enjoy a diet which is more peaceful and more sustainable... and you realize that you do not need to put flesh in your mouth to be happy.

The price of a cup of coffee

What does a cup of coffee cost? Maybe around $1.19 at a convenience store... and even less than that when we brew it at home. Coffee is cheap, and pretty much any of us can drink it any time we like. But, as with most agricultural production, coffee production entails many more costs than consumers in industrialized countries are compelled to consider when we lay out our cash. What is the real price for a cup of coffee? This is what I have been trying to figure out for quite some time now. Here is what I know.

Coffee has traditionally been grown, at least in the Western Hempsphere, in tropical forests under the shade of a diverse understory. These areas by nature are centers of extreme biodiversity, and they provide critical wintering habitat to many species of North American migratory birds. These forests, in addition, are powerhouses where carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and converted back into oxygen--a process our planet depends on to keep levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere down to a safe level.

As the demand for coffee has grown, coffee producers have turned to new farming methods to achieve a more large-scale crop. More coffee can be produced in the open sun than beneath the understory cover of these tropical forests, so forests have been clearcut to make way for agricultural land that can be cultivated to meet the growing demand for coffee. Farming this way increases the need for fertilizers to artificially enhance the soil and for pesticides to protect the crop from new threats. The implications are severe: Crucial habitat for exotic and migratory birds, as well as other species, has been lost, leading to rapid extinction--very often killing off species that humans had not yet even discovered. The loss of the flora which naturally enriches the soil with minerals has led to the dumping of chemicals all over the land. Basically, these lands that were once forests with rich and healthy soil are now barren, dry, and on life support. These chemical fertilizers cannot keep the land arable forever; one day that land will become useless, unable to support any green life. The chemicals from the fertilizers and the pesticides have to go somewhere--so they eventually end up poisoning the water supply. Not to mention that every lost acre of forest is a loss for the atmosphere; carbon dioxide builds up, as fewer trees are around to convert it.

The human labor cost is dire as well. When people of industrialized nations demand lower prices on coffee, the true cost of producing that coffee does not change. Since we, the consumers, are no longer bearing that cost, then we know that someone else must be--the laborers on these large-scale coffee farms. They work long hours in the hot tropics, receiving an inequitable wage for their labor. They have no choice--somehow they must earn a living for themselves and their families. We in America thought that slavery had been abolished long ago. Yet we consume products like coffee, whose artificially deflated prices make it easily accessible in large quantities to everyone (coffee was considered a luxury not so long ago), and we do so without any regard for the labor conditions under which it was produced for us. That sounds a lot like slavery to me.

When consumers make ethically sound decisions in their purchases, that action speaks very loudly to those who operate in the production of commodities. If we choose coffee that is organic, fair trade certified, and shade grown, we are supporting a return to environmentally sound agricultural practices as well as a fair wage to those whose livelihoods are linked to our coffee consumption. Sure, you pay a higher price for coffee when you make these decisions--but the price you pay is much closer to the "real" cost of coffee than the artificially deflated prices that we see on most mainstream brands. Just as meat would be far more expensive to consumers if it were not subsidized by the government (another reason to go vegan), other luxury items like coffee, and even chocolate and cane sugar, wear attractive price tags today that do not reflect their true cost.


I have made a switch to buying only organic coffee that is fair trade certified. It can be difficult to find coffee that is explicitly guaranteed to be organic, fair trade certified, and shade grown. What is the interplay between these three elements? I have been doing some research to find out, and I came across this excellent site called Coffee and Conservation. Take a look at this link for some practical guidelines on how to ensure that your coffee is truly produced in an ethically sound and sustainable manner, from an environmental and a social viewpoint. I encourage you to explore this site some, as it is packed with valuable information about what is sustainable and what is not, and what we as consumers and concerned citizens of this planet can do about it. The cost of producing a cup of coffee may be far removed from us, but we will all inevitably bear the cost of our choices in the end.

It's easy eating green

Many people who are disgusted by the world climate crisis do not realize that one of the top contributors to greenhouse gas emissions is connected with their diet. Eating vegan or vegetarian does more to reduce emissions than does driving a fuel-efficient, hybrid car. Unbelievable? Check out the following articles:

Vegetarian is the New Prius

Kathy Freston, in this article dated 18 January 2007, cites the findings of a recent report released by the UN, which points to livestock production as "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." She also reports on the results of research conducted at the University of Chicago, in the following statement:

[Researchers] noted that feeding animals for meat, dairy, and egg production requires growing some ten times as much crops as we'd need if we just ate pasta primavera, faux chicken nuggets, and other plant foods. On top of that, we have to transport the animals to slaughterhouses, slaughter them, refrigerate their carcasses, and distribute their flesh all across the country. Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels--and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide--as does a calorie of plant protein. The researchers found that, when it's all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius.

You can read more about the UN report in the following article on the website of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations:

Livestock a Major Threat to Environment

How about this article by investigative journalist Jeffrey St. Clair, which points to cattle production as a top threat to the health of the Western U.S.'s public lands?

Till the Cows Come Home

The following article, written by Dan Brook, points out that the two gases that comprise 90 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are carbon dioxide and methane--both of which are emitted by large-scale cattle farms at the rate of millions of tons each year. The article also addresses livestock cultivation's role in the destruction of the world's rainforests, which are absolutely crucial to the removal of harmful carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Another Inconvenient Truth: Meat is a Global Warming Issue

There is so much evidence out there that it is difficult to deny, once you begin studying the issue, that the current state of the planet is inextricably linked to the human population's unsustainable diet. Consider the following quotation from the Kathy Freston article:

The United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year, all to sustain a meat-ravenous culture that can barely conceive of a time not long ago when "a chicken in every pot" was considered a luxury. Land animals raised for food make up a staggering 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. We are eating our planet to death.

And yet, it is so easy to eat a vegan or vegetarian diet. Sites like Vegan Outreach and GoVeg.com are designed to show how simple it can be to eat a healthy, delicious plant-based diet, and how such a lifestyle benefits the quality of life on this planet for so many creatures in so many different ways. There are vegan and vegetarian cooking sites all over the Web--you can even check out my vegan food blog and from there, explore the many vegan cooking resources that it links to.

I could not consider myself an environmentalist and justify eating an animal products-based diet--the global harm caused by animal agriculture is just too evident. Many people would feel the same way, I believe, if only they knew the facts.

This Sunday, 22 April, is Earth Day--and I believe it is one of the most critical Earth Day celebrations in the history of our country, as more people are aware this year than ever before of the dire climate crisis which our world faces. Please, do not ignore the facts surrounding animal agriculture. Take a look at these articles, and if you are still not satisfied, do some more research. If we truly hope to reverse the destruction of our global environment, one of the crucial steps we must take is turning away from animal-based diets and toward a safer, healthier, greener alternative.

Dilemma

This morning's Accounting Policy class session was one of the most difficult hour-and-a-half lectures that I have ever had to endure. To give you an idea of what happened, I must first explain that my professor is on the corporate board of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a company whose products I refuse to purchase because of its disregard for conservation ethics: More than 80% of the pulp that Kimberly-Clark uses to produce its Kleenex brand tissues is virgin pulp, straight from Canada's ancient Boreal forest. The company is actively engaged in the destruction of one of the last remaining intact biomes in the world, a rich ecosystem which is home to myriad diverse species and is a carbon storehouse whose survival is essential to the fight against global warming. In short, I find that Kimberly-Clark has no environmental ethic whatsoever.

This morning in class we had a guest speaker--the Chief Financial Officer of Kimberly-Clark was there to share with us some of the business practices of the corporation and give us some insight into what makes the company so profitable. I found his talk to be utterly disappointing. He made no mention of Kimberly-Clark's environmental position, even though we are standing in a day and age in which we must take action to curb global warming and otherwise protect our planet which we have ravaged and raped to near-barenness in many locations. Furthermore, he shared with us that Kimberly-Clark is looking at outsourcing much of their human labor to India, where labor is cheap and few investments must be made in the workers to keep them happy since they need the jobs so badly that they will work under nearly any conditions. I was enraged on the inside as I listened to this presentation.

What did I do? Well... I refused the giveaways that our speaker offered. I could not explain why. If my professor were not so linked with Kimberly-Clark, I would have considered confronting the CFO about the company's policies regarding the environment. As it was, however, I felt like I could say nothing without putting my grade in jeopardy. Am I a coward? What would you have done?

If you click on the banner above, you can read about the destruction that Kimberly-Clark is wreaking upon the Boreal forest, and you can send an e-mail to the CEO of Kimberly-Clark, Thomas Falk, as well as to the company's VP of environment, Ken Strassner. You can urge the company to make changes in the way it obtains its pulp for the production of its popular paper products, and you can explain that you will not purchase any Kimberly-Clark products as long as they refuse to change. Please, take this step. We are losing a treasure than can never be replaced, and it disappears a little more each day. It makes a difference. Let them know that we as consumers will not settle for complacency when it comes to our planet.

Save a tree or two

I received the following e-mail from the Natural Resources Defense Council regarding the preservation of Canada's boreal forest. I've blogged a couple of times now in reference to this ancient wilderness (look here and here). Why, as a native of the southeastern United States, am I so passionate about this particular part of the world?

The boreal forest of Canada is one of the largest remaining intact natural regions in the world. It is home to a variety of wildlife including caribou, bears, wolves, and lynx. It is the summer range for about 1/3 of North American songbirds and 3/4 of North American waterfowl. Its ecology is complex and varied, with forests, mountains, lakes, wetlands, and rivers. Such a place needs to be protected, lest it be lost. There are programs and initiatives in place to protect and preserve large portions of the region, and still others aimed at developing eco-friendly practices within its neighboring communities. The boreal forest is a valuable North American biome, and the more people who become aware and empassioned about its need for preservation, the more positive progression we will see in the efforts to save this forest.

Anyway, on to the e-mail. If you click the link, you can sign your name to a letter to the Manitoba government, urging them to take action. It only takes five seconds, and I have to believe that it makes a difference.

*********

The Manitoba government still has not honored its pledge to
permanently protect the Poplar-Nanowin Rivers traditional lands
in our Heart of the Boreal Forest BioGem.

Your urgent action is needed to ensure that Manitoba makes good
on its repeated promises. Mounting proposals for clearcut
logging, roadbuilding and industrial hydropower development loom
over this irreplaceable habitat for threatened woodland caribou,
moose and millions of songbirds.

Please go to http://www.savebiogems.org/boreal/takeaction
and urge Manitoba's premier to grant permanent protection to
these First Nation lands.

For thousands of years, the Poplar River First Nation has relied
on the trees, plants and wildlife of this expanse of rugged
granite cliffs, dense evergreen woods and tranquil marshlands
for food, medicine and the survival of its beliefs and
traditions. In 2004, the Canadian government recognized the
outstanding cultural and natural values of this wildland by
including it as part of a potential U.N. World Heritage Site.

Under pressure from BioGems Defenders like you, the Manitoba
government renewed interim protection of the Poplar-Nanowin
Rivers Park Reserve to allow for the completion of a land
management plan. Yet more than a year has passed now since the
plan was finalized -- and the Manitoba government has failed to
legislate permanent protection.

Please go to http://www.savebiogems.org/boreal/takeaction
and tell Manitoba's premier to take this long overdue next step
toward creating a World Heritage Site in this region.

Thank you for all of your efforts to protect the wildest reaches
of Canada's vast boreal forest.

Sincerely,

Frances Beinecke
President
Natural Resources Defense Council

Death Knell of the Ancients

Another tree falls, and the taiga mourns with groaning—not the sound of groaning, but the deep and silent rumble of the soul whose tremors make tremble even the deepest parts of the earth. For the thud of one more tree against the pock-marked ground is the fearsome, chaotic clanging of one more thick, cold iron bell, another alarum ringing out the imminent fate of all life that once found its haven here.

For these trees have never seen war, never been brushed by plague or pandemic. Peaceful existence, nurturing coexistence has reigned here for centuries as the trees, fir and spruce, elm and oak alike, have offered their raised limbs to the native grouse for nesting, and to the visiting thrushes who stay only until the first gray of winter touches the sky and sends these fair-weather birds to a more tropical locale for the cooler season. These trees have been proud to wear, year after year, the pure and powdery snow from which raptors flee and grizzlies hide themselves, fat with nourishment to last them for months as they sleep in their deep dens until ground thaw.

These old-growth trees have seen light and shadow, each wonderful and terrible in its very special way. Nothing is as jarring as a full neon sun throwing itself against a tinny, white wilderness; nothing is as spectacular as colored hues that glow and dance across the backdrop of space every vernal and autumnal equinox. The forest has seen it all. It has also seen the nightfall, accompanied by the paralyzing beating of owls’ wings and the death squeals of the small rodents, fallen prey to the hunters of the night. The trees have played the part of protector against harsh daylight, weaving their stretching limbs together as a barrier so that the mosses and lichen could thrive gratefully along the shaded ground beneath.

The forest remembers stories of the first appearance of man, coming in on foot from the west, building their settlements nearby, hunting the animals, treading lightly on the land. Even the last of the trees who had known these respectful men, had lived in harmony with them, have long since fallen and returned to the earth, adding their matter back to the soil to the propagation of forest life. But the legacy of these gentle hunters remains, giving strength to the trees and the delicate fibers of life in this harsh, beautiful wilderness.

Nothing like that legacy are these newly arrived men, who come in droves with their clamorous machines to cripple the forest, their hearses to drag the victims away to the nearby paper mill. They upset the balance and the peace of the long-time dwellers here, giving it no thought as they ravage and scar the land. Another tree falls, its once proud limbs crunching against the snow-packed ground. An alarm sounds to the raptors that had nested in those branches, to the fox and the squirrel whose once secret dwellings are now hopelessly destroyed. And a chill pulses through the forest—a chill that the cold, damp summers and thoroughly severe winters have, in thousands of years, never managed to elicit from the proud and brawny trees. For the trees know they can survive the wind and snow and the days upon days of darkness, a barren climate which has caused virtually all other life to shrink away. But against the calloused greed within the hearts of short-sighted man even the stout-willed trees cannot fight. And in each buzz of a saw, each turning of an engine, each loud and brazen guffaw of a hardened, senseless clearcutter preparing to wrap up another day of hard work, the forest can hear the heralding of its own bleak doom. And so it remains, in jarring silence.

Victory for the forest?

The environmental group ForestEthics (forestethics.org) has been engaged in active protest against the clearcutting of Canada's boreal forest (one of the last remaining forest wildernesses on the planet, it turns out)--and met with recent success against Victoria's Secret, according to yesterday's article. The article explains that after weeks of peaceful but very prominent protesting against Victoria's Secret--which sends out about 365 million catalogs each year, printed on 90% virgin paper coming from the ancient and endangered boreal forest of Canada--the company has agreed to stop buying from the pulp mill that logs in this Canadian wilderness.

Did you get that? They have agreed to stop buying. To stop supporting the destruction of this invaluable terrestrial biome which is the unique habitat of many plant and animal species. A major multinational corporation, swayed by the insistent and unrelenting voices of a meager handful who care enough about preserving the Earth's remaining natural environments. I don't know about you, but for me, this is an encouraging thought.

Granted, I have no idea why it is even legal to clearcut such an old-growth forest inn the first place. It is possible to produce paper in a more environmentally sound manner--by logging forests that are young and managed, forests that are re-planted and allowed to grow until they are cut again for more timber. Better yet, recycled paper--isn't there enough paper thrown away each year in America to meet the catalog-printing needs of a company like Victoria's Secret? Why attack one of the last surviving wilderness areas on the planet, just so that we can enjoy the "glossy paper"?

Nevertheless, it happens, and not just because of one company. Will other clients snap up the boreal timber that Victoria's Secret will forgo? Probably so. But I believe that we can speak loud enough to make a difference. We just have to decide what is more important to us:

This?


Or this?

An Inconvenient Truth

This weekend the movie An Inconvenient Truth was playing here on campus. I never did manage to see the movie when it was first released over the summer, but last night Bob and I went. This movie was more terrifying than I thought it would be, and sadly, I had no trouble believing every figure, every statistic, every prediction. Since seeing it, I have been wondering what I can do--what more I can do.

I have been truly contemplating the state of the world and its people, and wondering if there is yet any way to hope that nations will pull together in an unprecedented effort to change the statistics--particularly this nation. It makes me angry to see the opposition to the environmental movement that seems to be so prevalent. Growing the economy? We will grow our economy up until the day we kiss our planet goodbye. There has to be a better way. Jesus is coming back soon, so none of this even matters? We Christians cannot use that as a cop out. When I look at the church in America, I have to ask myself if we're ready for the second coming. And we're defacing the world climate so quickly that in my lifetime, terrible things could happen. No, I'm not willing to be complacent and put millions of lives around the globe on the line, for the mere thought that Jesus will return before anything terrible--and preventable--occurs.

So what do I do? Well, as a Christian, I pray. I pray without ceasing. I pray in faith that my God will rouse the empathy and the responsibility in His people's hearts that they may become warriors against the destruction of our climate, of our earthly home. As a citizen, I reduce my greenhouse gas emissions. I walk. I use less power. I recycle. I eat a vegan diet... I put thought into my choices every day. Do I really need that tomato in November? Can I live with it just a couple of degrees warmer in my apartment? And as a writer, I cry out daily. I cry out in the most eloquent way I know how. And I cry with a sense of urgency. And I hope that people will read, reflect, respond.

How does one person make a difference? It feels so hopeless sometimes--but if I gave up, that would only make the problem worse. So I will do what I can, and day by day I will learn what I can do. And as the future unfolds, day by day, I will see what kind of difference all the "one persons" out there can make.

www.climatecrisis.net

Disclaimer

Please, read my previous post. I strongly believe in adopting more eco-friendly attitudes and habits. It's urgent, really. But in regard to what I have written, I feel compelled to point out a few things concerning God and nature.

First: Each of us exists within the rhythm of the planet.

This is not an atheistic or pantheistic statement. I do not suggest that everything is not ultimately governed by God. God created the heavens and the earth--we know this all the way from Genesis 1:1--but He also designed them to work in a very specific way. Thousands of years have told us that the earth tilts in predictable patterns to bring us further from and closer to the sun, creating the seasons. They have also told us that the tide changes every six hours, that hurricanes come in September, that rainfall is abundant in some climates and haphazard in others. Obviously, the planet has fallen into a rhythm. And while God could rock the entire world in a fraction of a second, history dictates that He has more or less allowed the world to persist according to His original design.

Second: To my brothers and sisters in Christ out there, environmentalism is not something to be wary of. In fact, I believe that the commission to cultivate the land and to oversee all the creatures of the earth, which God gave to Adam in the beginning, still stands for us today. God created this world, and He created it for us to enjoy. The world is fallen, but we still live here, right? I cannot believe that God's desire would be for us to simply drop the ball when it comes to being stewards of His creation.

Puffins are pretty funny looking birds, right? Did you know that puffins are nearly extinct? They have been protected over the past several decades, and at last count 52 puffin pairs were inhabiting their natural home near Eastern Egg Rock, off the coast of Maine. Puffins were once a thought in the mind of God, and He put them in this world, with their funny faces and comically enormous bills, for a reason. I don't think He wants puffins to die from the face of the planet due to our lack of sight or concern. Everything God put here was a creative thought that He made a living, breathing, beautiful organism--and every natural thing on this earth, in some way, gives us a glimpse into the mind of God Himself. I know that conservation is not a traditional Christian value, especially in today's world. After all, one day Jesus will come back and this earth will perish. But none of us know the hour of His return, so let's not bank on it being before we've wrecked His creation completely. We're still responsible for caring for what He's given us.

Third: Someone told me once to avoid "falling more in love with the works of the Lord than with the Lord of the works." This is a genuine struggle for me, because I see awe and beauty in all of nature, and I enjoy this relationship. But this beauty and this awe are of the Lord Himself, and none other. So for those of you who know me, this is not only to remind you but to remind myself as well, that in the end, all of my heart is for God. I relate to God very intimately through nature, but nonetheless nature is not the end--God is the end. I am thankful for His creation and I do want to protect it and be always aware of it, but that must come after my relationship with God Himself. After all, "the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever." (Isaiah 40:8)

A Malignant Attitude

Each of us exists within the rhythm of the planet.

Whether we like it or not, I believe that all actions must be governed by the design of nature... or our earth will die. The thought of our world becoming virtually uninhabitable can seem a very distant and surreal concept, but it rings with a greater imminence than we realize. I see the quality of life on earth becoming poorer and poorer, notwithstanding what conventional statistics suggest. Perhaps I can look forward to a lifespan of 90, 100, even more. But do I want to exist on a planet where polar ice caps have melted away, remaining forestlands have been leveled, and the balance of the seasons has been dramatically realigned toward unbearable heat? Can I really enjoy a place where I know that animals are being tremendously abused and once fertile soil is being irrevocably stripped of all its nutrients to put a mass-produced and genetically modified dinner on my plate?

It is time for all of us to step into a role of greater awareness and sensibility toward the plight of the dramatically underrepresented natural environment. I applaud my friends who abstain from using their ovens in the summertime, instead focusing their meals around chilled salads and soups and exotic, sweet summer fruits and vegetables. I respect those who can live without tomatoes in the winter--for how many pounds of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere to transport that tomato from the tropics all the way to your grocery bag? I support the health food store that encourages the use of canvas shopping bags, and facilitates the recycling of those horribly inefficient plastic grocery bags that many supermarkets plow through at nauseating speeds. I thank the driver who makes a concerted effort to stay within the speed limit, knowing that the fuel economy of his car drops of drastically at speeds above 55 mph.

Over thousands of years, human beings have attempted to create their own rhythms by which to live. The problem is, there is no rhythm to how we choose to live our lives today. We live however we wish, whenever we wish. We pay no attention to the dictates of the seasons, nor to the beautifully orchestrated patterns of native plants and animals within each particular region. And so we strain the earth by consuming more energy, we strain the soil and the water supply and the local ecosystem by introducing nonnative species. And we do it without hesitation, without consideration as to the repercussions of our supposed benign actions.

I walked outside this morning into a world immersed in gray. From somewhere far beyond the low quilt of clouds overlying my world, I heard a muffled rumbling of the heavens. And I was reminded that mankind does not have the final dictate as to the condition of the world. There is always something far greater than us at work, and our meddling with the design of nature can only cause ruin. Too often we follow our own designs and desires, and close our eyes and ears to the blatant signals that beg attention toward the mess we are making. But we cannot live this way with impunity forever. Instead we must hear the rolling thunder and respond, all the while respecting that we are not sovereign in this world.

One of the simplest and greatest books ever written, The Lorax by Dr. Seuss, commissions us succintly and eloquently to look further ahead with the following poignant declaration:

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It's not."

As I walked to class this morning, I was glad to have brought my umbrella.

Stop global warming

Join the march to stop global warming. All it takes is a few minutes... and a willingness to accept responsibility for the welfare of this planet we call home. Awareness is key--please think about this.

Vote with your fork?

When we go grocery shopping we have to make a choice--either we may buy the cheap, pesticide-laden produce that comes to us at the expense of farmland, the environment in general, and our own health--or we may vote against it. Buy organic. In other countries people pay very dear prices for their food, up to 1/3 of their annual incomes. In America? We spend less than 10% of our incomes on food, when we're the nation in all the world with the best chance to do something better.

I came across a blog entry today based on a speech, "The Cornification of America," delivered by a well-respected and talented nature writer/journalist named Michael Pollan. I read the blog, and was reminded of how strongly I feel about these things. I would say more, but that would be taking away from the power of his message. Read it for yourself.

What happened to spring?

Never before now has the rapid climate change become more evident to me... This was the mildest winter I can ever remember, but what is even more shocking is the lack of transition into spring. As soon as March came it just turned hot--so much for my "in between" wardrobe. I'm wearing skirts and T-shirts and wishing for a shower three times a day. You remember the adage "March goes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb"? Anybody who counted on the truth of that saying, who loves the blustery weather (like me), who wants to fly kites and waits all year for the perfect month to do it in, they're quite at a loss this year. No wearing my sweater in the morning and then tying it around my waist by noon...

Climate change is absolutely tragic to me. We're losing something irreplaceable and very sacred by our own apathy toward our world, doing things that are convenient for us in the short run but are ultimately not sustainable--we're making a bed for future generations to lie in. It used to snow every winter in Georgia. You can ask people who grew up here forty, fifty years ago. I remember when it snowed in Savannah in the wintertime on occasion, only twenty years ago. Now, snow in Savannah is unheard of; snow in the North Georgia mountains is rare (it sure wasn't going to happen this year). I want to raise my children where they can be familiar with snow, where they can look out of their window on a winter night like I did once or twice when I was very young, and be delighted by the tiny white flakes that are just starting to sail down from the December sky. Can I count on that in Georgia? Even on occasion? How far north would I have to move to be in a snow-falling region? It's changing so quickly...

Someday soon people are going to have to start caring. Especially in America, someone will have to wake up and realize that we need an administration that is dedicated to preserving something that is far bigger, far older, and far more awe-inspiring than the great United States--that is God's creation, this earth, that is dying under our gluttonous use of petroleum and our constant stripping of irreplaceable resources, our killing of the o-zone and of the forests. We cannot push it off any longer and wait for someone to come behind and clean up our mess... because no one's going to do it. People have to learn now and start now. I don't know what is going to wake this world up from their delusions, but whatever it is, I hope it comes soon.