Wired sells out to Monsanto

I picked up my new Wired magazine and immediately read their cover story, an inflammatory ‘environmentalists are full of shit’ piece. It really pissed me off. They end their series of anti-arguments based on facts focused around cutting carbon dioxide, with a “take it with a grain of salt" letter from the editor of Worldchanging.com. He basically says the article is a short-lens focus that could get us into even more trouble. Isn’t the damage already done with a cover like “Keep your SUV, forget organics and screw the spotted owl?” I suppose it would be okay if they were using it to get people reading but then dole out some actual wisdom inside, but they don’t.

Here are my reactions to the articles:

1) A/C is OK. Here they say it takes more energy to heat a house in a cold climate than it does to cool a house in a hot climate. Good point, but really do we want everyone to move to the Southwest? The area is already burgeoning and just beginning a mega-drought that could last up to 150 years, where are they going to get enough water to live? What about clamping down on cheap housing construction and passing ordinances requiring better insulation. We’ll all have to pay more per square foot but maybe it will have the doubly beneficial effect of making our houses use space more efficiently.

2) Live in cities. Yes, for the most part, urbanization is cool and better for the environment but they make an argument that exurbs are the same as living in a truly rural area surrounded by trees. People don’t live in exurbs to be closer to nature, they sprouted up because people (like in Los Angeles) couldn’t afford to buy houses in the city so developers bought cheap land 50 miles out of town in the desert and built affordable housing there. The article points a finger at lawnmowers (a product of the suburb/exurb) and I totally agree that lawnmowers are a waste of energy. But why not encourage people with land to plant trees and grow a garden to feed themselves instead of trying to get them to move to a city? Not everyone wants to live in an apartment.

3) Organics are not the answer. This one really burns me up. They say we should screw organic because it takes 25 organic cows compared to 23 industrial cows for the same milk and they put out 16 percent more greenhouse emissions. Are they f’ing kidding me? We should drink hormone-laced pus-filled milk from sick suffering cows for that differential? The only smart thing they say in this article, albeit stuffed in the middle, is that if you really want to do something for the environment, stop eating meat altogether. It’s true that we can’t go organic at our current rate of consumption but we (in industrialized countries) eat and waste too much food anyway. Instead, I think we should go organic 100% and patronize restaurants that serve reasonable proportions of quality food.

4) Farm the forests. The only good thing in this section is about culling dead wood out of the forests, it does prevent fires and with the climate heating up, we can’t afford the kind of fires it’s going to bring. But the rest of it, about becoming full time forest farmers and cutting down old growth trees is total bullshit.

5) China is the solution, not the problem. I agree! (See next post) China has become the number one producer of alternative energy solutions for export and use in their own country. Due to decades of rapid and untethered production and growth, their feet are now much closer to the proverbial fire than ours; they will likely find and implement environmental solutions quicker than us.

6) Accept genetic engineering. If I read one more thing about biofuel, I’m going to be sick. They just made the point that we should use more public transportation in the “move to the city” argument but now they’re talking about how we should embrace genetic engineering so we can grow more biofuel. They attack fertilizer and say nothing of chemical sprays, but fertilizer is necessary because of our addiction to monocrops (and profits). Thousands of years ago, farmers rotated crops and used trees and companion plants that naturally kept bugs away or attracted complimentary insect relationships (like worms) and enrich the soil to the benefit of certain crops. The author mentions Monsanto as some kind of wonder company here to save our lives. Monsanto is a chemical company that produces the world’s best-selling “herbicide,” a chemical that kills everything. They then got into the agriculture business producing 90% of the GMO crops on the planet, specifically engineered to resist their herbicide. Roundup kills everything except the crops they engineer. They are corporate bullies who use lawsuits and threats to wipe out local farmers. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." Unchecked, everything we eat will be engineered by Monsanto. If Wired really gave a shit about us and the environment, they’d do a full report on how they control our food supply.

7) Carbon Trading doesn’t work. I agree, good idea that needs improved.

8) Embrace nuclear power. There’s been a lot of talk that the only way we’ll produce enough energy for the billions of us on the planet in the future is from nuclear. They call it the cleanest of the fossil fuels because of the low emissions, uh, but what about the huge volume of nuclear waste produced? We already have tons of it buried in leaking containers under the ground in Washington and other states, we have no safe way to dispose of it and it remains toxic for thousands of years. Let’s focus on energy saving and efficiency before we make feeding our voracious appetites the top priority, eh?

9) Used cars not hybrids. Okay, I get the argument. New cars cost a lot of energy to make. If you’re driving a ten-year old fuel-efficient Toyota like my RAV, it’s better for the environment to keep driving it than to buy a new car. Except that my RAV will never end up in the landfill, there will always be someone waiting to buy it. They suggest (again, to be inflammatory) by the same logic you’re better off driving a Hummer because making a Hummer contributes less carbon to the environment (because of the nickel in Prius’ battery). They say nothing about the fact that cars in Europe are twice as fuel-efficient as ours and are the same as a Prius, which is why you don’t see hybrids there. It’s all a bunch of crap. We’re sold gas-guzzlers on purpose so the hybrids look good in comparison. While it doesn’t affect our carbon output, the quiet drive of the hybrids has many other benefits.

10) Prepare for the worst. Yes, things are going to get much hotter and much worse before they get better and we do need to accept that and prepare. They quote Stewart Brand who says, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it" and suggest that we take over completely by using our technology to fix the things we've broken like helping birds migrate, for example. We're destroying their natural habitat, building over open spaces that break up long migration journeys, disrupting communication with our noise and killing them and their food with pesticides but the scientists are going to save the birds with assisted migration? Then again, they mention that Monsanto, who brought us Agent Orange, PCBs and Bovine Growth Hormone, will save us with genetic engineering. What is this issue sponsored by Bush and the chemical industry?

I agree we better figure out ways to adapt and continue to innovate but we are consuming and disrupting the natural order of the planet at an unsustainable rate and technology alone will not save us (or the birds). We need to continue to make our small but impactful changes like eating locally produced food, driving less, taking a tote the store instead of using plastic bags, planting trees and food in our yards if we have them, installing energy efficient appliances, using less energy by unplugging what we aren’t using, and continuing to pay attention, support innovation and demand responsibility from corporations and governments.

Here's the first part of a two hour-long show about Monsanto:

The World According to Monsanto 1 of 4 27min

Good news for the lazy, inattentive and paranoid

Volvo, a car known for it's safety features, is running a commercial advertising some of their newest additions. The first scenario shows a guy changing lanes. He looks in his mirrors and doesn't see anything so he gets over but OH CRAP there's a motorcycle there. The car automatically corrects itself, putting the guy back in the lane he was leaving and the unharmed motorcyclists continue on their merry way. The driver of the car is completely unfazed by his car driving for him and his near collision that sure would have been fatal to the cyclists. Hmmm, I wonder why he didn't just turn his head to check his blind spot...too much work I guess.

In scenario two, a business woman (to show she isn't stupid, I presume) stops paying attention momentarily to pick up a folder that's slipped off the pile in her passenger seat. But OH CRAP a car is stopped in front of her and in front of that, a group of tiny schoolchildren parade across the street. Luckily, the Volvo bloops and blinks its warning system to tell her to stop. (They're working on a system that will automatically brake, in case the driver doesn't brake hard enough or soon enough.)

Why do we bother driving cars at all? Obviously it's much too challenging a task for our feeble species. Aren't they working on replacing cars with the public pod? You leave your house and you walk to the pod station. You get in a pod, swipe your card, enter our destination and the pod sets out to get you there. You don't have to do anything else. There are some obvious problems like...what if you have groceries? Will they fit in the pod? How will you get them to your house? What if someone spills ice cream on the pod seat? Will there be some kind of automated cleaning system? Damn, I really like this pod idea.

The last scenario in the commercial shows a woman crossing a dark parking lot at night. As she walks towards her car, she checks her key fob and notices that OH CRAP a heartbeat is registered. Someone has broken into her car and is waiting inside to commit atrocities to her person. She turns around and hurries back the other way.

Now this is really a limited feature. I mean, what about that old routine with the guy hiding UNDER the car...does it pick up that heartbeat? Or what if someone has attached a tracking device to my car? I need to know that before I drive to the secret location of the Batcave. OR will it detect whether explosives have been wired to the ignition? Hmmm? When the car starts taking pictures of the people who slam into it in a parking lot when I'm not there, I'll start thinking about it.

Immediately following Volvo's commercial, Nissan followed up with push-button ignition. It really is such a pain to put a key in the ignition. You need the key in the car you just don't need it in the ignition, just push a button to start. See, what happens when you get to your destination and you don't know where your keys are? Did you put them in your pocket? Purse? Or did they fall on the floor? Again, until the car is starting with voice recognition commands like the Batmobile, I just don't see the point.

I think all this technology is just prepping us for the future of machines. Relaaaaaaax, don't worrrrrry, the machiiiiiiines have got it allllllll under controlllllll. Mwa ha ha ha ha.

Driver's Guide to Los Angeles

Driving is the only thing that everyone in Los Angeles complains about. Maybe it's just that life is so great OUTSIDE of the car - this is taken from my "daily" walk/run after work, for example - that being trapped in a traffic with mean people seems like a particular kind of torture.


To put it into perspective, just about anything you might need to do - go to work, go to the doctor, meet a friend, attend a show or event, work out - will require 20-40 minutes each way in soul-crushing traffic.

Here are the types of drivers you could expect to encounter:

Look out for the driver with the 20-car lead. This person is probably doing something stupid (like talking on the phone, brushing their teeth AND memorizing a script) and knows it. Driving for them is so easy, they can do thirty other things at the same time. Very efficient! Leaving a wide berth protects them from smashing into the car ahead but doesn't do much for you if you're following behind. The best place to be is in front of them.

The driver with the nose of their car sniffing another car's butt is doing something stupid and they don't care. These are the most dangerous people on the road. They aren't concerned for their own life so they certainly aren't concerned for yours. They weave, they swerve, they drive 20 miles faster than everyone else, they'll cut you off, flip you the bird, and generally act like arrogant jerks. The best place to be is as far away as possible. Do NOT engage this person. Don't make eye contact. Don't flip them off. Just get out of their way.

The type that can't multi-task is also the most likely to be on the phone. I don't know why that is. They'll arrive somewhere and have no memory of having driven, that's how distracted they are. They slow down anytime there are choices to be made: when they're changing lanes, taking another phone call, or even just if someone else (anywhere in the world) is also slowing down. They seem to go slower and slower when everyone else is trying to gain momentum. The best place to be is beside them. They'll never cut you off.

Ever see those drivers that brake at literally nothing? They've got a huge space in front of them and yet they're braking...why? These people are afraid of the raw power a 2-3 ton piece of machinery offers and are looking for a reason to stop. They stop at all yellow lights and might even stop at a green if it looks like it's about to turn yellow. These people are likely afraid of their own shadow. They should NOT be operating a vehicle at all and yet these people are usually in the biggest car available. When they accidentally drive into you or your house, they're going to do some major damage. Keep your distance and don't make any sudden moves, you might scare them into an accident.

Some people never think about the past. What's done is done. They live in the present. One minute they're going right, the next, "hey, let's go LEFT!" Must be fun to be so spontaneous. They look into the future a lot, someday I'll be an astronaut! These drivers don't know that the world behind them exists. They'll drive in between two lanes while they decide which they prefer to be in. They don't use turn signals because as long as they know what they're doing, who else needs to know? They never look in the rear view mirror because isn't that just for checking your face? They can make sudden moves so pay attention or steer clear.

This is my favorite. The church mouse. Always needing validation at a stop sign. Is it my turn? Oh no, you go, it's fine, I'll wait. They'll let two turns go by, unsure and not wanting to step on any one's toes. They're so NICE! Once they do go, they might stop again in the intersection, just to make sure no one's coming. These are the same people who won't go until EVERYONE comes to a full and complete stop (just in case). For as cautious as this type is, they're also the ones that will completely roll on through a red light that they didn't see, or almost hit a pedestrian in a cross-walk. They must be daydreaming about some good deeds they can do when they get home. The head-in-the-clouds drivers, unfortunately, seem to be the hardest to stay away from. You'll follow them for a mile in city traffic, finally break away only to find them in front of you again in another ten minutes. ARGH!

Slow and steady wins the race. There are a lot of this type and frankly, they're fairly innocuous. Driving just slightly slower than the posted speed limit, stopping at all yellow lights, looking before changing lanes, and always lining up when they're supposed to. They're never the jerk that drives straight to the front of the line to merge as if they're The Queen. They're polite and are generally paying attention. They nod and wave when you let them in, they stop for pedestrians and miraculously never lose their temper. They're a little slow for my tastes but I'd pay a lot of money to get whatever they're on.

Lastly, there are the drivers like me, trying to "figure it out." There must be a way around the traffic! We waste gas speeding off the line at a green light, only to stop with everyone else at the next intersection's red. We're usually going 5-10 miles over the speed limit, nothing excessive, but we expect that everyone else is in a hurry too. We follow the rules and expect others to do the same. We don't drive the same speed next to another car and we won't loiter in your blind spot but can startle and anger some folks with our quick movements. The church mouse is especially unhappy when we startle them out of their daydreams, sorry to make you pay attention! You want these folks in front of you, they'll carve a path for everyone else.

I have a theory that you can tell a lot about a person by the way they drive. It's one of my dating tests. If I can sit in the car with a person while they're driving and feel neither anxious, impatient or frightened, then they're driving in a way that's comfortable to me and we're probably a match on many levels. If I feel one of those things, chances are I'll feel that way in the relationship as well. That theory has yet to prove wrong!