GuidoWorld

Most living things need air, water and food in order to survive. This is definitely the case for human beings. Yet, if you look at how we live and the decisions we make as a planet you would be hard pressed to conclude that life’s basic essentials are a high priority.

In the US the wealthiest, most powerful and advanced society the world has ever known a significant percent of drinkable water is wasted, polluted, used inefficiently or unnecessarily reprocessed. Much of the infrastructure of the US is in a severe state of decay. This is surely the case with the American water system and its aging water lines.

Over 17% of the treated water in the US is lost by leaks in the system, in some cities the estimates are as high as 50% of the water entering the water lines is lost through leakage. Instead of using tax payer money to update and improve the water system and make it efficient, citizens end up paying for water that is lost in the system through their water bills.

In essence we are treating and purifying water for human consumption and than allowing between and 1/5 and a 1/6 of it to be lost in faulty water lines. Yet, this lost water does not include the other ways in which we undervalue and abuse this essential ingredient of human life.

Many reports over the last decade show that Americans eat out an average of four to five times a week. In most US eateries it is a primary duty of waiters and waitresses to keep your cup or glass of water, tea, soda, coffee or any other water based beverage full at all times. What this means is that most people end their meal with a full or partially filled beverage cup which, of course is wasted water.

The list of ways in which we waste water and use it inefficiently would include lawn care, livestock, ornamental water devices and gardening just to mention a few. This is not to say a portion of this is not necessary and beneficial but only to point out that we aren’t actually being frugal with probably the most precious and valuable resource for human existence.

Water we are told is essential for life, and the essence or life. When you consider that any planet without water is considered incapable of sustaining life, it seems odd that we take such a cavalier attitude towards its usage. When you consider that the major portion of our planet’s water is not fit for human consumption it seems unfathomable that we would degrade, pollute and contaminate such a high percentage of our “fresh water” that remains which is suitable for consumption for the billions of people around the globe.

The situation regarding food is just as appalling. Each year the amount of land suitable efor farming is decreasing due to drought, urbanization, industrial expansion and practices to acquire other resources such as wood, coal, oil and various minerals. Yet, despite this, globally we produce around 8.7 trillion pounds of edible foodstuffs. Despite this ample amount of food we live in a world in which 925 million people suffer from hunger.

It is often said that when it comes to food we do not have a supply problem, but one of distribution. Yet, the problem isn’t only about distribution, it is also about waste and lifestyle. Like water, we often do not treat food with the respect it deserves, we do not treat food as an essential aspect of human existence.

According to the UN an astounding 1/3 of all food around the globe is wasted, spoiled or never used. In underdeveloped nations the problem is often of storage, distribution and political conflict. Yet, in the industrialized nations it is mostly a matter of wasteful habits, market practices and economic forces (profit considerations).

According to the report published in early May of this year in industrialized countries, the issue is more about “retailers and consumers throwing perfectly edible foodstuffs into the trash.” The report found that in Europe and North America consumers wasted between 95 and 115 kilograms (209 and 253 pounds) of food every year.
The report found that in the retail industry there was an “over-emphasis on appearance”. “Consumers in rich countries are generally encouraged to buy more food than they need,” it said, giving as an example oversized ready-to-eat meals produced by the food industry and fixed-price buffets in restaurants.

The waste habits and practices of the industrialized west cause food prices to rise all over the globe. This often makes the prices of staples and basic food stuffs unaffordable to a growing number of people. The recent food riots in numerous countries around the globe have been the public reaction to the strain of food prices on a growing percentage or the populace.

A vast amount of edible food is thrown out of restaurants and grocery stores on a daily basis. Waste and destruction of food is significant in almost every phase of the restaurant businesses. At the preparation phase any food that is not visually pleasing is discarded even if it is perfectly edible. Likewise many perishables are discarded if they are not ordered by customers in a timely basis.

Oftentimes meals contain edible foods which are used more for presentation than consumption with the result being they are left unconsumed and thrown away. It is rare that patrons of restaurants eat all on their plate, or take all leftovers home for later consumption. Restaurants are embarrassed when they run out of anything offered on their menu. This results in owners preventing this occurring by over stocking on a daily basis and ending each day with unused food needing to be tossed.
Grocery stores often toss perishables rather than sell them at reduced prices as they near spoiling to protect their profit margins. Waste and reduced prices are all part of the profit equation, and it is often more profitable to throw food away than sell it at lower prices.

Along with food and water man needs to breathe. A man not breathing is a man not living. Though it seems we can breathe air that is far from perfect or even fresh, the truth of the matter is that our survival depends on a relatively narrow band of air quality. Yet, like water, we have adopted many practices which degrade, degrade and contaminate the air we breathe.

The statement that we need air, water and food is simple and basic. It is a statement of fact, that few if any would contest. Yet, our behavior seems to suggest that either we have other priorities we deem more important than existence, or that in the long run, we really don’t care about being alive or the quality of our life.

I personally have a difficulty considering any human society advanced or civilized which does not make basic survival a high priority. It would appear to me that providing all with food, water and healthy air is job one. This is not about politics, ethics or morality, it just about making sense and acting in a sensible way.

Jim Guido

Probably the most prolific predator in the history of our planet is also the most ignored. This predator is even more amazing in the diversity of what it kills than in its quantity of kill.

This predator kills insects, birds, and many varieties of animal. The list of its prey is almost endless. It kills both crawling and flying insects including worms, caterpillars, crickets, mosquitoes, butterflies, lightning bugs and beetles. Its diet includes snakes, frogs, turtles and lizards. Songbirds and crows can be counted amongst its prey. Rabbits, possum, raccoons, squirrel and even cats and dogs are common. Not to mention fox, deer, moose, groundhogs and even bear which are part of their quarry.

Even other major predators become prey for this able killing machine. Bobcat, cougar, panthers and wolves are not uncommon victims. In the US an astounding 40,000 humans a year are killed by this great predator. The list of victims to this predator could fill volumes.

I guess by now many of you have guessed this incredibly gifted predator, yes it is the motorized vehicle best represented in the car, van and truck. Each day thousands of animals and untold numbers of insects and birds are felled by its endless murderous excursions.

What is most deplorable of this predator is that it doesn’t even eat its prey. While sometimes it kills in order to help its occupants go to work to survive, it often kills in totally unnecessary journeys in its territory or to foreign parts. Many of these excursions are just joy rides, or a desire just to get out and about. The majority of these kills are executed without the slightest bit of remorse by the drivers, or at least little effort is made to reduce the number and distance of these murderous journeys.

Ironically many of the drivers of these vicious vehicles are horrified when they find out that some their friends hunt or fish. Many are incensed when they see someone wearing a fur coat or snake skin boots. Somehow they either totally ignore the majority of the murders they execute while behind the wheel, or they view all there motorized excursions as being necessary.

The destruction to wildlife caused by cars isn’t restricted to its actual time on the roads, but the disturbance caused by preparing roads to be paved is extremely invasive and destructive. The pavement itself alters the ecosystem causing permanent dislocation and death to numerous insects and earth worms. The non-porous pavement causes suffocation and drowning to various life ill-adapted to a concrete covered terrain. The toxic properties of asphalt present their own death warrants for plant and animal life.

Though this predator has only been on the scene for a century its numbers are now in the hundreds of millions if not billions. It is amazing the number of environments and ecosystems that have adapted to the motorized vehicle. The number of natural predators has decreased as the the populace of their prey has been decimated and managed by the burgeoning car population.

At this point in time the total removal of cars and trucks from the globe would have potentially dire consequences. The uncountable number of animals, insects, reptiles and birds spared their execution by a lack of cars would create an unstable environment. The number of remaining natural predators would be insufficient to meet the proliferation of prey. This could result in disease, pestilence, plague etc. as the predator population takes time to raise its numbers sufficient enough to control the population of a number of species throughout the animal kingdom.

So, though it would be nice for us to curtail our murderous ways by reducing our dependency on the automobile, we should do so in a thoughtful manner.

Yet, in the meantime I think it is terribly misguided to view ourselves and our role on the planet as being moral or humane. There is no way to avoid the obvious fact that we are the most reckless and selfish murderers on the planet. The only way to salvage our dignity and humanity is to admit our savageness and quickly find and implement ways for us to be more respectful of life. Hiding behind the “fight for survival” is a callous joke, we neither need to point fingers at nature nor make excuses for our heinous ways.

The choice isn’t between reality and utopia, the reality is we have many options and choices to live life in a more humane and respectful manner.

Jim Guido

When considering penalties which could be imposed on those found to be guilty in the Gulf oil spill I have a few recommendations. I want to preface the following by saying that I have spent over 30 years working with delinquent youth and their families. During these years I have witnessed and implemented many consequences for illegal and asocial behaviors which have been effective and even more that have been ineffective. It is with the knowledge gained from experience in these matters that I offer the following suggestions.

Corporations and commercial entities have rights under the law and in many ways are treated and protected as individuals. Yet, with rights usually comes responsibilities. One of the reasons that the people at the top of businesses make the money that they do is because they are ultimately responsible for the actions and decisions made by the organization they head. At the facilities I have worked at the supervisors, clinicians and administration are held responsible for what happens to the clients in their care. Those with credentials and position often are mandated to have liability insurance to help them weather any law suits due to negligence or bad judgment in the course of the execution of services provided by them or by those under their supervision.

With this in mind I’d like to apply these principles to the BP oil spill.

Monetary fines levied against BP does seem reasonable at this point, but would such fines, even if extensive, be effective consequences? First, I’ve read the monetary limits on law suits on corporations currently stands at 75 million. Now, even if this number is wrong, and fines and penalties were to rise into the billions of dollars I doubt if they would truly be effective as a punishment or a future deterrent.

First the fines would not even be equal to one years profit for a giant such as BP. This has one wonder if multinational corporations are too big to punish. Second, the fines would be absorbed by the corporation in general not directly affecting the wealth and comfort of the heads and decision makers of the corporation. Even if a corporation were somehow injured by the fines, those at the top would most likely be able to find similar employment at other major corporations.

My suggestion would be for the fines and punishments to be levied on individuals rather than the general corporation. The fines should have a direct effect on the wealth of the individuals in charge, such punishments would definitely send a message to business heads of all corporations that they need to act responsibly and act as an effective deterrent.

The fines and punishments should be levied to anyone who with decision making power in the realms of importance regarding the oil rigs. Anyone who is involved with the safety policies of the rigs and pipe lines should be evaluated on their level of culpability. Likewise, those who developed the insufficient back up plans and over all solutions to such a leak need to be held accountable. This would include the governmental agencies that license, supervise and monitor these endeavors.

In addition to fines I believe those found to be at fault should be ordered to give restitution for the damages their negligence and incompetence produced. I have a feeling that if they such individuals were mandated to work off the damage they inflicted on the entire gulf region they would change their ways and their cohorts would begin to act responsibly throughout all related industries.

Imagine how effective it would be if corporate heads were made to spend the next several years of their lives cleaning oil off shores and rocks. Imagine them doing the menial labor that will be needed to remove the oil, restore the local ecologies and ocean life. If these individuals are allowed to have the corporations they work for pay their fines and allowed to hire people to do the years of hard labor of cleaning up after their incompetence than nothing will change.

Will such measures solve the problem? Probably not, but my years of experience working with problem youth has taught me that effective consequences can make a substantial difference in people’s lives.

Many of my posts have dealt with my conviction that our society is in need of substantial structural changes. Our society has a tendency to promote and reward too many base aspects of human nature. Our society can only become as good as the system it functions under. This is not to imply that our society and its structure are evil or even bad, it is only to state that in order for us to move forward in any meaningful way, we need to build a better social structure.

If your goal is increased standard of living and quality of life for an increasing percentage of people across the globe our current economic and governmental structures are the wrong tool for the job. Therefore, though I have learned that incentives and success are always better tools than consequences and punishment, in our current structure I see the above punishments as the proper response to the current situation in the gulf.

When I’ve worked with kids and families I have been successful at helping them build healthy structures and habits in their lives where punishments are rare if ever needed. Yet, when healthy and effective structures are not in place, harsh consequences are often needed. Sad to say, that seems to be the current need of our society at this point in time.

The problem with harsh consequences is they are often delivered in anger and anger begets more anger. Only when a parent is able to deliver a consequence as a learning experience and not in anger to punish then a child’s education can begin, and qualities such as empathy and responsibility can be fostered and adopted.

Maybe many of you out there think I’m a dreamer, or too idealistic. Yet, all I can say is that I have witnessed many kids and families make amazing changes and improvements and though not perfect, have developed ways of being in the world that produce happy and productive people.

Jim Guido

A couple of weeks ago I was listening to a stock market radio program being hosted by two people who live on the gulf coast in Alabama. The discussion on the market turned into a general update on the national and local economy. This led them to highlight the potential impact of the oil spill in the gulf. I listened intently as I had not followed the story at all and wanted to be educated on the topic.

After outlining the backdrop of a poor real estate market and a slumping tourist industry they talked of how fragile and weak the local economic environment was. The spill was talked about as a potential fatal blow to the struggling economy as the devastation to the fishing industry might prove to be quite lengthy.

One of the men said that he was getting emails from people in Alaska who said the initial reports out of the gulf sounded eerily familiar to what happened up there during the Valdez spill. He said they expected the reports to become more and more devastating as time went on, for their early reports on the Valdez spill were rather tame and vague.

Well as time passes on these words have turned quite prophetic as each day new information surfaces which paints quite a bleak and dire picture of the spill. Estimates of damage cited by BP seem to be significantly undervalued and scientific calculations of oil flow are several times that given by oil industry spokesmen.

During times like this articles are released which at other times are ignored or buried. One article I read stated that the term “accident” is very misleading in that it gives the impression that spillage is a rare event. The article went on to quote sources which discussed the common everyday occurrence of minor spills which occur regularly in the drilling and loading of oil barges. According to the article day-to-day spillage of just business as usual operations does add up. In which every five years the amount of oil lost in our oceans is equal to the Valdez spill.

Even if that figure is inflated it does beg the question of exactly how much oil is dispensed into international waters each and every year. What is the damage to our sea life and our dwindling fresh water supply? Where can we find accurate information regarding water pollution, long term effects of pollution on the safety and quality of our seafood, and the long term prospects on the overall health of our oceans?

Shortly after 9/11 we were deceived and lied to regarding the air quality near the twin tower cites. Will the same thing happen regarding the safety of seafood in the gulf?

The current situation seems surreal to me.

Maybe I’m wrong, but when you see the videos of the broken pipe, and you read between the lines on the well orchestrated press releases regarding the spill it all seems so dire. Oil plumes the size of states and potential water flow patterns are scary for anyone brave enough to try and imagine their short term and long term impact.

The damage and harm done by this spill could rival almost any disaster we have faced for centuries. The Valdez spill, three mile island, Chernobyl, maybe even the ecological damage caused by our use of atomic bombs may be eclipsed by the death of a major waterway.

Given the length and intensity of this ongoing crisis, is the thought of the death of at least a portion of the gulf really that extreme or over reactionary?

I guess it is, for I don’t feel or hear anyone’s panic or even deep concern regarding this possibility. What am I missing?

Could someone explain to me how the gulf can shake this off and heal itself when the area of the Valdez spill is still hampered some two decades after the event?

Jim Guido


I’m always amazed and fascinated at how efficient US propagandists are in creating a debate which draws people away from the real issue.  At other times they simply find a way to change the focus of a movement which suits their purposes.

The women’s movement which started out as a quality of life issue, got morphed into a rather narrow personal rights and monetary issue. This subtle shift in the national discussion allowed our government and corporate structure to capitalize on the women’s movement and slowly have two pay checks equal the purchasing power and standard of living of one pay check a few decades back.

The women’s movement quickly dropped its emphasis on intimacy and personal development and traded it in for consumption and jobs which men were finding oppressive and unrewarding. Instead of freeing men and woman from oppressive roles and serfdom the women’s movement was seduced into joining men in their prison with such deceptive slogans as “you’ve come a long way baby” in a series of commercial celebrating the fact that woman could now use their new found economic life to get cancer like their workaholic husbands they felt so alienated from.

Likewise the propagandists artfully steered the American public away from their fervent opposition to our many wars treating other nations as US property, to a demand that we “support the troops”. Any words spoken against the war(s) were both a source of motivation and “support to our enemies” while undermining the “courageous” efforts of our young men and women in battle. Never mind the fact that the reasons for war were fictitious at best and more than likely morally indefensible.

When the Soviet Union fell the US became the undisputed world superpower. Despite this, the US’s involvement in military conflicts and police actions continued to escalate. Public anger with our government’s international actions and policies grew along with a reluctance to encourage our children to get involved in such military actions.

Then voila we suddenly found (created) an enemy worthy of our fear and hatred. This, of course, is terrorism and the war on terrorism. Terrorists exist no where in particular, but can and as the propagandists say, do exist everywhere.  Terrorists are  as hard to identify as they are to define.

Since terrorists sole goal is to destroy us and our way of life, it is “imperative” that we act aggressively and savagely to extinguish them before they proliferate. The propagandists have used this logic to defend our use of torture, banned substances, and unilateral and unsanctioned military action. The war on terror gives the US reason and the duty to invade any country at any time with or without that country’s permission.

So, now let’s take a look at how the “debate on global warming” is just another example of how good our government and corporate propagandists are at diverting the public’s attention away from the obvious.

The battle between environmentalists and corporate spin doctors and propagandists has been lengthy. At every turn spin doctors have found a way to change the dialogue or find a way to make the most profit out of a situation.

The ecological movement which began in the early seventies suffered a huge set back in the late seventies when an OPEC driven energy crisis and stagflation were used to outweigh all concerns regarding pollution caused by fossil fuels. Public relations departments trumpeted their new “concern for your total environment” putting fisheries next to energy plants while the smoke stack industry tried to make their toxic discharges look more environmentally friendly.

Neatly tailored industrial parks, and beach renovations were used to paint lip stick on the environmental pigs. Nuclear power plants which were not as profitable as coal based plants were phased out as a sign of corporate concern for the public health. Newer plants were able to have the toxic releases of coal plants be less visually obvious, and through the efforts of spin doctors and narrow and highly funded scientific studies industries were able to convince the public that their environment was becoming cleaner and healthier.

The debate over ecological concerns regarding the efficient and frugal use of natural resources would slowly resurface in the early eighties as the economy recovered. It was at this time that a lot of the discussion focused on the deterioration of the ozone layer and its effects on people and wildlife.

Once again corporate spin doctors did an excellent job of posing themselves as well intentioned victims of fanatics and potentially harmful idealists. They fended off attacks by environmentalists concerns regarding species extinction by forming and funding fraudulent and extreme conservation groups who were given ample TV and radio air time as they tried to halt progress in order to save a single bird (like the spotted owl).  Soon the bulk of the American public viewed ecologists and ecological activists as being goofy reactionaries disconnected from the real world.

Likewise, environmental health concerns regarding lead paint, asbestos, PCB’s etc. were posed as extreme measures tending to minor problems. Public sympathy was swayed by the expense, tediousness and inconvenience of the governments (EPA’s) clean up programs and interventions.  Once again the environmental and health concerns of ecological activists were successfully posed as being unnecessary and economically unrealistic and harmful.

The changes and concessions made by corporate America were, like always, done in a manner which increased their profits while at the same time fostering public support and sympathy. Concerns regarding the effects of ozone depletion gave rise to skin and sun screen products as well as more profitable delivery systems than the aerosol can. Highly profitable green industries began to sprout up everywhere from organic food stores to recycling industries and businesses.

The current debate on global warming is just the latest manifestation of how corporate and government spin doctors divert and win public opinion and support. The science regarding the effects of industrial pollution and practices on the environment is still in its infancy. Though much compelling information exists, its models and long term predictions are still crude. The number of variables are vast making it difficult to make any reasonable forecast for the foreseeable future.

The complexity of the situation and science makes it so easy for the spin doctors to make the global warming crowd fit the standard role of naive reactionaries who pose a threat to our economic progress and stability. By forcing scientists and activists to prove their viewpoint through specific predictions over short time frames, they are demanding the impossible, and setting up the ecologists to fail and look ridiculous.

Let’s say when psychologists first talked of the harms caused by physical abuse and torture they were scoffed at and demanded to prove their case. Early psychologists would likely say that abused children would develop many psychosocial problems including depression, increase aggression and violence, low self-esteem and inabilities to establish and maintain relationships. Those who have endured long term or severe torture would have similar social deficits and personal handicaps.

Let’s go on to say that the psychologists were demanded to give specific time frames for the manifestation of these problems to arise. They would say many things, but some psychologists would point out that the onset of many of these problems could be almost immediate.

Therefore, any spin doctor opposed to the psychologists viewpoint could easily distort and destroy the psychologists assertion. One could easily find children and even adults who have been physically abused and tortured who function and appear to be happy and productive people. By writing a few articles stating psychological theories and well documented probabilities as predictions of fact, one could sway the reading public to view the psychologists as reactionary and wrong about their assumptions and predictions of the effects of violence on human beings.

This is what is happening in the global warming debate where spin doctors are now popularizing specific dire concerns and possible scenarios of the effects of industrial pollution as specific predictions. If we do not flood in five years, or all polar bears drown than global warming doesn’t exist or at least does not pose any immanent danger.

Think how easy it would be to form some bogus ecological body and pay them to make outrageous statements or popularize data which negates specific claims. Talk about your low hanging fruit. Think of how many pilot studies and papers are written each day. What if I were paid handsomely to find dubious studies or to find ways to interpret studies to give the impression that if such and such doesn’t happen this winter or this year than the global warming perspective is wrong.

Even though I find much of the current evidence regarding global warming somewhat compelling, to me it isn’t the point. Even if global warming isn’t happening, or at least not to the point to usher in a global disaster or ice age, it doesn’t mean that ecological concerns are myths or needless fear mongering.

The point is that dumping tons of toxic waste into our air and water on a daily basis is most likely not a good thing. It’s hard to prove that abuse is destructive to the human spirit, but its harms are well documented. Just as we could never prove smoking caused cancer, it was obvious it had a terrible track record in terms of personal health.

The debate over global warming is a spin doctors dream. It is diverting the attention  away from the obvious harms of toxic pollution and onto a debate which cannot be decided or proven. Those opposed to global warming do not have to prove that global warming isn’t happening, they only have to show the ways in which any global warming model of their choosing is wrong or inaccurate.

Jim Guido

As you know the last few days I’ve been talking about the short comings of the recycling industry. And a few of the bloggers out there are wondering why I’m hating on the garbage businesses.

They are saying things like, who is this Guido dude, and just because they pulled the plug on Tony Soprano doesn’t mean he can start dissing waste management. One wise guy even was reported to say to an associate, “Can you believe the coglioni on that little worm. Who’s he to talk about garbage. What could give birth to a twit like that? If he wants to talk about garbage, why doesn’t he just talk about his momma who I bet is an old bag?”

Hey there’s no reason to talk about my momma, the lady’s a saint. And anyway any guy who’d say that about my momma, well his momma’s got to be a bag lady. Yeah, I know I’m taking the whole garbage bag too far, but sometimes things have to be said.

Other bloggers gesticulate wildly as they snort, “who is this new boy. He’s barely even entered the game and he’s woofing like he’s some kind of superstar. He comes into our hood and right out of the box he starts talking trash.”

Now I’m new to this blog gig, and I’m just learning about who runs these streets. So far I haven’t been jumped by either the “scripts” or the “bloogs” but I do feel the heat coming.

Any way back to the whole profit makes waste argument. I still contend that our current economic system not only promotes waste, but is dependent on it.

If things in our society lasted a long time and were durable, our economy would fall. We’ve long ago accepted the premise of planned obsolescence. What this means is that we make things which have a short shelf life, so that people will have to go out and buy more stuff.

Sometimes we create this “planned obsolescence by making things which will break down and need to be replaced. Sometimes we do this thru creating an appliance or object that is dependent of constant servicing or on other devices which will have to be purchased often. Other times we make things which will be quickly out of date or out of style (ie:fashion and fads).

If we really created truly durable goods the Maytag repairman wouldn’t just be lonely, he wouldn’t exist. Just think of the millions of jobs and services which would vanish if we made things durable and easily upgradeable. In many cases we are talked out of fixing or keeping perfectly functioning machines and objects.

As they say necessity is the mother of invention. Go to Cuba and due to our embargoes and political pressures, you will still see cars from fifties tooling down their roads. Cars built now a days would not probably last as long, and for sure we’d be convinced and pressured into buying a new vehicle thru ad campaigns and even legislation if the bulk of us were to try and hang on to our old vehicles.

When i talked earlier this week about how we could make the recycling industry real by replacing plastic “recyclable” bottles with reusable glass bottles, I hinted at the number of people who would be out of work with the shut down of plastic bottle manufacturers.

Yet, those layoffs wouldn’t even scratch the surface of the total effect on jobs. Get rid of the plastic bottles and you get rid of all the jobs involved in design and advertising of the plastic containers.

I saw an article a couple of years back which talked extensively on the amount of waste which is generated by packaging. The article claimed that packaging makes up over 7% of all stuff that are manufactured. Now I don’t know about the real percentage, but it had me think about all the packaging that is involved in our culture. The bulk of those uncountable tons of packaging are not able to be reused unless they re-enter the marketplace after being toxicly and wastefully recycled.

Since almost all packaging is involved with the advertising and marketing aspects of products and corporations, businesses are very resistive to reuse. This is not only true of the packages sold in stores, but in the stores themselves. When a chain store closes down the building is seldom reused, more often it sits idle for years and years or is torn down. Competing chains almost never occupy that store, and often will opt to build next door to the vacant building rather than move into the existing site.

The major reason for this is that the buildings design, floor space and front are not their official design. The store name would not present itself the same, and customers would be forced to adapt to a foreign floor plan. The store isn’t a building but an image that advertises itself. This is just another example of how packaging produces endless mountains of waste and endless production of materials which have a unnaturally short shelf life.

The examples of how our society is wasteful and dependent of waste is endless. I will decline to expound upon other aspects of fad and fashion which generate waste. Instead I’ll leave it to you to find your own examples and write to me when you find them.

In most situations it is costly far corporations to manage their own waste. If my business is making cars or producing electricity, recycling the cars or the polluting waste caused by the use of coal would cut severely into my profits. Yet, those same materials can become the source of profit if my business is to recycle those waste materials. As I pointed out earlier the basic flaw of this system, no matter how efficiently it is structured, is that waste expands and does not contract in this system. And more importantly, the toxic aspects involved in the production and recycling process grow in a geometric manner.

From a logical point of view profit and waste are synonymous. Look at the following chain:

Profit = surplus = excess = waste

A profit is a surplus. In a totally balanced and efficient transaction their is no profit. A profit means more money was charged than the cost of the item.

So a profit is a surplus. Another word for surplus is an excess. And an excess being more than what was needed is a waste. At first glance you might discount this relationship and say that it isn’t true. Yet, I challenge you to think about it. I think you will find, as I have, that for every exception to this I find I can find a number of practical situations where this is true.

I’ll write again in a few days. My plan next time is to discuss how the game of monopoly can be used to talk about the real economy.

In the previous two posts I’ve talked about the limitations of our current recycling system and what would need to be changed in order for recycling to have a significant positive impact on the environment.

In this post we will look at how much waste is built in to the very fabric of a free market economy. Competition and choice are hallmarks of our free market economy.Yet, we often overlook the close relationship market competition has to the proliferation of waste.

Let’s say we owned a company that mass produced a product to sell to the public. The amount of the product we produced whether that be cars, books, furniture or appliances would be based on our anticipated market share.

Businesses do not want to limit their profits and possibly alienate their potential customers by under estimating sales and not producing enough of their product. This means that almost every manufacturer and business over produces. This excess inventory is of course waste.

The average company compounds the problem by either destroying the excess of the product or just letting it sit dormant. Sure many companies unload a portion of their excess thru sales and discounts, but at some point they decide it is more profitable to eat the losses rather than set the precedent of lower prices.

Each year uncountable tons of new and unsold merchandise is entered into our landfills and waste management system.

All the companies are competing for the same customer. Since they all can’t win, they all can’t successfully sell their merchandise. In the literary world how many books are thrown out of stores and warehouses to make room for the optimistic sales of new releases. The odds of getting hit by lightning have to be higher than producing the exact number of books to be sold.

The grocery market is a good example of creating waste in order to protect current and future profits. A grocer dealing with produce with a short shelf life faces this dilemma every day. When the bananas being sold at 59 cents a pound are getting a bit too ripe he needs to decide how much to reduce the price to move the merchandise.

Let’s say his research indicates that if he sells the bananas at 45 cents a pound he will be able to sell 80% of his remaining bananas. Yet, if he sells them at 50 cents a pound he will only sell 70% of the remaining stock. In order to make the most profitable decision he looks at the profit he will make on the two prices. In many cases he will end up making more money by selling only 70% of his stock rather than 80% of his produce at the lower price. Therefore, from a strictly profit oriented point of view it would be better to let 30% of his produce rot than 20%.

This fact of economics gets played out daily in products with both long and short shelf lives. Waste is an essential aspect of a free market and profit based economy.

Often times like in the example of the bananas the amount of the old product put on sale at a low price will be small to protect the profits of the new stock of the product. If everyone is buying the older bananas at the discount rate, than the new bananas offering the highest profit margin would not sell. This would cause the new bananas to not sell until they got riper and continue the chain of lower profit sales.

Likewise if the new unsold 06 cars were sold at a huge discount while the new 07 cars hit the market, it could hurt the sales of the new 07 cars which have the higher profit margin.

Now I’m not saying that these dynamics occur in every situation or that there are some people who will only buy the newest greenest bananas no matter what the price, yet it would be foolish to imagine that what was here described doesn’t play a major role in the excessive waste production of our society.

In tomorrow’s post I will give one last attempt at trying to demonstrate how our economic system is dependent on waste.

I hope that you all don’t view this discussion as a “waste” of time.

Guido

Before reading this it might be good to read yesterday’s post.

So why did the Ecological movement return as a recycling issue? And what is the net benefit to the environment obtained by recycling?

First it is important to realize that recycling quickly grew into a major industry. In other words recycling exists because it is a business, a lucrative business.

Like any industry it’s success depends on increasing profits. If you look at the statistics you’ll see that recycling has not decreased the amount of trash we generate, in fact, the amount of waste has skyrocketed since the advent of the recycling industry.

The ecological movement went underground until it found a way to become profitable, to become economically viable. Once altered enough to generate substantial profits it became the PR darling of many ambitious fledging businesses. This is not to imply that all of the participants in the recycling industry are greedy or inhumane, it only points out the realities of succeeding in a profit based economy.

A relatively small amount of waste material is recycled. Even if the percentage of waste being recycled were to substantially increase, it still would not mean that our society was becoming more efficient.

If we were to become more efficient the first industry to go bankrupt would be the recycling businesses. Their success currently depends on increasing amounts of trash and of waste. They are totally dependent on our society producing escalating amounts of waste.

Without increases in waste they would lack the growth needed to increase their profits and sustain their existence.

True ecological efficiency would strip the industry of a sustainable profit margin.

Lets take a look at the use of milk, water and soda containers as an example of how a truly ecological system would work. In our current system recyclable plastic containers are produced and sold to beverage companies to place their beverages in. The production of these containers is in itself harmful to the environment both in energy used to produce the plastic, transportation of the bottles to beverage companies, and the toxic waste produced in the manufacturing process in making the plastic.

The bottles once used are available to be recycled. Yet, the bulk of the recycled plastic bottles aren’t used as plastic bottles. So an endless stream of plastic bottles need to be produced. The process of making ex-plastic bottles into new plastic bottles would still entail more energy, pollution and toxic waste to be generated.

Yet, in every step of the recycling process profit is made by someone in the chain, and costs are passed on to the next person (business) in the chain.

So, what would an ecological friendly recycling system look like in the beverage industry?

Instead of plastic we could use bottles. The bottles would need to be sterilized, but that could easily be taken care of somewhere in the chain. One option would be for the supermarkets to have conveyor belts which would sterilize the bottles before you filled the bottles with the beverage of your choice. The beverages could be dispensed into the the sterilized containers by a tap much like you use to get your drinks at a fast food restaurant.

So why won’t we use this method? The main reason is that its efficiency would prevent a number of businesses from making a profit. It’s a simple technology which is hard to make profitable.

Tomorrow I’ll state my case as to why I think a for profit society (capitalism) is incompatible with efficiency and ecology.

If you ever want to become dissillusioned with the recycling process I suggest you do a little research on the process by whcih newpaper is recycled. The entire process of leaching newsprint off of the paper and how the paper is made useable again is extremely toxic and relatively inefficient.

As I mentioned yesterday, I myself, do recycle. Yet, I do so realizing that recycling is not a solution to either pollution or waste.

More tomorrow.

When one starts a blog where does one begin? There is so much to say, so many different directions to go in.

Today when I was uploading some chapters from an unfinished book of mine The Value(s) of Money for this site, I thought it might be good to go over some of the ideas in the book to help reinvigorate me to write on. Since it’s been years since I wrote the early chapters I thought a review would be a good start. So for the next few days I’m going to get myself, and you, up to speed.

The major premise of my book is that we are obsessed with finding and assessing the value of everything in life. We not only talk of the value of things, but also endlessly debate our personal and social values.

Value is obviously primarily an economic term, and it makes sense that a capitalistic and commercial society would place an emphasis on value. Yet, in The Value(s) of Money I try to examine how our preoccupation with value has effected not only our economy, but our politics, educational and medical systems, as well as our view of religion and spirituality. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a single aspect of our external and internal life which is not highly influenced, if not dominated, by our obsession with value.

Back in the late sixties and early seventies our society was flooded with a series of social movements. One of the movements had to due with a growing concern of the environment and the quality of our air and water. This general movement took on the name Ecology.

During the sixties one seldom talked about their values, instead one talked about their standards, morals, principles or even one’s ethics. The only discussion of values in this modern sense was by Cultural Anthropologists in their efforts to help us understand the desires and goals of societies much different from ours.

In the seventies this term was adopted by pop psychologists in an effort to help us understand ourselves and our behavior. Soon, we were introduced to exercises designed to help us “clarify” our values, and to help asocial personalities reenter society thru successful positive value change.

While our society quickly embraced the new usage of the word value, it just as quickly marginalized the ecological movement.

By the late 70′s the Ecological movement went back to academia and did not play an important part in the national dialogue. Some would point out that reality got in the way of the Ecological ideal. Economic stagflation, the oil crisis, etc. came to the fore and concerns for the environment would have to wait till better times.

In great part the Ecological movement re-emerged as a need to recylce. It became our privilege and duty to help save the environment thru proper waste management. Helping the environment became the responsibility of the individual. We were led to believe that if we, as individuals, recylced market forces would take over and corporations and businesses would be forced to be “green” and enviromentally friendly.

Tomorrow I will write on why I think the recycling movement is more myth than fact, and what a real ecological movement would look like.

I want to conclude with two final points. One is that I realize this entry was a little dry, but a little set up was required. Second, I want to say that I do recylce, but more because of personal ethics than in the net impact of recycling on the environment.

More tomorrow.

Sorry for the delay in getting this site up, please take a look around at all the music and books you can download.