Walking the Berkshires

Interview with a Blogger

I am flattered to be profiled with an interview today at a blog and environmental forum called My Greenpeace Buddies.  I was approached to share my thoughts as a blogger who writes about ecological matters, among other things, and was happy to oblige. 

Given my strong preference to focus on areas of common interest rather than positions - except in those cases where reason is clearly out of the question, such as where a certain southern African dictator is concerned - the interview goes strongly down the path of being "occasionally nettlesome" but "fairly non-partisan".  I talked about how individuals and institutions change their behavior and some of what is and is not helpful in that regard. 

I suspect this may be the only time that my right-of-center cousin Tigerhawk gets an acknowledgment in this or indeed any environmental forum.  Anything for bilateral relations, dear readers. And yes, I do know the difference between "affect" and "effect"...just not when I wrote out my responses.  Plus, I found an opportunity to quote from The Last of the Mohicans and it wasn't anything about noble savages.  Fellow English Majors can rest easy that my undergraduate degree is in no immediate danger of revocation.  Mugabe's, however, is another question.

Drop in if you like and check it out.

"We Apologize Because This Is Not Who We Are"; What Southern Africa Really Owes Zimbabwe

The African National Congress, South Africa's ruling party, has issued a strongly worded statement condemning repression of democratic rights in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe.  Meanwhile, the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeke, who lost control of his own party last December, has remained silent.  In neighboring Namibia, the Prime Minister Nahas Angula voiced concern last week about the upcoming runoff elections in Zimbabwe and called for increasing the number of observers. 

Since then, of course, the opposition leader has pulled out of the elections and fled to the Embassy of the Netherlands in the wake of surging violence and police action against members of his party.  Namibia has not condemned Mugabe's regime either, and its Defense Force Chief has just returned from a 4 day trip to Zimbabwe where he assured the Zimbabwean media:

"The relationship between Namibia and Zimbabwe is growing from strength to strength. We share so many things. We have so many things in common. We would want to build on that relationship,"

What southern Africa nations share with Zimbabwe, in addition to a common history of liberation struggle and instability during the Cold War / Apartheid years, are complex economic dependencies, most significantly with regard to access to electrical power.  This month Namibia doubled its power imports from Zimbabwe. 

"[In March],Nampower advanced US$40 million to Zimbabwe to assist with the refurbishment of four electricity generating units at its coal-fired Hwange Power Station in return for a guaranteed supply of 150 megawatts for the next five years.

NamPower's managing director Paulinus Shilamba said the rehabilitation of the first unit has been completed, allowing for the increased power production.

Shilamba said the utility was not concerned that the deteriorating situation would affect Zimbabwe's ability to honor the agreement despite the power station being plagued with breakdowns and a shortage of parts in the country.

"They (Zimbabwe) have been very good in fulfilling their commitment and we have a lot of confidence in these guys," Shilamba said."

Even as many world powers call for the isolation of Zimbabwe, including a unanimous vote of the UN Security Council which said that "a free and fair election was impossible if violence and intimidation continued",  Russia, China and South Africa blocked stronger language in the UN measure that would have recognized opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai as "the legitimate president, until another fair election can be held."  China and South Africa are Zimbabwe's biggest trading partners, and both are heavily invested in the regional economy. 

There is also a strong sensitivity in southern Africa to interference in the affairs of sovereign nations.  Namibia, Angola and Zimbabwe overcame these qualms as participants in the The Second Congo War, which was as much a scramble for resources as an expression of solidarity and regional alliances.  Some of this reticence is cultural; with the exception of leaders like Nelson Mandela and Julius Nyerere, there is not a strong tradition of former African leaders making a successful transition to senior statesmen.  Some of it comes from looking over their shoulders.  And some of it is ideological - resistance movements that become ruling parties after achieving Independence are used to identifying external threats and avoiding turning the lens on internal shortcomings.

Alan Little of the BBC cautions his readers today; "Do not underestimate the psychology of Africa's liberation tradition." This tradition is also what makes this e-mail letter from a South African to Zimbabwean refugees who have suffered a murderous backlash in his own country so telling:

"...I have been pondering whether to write this email or not, but mainly because I was ashamed of what this beautiful countries (sic) of ours has become.

In your country:  My democracy was conceived when the MK soldiers fought alongside the ZIPRA forces in what was known as the Wankie Campaign in 1967.  My brothers and sisters were looked after in Lusaka and they were given shelter.  The blood of my brothers and sisters were spilled in Maputo in what was known as Matola raid on January 31, 1981 and your government gave them a state burial.  The blood of my people was spilled in Maseru in what was known as the Maseru Massacre and your government gave them a state burial.  The foundation of my democracy was laid in Mongoro Tanzania in 1969 in what was known as the Morogoro resolution.  Your country gave my people land for them to be educated at Solomon Mahlangu Freedom College (SOMAFCO) in Mazimbu Tanzania.  My soldiers were trained in Uganda, Lusaka, Angola, Mozambique, Algeria, Libya, Cuba, Russia.  They fought in Cuinto Canhavallo alongside their Angolan, Namibian as well as the Cuban comrades in Angola.  My democracy was delivered in Harare when the Harare Declaration was signed with the support of the Frontline States.  my Movement's Congress was held in your country in 1985 in Kitwe, Zambia.

Your people protected, clothed and loved my movement.  My people's struggle became your own struggle.  Not once did you call them with derogatory names.  Not once did you burn my brothers and sisters and not once did you say they are taking your jobs and women.

But most importnatly, I have a home in Harare at pastor Murefu's house, Zimbabwe.  I have a home in Lilongwe at Cyprian's house, Malawi.  I have a home in Kenya at Levi Nyambati's house.  I have a home in Lusaka, Chipata, Mapanza as well as Livingstone with the BBalo and the Mutare family respectively, Zambia.  My brother is lying in Mapanza, Zambia.  I have a home in Mozambique at Pastor Nhantumbo's family (May his soul rest in peace).  I have a home in Ivory Coast as well as DRC Kinshasa with Vincent Tohbi.  I am married to the grand daughter of the Sena people in Malawi, Mozambique as well as Zimbabwe.  My wife's maternal grandparents are in Swaziland.

My brothers, I apologize to you, your friends and your families for the barbaric action that you see in our country.  I apologize to Kenyatta, Nkrumah, Machel, Tongoara, Mwalimu Nyerere, Aostinho Nehto, Mondlane, etc.  I apologize on behalf of my leaders as well as my people that this is not who we are and this is not what makes us.  I apologize and I would like to tell you that this is not the view of my country, but the thuggery elements in our society who will use and drag our name in mud to achieve their evil deeds.  I would also like to assure you that our government as well as the members of our society at large, are working hard to root out these elements in our society.

We apologize because this is not who we are.

I hope you will find it in your hearts to open your doors and not to let these barbaric actions come between our friendship and all the wonderful things we have shared.  My home is your home and I trust and believe that your home will remain my home.  This I write from my heavy heart and i truly apologize on behalf of my firends, my family as well as all South Africans.

Freddy Tshikala, South African"

The return to the bad old days of regional instability and the specter of burning necklace victims once more in the townships have shaken people like Mr. Tshikala and those like him who were raised in a culture of pan-African resistance where "an injury to one is an injury to all."  They grieve for what Zimbabwe has become under Mugabe, their former comrade and supporter.  But they also grieve for what they have become, as nations and people who by their actions and inactions are now complicit in the repression of those who stood by them when the oppressor was always external and not one of their own.  Finding their courage and helping their leaders find theirs is the best hope for Democracy in the region. 

May it come in time for Zimbabwe.

Switched at Birth: American Revolution Edition (Part II)

I had way too much fun finding modern look alikes for our colonial  forebears to let it go with just one post.  I'm still looking for a 21st-century George Washington - and who isn't - as well as Franklin, Hamilton and Jefferson, and if you can find a doppleganger for these icons please pass it on.

Meanwhile, have you ever noticed the resemblance between Don King and Mad Anthony Wayne?

How about Madonna and George III?  Or Sam Waterson and Thomas Payne?  I'm proud of that one.

 

Getting Close

For more than 2 years, our family has been working to negotiate the sale of a conservation easement (called Conservation Restrictions or CRs in MA and CT) on +/- 19.55 acres of our beloved "Windrock"  in Wareham, MA.   This is what I do professionally, but this time it is on behalf of my children, parents, sister, aunts, uncles, and cousins.  Saving land takes time, and getting agreement on the terms of a CR on behalf of so many when there are two co-holders and a host of reviewers is a tall order.  There are many ups and downs and you learn to hold a steady course and respond in a timely fashion to whatever challenge arises.

I don't want to jinx it.  But we are now within three weeks of a tentative closing data and we are feverishly working through the conservation transaction punch list. Our family has come together in an extraordinary way to do what is right for the property and honor the love and conservation vision of my grandparents Robert and Athalia Barker, who bought the place more than 61 years ago and wanted it to remain in the family and as intact and unspoilt as possible.   Selling this CR allows us to retain title to the entire property and helps ensure that we can maintain it as we have loved it for future generations to enjoy.

We can see the runway and are preparing to land.  When it is over and we all can exhale, I'll share the details. 

Pity the Poor Politician

In 1955, the President of the United States enjoyed a base salary of $100,000.  Today he is paid $400,000.  We have experienced annual inflation averaging 3.98% between then and now.  Strictly speaking, Ike made more than W, who would need a salary of $791,000 today for parity with 1955 dollars.

The Veep in 1955 was Nixon and he got $35,000, or $276,850 in today's money.   Today, Dick Cheney is paid $221,100. 

Executive compensation ain't what it used to be in the public sector.  Good thing they are all millionaires.

2008 Farm Bill Conservation Provisions

The $307 billion 2008 Federal Farm Bill is heading for the President's desk with veto proof majorities in the House (318-106) and Senate (85-15).  More than 2/3 of this amount ($209 billion) is for food stamps and other nutrition programs, compared with $35 billion for agricultural commodities.   Others will parse the wisdom or folly of this pile of pork and priorities, but here is what it holds for conservationists:

Conservation program spending increased by $6.6 billion;

Extends for 2 years the tax incentive for conservation easement donations retroactive to Jan 1, 2008 (which generally means a 50% reduction in AGI tax liability with up to 15 years to carry over the balance of the gift or bargain sale of a conservation easement).

Doubles funding for Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (more than $1 billion over 5 years, an increase of $560 million over the previous Farm Bill) to protect agricultural lands from urban and suburban development pressure;

Increases funding for Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program to enhance and protect our natural resources;

Continues funding for Grassland Reserve and Wetlands Reserve programs, increasing by 1.22 million acres the authorization for enrollment in the Grassland program with increased rolls for non-profits;

Creates an Open Fields Program to encourage public access to private land for hunting and fishing as well as a Chesapeake Bay program to help restore and protect the Bay watershed;

Creates a Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program that will provide federal 50/50 matching grants to local governments and qualified non-profit organizations across the country to acquire forests and open spaces for local ownership and management.

A new qualified forest bond provision that would protect large forest ownerships near national forests.

None of the three senators running for president voted.  Nor did Ted Kennedy. If Congress votes to override the President's expected veto, it would be just the second time in his presidency that it has chosen to do so.

Don't Got Milk

Here's a swell idea. Tax dairy farmers for the methane produced by flatulent cows.  Now it is true that cows produce more greenhouse gas than any other source, including vehicle emissions.  Yes, livestock are major resource consumers and yes, overgrazing, deforestation and a host of other ills can be pinned on unsustainable farming practices.  But taxing the farmer for cow farts is a bit like punishing the prostitute and not the Johns.  Estonians must not like milk.  The Kiwis made a stink about a similar measure in 2003.

Climate Change and Game Theory

Perhaps you have encountered "The Prisoner's Dilemma."  This mainstay of Game Theory offers individuals the opportunity to maximize the chances of personal reward through cooperation in a non-zero-sum outcome.  Two prisoners, the scenario goes, are picked up and charged with the same offense.  Each is offered the opportunity to cooperate and plead to a lessor sentence, or betray the other and possibly get off Scott free or possibly be accused of conspiracy and get the maximum sentence.  It you look at it rationally, players have a 25% chance of getting off, a 25% chance of getting the book thrown at them, and a 50% chance of a minor sentence. 

In the long term, the rational choice is to cooperate.  In the short term, the rational choice is to take care of oneself.   If offered this chance a single time, individuals tend to bet the house on getting off and screwing the other guy.  This is not unlike Garret Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, which posits that communal land invariably gets exploited by individuals for personal gain at the expense of the rest.  This leads to degradation of the shared resource on which everyone depends.  In The Prisoner's Dilemma,  the odds of getting doubly screwed are actually greater than 25% in the short term. If offered this option multiple times, at some point players should realize that it is to their mutual advantage to cooperate.  Choices are made in isolation, though, and so the degree to which one party trusts the other to do the logical thing becomes a factor.  If you have multiple opportunities to choose, with the last choice including a possible massive payout but also a possible massive penalty, players tend to forget the odds and the advantages of cooperation and go for it all, and with it, ensure their mutual destruction.

I have seen this played out where there were four teams and each had a representative who met with the others to decide which course of action to take.  The logical choice was to go for the minor benefit over the big payout with its potential big loss.  The problem was that one team that consistently and rationally chose to cooperate was blown away when the other three did not choose to follow suit. In the end, all lost, but the lone cooperator lost sooner.

Let's try this in a hypothetical Global Climate Change scenario.  Suppose we as individuals and governments are given these options.  We can choose to maintain our own consumption and pollution patterns or we can make adjustments to the way we live.  If you choose to maintain the status quo and I decide to make adjustments then you benefit, I don't, and our children may be worse off.  If you choose to make lifestyle changes and I don't, the same thing happens in reverse.  If we both choose to make adjustments, we experience minor impacts and our children may not experience a worse situation.  If we both decide to do nothing, it gets worse for all of us and for the next generation.

If you buy this premise, then what outcome would you expect?  Those who believe that human nature is  inherently selfish rather than collective will likely point out that there is little reason to trust others to do the right thing, and indeed there is a 25% chance that we will be worse off for making the choice to make changes while others do not (but if everyone thinks this way, we all lose).  Those of you who believe that climate change is a bunch of hooey can go along with the first group. Those of you who believe that we can be rational actors may point out that the logical choice is for everyone to make adjustment to mitigate the impacts of climate change and make the changes.  Anyone want to guess how this would play out?

Of course, this is overly simplistic.  People are unlikely to accept these as the only choices.  Some don't believe anthropogenic climate change is real.  Some live in areas which are unlikely to experience dramatic changes under current climate projections.  Some want more proof that the option offered will truly bring about the predicted outcomes.  The thing is, if we risk cooperation, do we necessarily wreck our economy, ruin our standard of living, and end up being screwed by those who choose not to do so?  Or is the wiser course to make the changes now, in the belief that the consequence of being wrong about climate change is not as great as the consequence of being right and doing nothing?

Have at it in the comments.

    

A Granddaughter Remembers Rubert Fothergill

Last year I wrote about Rupert Fothergill, the Rhodesian Game Ranger who spearheaded a 5 year rescue mission to safe thousands of wild animals from the rising waters of Lake Kariba.  Now his granddaughter Kirsten Drysdale has embarked on a labor of love with her new blog Operation Noah, sharing Fothergill's story and a trove of family memories and memorabilia.  Her most remarkable undertaking is to digitize the 16mm films he made of the rescue effort.  Her own effort is in its early days, but will clearly be one to watch.  In the meantime, Kirsten has also posted this, made by the Rhodesian government with Fothergill's footage:

I'm Sticking With My Fuzzy Dice

I thought long and hard, so to speak, before deciding to go forward with this post.  I imagine this is the sort of dilemma that Rupert Murdoch faces every day; "Is it newsworthy?  Is it in the public interest?  Does it have a shred of redeeming social value? Bollocks!" (He'd say it that way, as an Aussie).  But how many opportunities does one have to provide a civics lesson, defend the first amendment, and combine the phrases "Confederate Flag" and "Truck Nutz" in reference to each other?   Exactly.

Like many in my social set, for whom the acme of the weekly calender is listening to NPR's News Quiz Wait Wait Don't Tell Me on Saturday morning, I learned last week of the bill under debate in the Florida Senate banning artificial testicles from the trailer hitches of pick up trucks. 

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Senate lawmakers in Florida have voted to ban the fake bull testicles that dangle from the trailer hitches of many trucks and cars throughout the state.

Republican Sen. Cary Baker, a gun shop owner from Eustis, Florida, called the adornments offensive and proposed the ban. Motorists would be fined $60 for displaying the novelty items, which are known by brand names like "Truck Nutz" and resemble the south end of a bull moving north.

According to Florida's WCTV; "The prohibition of the attachment was an addition to a much larger transportation bill."  I should certainly hope so.

These are popular items in Florida, we are told, although since they just don't look right on the rear bumper of a Subaru Legacy you don't see them much in the Berkshires. Over at Tigerhawk, the Charlottesvillain is quick to pick up on the contitutional issues involved, saying; "First of all, does the gun shop owner really advocate government intrusion in such trivial matters? Has he no sense of irony? (A rhetorical question, obviously.)"  Having no first hand experience with the item in question, I turned to Google to see whether these are an improvement on the fake propellors one sometimes sees mounted on trailer hitches, or the greatest threat to the sensibilities of decent folk since Justin Timberlake.  Since most of you are viewing this at work, I will spare you the more graphic images, but this one, arranged in an attractive cloverleaf pattern and emblazoned with the Confederate battle flag, was too good to pass up.  After all, it is Confederate Heritage Month, and apparently this isn't considered desecration.

However, the main problem I have with Truck Nutz is that they are designed to hang facing the wrong way.  More like a trophy than an extension. 

Like I said, I'm sticking with my fuzzy dice.