Peter Knight's Letter from America: Saving the world one pee-pee at a time

When a 21-year old was caught on camera peeing into a lake near Portland, Oregon, he could not have imagined the unintended consequences of his relieving actions. Because the water is so pure, the lake feeds directly into Portland’s drinking supply without need for treatment. So shocked were the city fathers by the thought of nano particles of urine passing the lips of Portlanders that they ordered the immediate flushing of the eight million gallon lake.

For some, this startling story demonstrates the power of the individual to bring about change – small actions, big consequences.

The preference for individual rather than group political action dominates what passes for environmental activism here. Environmental groups have all but abandoned a push for better policies in preference for encouraging their supporters to pursue futile personal green efforts, aided and abetted by marketers flogging supposedly green goods.

People honestly believe that we will somehow avoid climate change by using solar-powered chargers for their iPhones, or fitting LED light bulbs, or boycotting bottled water. A deep belief in the individual rather than group political action has spawned the campaigning clichés which now echo off websites, blogs and tweets: Changing the world… one lightbulb at a time, one organic lettuce at a time, one recycled loo roll at a time… You get the picture.

This country runs on political favors bought in Washington, DC. If you want to get anything done you have to spend a lot of time and money buying the favors of politicians who write the policies. Compared with the murky politics of the UK, the US political system is remarkably transparent and the deepest pockets mostly win. Industrialists spend heavily to ensure the right economic climate, like generous tax breaks and laxer environmental regulation.

The environmental movement of the Silent Spring 1960s and 1970s understood the power of group political action. Well-organized campaigners, well connected in Washington, brought about some of the most far-reaching environmental legislation ever passed, such as the Clean Air Act, which removed lead and other nasties from the air. But then the environmental lobby went to sleep, allowing subsequent regimes in Washington – mostly conservative throughout the double Bush era – to soften environmental laws at the behest of the influential industrial dinosaurs.

The backpedalling has taken on a surreal quality, where the Environmental Protection Agency – the enforcer – has been cast as a villain, restricting America’s ability to compete with China and other heavy polluters. Republicans are doing their utmost to emasculate the agency and turn back the clock. And they are succeeding. Climate change and anything vaguely environmental has been banished from political agenda.

At the same time – and probably as a consequence – we have seen the rise in the belief of the power of one. I sat through a “debate” on climate change in the Harvard Club in New York City recently where the discussion centered on how a hotel group was fighting climate change by installing highly-subsidized LED light bulbs. When asked about the need for policy changes to encourage energy efficiency, there were a lot of nervous coughs from the panel. In polite society, one does not mention environment and policy in the same breath.

The belief in the political power of individual action is built on the deluded notion that a lot of personal acts will bring about large-scale structural change. This conceit is epitomized in the notion of green consumerism. All you have to do is buy enough recycled lavatory paper or organic yoghurt and the world will turn into the Jehovah’s Witness version of heaven with gamboling lions and forever summers.

It is indisputably good that lavatory cleaners are reformulated and rubber gloves come with FSC approval, but no amount of eco-labels and fair-traders are going to bring about the fundamental changes needed to deal with loss of biodiversity and climate change.
We cannot shop our way out of trouble.

I blame those wimpy environmental groups that fail to leverage the personal commitment of their supporters into effective political action. Most environmental groups have lost their connection to their supporters after growing flabby on foundation grants, corporate sponsorship and industry “partnerships” (another name for co-option).

Dinosaur politicians love the idea of personal rather than political action because it removes opposition and acts as an opiate for the green masses. They know that personal action is as effective as pissing in the lake. Except, of course, if the lake is in Oregon.

This article first appeared in Ethical Corporation

Peter Knight's Letter from America: The choo-choo blues

In a country that was literally built on the benefits of the railroad, high-speed rail has become the green villain of conservative politics. The best way for macho Republicans to strut their stuff is to say NO to offers of billions of government dollars for the choo-choo.

That’s what Florida governor Rick Scott did recently, rejecting $2.4 billion for a line from Tampa to Orlando. New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, just cancelled an $8.5 billion rail tunnel from his state to Manhattan, foregoing about $3 billion in federal money. And Tea Party supported governors of Wisconsin and Ohio have manfully rejected federal dollars (and the jobs it would bring) for improvements to railroads in their states.

President Obama’s fast rail projects designed to reduce the dependence on the car and bring the U.S. up to speed with modern nations were all but beheaded in recent budget negotiations.

The irony of the negativity of fiscal conservative – natural followers of arch capitalist Ayn Rand – railing against rail has not been lost on film critics assessing the long-awaited movie of the seminal capitalist novel, Atlas Shrugged. The book centers on the struggle of Dagney Taggart to build her Taggart Transcontinental Railroad, symbolizing the modern thrust of capitalism.

Thrusting is proving extremely difficult in the U.S. today, unless you want to go backwards at speed. It is a country that appears to be in technological retreat (experience the quality of a mobile phone call) as myopic populist politicians grapple with the budget deficit. They are not the most creative of people and think only in terms of slash and burn.

Because of the huge cost of building and maintaining rail infrastructure, much of the investment has to come from tax payers. Other societies accept this and governments around the world are funding the sort of rail projects that the world’s only super power finds too costly. China plans to be running 42 high-speed lines by 2012. Europe has plans to expand its network, with connections between Portugal and Spain and better links between France and Spain. Saudi Arabia is forging ahead with its high-speed plans, as are other Gulf states. Even tiddly South Africa plans – with Chinese aid - to run a fast link between Johannesburg and the important port of Durban.

All this while the U.S. retreats into ever greater reliance on the combustion engine at a time when fuel cost are increasing and congested road systems are under severe strain.

While large amounts of U.S. freight are transported by rail, passenger services are concentrated in populous regions, such at the North East. Amtrak, the state-subsidized rail company runs a fast service between Boston, New York and Washington DC. Called the Acela, this is a junior, slower version of Europe’s high-speed rail. The service is popular but its reliability suffers from poor investment in the track. What remains of Amtrak’s regional services are under-used, unreliable and desperately in need of the very investment so happily rejected by right-wing governors.

The regional services in New Jersey and New York state – schlepping the commuters to Manhattan and back – are well used and surprisingly reliable. But their running costs are high, suffering from the same unionization issues that afflicted the old British Rail. I have been on trains where there were definitely more ticket collectors than passengers. They also use a ticketing system that Dagney Taggert must have invented: lots of pieces of paper and much clip clip clipping by the collectors.

Other than unions, possibly the biggest black mark against rail travel here – if you have a Republican world view - is its greenness. Politicians influenced by the Tea Party like to bundle rail subsidy with action on climate change, renewable energy support and the introduction of electric cars. Their ideological reasoning is that rail will increase the deficit or lead to higher taxes. That this is also true for roads, bridges, ports and huge government subsidies to the oil and agriculture industries is something they conveniently ignore.

What is so sad about the dominant anti-green political mood here is how it is aiding and abetting this great country’s technological decline. If I were a conspiracy theorist I’d say that China is funding the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives who now sing the dominant political tune in Washington.

Their support for a retreat from the future will leave the U.S. hamstrung with a crumbling infrastructure and a ruined manufacturing sector. Expect very little boo-hoo for the imminent extinction of the Chatanooga choo-choo.

This article first appeared in Ethical Corporation