Save the Sharks

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/02/proposed-shark-fin-ban-stirs-the-pot.html

About a week ago, lawmakers proposed a ban on the sale and possession of shark fins in California. Shark finning is an ecologically disastrous process in which fishermen harvest vast quantities of fins by throwing the bodies back in the water to die. Ecologists understand that sharks are keystone species, meaning that as predators, they keep the balance of the food pyramid in their marine environment in check.

                    http://kathika.com/wp-content/uploads/shark-stormydog873-ll.jpg

Many Chinese feel that this proposed legislation is a direct attack on their culture. Of course it is not- we simply want to ensure the health of our oceans. After all, ensuring the health of our oceans ensures the health of our fisheries, and I think we can all agree that we want that.

An important idea in America is that of refining, readjusting, and replacing traditions and values as we gain new knowledge and perspectives on how to make a better world. Whoa, did I just sound patriotic for a second? Even if it's not an American idea, it is at least an idea that I believe in. With new scientific understanding of the role of sharks in the ecosystem, and research on the harmful business of shark-finning (for proof, read this peer-reviewed article: Shark hunting- an indiscriminate trade endangering elasmobranchs to extinction), it's time to readjust our policies on the practice.

My plan? I hope to start a conversation in the Berkeley community by showing the film Sharkwater, to ignite the flame of activism. The Berkeley community is the perfect place to build this movement- we are informed, passionate, and close to San Francisco, where fins line shelves in almost every seafood shop in Chinatown. We've got an opportunity here to help California lead the way toward a global end to shark-finning, and I think we can do it.

Why I'm Not a "Climate Hawk"

Grist blogger David Roberts posed the question, "What should we call people who care about climate change and clean energy?"  and wrote an article for Grist in October 2010 announcing his selection of the name for members of the climate change/clean energy movement: climate hawk. Joseph Romm embraced the idea  on his acclaimed climateprogress.org.  

                  http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/26/2685/CFKUD00Z/posters/johns-chris-a-portrait-of-a-flying-hawk.jpg


So what's a climate hawk?

Roberts and Romms have been searching for something to call the growing group of people who don't identify with the traditional notions and implications of "environmentalism," which comes with a prescribed morality. A morality that works for a lot of people, which is why it caught on... but it doesn't work for everyone. So the people who don't want environmentalism's baggage deserve something to call themselves, something to unify them as a group that is smart, understanding, and ready to work toward solutions to mitigate climate change.

Climate hawks. 


It has a nice ring to it, in my opinion. I think it's an important addition to the today's movement, today's conversation on the future of the planet. But after some thought, I realized that climate hawk-dom is not for me. I'm an old-fashioned, crunchy, Mother Earth lovin' environmentalist. And I'm not ashamed of that fact.

The best demonstration of this is my stance on nuclear energy. I am anti-nuclear energy. I know what you're thinking. "She's irrational" "She's unrealistic, she doesn't understand the situation we're in." But I like to think that I am in fact a pretty rational person, and slightly more knowledgable than the average person in terms of climate change and energy issues.

But I'm still a believer in old-school environmental values. That means I don't believe in expanding our mining practices, which harms ecosystems and damages the landscape. We've damaged enough. I also don't believe in adding more and more radioactive waste that will remain highly dangerous, to people, animals, and plants, for some 10,000 years. I don't believe that it's sensible for us to devote efforts into a fuel source that is bound to run out in a couple of generations. The climate hawks are going to stand up for nuclear power, because it doesn't emit carbon dioxide, and thus doesn't contribute to the greenhouse effect. And here's the key split between climate hawks and environmentalists:

Climate hawks are stopping climate change for the good of the human race. Environmentalists are stopping climate change for the good of the earth.

http://sacramentoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/earth-day-2009-sacramento.jpg

I care about the earth- about wildlife, about mountains and coral reefs, about herds of elk and redwood forests. I care about pristine wetlands, and the amazingly impeccable way nature functions without flaw. I want the earth to remain healthy, because it is beautiful and it deserves our respect. In my code of ethics, people should make sacrifices for the good of the earth.

So I care about climate change, about clean energy. Pretty passionately, in fact. But I care about it in a way that still puts me under the environmentalist umbrella, because I care about it in the "green" earthy way. I bet if "climate hawks" and "environmentalists" come together, we'll be pretty darn unstoppable.

A beautiful eucalyptus tree on the Berkeley fire trail... non-native and sometimes problematic, but still quite beautiful. And they smell incredible.