{"id":4115,"date":"2022-04-22T00:01:00","date_gmt":"2022-04-22T04:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arnielee.com\/wordpress\/?p=4115"},"modified":"2022-04-22T08:03:58","modified_gmt":"2022-04-22T12:03:58","slug":"earth-day-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arnielee.com\/wordpress\/earth-day-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Earth Day 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"
Earth Day 2022
\n<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our Fragile World<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"Earth<\/td>\n
April 22, 2022<\/center>
\n
Looking Back on the 52nd Anniversary of Earth Day<\/i><\/center><\/td>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

NOTE<\/strong>: I’ve written about Earth Day on this date in past years. Here is this year’s edition.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

In 1970 I was a student at the University of Michigan studying natural resource economics. So I was quite interested as Senator Gaylord Nelson<\/a> took steps to organize the first Earth Day. He wanted to illuminate the main problems affecting the environment – evaluate how the world’s population was affecting the limited natural resources and suggest ways to keep the earth sustainable for future generations.<\/p>\n

Two or more generations have passed since but Senator Nelson’s urgency has not translated into the corrective action that he called for. Slowly, very very slowly we’ve seen some progress. In 2016 an overwhelming number of United Nations members signed onto the Paris Agreement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Formally known as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change<\/a> these countries pledged to combat climate change worldwide. Surprisingly the US abruptly withdrew from the agreement. President Trump considered the terms of the agreement to be cost prohibitive and would lead to a major loss of jobs. However with a new Biden administration in office the USA has now rejoined as a participant in this global organization. There is hope if our country can stay focused on addressing the climate change challenge.<\/p>\n

\n

Becoming Unstuck in Time<\/h4>\n

Please take bear with me as my mind has become unstuck in time.<\/p>\n

The phrase “unstuck in time”<\/em> comes from Kurt Vonnegut<\/a>. I recall meeting him in the late 1960’s when he was invited to be “writer in residence” at the University of Michigan (U of M) in Ann Arbor.<\/p>\n

Vonnegut sometimes dropped into the “Brown Jug Restaurant” for coffee and to smoke a cigarette. As an aside, he claimed that smoking was the slowest form of suicide. My wife Kris was a student at the time, waitressed here and would sometimes serve him. Due to her hearing difficulty she admitted that she wasn’t a very good waitress and frustrated Vonnegut with her (lack of) service. More to the point, his stay on campus as writer in residence ended prematurely when he suddenly left saying something like: “I’m leaving Ann Arbor since I have nothing more to teach you about writing<\/em>.” So it goes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\"\"
\nKurt Vonnegut photo courtesy of <\/a>Colleen Taber<\/a><\/td>\n		\"\"
\nthe author and his dog living “60’s back to nature<\/a><\/td>\n		\"\"
\n
The Fifth Dimension<\/center><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The 1960’s was a very vibrant and exciting, yet conflicted era. My high school yearbook quotes Charles Dickens: “it was the best of times and it was the worst of times….we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way”.<\/em> This was the period of the military draft and Viet Nam, living off the land and making peace, hippies and long hair. We were contemporaries of heavy metal, Motown, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, James Taylor<\/a> and Woodstock music.<\/p>\n

Early Movements Towards the First Earth Day<\/h4>\n

With this as a backdrop, we encounter the ENACT Teach-In<\/strong>. Rachel Carson<\/a>‘s book Silent Spring<\/em> detailed the harmful effects of pesticides on the environment. Many have cited Silent Spring<\/em> and the horrible 1969 oil spill near Santa Barbara as two of the main impetuses for the environmental movement at this time. In 1970 on March 11, a dedicated environmentally conscience group organized the Environmental Action for Survival (ENACT) Teach-In at the U of M to discuss, to educate and to propose solutions and laws to stem environmental problems created by the earth’s inhabitants. Speakers included Senator Nelson, ecologist Barry Commoner, Michigan Governor William Milliken and U of M President Robin Flemming.<\/p>\n

The organizers attracted a large audience to fill the 13,000 seat Crisler Arena through entertainment provided by the cast of Hair (a Broadway hit show) and folk song artist Gordon Lightfoot<\/a>. Among the songs Lightfoot performed was the Canadian Railroad Trilogy <\/em>(click for lyrics<\/a>). This poetic ballad depicts building of the railroads across Canada and the difficult tradeoffs between developing a strong, vibrant economy for a growing population and keeping the land pristine for the future – an emotional description of the environmental conflict in musical terms.<\/p>\n

The ENACT Teach-In was a success and preceded Earth Day<\/strong> by six weeks. On April 22, 1970 more than 2000 colleges and 10,000 primary and secondary schools participated in the Earth Day Environmental teach-in, celebratory and activism activities throughout the US.<\/p>\n

As a student my career plan included conservation, ecology and recycling. I studied writings from the likes of educators and humanists Kenneth Boulding<\/a>, Buckminster Fuller<\/a> and E.F. Schumacher<\/a> and took courses such as forestry, resource management and cost-benefit analysis.<\/p>\n

My Career Outside of The Environment<\/h4>\n

The next year I graduated with a degree in Natural Resource Economics. However my great enthusiasm for things environmental soon wained. After an unsuccessful year of job hunting in this field I was still unemployed. Instead, I ended up in the computer and publishing business. So it goes<\/em>.<\/p>\n

How well or how poorly have us earthlings have done to improve the environment these past 52 years? Not long ago I read an opinion piece that details how environmental issues have bounced around for 30 years between our Republican and Democratic leaders without very much accomplished. An older NY Times article<\/a> by Nathaniel Rich aptly describes political obstacles standing in the way of Earth Day goals.<\/p>\n

The Environmental Movement Continues<\/h4>\n

In spite of the absence of political agreement on how to attack the environmental issues, there have been deliberate and urgent activities to resurrect many of the same or similar ideas from these earlier decades that call for a change in our lifestyles. By far the discussions have revolved around the global use of fossil fuels. Some argue that reducing our consumption of oil, natural gas and coal would result in the loss of jobs for so many employed in the extraction, processing and delivery of the energy sources. But a look at statistics from 2020 shows how alternative fuel activities have affected employment in these various energy sectors. An article from USA Facts<\/a> highlights the change in employment in various energy supplying industries. These graphs show that industries using renewable fuels are steadily gaining jobs while traditional fossil fuel based industries are losing jobs.<\/p>\n

In a very different industry many performing artists have released songs with a conservation theme over the years. A recording that actually preceeding Earth Day in 1970 was Big Yellow Taxi<\/em> by Joni Mitchell<\/b> (click for lyrics<\/a>). Almost in tandem to Earth Day was Marvin Gaye<\/b>‘s Mercy, Mercy, Me<\/em> in 1971 (click for lyrics<\/a>). The tune Conviction of the Heart<\/em> (click for lyrics<\/a>) was performed by writer\/singer Kenny Loggins<\/b> at Earth Day 1995 in Washington, DC. A more recent recording is Jackson Browne<\/b>‘s song Downhill from Everywhere<\/em> (click for lyrics<\/a>) which depicts the pervasive amount of plastics that end up in the oceans.<\/p>\n

A few years back we took our young grandkids to see The Lorax<\/a>, a movie based on a Dr Seuss\u2019 book. It describes a place where the trees have been clear cut so there are no trees left. Everyone depends on manufactured air to provide oxygen for their survival. Through battle with “industry”, the hero finally succeeds in planting a single tree. This act restarts the path to regenerating oxygen naturally. While the story is a little far fetched, it presents the oxygen depletion issue to a young generation.<\/p>\n

We later took them to see another movie – The Croods<\/a> which depicts the struggle of a family of cave people to survive in a deteriorating world. They survive through human ingenuity with inventions such as fire, shoes and wheels. I hope this isn’t the only lesson for our next generation – that technology alone is going to save our environment. Yes, we are quite ingenious. But a lot of us have reservations that technology by itself will solve our planet’s woes.<\/p>\n

\n

Photography and the Environment<\/h4>\n

My lifelong interest has been photography. So you might ask “what does all of this rambling have to do photography?” I wanted to look at photography then<\/strong> and now<\/strong> to compare their individual environmental impacts.<\/p>\n

At first, I thought this was going to be a “no brainer” – that digital photography yields huge environmental savings compared to conventional photography. But as I began to dig deeper, I see that there are two sides to this argument.<\/p>\n

Conventional Photography<\/strong><\/p>\n

Having worked in several commercial photo labs long before the advent of digital, I’m familiar with the processes that are used in conventional (film-based) photography.<\/p>\n

Most conventional cameras use a cartridge or canister of film for taking 12, 20 or 36 photographs. Each “roll” of film is individually packaged for sale in hundreds of thousands of retail locations. Besides the resources needed to manufacture the film, a considerable amount more are used to market and distribute the products.<\/p>\n

Film derives its light sensitivity from a chemical mixture of silver halide that’s coated onto its surface. After being exposed to light by the camera, the film is first “developed” – the silver halide image is converted into a metallic silver and then “fixed” – the unused silver halide is dissolved. This makes the negative image permanent. Color film requires additional chemicals to form the dyes used to reproduce the various colors. And still other chemicals are used to enhance the drying of the photographic materials. In addition to these chemicals, a large amount of water is used to rinse and clean the chemicals from the surface of the film.<\/p>\n

Conventional photographic prints are processed similarly using a silver halide sensitive paper and chemicals to develop and fix and wash the positive images. Most commercial photo labs make prints from each exposure on a roll of film.<\/p>\n

The environmental impact of conventional photography is significant. A large amount materials is consumed to make film and photographic paper. A large amount of nasty and toxic chemicals are used to process both the film and prints. And an awfully huge amount of fresh water is used in the process as well.<\/p>\n

Digital Photography<\/strong><\/p>\n

At first glance, the coming of age of digital photography appears to have a beneficial impact on the environmental.<\/p>\n

With digital, no longer is there a need for roll after roll of film. Instead your cell phone memory or a single chip (SD-card or CF-card) can capture hundreds, maybe thousands of images.<\/p>\n

These digital images no longer require chemical development. The images are immediately available to review on your cell phone or on the camera screen. For permanence, the images can be copied to your computer hard drive for safekeeping, further enhancement and presentation.<\/p>\n

Unlike conventional processing where each exposure is mindlessly printed by the photo lab, you can be more selective. Instead you can choose to print only the best of the best images. And it’s your choice to print them using a conventional photo process at your favorite photo lab or print them at home on your color ink-jet printer.<\/p>\n

Regardless of which celle phone or camera you’ve purchased, digital photography seems like a winner from an environmental standpoint.<\/p>\n

The Rest of the Story<\/strong><\/p>\n

As with many things in life, digital photography has a few “gotcha’s” that cloud its environmental friendly moniker.<\/p>\n

The upside is that digital provides big savings in resources by eliminating film, packaging, paper and chemical processing. However, digital shifts the resource burden to the manufacturing and maintaining the personal computer. Yes, there are some who make do without a personal computer. These picture taker brings his\/her digital film to a photo lab to make selected prints. But many picture takers collect, organize, retouch, process and present their photographs using a personal computer.<\/p>\n

While it’s dated, a United Nation report tells us that “the average 24 kg desktop computer with monitor requires at least 10 times its weight in fossil fuels and chemicals to manufacture, much more materials intensive than an automobile or refrigerator, which only require 1-2 times their weight in fossil fuels. Researchers found that manufacturing one desktop computer and 17-inch CRT monitor uses at least 240 kg of fossil fuels, 22 kg of chemicals and 1,500 kg of water \u2013 a total of 1.8 tonnes of materials.”<\/p>\n

Of course a personal computer or your cell phone is used for other tasks as well, so it’s not fair to put the full blame for digital photography’s negative impact on the environment.<\/p>\n

And to power all of these phone, cameras, computers and accessories the need for electricity either from the wall outlet or batteries is climbing. Does this contribute to our CO2<\/sub> footprint?<\/p>\n

Not surprisingly, manufacturers are working feverishly to add new and amazing whiz-bang features to their digital recording devices. Instead of buying a conventional camera every ten years or so, the buying cycle for cell phones and digital cameras is a much more frequent. Read: more resources consumed<\/u>.<\/p>\n

Wrapping it Up<\/strong><\/p>\n

We can credit the overwhelming adoption of cell phones and digital cameras for saving the environment from millions of rolls of film and the required chemicals to develop the the film and prints. In addition to the great quality of digital technology, we benefit from a huge reduction of harmful photographic chemicals.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, from an environmental standpoint, digital photography is a mixed bag when considering the pervasive number of new cameras and extensive use of the personal computer.<\/p>\n

In his novel Slaughterhouse Five<\/em>, Kurt Vonnegut might comment on this no-win situation with the phrase so it goes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Some years ago I wrote another article<\/a> that might be of interest if you’re following the status of our environment.<\/p>\n

After all of these years as an avid photographer I’m still a proponent of carefully using our precious natural resources. Aside from photographing family, my favorite pastime is nature and landscape photography. Below you can see some of the ways that I commune with nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/center><\/td>\n
<\/a><\/center><\/td>\n
<\/a><\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/center><\/td>\n
<\/a><\/center><\/td>\n
<\/a><\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/a><\/center><\/td>\n
These photos were taken in many of our National Parks, Monuments and parklands. As you read this, I’m off to other outdoor places to experience more of our earth.<\/td>\n
<\/a><\/center><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

To the best of my ability I continue to practice “leave no trace photography” – disturb neither our wildlife nor its surroundings. Photography, whether conventional or digital, is a gift that lets me enjoy the wonders of our amazing world visually. I think many others agree.<\/p>\n

I’ve long been conscientious about my “environmental footprint” – using recyclable packaging; choosing fuel-efficient vehicles; keeping our trees healthy; reducing fertilizer and pesticide usage. Individually I’m not making much of a difference but together we can really make a dent.<\/p>\n

As for Earth Day<\/strong> – some believe that it is the world’s largest annual non-religious holiday with more than a billion participants.<\/p>\n

Happy Earth Day<\/strong>!<\/p>\n

\n

More Information<\/strong>
\nHere are a few articles about Earth Day and about the conventional vs digital photography debate.<\/p>\n