Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Close Encounters of the Avian Kind

Photo: Monica Perez Nevarez

By Monica Perez Nevarez
Parrot – Human Relations in Brooklyn
Midwood is a traditional neighborhood of cookie-cutter Arts and Crafts Bungalows from the 1920s that lays just north of Brooklyn College. The streets are clean, but the sidewalks are buckled here and there. The single-family houses are well cared for, but they have not been renovated. Wooden picket fences have given way to low chain-link fences. Sporadic car traffic is mostly vintage Japanese imports. It’s a mixed neighborhood made up of White, African American, and Latino families with humble lawns and generous porches.

The area’s one crowning glory is its abundance of mature trees.

This combination of sturdy trees, grassy lawns, and tolerant humans makes Midwood a perfect habitat for a bird species locally known as the ‘Brooklyn Parrots’, which are a singular example of the complexities of human-animal relations.

Monk Parakeets, also known as Quaker Parrots and Grey-headed parakeets, or by their scientific name Myiopsitta Monachus, have lived and thrived in the 'wilds' of Brooklyn for over forty years. Yet, the more you read about them, the more they become an enigma.

Pieces of the Parrot Puzzle

How did they get here? How do South American parrots survive northern winters? Why does the government classify them in such a way that leaves them unprotected, and what does that mean for their ongoing survival? Who is fighting for them, and why do they need defending? What do they show us about the relationship humans have with birds in particular and wildlife in general?

To start, their names are a constant source of confusion. Monk parakeet, Quaker parrot, Quaker parakeet, and Monk parrot are used interchangeably by different parties. Parakeets are defined as small parrots by the Encarta Dictionary, so in the Monks’ case, both names apply. The usage difference might stem from savvy retailers who know that parrots are more expensive than parakeets.

Their provenance has been shrouded in mystery. None of the multiple academic studies done on Monks pinpoints a singular cause that leads to their introduction into the United States, and many of the stories told in other capital cities where the birds have formed colonies sound eerily similar to one another. Urban legend has now mixed with the very few strands of truth that were left behind 43 years ago in a JFK airport cargo bay, confusing things further. But more on that later.

A smallish, bright green parrot, the Monk Parakeet is smaller than a pigeon and larger than a sparrow; it’s about 11 to 12 inches long. The forehead and breast are a pale grey and the stomach and underparts are light green to yellow. They have blue flight feathers just visible on the underside of their wings, a long tail, and a yellowish-orange beak. They are monogamous and they build implausible-looking high-rise nests.

Their native range is southern Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, and north-central Argentina. In the United States, they have established New York colonies in Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island, and can be found in 17 states across the U.S. Globally, they have colonies in cities in Puerto Rico, Spain, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Morroco, Israel, Greece, and Japan; and there are youtube videos of them in the Middle East and Thailand.

Back to Brooklyn

In Midwood, there is an imposing Locust tree that is known to birding aficionados as the ‘Tree of Life.’ Not because of its rarity or age, but rather for what it holds up: a six-foot-tall twig nest that hangs off the eastern side of its sturdy trunk, about 20 feet off the ground, and houses about 16 chattering Monk parakeets.

Inside the massive twig high-rise are eight individual nests, stacked asymmetrically like a double helix. Peeking from two openings, on a crisp spring morning, are two pairs of Monks, chattering away in their respective homes, repositioning twigs, preparing their nest for their first clutch of eggs. Below them, a group of ‘Parrot Safari’-goers click away with their cameras.

A Parrot Safari came to Brooklyn

The Parrot Safari is the brainchild of Steve Baldwin, a man of many passions and abilities. A writer, multimedia producer, and musician, he’s a Project Manager for the online business directory powerprofile.com. He excels at organizing his life so he has enough time for all his varied interests. On this day, as he has for the previous six years, the tall and lanky 51-year-old is the Parrot Safari producer and tour guide.

"Frankly, I think these birds deserve to be proclaimed the National Parrot of the USA", Baldwin gushes on his webpage (www.brooklynparrots.com). "They have all of the great qualities we associate with the American character: they're industrious, loyal to each other, they're amazing little engineers, they coexist well with other native birds, and they just won't give up, even when the deck is stacked against them."

He has put Brooklyn’s Monk Parakeets on the Social Media map with a Facebook page (Brooklyn Parrots) and a Twitter feed (@brooklynparrots), which keep his avid followers updated on everything Monk. In fact, every member of today’s safari came from an internet source, because Baldwin does not advertise his free tours (the first Saturday of every month, spring through fall) anywhere else.

A graduate of Fordham University, Baldwin is a member of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, and since 2005 has been photographing and videotaping the wild parrots of Brooklyn and New Jersey. He has written two books: in 1999 he wrote Netslaves and in 2003 he followed up with Netslaves II. His 2005 book, Tango in America, co-authored with Monk activist Alison Evans-Fragale, features a Monk Parakeet as its heroine.

In the book’s Amazon.com reviewer’s page, Baldwin writes that “after I discovered that there were wild parrots flying free in many urban areas of the United States and [I had] spent time studying their habits in the wild, my imagination was engaged by their story. Derided as ‘illegal avian invaders,’ hounded by utility companies and Fish and Wildlife Services, and referred to in ornithological literature as ‘the world's most persecuted parrot,’ these charming, social birds captured my heart, and I wanted to share some of the joy I felt with [others].”

From Argentina to New York

There are a lot of theories about how Monk Parakeets came to colonize the US, ranging from daring escapes from sinking ships or overturned trucks to accidents in the cargo section of airports. But according to Baldwin, “the theory that has the greatest credence among ornithologists is that a shipment of parrots destined for sale at New York area pet shops was accidentally released at Kennedy Airport in the late 1960s.” On this particular day, a woman participating in the safari would prove the rule of six degrees of separation - only better.

Janet Height, an energetic ash blond, offered a personal account of what happened to a particular shipment of parrots as the group walked through Midwood. “I live in Manhattan now but I grew up in Brooklyn. I’m a bird person, so I’ve always wanted to come out here. I have parakeets and I have a Mexican Yellowhead, whom I adopted 25 years ago. She’s 43. Her name is Allie.”

“Allie is one of the original parrots that escaped from JFK airport [in 1968]. My grandfather worked in the Pan Am cargo building in the late sixties as a guard. One night, a bunch of parrots chewed their way out of their wooden crates, and Allie was a baby, and she had broken her wing, so she couldn’t escape. My grandfather found her and took her and gave her to our neighbors. Eighteen years later, when they could not take care of her anymore, I adopted her. She’s been my baby ever since.”

After weeks of trying to find some tangible evidence as to how Monk Parakeets were introduced to the United States decades ago, I was actually speaking to a woman that had a bird from an original flock of escapees, which was nothing short of miraculous.

Janet went on with her story. “I can’t believe the exporters put wood-chewers into wooden crates,” she said, “so I am sure these escapes happened often, more often than anybody let on. You know, they’d just crowd birds into these boxes and ship them. There’s just no end to how cruel people can be to animals.” The surprised group of safari-goers nodded in agreement as they walked alongside. She seemed to think it was possible that birds kept escaping for as long as they were being imported.

Baldwin added that “more than 60,000 wild Monk Parakeets were shipped to the US from South America during the 1960s and early 1970s. The Argentinean government spent 10 years trying to wipe out what they considered to be a pest species in their country. Over 400,000 of them were killed in a government-sponsored extermination program there.” Then someone apparently decided exporting them was a more lucrative way of getting rid of them.

Back in the late 1960s, there was very little mention of habitat loss in the Amazon Forest and its consequences for wild parrots. The Monk Parakeet’s natural habitat is lowland mountain forests and their encircling grassland savannahs. Clear-cutting for the now-famous Argentinean beef industry stripped the ecosystem in which Monk parakeets lived of all their normal sources of food. But because they are territorial (once they colonize a place, they usually keep close to that geographical area), they become very adept at eating whatever replaces their food source, much to the chagrin of South American farmers and ranchers.

Planting a field (with grass seeds!) thus became a battleground between hungry birds and business-minded farmers. This is how many wild parrots have become 'pest' species in South America, through loss of habitat.

What Baldwin did not tell the group was that the Monk Parakeets had been subjected to a similar extermination program in the early ’70s across the U.S., when there were only several hundred escaped parrots in the country. All the Monk Parakeets in California were killed, and 50% of the population in the rest of the country was wiped out by concerted government efforts fighting fears that the parrots would become a pest here too.

But in a surprising twist of fate, the Monks never did become a generalized pest species, they never destroyed wild habitat, and never competed with endemic species. Instead, they became celebrities.

The Famous Brooklyn Parrots

In the four decades since the extermination attempt, the Monk survivors have thrived; it is estimated there are 3,000 to 5,000 Monk Parakeets throughout the U.S. today, with several hundred living in Brooklyn. They have become local superstars, as I learned on the subway one morning.

Sitting in the number 2 train, on the first warm Saturday in spring after a brutal New York winter, I saw the car become emptier with every stop on its way to Flatbush. Subway station names flashed by the rectangular windows, bracketed by sooty darkness and shrieking gears; Church Avenue, Beverly Road, Newkirk Avenue.

The words “Are you going to see the parrots?” were barely audible as Mayra Mejia, 22, with a big smile and long black hair almost touching her designer jeans, sat across the aisle from me in the otherwise vacant car.

“Yes, I am,” I said, “how’d you know?”

“The binoculars,” she answered, pointing to the protruding gear in my open backpack. “I’ve lived in Flatbush all of my life,” Mejia said, “and they have been here ever since I can remember. Pretty wild to see parrots in the city, right?” I was about to respond when the train screeched to a halt in Flatbush station.

As we walked out, I asked her how she felt about the parrots. “I like them,” she said, “but I don’t know if everyone loves them; no one ever hurts them, because they’re a big attraction. People come to see them from all over the place. But,” she grinned, “they squawk a lot. You hear them before you see them. Otherwise, they’re beautiful.”

And with that, Ms. Mejia managed to sum up the fragile détente that exists between the Monk Parakeets and Brooklynites, which, writ large, echoes the nicer permutations of relationships these birds have with humans.

The Parrot Safari Experience

At the start of the tour, Steve Baldwin walked the group around the periphery of Brooklyn College along Campus Road hoping to find Monks in several places he knew there were nests and feeding areas.

Before long, Baldwin stopped short and asked the group to listen. Sure enough, there was squawking coming from the college’s outdoor track area, where half a dozen parakeets were noisily sunning themselves on a chain-link fence. As if on cue, they flew down to the grass to feed just as the group arrived.

Baldwin smiled and said, “Look, they are posing as if for paparazzi!” and laughed.  “Seriously, they are flying down to get their favorite food, grass, and grass seeds. They have a diverse diet, which is what has helped them survive up in these latitudes. They also like dandelion buds, leaf buds, mulberries, and holly berries. They are known to send out scouting parties to find human-provided bird feeders and hit those hard during winter months. They also eat fruit, horse chestnuts, and acorns. I’ve even seen one eating a small piece of pizza! The fact that their diet is so broad is one of the secrets of their success.”

Sandra Bigelow, a native of Flatbush, asks if the parakeets are in direct competition for food with any other animals. “I suppose you could say that they compete for food against the other introduced birds we find in urban areas, like sparrows, starlings, and pigeons,” Baldwin responded, “but that’s it.” Just as he said that a pigeon flew down to some newly scattered birdseed which safari-goers had brought for the Monks, which they had promptly ignored. The pigeon ate to its heart’s content, unmolested by man or beast.

Their diet is a deceptively important piece of the Monk Parakeet puzzle. They have colonized only urban areas because they depend on humans for food. They are not destroying any natural habitats nor competing with any native birds in the city, where man has already changed the landscape. One academic study from 1974 cites competition with Robins or Bluejays, but no other study since then has witnessed this behavior. In fact, several mention how well they get along with other species of birds, to the point of sharing their nests with some species of owls.

Monks are Urban, not Wildlife

The Brooklyn Parrots could have chosen to live in secluded wilderness areas. The Jamaica Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, part of the Gateway National Recreation Area, is a migratory bird haven just south of JFK international airport. It would seem to be a perfect place for wild parrots to live, being protected and wild. And yet they have never built nests there.

Thirty-year veteran Park Ranger Edgardo Castillo confirmed this via telephone. “We don’t have them here. Never have. You might see one or two flying around, but this is not an area where they nest. They are urban birds. There is no food for them here in winter.”

So Monks live in the city, they do not compete with native birds, and in fact, they get along with them as well as with other introduced species in the city. So how come they are still persecuted, and by whom?

The Opposition

Continuing down Campus Road, Baldwin told the story of how Con Edison treated Monk Parakeets before there was a group of people defending them. “We haven’t had any problems [in Brooklyn], but there were nests in Queens that were a problem for Con Edison. Monk Parakeets had built a nest on an electrical transformer. Those transformers cost $25,000 each, not counting the labor to fix or replace them, in addition to any blackout costs. So Con Edison had to get [the nests] out of there.”

Baldwin continued: “what happened the first time [Con Ed destroyed their nests] was the birds just waited for them to leave, and started rebuilding their nest almost immediately after they left. So the next time, Con Ed took down the nests in January. That’s a particularly cruel and inhumane way to kill the birds, leaving them without shelter in the middle of winter.”

While Baldwin and animal rights advocates realize that Con Edison must safeguard its property, several groups (like Feathered Friends Parrot Adoption Services, Inc. and Edgewater Parrots) are working to change state law so that Monk Parakeets are afforded some measure of protection from indiscriminate harassment. In the meantime, Baldwin and others have worked closely with New Jersey utility company PSE&G in later actions to mitigate damages to the Monk Parakeets and save many birds.

Some municipal organizations have learned to work with bird activists. One particular action Baldwin describes on his webpage (Photo-Essay: A Bronx Tale: The Great Baby Quaker Parrot Rescue), tells of cooperation between New York City's Department of Design and Construction (DDC) and a group of activists (including Baldwin) that saved 43 baby parrots when several large nests had to be taken down one summer in a lightbulb-replacement project. The babies were taken to an animal sanctuary, DDC replaced the lights, and the parent Monk parakeets set about rebuilding their nests after everyone left.

Con Edison did not return any calls or emails for comment.

Monks have not had much of an impact on Con Edison infrastructure in New York City because most electrical infrastructure is underground. But Monk parakeets have been known to wreak havoc in other places where the infrastructure is above ground, like Connecticut and Florida, where the utility companies have to constantly wage a war of attrition against the species.

Snapshots of Safari Participants

Ann McDermott lives in Manhattan, but was born and raised in Brooklyn, and came on safari because of Baldwin. “I know Steve through his Beatles music, he has a tribute band, called “Elementary Penguins”, from the song “I am the Walrus”, and he plays every Saturday night in Times Square, in the Subway, or if the weather permits, in Central Park, near Strawberry Fields. I read his page on Facebook, and he posted about this safari, and I thought, well, that sounds like a good way to spend a Saturday morning. So here I am. This is the cool thing about New York – nature really does exist among the concrete and the steel.”

Kyle Mac Donnell, a Graphic Designer and Production Designer who lives in Greenpoint, is “into taking photographs of birds. I just found out about the parrots from a friend who is house-sitting. I started looking things up on the internet and I found the Brooklyn Parrot website, and I also went to Sunset Park [where there is another Monk colony] and took a lot of good pictures which I have posted on my Flickr account if anyone wants to see them.”

Two girlfriends out for a walk before lunch: “I’m Michelle, I found out about this on the internet, and I just like birds, so here I am! I live near here, the next town over. I can’t say anything about how these people feel about [the parrots], but if they were in my backyard I’d embrace them;” Andrea, from Flatbush, said “Icame here because I like birds and I was interested in parrots. I’ve been in Brooklyn nine years, so it was time to come see them.”

A couple from Manhattan Beach were curious: Anya Bransama said “we’ve been watching the parrots for a couple of years, so we just wanted to know more about them,” and Steve Coiner added, “We see them all the way up and down Manhattan Beach. We live sort of in the middle. They’re all around us. I remember when I was a kid, we were coming in on the expressway one day and we saw one racing with the traffic. This was in the seventies. It’s amazing they’re still here.”

Community Building

Baldwin stopped the group across the street from a small children’s playground at the end of Brooklyn College’s track and field area whose fence had been decorated with metal cutouts of Monk Parakeets. He explained that the community had gotten together to petition for that particular decoration when the park was being refurbished. It’s obvious that Steve relishes even the smallest victories for the Monks.

“‘Hot Spot Lot’ Park, as it is lovingly called by the locals, is an emblem,” Baldwin recounted, “because the Parks Department decided that the Monk Parakeets were significant enough to actually memorialize them, and hired an artist to do these very nice cutouts of them. That shows that even though the parrots have no official status in New York State, they are sort of officially recognized as being members of this neighborhood, and as a part of Brooklyn.”

“No official Status?” someone asked from the back of the pack.

Baldwin explained that Monk Parakeets can be legally owned and bred and sold in New York as long as they are ‘banded’ (they have a metal band on their leg), but ‘wild’ colonies are offered no protection under state law. Therefore, it is legal to trap them or kill them without a permit or a limit, like Raccoons or Coyotes. Although there have been several attempts to pass legislation to protect them, all local congressional efforts have so far ended up ‘in committee’, which is another way of saying in limbo.

New York is one of seven states where Monk Parakeets are legal with restrictions (in NY they have to be banded, other states have other restrictions). There are 11 states where they are illegal (they cannot be held as pets, sold, be brought into the state, transported across state lines, or bred in CA, CO, CT, HI, GA, KS, KY, NH, PA, RI, TN, WY), and 32 states where they are legal without any restrictions. Unfortunately, just because they are legal does not mean that Monks are accorded any protection under the law. And without any corroborating evidence, some people say Con Edison likes it that way just fine.

The Conundrum

One overriding reason there is a regulatory bias against Monk Parakeets in New York is that they were expected to become as damaging and widespread a pest as they had been in South America. But in the 50 years since they were introduced here, that threat never materialized.

Prof. Stephen Pruett-Jones, a renowned ornithologist, Monk Parakeet specialist, and professor at the University of Chicago, explained in a telephone conversation that they have not become the damaging invasive species that they were expected to become. "They are a pest in a small section of Florida and a nuisance in some parts of Illinois, but otherwise they have not become the menace we thought they might become."

Pruett-Jones also clarified the Monk Parakeet’s ‘classification.’

“You must understand the terminology. An ‘introduced species’ is one that did not occur naturally here, it came from somewhere else. But Monk Parakeets have become a ‘naturalized’ species because they are breeding here.”

Pruett-Jones went on to explain that an ‘invasive’ species describes a species that causes damage to native ecosystems or to native species. That “is actually the category that is the least accurate in describing the Monk Parakeet,” he said. “The general public uses that term incorrectly to refer to any introduced species as invasive and that is problematical.”

The Monk expert went on to summarize their development. A single colony grows until it literally is too large for the space they occupy, and then within a week, half the population leaves the original nest and smaller nests are built in the surrounding area.

What has saved the Monk Parakeets up to now is that they are usually rooted in urban places. They like to live in tall trees or poles next to grassy areas in close proximity to homes with back yards and bird feeders.

Closing Thoughts

The Avian Welfare Resource Center agrees with Dr. Pruett-Jones. “Though Monk Parakeets sustain populations in at least 17 states, there is no documented evidence that these colonies have caused any widespread damage to agriculture, nor have they been proven to pose a threat to native bird species. Monk Parakeets have simply dared to interfere with commercial activity, and that alone has garnered them a greater share of national media attention than any other of the 25 naturalized parrots in the US. Regardless of their non-native status, we need to ensure the humane treatment of all naturalized birds by granting them legal protection.”

For advocates like Steve Baldwin, the Monk Parakeets have already suffered enough persecution. He directed me to a quote from Avianwelfare.org which sums up the parrot’s dilemma: “Parrots live in two opposing worlds — and they are threatened in both. In the wild, habitat destruction, poaching, and the cruelties of the legal and illegal trade in exotic animals menace them. Some species face extinction. Here in the United States, ironically, there’s a crisis of a different sort. The fight on behalf of exotic birds — for their welfare and very survival — must be waged on many fronts: in rain forests, grasslands, cliffs, and brush regions, as well as [in state legislatures,] breeding facilities, pet stores, zoos, and our nation’s living rooms.”

The Big Picture

Monk Parakeets are a story about how man relates to other animals on the planet. It’s a story about nonexistent animal rights and human unconsciousness to the web of life. It is a story about fickleness in our legal designations and our regulations regarding animals, and how the animals end up bearing the brunt of human hypocrisy. It is a story about aspiring to treat all species humanely.

As Steve Baldwin said as we parted company. “I am intrigued by Monk Parakeets because their story resonates from a number of different angles. They are ‘strangers in a strange land’ in the way that many human immigrants to Brooklyn are. They were deported from their native lands after suffering extermination pogroms. Through sheer chance, they survived and were allowed a rare chance at freedom. Their existence is perilous and they have many enemies, human, non-human, governmental, and corporate. And yet they persist. There are many obvious parallels to the struggles of the human spirit here.”

Dr. Stephen Pruett-Jones summed it up from his academic perspective: “The Monk parakeet will continue to be both an interesting and controversial species and one that highlights the complex interaction between public sentiment, public policy, and biology.”

But Jonathan Franzen, a famous author and avid birdwatcher, may have the wisest perspective of all. In the Commencement speech he gave this past month at Kenyon College, he explained how having fallen in love with birds has helped him deal with the world.

“My anger and pain and despair about the planet were only increased by my concern for birds, and yet, as I began to get involved in bird conservation and learned more about the many threats that birds face, it became easier, not harder, to live with my anger and despair and pain.”

“How does this happen? I think, for one thing, that my love of birds became a portal to an important, less self-centered part of myself that I’d never even known existed.”

“I used to have a really angry, despairing sense that the world is screwed, that people have screwed the world, and so we should just let it all end. Let's have the great plague that will reduce the population by 90 percent, and let the land regenerate and nature catch its breath. I've moved away from that sort of deep-ecological extremism, which I found to be not personally tenable. It was time for me to stop thinking about the apocalypse, time to move to New York City, time to start enjoying life. And from there I moved on to loving birds, which was a much more positive mode of engagement. If you're trying to save your child's life, you might make certain compromises that you would have found morally insupportable at a younger age. Love leads to pragmatism in a way that anger doesn't.”
And that is the 'takeaway' from any contact with Monk parakeets. You fall under their spell, and anyone that spends just a little bit of time with them comes away feeling much more than respect for them, and inevitably rethinking their relationship with birds and wildlife in general.

Monks may, one urban follower at a time, be the species that make better humans of us all.


Thursday, March 31, 2011

Homegrown David versus Goliath: Organic Farmers Sue Monsanto

On March 29, 2011, Carolyn Raffensperger, Director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, and co-owner of Kirshenmann Family Farm, published a press release announcing a class action lawsuit against Monsanto, the world’s largest producer of genetically modified organisms (GMO's), brought in New York Federal Court.

The Plaintiffs [the people suing Monsanto] include 52 groups made up of thousands of organic farmers, seed growers, non-profits organizations and community coalitions, with over 270,000 individual members in the United States and Canada. They banded together in order to lessen the ‘David vs. Goliath’ nature of a legal battle against a multinational corporation with over $10 billion in sales a year.

The suit seeks to prohibit Monsanto from suing organic farmers if their crop is cross-pollinated in open fields by 'Roundup Ready' plants. Roundup Ready crops are genetically modified organisms (GMO's) that withstand Roundup, the company’s premier pesticide.

The suit seeks to redress Monsanto's ability to sue, distinct from many other concerns organic farmers have against them, because taking small farmers to court is tantamount to destroying them. It pits many (small) companies' right to do business one way (organics) with another (multinational) company's right to do business another way (GMO), in mutually exclusive processes. By definition, organics exclude genetically engineered crops, and vice versa.

This preemptive action on the part of the Plaintiffs highlights the plight of many small farmers who do not wish to use or consume genetically modified organisms, and whose rights are being abrogated.

Once GMO's have been introduced into an open field, their genetic matter cannot be controlled, pollen travels on wind currents or symbiotic insects to the surrounding areas, where uncontrolled pollination of similar non-GMO crops and weeds results.

Soil quality and insects are also negatively affected. Cross pollination impacts biodiversity in the area and the neighboring organic farmers must inevitably stop planting crops that can become tainted or lose their organic certification because their crops can no longer be classified organic.

To add injury to injury, Monsanto has a policy of suing farmers whose crops have been cross-pollinated by their GMO crops (through no fault of their own) and charge the affected farmers with patent infringement.

Individual farmers have no way of paying such a costly defense. In Mexico, this legal tactic has forced hundreds of indigenous farmers to go bankrupt and lose their farms, for an action they had no control over and no intent to fulfill.

With this lawsuit, organic farmers in the northern hemisphere are fighting to stay alive - not just as certified organic farms, but as economically viable businesses as well. They realize that with its outsized legal department, Monsanto could bankrupt countless small farms stateside as well.

Can the issues between organic farmers and Monsanto be solved?

In an email exchange, I asked Carolyn Raffensperger the following question:

Do you think that in a not too distant future, organic farms in this hemisphere will be safeguarded, scientists will have their drought resistant crops, and Monsanto will have addressed the issues of concern to organic farmers?

Carolyn Raffensperger’s answer:

“Two things in response. First, our farm really won't be able to function if they plant GMO alfalfa and wheat in our area because the out-crossing [uncontrolled pollination] will contaminate two of our big crops. We already can't plant canola, which we used to grow, because of contamination. We've lost sunflowers for other problematic farm policies. At some point our farm is no longer viable. We can't have a decent crop rotation without warm weather crops, cool weather crops, deep root and shallow root plants, etc. We've already narrowed the crops we grow because of GMO threats.”

“The lawsuit was brought because there was NO move to plan for co-existence. None.”

“Second, I flat out don't buy the argument that GMO drought resistant crops are the only answer. They might be one answer. But conventional breeding, open source breeding, and alternative crops are all answers.”

“Intellectual property and GMOs is not a viable approach to resilient communities because it takes control of seed and food out of the hands of farmers and communities. We belong to an open source farmer-scientist breeding project in the Great Plains. This is a much better answer to developing seeds that are locally adapted to conditions.”

Related Links: Read Anna Lappe's insightful article in The Atantic here, watch (free) The World According to Monsanto documentary here

Friday, December 24, 2010

Green New Deal

Green Change has come up with a Green New Deal that encompassed all important aspects that need to be addressed right now. Here is a copy.

The Green New Deal is a program formulated to create economic prosperity together with ecological sustainability.

1) Cut military spending at least 70% (bring our boys home, stop being the world's policeman, transition to a military that builds, not destroys)
2) Create millions of green union jobs through massive public investment in renewable energy, mass transit and conservation;
3) Set ambitious, science-based greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and enact a revenue-neutral carbon tax to meet them;
4) Establish single-payer "Medicare for all" health care;
5) Institute tuition-free public higher education;
6) Change trade agreements to improve labor, environmental, consumer, health and safety standards;
7) End counterproductive prohibition policies and legalize marijuana;
8) Enact tough limits on credit card interest and lending rates, progressive tax reform and strict financial regulation;
9) Amend the U.S. Constitution to abolish corporate personhood; and
10) Pass sweeping electoral, campaign finance and anti-corruption reforms.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Video sobre Aceite de Algas

Queridos amigos y co-religionarios de nuestra bella isla, saludos! Ya se habrán dado cuenta que de vez en cuando yo he posteado algo exhortando a que voten por mí en una competencia. A todos aquellos que ya han votado, se los agradezco de corazón. Para todos los demás, permítanme explicarles por que es tan importante hacer un documental de algas orgánicas en PR, y por ende, porque deberían votar por mí. El aceite de algas se puede usar tal como sale para generar electricidad en cuatro de las cinco plantas generatrices en la isla. Siendo una corporación local, los profits se quedarían en PR en vez de mandarse afuera. Siendo orgánica, no le hace daño al ambiente ni usa terrenos agrícolas, y de hecho, produce Tilapia y Camarones locales llenos de Aceite Omega 3 que es muy saludable. Ah! y también consume CO2 industrial que de otro modo escaparía a la atmosfera (zero footprint). Parte fundamental del business plan de Bio-Lipidos de Puerto Rico es crear enlaces con la comunidad y ayudar a la comunidad a desarrollarse sustentablemente, lo cual es un tipo de modelo de negocio poco visto en el mundo. Teniendo la isla los dones del sol y del viento (al presente muy caros en convertirse en energía usable y no duran 24/7, o sea que no son buenos candidatos para ser los únicos en generar electricidad), pero con ellos, tenemos la base para una energía eléctrica diversificada, que en un futuro podamos integrar con aceite de algas; porque siempre se va a necesitar energía en forma líquida para correr las generatrices si queremos evitar a corto plazo los gastos millonarios de cambiar la infraestructura existente. La competencia en la cual me encuentro es subvencionada por Brita Water Filters y el Sundance Institute, quien se encargaría de producir el corto-metraje del tema de las algas orgánicas. Esto es importante porque ya la mayoría de las corporaciones petroleras han invertido cientos de millones de dólares en compañías de algas genéticamente alteradas (lo cual les da un monopolio en el mercado al ser patentizadas). Hay que darnos cuenta de que no podemos seguir viviendo ni trabajando bajo los paradigmas antiguos. Ni hacerle daño al ambiente ni hacerle daño a la sociedad en general (usando modelos de negocios rapaces en vez de inclusivos). Es un empezar en limpio muy importante. Y si lo conseguimos, Puerto Rico puede ser el primer país en el mundo en ser autosustentable en energía limpia de algas. El cortometraje ayudaría a traer a la mesa la discusión de algas orgánicas como medio de generar electricidad que hasta ahora ha sido relegada a un lejano tercer lugar después del poder solar y del viento (y quinto lugar en la votación de esta competencia!). Necesitamos 100 o 200 más personas que voten diariamente para ver si llegamos en tercer lugar, porque solo los primeros tres puestos serán producidos en corto-metraje. Por favor voten por este film!!! Sinceramente es importantísimo! voten aqui: http://apps.facebook.com/good-film/entries/83

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

A Conversation with a friend

Logan wrote: "Monica- there have been people looking at the world through rose colored glasses for a long time- has it worked yet? If you can think of a reason I am wrong, by all means let me know. But from what I can figure out, the green movement will make empire sustainable, not change the underlying power structure. I would love to be wrong, but I have been looking into this my entire adult life, and am hard pressed to find reason to think otherwise. Is there something i am missing?

"I am doing permaculture, I talk to people, and do networking etc, etc...nothing that I am doing, or anything anyone I know is doing, seem to affect the power structures that make it possible for the warmongers to rule, and continue to rule. It is not worthless, but that doesn't mean the eating healthy will stop the wars..."

And my answer

Logan, one of the reasons I am grateful that all the crises we now face (environmental, economic, social justice, political) have come all at once is that it forces us to realize that things are seriously wrong in all these areas, and that we have a chance to fix them in a holistic manner.

I greatly admire your permaculture choice, for you show the rest of us the way forward with it. But part of this new way of living demands we do not stop at individual actions (even if they are exemplary lifetime commitments).

You say you have networked and spoken to people and see no change. Believe me, I get that a lot. I’ve had fulfilling conversations with people that shared my vision, and utterly frustrating conversations with as many people that refused to believe the evidence I presented them. I sometimes walk away feeling there is no “net gain”.

Then I realized that what I was missing from this equation was a sense of community, and I’ll explain why. It’s much more difficult for a lone voice in the wilderness to change a person’s perspective. It is wholly another matter if an entire community (people you know and trust) not only makes you “walk the walk”, but takes the time to explain why it is important that you do so.

Industrialization gave millions of poor farmers an entry into a much better world (financial-, education-, health- and mass transportation– wise).

Unfortunately, it also destroyed communities and forced a type of individualism that has fragmented our society; it brought on the wide-spread environmental damage with which we suffer today; it abused people, places and resources for the benefit of a few; it concentrated wealth and corrupted our political process and our politicians; it gave rise to a massive military industrial complex that makes war a self-fulfilling prophecy and all the energy they expend on creating new weapons could in fact end up destroying us, along with many other injustices and tragedies.

Writers and philosophers from Emerson, Thoreau, Muir, and on down, have been decrying the negative aspects of industrialization practically since it began.

But society (us) chose to accept industrialization because people were able to see the immediate improvement in their circumstances and hoped for more progress for themselves and their families, even as they covered up the injustices to others.

I try not to judge, but when I must, I judge a person’s character by the integrity of his compromises. If a poor farmer decided to work in a paper mill so his children could go to school, I cannot fault him.

That is the insidiousness of the path we chose. Escaping monarchy and feudalism, our founding fathers chose democracy and capitalism, and almost instantly, there were men out to “game” the system. We did not have the tools to think about growing as a community, just as individuals.

Absent any better role models, 'wealth no matter the cost' became the overriding objective. Many businesses survived and prospered, expanded, proliferated, and merged with one another, and we taught the rest of the world how we had managed to attain inordinate individual wealth and comfort while downplaying the negatives, and keeping everybody happy with the palliative mantra that they too could reach for the brass ring if only they worked hard enough.

The Robber Barons are aptly named, because they brooked no obstacle in their rush to hegemony, and they set the standard. Unions and enlightened legislation stunted the trajectory briefly, only to have some industries supplanted by other, newer industries that also only lusted for market supremacy, and this time, had become experts at influencing government to fulfill their needs.

So now, five generations later, we find ourselves in a seriously damaged ecosystem, with an entrenched business class in a massive rush to consolidate power and wealth as petroleum starts its downward slide, with a deeply divided country that is too worried about where their next meal is going to come from to think long term.

Here’s what I think. All actions have a specific path which by their own nature, exclude other paths. While there is more than one way to reach a goal, once a person, a community, a state or a nation decide upon the path they are going to take, all other paths are sidelined. The opportunity to cross onto a new path is always there, but with each passing year, the inertia of the original path grows, and the distance between it and other paths becomes larger and harder to bridge.

So today we are faced with a military that has outposts in 160 countries and has millions of employees with families to support and suppliers that depend on them (not to mention the political relationships and responsibilities and dependencies we have built up with other less militarized countries); we have multinational corporations that pay the salaries of millions of people and act as rogue states (because they can), a political system that routinely undermines scientific data for short-term political gain and crony benefit; a widespread belief that social programs are left-wing socialist propaganda; economic policies crafted from ideological demagoguery that have proven in practice to be detrimental to the middle class and the poor, and to the world; a financial system that has surpassed any known limit of prudence and rationality (one hedge fund manager making $4 billion dollars in one year while 25 million lose their jobs: are you freaking kidding me?). And so on and so forth.

The truth is, the small to medium business sector cannot absorb any more employees, and in consolidating, multinationals rarely grow their employee rosters. From now on, most people that want good jobs are going to have to create them themselves: become entrepreneurs. And that is a long and risky process, and success is never assured.

So how do we turn this ship around? This society that for over a hundred years has been force-fed the notion that we must all become good employees, that we must all accept free market precepts, that the brass ring is there for the taking?

You do what you can, that’s what. And you never give up.

You’ve given your life to permaculture and networking. I’ve given my life to building a holistic approach to sustainable development (at the community, state, and national level from a business standpoint). We all do what we can with what we’ve been given.

As to your concern that environmentalists are simply making empire sustainable, I have a couple of thoughts. Globalization, as it is now practiced, will not survive Peak Oil. All this rush to “export, export, export” in the “free markets” will not survive Peak Oil.

In 100 years, the global business world will be smaller, and there will be many more small local businesses. But the demise of multinationals has its downside: What will we do with the millions of investors that rely on multinational dividends and pensions? What will the millions of employees that work for them, do? We know we must stop killing the Earth, but we don't have a clear picture of how to transition out of what we have become without some serious lifestyle and meta-economic compromises while facing much less comfort.

Business, like nature, has its own web of connections it has to feed. We were born just in time to ride the wave of cheap energy, and now it is our task to transition back into a local, organic, closed-loop economy as best we can. How do you tame a wild bull in a china shop, without breaking any china?

And that is the magnitude of the challenge. How do you wind down multinational corporations into more equitable, smaller pieces? How do you teach workers to survive in a world without really great salaries and much simpler, tougher lifestyles, but better community relations and support? How does every person become more self-reliant and self-sufficient, and at the same time, interdependent on his or her community for the things they cannot do by themselves? How can we manage this transition by educating everyone, getting everyone on the same page, as opposed to changing lifestyles by force, like we did with antebellum South and slavery?

How do you transition a military from a destructive to a proactive future? (it helps that the military realizes that they no longer just fight wars; it helps that they are driving alternative energy innovation; it helps that they are now charged with nation-building), but ultimately the military may have to realize that to best serve us they must become builders instead of destroyers. I don't know how that would work yet, but I know there are some smart guys on the ground working on it, and lots of people that are tired of seeing the young people of this country come back mangled and destroyed, sentenced to a lifetime of physical pain or incapacity.

Until the world gets back down to a population number that is closer to the earth's carrying capacity (around 1 billion people, down from the 8 billion we have now - and believe me, global warming is set to pummel us into THAT reality), until we get over this population explosion hump and this concentration of wealth hump, the transition is going to be a long and a very difficult one.

If we are lucky, we can all get on the same page and start saving the only ecosystem we have, and all other solutions will follow, and the movement will grow swiftly and organically. But that is what you'd call seeing things through pink-colored glasses, and you'd be right. We are up against fossil fuel interests shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars a year to delay or deny climate change, so that scenario has very little chance of happening.

Another possibility is we will grind this planet down to its meanest and least hospitable conditions, and either die off as a species or condemn a small population of future generations to a hunter-gatherer existence, where humanity can hopefully begin again, from scratch.

Or something in between can happen, keeping the best of what we know and reworking it into a regenerative economy. I do not know how all the crucial information we have learned will be passed down. If we lose power before we can transition to alternative energy, whole swathes of knowledge will be lost (so much of it is kept in electronic archives now). People will have to re-learn what they used to know, and what you do so well: how to grow their own food securely.

So I live my life as simply and ethically as I can, I work and study in ways that are going to help me reach my life goals, and I spend a considerable amount of time on the internet, disseminating news and information that I think is important, and having conversations like this one, with you.

Will I personally take down a multinational? No. Will I personally stop bad government, irrational financial institutions, and the military-industrial complex? No.

But by talking to others and framing the problem in broader terms, and choosing to act for long-term gain, I might create community, and from that community, good things can happen. It’s not that I am wearing pink-colored glasses, it’s that I refuse to wear dark ones. I choose to stay clear-eyed and positive and hope you will too. Because as long as I ave breat in my body, I refuse to believe that the darkness has won.

PS. Since I took some time to write my response, Logan and others have continued the conversation on Facebook, bringing up more good information which I have not included here.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Avoiding Toxic Catastrophes

Thinking about the Gulf Oil Spill and how to avoid something like this from happening again, I had a thought, and would like your opinion on it.

What if 'we the people' demanded that the fossil fuel corporations involved in catastrophic toxic spills not only paid all damages and liabilities and specific employees were open to criminal charges, but also that after the cleanup the corporation itself would automatically lose their privilege to operate as a corporation (no more licenses for anything, or at least a moratorium that lasted as long as the effects of the spill were still evident in the environment). [Notice how I say fossil fuel companies: I am including coal and their toxic coal ash rivers.]

In the event of a toxic catastrophe, the corporations would have to clean up and pay damages, some people would go to jail, the corp. would take whatever profit was left over and disburse it to their shareholders, sell whatever land, machinery and material they had at auction, and dissolve the corporation.

My thinking is that the employee who was so worried that they were three weeks off schedule might not have insisted on shoddy procedures if he knew that the corporations involved (BP, Transocean, and Halliburton in this case) would all lose their business (and he his job) on his one decision. Nor would have the platform employees allowed him to do so, or followed his commands, for fear of losing theirs. And the planners and designers would not have allowed the rig to operate without a true cleanup plan that took into consideration even unthinkable scenarios, as this one is, for fear of being liable.

The first thing that would happen is that fossil fuel corporations would start making each well independent, thereby downsizing in fear of one well talking the whole company down. The original company might begin to charge the new independent wells a royalty fee and higher financing costs, but eventually Big Oil would become a series of service companies fed by thousands of small well owners.

The second thing fossil fuel corporations would do is have much better plans made up in case of an accident.

The third thing that would happen is that the fossil fuel corporations would invest much more heavily in non-toxic forms of fuel, specifically, oil from algae, which can be done in a certified organic way, if 'we the people' legislate now, from the beginning, that it should be so.

Doesn't this follow the Precautionary Principle beautifully? I am not saying stop oil drilling/ coal mining NOW (even though that would be the best for the environment). I am just saying BE ACCOUNTABLE if you mine for toxic materials. 60% of our population live in cities that have no way to power their livelihoods other than with current toxic methods. I am saying that needs to change, and the people with the money are the people with the toxic fossil fuels. We have to give them a good hard push in the direction they must go in, for they will not do it of themselves.

So I would like to hear from all my friends, especially the lawyers, what they think about my idea.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Key Points from US Climate Action Report



Key Points from US Climate Action Report


The U.S. Climate Action Report is one of the most significant documents on U.S. policy initiatives and actions to address climate change. It also provides a review of federal efforts “…to increase scientific understanding of climate change, and provide foreign assistance to help other nations mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.”
This is the fifth climate action report, which will be submitted by the U.S. government to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat. Below are highlights from the draft report, which is currently open for public comment. The findings of this draft report demonstrate the serious commitment and efforts by the U.S. government to better understand and raise awareness of climate change – and to identify actions needed to help mitigate its impacts. This document highlights the strong scientific foundation on which policy decisions are being made.We share these findings to help make this information more accessible to media, decision-makers and the public.
1. “Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.” Chapter 6, pg. 87
“Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”
2. “Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.” Chapter 6, pg. 87
“The air and oceans are warming, mountain glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is shrinking, permafrost is thawing, the great land ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are showing signs of instability, and sea level is rising. The consequences for human well-being are already being felt: more heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires; tropical diseases reaching into the temperate zones; vast areas of forest destroyed by pest outbreaks linked to warming; alterations in patterns of rainfall on which agriculture depends; and coastal property increasingly at risk from the surging seas. All of these impacts are being experienced in the United States and globally” Chapter 8. pg. 121
3. “The impacts from climate change are very real and severe, and will impact our lives in countless ways.” Executive Summary pg. 7
“… the nation is increasingly vulnerable to current and projected [climate] changes.” Chapter 6, pg. 87
“…key vulnerabilities [associated with climate change], include the potential for water scarcity, unreliable energy production and transmission, damage to transportation infrastructure, public health problems, damage to ecosystems, and catastrophic harm to coasts and coastal communities.” Executive Summary pg. 7
4. “Climate change will stress water resources.” Chapter 6, pg. 87
“Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many U.S. regions, especially in the West.”
“Floods, water quality problems, and impacts on aquatic ecosystems and species are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions.”
5. “Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.” Chapter 6, pg. 87
“…increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production.”
6. “Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea level rise and storm surge.” Chapter 6, pg. 87
“Sea level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts… Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected.”
7. “Threats to human health will increase.” Chapter 6, pg. 87
“Health impacts of climate change include heat stress, waterborne and foodborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents.”
8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses. Chapter 6, pg. 87
“Climate change will combine with air and water pollution, population growth, over- use of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone.”
9. “Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems.” Chapter 6, pg. 88
“With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected.”
10. “Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today.” Chapter 6, pg. 88
“The latest and best scientific information forms the bedrock on which effective policy to combat and cope with climate change must be built.” Chapter 8, pg. 121
“It is critical that climate scientists and climate science agencies play a more active role in the dissemination of their findings. The public and students at all levels—in both formal and informal learning settings—must have access to climate data in ways that foster climate literacy and informed decision making.” Chapter 9 pg. 140
“…the nation has a considerable way to go in comprehending and realizing the implications of climate change.” Chapter 9, pg. 141
11. “Overall, total U.S. emissions rose by 17 percent from 1990 through 2007.” pg. 5
“…CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has accounted for approximately 79 percent of global warming potential-weighted emissions since 1990.”