Oh WELS

My recent affiliation with a conservative wing of the Lutheran denomination called the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod was a hangover from my earlier tendencies toward charismatism, which eventually landed me and my young family in a cult led by one Rev. Beatrice R. Hicks. I left the cult because it disappointed in innumerable ways, but when I moved with my second wife and family to our current locale in Maryland, this WELS Lutheran church was handily only a few miles away. We joined and were functionaries through many years. Now, it's time to grow up some more.

I have to draw a line on the matter of creation and the WELS' literal interpretation of the Genesis story. In reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, I've come to understand the implications of allowing oneself to ignore the question of evolution and prehistoric man. I've also read an irrefutable volume by David Cunningham on the geological evidence for an ancient Earth called, The Rocks Don't Lie. I've always figured evolution and geologic aging to be true, but suspended judgement so as to not rock the boat. I avoided the issues because they seemed irrelevant.

These issues are important enough that I must walk away from WELS. Quinn surmises that the whole mess that the world is in today is a result of the growth of agro-industrialism. Yet, the Genesis story, taken at face value, would posit that there was never any other way of dwelling on the earth (except for the first family before their fall). Only when you factor in the millions of years prior to the rise of agrarianism does it become clear that agro-industrialism was a relatively recent curse from which so many of today's problems were spawned.

For a while, I thought I could hang around and try to convince others and possibly even the pastor of my former congregation to open up their minds to the evidence of science, but after reading an article in the church's rag, Forward in Christ, by some numb-nuts Ph.D. (in "creation science", I'll guess) spouting biblical literacy as the only standard, I realized any efforts to change this church would be hopeless. Time for me to let go, leaving them to amble toward extinction utterly blind to the disservice they do to the planet.

Whatever is next in my religious journey may be presaged by the evening assembly we attended last week at the National City Christian Church in Washington, D.C. Reclaiming Jesus was the theme. The service and subsequent demonstration in front of the White House gave us a chance to listen to other sects' take on current issues. The formal declaration, which I mainly support, is more in tune with reality than the deliberate ignorance of fundamentalist sects like WELS.

Going Tropical

I've got rain on the brain. After listening to a local presentation last week on "Gardening in a Changing Climate," the monsoon arrived on cue. We have received 15" of rain in the past week. Normal is 4" for the entire month. More intense storms are an expected consequence of global warming and increased rainfall in the Mid-Atlantic states is the general outlook from climate models.

Time to brush up my knowledge forest gardening, but more particularly agroforestry (or its more ecological cousin, climate eco-forestry). Trees need a lot of water and, with our increasing rainfall, growing trees should be easier here. Ironically, my understanding of sustainable forestry leads me to conclude that I have too many trees growing on most of my property. That is, they, like people, over-propagate when left unattended, making life more difficult for all of them. Culling selected trees to grow mushrooms and make biochar will open up space for many of the more desirable trees and for planting new species.

The species added could be selected for their usefulness as food, lumber, fuel, or in making biochar and even bio-oils. All of these have potential to draw down atmospheric CO2. For example, according to a 2014 study, building with wood could reduce annual global emissions of carbon dioxide by 14 to 31 percent. Another, more recent, study estimates that drawdown to the 1.5 ⁰C increase stated as the Paris agreement goal is completely within the capacity of a biocarbon-producing world if everyone does their part with the land under their care. According to Project Drawdown, an acre of multistrata agroforestry can achieve rates of carbon sequestration that are comparable to those of afforestation (ranked 15th by Drawdown ) and forest restoration—2.8 tons per acre per year, on average. This fits my situation well, since multistrata systems are well suited to steep slopes.

My choice for a biocarbon crop might be bamboo. According to Albert Bates, bamboo is the second fastest growing plant on Earth, after microalgae. It will double its biomass every year if conditions are right. Running varieties can expand as far out from their base in one year as they are tall, and do it again the next year, and the next. Some edible shoot running types that would be good in zone 7b are the 10' Chishima-zasa (Sasa kurilensis) and the 30' Sweetshoot Bamboo (Phyllostachys dulcis).  They grow in full sun or partial shade and make great barriers - just the thing to avoid panic attacks by neighbors over distant sightings of my flame cap kiln or TLUD oven in operation.

Strategic Corporals

As societies devolve into tribes, "think globally - act locally" will make a comeback (at least the principle, if not the phrase). In social terms, it could be revised to "think universally, act locally". "Global" has political and geographic connotations, whereas "universal" is the word used, for example, in the U.N.'s declaration that describes the rights of every human. We must think both globally and universally, but action always remains local.

"Local" pertains to one's domain, which may be large or small, but is limited by how familiar one is with its many internal relationships and issues. Intimate familiarity with these is essential to applying one's global/universal perspective, otherwise important elements may be overlooked or incorrectly assumed, leading to negative outcomes. Likewise, neglecting to gain a global/universal perspective can lead to counterproductive results due to unreckoned forces outside one's local domain.

Acting locally is normally all one can do. To act globally or at any other level outside one's domain is to violate the sovereignty of others. There are usually repercussions. Acting non-locally also requires resources sufficient to conduct expeditions, expend energy, and/or transmit information outside one's borders. The logistics are often too costly to justify anything but local action.

Thinking globally does not require acting globally. Disaster aid outside one's borders will become rare as global economic growth stalls and climate change claims more and more victims. Alleviating the burden of others in their distress is wonderful, but the logistics tails will be too long for most to contribute, and tribes contiguous to afflicted areas may have cause for letting their neighbors suffer.

Thinking globally and acting locally entails having a grasp of a global problem, and then acting within one's domain to address the problem as if the local solution was going to make the difference in the global problem. This approach is particularly relevant to environmental problems since every location has unique geographical characteristics that demand tailored solutions. Similarly, each locale has unique political and cultural characteristics that necessitate tailored corrective actions in the social sphere.

Conventional thinking says that global problems must be solved by international agreement and cooperation. The subtle shift of the Think Globally - Act Locally approach is that no agreement is necessary, though understanding of common predicaments is. The dissolution of national governments and international authority that appears to be likely in the next few years will leave their fractured replacements to operate on the faith of this approach. A new world order could emerge that no longer tolerates extreme imbalances, but places local sovereignty above imperial ambitions.

A Developer's Failure to Envelope

From the perspective of a Watershed Steward, developers are inherently the enemy. After all, the Watershed Steward begins an assessment of a site or neighborhood with an eye toward compensating for all the impervious surfaces laid upon the landscape by developers and road builders. Regulations are in place to mitigate soil disturbance and construction of impervious surfaces, but you get what you inspect, not what you "expect." Even after the regulators are done inspecting, there are always runoff and drainage problems that need additional attention by owners or local officials.

The problems are not always easy to spot, even by inspectors. So it was with the new development near our community that sends all its runoff into Lake Lariat. When the Chairman of the Lakes Preservation Committee and I hooked up last winter to see if this project was taking all the necessary measures to prevent runoff from their site, everything looked tidy until we reached the furthest piece of acreage. In a slushy drizzle, I nearly lost one of my knee high rubber boots in the exposed mud making my way out to have a look at the most remote drainage outlet. There, it turned out, a breach of the multi-layer sediment controls had occurred, allowing sedimented runoff to wash out into the nearby stream, and from there, into the lake. (This was also the day that my iPhone 4 bought the farm from being exposed to a pocketful of water in my newly purchased, quickly torn rainsuit, leaving me - to this day- without my own cell phone). No photos were taken of the breach, and I was the only one to witness it.

Notifications were made. The President of the company responsible, Marrick Homes, made visits and said things were corrected. Another heavy precipitation event occurred and the sediment once again poured into the stream leading to the lake. The state inspector confirmed that violations had occurred and reported it. When the Marrick President paid a visit to our lake preservation committee, he owned up to responsibility for the problems. Easy for him to say. No fines had been imposed, in spite of the fact that Marrick's contractor on site failed to self-inspect their controls, as required, and report breaches.

The sad thing is that Marrick has a reputation of being good at the environmental aspects of their trade. You will still need to convince me of that, but if other developers/builders are so negligent, I think the Watershed Stewards' characterization of them as "the enemy" is on target.

A Necessary Disruption

The tariffs on steel and aluminum just enacted by Trump as a protectionist move, are only the first step in what could be a helpful set of new trade restrictions on carbon-intensive products. They are also the first step in what could become the re-invigoration (however short-lived) of the U.S. manufacturing sector. It may not take a deliberate strategy to limit imports for these two lines of dominos to fall. Trade wars sparked by the steel tariffs leading to reciprocal tariffs in a tit-for-tat exchange could be just what we need to end America's global overreach and reduce the carbon footprint of our consumption.

All the backlash at home over the tariffs is not so much over the added cost of consumer products in the U.S., but over the risk that imposing tariffs puts on economic growth should it spark trade wars. (A trade war with China is driven more by moves soon coming out of the U.S. investigation into that country's intellectual property violations.) There would ensue recessions in the U.S., Europe, China, and Japan. As long as shooting wars are avoided, this, too, would be helpful. We need to cease our exploitation of planet Earth. A zero growth economy would be more sustainable than what we have, but considerable diminishment is needed first, in order to return us from our current overshot condition.

If military conflicts arise out of Trump's protectionist moves, we have it coming to us, the way we forced ourselves on countries like Japan when they were contentedly isolated until Admiral Perry showed up. Yet the rise of globalism could now be running in reverse. The tide may have turned, making isolationism the new ideal. Brexit was the start. Ultimately, not only could nativism predominate, but localism. Such an arrangement would be more resilient, if less intermittently harmonious, than that of the past couple of centuries. This is precisely what we need in order for human inhabitants to abide the climate catastrophes approaching.

Buying Time

When you hear the name, "Doomsday Clock," of the gauge used by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to warn that the end is nigh, it leads you to think that these scientists are doomers. Scientists are actually some of the most optimistic people. The Scientists are using the clock to show how modern civilization is flirting with widespread disaster and permanent collapse. The latest developments put our risk as high as it has ever been.

What the doomsday clock is purporting to show is that we are not doomed (yet). Were the clock to ever reach midnight, we would be. The clock currently tells us that we are nearing the brink, but climate change can still be reversed in time and  nations can still control the nuclear genie. James Anderson, a professor of atmospheric chemistry at Harvard who earned his stripes by pointing out how chlorofluorocarbons were depleting the ozone layer, tells us that there is much less time than we would like to believe.

According to Anderson, the Arctic ice cap is on pace to melt entirely by 2023. When that goes, the permafrost will melt, a tipping point which is not included in IPCC models. As the Greenland ice sheet slides into the ocean, sea level rises 23 feet. Anderson maintains that stopping greenhouse gas emissions is not by itself enough to prevent these near-term changes to Earth's systems. He calls for an all out effort to direct resources toward drawing down atmospheric carbon with some added geoengineering in the form of deflecting sunlight from the poles.

Let governments and institutions do what they will. I doubt they will transform industry as quickly as Professor Anderson says is needed. For those of my generation who are retired, who are not involved in the major muscle movements to end fossil fuel use and draw down carbon, I encourage you to learn how to make and use biochar. It's catching fire around the world and may be one thing that buys the world more time to realize its predicament and make decisions that will allow humankind to continue to dwell upon the earth.

Sounding Off in Desperation

Let's give this another go. Editing the International Biochar Initiative Newsletter, including a monthly summary of new research, has edged blogging out of my schedule of late, but I plan to reapply myself to posting regularly, becoming a writer again, rather than just an editor.

With a new title more descriptive of this blog's emergent zeitgeist, a new layout, and increased realization of how the world works, I plan to continue opining on developments from the perspective of my own (mostly potential) involvement. To be more specific about my involvement, of the 231 posts I have written, I can claim only one (dealing with my small scale biochar production) to be substantially realized in practice. Sixty-six posts deal with matters that I have not attended to in the least. The other 164 posts have received some attention, but still require much more.

A variation of Murphy's Law that I have subscribed to most of my life is that if anything can go wrong, it will, but the inevitability of such an occurrence diminishes significantly if you do something to prevent it. Even awareness of problems and needed improvements counts to some degree - taking the issues out of the unknown-unknown category. So I have 66 known-unknowns and 165 known-somewhat knowns now that still could use additional action. Those that I will concentrate on personally will come from the 66 in which I am most remiss.

Then there are the unknown-unknowns. These will hopefully be discovered in time as this blog continues meandering, albeit more desperately, in search of giving us a better chance.