This word came to me one day out of the blue. It seemed like a good way to express the complexity of environmental stewardship, regulatory compliance, and pursuing business interests as being goals or opposing factions that are constantly at odds with each other. Most people don't have environmental careers, so they don't know about this problem, but there are at least these three (and probably more) competing interests involved with most environmental controversies. The common perception is that there are just two competing forces, those of industry and those of the environmental movement.
If this were actually the case, it would be better because both sides, through rational debate and science, would have eventually been able to work through many of their differences. There would have been more cooperation, and much more progress would have been made on both fronts. However, the reality is, as with many controversies, that there's just too much money to be made by the "diversity" that the troublemakers create.
So my new word "envirosity" consists of two separate words (environment and diversity) because of the diverse points of view involved in most environmental issues. How much better it would be if the word to describe the situation was "environergy" (environment and synergy), and maybe we can make that happen a little bit more by exposing some of the BS and exchanging real solutions to complex problems through this venue, in a simple and entertaining way.
So "envirosity" is mostly for environmental consultants, state and federal regulators, environmental attorneys, environmental managers and other professionals who are on the front lines of solving environmental problems. It also serves the purpose of letting off a little steam and frustration. I would invite activists to this forum too, but I have to be very honest, I haven't met too many true environmental "activists." My environmental science professor in college, Dr. Paul Yambert, was as close to being a real environmental activist as I've met.
Paul was a weird duck, he used to walk around parking lots in Murray, Ky for hours collecting pennies. One time I made the mistake of saying howdy to him while he was deep in thought collecting pennies, and I thought he was going to punch me in the nose! I don't know what that was all about, but he was 85 years old and strong as an ox. He probably would have given me a run for my money. Maybe he would have stolen my pennies after he knocked me out, I don't know! Luckily, I backed up.
He was also into riding his bike to work every day so as not to create air pollution. As a young man I was impressed by his individuality, eccentricity, courage and orneriness. He had built his own sustainable solar home by himself. He knew a lot about thermodynamics, mechanics, electricity and a lot of other subjects. He'd done a whole lot of really cool environmental things, and had a lot of interesting stories. All in all, he was a great professor and I learned a lot.
I've also encountered parasitic attorneys and their minions who claim to be activists, and are anything but. Since I am interested in solving problems, I am diametrically opposed to people who make a career out of creating confusion and chaos, and many so called "activists" fall into this camp. This is evidenced by many frivolous complaints and lawsuits which are filed by the Sierra Club and other groups. In my opinion, these bums do nothing to help the environmental movement and everything to discredit it. They generate a lot of ill gotten gain for themselves at the expense of the movement.
I'll tell you a little bit about my career and where it has taken me. I wasn't ready for college right out of high school, I was tired of schoolwork back then. I thought it would be more fun to join the Navy, so I enlisted in the Navy for a few years. After that, I went into college on the G.I. Bill. For a major and a career, I decided on Environmental Engineering Technology because it seemed to have the right amount of hands on work, legal and technical analysis (I like reading and solving problems). The philosophy behind it also sounded good to me at the time. I wanted to do something I was capable of to make a positive difference in the world. I think most of us are inclined toward that, especially when we are young. We learned about the "environmental movement," environmental engineering/technology and the evolution of all the environmental rules.
When you are young and in college you tend to believe what they tell you, although I had been an enlisted man in the Navy for 6 years prior to college, so I was a little more "salty" than the typical college student. Regardless, it all sounded good. It sounded "do-able." I still think it's "do-able," but I'm convinced the movement has been hijacked and needs to be reclaimed. The slogan "Think globally, act locally" sounded a lot like it would fit into my personal motto which goes something like "Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you." or "Be part of the solution, not part of the problem." It sounded really good to me until I started to think about it.
By the way if you search for that saying on the internet you end up finding a very uninteresting article on Wikipedia about where the idea came from, who first coined the term, etc.
I think "Think globally, act locally" is a schlock, and I'll tell you why. How in the world is a human being, or even a large group of humans, going to be able to "think globally?" The failure to recognize the limitations of human beings is the same failure of every human philosophy that believes that human beings are the solution to the world's problems. Do human beings have some power to change their environment? Sure they do, but they don't have God-like powers to "think globally" and the people who believe they do are under the same mass delusion that a lot of people are falling for these days.
That above article was more about mind control techniques, but I think we'd be less susceptible to brainwashing if we would take a more intellectually honest approach to life and try to exercise common sense instead of pretending we are smart for believing what they tell us to. I honestly think we could solve more problems more quickly if we would just rid ourselves of that recurring mass delusion that mankind can solve all the world's problems by only following some theory written by the "intellectual-yet-idiotic" class, which supposedly will create a utopia here on earth. It ain't happening!
Humans are good at coming together as a team and solving specific problems like "how do we go to the moon." They are miserable at solving vague problems like "how to we assess and mitigate climate change." This is why you see such a confusing mess of regulations which cause companies to have to hire consultants and lawyers in order to figure out what to do and how to do it. Anyway, the global warming crap is really all about controlling the peasants' access to electricity and especially the internet, but more about that in later articles.
There is the alchoholic's (or serenity) prayer that that asks:
"O God, give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed, The courage to change what can be changed, and the wisdom to know the one from the other."
If we could only come to a consensus on what exactly the real environmental problems are, separate them from the mind control and social engineering agenda, and then decide whether we can change them or not, then we could solve some of them. But we won't solve all of them, and this probably won't happen in our lifetime unless people wake up from their collective brainwashing.
There are laws of nature and reality that aren't going to be violated, no matter what collective delusions we come up with. Maybe if the world went without electricity and technology for a year, those of us who would be left alive might have a better understanding of the immutability of natural laws. I guarantee there would be more intellectual honesty, hard times tend to change people in that way. This may be one unintended consequence of the global economic collapse that the elite seem to be pushing for.
There is always a "tension" between reality and the way we would like the universe to be, or if you prefer, the way it should operate in theory. This is not the fault of the universe, it's the fault of human beings who are inherently not satisfied with the way things are. This dissatisfaction can be good, because it is what motivates us to move beyond expectations and reach for the stars, but then some of this angst is also a byproduct of our very limited understanding of "things."
Some of those "things" are actual things, and some are definitions, but why the dichotomy? I believe there are artificial constructs that people accept, based on words only, that don't really jibe with reality. Some people live most of their lives in these artificial constructs, and some people live most of their lives in reality. Most people live somewhere in between, and all people live with elements of both.
For example, many "activists" live mostly in an artificial "construct world." Mechanics and construction workers (people who do actual work) live mostly in "reality world." Engineers, attorneys, consultants and business owners live their lives in somewhere in between, trying to bridge the gaps if they have good intentions, causing more problems if they don't. Mostly poor, but a few rich, live in "reality world." Mostly rich, but a few poor, live in "construct world."
People who live in "construct world" usually need someone to take care of them unless they have one foot in reality. Most don't know how to build things or fix things, so they depend on other people. Living in construct world can be expensive, that's why many of them are consumed with making money.
If they believe money is evil, then they find other ways to compel people to take care of them. Some become "social justice" warriors. Some of them go off of the deep end and require full time care. It's advisable for these people to step back every once in a while and consider reality so they don't go off the deep end.
In order for us to have effective environmental regulation we need effective agencies on the state and federal level. In order to have these, we have to befriend our fellow humans living in "la-la land" who are "activists" and encourage them to work with the agencies and even with industry so we can all have systems in place that actually work. For example, the artificial legal construct that has built up around the problem of unavoidable "excess emissions," which is discussed in more detail below. In general, many environmental issues have developed a malignancy around them, thanks to our unqualified "activists," and a court system that guarantees everyone their day in court. Those malignancies take the form of regulatory complexity which makes rules difficult or impossible to interpret and enforce, and ironically, they undermine the environmental movement because they make rules unreasonable. These malignancies must be excised and shown to their victims before further damage is done.
They are teaching all this environmental stuff starting in grade school, I have school age kids so I see it every day. Some of it is good, but most of it is just propaganda. I love idealistic youngsters, I used to be one myself, but I grew up in a time when critical thinking skills were taught in the schools, plus there wasn't so much cognitive dissonance and brainwashing going on. Kids, don't pretend to be idealistic if you can't step back and critically think about the things you believe. If you can't do this, you are nothing but a stooge.
I'll give you a real life example of this "tension" in the environmental movement, this "envirosity." Let's start with a brief history of Maintenance Startup and Shutdown (MSS) air emission regulation policies. I used to be a maintenance man (MM2) in the Navy, using common sense to solve problems, or not getting to hit my rack (go to bed) until I did. I know what it's like to be a maintenance man or equipment operator, so this one is near and dear to my heart.
September 28, 1982, Kathleen Bennett, former assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Reagan, wrote a policy memo to address the problem of many State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the Clean Air Act (CAA) being written with "broad and loosely-defined provisions to control excess emissions." She referred to an excess emissions policy that had been adopted in 1978, which to consider all excess emissions to be considered violations of the applicable standard. There were to be no "exemptions."
This is the starting point for the artificial construct which grew up around how to deal with excess emissions that couldn't be avoided. To make such a draconian statement in the very beginning requires some subsequent finagling so that the "doers" can keep doing and not be regulated out of existence. The issue that we wrestle with to this very day is the question of how these "violators" should be punished (or whether they should be punished at all).
As these "envirosity" articles build upon each other, they may become increasingly complex, but the end goal is simplify and clarify everyone's understanding about real life environmental dilemmas, such as Maintenance, Startup and Shutdown (MSS) policies, and how they may apply to the workers, your business and society as a whole. The goal is for this series of articles, this "envirosity," is to be a detailed analysis for professionals, going to the root of problems, which will be also be entertaining and engaging enough to hold the attention of non-environmental folks. Maybe it will teach them a thing or two about what's really going on in our field. It's amazing how many misconceptions non-environmental folks have about what we do!
In the next "envirosity" blog, I'll continue unfolding this "MSS" drama where I left off and discuss a later memorandum (the 1999 memo by Herman and Perciasepe), the petition to the EPA by the Sierra Club dated June 30, 2011 to "Find Inadequate and Correct Several State Implementation Plans under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act Due to Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction, and/or Maintenance Provisions," recent court cases, and the current political climate.
This photo is an icon of "St. George" the dragon slayer. The obvious analogy (for me) is that this problem of excessive and unreasonable regulations isn't entirely the fault of industry, our regulatory agencies, or even the "activists." They are more like the village officials (or village idiots) in the story who keep throwing their virgin daughters (analogous of resources, time and even our childrens' future) at the beast.
I think it is mostly the fault of that ancient "dragon" of old (let's just blame it on him, he's a convenient scapegoat). That dragon (some would call it a swamp creature) represents, to me, the hidden legal liabilities hiding beneath the surface. Throughout my career as a consultant I have intended to do my small part to bring the beast to the surface (a piece at a time if necessary) and kill that sucker.
I hope you all enjoyed reading this, any suggestions for making the blog more interesting and engaging are appreciated, as I am looking for ways to improve.