Upon the enthusiastic recommendation of a friend, I recently began reading the personal recollections of one Peter Hathaway Capstick, a professional hunter who seems to have stepped out of the 1880s.  His book Death in the Long Grass has at once inflamed my passions and shamed me for my lack of manly pursuits.  It is a sobering look at the high mortality rate suffered by natives and hunters alike on the African continent. 

While at first one might think that Capstick would wax poetic about the diminishing game and the sheer horror of the rare animal attack, he does neither.  In fact, he shatters the illusions of the Animal Planet types with breathtaking, scotch-soaked contempt.  Not only does he attest to the plentiful amount of dangerous game, he also details several different animals and their sometimes homicidal urges. 
His writing is witty, straightforward and rich in imagery.  He relates the gore-soaked attacks of lions on hapless victims, and decries the myth that only old and feeble beasts stalk man.  Did you know that 90% of the man-eating lions which were killed were reported to be in good or fair condition?  Neither did I.  Disney certainly screwed me on that one.
Not only does Capstick provide evidence that hunting in Africa is still as dangerous for the man as for the animal, he also details how it is the hunters themselves who provide the most care for the game.  Anyone who lives in a rural community knows that it is the deer-hunters who prevent starvation and disease amongst their prey by thinning the herd.  Capstick's account, while admittedly dated from the 1970s, lays out the fact that it is the efforts of hunters which contribute the most towards protection of wildlife. 

I have yet to complete the book, but am eagerly awaiting the chapter on the hippo. 

And W, I'm pretty sure we would both be killed if we tried any of this.

It occurs to me that the debate over global warming and climate change breaks down along fairly ideological lines.  Apart from the obvious conservative-liberal split, I have come to think of people as having one of the following attitudes as it pertains to the environment, planet, and relevant issues:

• Custodial - meaning that the primary role of humans in the environment should be as caretakers and guardians of endangered animals, plants, ecosystems, and habitats.  These people are generally alarmed and saddened when a species goes extinct, or there is a prospect of gradual change in our climate.  Or when they seize upon so-called evidence that change in the climate has already occurred.  They may be whiny and obnoxious, but without their efforts we would not have places like our national parks.
  
• Development - meaning that the planet and its resources lay open to our use, and that we should make the most of that fact.  Cut down forests and build houses for people.  Raise animals and slaughter them for food.  Engage in mining operations and gather materials to develop technologies that make human life easier, better, or more productive.  These people are generally portrayed as villains on the show Captain Planet.  They may draw too deep from the well at times, going from legitimate use to exploitation.  But the attitude is necessary to make the sort of progress we've seen in the last century.

Contrast the two.  On the one hand you have Custodians who might put everything in test tubes and never let another Amazonian parasite go extinct, or halt forestry efforts to save owls who are displaced anyway when their owl-homes burn due to overgrowth.  Then you have Developers who might turn our planet into one of those weird sci-fi factory worlds or who would build condos on Indian burial grounds or something.
Both perspectives have their legitimate points.  My sympathies lie mostly with the Developers.  They have a much tougher time pleading their case due to its pragmatic nature.  Custodians only have to flash a picture of a panda cub or get a celebrity to chain themselves to a tree to convince people to support them.
What I feel we're seeing now is a clash between those who are very alarmed at the changes in our planet, and those who are rather laconic about the whole thing.  The "alarmists" feel a sense of righteous indignation at anyone who refuses to jump on the wagon.  These people cry out that we have to save the planet now, now, now!  They lack perspective.  Meanwhile, the folks who aren't so upset about it bristle at the notion that they are somehow equivalent to Holocaust-deniers.  They dismiss the arguments of the scientific community because if they disagree they are lumped in with gentleman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Is there a middle ground?  I think so.  We can be stewards of the environment without trying to put it into stasis.  We can adapt to changes in the environment, develop resources and maintain our standard of living while at the same time take good care of what we have.

Global climate change is certainly a challenging issue for future generations and for us today.  But I maintain that we are smart enough to confront it without dramatizing it, without panicking, and without punishing ourselves in a misguided attempt to "save" the planet.  It's all a matter of perspective.

Silent Alarmism
A centennial we could do without.

By Iain Murray

Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, the 1962 book that launched the modern environmental movement, was born a century ago this week, and it is no wonder that green activists are celebrating her legacy. She practically invented the environmental alarmist strategy that has been so successful in pushing a radical environmental agenda. (I won’t go into Carson’s contribution to the ongoing malaria epidemic in many poor countries owing to her demonization of DDT; for more on that, see here, here, and here.) Her paradigm has been disastrous for rational political discourse. It is a template for bypassing debate and ignoring consequences. Here’s how it works

 First, identify your cause and the laws you want to see enacted. In the environmentalist’s blinkered view of the world, everything is connected linearly, not in the multifaceted manner of the real world. Therefore, in the greens’ view, the removal of a problem will not cause other, unforeseen, problems. For Carson, the problem was the impact of pesticides on bird life; the elimination of pesticides would solve that problem. No other considerations — such as the impact DDT restrictions had on malaria control — could be allowed to come into play. A modern example of this idea is the notion that fossil fuels can be removed from the energy supply to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions without adverse consequences.

Second, create an apocalyptic scenario. The whole point of Carson’s Silent Spring, embodied in the title, was to paint a picture of a world without avian life — that is, a world without birdsong. This simple, evocative message horrified readers, shocking them on a visceral level. Environmentalist-stoked fears about “Frankenfoods” resulting from out-of-control biotechnology follow this model.

Third, claim there’s a threat to children. For those unmoved by fears of a birdless world, this should suffice. Carson said in her book that, “A quarter century ago, cancer in children was considered a medical rarity. Today, more American school children die of cancer than from any other disease.” Her statistics were misleading — the actual rate of cancer among children is unchanged since the 1900s, but cancer’s incidence relative to other diseases has increased as medical technology has vanquished many of those other diseases

Fourth, don the mantle of science and dismiss any evidence that contradicts your position. Carson used statistics and scientific data to provide a seemingly empirical basis for her alarmist claims. The spin continued even when the EPA’s own scientists concluded that, “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. . . . DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man. . . . The use of DDT under the regulations involved here [does] not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.” Yet evidence doesn’t matter; the authority of claiming to represent science “proves” that action is needed. Even hotly disputed scientific claims, such as those concerning the effects of endocrine disruptors (substances that can disrupt the production of certain human hormones) on human health, can provide a seemingly invincible case when asserted in the right way.

Fifth, use the previous three steps to create a clamor that rules out rational debate. With a potential catastrophe, a threat to the innocent, and a ream of supposedly empirical data on your side, you have a recipe for urgent action — though one based on emotion and uncritical acceptance of assertion. Public policy is not (nor should it be) a rational process — emotion and acceptance of authority often drive it — so in recognition of that, modern democracies have created checks and balances. Yet, as the case of DDT shows, the alarmist model can often overcome these checks. If you can also destroy the credibility of your political opponents through ad hominem attacks, so much the better.

Finally, once your measures have been adopted, defend them ruthlessly. The alarmist model relies on its successes being unassailable. Critical examination threatens to reveal that measures advanced by alarmists may be unwarranted, ineffective and, in many cases, positively harmful. Once one such measure is repealed, people may think twice about passing more like it.

The world may finally be waking up to the unintended consequences of restrictions on pesticide use — though not in time to prevent millions of unnecessary deaths. The World Health Organization has called on environmentalists “to help save African babies as you are helping to save the environment” and endorsed increased use of DDT to fight malaria. Now people need to wake up to the harm caused to the political process by Rachel Carson’s other legacy, the paradigm of alarmism.

— Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

More proof that if you just look hard enough, you'll find someone much smarter than you who has articulated your thoughts in such a way that you only need point and grunt.  I was taught about Rachel Carson in elementary school, and she was portrayed as a hero in my textbook.  All the helpless birdies she saved!  Not a mention of the people dying from malaria though...Probably too much for a 2nd grader.
So, I am brought back to my main area of concern when it comes to environmental alarmism:  how will making radical changes impact our quality of life, and what is the long view?  In 100 years, will this whole global warming mess be viewed sort of like Y2K?  Stylish panicking.

Anyway, enjoy the article.  Before we start, I'm not claiming that liberals have a monopoly on alarmism.  Just discussing environmentalists.

Get Rich Slowly

How to Improve Your Fuel Economy: 23 Top Tips for Better Gas Mileage

Posted: 30 May 2007 07:00 AM CDT

Fuel prices have been hovering at record levels around the United States for the past few weeks. Now is a good time to review of the best ways to improve your gas mileage and save money at the tank. I scoured dozens of web sites and read hundreds of tips — these are the best of the bunch.

>> Save Money With Your Vehicle <<

Purchase a fuel-efficient car
The best way to save money on gas is to drive a fuel-efficient car. It’s probably impractical to replace your current car for something that costs less to run, but if you’re in the market for a new vehicle, keep fuel economy in mind. Consumer Reports has several lists of fuel-efficient vehicles:

• A list of the most fuel-efficient cars they’ve tested (CR loves the Toyota Prius)
• A list of fuel-efficient SUVs
• A list of cars that combine fuel efficiency and performance

This calculator from fueleconomy.gov allows you to compare the cost difference between two vehicles based on their MPG.

Keep your vehicle well maintained
A car in poor running condition will use more gas than one that has been tuned up. According to this checklist at Advance Auto Parts, a dirty air filter can reduce gas mileage up to 20%. They also note that spark plugs in poor condition can reduce gas mileage up to 12%.

Be wary of gas-saving products
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission warns that most gas-saving products are bogus: “Be wary of any gas-saving claims for automotive devices or oil and gas additives. Even for the few gas-saving products that have been found to work, the savings have been small.” Consumer Reports says, “Don’t waste your money.”

Keep tires properly inflated
Underinflated tires aren’t just dangerous — they devour fuel economy by as much as 25%! (I know this from experience — whenever I notice a drop in MPG, my tires are usually low.) Overinflated tires aren’t efficient, either. Also keep your tires balanced and in alignment.

>> Save Money by Thinking Ahead <<

Find the best prices
Use the web to research the lowest prices in your neighborhood. For example, GasBuddy.com is “a network of more than 179+ gas price information web sites that helps you find low gasoline prices.”

Buy gas from a wholesale club
Some Costco or Sam’s Club stores offer their members discounts of up to ten cents per gallon on fuel. Our local Safeway store gives us a three-cent discount on gas after we spend a certain amount on groceries. (Though we’d have to drive 25 miles to find a place to use it!)

Alter your commute time
If possible, schedule your trips and errands for times when traffic is lighter. In an insanely detailed article, Omninerd found that commute times varied widely depending on the time the author left the house. If your company allows it, try coming in earlier or later in order to avoid rush hour.

Optimize your travel
Consolidate trips: If you know you have to buy groceries, take your clothes to the dry cleaner at the same time, and then drop little Johnny at soccer practice. Combine multiple trips into one.

Lighten your load
Carry only the bare neccessities — don’t haul things in your trunk. “For every extra 250 pounds your engine hauls, the car loses about one mile per gallon in fuel economy.” [via Bankrate]

Reduce drag
About half of your vehicle’s energy is expended overcoming air resistance. (The other half is expended in acceleration.) Reduce your car’s workload — remove anything that might cause drag: luggage racks, bike racks, ski racks, etc,

>> Save Money at the Pump <<

Buy gas on Wednesdays
“Gas prices are statistically the cheapest on Wednesdays, but this is only true over a large number of days. It won’t be true every week.” Gas prices often jump before holidays, too. [via WikiHow]

Don’t go out of your way to save a few pennies on gas
If it’s convenient to shop at a cheaper place, do so. If not, don’t. On a ten-gallon fill-up, saving five cents a gallon only nets you fifty cents. My car costs about 36 cents per mile to operate. It doesn’t make sense for me to go a mile out of my way to find cheaper gas.

Buy gas during the coolest times of the day
“During these times gasoline is densest. Keep in mind - gas pumps measure volumes of gasoline, not densities of fuel concentration. You are charged according to ‘volume of measurement’.” [via HowToAdvice.com]

photo by gbleakmore

Use the right octane level for your car
Using premium gasoline in an engine designed to run on regular doesn’t improve performance. Even some vehicles that call for higher octane fuels can run on regular unleaded, though with some loss of performance. (Check your owner’s manual.) You can save money by using the lowest octane rated gasoline that your car will tolerate.

Don’t top off your tank
Trust the auto-shutoff. Overfilling can lead to wasted gas.

Be sure your gas cap is tight
“Improperly seated gas caps allow 147 million gallons of fuel to vaporize every year in the U.S.” [via Advance Auto Parts]

Use a gas credit card
I don’t like credit cards, but a gas station credit card can be a good way to save a few cents per gallon. Just be sure to pay off your balance at the end of the month!

>> The Nut Behind the Wheel <<

Drive at a constant moderate speed
Edmunds.com found that the best way to improve fuel efficiency was to accelerate slowly and to brake over a longer distance. Aside from purchasing a new vehicle, this is the single most effective step you can take to reduce your costs. According to fueleconomy.gov: “As a rule of thumb, you can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas.”

Use cruise control
If you’re like me, your driving speed tends to fluctuate. Cruise control takes the human element out of the equation, and keeps driving speeds steady. It’s the easy way to drive at a constant moderate pace.

Don’t idle
Turn off your engine if you’ll be idling for more than thirty seconds. Starting your vehicle does use a burst of fuel, but not as much as allowing the engine to idle too long.

Anticipate stop signs and lights
Plan ahead. The less you have to stop, the better your gas mileage. Make it a game to catch all of the green lights. Laugh at the other guy as he sprints from red to red.

Keep your cool
Most people claim that it makes more sense to use air conditioning on the highway, and to roll down the windows in city traffic. It’s commonly claimed that either method is going to reduce your fuel economy by about 10%. But according to research performed by found, there’s no real difference between driving with the windows down or using the air conditioner. Consumer Reports obtained similar results:

Air conditioning uses about 1 mpg, but safety (and comfort) increase with use. Opening windows made no significant difference in our gas mileage.

Do what works for you. (But please: don’t run your air conditioner with the windows open.)

Drive less!!!
Walk. Ride your bike. Take public transit. Carpool. Combine errands. It’s obvious, but easy to forget: the less you drive, the less you’ll spend on gas.

No more GWOT, House committee decrees

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Apr 3, 2007 20:12:47 EDT

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”

“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”

Josh Holly, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the committee’s former chairman and now its senior Republican, said Republicans “were not consulted” about the change.

Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.

House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world, while Republicans have said that Iraq is part of the front line in the war on terror. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the armed services committee chairman, has been among those who have complained that having the military tied up with Iraq operations has reduced its capacity to respond to more pressing problems, like tracking down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

“This is a philosophical and political question,” said a Republican aide. “Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home.”

However, U.S. intelligence officials have been telling Congress that most of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian strife and not directly linked to terrorists, although some foreign insurgents with ties to terrorist groups have been helping to fuel the fighting.

“You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT,” said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

“If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named,” said another Republican aide. That is a reference to the fact that the villain in the Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, is often referred to as “he who must not be named” because of fears of his dark wizardry.

Stupid.  It's one war with many fronts, and what this implies is that one conflict can become the entire focus of debate.  Iraq can blind us to the rest of the conflict and be used as a rationale for a suspension of operations.  Banning the phrase "long war" is like banning the phrase "would you like to upgrade to a large for just 25 cents more?" at your local movie theater.

No, I don't want to upgrade!  You ask me every time and I always say no!  But other people do upgrade, and the sulky underlings at the counter are required to pursue that possibility. 

Call a spade a spade.  As far as buzzwords go, "long war" doesn't make the prospect sound any more attractive.
Long war...two syllables.  "Extended operations in Iraq" is the reason why these gov't reports are usually thousands of pages long. 

George Bush is trying to save trees, and look what the Democrats are doing.  Who's a better friend to the environment?