Cave Ecosystems - Fragility

   Recently my speleology class was covering biology of caves, and so I thought making it into my next blog post would be a good idea. In search for topics to write about, this one seemed like a logical next step, since I'm in biology as my field of study, and this is my environmentalist blog. Further, it might help some people learn some better ways to care for caves. As usual, I always encourage trying to think with the conservation ethic - namely, even if no one has said it, it should be done in a protective manner. For example, is that dinner party in the mouth of that local cave really worth damaging the fragile cave ecosystem?
   Obviously, some caves are quite sturdy and have no conservation requirements. Limited wildlife, no strange artifacts, maybe already thoroughly damaged by humans (although in that case, restoration might be in hand), or it's just an ugly rock hole. (Nothing warrants graffiti, however. I find the recent social media explosion where some person graffitied National Parks disgusting.) Other caves, however, have strange and bizarre animals and insect living within them, which are easily disrupted and damaged by humans activities. In France, there is a secret cave that contains hundreds of large, super-fragile spikes of minerals. A single touch could destroy one, and set off a chain reaction as well.
   Closer to home, everyone knows not to touch the fragile stalactites and stalagmites, sometimes much to the consternation of cave geologists. The oils on our skin coat the surface of the mineral, and the water avoids the oil stain, and no longer leaves mineral deposits in the touched areas. Needless to say, a touched cone will eventually "die" if touched enough.
   Types of animals: Troglobites (not to be confused with Star Trek's Tribbles), are animals that dwell in caves permanently. (The tribbles were space-faring grain munchers, in case you were wondering.) These are animals that have permanent adaptations for cave life, and they typically spend all of their time in the caves. These animals are typically rather bizarre, lacking in pigments as pigmentation does them no good in a no-light environment. Troglophiles are animals that may spend some of their life in the cave, and the rest out of the cave. Examples include cave crickets, small insects that use the caves for refuge, but spend other parts of the day outside. 
   Trogloxenes include everything else, and may or may not use the cave on a regular basis. Humans are examples of trogloxenes, and are particularly good at damaging the habitats of the other species that use caves for permanent habitats. It's really not that hard to disrupt caves, however. Other common ways of damaging caves, is to find one that has a nice big opening and party in it. This is apparently popular for younger people to do. Personally, I usually refrain from punching people like that. The caves can be damaged, and typically there is little that can repair the interior of a cave. Bats may be disturbed as well, and bats tend to congregate in large nunbers in small areas, which makes them particularly vulnerable. This is why we see the cave gates on some caves that are deemed fragile. 
   Some interesting cave beetles were recently studied by scientists, and they didn't have any eyes. (The beetles, not the scientists.) Oddly, however, they had the genes for eye-sight, suggesting that after long periods of cave life, the beetle may at one point have been able to see, but since natural selection had no need for eyes, they disappeared - but not entirely.

Moral of the story is, be nice to caves.

http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/faults.html - examples of cave graffiti at bottom.

http://www.batcon.org - lots of info about bats, bat conservation, and - hm - Ebola.

American Football and Why Time is Already Dead

Here is a brief rambling on football, and the American concept of time; namely, the idea that we're constantly running out of it. 

I should have written about China, just because of the fact that I'm experienced with Chinese cultures somewhat and also the diverse amount of products they send us, mostly cheap stuff like tins, nick knacks, and iPhones. The Chinese do not have near as much freedom as we do, and I regularly hear stories about how one family member or another flees China to come live here. They (the stories) usually end on a screechy note, lamenting the fact that America's freedoms are fast disappearing. The scary part of that may be, even though Chinese sometimes want to come live here, eventually it might not be that much more free. They are sort of a hybrid of a market based culture and a communist culture, and as far as I know they are the only working example of a rich communist country (as in healthy middle class). Still, the Chinese do not have as much say as we do. The Internet there is tightly policed, and forums and everything on the Chinese Internet is monitored and censored if not in line with what Big Brother wants. Well, that's not entirely true: The censors will usually let people rail against politicians, but any attempt to organize resistance in any way is immediately stifled and the people are subject to correction.[1] 

Also I'd really like to join the Football-bashing bandwagon (where there is one): I've never even really liked sports, usually favoring crafts, carpentry, and outdoor activities to sports and other large social gatherings. One might label me as anti-social for that reason, but I can be quite amiable when I need to be, and I also sell quite a few things, so that makes me have to come out of my shell. However, I know of quite a few people who don't like football, and quite a few people who do. Really, I think it's a personal preference - although, as the text points out, it's basically more celebrated than Christmas. Here's what other people think of the Super Bowl:

Belgium: "A welcome excuse to invest millions in commercials. Sadly, there's no bowling involved. Also, some diva sings "God Save the Queen" – the American version."

So here's to Belgium, the other part of our class this week. Yes, of course my post is about America! Mostly...

Americans rush around, constantly thinking that they are running out of time. Personally, I hate clocks. My natural rhythm is to wake up at 8 and go to sleep at 12: now, how the heck am I supposed to survive in a country of morning people? Jokes aside, America really does suffer from clock hysteria. Personally, I think it may be at least part of the reason so many of us are on antidepressants, that and a very large ad campaign to convince Americans' that their lot in life is not enough. I typically don't handle very much TV, because after watching a full 1/4 of my show taken up by ads, I'm about ready to go buy a Mercedes, a BMW, a Ford, and some pain pills for good measure - likely for my pocket book. However, even I have invited the time-is-money concept into my life. When working, it feels like a part of my life is being taken away from me as I pay my tabs. Time is money, and I've fully integrated this into my business practices. (I build sheds, so eventually, the more tools I own, the faster I am and the more money I make.) However, sometimes this takes away from my enjoyment of the simpler stuff - while working, I feel like my time should be spent creating stuff, and while doing crafts, I feel like I should be working hard. Not enough time, that little voice says, not enough time!

Cited here is a great article by the Business Insider detailing the different views that each culture has on time. [3] Personally, I show up on time because everyone else does; at home, I tend to approach a task with an apparently more Asian view, that is, my task is rather like a pool, and there is time in my pool, and perhaps I may walk around it before realizing I must do G and H before starting A, and that does not bother me. Other people, I've noticed, tend to be driven insane by this. I enjoy that.

References:

1. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/1251722.abstract

2. http://mic.com/articles/80855/what-people-from-other-countries-think-of-america-s-obsession-with-the-super-bowl

3. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-different-cultures-understand-time-2014-5

Why is Antarctic Sea Ice Exceeding the Models? Isn't Stuff Supposed to be Melting?

   This week I'll be taking a look at recent assertions that antarctic sea ice extent, which is currently not in line with global warming climate models, and examine why this may be, and whether or not it gives us adequate reason to reject the climate change theory. [1]
    Recent evidence from the National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that on Sep 22 2014, Antarctic sea ice went to a record breaking level of 7.76 million sq mi, which is the highest level since records began for sea ice extent. [2]
    Unfortunately, while this is certainly actually good news for the planet, it was somewhat bad news for climate scientists, whose models predicted that sea ice should be decreasing, not increasing. However, the article from NASA's Goddard Space Center points out that it's really not practical to expect the entire globe to warm and in other words behave in the same manner. If it did, everywhere would be hot already and we would be in trouble. Thus, extra sea ice, overall, it's not going to destroy the scientific community, and it's not actually much for the skeptical community to go on, either. While the sea ice extent is record breaking, there are several practical ideas for why the ice broke records. 
   There is also the primary point that while Antarctic ice broke records, Arctic sea ice continues to decline much more rapidly than Antarctic sea ice is gaining. A recent report by NOAA concludes that Arctic sea ice is unlikely to return to it's previous levels. [3]
   Another thing that the skeptical sources fail to take into consideration [1] is that continental ice is still receding. [4] The article in citation 4, an article by the Science magazine, says that "The short answer is that while the overall climate is warming, it’s a complicated system..." A reference is also made to melting of the actual continent itself - this freshwater, when melted, has a higher freezing point than the surrounding sea water and is thus more easily frozen. This may seem counter intuitive, but just think about it for the moment: If something freezes at 50 F, and something else freezes at 10 F, it has to be much colder to freeze the material at 10 F. Thus, the material that freezes at 50 F is said to have a higher freezing point. Saltwater has a lower freezing point than freshwater; thus it is harder to freeze. 
   It is very important to be able to think globally. This can be difficult when most people don't usually think beyond their town or county. Global climate reporting relies on the whole world's temperatures to make accurate assertions about the past, present, and future. Sometimes these models are not entirely accurate, but it in no way makes them wrong. As a case in point, global average temperatures have actually been going up faster than models suggested. Obviously, the models are not perfect, but this does not mean they should be thrown out the window.
   While it does seem like this event, which is not in line with climate models, should be shaking the scientific community, it is not. Scientists are well aware of the problems they face in predicting such massive data quantities, they are quite confident about their science. Meanwhile, while the ice on the pond is growing, the ice on the land is still plummeting into the ocean. 
   While we are worried about individual things that scientists miss that can discredit the scientific community, the reality is that the science behind this is quite solid. Personally, I am more willing to put my weight behind science, rather than cherry picked facts. While scientific skepticism is healthy, and indeed, a mark of the scientific community itself, we no longer believe in things like "the earth is flat," because we have the mountain of data to show that the earth is round. Ish.

References
1. Bastasch, Michael. "Climate FAIL: Antarctic Sea Ice Did The Exact Opposite Of What Models Predicted." Watts Up With That. Watts Up With That, 03 Mar. 2015. Web. 05 Mar. 2015. <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/03/climate-fail-antarctic-sea-ice-did-the-exact-opposite-of-what-models-predicted/>.

2. "Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum." NASA. NASA, 7 Oct. 2014. Web. 05 Mar. 2015. <https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/index.html#.VPiU0sbqN6p>.

3. "National Snow and Ice Data Center." Climate Change in the Arctic. NSIDC, n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2015. <https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html>.

4. Gramling, Carolyn. "What's Going on with Antarctic Sea Ice?" What's Going on with Antarctic Sea Ice? Science, 10 Oct. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2015. <http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/10/whats-going-antarctic-sea-ice>.

A Tribute To Tyrone, MO: Small Town Tragedy

    I suppose I could use some of that mantra from the news. "Lots of people dead, world ends." - Bad News Tribune. But I'm not the news. I'll let them handle the bad news hawking. It's their ware, after all. It's what they sell. I don't want to sell it. Someone else can do that. I suppose I do have bad news, though it's all bad news you've already heard, so technically I can't sell it to you. The bad news is news created by the world, this physical manifestation that we live in. We have to live here. We deal with this. Right?
   Some people don't. This is an unfortunate, but true aspect of regular life. There is always a silver lining, but if it can't be found, there seems to be no point. We try to keep going, we strive, we try. We really do. And to be honest, I herald all of you who just try. That's actually much more impressive than the people at the news are willing to concede. If you're trying, congratulations. The battle is already half won. Keep going, I beseech you.
   But not everyone can do it. Not everyone can make that leap and say, "Hey, here's that silver lining. That's good. Now let's keep going, so maybe I can find another silver lining, and perhaps, just maybe, someday I'll get rid of the cloud. But the lining is there, so this is progress." Not everyone has that valor, that courage. The courage to merely withstand this world can be so forlorn, so hard to hang on to. Life is hard. We get that. I get that.
   But don't take it out on everyone else. Please, don't. It doesn't work that way. This world is hard, and harsh. It really is. But we have to hang in there. When we let go, when we actually just lose control, we lose what little benefit we can offer this world, to ourselves. We can't let go. We have to keep going.
   If, by now, you don't know what I'm talking about, let's talk about that. I spent a good part of my childhood in a small, remote community named Elk Creek. Up the road from there was another, small, remote community named Tyrone. On Thursday even, Feb 26 2015, a man named Joseph Aldridge gunned down seven of his neighbors after coming home to find his mother dead. It is not currently known if this is what sparked the incident, as he was involved in some drugs. For seven neighbors to be taken away from this tiny neighborhood, where everyone literally knows everyone else, and for this atrocity to happen literally beneath their noses, is something that will send anything to the world-rattler cage. These people, through a cruel twist of fate, were taken out of our lives, for worse. No one deserves to die in that manner. It just stinks for uselessness, as if nothing better could be dished out from the Petri Dish of Fate for them.
   Of course, it's not useless. It's so complicated, this world we live in. They didn't deserve to die this way. But, one way or another, and this is very complicated to say without it sounding negative, their lives were not lost in futility and their lives were, I believe, not taken away from us to torment us. I believe that, even in this horror, we can find meaning in life still. We have to keep going.
   We live in a world that is full of uncertainties. We try to take care of some of these uncertainties. To show: We don't know when it will rain, so we build a roof. We don't know if that substance is actually  bad or not, but we remove it anyway; we remove an uncertainty. We obtain education to try to secure better jobs; we try to remove as many uncertainties as we can. But nothing can prepare a small town community, normally used to leaving their doors unlocked because they know everyone, to defend itself against bombardment from an insane neighbor.
   We can try to make the world a better place, and we should. There are a lot of specifics I can throw out there, but few specifics are ever actually that helpful. Perhaps abstractions are better. Blunt abstractions. Let's try this one: "Stop worshipping the self and acknowledge the other." Abstract because it applies to much, blunt because "stop" is used. Stop what? Chasing money, personal fame, sex? You decide. Who is the "other," you ask? Just anyone aside from yourself. Our society glamorizes success and personal achievement. Stop forcing people to think they have to do it all. We don't have to. We have to live. If we stop living, when we stop having the desire to live, we lose. Hang on. Stay strong. Keep going. I sound like a self help book now, but it's true. Just don't give up. Even when all is lost, there's still something. There's always something. That doesn't mean it isn't hard. Of course it's hard. Maybe it's supposed to be. I don't know why, and I don't expect you to either, but there it is.
   So, what do you say? Let's remember the dead, and honor them by doing the right things, beautiful things. Let's go make the world a better place together.

References
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/us/gunman-kills-7-people-in-tyrone-missouri.html?_r=0

Why Using Politics To From An Opinion On Climate Change Doesn't Work

   The title of my blog is the "practical environmentalist." One word represents a practical stance, a stance that attempts to base itself on facts and reality versus emotionalism. Contrast this with the term "enviropnmentalist," which is stereotyped as a granola-eating bycicling yuppy with no grasp on reality, and you have a pretty good contradiction. It is, however, completely possible for these two worlds to exist together, and indeed, complement each other. Idealism won't run a farm, but mindlessly searching for money is a sure way to destroy nature. In my mind, the best run farm, business, or operation, is one that seeks overall sustainability - meaning one that balances profits, fiscal responsbility, and environmentalism as well. On a farm, sustainabilty and environmentalism can actually create a highly profitable farm, as people like Joel Salatin, Greg Judy, and other farming "pioneers" prove.
   The point of this is, without a practical side to it, environmentalism can occasionally sound like a crack. "Save the owls, screw the people" may sound familiar to some people. Allowing "eco-freak-ism" to be tempered with a practical, reasonable side results in well-rounded viewpoint. The main point of all of this is that it is extremely important to be objective when forming an opinion, on anything really, not just climate change. Scientists are generally very good at this; the scientific method is, after all, based on asking questions. If scientists weren't good at asking questions, we wouldn't be very far along! Scientists also have to be objective. This means that if evidence causes a viewpoint to need to be thrown out the window, it is thrown merrily out the window. (More likely it is sedately, after much debate, thrown out the window...) Skepticism is an important aspect of any scientist's psyche. Ask a scientist a question about something odd-ball, and they are bound to give you an odd look. This is not because they are closed minded, but rather because they are skeptical of data that contradicts what they know. In a nutshell, scientists don't rely on neighborhood gossip. If a local says he say a 'coon, the other local assumes there was a 'coon. If a scientist hears it, though, there could have been anything or nothing until he sees evidence that there was a 'coon.
   To put it bluntly, most of these extremely intelligent people have used science, data, and questioning to come up with the conclusion that climate change is happening, and that it is most likely caused by man. (Case in point - CO2 levels rise, CO2 causes warming, and humans happen to be emitting a lot of the stuff. It's hard to skew the data there.) A lot of this is about repeatable data. Typically, when arguing with skeptics, they tend to bring up politics. There are some good points and bad points to this, but the main flaw is that this is where their opinions are based. Granted, it's easier to read Fox News if  you always read it anyway, but who's telling you? The people who know weather and climate science or the people with an agenda? The average scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is about 95%.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
  So why are politics a bad place to find actual facts? Well, first off, to tell if a politician is lying, just watch the lips. Not always true, obviously, but it does encourage one to try to take a hard stance on what people are saying. Can they back it up, with studies perhaps? Not really, most of the studies done by reputable sources support AGW (anthropogenic global warming), which is inconvenient for skeptical politicians. The only thing they could really do is find disgruntled scientists who support them, which works, except they are a severe minority, as we've already discussed. They can also just say things that are incorrect, because a lot of people want to believe they're right. Politicians have a lot of different opinions and agendas themselves, as well. Of course, politics do come into the picture, since politics run the way the country and the world respond to climate change. However, whatever the mired case for the politicians is, the point that I'm trying to make is quite clear and blunt: Don't form your opinion listening to politicians. If you study the science, and actually come to understand climate science and weather, you will find there is a mountain of evidence for climate change. There also is a pile of evidence refuting it, but it is hardly the elephant in the room and it's existence is acknowledged by scientists, however, none of it destroys the AGW theory. (The ice caps would need to stop melting for that to happen.) So, instead of listening to heresy and backtalk, please, try to educate yourself on the basics. If you don't know the wavelength of light CO2 reflects, the effects of cloud cover on heat in the atmosphere, and why hot weather can generate more, stronger storms, you need to brush up. This isn't to say you can't form an opinion anyways, but please try not to form opinions from opinions.
 


1. http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
3. http://theconsensusproject.com/
4. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
5. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
6. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Building a case for species: How valuable is DNA?

In this post I'd like to write about... Well, all right, I won't use the corny "I will tell" line. I shall just write, and we will see, right? Because when we see things, instead of being told, things can sink in better. Extinction works in a similar way. "First you see it, now you don't," is unfortunately how a lot of extinction happens. Of course, that's telling about extinction. Extinction occurs more frequently than any would like to admit. For many, the problem is not serious enough to cause concern, or it is not considered a problem at all. In the case of extinction, the most powerful way to "tell" about it is to "show" about it, which is rather hard to do in a blog post. To start, I will show you some numbers.
   According to Wikipedia, "3079 animals and 2655 plants are endangered worldwide, compared with 1998 levels of 1102 and 1197, respectively." That is almost triple and more than double in these examples. Congratulations humanity. Now let's talk about DNA.
   DNA refers to the genetic material that makes up a species genome. Without going in depth on the science behind DNA, suffice it to say, DNA is the reproductive material for a species. Each member of a species carries with it the complete genome, with some minor variations, for the entire species. (This minor variation is enough, of course, to cause an essentially endless amount of different combinations.)     DNA and how it works is an extremely fascinating discussion. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, referring to the molecular content, which is not important to know unless you are a biologist. 
   Let's look at the human genome by the numbers briefly. The human has 23 chromosomes under normal circumstances. Each chromosome has a different amount of "meat" in it, meaning "base pairs." Base pairs refers to the actual DNA molecules (pairs of them, obviously.) There are 3,234.83 million base pairs in the human, which equates to roughly 3.2 billion. (It is almost impossible to count to 1B in your lifetime, by the way, especially if you take bathroom breaks or sleep. Counting to 3B could take roughly 150 years.) Yet your cells have no problem copying this material constantly. This amount of material is equal to copying several books, large ones. 
   It is a lot of information. That much is clear, right? It is a lot of information. Every species contains so much DNA, and codes for so many different things, that we simply can't be aware of all of the things it does. The Human Genome Project took years to map the first human genome, and now genome mapping is much more efficient, but we still don't know what all those molecules do. 
   Wait... We still don't know everything? Hmmm.... So back to our issue of extinction. If a species dies out, and all we have left is a single hair, is the species still alive? Not unless we develop Jurassic park technology and create animals out of their DNA samples. Which leads me to conclude that, as a book lover, species are like books in a way. They all serve a purpose, whether or not we narrow-minded humans can see it, and they all contain a vast amount of information, and each species could be seen as a chapter in the world's history book.
   So what happens when a species goes extinct? We lose an entire chapter of the world with it. Everything in the world has a story to tell, but when an entire species disappears, we lose entire volumes of information. What if that last species that went extinct held the key to curing cancer? Maybe, or maybe not. But a piece of the ecosystem did disappear. When a piece of the puzzle disappears, either there is an incomplete picture or something must come in to replace it. Currently, various sources say we are technically experiencing a mass extinction event, equivalent to extinctions such as the death of the dinosaurs and other such events. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, this would be the 6th such event - in geologic time, small numbers mean very significant things. A year means nothing - but hundreds of species dead in a year means a very great deal. According to the CBD again, roughly 7 to 13 percent of American species alone are at risk of extinction.
   We can applaud ourselves for creating circumstances equivalent to a massive meteor impact, volcanic eruption, or similar highly destructive events. While if one of these events were to happen, it would be natural and unavoidable, our behavior has damaged the world, and it is avoidable. It makes sense to avoid things of risk - generally staying away from carcinogens is better than exposing yourself constantly. Similarly, the high risk of endangered species is avoidable, and saving them is better than losing them. Generally speaking, species go extinct naturally. Evolution, natural selection, adaptation, and etc. are all highly efficient pruning methods used by nature. But our destruction is essentially inexusable. Not only do we irreversibly destroy entire species, but we also damage ourselves, in one way or another, by damaging our ecosystems. We can clearly see, through a variety of methods, that our interactions with the environment are extremely destructive, and destructive towards ourselves as well. 
   There is hope, however. Educating normal people about the plight our fellow creatures have will enlighten people and possible encourage them to change. Putting monetary values on species could also prove helpful, since the value that species have to their ecosystems can only be guessed. We can encourage, educate, and do our part to avoid destroying our species, the chapters in the world's book, and the incredibly complex and valuable information that every species offers through their DNA. We owe it to the world, as the species that has done the most harm in the shortest time span, to collectively accept responsibility for our actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

http://www.earthsendangered.com/full_list.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

A Case For The Environment and People

   Hello all, to any who take the time to read this. In so doing, I thank you for being willing to take the time out of your day to read my writ. I have ultimately decided that leaving my blog dormant for 10 months after creating it was a bad decision. Thus, before writing about the main topic of my introductory post, which will be about the title of this post, I will introduce myself.
   I am, first and foremost, a Christian and a farmer. But I am many other things as well. I do not attempt to brag, but rather to give you, the reader, a better understanding of who I am so that we may better see eye-to-eye. I am an entrepreneur, and I have always enjoyed the challenge of starting a new business, whether or not it succeeded, or if the business plan was scrapped after a few months or a year. I enjoy writing, about things scientific and beautiful. I am enrolled in college, attaining a biological science degree. And to a whole other degree, to an extent that had annoyed my peers, alienated certain people, and baffled most of my friends, I am an environmentalist.
   This is almost a contradiction in terms. An environmentalist is someone who wants to help the environment, the place where we, and all of the plants and animals, live. A farmer environmentalist? Rare, because farmers generally want to use chemicals and fossil fuels to farm extensively. Well, I do use some fossil fuels, but that can't be helped very much. More on that in another post, perhaps.
   An entrepreneur environmentalist? Businessmen hate environmentalists out of tradition. Who wants to listen to a bunch of hippies say they can't cut that tree, or that forest, or that whole continent of trees down? Who wants to be told they can't dump just a little bit of arsenic into the stream, or refuse or other waste? That's bad for business. But I believe in responsibility for actions, and business and the environment is a fully compatible option - and, in fact, is really the only option. Responsible technology, responsible business, responsible people - these are people we want to have in charge and running things. Odds are, that same boss who wants to dump into the river, seriously doesn't want to give you that raise you deserve.
   And, even better... A Christian environmentalist? No offense, but if you are a Christian, which I think you probably are, you will think that is very odd. I believe God will provide for us, but what I do not believe is that he is willing to provide for a people who are fully willing to relentlessly plunder the beautiful planet He has given them. Or stand idle and watch the corporations of the world engage in their rape-like tactics and destroy the wondrous gift He has given them.
   Some people consider me misguided because of my strong views here. Climate change is not an issue; it's natural. Corporations are not bad, they create jobs. Pollution is not an issue, it keeps costs down. Scientists don't know everything, so we shouldn't listen to them about anything. Business as usual, the trees will come back eventually. The ice caps aren't melting, never mind this graph that looks like a 3-year-old drew a cliff. Any scientists or science types will be cringing by now....
   And that, my readers, is why I am an environmentalist. I feel under a moral, ethical obligation to be as responsible and caring, and reverent, to as many things as possible. That includes people, animals, the environment, and plants and even things, because things must be created again after being damaged or destroyed. That DIY vehicle repair job you do where you replace a small motor instead of the entire contraption is actually extremely environmentally conscious of you while saving money.
   Ultimately, that is why I feel that this is my call to action. What better way to serve than to serve God, my fellow people, science, and the environment and even the business model all at the exact same time? Is it possible? I believe so. I have certainly managed to be all of these things, and they are at peace in my mind. Ultimately, my goal is to bring empowerment to those who wish to act, knowledge to those who do not know, and enlightenment to those who are clinging to what corporations or the media has fed them. More on specifics later; this has been my introductory post. I do not feel that helping the environment is incorrect. I also do not believe that helping people and helping the environment are two mutually exclusive things. I think that, when they go hand in hand, the perfect situation is created. We, and all of our brethren, live on this world. For however much longer you personally believe we will live on this earth, for another decade or millions or even billions of years, we have a moral obligation to make life on this earth as good as possible for each other. Thus, when we help the environment, we are directly helping the citizens of the world, whether or not the benefits are immediately tangible benefits. However, in many cases, the benefits are fully tangible.
   Thank you for reading this. Have a good day.