Reflections From a Murky Pond

Transportation Cost Reduction

One method the average consumer can use to reduce their overall contribution to the world’s pollution is to, where and when feasible, to buy local or regional produce, meats and other foodstuffs. The rationale is that the “shorter” supply-chain will result in less energy being used to get the food from farm to table and therefore be greener to the environment.

Recent studies have found that “conventional” over-the-road transportation used 4 to 17 times more fuel and emitted 5 to 17 times more CO2 from burning of the fuel than a regional-based food distribution system. This is a growing problem. In 1965, there were an estimated 787,000 combination trucks registered in the United States, and these vehicles consumed 6.658 billion gallons of fuel. In 1997, there were 1,790,000 combination trucks that used 20.294 billion gallons of fuel! Many of these trucks transport food throughout the United States. A recent study indicated that in California alone more than 485,000 truckloads of fresh fruit and vegetables leave the state every year and travel an average of 1,500 miles to reach their destinations.

The energy used to transport a one pound can of corn to the consumer’s home and to prepare it exceeds the energy needed to produce the corn.

By encouraging and supporting local or regional food systems consumers can help the environment by dropping those transportation miles from an average of 1,500 miles to and average of only 45 miles.

Supporting Local & Regional Small Growers

By taking part in a local or regional food distribution system consumers would be in many cases supporting smaller growers who cannot compete with the large national agrobusines consortiums. Many smaller growers use far less chemicals – fertilizers or pesticides – than the larger growers do. Supporting their efforts would further reduce the overall environmental impact of food distribution.

The question is not whether small producers should participate in supermarket-driven supply chains but rather how they can do so in a manner that improves their livelihoods.

United Nations Conference On Trade & Development

Consumers can aid small growers, referred to as Smallholder, by choosing to by local or regional foodstuffs. Supermarkets base all or most of their policies on profitability. If the consumers choose to buy local or regional products as opposed to national or transnational brands, then supermarkets will choose to stock more local or regional goods.

It is my belief that a great deal of time, effort and emotion is being wasted on the controversies centering on who can marry whom. The time has long ago come where the governments – other than theocracies – must remove religious prejudices from their civil law as it regards marriage. Religion has little or no place in what is essentially a civil contract.

Secular marriage today is essentially a civil contract between individuals that enables them to function in much the same manner as a corporation would. It spells out basic financial conjoinments and allows for the signatories to function as legal proxies for each other in most activities. From a contractual perspective there should be no difference between traditional heterosexual monogamous marriages and homosexual monogamous marriages, and heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual polygamous marriages. In all cases secular marriage law would and should function in a manner similar to a partnership with right of survivorship.

Once religion is added to this all manner of prejudices are invoked. The three major western religions – or sects since they worship the same god – each have strong regulations regarding marriage. While those regulations and restrictions may well be appropriate for the worshipers of those religions, they should have no bearing on secular marriage law. Religion and Law should stay well separated.

It is easy to pass over the civil union struggle as a fringe battle for a minority of the population but you have to look at what I am saying with closer eyes. Christians like Nikki do not just look at this issue and refer to the Bible as their standard rule of law they look at EVERY ISSUE using the Bible as their rule of law. This is a flawed view. The Constitution is the correct document to refer to when speaking of secular law, NOT THE BIBLE, or the Koran, or the Torah, or any other religious text. These books help shape lives and their philosophies of love, kindness, and compassion do a lot of good in the world today. I have a deep sense of respect for religious people the world over. That being said, I am not willing to cede my rights to any faith. My rights are based on the Constitution and the powers set forth therein. Any other view is contrary to the spirit of America and exposes the real goal of the religious right. They want a theocracy.

 

The Bible, The Constitution, and the James Carville Experiment
by Tom Luffman
November 5, 2004

I do not in any way mean to imply that religions and their church hierarchies should be forbidden to restrict access to their wedding ceremonies and rites. Those religious ceremonies are entirely the purview of the respective religious orders and their church leadership has the express right to grant or deny access to their own rites and sacraments however they see fit. Just as religions should not dictate secular law, secular law should not dictate religious doctrine and dogma.