Author: Mike VanBuren

Hollywood Warnings Undue

Many famous entertainers love preaching to America about environmental issues and war. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says they first ought to look at their own lavish lifestyles:

Transcript

Many famous entertainers love preaching to America about environmental issues and war. But
Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says they first ought to look at their
own lavish lifestyles:


On the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, musician Sheryl Crow issued a challenge on her web site.
She urged those supporting the military action to trade in their “gas guzzlers” and buy smaller cars.
She said this will break our dependency on foreign oil and, presumably, help avoid future wars.


Sheryl’s challenge goes nicely with recent claims by other Hollywood celebrities. Namely, that
SUVs are as threatening to America as angry members of al-Qaida. Sheryl’s no terrorist, so she
promised to sell her own SUV – a BMW.


I’m sure these critics are well intentioned. And I agree that we need to find ways to conserve
energy and break our addiction to Middle East crude. But they seldom mention anything about the
sprawling mansions they live in, the stretch limousines they use, or the fuel-guzzling jets they fly to
holidays in Paris and Acapulco.


All these things – and more – make us dependent on foreign oil. SUVs are only part of the
equation. The U.S. Department of Energy says that transportation of goods and people accounts
for less than a third of our energy use. Another third is consumed by homes and commerce, and
slightly more than that by industry.


So why are celebrities taking aim only at SUV owners – while ignoring their own energy wasting
habits?


It reminds me of students at a conservation school I attended many years ago. Each of us wanted
to save the environment. Or so we said.


One day, I challenged classmates about driving into town each evening to drink beer and dance at
local taverns. How could we teach others to save resources if we couldn’t keep our own cars
parked for even a few days?

They rolled their eyes and snickered at my stinginess. Our instructor – a Ph.D. in biology – called
me a “sour grape.”

He may have been right. I could be a “sour grape.” But I can’t help it – especially when I meet
self-righteous do-gooders. They tend to see others with 20/20 vision, but are blind to the
wastefulness in their own lives.

The last time I was in Tinseltown, I was struck by the number of fancy SUVs that were tooling
around Beverly Hills and Bel Air. Some of them were parked outside homes as big as Saudi
palaces.

I drove past the Shrine Auditorium on Oscar night. I saw a huge parking lot full of long, white
limos. Their engines were running, so air conditioners could keep the stars cool when they emerged
for trips to parties across town.

If Hollywood elites want us to drive smaller cars, shouldn’t they start by changing their own
consumptive lifestyles? And couldn’t the privileged class save energy by flying less, driving Hondas
to the Academy Awards show, and draining the water from their heated swimming pools?

Mike VanBuren is an award-winning environmental writer living near Richland, Michigan.

Living Well With Less

After surviving another frantic holiday season, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren yearns for a bit of simplicity and a cheap way to watch TV:

Transcript

After surviving another frantic holiday season, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike
VanBuren yearns for a bit of simplicity and a cheap way to watch TV:


I went to a local electronics store to make a simple purchase. A friend had given me an old
outdoor television antenna. I needed a hundred feet of wire and a rotor kit to hook it up. I’d
never owned an outdoor television antenna.


For years, I’d been content with fuzzy-looking broadcast channels. I’d grown used to unfocused
double images of network news anchors. But now I had a chance to bring a little clarity to my
life. And I was determined to do so.


At the electronics store, the twenty-something clerk looked at me like, “You can’t be serious.”
He couldn’t grasp the fact that I didn’t have cable TV. He offered to fill this void by selling me a
satellite dish system. For a few dollars a month, I could get hundreds of channels.


But I didn’t want hundreds of channels. I was quite satisfied knowing that I’d be getting better
TV reception than ever before – and almost for free. But the clerk didn’t see it that way. In his
eyes, my lack of passion for personal improvement was a serious problem.


That’s the trouble with “consumer” cultures. Most of us have more than we need and don’t even
realize it. We’re constantly foraging for the latest gadgets, newest cars and biggest homes.
Never mind that such desires usually bring more headaches than they’re worth.


Even after 9-11 – when we probably should have been called to sacrifice and to conserve
resources for a larger war effort – the President of the United States told us to go shopping.
What’s that all about?


I think Thoreau had it right when he called upon us to “simplify, simplify.” After all, the essence
of our lives is not found in material things and technology – no matter how revolutionary they
are. True spiritual growth and contentment rise from uncluttered lives.


I’ve been reading lately about a movement known as “voluntary simplicity.” This involves living
– and having more – with less. More joy, peace, time, satisfaction and meaning with less money,
stress, possessions, competition and isolation.


It has nothing to do with depriving ourselves, or living in poverty. It has everything to do with
being content with what we have, finding joy in less and reconnecting with other people and the
natural world that sustains us.


Now, I’m as guilty as the next person when it comes to ignoring this advice. I struggle each day
against the impulse to buy things that I think will add joy and value to my life. They seldom do.


It’s usually the simple things that can’t be purchased in any store which mean the most. Things
like more time for family and community. Less worry about possessions. And greater freedom –
to live and grow and love without constraint.


It has been said that there are two ways to get enough – accumulate more, or desire less. Less, it
seems, is truly more.


And that’s probably the clearest signal I’ll ever get from that battered old antenna.


Mike VanBuren is an award-winning environmental writer living near Richland, Michigan.

Migrations

Changes to our world – and to our environment – have been a matter of course throughout history. But knowing that offers only limited comfort to Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren:

Transcript

Changes to our world – and to our environment – have been a matter of course throughout history. But that knowledge only offers limited comfort to Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren.


Many years ago, when I was a rookie newspaperman working in northern Michigan, I often drove from my home in Mancelona to Whitefish Point on Lake Superior.

Whitefish Point was a glorious place to visit – particularly during the spring and fall, when raptors, waterfowl and songbirds were migrating through the Great Lakes region. Hundreds of thousands of birds funnel through the Point each year, thanks to land and water features that create a natural flight corridor.

I enjoyed going there to walk the beaches, watch the birds and see the giant freighters pass by on their way to and from the busy locks at Sault Ste. Marie.

Whitefish Point was a peaceful place in those days. And I was often alone, as I stood on the shore with my face against the invigorating Superior winds.

But something unsettling has occurred in the two decades since I made those pilgrimages. The Point has been discovered by large flocks of tourists. And the narrow road that reaches north from Paradise is sometimes clogged with cars, SUV’s and tour buses.

I returned to the Point recently, hoping to find the same peace and serenity I’d enjoyed there as a young man. I was pleased to discover that the old lighthouse – first lit in 1849 – had been carefully restored, along with a handful of whitewashed outbuildings.

That would have been enough for me.

But developers apparently thought the Point needed something more to attract visitors. They built a new facility to house the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum, along with a large gift shop – complete with meeting space and flush toilets. Wooden walkways had also been laid across the sandy dunes to allow greater access to the surrounding forest and beach.

I didn’t see many birds that day, although the folks at the tiny Whitefish Point Observatory could probably have told me where they were. I did see a lot of people, though.

“All things must change to something new – to something strange,” said Longfellow.

You’d think I’d be used to it by now – that I’d no longer be surprised by change. But I am. It always leaves me feeling a bit disoriented.

In my more lucid moments, I know the Great Lakes region will continue to evolve. And I know I’m as much a part of this process as real estate developers and gift shop proprietors.

Some change is even good – although the definition of “good” varies from person to person. Life itself is an uncertain migration – with constant shifts in our needs, attitudes and relationships to the outdoors.

I think it has always been that way.

As I retreated that day from the Point and drove south toward the Mackinaw Bridge, I thought about the Native Americans who lived beside Lake Superior long ago. Like me, they probably watched earlier generations of hawks, eagles and owls cross Whitefish Bay – and marveled at their beauty and grace.

I can imagine their ghosts, skirting the shores of the bay in birch bark canoes on cool moonlit nights – searching for some familiar landmark that will lead them home.

Perhaps one day mine will do the same.

***Mike VanBuren is an environmental writer who lives near Richland, Michigan. ***

Greening the Republican Party

Liberals often claim the environment as an issue that gives them leverage over conservatives, but Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says conservatism should equally embrace environmental protection as a fundamental part of its vision for America:

Transcript

Liberals often claim the environment as an issue that gives them leverage over conservatives. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says conservatism should equally embrace environmental protection as a fundamental part of its vision for America.


Rush Limbaugh calls me an “environmental whacko.” I’m one of those people who believe in saving energy, preserving wild areas, and treating the earth as a finite resource that should be handled with care. I get alarmed when I hear about air pollution, food contamination, and oil drilling under the Great Lakes.


Rush seems to hate this. He likens me to a nazi extremist. He says I don’t understand the world’s bounty, or the simple principle of supply and demand. Worse yet, he’s convinced I’m one of those “whining liberals” who use environmental scare-tactics to push big government.


The funny thing is, when it comes to most social issues, I’m a fairly conservative guy. There are few so-called “liberal” ideas that I support. Yet, I often find myself walking hand-in-hand with left-leaning Democrats in battles to protect our natural heritage.


I wonder why that is. Shouldn’t Republicans join the fight? After all, there are few things more “conservative” than trying to conserve our resources for future generations.


I know there are some members of the so-called “political right wing” – whatever that is – who feel as I do. REP-America, for example, is a national grassroots organization that claims to be “the environmental conscience of the Grand Old Party.” Members believe we can preserve our environment – and boost our economy at the same time.


But many Republican leaders don’t seem to be listening. They want to scrap laws that have cleaned up air and water, preserved natural areas, and prevented the extinction of native species. What’s that all about?


Anybody with the smarts to get elected ought to be able to see that more – not less – needs to be done. While significant environmental progress has been made during the past few decades, we can still benefit from cleaner air, water, soil and food supplies. And reducing wasteful consumption today will bring greater benefits tomorrow, including greater economic performance?


You’d think more conservatives would be leading the way to safeguard these natural resources – rather than fighting against the liberals who are. If ever there was a bipartisan issue, this is it. Few modern social concerns are as vital to our health, recreation and economic prosperity.


Human progress should not be measured solely on the basis of dollars and development, but also on what we have preserved and protected.


Republican Theodore Roosevelt called conservation “a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring safety and continuance of the nation.”


Roosevelt, of course, may have been the first “environmental whacko” to be elected President of the United States. Maybe it’s time for another one – along with several others at all levels of government.


And there’s no good reason they couldn’t be conservatives.

COMMENTARY – HEALING RIVERS

Many rivers in the Great Lakes region were once used for waste disposal –and debate still rages over how to best clean up the lingering pollution.Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says futuregenerations will thank us if we do the job right:

Transcript

Many rivers in the Great Lakes region were once used for waste disposal – and debate
still rages over how to best clean up the lingering pollution. Great Lakes Radio
Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says future generations will thank us if we do
the job right.


Michigan’s Kalamazoo River has a colorful past. It used to be different colors on
different days. Sometimes it was green, sometimes red and sometimes white – depending
on which wastes were being dumped into the water.


And the stench was awful. I remember holding my breath whenever I had to cross the
river on the way to someplace else. Like many rivers in the Great Lakes basin, the
Kalamazoo was an open sewer. Life magazine even photographed some ugly fish kills –
when waste from paper factories choked the river and robbed it of oxygen.


It’s not much of a legacy – not for a resource that once attracted an international host of
anglers to its world-class fishery – including former President Theodore Roosevelt.


The Kalamazoo and other rivers have historically been among the biggest sources of
Great Lakes pollution. Industrial waste, pesticides and other contaminants have leached,
or been dumped directly into rivers feeding each lake. In Lake Michigan alone, toxins are
found from the Manistique River in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, to the Menominee
River in Wisconsin and Waukegan Harbor in Illinois.


In some ways, the Kalamazoo – like other rivers – has made a great recovery in the last
40 years, thanks to tougher anti-pollution laws and millions of dollars spent to upgrade
waste-treatment facilities. Today, ducks float quietly on the surface, deer frolic in the
shallows, and fish are practically everywhere.


But we still have a long way to go. What’s not so obvious is that local eagles can’t seem
to keep their young alive. And fish are so tainted that health advisories are posted at
every public access site, warning not to eat them.


The problem is invisible – leftover PCBs in the river sediment and along the banks. The
chemicals – once used in the production of carbon-less copy paper and other products –
often wash into the water when it rains, or when the river rises and falls.


Four paper-making companies were ordered to draft a plan for undoing the damage.
They’ve proposed a $73 million effort to stabilize the riverbanks, monitor the breakdown
of PCBs and continue the fish-consumption advisories.


That’s not good enough. For one thing, it only deals with part of the river. The rest
would be covered in a later phase. Secondly, it doesn’t really clean anything up. It
merely tries to contain the problem so it doesn’t get any worse.


That’s the trouble with many proposals to eliminate sources of Great Lakes pollution.
They avoid the real work needed for a thorough cleanup. The excuses are many – too
costly, too time-consuming, or too risky if the work dislodges toxins that are otherwise
inert.


Citizens shouldn’t accept these excuses. We should demand that polluters clean up after
themselves completely.


What’s good for rivers like the Kalamazoo is good for the Great Lakes. We need to act
responsibly when deciding how to restore our resources. After all, our children and
grandchildren will live with the consequences.

Commentary – Water Wars

Some people see the Great Lakes as huge reservoirs — pools oflife-giving liquid that should be pumped to places in need of water. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren believes themajestic ”Inland Seas” ought to stay right where they are:

Transcript

Some people see the Great Lakes as huge reservoirs — pools of life-giving liquid that
should be pumped to places in need of water. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium
commentator Mike VanBuren believes the majestic “Inland Seas” ought to stay right
where they are.


When I was a boy, my grandmother sent me a postcard from Arizona. It was covered
with pictures of desert plants and animals. There were cacti, jackrabbits and rattlesnakes
— each well adapted to the harsh climate.


My grandmother was well adapted, too — having lived in Phoenix for many years. But
her needs were different from the coyotes and roadrunners that populated the
countryside. They’d learned to get by on less. She was dependent on generous supplies
of clean, fresh water.


The Southwest, you see, is a thirsty place. The sun is bright and hot. And the land is dry.
It’s enough to send a Gila monster out for a tall glass of cold sarsparilla. And it has made
many misguided public servants cast greedy eyes on the Great Lakes.


The reasons are simple. Water is critical to life — and to many social and economic
activities. In some areas — such as Arizona — water is in short supply. The Great Lakes
Basin contains about twenty percent of the freshwater on the surface of the earth. Why
not just redistribute it so everyone has enough?


Some profiteers — and politicians with dry tongues — like this idea. But I don’t.


Water is already being pumped in and out of the Great Lakes — on a relatively small
scale. Fortunately, no major diversions are currently planned. But some public officials
and environmental leaders say it’s just a matter of time.


The population is expanding in many parts of the country where water is scarce. Recent
census results show that some of the fastest-growing states — Arizona, California,
Nevada and Texas — are also among those most in need of water. The census also shows
that those states will gain seats in Congress, while the Great Lakes region loses seats.
That means that it could be harder to win a congressional vote to restrict the sale of Great
Lakes water.


Siphoning lake water makes perfect sense to those who don’t know — or care — about
ecosystems. But scientists say such activity could harm plants and animals. It could
upset the balance of nature, lower groundwater levels, reduce water quality, and even
change the climate.


And what happens if you have to shut the spigot off for some reason? Who’s gonna tell
the folks in Sun City that the well is dry?


My home state of Michigan is almost entirely within the Great Lakes basin. We have
everything to lose and very little to gain if water is taken. Our economy is tied to
shipping, fishing, agriculture, recreation and tourism. These activities depend on the
Great Lakes being healthy and vibrant. That’s why we all need to conserve water and
develop strong policies to prevent raids on the resource.


Now, I love Arizona. And I’m pleased my grandmother could live there. But if she
wanted to drink from the Great Lakes, she probably should have moved back to
Michigan.