Environmental Justice/Biodiversity

[Tom Chao <tchao@mail.arc.nasa.gov>]

  I would guess that about 90% of the time when management holds the attention of a large crowd, and especially it's an internal problem, the speaker will tell subtle lies to his/her audience.  The crowd or the workers suspend their disbelief because the speaker is desirable enough and the material of his/her discourse is desirable also, or they wish to promote their own survival in this world.  So, there is the element of the 'Pontius Pilate' event analogy under leadership.  The manager or speaker is an entertainer or a magician of sorts, before s/he is a scientist or is using reason.  Interestingly, comparing to Christian-Judeo concepts, the concept of 'denial' is also prevalent in politics.  The leader will either not admit to or will out of his own free-will conceal the truth.  [Maximum entropy?]

  The 'truth' has to give a sense of history. What happened before? Factors such as population entropy, which is oftentimes forgotten in the haste, and 'nuclear proliferation' or international conflict need to be included.  What really happened?  Who had control over what? Was discriminatory behavior or conflict an intrinsic factor?

Realistically, if labor-management can not negotiate environmental issues, the the environmental movement could only be a plurality.  The only chance for majority movement would be to take up the issue to labor then.  The EPA would have to
form a strong alliance with OSHA.

I notice that the Court has a tendency to follow  Aesop fable-like rationale.  Reasonable natural uncertainty and coherency of public mandates is often denied. The 'third' sovereignty of biodiversity has to exist as without the pristine ecosystem, the 'land of the land' is rendered absurd.  In a completely artificial environment, 'common-sense laws are usually not possible.'  [Why is this so?]

The issues of system reciprocity, system entropy and uniqueness for a 'virtual' environment structure is critical for survival.  If there was a large pyramid or 'infrastructure' the large federal government agency has to work through this.  The States need to have the mediation powers, and local and regional governments need to be empowered to protect communities.  Maximum entropy for the system is similar to checks and balances and sovereignty concepts.

A reasonable look at economic considerations when looking at local issues is important.  If you diagram the problem and look at causal relations, you will find that you could trace the root problem to the public consumer.

So, if there was to be an environmental Constitutional Amendment, there could be said to be a majority 'grassroots' community movement.  Otherwise, this would be said to be a minority or plurality action.

The public has the freedom to draft their own local constitutions, set up community agreements or collective bargaining unit agreements with international corporations.  They can develop their own kind of exchange and scientifically implement biodiversity [mitigation] banking.

The public could demand a high reciprocity free market where all non-biodegradable items are recycled by the manufacturers.  Note how energy efficient the transportation logistics for this kind of market would be.

The public could demand use of renewable electrical energy such hydroelectric, wind turbines, solar photovoltaics, natural gas and biomass.  It could request monitoring of energy and conservation programs.

The public could work to put through Environmental Justice/Biodiversity laws at the local, regional and state levels applying space-borne technology.

The public could insist on environmental compliance, and use such devices as energy taxes, carbon taxes, and downstream volumetric effluent resources allocation for both the atmosphere and water.

The public could demand the cleanup of all the brownfields and require that 'everybody' has access to Open Space or Greenfields. 

The public could work for international peacekeeping and nuclear disarmament.