RAIN GOVERNMENT VS. A.T. p. 4 WISDOM COMES OF AGE p. 14 SMALL CHANGES/BIG CHANGES - Wendell Berry p. 18
Page 2 RAIN June 1978 SOLAR Solar Energy: Progress and Promise, by the Council on Environmental Quality, April 1978, USGPO Stock No. 041-011-00036-0, available from: Supt. of Documents U.S. Gov't. Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 Increasingly, various government agencies and congressional committees are publishing reports suggesting we can make the transition to a solar society much more rapidly than previously supposed. This one's main conclusion is "that under conditions of accelerated development and with a serious effort to conserve energy, solar technology could meet 25 percent of our energy needs by the year 2000." In addition, it's an excellent, short (52 pp.) summary of the solar-wind-biomass state-of-art especially suited to use by citizens' energy groups and anti-nuclear intervenors. Chockful of the latest references, as well. - LJ (Courtesy Dr. John Davidson, CEQ) Children of the Sun: An Activities Guide on Solar Energy, Grades 5-12, by Janis Philbin, April 1978, 51 pp., $1.00 from: State Office of Environmental Education (NW Section) Shoreline District Offices N.E. 158th and 20th N.E. Seattle, WA 9815 5 Most of the energy and environment curricula I've seen so far have been either subtly negative on the idea of using solar energy or just plain stupid ... written by organizations greatly influenced by electric utilities due to their being funded by them, or written by theorists far removed from the practical aspects of classroom teaching. Happily, this one is neither. Running the gamut from solar plans, economics, outdoor activities and Indian legends, a more accurate, sensitive gathering of useful RAIN ideas and materials is not yet available elsewhere. Hopefully it'll get thicker as we find more ways to teach the solar transition. - LJ FORESTRY More Anti-Herbicide Forestry Groups Since last month's article concerning the use of phenoxy herbicides in the forestry industry ("Freeing Our Forests," RAIN, May 1978), we've come across another important organization to note: the Citizens National Forestry Coalition. A $10 donation will put your name on their mailing list for newsletters and bulletins and will help in their campaign to promote labor- (not chemical➔) intensive forestry practices. You can contact them at 1346 Connecticut Ave., N.W., No. 1010, Washington, DC 20036 (or in the Southwest at: Rt. 1, Box 25A, McNeal, AR 85617). The list of groups outside the Northwest in last month's article was supplied by Jeff Cox of Organic Gardening & Farming, Emmaus, PA 18049. If you have additions or other information, keep Jeff posted. -SA APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY Overdeveloped Nations, by Leopold Kohr, 1977, $9.95 (hardback) from: Schocken Books 200 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Leopold Kohr has been writing about good, sensible things like smallness for access many years, although his works have been little known beyond the readers of Resurgence, the British magazine which so often picks up on ideas that are ahead of their time. Much of the material in this book is nothing newit was new when it was written but now we've gotten used to many of the ideas thanks to Schumacher and Illich (both of whom have obviously read Kohr). I did find his ideas on the appropriate size for nations intriguing-he lays out good reasons for Wales to secede from Britain (or Quebec from Canada or Maine from the U.S. of A.). After all, what do us big countries really have over Switzerland or Japan in terms of wealth, good living or influence? Where is the point when the loss of touch with subcultures and varying needs within a country mean that it has passed its optimal effective size? Good food for thought here. Thanks to Schocken for making it available in this country. -LdeM UTILITIES State Initiatives for Electric Utility Rate Reform, RM-632, $2.00 from: Coum;il of State Governments Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578 (606) 252-2291 Summarizes state efforts at changing traditional utility rate structures. Topics include abolition of declining block rate structures, use of flattened rates, inverted rates, peak-load pricing, interruptible service, and lifeline rates. -LJ
WOR~ . J • Alaska Blues, Joe Upton, 1977, $14.95 from: • Alaska Northwest Publishing Co. Box 4-EEE Anchorage, AK 99509 What is it that pulls a person into a hard and dangerous life? In part it's the reward of challenges overcome, of a life where the highs are higher as well as the lows being lower. It's a life of intensity -hair-raising blacks and ecstatic whites, instead of the drab greys of security. ·It's a love of living, not of avoiding the always riskfull opportunities of life. It's powerfully and directly communicated in this journal of words and pictures from a year's commercial fishing along the Inner Passage of Southeastern Alaska. It's easy to see why it gets into a person's blood. -TB , .-WOOD Wood Energy Enthusiasm Picking up Speed Efficiency has finally become the key word in wood stove sales outlets. Even unknowledgeable salespeople are selling efficiency ahead of "beauty or decor," because it's adding commission dollars to their paychecks. Some of the smart industry salespeople are promoting wood stove maintenance and cleaning. Efficiency benefits of a clean, tight stove and chimney may exceed 30 percent of the stove's heating capacity. The insulating effect of i/8 inch of soot or carbon causes a dramatic heat loss due to less radiation and conduction. Domestic manufacturers are making serious attempts to re-enter the effi- , ciency ball game, which they abandoned to the Scandinavians many years ago. The short-lived welded stove is finding a soft market. High quality cast iron stoves are again demonstrating their value as the two-to-four-year-old welded expediencies are developing air leaks around their warped doors and frames. Many problems associated with wood fuel are disappearing. Increased efficiency is reducing the particuhte pollution which affects a few people. Studies now indicate that wood fuel can be feasibly grown as a crop. In many areas, less than two acres of ground will heat a 1,000-square-foot house with only medium insulation. -Bill Day . . . ~ ·: • I • • • · -~ ·- · -~ -·~-~ WIND The American Wind Energy Association now has a Washington office out of which federal wind energy legislation and program will be monitored and proposed and from which the AWEA Research Corporation, modeled after the American Institute of Architects' similar set-up,-will do.consulting work under contract to private and public organizations. Phones will have been installed by the time you read this, so check with the D.C. information operator for the:. American Wind Energy Association 1717 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 1111 Washington, DC 20036 Ben Wolff of Windworks is the Executive Director of the AWEA-RC and AWEA's Washington representative. -LJ June 1978 RAIN Page 3 . . . . . ' ::-: : ~:~=-~-:-"~;_~:<~~';'L~-- • - • • - 1 -from Alaska Blues DOE Small Wind-Turbine Field ' Evaluation Program now being planned for DOE by: Jay Culp, Research Division Asplundh Environmental Services Blair Mill Rd. Willow Grove, PA 19090 ( 215) 784-4237 Under present plans, about 200 small wind machines would be bought later in 1978 from all manufacturers who have commercially available equipment. A "Request for Proposals" will then be issued for anybody who wants to get one of these wind generators for "evaluation." One of the approaches being discussed is that all sites/projects would have to be line interfaced sp that utilities could gain experience with small WECS on their grids. -LJ RAIN's office is.at 2270 N.W. Irving, Portland, OR 97210. Ph: (503) 227-5110. .RAIN STAFF: Tom Bender Lane deMoll Joan Meitl Lee Johnson Linda Sawaya Steven Ames [ _....___ _ _ _Ty--=-·.:....pe_se_tt_in.:::....g:_Ir_is_h_Se~t~_r_Pr_in_tin_g:._:T_i_m_es...::...L......;ith~o_ _ _ _ _ _ _· ,1!
Page 4 RAIN June 1978 Is there an inherent contradiction in the involvement of large and centralized government in the development of smalFscale and locally controlled technology? Ideologically the answer to the question of government involvement in a.t. is a thundering "Stay Out!" Choosing to do decentralized things in a centralized way belies that you understand at all what you're , trying to accomplish. Pragmatically the question is not so sill)ple. Universal, generalized answers are one of the things that we've learned are rather unworthy of trust. ... The federal government does exist. We can't pinch ourselves and make it go away. It has some value. It also has subsidized and encouraged the exploitation of America as well as the rest of the world by our corporatiops, and has been the leader in the bureaucratization, regulation and institutionaliza-• tion of our lives. Any real rebalancing of power between central and local institutions and individuals must involve the Feds, p.robably as an adversary. You can't be given power, for the power.to give is the power to take away. And institutions, like people, don't usually like to give up power. i -- . ------ 4;~1111 ' I JIIIM11i,c- ~ ~- - a- . ·~ • .:=i:-~ -- ~~~=~~~~~~--~~4_;~:=·; ~~~~~~~~~~~:~ How can we tell if the Feds are serious about a.t.? You can tell when anyone gets serious about sorpething-when they start looking at their own actions in relation to it. If the Feds get serious about a.t., they won't be funding solar water heaters. They'll be trying to figure out what should and should not be done locally or centrally or by people themselves. They'll be looking at what needs to happen at the Federal level and what should be done, better or worse, locally. They'll be asking how to decentrali2:e, simplify, close down and turn over many governmental ac'tivities to state and local control. They will be dealing with anti-trust, corporate monopoly, control of corporations, elimination of advertising, and elimination of subsidies to large-scale activities. They will be examining the relative effectiveness of self-reliant and centralized techn.ology, self-reliant and exchange eco.nomies-but as a means to decide what to keep hands·off of rather than as new government program possibilities. -Tom Bender Sounds like these things ought to be looked at anyhow. Yep. Our government has been operating on what we would call Evasion Politics-avoiding dealing with any real problems that might rock the vote-boat. It's called hiding symptoms rather than dealing with causes. The government voice is the last voice you'll hear raising real questions about equity of wealth, foreign intervention, poverty, dangers of nuclear radiation, failure in Vietnam or depletion of energy supplies. The data is there, the questi'ons need to be dealt with, and we need to keep them clearly and squarely in fro~t of our government. Do you really believe they would ever support anything that radical or critical or revealing? _They? They who? Our government may be a mastodon, but it . isn't a monolith. With anything that big, the left hand never knows what the right harid is doing, and•it's not impossible
that there are a few good, questioning people who can make some good things happen.' Getting them implemented is another story, and that involves getting the word out and the pi:essure back in. And you can be sure there will be problems with suppressing reports, mudslinging, and most every other kind of opposition. • What about government funding for a.t.? What about it? Is it necessary? Probably not. It seems clear that appropriate technologies are being developed and applied rapidly on local and regional levels without government funding-winterization, solar heating, self-help-housing, food production and distribution, community-controlled businesses and services, and neighborhood and community-controlled finance structures to mention a few. People and groups are becoming more aware of the resources they lack, and are getting the business skills, technical advice, tax knowledge, legal understanding, political acumen and cooperation and sharing needed to generate viable new projects. This is increasingly accompanied by a clear and articulate awareness that our problems must'largely be resolved by local responsibility and action, and that government money is not free dollars but only our own local hard work and taxes diluted 5 to 1 with bureaucratic red tape and control. Why does the government want to fund a.t.? Mostly it neither knows nor cares about a.t., nor knows it's · funding it. A few dauntless individuals slipped in a couple of paragraphs among the billions that roll off the congressional typewriter, and pried loose a few peanut shells for the monkeys to fight over. Mostly they were curious as to what would happen. And the government likes to fund anything that .has 'votes or glamour or can get it off the hook. It likes panaceas, too. Paranoid people say the Feds are just trying to give a.t. enough rope to hang itself. June 1978 RAIN Page 5 How much rope are they letting out? So far about $20 million to the AID program, maybe $5 million to NCAT, and about $3 million through DO~. What's happening to it all? Mostly_ the usual-it's making the rounds among the bureaucrats, consultants and academics. A little dribbles out into real projects. What's the score so far with all that money? The $25 million to AID and NCAT is mostly down the tube. The $.5 million spent by DOE so far and some of the NCAT grant .money has a pretty fair chance at producing some good. That's about a 2 percent success rate, if you wondered. That's really no.t much money for the·wbole country. Shouldn't we be putting more money into a.t. things? Maybe. Lee Johnson said, in his review of the DOE/California grants program, that there were a lot more excellent grant proposals than money allocated. But remember, there are always more good ideas for spending our tax money than there _is money. And even if all the outstanding projects should be given priority, it doesn't mean that government money is the right answer. If we dealt with aqy of the real problems, Eke removing subsidies to oil companies, transportation, sewer_ systems and the wealthy, we'd have both the incentives and resources to develop and implement a. t. things locally. We always get the best results with our own money, because we're more careful with it. Local money is second best, and "federal money the most dangerous. Dangerous? What's dangerous about government money? Well, first of all, it isn't theirs-:it's ours. That's the first danger. Secondly., it's addictive-the,experience seems to indicate that projects started with government money have a real hard time getting the self-discipline to get onto a s'elf-supporting basis. It's so much easier to go back for more F$, and it makes the Feds feel they're performing a service and filling a real need. Thirdly, government money is expensive-the time, money and effort spent hustling it, preparing reports and more reports, dealing with delays, and meeting ever greater regul_ations on how, who, what and which side's up could usually do the project-itself if not aimed at the government free lunch. Fourthly, there is no incentive to succeed or produce anything real. Even more important, depe11ding on the governm,ent makes us lose our ability to do things ourselves, and lose a lot of important self-confidence along with it. We sit around and say-"Well, if I had a grant ..." instead of going ahead and doing what we're talking. Well, if the government subsidizes big business and has paid for development ofjet airplanes, nuclear reactors and various other things, shouldn't there be an equal subsidy to a.t. to get it developed and give it a fair chance to compete? A lot of people suggest that, and it may be easier initially. But the easiest path is not necessarily the _right path to take. Subsidies lay false economies around a development, deforming it into unreal forms, while increasing the public confusion as to the real relative merits of things. Solar subsidies mean encouragement of expensive active systems rather than cheapper passive ones. Giving more and more subsidies instead of removing the existing ones only m·oves competition from the field of economics into that of politics-who has the power
Page 6 RAIN June 1978 to get the larger subsidy? Guess who would likely win? Subsidies seem •to require performance standards, which seem inevitably to be based on engi'neering 'efficiency rather-than cost effectiveness, which pushes things back into the hands of the corporations. Subsidy can provide encouragement, but there are other ways, such as putting solar collectors on the White. House and a garden out back. . : I ,·.·~::·. •• .... ·- .':> :-· -~ . . ~ • - ~~~~ t Then there's what's called the Sucked-In Hazard. It's what happened to environmentalists dtfring Carter's campaign. All the major environmentalists were let know that they were being considered for an Important Job in the new administration. Didn't hear much criticism of Carter's nuclear position from any of them, did you? The government's big enough that it could give every critic an Important and Well Paying Job without making a dent in the government, but effectively absorbing and neutralizing any momentum for change. Sounds like any big operation. Yep. · ~~-n 't ~~e government do anything effectively? .....:::-c~~ ;,S-~re. It's. real good at growing. It can do some.things well. But :• past experience says it doesn't very often. (Remember the 2 percent success rate on a.t. money so far?) It can also do certain things•better than 9thers. It's kind of like a steamrollerbig, powerful, slow to get going, hard to change direction, unresponsive to loc2.! situations, but good ~hen you're trying to get things done alike everywhere. Because of the scale of its effects, it hesitates (hopefully) to act until overcertain, while a more local action (like the Oregon_Bottle Bill) can 1 get out of the theoretical realm and find out whether something really works or not. -~~~::~;~~ ;:;:;:;rwe got the right people in to run the government What other hazards are there to gouernment assistance to a.t.? Organizational effectiveness, for one. People like Barry Stein, in Size, Efficiency and Community Enterprise, have shown • the great diseconomies of scale that exist in large organizations which make them less effective and desirable than smaller ones. These "dis.economies" are not limited to dollars alone. 'fhe larger scale of federal programs results in a focus on , "fiscal accountability"- whether the money was actually spent, not on its results or on possible more effective alternative expenditures. It results in focus on management skills rather ,than ability to understand and respond to local realities. The scale of programs results in too much information to be digested by, decisio.n-makers-they can't keep up with the details necessary for successful programs. The scale of operation forces decision-makers to design program,s, not select effective people. Spending deadlines, fiscal years, and refunding demands lead to strangely aberrant behaviors- such as putting any program together to get rid of end-of-year funds, overrevving programs to get "results" quick enough to get refunded, etc. Goals, programs, budgets, personnel,·and operations all too.frequently become pawns in power plays among managerial staffs of the bureaucracies. They'd probably do some good, but probably be destroyed in the process. The amount of power and opportunity to do good (or bad) in any centralized operation makes almost everyone who gets the chance work themselves to death. It's called the executive syndrome. Marriages fall apart. People' start to smoke cigarettes again. They get old fast. Egos get big enough thft they star;t to bump into things. T,hings get out of balance. It's not a fair thing to do to people. We've seen it happen to enough friends to know, and it's _hard enough to slow down our own lives to a good balance! We need to break that opportunity down into small enough hunks that a person can do good with it and still be able to stay human. Besides operational effectiveness, what other drawba-cks are there to Federal activities? ' I i:-here are a lot of thi,ngs government can't do or isn't supposed to do. It can't give good evaluation of government programs or recommend one product or group, etc., as better or worse than others unless it really covers its own tail. It's not supposed to lobby. It has great difficulty taking risks or opposing governmental domination of relationships. Govern- ,ments, like ·any large organization, bave an inherent affinity to other systems of similar scale and organization. It's e_asier
for the Feds to solicit and administer one large contract than ten small ones, but it would be easier and cheaper for ten •. states to administer one small contract each. . Governme!1t _Programs have gre,;t difficulty making effective use of existmg local resources. Thus considerable rationale exists for handling many activities from a regional rather than a national level. Many regional networks already exist, know . local problems, resources and how to operate locally1It is much 1:1ore difficult and expensive for a national program to deal with local problems. 1 , Regional networks can operate several orders of magnitude more effectively-cheap transportation, housing, etc., ability to fo_cus existing resources into new responses to problems ✓ (pul!mg alr~a~y funded_ lo~al people and organizations toget,her to divert existmg energies mto a.t. work), ability to gain local support and funding. Regional networking kinds of organization can give all members a strengthened and truer sense of their ability, worth, importance and values-none are indispensible, all can initiate things, and make contacts themselves directly. In ·any national organization or program set up from .the . top down, the tendency is for smaller scale.elements (i.e., us) to exist at the pleasure of the center. Organization developed from local bases can allow the power base to remain with local groups-any regional or national activity then exists at their pleasure and can be changed or eliminated by the local groups. A top-down organization tends to centralize activities that occur at different scales while locally based structures, such as fed~rations, tend the opposite direction. Cooperative efforts need tc;:i occur at different scales-the question is where • the control lies. Perhaps the greatest drawback is forgetting that there are usually several ways to successfully achieve a goal-with each' having secondary effects which are very different yet equally as important as the primary goal. . ~overnment progqtms also suffer a particular malady of logic common to large-scale projects. There is a contagious illusion (?f reality and effectiveness in planning multi-mi'llion ?ollar pro~rams-planning perfectly logical structures by addmg, or takmg away hundreqs of thousands of dollars without any se~se of the realit_ies ?ehi11id. the d?llars or the situation. Logic deals-only with interial consistency. It gives no sense of whether the program fits or can adapt to the realities 9f where and when ~nd by whom it is.to be applied to what context. There seems to be an inherent assumption that if a problem exists, can be defined, and a logical gover~mental program developed to deal with it, that such is the desirable way to go, although the direct and indirect effect·s of state, local, individual or no action may frequently be preferable but unexamined. June, 1978 RAIN Page 7 Don't locally funded small-scale projects have a_ny problems? You bet they do. Lack of expertise, frequent failure to deal with problems on a large enough scale, local politics, lack of funds, to mention a few. But their score on all the human, economic, and effectiveness·levels seems to be better overall than large-scale activities, with the exception of a few areas. / where national coordination is essential. And it's a lot easier '_for people to live with their own shortc0mings than with someone else's shoved down their throat. •. . ~· :· .- - . :.: . ~ ,'\ So what is the answer to the question we started withIs gov'!rnment assistance 'to a.t. desirable? 1 There is no answer. Many small-scale process~s that wil,l require no subsidy in their actual operation may require a vast amount of work in development, .shakedown, and dealing with _the /politics and hassles of conversion from larger systems. Often that work oenefits us all, but its effort may destroy small projects or burn out individµals who have to do it on their own. Assista9ce may h~lp. Toughing it through m~y be better. Each case is individual. Sometimes it's justified to play Robin Hood and take soi;ne from the big rich system for the poor sma.ll ones. Depends if you're good enough not to get burned. But Robiµ Hoods depend on having that big rich system. Diversity and redundancy of approaches are vitally impor- ' tant. Government alone has little. Local projects have a lot. The two together may have more. Or less. ·It depends upon our particular situations, ne_eds and abilities whet~er it's more strengthening or more debilitating to go it alone. It also depends on the trend of things. There is no single point where too much government funding or participation is too much-but there is some point where it has gone too far, destroyed·too much local initiative, where too much responsibility has again b_een given ·up to the government. - _Small scale, localized technology can either evolve into a decentralized form of.a centrally controlled society or into a decentrally controlled ·one. They are totally different things. The demo'nstrated viability and desirability of one or the other in a thousand of small situations will decide which. It's up to each of us. ■ '
Page 8 RAIN June 1978 Regulate Bureaucracies, Not the Sun -William A. Shurcliff It seems to me that the men who are writing government standards on solar heating equipment have been cencentrating on the wrong thing. Most of the standards they draw up dea\ with durability and efficiency instead of with cost-effectiveness. I remember the old golfing joke: Smith says: "Your ball went into the pond; why are you looking for it on the fairway?" Jone~ replies: "I am trying to be practical. Searching the pond is difficult and messy. But searching the fairway is fast and straightforward." . What the potential buyer of solar-heating equ~pment really wants is equipment th'at is cost-effective. He wants to know which system, over a 20-year period, will deliver the most heat at the smallest overall cost. Do the standards writers prepare standards on this? In comparing the various makes of equipment, do they list values of "BTUs per buck"? • They do not. • Why not? If asked, they would reply, I believe, along these lines: "The subj~ct is too difficult and messy. No one can predict t~e number of ,BTUs delivered, because it ·depends on so many factors, such as.site, climate, what_typ~ and size· of storage system is used, and how the r~sidents operate the system. All of these factors are outside our control. Cost, also, is difficult and messy; suppliers keep changing their prices; installation costs are hard to predict; maintenance costs are unknown." • Then why don't the standards writers give up? If they can't answer the crucial question, why don't they remain silent (or stick to issues of safety, which everyone knows to be important)? Here their reply might take this form: "We are trying to do our best. Trying to be helpful. So we write standards on collection efficiency and durability. We think it will be helpful to buyers to know which equipment has high collection efficiency and high durability." But here the tragedy of standards reaches its-climax. The fact is that the most efficient and mosf durable equipment . may o~ may not be the most cos't-effective. Cpnceivably it may be the least cost-effective-the worst buy. A Rolls Royce may be the most efficient and durable automobile; but its costeffectiveness is far below that of a Toyota. A $15 pen may perform superbly; but it is.less cost-effective than a typical 50¢ pen. To me i~ is frightening to see a government agency (for example, the agency recently set up by the State ,of California) set up standards on efficiency and durability, and give the public vast amounts of information on these topics, de~pite the fact that the correlation between these topics and costeffectiveness is dubious and may even be negative. Is such ·information really helpful? Or does it distract people from what is truly important: cost-effectiveness? , Ancj won't manufacturers, too, be distracted?' Will they not be tempted to modify their designs so as to increase efficiency and durability even at the risk of decreasing cost-effectiveness? This is what I really fear. Because the crucial (and often miss- . ing) prerequisite to a healthy solar heating industry is costeffectiveness. Bill Shurcliff says it well-how much of our government activity is looking for golf balls where it is easy to look for them instead ofwhere we know they are? - TB Why is there the intense, concentrated concern that John Q. Public shall not suffer any disappointment when he buys solar heating equipment? By way of contrast, consider the following: If he buys a second-hand car, and it turns out very badly, he has little or no recourse. If he buys cigarettes, and gets cancer of the lung (as 100,000 persons do each year), he has no recourse. . If he buys alcoholic beverages and becomes an alcoholic (as 1,000,000 persons do each year), he has no recourse. Why, then, this tremendous concern that he might be wasting, say, $2,000? Is this as hard on him as buying a very defective $4,000 car? Or as contracting cancer of the lungs? Or as becoming an alcoholic? Considering cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, boats, swimming pools, snowmobiles, etc., do not our citizens waste on the order of $10 to $100 billion·each year? Is the Government really in the business of trying to stop people from wasting money? To impose standards on life-and-death materials like .vaccines is essential. But on solar heating systems, NO.
INFORMATION U.S. Directory of Environmental Sources, 2nd edition, by U.S. International Environmental ReferraLC~nter, No. PB-274 110/6WP, available from: NTIS 5285 Port Royal Rd. Springfield, VA 22161 A listing of 1144 U.S. environmental organizations registered with the Int'l. Referral System, the purpose of which is to encourage the global flow of environmental information and data from those who have it to those who need it. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency is the ·designated focal point and mechanism for such info transfer on topics including: Energy Resources; Fresh Water; Land Use & Misues; Chemical and Biological Processes; Management and Planning; Monitoring and Assessment; Non-Renewable Resources; Pollution; Renewable Resources; Education; Training and Information; Socio-Economic Aspects; Technology and Industry; Wastes and Wildlife. To use the system, one may phone, write or visit: U.S. International Referral Center ·PM-213 U.S.-EPA, Rm. 2902 WSM 401 M St.-, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 (202) 755-1836 The requestor is provided a listing of sources.likely ~o provide the information desired and then it is up to the user to make contact with those sources. -LJ \ POLITICS Local Responses to Global Problems: A Key to Meeting Basic Human Needs, Bruce Stokes, Worldwatch Paper 17, $2 from: Worldwatch Institute . 1776 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Common Sense Radicalism, Neil N. Seidman, from: Mutualist Books Box· 1283 Rochester, NY 14603 Coming from two very different ·perspectives, these two pamphlets are describing much the same potential that is afoot. Hence the comparison: It's significant that the Worldwatch Institute, a-research group focusing on global level problems, has published Local Responses to Global Problems. While bureaucracies everywhere are finding themselves less effective in meet-· ing basic human needs, a host of localized, cooperative and self-help actions are starting to emerge world-wide as more responsive models. Analyzing· four areas, this report finds that increasing emphasis on consumer energy production, primary preventive health care, self-help housing and localized small- • scale agriculture is having an impact on the larger systems within which they function. This development seems to t~rive within completely different political and economic settings. \ I Common Sense Radicalism is an investigation of the same ph~nomena but is clearly framed in more political terms. · It focuses on the potential for Americans in particular to organize themselves through more appropriately scaled economies and technologies to gain greater political control over their lives. This is a decentralist manifesto that digs back into American history and brings us full circle to the real im- •peratives of today. A good primer on our movement with an excellent bibliography for those seeking further • reading. -SA June 1978 RAIN Page 9 BUILDING Underground Space, $30/year from: American Underground AssQciation Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 5 545 5 Journal of the American Underground Association. Technological research for large scale use of underground space for military and civilian use. Juicy details on dewatering coarse tunnel muck, underground storage of nuclear wastes, control of ground movement, underground sewage treatment and nuclear power plants, insurance risks, etc. Excellent source of current work. -TB - u- / -\ -from Common Sense Radicalism
Page 10, RAIN, June 1978 Dear Tom: I received the most recent issue of RAIN and enjoyed reading "NCAT, Where Ar~ You At?''. As can be expected, I have a different analysis on certain aspects of the article. I think it is ·only fair that you distinguish the two-year planning process from the year's operation of NCAT. The , staff, now working in Butte, were not involved in the twoyear process, were not responsible for what occurred during this period, nor in fact were.responsible for the final decisions in the structural establishment of the Center. There are iwo areas in which I disagr{'.e with the article. The first area is in the grant-making processes. N<:;:A T today has received over 500 proposals and we have funded over 100 organizations totaling $1,000,000. There was no mention of our work with people in the lower east side of New York or involvement in Crystal City, and the many programs funded both to a. t. and CAA organizations. Regardi'ng the funding of newsletters, four of the newsletters were ddayed in funding b~cause they either did not ret:urn their signed contract, and/ or they were operating within a university structure and the delay was within the un1versity. That is not to say that we have not had problems with CSA and the Board·. I agree that the requirements for small grants need to be closely scrutinized, and we must avoid requiring a great deal of people's work and people's time just to protect "the integrity.of Federal dollars." The other area is what you envision as.the maximum size of the NCAT staff. For your information, the Grants and Outreach Component is handled by five people and the Information/Research Component has been ·operating with six people. The purpose of NCAT is not just to funnel monies t,o a.t.s or CAAs, nor·is it just to provide information on approp.ri3:te technology. • NCAT's chief responsibility.is to.give a national focus to appropriate technology and to remove a. t. from the backyard tinkering arena and to put it into a more political and economical framework. A.T. must become a viable alternative to the capital-intensive and capital-concentrated economy that now exists. A.T. must become a viable alternative to lowincome and minority organizations. Much of what I have witnessed today regarding a.t. is pretty middle-class an~ white oriented. I certainly cannot argue with the sections dealing with CSA and the Board. I agree that the Center needs to be "turned loose," and NCAT must evolve a process that will not restrict cooperation and accessibility to the many organizations involved in appropriate technology and community ' development. I believe the differences between your concep-. tion of NCAT and rriy vision of NCAT are healthy. I wo1;1ld like the opportunity to have you visit the Center and to share with us your ideas and your concerns. Maybe in the future RAIN article, I could wri\e an article ei:i,titled, "NCAT, What )s It and Where We Are." . , My best regards to you and the staff. Sincerely, James F. Schmidt , Executive Coordinator National Center for Appropriate Technology Dear Tom: . As an addition to my last letter I thought you would be interested in knowing that the· Executive Committee of the Board is recommending to the full Board that I be terminated as of Friday, April 21. It now appears that the Board will •terminate me by a very narrow margin. My termination is of little significance; what is important is what will happen to the National Center. Regardless of the reasons given by Maggiore and Dick Saul, my termination is becau$e of three basic issues. These are: 1. The Cepter is worker managed·. 2. The Center is diversifying its funding, which means less control for Dick Sal;ll. ' 3. The staff wants the Center to be a National Center for Appropriate Technology, not~ CSA Weatherization Center. ' ' I Regardless of your personal feelings concerning the "appropriateness" of a National Center, there is an extremely fine staff here who are dedicated to the advancement of appropriate technology and the Center has been successful. There have been numerous proplems, many related to the Board and CSA's control, but given a chance the Center could be of benefit. Lastly, your recent article was incorrect in its attack on ' MERDI. During my one year with the Center, Jerry Plunkett ,has been extremely cooperative and supportive. He has not exerted any control or influence over the Center. Our relationship with MERDI has been extremely positive. The problem ' of control is with Dick Saul. My best to you. Jim, Sincerely, James F. Schmidt Executive Coordinatdr National Center for Appropriate Technology I We didn't mean to imply any present problems between NCA T and MERDI. As our article stated, however, MERDI was a real problem during the planning of NCA T. This was partly because of the lack ofhonesty about precommitments between CSA and MERDi in regard to NCA T. It was partly because any rel~tion between NCA T and MERDI was un-
necessary and possibly a hindrance to NCA T. But it was largely the probability, supported by past experiences of many of us, that any effective NCA T would have to cross wires with the interests of the organizations represented on MERDI's board and would likely encounter severe oppositio_n to its activities from that board to the degree it bad control over NCA T. -TB Dear RAIN, Got your April issue today and have already been all the way through it. Immensely pleased that you've taken the gloves off. NCAT and DOE and Carter deserve the most biting criticism that you can give them. No pussyfooting. In the same mail I received a letter from Hiram Shaw of NCAT telling me that a proposal that I worked on for the Clamshell Alliance would not be accepted. It was a classic case that I will not go into as it probably mirrors many stories you have already heard. It did give me a chance to go out to Butte and see what was going on there in January and to renew my acquaintance with Ellyn Murphy, an intern there (and previously with NWES). The only justification for an NCAT I can see is if it were doing real work, developing devices which would be cheap, easily understood and put together and all that other alternative, appropriate, soft, low, intermediate technology bullshit criteria. I would like to see some concerted, organized work on working machines that would start from urban tenant solar (windowboxes for space heat and hot water) and work up through household systems to neighborhood systems. A test center for such an idea might do some good. But then maybe not. You should know that the Clamshell Alliance is putting an energy van on the road before the end of the month and that the van can be contacted through myself or Steve Crowley at 507 R Franklin St., Cambridge, MA 02139. We are looking for posters, displays and literature to carry and disseminate and working models to demonstrate and do workshops on. Wish us well. I wish you well, but that's because you consistently do good work. Yours, George Mokray P.S. I was like Elijah the unknown guest at one of the planning meetings for NCAT three years ago up at Goddard. Sat through at least three of the most boring meetings I have ever sat through and watched the progress get stranger and stranger over the hours (now years). I lean toward scrapping it and most of the other government thingies down the line. Steve Baer sounds better and better every day. P.P.S. Did you see that the FY '79 budget has cut out both community gardening and direct marketing monies? Please tell people to write to: Rep.Jamie L. Whitten, House Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations Washington, DC 20515 Rupert Cutler, Asst. Secretary, USDA Washington, DC 20250 Joseph Crapa, House Subcommittee on Domestic Markets 1336 Longworth HOB, Washington, DC 20515 as well as your reps and senators. It is important. Dear Rain Gang: rnrnmu feedback I have a suggestion for you all. I think it would be wise that before anyone at RAIN put pen to paper in the future it be required that they read Steve Baer's thoughts on government and free enterprise on p. 17, April 1978 RAIN. IT'S NICE TO HAVE A LITTLE SANITY WITH MY RAIN. It seems to me that your publication is going the same route that many other similar pubs have gone: 1. Bitching about how other people are spending the government's money. 2. Telling everyone how it SHOULD be spent. 3. Trying to teach people how to get in line for their fair share of this free money. That money is MY MONEY that the tax man took at the point of a gun. TO HELL WITH NCAT. Stuart B. Wahlberg Stuart, Hope this issue gives some balance. Although we've had and have openly expressed strong reservations· in both cases, we've tried to do our best to help both the DOE and NCA T a.t. efforts get going in the most positive way possible. Experience bas confirmed our doubts, but without pitching in ourselves we would know much less about why these rocks can't fly. Without actually trying out such options (and local a. t. as well), it's our beliefs against theirs, with no real experience to draw upon. It's all coming clean in the wash now. -TB Dear Tom: Re your article on NCAT in the April issue of RAIN, you elicited comments from those on the periphery of the situation. My views are as follows: I feel about NCAT the way I feel about New York City. It should be detonated and started all over again. Best regards, Richard Katzenberg Natural Power, Inc. New Boston, NH (past president, Amer. Wind Energy Assoc.)
Page 12 RAIN June 1978 While economic pressures are squeezing family farmers out, corporations are becoming increasingly involved in every phase of food production and distribution. At the same time, consumers face steadily climbing food prices and a serious decline in the nutritional quality of food. The American diet now yearly contains over 126 lbs. of sugar and an estimated nine lbs. of additives. The federal government has been unwilling, or unable, to provide solutions to these problems. In fact, federal policies have actually created many of the inequities which citizens' groups would now like government to address-for example, tax laws that subsidize corporate farming; research grants that encourage large-scale capital-and energy-intensive farming; and price supports that aid large-scale farmers at the expense of small- and medium-sized operations. State legislatures, county and town governments, and city councils, on the other hand, being smaller and more accessible to farmers and consumer groups, have been much more receptive to new ideas and innovative approaches. State and local governments have enormous legal authority through jurisdiction over land-use decisions. In addition, agricultural programs are primarily administered by state and local institutions such as state Land Grant Colleges, the county extension service, Farmers Home Administration, and the Soil Conservation Service. And agribusiness and special commodity interests do not have the enormous political power at state and local levels that they do nationally. For these reasons, some of the most progressive action on agricultural, land, and food policies has come, and will continue to come, at the state and local level: • Eight Midwestern and Great Plains states-Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin-have passed anti-corporate farm laws. These vary in scope and strength, but all represent substantial progress. One law simply requires disclosure of corporate ownership of farmland; North Dakota's bars corporations from owning or operating farms. • Minnesota's Family Farm Security Act of 1976 has established an agency to guarantee up to 90 percent of a farmer's loan to purchase land. We've been more and more impressed with the work being done by the folks at the Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policies. If only they'd simplify their name! They've established an active network ofpeople doing innovative things in state and local government, and connected those folks up with information on legislation elsewhere that can act as precedence and inspiration for their own effarts. They support a yearly national conference (July 13-16 in Minneapolis this year), special topic conferences, a clearinghouse to assist public officials and community activists in developing appropriate legislation, public policy and tax refarm readers, sample legislation, technical assistance, a host of other good publications, and an excellent bimonthly newsletter, just renamed Ways and Means ($10/year for individuals), from which we've excerpted the following appetizer. Get in touch with them at 1901 Que St. N. W., Washington, DC 20009. -TB LOCAL EFFORTS BEAR FRUIT -Lee Webb and Cynthia Guyer • Taxes on farmland are too high when compared to farm income, due to increased land speculation. But through revision of the property tax system, 31 states have enacted laws to provide incentives for maintaining land in agricultural production. Maryland's Preferential Assessment Act, for example, taxes agricultural and open lands according to use value, not market value. Hawaii and Oregon protect agricultural land through comprehensive state land-use plans. • New York allows farmers to form "agricultural districts" that are protected from development. New York farmers also receive a low tax assessment based on the land's agricultural rather than commercial market value. In addition, New York's Suffolk County passed an initiative in 1977 that authorizes the county to purchase the development rights to farmland. In a similar move, Massachusetts has voted to appropriate money to experiment with the purchase of development rights. Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin are also considering legislation to protect threatened farmland. • Missourirs Small Farm Program has demonstrated how an extension department of a State Land Grant College can effectively work with low-income farmers. Missouri's program, initiated in 1971, assisted over 900 farm families in six counties last year. Other states with extension services J I
for low-income and small-scale growers are Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. • California is evaluating the research priorities and budget allocations of its Land Grant College. The state's new Office of Appropriate Technology gives information to farmers and gardeners about environmentally sound farm techniques such as methane production and biological pest control. In addition, California's Small Farm Viability Project has recommended that the state establish a non-profit rural development corporation to assist family farmers and rural communities. • Pennsylvania and West Virginia have established Direct Marketing Programs. They provide new markets for farmers while reducing consumers' food costs. California, Hawaii, and New York have also helped link food producers and consumers more closely through direct marketing and by promoting locally produced farm products. Going one step farther, New York is considering two bills that would encourage state institutions to buy locally grown produce. • California, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania have initiated programs to assist consumer food-buying co-ops. • State Food and Agriculture Plans of Massachusetts and Vermont have recommended construction of state and regional processing and storage facilities, and increasing soil conservation programs. • California and Massachusetts have turned over idle state- ?wned land to local communities for farming and gardenmg. • Many communities are experimenting with fertilizer made from waste. For example, Boston converts 80,000 tons of sewage into marketable fertilizer .annually; and Massachusetts State Representative Mel King has introduced a bill that would establish a State Compost Authority. • Finally, Iowa's State Energy Research Fund finances windmill and solar-pond demonstration projects. Past agricultural, land, and food policies have encouraged agribusiness at the expense of family-sized farms, the environment, and consumers. America needs policies that will encourage ecologically sound farming methods; preserve threatened agricultural land; stimulate rural and small-town economic development; ensure sound nutrition; and keep food prices low. The farmer, consumer, and public-interest groups who focus on state and local policy have been criticized by those who think they should mobilize to change federal policy. But innovative alternatives and strong initiatives at the state and local level will create political pressure that could help force the necessary changes in America's national agricultural, land, and food policies in the coming years. HADDTO EAT UE News/cpf Dear Tom and all, Was just reading the new RAIN and was pleased to see your blurb on Suburban Renewal. That "saving prime agricultural land" can be a real bandwagon slogan used to beat a lot of people over the head. It's characterized by a lot of fuzzy thinking so common these days in us all. Here in Idaho, especially around Moscow, where we all just moved from, that argument is used consciously or unto keep available land prices sky high, to exclude "hippies" from their country spreads (1 to 10 acres), to keep people in the town renting at horrible prices, and to keep the land in the hands of a small number of big farmers. I had a roaring argument just before we left at a neighborhood coffee for city council elections. The youngJiberals were promoting the saving agricultural land stuff and talking about the "waste" of land sitting in 5-acre or 3-acre plots where the owners let it "just go up in weeds." Grrr. I growled and leaped. "Do you really believe if you are interested in saving land that the land is better off being farmed, i.e. ruined with crop after crop of wheat, fertilized, pesticided, herbicided to death, and finally allowed to sit naked all winter and blow away, then wash away in the spring? It's a thousand times better off with a nice cover crop of weeds." Agriculture in America is a killer. And of course if those acres were put in an organic garden, all the better. Water is the big factor in these small acreages or suburban settings. Like you said, conservation methods can make all the differenceI suggested suburban developments with laws about all systems being as waterless as possible-dry toilets. They have developments around here now, with laws that none of the buildings can be metal-why not something more crucial? OK. I live now in a ghost town with a bunch of other families and one big rancher. Most people have about 10 acres, are Catholic-hardworking, lots of kids. Shit, I like it. Don't mind neighbors. We're so dumb we need lots of help. Really, it's the first community (even if accidental) I've really lived in. Communes don't count 'cause we were all too much alike. What I'd like to know-if you have time-is, well, I'd like to have a little teach-in on nuclear power and beyond into alternatives here in the near town of about 1,500 people on a teeny-weeny budget. Is this nuts? Do you know sources I can get materials from-nearby "experts," movie rentors that have reasonable films I could rent? Anything like that. It's just for fun. Yes, yes. If you have any ideas and have the time, drop me a line. We need information too back here in the boonies. OK. Thariks a lot for everything. Best of luck for a good spring. Dear Rain, Judy Gordon Box 65 Mesa, ID 83643 A day after I'd read John Coffin's letter on folding bikes (April RAIN), I chanced upon a white-haired couple outside the Grants Pass Library. I told them of Coffin 's·letter and asked them whether their bikes-Columbia brand-were collapsible. No, they replied, but they came apart: the front wheels and seats came off, leaving the frames small enough to fit in the back seat of a car with ease. They said that Grants Pass has changed a lot since Coffin visited it in 1936, but "it's a good bicycle town. Come on out!" Sincerely, Richard Conviser P.S. I think you'd enjoy Wolf Storl's new book, Culture and Horticulture: A Philosophy of Gardening, $1.75 from the author at 2508 Jerome Prairie Rd., Grants Pass, OR 97526. Check with Wolf as to how he prefers to sell the book.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz