Still reading week three

Wallach’s question “Will a future generation look back at the relics of today's mineral boom and regret the passing of coal and trona?” got me thinking about what has disappeared from my landscapes. One that came to mind was that gas stations were once called “service stations” Like Wallach’s Elk Hills, they are still there; they’re just not the same. There once was a time when a driver arrived at a service station and a young man (usually) would greet the driver, ascertain what was desired, and begin servicing the car. While the gas was pumped, the attendant would at least clean the windshield and check the oil. The attendant would bring the oil dipstick to the driver to show whether or not any oil was needed. If the gas was still pumping, the air pressure in the car tires would be checked and the other car windows would be cleaned. Once the gas was done pumping the attendant would take the payment and return with the change. If someone came trotting toward my car at a gas station today, he’d likely get shot on the assumption that he was a car-jacker. Or maybe not since anyone stealing my car would be doing me a favor.

Wallach’s essays describe how people adapt landscapes for their own purposes. In a country dominated by beef, the Red Desert was divided for cattle ranching. The region is better suited to sheep and so it became sheep country. Later, the cost of importing wool is less than the cost of raising sheep and the minerals below the land shape the region. Things change. Sometimes for good, sometimes for ill. A classmate has written about disagreements with her husband about whether, with the completion of the extension of I-395, the narrowing the main street in Carson City will be beneficial or detrimental. It might be both. I compare it to the construction of I-80 through Reno. It was a disaster for the businesses on 4^th Street but a boon for businesses on North Virginia. I think I would prefer change, with all its related problems, to a static environment.

50 People who could save the planet. The ones on the list I think most likely are those who are creating cheaper ways to do things. Vicki Buck working on fuel from algae. Guy Lamsaes who has devised an inexpensive way to make refrigerators more efficient. Reducing the cost of green technology is probably going to be more effective than those on the list whose contributions are little more than “Reduce your carbon footprint and we’ll save the Earth!” I was truly surprised to see Bjorn Lomborg on the list. Lomborg suggests that solving problems such as providing clean water or eradicating AIDS and malaria might be cheaper and more effective in reducing human misery than ending global warming. I’m reading his book Cool It now. I question some of his claims and he sometimes seems to contradict himself but the book is thought provoking.