by : lacylit10 Politics

With Wind Energy and Endangered Species…

…the Greater Good Sure Is Subjective

By its scheduled completion in December, the Strauss Wind Energy Project near Lompoc is expected to produce enough electricity to power 45,000 houses.

Considering Santa Barbara County set the ambitious goal of reaching 100% renewable electricity by 2030, this project will be substantially helpful in attaining that goal.

Except the wind energy being produced will not stay in Santa Barbara County. The electricity will be exported to the San Francisco Bay Area.

In March, Strauss Wind Energy and BayWa r.e. filed for a federal take permit from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for any incidental deaths of golden eagles and other endangered species.

Since these permits can take years to secure, Strauss and BayWa requested permission from the county Planning Commission to begin operation without the permit.

Originally, county staff recommended the commissioners deny the request, but the commissioners recommended staff return with findings to approve it.

The decision was ultimately approved, as three of our local planning commissioners believe that immediately profiting by powering the Bay Area is more important than waiting the lengthy time frame for legally obtaining permission to kill endangered species.

It is for the “greater good,” they said. 

The greater good is such an interesting argument to me, because it is not based on logic. It is based on what you believe to be more important.

The greater good is subjective based on what you personally believe should take priority.

As taxpayers, we must decide what is more important to us:

  • Support the county in allowing Strauss and BayWa to begin operation without the federal take permit, and accept that the county can be held liable (fined) for any endangered species deaths.
  • Oppose the county in allowing Strauss and BayWa to operate without the federal take permit and accept that the county will not see immediate profits from exporting the electricity to the Bay Area.

The county is absolutely rigid in compliance enforcement when an individual or private company wants to do a project, and the county has no problem making the permit process as painful as possible while it drains local pocketbooks with associated fees.

In this situation, however, the county is willing to turn a blind eye to federal compliance for the wind farm, so it can generate profits off of exporting the electricity of a multibillion-dollar company.

Seemingly, laws and regulations are only relevant to enforce when the county believes it won’t make substantial money.

Choosing to make an exception for a project where it will largely profit sets a dangerous precedent. I can almost guarantee the county will not make an exception for your project when it does not generate that kind of revenue.

So who, exactly, do the Santa Barbara County planning commissioners consider the “greater good” in this situation? The county itself, local constituents, or residents of the Bay Area?

I actually do believe that sometimes rules need to be bent or broken for the greater good, if you are willing to suffer the consequences.

But I am not willing to accept the consequences of county decision makers who put profits over people (and the lives of endangered animals).

If the county is not willing to make compliance exceptions for local businesses when they will not see a multimillion-dollar profit, then it should not make the exception for a multinational corporation where it will.

I understand the taxes generated from the project will be significant. But the county will probably use those profits to hire more staff in the climate department to create more regulations requiring locals to replace their own nonrenewable energy sources, creating a slow, inconvenient and costly process as we carry the financial burden of chipping away at the county’s unrealistic climate goals.

If the planning commissioners were truly concerned with the greater good of our community, they would keep the wind-generated electricity within our county to help them reach their own ambitious climate goals.

And if the county was truly concerned with the greater good, it would adhere to the laws it enforces for others. 

Originally posted on Noozhawk.

by : lacylit10 Leadership, Life Lessons

Sensitive.

Mornings are my favorite. But there is something about Sunday mornings in particular. I’m not sure if it’s restful peacefulness of a week coming to a close or the calm before an eventful week ahead. Either way, sitting with a warm cup of coffee ☕️ in front of my computer while the sun rises outside my office window – this is my happy place.

It’s a time of reflection and preparation. I type out the thoughts that have been weighing on my mind, more for my own processing than anything else. As with most mornings, it’s hard to narrow my thoughts into a flowable post. Topics that have been swirling in my brain lately evolve around transitions, change, expertise, love, past, connection, friendship, future, goals, and many other things. And I laugh a little, because this is so me. My mind working on a million things at once, trying to make sense of the world around me.

I’m one of those people who “read too much into things.” This was something that I used to be embarrassed and ashamed of. I can’t turn it off, and I can’t change it. I have always been told told “Don’t take it so personally. Get over it. You’re so sensitive. Grow thicker skin.” – and other similar phrases that told me I was weak and different.

It wasn’t until I started really diving into leadership that I realized my sensitivity was a strength and something to embrace. Finally, I didn’t feel so weird. Nuances I noticed that others did not gave me a competitive advantage.

Turns out, high sensitivity is an actual thing. Roughly 20% of the population are highly sensitive people. HSPs have stronger reactions to internal and external activity. Some studies have shown that HSPs have more active mental circuitry and neurochemicals in areas related to decision-making, action-planning, attention, and strong internal experiences, which means I can channel my “focus with precision, make thoughtful choices, and spark rich insights to bring great ideas to the table.” I am wired this way. It’s genetics. I really cannot change it.

I always say little things matter, and my comment is often dismissed by people who more than likely do not register on the HSP scale. But I’m more keen to subtleties than others. If someone shifts in their seat after a comment is made in a meeting, it could mean something. A certain tone or inflection when speaking could mean something. If my heart starts racing while walking by myself, it could mean something. Just because it could mean something, doesn’t mean it always does, but it is worth paying attention to the intuitive feelings and vibes people give.

I’m always trying to understand the why. It’s my own personal search to discover the unspoken language of the world. The more I learn about myself, the more I learn about others. The deeper I dive into emotion, neuroscience, and psychology, the better I understand why I am the way I am and why others are the way the are.

As time passes, the less I believe we should treat others the way we wish to be treated, and more so believe we should treat others the way they wish to be treated. Noticing nuances allows us to cater interactions to the individual, providing opportunity for vulnerability, empathy, and connection to occur.

People obviously recognized my sensitivity, but no one responded to it in a manner that was beneficial to me, and I spent much of my life thinking something was wrong with me. But I don’t blame anyone. A lot of this science didn’t exist when I was young, so we did the best we could. The thing is that when we approach people with an open mind and an open heart, we’re more likely to accept people as. they. are. Every person we encounter has something to teach us. We just have to be willing to learn. 💫

by : lacylit10 Life Lessons

Intent.

Last week, (or whenever it was), I wrote about our ability to learn from our mistakes. When we make a poor decision with no ill intent, it is simply a human error in judgment, and we move on with life.  No harm, no foul. But what happens when there is harm? When there is foul? Why is intent sometimes looked at and not others?

My thoughts on this were prompted a few days ago when a liberal friend of mine posted something about guns on her Facebook page. She essentially said that she doesn’t want to take away guns; she just wants people to get proper instruction and training, so you know how to handle the firearm. Now, I’m not sure the context in which she meant this, and I know she does not condone violence. But my initial reaction was, “The bigger concern is not so much about if you know how to use a firearm; it’s more about what you intend to do with it.” Learning to use a gun specifically for murder is a lot different than learning to use a gun for potential use in self-defense.

But I’m not here to start a gun control debate with you. I’m sure you know how I feel about that. My point is that intent matters.

Following up on my interest in stoicism, Rafał Albiński explores the idea that there are two components to action: 1.) the intent or willingness to act, and 2.) the act itself (doing what was intended to be done). According to psychological theory, creating intent is within our control. Intent is conscious motive. But the action is not always entirely up to us. I may intend to meet my friend for lunch at 11:30, but several things can prevent that from happening:

  1. Someone pulls out in front of me and I get in a car accident (an external condition)
  2. I get focused on a project at work and lose track of time (nonvolitional will – unconscious decision)
  3. I deliberately choose to stand him up (volitional will – conscious decision)

Stoics believe that if something is not fully up to us, then it is not up to us. It’s fate-based. Therefore if action 1 happens, then I was not meant to meet that friend for lunch. My life was fated to take a different path. If action 2 happens, then it is possible that I was late because I was fated to avoid that accident. If action 3 happens, then I’m not really practicing Stoic (or simply kind) behavior and should reconsider my intent.

But this isn’t a lesson in Stoicism, so here’s another angle. Loretta G. Breuning, Ph.D. says:

Intention is the human ability to redirect the electricity in your brain instead of just letting it flow down the path of least resistance. Animals don’t do this. The world reaches their senses and electricity flows into paths paved by past experience. We humans can notice that flow and divert it.

If we go back to the gun issue as an example…this is an emotionally charged debate. But it’s what prompted my thought process, so I’m going to follow through on it.

Pulling the trigger is the second component of the action. The first component is the willingness to pull the trigger. Which means the human consciously diverted their energy into the action. This two component approach is also used in criminal law. The intent (mens rea) must be proven in order to secure a conviction for the actual act (actus reus).

Had I of commented on my friends post with my initial reaction, it likely would have started a gun control debate with her or one of her other FB friends. Her intent on the post was genuinely good. She was extending a Second Amendment olive branch out to her conservative friends, so to speak. My reaction would have blown her comments out of proportion, and created a defensive/divisive environment on our feeds.

As I said in my last post, “just because we can use media as mindless entertainment doesn’t mean we should always consume it as mindless media.” We need to stop receiving everyone’s commentary at face-value and consider the intent of their messages. especially on social media. We subconsciously think that everyone is out to intentionally inflict harm on us, when really, people are just voicing an opinion that they have every right to have.

by : lacylit10 Leadership, Life Lessons

Trust.

I once saw a meme that said, “Dating is getting to know someone until you realize you don’t like that person anymore.”  I mean, how true is that statement though? 😬 It’s kind of sad when you really think about it.  You invest time, energy, and emotion in someone until you ultimately discover that person is not worth your time, energy, and emotion.

There are a lot of great things about being single, don’t get me wrong.  The freedom is undeniably one of the best aspects of it.  But the dating part is hard.

First, choosing the person you want to date.  Not just anyone will set off the “cascade of hormones and neurotransmitters that accompanies the exciting first phase of love.  The person we select has to smell right, feel right, look right, and be just right in our arms.  Then, and only then, will the cascade get started.” – John Gottman, Ph.D

Once we choose that person (which I think is a conscious and subconscious decision), our brain releases several chemicals that have enormous influence on our judgment and affection.  These chemicals include a natural form of amphetamine, dopamine, pheromones, and oxytocin.  Psychologist Dorothy Tennov coined this phase of love as “limerence”.  Limerence is a state of infatuation or obsession typically experienced by an involuntary strong desire for reciprocation of one’s feelings.

It is our biological makeup that reacts to the people we are attracted to.  We cannot control the release of these chemicals, which is what makes the initial phase of relationships so intoxicating and exciting.  Then we enter the make it or break it phase of the relationship: Building Trust. 

This is where we discover we may not really like that person after all.  Some of those feel good chemicals have worn off, our blinders are no longer up, and we start to see this person for who they really are.

As we navigate through learning whether or not our partner can be trusted, we experience feelings of frustration, disappointment, sadness, and exasperation.  If healthy, positive conflict discussions ensue, the relationship has a better likelihood of working.  If blaming arguments occur, well, it’s the opposite. 

In animal research, scientists found that oxytocin and vasopressin are two chemicals associated with lifelong pair-bonding among prairie voles.  Prairie voles have high levels of oxytocin; they mate for life.  In a study, when scientists blocked the oxytocin receptors, the animals no longer formed monogamous bonds and tended to roam.

Oxytocin has been called “the love hormone” or “the cuddle hormone” because it plays an important role in forming attachments.  Our style of attachment (secure or insecure) as adults is rooted in how we bonded with caregivers as infants and children, namely our mother.  When you hold an infant, they wiggle in your arms to find comfort.  Once they find it, they put the whole weight of their body on you.  They give you com.plete. trust. with their being.  They feel safe and secure.

The building of trust is about having your partner’s best interests in mind and at heart.

John Gottman

In Trust Factor: The Science of Creating High-Performance Companies, Paul Zak describes the chemical reactions in our brains on how we respond to challenges and how trust is created.  In rodents, oxytocin has been shown to signal that another animal was safe to approach.  In an experiment conducted by Zak’s team, they found that oxytocin tended to reduce the fear of trusting a stranger.

Challenge stresses, (a difficult but achievable task), releases oxytocin and adrenocorticotropin.  Chemicals that intensify your focus and strengthen social connections.  In dating, this would probably be “the chase”.

Ultimately, you cultivate trust by setting a clear direction, giving people what they need to see it through, and getting out of their way.

Paul Zak

This comes down to expectations, communication, and feedback.  Not only are these typically weak areas in businesses, but also just in day-to-day relationships with coworkers, friends, family, and romantic partners.  

What’s interesting to me about all of this is that it goes to show that whether you are in a romantic or professional relationship with someone, our chemical reactions to building trust are essentially the same.  Healthy and positive conflict discussions in either type of relationship will see more success.