Even without a thorough knowledge of white sage’s (Saliva apiana) mystical characteristics, simple observation of the plant will impress upon the onlooker a profound sense of respect and reverence.  Its long, grey-green leaves are covered with hundreds of soft, silvery hairs and emit a powerful, earthy smell.  In the right light, white sage almost shimmers, and when in bloom, white or pale purple flowers erupt from stalks that can reach several feet in height.  White sage tends to grow in full sun, in dusty or rocky soil, and is extremely drought resistant.

White sage (we’wey) has been used by the Chumash for thousands of years in order to primarily heal the spirit, which they believe in turn aids in the body’s ability to recover.  When smudged, the smoke is used to purify the patient’s central nervous system and calm the psyche.  Smudging is typically used with prayer and formal ritual, but a constant dose of sage and its benevolent properties can be ensured every day by maintaining gardens where the plant holds a prominent position.  During blessings, the smoke from white sage is said to bring prayers to God and invite divine benevolence into the healing process.

Leaves can be collected in conjunction with prayer to create a tea or placed directly in the mouth to soothe sore throats.  Sage contains cineole, which is an anti-inflammatory, as well as active diterpenoids, which are compounds that have been shown to combat bacterial infections, and reduce allergy symptoms.  White sage can also be added to a sweat bath, used to treat fevers, made into a poultice, and ingested to aid in the treatment of ulcers.

Bambu Batu is now fortunate to have bundles of sage available in the store.  Wild-crafted from the hills behind Big Sur, the leaves are ready for smudging or to be made into infusions.  Continue a tradition of healing and blessings with this remarkable plant!

Striving towards energy efficiency in our buildings, vehicles and appliances sounds like good, solid environmental policy.  However, in recent years, more and more climate researches have been raising awareness of what they call the “rebound effect“, or the idea that efficiency without regard to a shift in energy supply is actually damaging to global atmospheric health.  Many policy makers and businesses tout efficiency as a guilt-free way of stimulating the economy by encouraging manufacture of more goods to replace current infrastructure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Consumers would benefit from lower electricity bills, and business owners would be able to reduce their costs of operation.

The arguments against simply producing more eco-friendly machines are rooted in the notion that lower costs may eventually lead to greater use from dirty sources that in turn pollute at an increased rate.  There is also a fear that the demand for energy would remain the same or even increase once focus is redirected from inputs into manufacturing new technology that requires power and electricity in different areas of production.  Some consumers may even up their use of efficient technology under the misconception that they are saving more with their new gadgetry than they are wasting.

While the rebound effect does not completely negate all monetary and climactic advantages of green design, it is contended that the net gain is too small to be considered as a panacea for government and industry in the face of global warming.  There is also the issue of “backfiring”, or situations where energy efficiency indirectly through the market leads to increased demand and may invalidate any gains made.

Currently, there is debate as to how much damage the rebound effect could cause.  For example, in some instances 10-30% of savings from car and home technology could be lost on an individual level alone.  On the macro-economic scale the breakdown is different for rich and poor countries, where the rebound effects are amplified for those that are in the process of industrializing. Poor countries respond more to fluctuating energy prices, and their demand for energy is constantly growing and has yet to reach a point of saturation.  Big economies mean big energy users, which could further damage the health of the climate if cleaner sources are not utilized, consumption grows out of control, or emissions are not strictly regulated.

More studies are needed to determine the overall scope of the rebound effect, but there are a few points that must be considered in light of the potential catastrophic effects our good intentions may have on the environment.  Clean technology is not enough to save us from the hazards of a warming globe.  We still need to reduce our net use of energy, make sure we choose renewable and safe sources of electricity, and scrutinize every aspect of our economies so as not to shift the energy burden to sectors outside the immediate “energy input” scope of investigation.

The Otter Project

For some of us, the 80′s were hard.  They meant ill-advised side ponytails, far too much spandex, and awkward high school social interactions.  Yet, no matter how rough it may have been for humans, the sea otters living off the California coast had a much tougher go of things.

In 1987, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, under the advice of Ronald Reagan and Strom Thurmond established a “No-Otter Zone” spanning from Point Conception south to the Mexican Border.  The Zone was created in response to complaints from the fishing industry that the otters were a threat to commercial species, and from oil companies worried that having such a cute and cuddly ocean ambassador would impede their drilling activities.

Even though the otters were protected by the Endangered Species Act as well as the Marine Mammal Protection Act, these animals were translocated to an “experimental” colony around San Nicholas Island in efforts to manage their populations.  The reasoning for the move was that in the event of an oil spill, large numbers of otters would perish, leaving the stocks depleted.  Having a reserve colony off the distant Channel Island could in effect save the bloodline and preserve genetic diversity.

Sadly, the translocation project was an abject failure.  Many otters died, disappeared, or swam back to their previous homes.  In 1993, only 12 otters out of the expected 150 lived off of the island.  The FWS found itself moving otters back at the cost of nearly $10,000 per animal, and encountered dead or sick otters that could have suffered adverse effects from transportation.  The FWS decided to stop containing the otters, but also did nothing to alter the law.

After years of lawsuits brought by both fisherman and environmentalists, the No-Otter Zone remains in effect although not enforced.  Otters are moving back into the the territory, but are still considered vulnerable until the legislation is officially repealed.

To advocate for protecting the otters, community members are invited to attend the FWS’s upcoming hearing in Santa Barbara on October4 from 5-8pm at the Fleischman Auditorium at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.  In addition, supporters are encouraged to write the FWS and local senators and representatives asking for a repeal of the No-Otter Zone.

For more information, visit the Otter Project’s Website to see how you can help one of California’s most famous residents!