Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Climate Diet Times blog has moved
Come join me at my new blog site, http://climatediettimes.wordpress.com/ and join in on the fun as we discuss COP15 in Copenhagen. I just arrived on 12/9 and we are all hoping for some positive results from this critical event.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Turning the Page on the Reagan Era?
Now that the cheers, tears and sloganeering have died down, the time has come for President Obama to begin governing. Few presidents have faced more adversity as they entered office; two wars, a collapsing labor market, an international reputation maligned and worn from a decade of ‘go it alone’ approaches to the world’s problems, a financial meltdown, an energy crisis and growing environmental degredation. Obama’s predicament has variously been compared to that faced by illustrious predecessors; including Truman, Roosevelt and Lincoln. But one president in particular comes to my mind as we forge ahead into an uncertain future, Ronald Reagan. For it is Reagan’s footprint, and particularly his environmental legacy, that is a primary source of our present day problems.
Twenty-Eight Years
On January 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan faced similar challenges. Sensing a once in a generation chance to turn the tide on what he believed was the pernicious growth of the ‘welfare state’ and government regulation at all levels, the new president chose a radical path. His mantra was simple: smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation at all levels. He believed that allowing the captains of industry (oil, mining, finance, retail, auto and pharmaceuticals) free reign to extract and use the bounty of this great land, unfettered by the bonds of overreaching government, would herald in a golden age of growth and prosperity. The masses were told that there were plenty of resources to go around. Reagan rejected the drab and depressing exhortations of Jimmy Carter to conserve and live with less in a resource constrained world. Carter-Era alternative energy and conservation programs were dismantled. Certainly, our captains of industry would pass on some of the bounty generated from their free or near free use of public goods (air, water, public lands, functioning ecosystems and natural resources) and preferential tax and regulatory treatment to the masses. Certainly, they could also be counted on to voluntarily fill gaping holes in our health care system and social safety net weaved over decades, right?
Divided Government: A Recipe for Inaction
As fate would have it, Reagan’s deregulatory drum beat still lives on. The pernicious constitutional quirks of divided government have allowed successive Republican administrations and/or Congresses to slow both national international efforts to preserve the global commons from further degredation, stop global warming and save scarce resources for future generations. Oil and mining interests have been awarded free or near free extraction rights to vast expanses, allowing them to strip this great land of every barrel of oil and lump of coal they could get their hands on. Successive Republican administrations have placed ideologues in charge of the main agencies and departments responsible for environmental protection. Remember Reagan’s first Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, or Bush’s self appointed energy Czar, oilman Dick Cheney, who invited his old energy industry buddies to the White House to rewrite and further weaken the few remaining constraints on their power while shutting out environmental groups and other stakeholders?
Twenty-Eight Years is Enough
For twenty-eight years, right-wing political and corporate elites have told us that the dual imperatives of economic development and environmental renewal are diametrically opposed. The power and wealth of these elites is predicated on maintaining the status quo; high consumption, economic inequality, resource depletion, economic exploitation, government subsidies and free or near free use of the global ‘commons.’ However, from the vantage point of our present day predicament, it is clear that continuing along this same tired path endangers all that we have worked so hard to achieve. Hopefully, the new Obama administration and the 111th Congress will have the foresight and courage to turn the page on the Reagan Era, so that ourselves and our progeny may again protect and enjoy the rich bounty of our Mother Earth.
Twenty-Eight Years
On January 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan faced similar challenges. Sensing a once in a generation chance to turn the tide on what he believed was the pernicious growth of the ‘welfare state’ and government regulation at all levels, the new president chose a radical path. His mantra was simple: smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation at all levels. He believed that allowing the captains of industry (oil, mining, finance, retail, auto and pharmaceuticals) free reign to extract and use the bounty of this great land, unfettered by the bonds of overreaching government, would herald in a golden age of growth and prosperity. The masses were told that there were plenty of resources to go around. Reagan rejected the drab and depressing exhortations of Jimmy Carter to conserve and live with less in a resource constrained world. Carter-Era alternative energy and conservation programs were dismantled. Certainly, our captains of industry would pass on some of the bounty generated from their free or near free use of public goods (air, water, public lands, functioning ecosystems and natural resources) and preferential tax and regulatory treatment to the masses. Certainly, they could also be counted on to voluntarily fill gaping holes in our health care system and social safety net weaved over decades, right?
Divided Government: A Recipe for Inaction
As fate would have it, Reagan’s deregulatory drum beat still lives on. The pernicious constitutional quirks of divided government have allowed successive Republican administrations and/or Congresses to slow both national international efforts to preserve the global commons from further degredation, stop global warming and save scarce resources for future generations. Oil and mining interests have been awarded free or near free extraction rights to vast expanses, allowing them to strip this great land of every barrel of oil and lump of coal they could get their hands on. Successive Republican administrations have placed ideologues in charge of the main agencies and departments responsible for environmental protection. Remember Reagan’s first Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, or Bush’s self appointed energy Czar, oilman Dick Cheney, who invited his old energy industry buddies to the White House to rewrite and further weaken the few remaining constraints on their power while shutting out environmental groups and other stakeholders?
Twenty-Eight Years is Enough
For twenty-eight years, right-wing political and corporate elites have told us that the dual imperatives of economic development and environmental renewal are diametrically opposed. The power and wealth of these elites is predicated on maintaining the status quo; high consumption, economic inequality, resource depletion, economic exploitation, government subsidies and free or near free use of the global ‘commons.’ However, from the vantage point of our present day predicament, it is clear that continuing along this same tired path endangers all that we have worked so hard to achieve. Hopefully, the new Obama administration and the 111th Congress will have the foresight and courage to turn the page on the Reagan Era, so that ourselves and our progeny may again protect and enjoy the rich bounty of our Mother Earth.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Don't Wait for Obama on Climate Deal
With the inauguration of President-elect Obama close at hand, anticipation of a radical reorientation of United States climate change policy has reached a fever pitch. Referring to the recently concluded UN climate conference convened in Poznan, Poland, a December 14th Op-Ed published by the Independent boldly declares “Obama can outgreen Poznan”.
But before we declare ‘case closed’ on the climate crisis, let’s remember how far behind the emissions curve the United States has fallen in recent years. Federal legislation that regulates GHG emissions has yet to make it to President Bush’s desk. A few proposals cleared the House of Representatives, but stalled in the Senate. Second, it is instructive to note that the bill that almost passed in the Senate, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, does not come close to meeting either European Union or Kyoto emissions reduction promises. The Climate Security Act proposes reducing emissions by 19% below 2005 levels by 2020. Also, California’s recently passed ‘sweeping curbs’ on emissions only commit the state to reaching 1990 levels by 2020. In contrast, European Union member states recently agreed to a 20% cut in emissions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels (which are also too low to get the job done).
The moral of this story is: the World should not wait around for America to take the lead in the fight against global warming. Yes, positive change is coming. But it is overly optimistic to think that the United States can ‘turn on a dime’ on this still contentious issue and champion the kinds of cuts that are necessary to avert significant warming of our planet.
But before we declare ‘case closed’ on the climate crisis, let’s remember how far behind the emissions curve the United States has fallen in recent years. Federal legislation that regulates GHG emissions has yet to make it to President Bush’s desk. A few proposals cleared the House of Representatives, but stalled in the Senate. Second, it is instructive to note that the bill that almost passed in the Senate, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, does not come close to meeting either European Union or Kyoto emissions reduction promises. The Climate Security Act proposes reducing emissions by 19% below 2005 levels by 2020. Also, California’s recently passed ‘sweeping curbs’ on emissions only commit the state to reaching 1990 levels by 2020. In contrast, European Union member states recently agreed to a 20% cut in emissions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels (which are also too low to get the job done).
The moral of this story is: the World should not wait around for America to take the lead in the fight against global warming. Yes, positive change is coming. But it is overly optimistic to think that the United States can ‘turn on a dime’ on this still contentious issue and champion the kinds of cuts that are necessary to avert significant warming of our planet.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Obama Picks Nobel Winning Scientist for Energy Secretary
According to press reports, President-Elect Barak Obama will appoint Nobel Prize winning physicist Stephen Chu as Secretary of Energy. Chu, who is currently Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), is a long time advocate of science based approaches to addressing global climate change. Dr. Chu has also spearheaded efforts to make LBNL "the world leader in alternative and renewable energy research, particularly the development of carbon-neutral sources of energy." Other newly announced members of the Obama team include former Clinton Administration EPA Administrator Carol Browner, who will take on a newly created White House post that will oversee energy and environmental policy.
Clearly, change is afoot in America. It is high time that the ideologues that have harassed the Federal government scientific community for the past 8 years find a new line of work.
Clearly, change is afoot in America. It is high time that the ideologues that have harassed the Federal government scientific community for the past 8 years find a new line of work.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Jobs, Energy and Global Warming: Can We Fix Them All At Once?
Since Barack Obama’s election on November 4th, the press has become obsessed with his transition plans. Who will Obama choose to help him lead us out of the deepening economic crisis that confronts America? The nation’s current number one concern is jobs. In October, the unemployment rate rose to a 14 year high of 6.5% and many predict that it could go as high as 8.5% by next year, which would make it the fastest jump in trough to peak joblessness since WWII.
However, while unemployment has shot to the top of list of priorities, the next administration cannot afford to wait to act on other pressing matters; namely energy independence and climate change. Inflation, while tame at the moment, will again rear its ugly head as the hard realities of population growth, economic recovery in parts of the developing world and ‘peak oil’ drive up the price of energy. Also, with carbon dioxide emissions increasing by 3% per year (which exceeds even the most pessimistic predictions of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on climate change), time is running out before global warming reaches a precarious tipping point beyond which we will lose our ability to stabilize global temperatures.
A Golden Opportunity for Change?
As many commentators have pointed out in recent weeks, America seems to be caught in the throes of a once in a generation transition. Like most generational transitions, this one has been sparked by a severe crisis. Just as the Great Depression transformed the relationship between government, industry and the American people, our current crisis has the potential to both grow our economy and reinvent our relationship with the planet.
The Chinese use a two character phrase to express the concept crisis, weiji. The character wei is variously translated as unsafe, harmful or dangerous, while the character ji can be translated as ‘key link’ or opportunity. In other words, with crisis comes opportunity. In a rare moment of clarity, most Americans seem to be aware of the reasons behind their present predicament and are open to change. So, with a little creative thinking and strong leadership, all three of our most pressing challenges; jobs, energy and global warming can all be dealt with in one fell swoop. Here’s how.
Stop Subsidizing High Carbon Emitting Industries
First and foremost, the Federal government must immediately stop subsidizing high carbon emitting industries (oil, gas, mining, etc.) and their allies. They should no longer be allowed free or near free use of public ‘commons,’ i.e. Federal lands, our atmosphere and public waterways to deposit their damaging byproducts. Polluters should be required to pay to clean up their own messes. New, tougher restrictions on all types of pollution should include immediate imposition of a hard greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cap and trade system with 100% auctioning of GHG emissions credits and point of use carbon taxes similar to those currently in place in British Columbia. Economists estimate that these initiatives alone could generate $100-150 billion per year in revenue. And, don’t feel sorry for the oil and mining industries. They will still make money. In 2007, the top five US oil companies made more than $100 billion in profits. I think they can get by on a mere $50 billion, don’t you?
Invest in New Energy Industries
Second, the Federal government should make massive new investments in alternative energy research and development (cellulosic bio-fuels, wind, solar, tide, geothermal, etc.) and provide tax subsides, loans and grants to alternative energy producers. Governments at all levels should also provide incentives for firms and citizens to conserve energy. Encouraging energy efficiency is the fastest and cheapest way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and also provide financial relief to cash strapped families.
There are plenty of things high carbon emitting firms can go do clean up their acts and embrace a greener future. Dozens of former auto factories and industrial foundries have already been converted into assembly lines for solar panels and wind turbines. Long existing industrial powerhouses that have already committed to offering lower carbon products and services such as General Electric are growing much more quickly than their more environmentally challenged competitors. If Ford, GM and Chrysler want government bailouts, they should have to commit to higher CAFE standards (and start selling the high fuel efficiency autos they already produce in Europe and Asia). They should also be forced to replace senior managers who, for decades, have fought all forms of environmental regulation and embraced SUV production until their last dying breath, even as global competitors innovated and produced more fuel efficient and popular vehicles.
Enlist a New ‘Green Corps’ to Build Low Carbon Infrastructure for America
Low carbon companies will not only help to build a more sustainable economy, but can also provide millions of jobs to former employees of failing high carbon industries. We do not have to repeat the mistakes of the early 1980s, when heavy industry collapsed under the stress of foreign competition, and many hard working Americans found themselves unemployable because their old skills did not match the new needs of the global marketplace. Ronald Reagan chose to let these victims of globalization fend for themselves. What I am talking about here is a massive jobs training program that helps workers transition into ‘green collar’ jobs. Government should also provide resources to schools at all levels to help them prepare workers for a low carbon future.
Many government buildings, schools, roads and bridges that we still use today were built under the auspices of the Works Progress Administration, a 1930s government program that provided employment to millions of Americans during the dark days of the Depression. While those investments have served us well, to grow a low carbon economy both government and the private sector must reorient their investment dollars to build infrastructure that will help us wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. America needs railroads and bike paths not freeways; subway systems, not airports. Virtually all American cities lack adequate public transportation. And public transportation projects should be designed to encourage higher density in urban cores and discourage suburbanization. This will not only save energy, but also revitalize cities and strengthen communities. And all of those still standing WPA buildings could greatly benefit from energy efficiency upgrades.
Another critical investment we need to make is to update the nation’s aging power grid. The current configuration does not allow efficient transfer of power from one part of the country to another. This is a critical issue because an updated grid would help low carbon power providers, say hydroelectric power producers, to sell energy to regions which currently depend on coal to power their cities and towns. An updated grid would permit universal implementation of ‘net metering,’ or the two-way transfer of electricity from would-be micro-energy producers who have installed solar panels or wind turbines on their own property back to electric utilities and then on to other consumers. Also, our current electric grid is not configured to provide sufficient juice to run the millions of electric plug in vehicles that may hit American roads during the next decade allow vehicle batteries to be used as temporary storage repositories for electricity produced during evening non-peak hours that is presently wasted.
We Must Change the Status Quo
No doubt, many naysayers will do whatever they can to convince us that there is no way we can simultaneously fix the triple barreled threat of unemployment, energy scarcity and global warming to the future health of our nation. But it is also clear that we cannot accept the status quo. Whatever direction we take, government will need to invest to put people back to work and stimulate the economy. Whether we choose to prop up high carbon industries or build a new low carbon economy, it will cost lots of money in the short term. But the long term benefits gained from following a cleaner, greener path into the future are great. We owe it both to ourselves and our progeny to begin building a low carbon economy now.
However, while unemployment has shot to the top of list of priorities, the next administration cannot afford to wait to act on other pressing matters; namely energy independence and climate change. Inflation, while tame at the moment, will again rear its ugly head as the hard realities of population growth, economic recovery in parts of the developing world and ‘peak oil’ drive up the price of energy. Also, with carbon dioxide emissions increasing by 3% per year (which exceeds even the most pessimistic predictions of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on climate change), time is running out before global warming reaches a precarious tipping point beyond which we will lose our ability to stabilize global temperatures.
A Golden Opportunity for Change?
As many commentators have pointed out in recent weeks, America seems to be caught in the throes of a once in a generation transition. Like most generational transitions, this one has been sparked by a severe crisis. Just as the Great Depression transformed the relationship between government, industry and the American people, our current crisis has the potential to both grow our economy and reinvent our relationship with the planet.
The Chinese use a two character phrase to express the concept crisis, weiji. The character wei is variously translated as unsafe, harmful or dangerous, while the character ji can be translated as ‘key link’ or opportunity. In other words, with crisis comes opportunity. In a rare moment of clarity, most Americans seem to be aware of the reasons behind their present predicament and are open to change. So, with a little creative thinking and strong leadership, all three of our most pressing challenges; jobs, energy and global warming can all be dealt with in one fell swoop. Here’s how.
Stop Subsidizing High Carbon Emitting Industries
First and foremost, the Federal government must immediately stop subsidizing high carbon emitting industries (oil, gas, mining, etc.) and their allies. They should no longer be allowed free or near free use of public ‘commons,’ i.e. Federal lands, our atmosphere and public waterways to deposit their damaging byproducts. Polluters should be required to pay to clean up their own messes. New, tougher restrictions on all types of pollution should include immediate imposition of a hard greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cap and trade system with 100% auctioning of GHG emissions credits and point of use carbon taxes similar to those currently in place in British Columbia. Economists estimate that these initiatives alone could generate $100-150 billion per year in revenue. And, don’t feel sorry for the oil and mining industries. They will still make money. In 2007, the top five US oil companies made more than $100 billion in profits. I think they can get by on a mere $50 billion, don’t you?
Invest in New Energy Industries
Second, the Federal government should make massive new investments in alternative energy research and development (cellulosic bio-fuels, wind, solar, tide, geothermal, etc.) and provide tax subsides, loans and grants to alternative energy producers. Governments at all levels should also provide incentives for firms and citizens to conserve energy. Encouraging energy efficiency is the fastest and cheapest way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and also provide financial relief to cash strapped families.
There are plenty of things high carbon emitting firms can go do clean up their acts and embrace a greener future. Dozens of former auto factories and industrial foundries have already been converted into assembly lines for solar panels and wind turbines. Long existing industrial powerhouses that have already committed to offering lower carbon products and services such as General Electric are growing much more quickly than their more environmentally challenged competitors. If Ford, GM and Chrysler want government bailouts, they should have to commit to higher CAFE standards (and start selling the high fuel efficiency autos they already produce in Europe and Asia). They should also be forced to replace senior managers who, for decades, have fought all forms of environmental regulation and embraced SUV production until their last dying breath, even as global competitors innovated and produced more fuel efficient and popular vehicles.
Enlist a New ‘Green Corps’ to Build Low Carbon Infrastructure for America
Low carbon companies will not only help to build a more sustainable economy, but can also provide millions of jobs to former employees of failing high carbon industries. We do not have to repeat the mistakes of the early 1980s, when heavy industry collapsed under the stress of foreign competition, and many hard working Americans found themselves unemployable because their old skills did not match the new needs of the global marketplace. Ronald Reagan chose to let these victims of globalization fend for themselves. What I am talking about here is a massive jobs training program that helps workers transition into ‘green collar’ jobs. Government should also provide resources to schools at all levels to help them prepare workers for a low carbon future.
Many government buildings, schools, roads and bridges that we still use today were built under the auspices of the Works Progress Administration, a 1930s government program that provided employment to millions of Americans during the dark days of the Depression. While those investments have served us well, to grow a low carbon economy both government and the private sector must reorient their investment dollars to build infrastructure that will help us wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. America needs railroads and bike paths not freeways; subway systems, not airports. Virtually all American cities lack adequate public transportation. And public transportation projects should be designed to encourage higher density in urban cores and discourage suburbanization. This will not only save energy, but also revitalize cities and strengthen communities. And all of those still standing WPA buildings could greatly benefit from energy efficiency upgrades.
Another critical investment we need to make is to update the nation’s aging power grid. The current configuration does not allow efficient transfer of power from one part of the country to another. This is a critical issue because an updated grid would help low carbon power providers, say hydroelectric power producers, to sell energy to regions which currently depend on coal to power their cities and towns. An updated grid would permit universal implementation of ‘net metering,’ or the two-way transfer of electricity from would-be micro-energy producers who have installed solar panels or wind turbines on their own property back to electric utilities and then on to other consumers. Also, our current electric grid is not configured to provide sufficient juice to run the millions of electric plug in vehicles that may hit American roads during the next decade allow vehicle batteries to be used as temporary storage repositories for electricity produced during evening non-peak hours that is presently wasted.
We Must Change the Status Quo
No doubt, many naysayers will do whatever they can to convince us that there is no way we can simultaneously fix the triple barreled threat of unemployment, energy scarcity and global warming to the future health of our nation. But it is also clear that we cannot accept the status quo. Whatever direction we take, government will need to invest to put people back to work and stimulate the economy. Whether we choose to prop up high carbon industries or build a new low carbon economy, it will cost lots of money in the short term. But the long term benefits gained from following a cleaner, greener path into the future are great. We owe it both to ourselves and our progeny to begin building a low carbon economy now.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Our Lifestyles—Her Life
Dr. Jonathan Harrington Journal Entry, July 1, 2030:
My wife Kathy and I are having a wonderful time at Glacier National Park. Yesterday, my daughter Kela, her seven-year-old daughter Maria, Kathy, and I rode in a hydrogen-powered tour bus along Lake McDonald. We were on our way to the newly built Glacier Lodge. The old one burned down during the Great Montana Fire of 2027 when 50 percent of the National Park’s forest was destroyed. Dark brown swaths of dead trees still linger in the distance. The mountains still stand tall, majestic reminders of God’s handiwork, but the Park’s alpine ecosystem is under severe stress. The lake level has also dropped over the years because of declining snow pack and glacial runoff.
As we walked around the grounds of the lodge Maria asked me, “Waigong, [Chinese for “grandfather”] where did they get the name Glacier Park?” I responded, “Well Maria, Glacier Park used to have glaciers. They were beautiful sights, and could be seen right here from the road.” She inquired, “Like the ones they used to have on Mount Shasta?” “Yes,” I responded.
“Did I ever tell you about the first time I visited here?”
“Yes, Waigong you did,” she said, thinking to herself, “here we go again, another boring story! “
I continued. “What do you think happened to the glaciers?”
She answered, “It was probably global warming. I heard all about it in school. The teacher said that in the olden days people used to use too much coal and oil and it made things warmer. Everyone knew that this was hurting Mother Earth, but they did not do anything about it until it was too late.”
Curious, she then asked, “Grandpa, did you use too much oil?”
“Yes, I did. We all did. We tried to stop, but old habits die hard.”
Maria added, “I really don’t like global warming. All the trees around our house are sick. The Orca whales are almost gone. I saw a video at school about all the little children around the world who do not have enough food to eat or water to drink because the hot air has made the water float up into the sky and turned their land into desert. Hurricanes are getting bigger and more dangerous every year. I’m scared. Are we going to die?”
That last comment reminded me of something that Kela said to me almost twenty-five years before. We had gone to watch a movie about global warming called An Inconvenient Truth. After the show I asked Kela. “What do you remember most about the movie?” She had been especially affected by a graphic showing what would happen to Shanghai if sea levels rose by twenty feet. She blurted. “We are going to die. We live on an island. And what about Grandma and Grandpa in Shanghai? They will drown!”
I reassured her that our house was high enough on the hill that it would not be swallowed up by the lake we live on, Lake Washington. As far as Shanghai was concerned, I told her that people there would probably try to build a big wall around the city to protect it. She responded. “Baba, do you mean like the one in New Orleans?” I did not know how to answer.
Finally, I reassured her. “Well, they can come live with us.”
Twenty-five years later, little Maria wondered out loud. “Grandpa, when will the glaciers come back?” I grimaced. “I don’t know, honey. It could be a long, long time.”
Is this the future we want? I remember when I was in high school, we constantly worried about the great and powerful weapons of mass destruction invented by the “Greatest Generation.” Politicians, East and West, kept building more and nuclear bombs, and threatened to use them. The World we knew stood at the precipice of destruction. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. Nuclear weapons are still around, but the likelihood that they may be used to destroy the planet is remote.
Well, a new generation faces an even more threatening crisis; and one not of its own making. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that human-created greenhouse gas emissions are warming our World, causing mass extinctions and destroying global ecosystems; captains of industry, politicians, parents and consumers continue to hoard, pump, scrape and extract the Planet’s dwindling resources like there is no tomorrow.
Stoking the fires of global warming is a bit like shooting craps in Las Vegas. On a good day you might win a few bucks, but the longer you play, the greater the chance you will roll snake eyes. In the end, the House usually wins. Well, humanity has been playing the global warming game for almost two centuries. Yes, it is true that past generations have benefited from cheaper energy and resources. But now our luck is running out.
We need to step away from our game of ‘cosmic dice’ before it is too late. Some scientists say the upward march of global water and air temperatures may become irreversible in as little as ten years. But we still have a window of opportunity to change the way we live; to reduce our use of fossil fuels, buy less, conserve more, recycle and reuse, take public transportation etc. to save the World that we know. I am filled with hope that my daughter’s generation can take the lead and forge a better, more sustainable future. But time is short. We need to act now.
My wife Kathy and I are having a wonderful time at Glacier National Park. Yesterday, my daughter Kela, her seven-year-old daughter Maria, Kathy, and I rode in a hydrogen-powered tour bus along Lake McDonald. We were on our way to the newly built Glacier Lodge. The old one burned down during the Great Montana Fire of 2027 when 50 percent of the National Park’s forest was destroyed. Dark brown swaths of dead trees still linger in the distance. The mountains still stand tall, majestic reminders of God’s handiwork, but the Park’s alpine ecosystem is under severe stress. The lake level has also dropped over the years because of declining snow pack and glacial runoff.
As we walked around the grounds of the lodge Maria asked me, “Waigong, [Chinese for “grandfather”] where did they get the name Glacier Park?” I responded, “Well Maria, Glacier Park used to have glaciers. They were beautiful sights, and could be seen right here from the road.” She inquired, “Like the ones they used to have on Mount Shasta?” “Yes,” I responded.
“Did I ever tell you about the first time I visited here?”
“Yes, Waigong you did,” she said, thinking to herself, “here we go again, another boring story! “
I continued. “What do you think happened to the glaciers?”
She answered, “It was probably global warming. I heard all about it in school. The teacher said that in the olden days people used to use too much coal and oil and it made things warmer. Everyone knew that this was hurting Mother Earth, but they did not do anything about it until it was too late.”
Curious, she then asked, “Grandpa, did you use too much oil?”
“Yes, I did. We all did. We tried to stop, but old habits die hard.”
Maria added, “I really don’t like global warming. All the trees around our house are sick. The Orca whales are almost gone. I saw a video at school about all the little children around the world who do not have enough food to eat or water to drink because the hot air has made the water float up into the sky and turned their land into desert. Hurricanes are getting bigger and more dangerous every year. I’m scared. Are we going to die?”
That last comment reminded me of something that Kela said to me almost twenty-five years before. We had gone to watch a movie about global warming called An Inconvenient Truth. After the show I asked Kela. “What do you remember most about the movie?” She had been especially affected by a graphic showing what would happen to Shanghai if sea levels rose by twenty feet. She blurted. “We are going to die. We live on an island. And what about Grandma and Grandpa in Shanghai? They will drown!”
I reassured her that our house was high enough on the hill that it would not be swallowed up by the lake we live on, Lake Washington. As far as Shanghai was concerned, I told her that people there would probably try to build a big wall around the city to protect it. She responded. “Baba, do you mean like the one in New Orleans?” I did not know how to answer.
Finally, I reassured her. “Well, they can come live with us.”
Twenty-five years later, little Maria wondered out loud. “Grandpa, when will the glaciers come back?” I grimaced. “I don’t know, honey. It could be a long, long time.”
Is this the future we want? I remember when I was in high school, we constantly worried about the great and powerful weapons of mass destruction invented by the “Greatest Generation.” Politicians, East and West, kept building more and nuclear bombs, and threatened to use them. The World we knew stood at the precipice of destruction. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. Nuclear weapons are still around, but the likelihood that they may be used to destroy the planet is remote.
Well, a new generation faces an even more threatening crisis; and one not of its own making. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that human-created greenhouse gas emissions are warming our World, causing mass extinctions and destroying global ecosystems; captains of industry, politicians, parents and consumers continue to hoard, pump, scrape and extract the Planet’s dwindling resources like there is no tomorrow.
Stoking the fires of global warming is a bit like shooting craps in Las Vegas. On a good day you might win a few bucks, but the longer you play, the greater the chance you will roll snake eyes. In the end, the House usually wins. Well, humanity has been playing the global warming game for almost two centuries. Yes, it is true that past generations have benefited from cheaper energy and resources. But now our luck is running out.
We need to step away from our game of ‘cosmic dice’ before it is too late. Some scientists say the upward march of global water and air temperatures may become irreversible in as little as ten years. But we still have a window of opportunity to change the way we live; to reduce our use of fossil fuels, buy less, conserve more, recycle and reuse, take public transportation etc. to save the World that we know. I am filled with hope that my daughter’s generation can take the lead and forge a better, more sustainable future. But time is short. We need to act now.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
United States tosses away 30% of all food produced
United States tosses away 30% of all food produced: report
Article can be viewed at: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=88ef5435-97e3-4f83-b234-68d74a3c19ed
STOCKHOLM (Reuters Life!) - The United States and some other developed states throw away nearly a third of their food each year, according to a report that said on Thursday the world was producing more than enough to feed its population...
"Have ever wondered why there are so many starving people and persistent fresh water shortages around the world? Careless misuse of the Earth's scarce resources is one of the main culprits!"
Article can be viewed at: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=88ef5435-97e3-4f83-b234-68d74a3c19ed
STOCKHOLM (Reuters Life!) - The United States and some other developed states throw away nearly a third of their food each year, according to a report that said on Thursday the world was producing more than enough to feed its population...
"Have ever wondered why there are so many starving people and persistent fresh water shortages around the world? Careless misuse of the Earth's scarce resources is one of the main culprits!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
