An Open Letter

Dear Donald Trump Voter,

It's been a couple weeks now. Like them or not, the election results are in, and there's no serious challenge to them. We are now digesting the way President-Elect Donald Trump is appointing cabinet members and otherwise preparing for his presidency. Time for a letter to my family, friends and others who voted for Mr. Trump. I am probably not the first or the only person to think of writing an open letter such as this. The difference between this one and all the others? This one does come from me; it will be at least a little unique. I will also try to confine my thoughts mostly to the environmental aspects of our post-election world, since that is the focus of my blog.

If you are outwardly bigoted, racist or violent, you may indeed have voted for Trump, but this letter is not directed at you. This is for those who consider themselves concerned, good-hearted, fair-minded, sincere, well-meaning people... like many of my friends and family. We've all learned that political discussion doesn't accomplish much. We often, especially lately, avoid broaching the subject at all. What's the point of arguing, just for the sake of being argumentative? Negative emotions from these disagreements are exacerbated then we use social media to get our point across. Better to just get along.

You voted for Trump not because you thought he was a good person, but because you thought he would shake things up. He would drain the (Washington D.C.) swamp, get control of legal and illegal immigration and otherwise Make America Great Again. You furthermore thought that Hillary Clinton was too secretive with her private email server and her charity, too much like President Barack Obama in policy matters and generally part of the Big Government problem. Furthermore, you just didn't like her. Do I have this right so far?

You don't consider yourself an enemy of the environment. In fact, you like clean air and water. You recycle and don't litter. You are a little concerned, but are generally agnostic about climate change. You believe in science, but you have listened to many arguments saying that the science isn't settled on the issue. You furthermore want less environmental regulation, just so long as our air and water remain clean. You don't want the government to subsidize renewable energy. Just a couple other things: you are against any war on coal. Clean coal is good for jobs and the economy. And you support oil pipelines to keep gas and oil prices down, and support jobs.

Now I'm really cooking, right? Music to your ears, I'm sure. I hope I have a good understanding of your viewpoint, because I think that a large part of our political problems stem form a lack of understanding, and an unwillingness to even attempt any meeting of minds. Now I'll tell you about my own thoughts on these matters. We'll take them one at a time. Please hear me out.

1) You like clean air and water. But (____) (fill in the blank here.... but not if it costs too much; but not if it hurts jobs or the economy; but not if I have to change my way of living...) You guessed it. It's the but that gets you. I will go as far as to say that if you're truly for clean air and clean water, there can be no buts!

2) You now acknowledge that the climate is indeed changing fast. Although there has in the past been resistance to even this postulation, the evidence is overwhelming; 2016 has been the hottest year on record, and it is only following a huge general trend. Now you say that it could well be part of a natural cycle. But there's only one problem:  Andropogenic (caused by humans) Climate Change is real as well. The evidence is overwhelming here too. To be agnostic about this is to deny what 97% of climate scientists have agreed upon. It's fine to challenge science; science isn't always correct. But it is self-correcting, and to mount a legitimate challenge, you had better have some extraordinary evidence to the contrary. For more, check out my If you Believe post. Would you also be agnostic about whether the Earth is flat?

3) You don't want the government in the business of subsidizing clean, renewable energy, or regulating industry in such a way as to cost everyone more money. But the government always does this. It has subsidized the fossil fuel industry for nearly 100 years, and that subsidy continues to this day. Oil, gas and coal companies can mine public lands, take advantage of tax breaks, make use of publicly funded infrastructure, and so on. If there is a tiny advantage provided to the manufacture, distribution and use of clean energy, it can only help our planet, and even our economy, in the long run.

4) Speaking of the economy, has it occurred to you that a clean-energy based economic system will be the best for our country for years to come? That with an emphasis on renweables, we can help lead the world? There truly is still time for this. That all this results in jobs - good, high-paying ones - and growth?

5) And clean coal? Please. That's about the same as saying dry ocean or sinless Nazi. It simply does not exist, and never will.

Now Mr. Trump's cabinet, including his choices for Secretary of State, and to lead the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency are making a mockery of the environment. What he is doing is completely dismantling our entire infrastructure of clean, renewable energy and environmental protection. None of it surprises me, but at the same time, it's very sad to be set back 50 years.

It's cold today. Global warming must be a hoax.

Common Sense

Common sense is, according to Merriam-Webster, the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions. Dictionary.com's definition is similar: sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence. Common sense is also the name of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine that strongly urged the United States to declare independence from Great Britain.

All good, right? Who could argue? Anyone? ... Okay, I will.

I have a problem with the whole, "independent of specialized knowledge, training, etc." part. The trouble is that sometimes training and specialized knowledge trumps (excuse the term) "reasonable" common sense. In fact, specialized knowledge such as science often does that.

The facts that the earth  is round, that it revolves around the sun, that gravity exists, etc., seem like common sense now, but this wasn't always the case. For most of human existence, our everyday knowledge and experience was that of a flat earth, which the sun, moon, planets and stars revolved around. Gravity? Yes, things fell, but so what? These observations served us well for millennia. Only now, when global manufacturing, communications and transportation depend on roundness, heliocentricity (I just made that word up!) and gravity, do we add such things to our collective common sense.

Along came modern physics, with its relativity and quantum mechanics. These are about as far removed from common sense as we can get. Yet they've been repeatedly proven and even applied, such that a mountain of science and engineering now depend on these theories. Most of us, however, don't normally take modern physics into account during our day to day lives. We turn on a light switch, and don't consider whether those electrons in the wires may have been generated at a nuclear facility. A nuclear explosion would encourage incorporation of modern physics into our common sense, but that would be a bit drastic.

You know where this is going.

Common sense tells us that species can't evolve, since we can't see it happen before our eyes. Yet science proves otherwise, believe it or not. Common sense tells us that burning something like fossil fuels may pollute the air with particulates that we can see, but not with carbon dioxide, that we can't. And common sense tells us that even if we do create a little carbon dioxide. it couldn't manifest itself into the atmosphere to create a greenhouse effect. Yet science begs to differ. Proof is readily available now, but it will take time to sink into our collective common sense. The trouble is that we are running out of time for this to happen. The burning of fossil fuels needs to stop now for the planet to have any chance to recover from the climate change crisis that is happening before our eyes.

It's almost like religious faith. Except for one thing: religious faith is unprovable (I just made that word up too!), whereas science, by definition, is absolutely verifiable. Further, it is self-correcting.

It's cold today. That proves that global warming is wrong. It's just plain common sense.

You Bred Raptors

It occurred early on in the movie Jurassic Park, and it was a statement; not a question. Overall, the scene is otherwise an endearing one: it's wonderful to watch the baby dinosaur hatching, as well as the peoples' reactions to the event. Then, just after one character famously states that 'Life finds a way,' the other one learns of the species and says, 'You bred raptors.' The phrase has been popular enough to become the name of a rock band.

Those ominous three words also work as a metaphor for what our country has done to itself. This, friends, is the point where this post stops being so much fun.

The United States of America has elected a President who will do severe damage to our economy, our environment and for basic human rights. The last time we elected an incompetent ideologue, we went from a nation at peace - a prosperous one that had a budget surplus, to a country fighting two wars, a huge budget deficit, high unemployment and an economy on the precipice of a depression. It has taken seven and a half years to slowly climb out of that hole. Now we have ended the two wars, unemployment is down, and the budget deficit is shrunk to below where it was in 2007/8. The economy has grown, albeit slowly, for each of these seven years, a run is truly remarkable. Unfortunately, President Donald Trump will be even more incompetent than President George W. Bush, and all of these things and more, will become much worse. The raptors are now in charge.

The focus of this blog is the environment, so we will limit the remainder of the discussion to that realm. The outlook for the ecology of the United States as well as that of the entire world is dark. It had been bleak before, even when someone with good intentions was in charge. The new sheriff (or, if you prefer, raptor) is promising to do away with what progress we've been able to make towards putting a stop to climate change. Let's get more specific.

Trump has named a noted climate change denier to lead his EPA transition team. Myron Ebell was named in a Scientific American article as heralding big, divisive changes to to the EPA. In fact, Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in all matter regarding energy and the environment. "His participation in the EPA transition signals that the Trump team is looking to drastically reshape the climate policies the agency has pursued under the Obama administration. Ebell’s role is likely to infuriate environmentalists and Democrats but buoy critics of Obama’s climate rules."

Ebell is even in favor of doing away with the agency, which is our only line of defense toward anyone doing harm to our planet's environment. He described Newt Gingrich's suggestion to abolish the EPA as "Bold and Visionary".

Republicans in both houses of Congress may not like Mr. Trump, but they will certainly agree with his reactionary push back toward the burning of fossil fuels. The greatest oxymoron of all time, "clean coal", is part of the party platform.

There are dark days ahead, friends. The raptors are in charge.

What Did You Do in the War, Daddy?

The title of a 1966 movie, What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? has me thinking. What will we tell our kids? Our grandkids? Because surely the conversation, real or hypothetical, will happen. Until recently, I thought of this talk occurring perhaps 20 or 30 years in the future, when the effect of humanity’s greed, pollution and waste has made the planet’s environment a dangerously changing place for all of us. But I need to think again.

The consequences of climate change are here now. The near-death of Earth’s Oceans is here now. So many other effects of our waste and pollution, too numerous to even mention, are here now. Thus the conversation about what we all did about it, may as well occur now too. The most troubling part of all this is that these challenges are only beginning. Our discussion can certainly be an on-going one.

What did you do? What are you doing? What can you do? What should you do? It doesn’t matter so much when you are asked these questions; now or 30 years from now. It boils down to this: are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?

Never thought about it? It’s never too late to start. There are plenty of things that you can do right now, just to begin with.

Not the least of these, and one of the simplest, is to vote for people who will do the right thing. Doing what is right for the planet amounts to doing what's right for one's constituents. Those who do that will invariably also do the right things in other policy matters as well. The choices, especially the one for President, couldn’t be more stark.

And the war part? It most definitely is a war. If you’re on the wrong side, history, and even your ancestors, will judge you harshly.

Please don't vote against Trump

Yes, I'm being serious here. This will be one of my final five to ten pleas for sanity before the election finally occurs. Please don't vote against Donald Trump because the man is a




Misogynist
Con-man/Swindler
Bigot
Pawn of Putin
Cheat
Racist
Unstable (for someone with access to nuclear codes)


Don't vote against Donald Trump because he represents the Republican platform and the Republican party. This is the party that put him into his present position. He represents it, and he represents the people who voted for him in the primaries. It's not a good reason to vote against him.


Here is why you should vote against Donald Trump: he would destroy the environment. This man who called climate change a Chinese Hoax, would stop at nothing to exploit our planet's resources in favor of his interests, and those of his rich friends; and to the detriment of the remainder of mankind. In fact, Trump denies not only the science of climate change, but Science itself. And unfortunately, although he differs from the rest of his party on some issues, they agree completely on this one.


Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, does grasp the enormity and the undeniable importance of the issue. The differences between the two candidates are more stark here than almost anywhere.


That is why you should vote against Donald Trump. To take it one step further, you should vote for Hillary Clinton... for the planet's sake.

Make the Switch to Renewable Energy for Your Electric Supply

We should all put our money where our mouth is. I don't think it will taste very good, but that's another story. In other posts, I've been urging readers to vote as if our planet depended on it. This makes the choice very easy. Of course there are other things that we can do as well: reduce, reuse, recycle. Walk. Drive a fuel efficient car. Lower your thermostat in the winter, raise it in the summer. That kind of stuff.

There's another thing you can do as well: demand renewable energy. It's actually quite easy (even I was able to do it) and it may very well actually save you money. The way to do it is to change your electric energy supplier to a renewable source. I learned something about this from the Sierra Club Portage Trail Group's President's corner for September and October.  Therein, Colleen Orsburn states, "if you switch to one of these plans, your transmission utility does not change; for most of us, that is Ohio Edison, a FirstEnergy company.  And switching does not actually change the source of your electricity.  All generators feed power into the regional grid, and you get what you get.  What you are doing by switching to a renewable energy provider is offsetting your energy use with the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits, which in turn support renewable energy generation projects."   So it's mostly just going to have the effect of increasing the demand for green energy.

The directions are there, and they may well work for you if you live in Northeast Ohio. But they didn't quite work for me, because my current supplier is NOPEC-First Energy Solutions. NOPEC would charge a $75 early termination fee to switch to a Green Energy supplier listed at the First Energy website. I didn't want to pay that.

But never fear. NOPEC itself has a renewable energy option that I was able to switch to without incurring the termination fee. And the fixed rate is cheaper than the one I had by about ten percent!

I urge you to make the switch as well. It's just a small thing, but if a enough of us do it, it could be huge.

If You Believe…

If you believe in Andropogenic (caused by humans) Climate Change, then…

So far, we have a Subject and one sentence within the text body of the post, and six periods. Bear with me, and we’ll see if we cans stretch some of those dots out. In regards to Climate Change, there are those who believe the science, those who do not believe the science, and those who might believe, but who don’t think that the evidence is conclusive. Let’s call them believers, atheists and agnostics. The religious connotation of that statement is, I believe apt.

Science and Religion are two sides of the same coin in the sense that you either believe or you don’t. They are entirely different in another sense though. One is based on fact and is self-correcting, while the other is based entirely on faith. In my opinion, there doesn’t need to be a clash at all. A phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic bibles reads, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The original discussion was whether taxes should be paid, but I think that we could make the case for substituting science for government in this case (not that I’d recommend that in general). So just replace the word ‘Caesar’ with ‘Science’, and we’re set.

Okay, there’s one minor problem. That which is getting rendered to Science is getting bigger, and God’s piece of the pie is getting smaller. That’s the problem of a God of the Gaps theory. But even so, we could still make the case that religious faith and science can co-exist. A good many scientists, philosophers and theologians believe that science is true (now there’s a word we could discuss further), but are also still able to maintain religious faith.  

Forgive me. I didn’t quite mean to go off on such a tangent about science and religion. What I did want to do is call attention to the belief in science. I think most people would say they do, but even so, perhaps not quite so many believe that Andropogenic Climate Change is a fact.

How many? Polls vary, but the latest shows that “Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults say they are worried a ‘great deal’ or ‘fair amount’ about global warming”. The percentage appears to be higher in other parts of the developed world. I think that whether you are worried, and therefore believe in climate change depends mostly on your belief in science.

So the remaining thirty-six percent must be the agnostics and atheists. But not (quite) so fast. Some of those who did express concern concede that climate change may be happening, but are agnostic or atheistic as to whether humans have caused it. The polls cited here didn’t address this question, but others have. We’ve evolved on this question too, however. The query about whether global warming is happening at all used to be more in question. Now the polls show that more people do accept that it’s occurring (hurray for at least this aspect of science), but still may not believe that humans are the cause. But there’s science behind the Andropogenic-ism of it as well. A lot of it. So much, that 97% of climate scientists and their scientific papers say so. I know some have questioned those numbers, but it is still as close to a consensus as there is on anything.

Let’s say that you are convinced. Either a) you were already a believer, or b) I convinced you (and I know that’s highly unlikely). Let’s change the focus here from If you believe, to Since you believe.

Since you believe that Andropogenic Climate Change is real, what are you going to do about it? Wouldn’t it then be the most important global issue facing our planet and our species? I sure think so, and I said so in a previous post. Therein I urged you, my Earth-Loving Friends, to cast your vote in this upcoming Presidential Election based on Environmental issues alone. That is the single most important thing you can do to help us out of this hole we’ve been digging for ourselves. Casting your vote in this direction will almost certainly also cast it in favor of other aspects of humanity that are also on the correct side of history.

It’s a Trap

Okay, you got us. It’s a hoax, a trap; sort of like when the giant squid-like thing in the Star Wars movie figured out that, “It’s a Trap!” I love that line.

Back to the hoax. Yes, we sorry-ass environmentalists have perpetuated this hoax to get more people using renewable energy for our own evil purposes. Deep in our hearts, we know that burning dirty fossil fuels are really good for us. We do understand that it’s really better for everyone if a few rich people get richer as we all continue to pollute. (Okay, some coal miners  too, but there are other ways to help them out.)

But we won’t act on that deep understanding of the way the world works. Instead, our evil scheme is to change things; to lean forward, so to speak. We want to help the United States transition to clean, renewable energy and ruin those unfortunate rich people.

What if we get our way, and they find out that we truly were wrong, that it was a hoax. It will be a disaster! We’ll have made the earth a better place to live for nothing.

Just Some Links

To go along with my recent Facebook rant, there have been some really excellent pieces of information in terms of hyperlinks that I would like to share.

Here is a NASA gif that shows rising temperatures, month by month
Here is a timeline turned on its side
Here is blog called Nature Bats Last by Guy McPherson
Finally, Phil Plait's fantastic Bad Astronomy blog/Slate articles are always on point

Get Involved (from Marathon & Beyond, Mar/April 2009)

I recently posted the original attempt at an article about climate change and running. I mentioned how much I like that original, To read it yourself, see Cool Run on a Hot Planet.

Here is the article that was finally published in Marathon & Beyond, in the Mar/April 2009 Issue.

Chicago, October 7, 2007

I’m out here with 35,000 of my closest friends. 10,000 others had the incredible good sense to stay home and chuck the whole thing. Not me. I paid my entry fee and by God I’m going to get my money’s worth. I’m sweating profusely, and the race hasn’t even started. It occurs to me that this day may turn out to be a bad one for many or perhaps even all of us.

The gun goes off and our journey begins. Up until mile 11 or 12, I’d been running mostly in the morning shadows of Chicago’s tall buildings, and it hadn’t felt all that bad. Of course, I’d been taking plenty of water and electrolyte tablets. It never occurs to me that I may be using too much water and that some of those behind me will arrive to the tables only to find no remaining water. At the point where we begin spending most of our time in the sun rather than the shadows, we really begin to suffer. I instinctively slow my pace a bit, but I see others slowing more, and some are already walking. At some point I see the first real victim: a runner lying down on the side of the road and being helped by some spectators.

In the last few miles of the race I slow down some more, but so does everyone else around me. I witness more and more carnage, right up to the finish line. What a relief to put that bag of ice on my head! I meet up with my family, and we hear that the race has been canceled because of the weather. Can they do that?

I had been one of the lucky ones. I’d managed to finish just before the race had been called. The temperature had hit a very un-Chicago-in-October-like 88 degrees Fahrenheit, a record. I don’t run well in the heat, and this is probably the hottest it’s been for any of my 80 or so marathons. I sincerely hope that I do another 80 or more before I hit another one that’s this hot.

There has been much controversy about the decision to cancel, as well as the way it was handled. Much has been written about the entire debacle. My own opinion is that the decision to cancel was the correct one. Contingency plans for these mega-races, however, probably require further scrutiny. I am hopeful that all race directors can benefit from the experience in Chicago.

On this same day I had friends and acquaintances running and suffering under similar conditions at the Twin Cities and Towpath Marathons. In recent years there has been record or near record heat for other large and small marathons, including London and Boston. The question must be asked: are these weather events normal, random variations, or are they the result of global warming?

If we were to say yes, they are a manifestation of global warming, then how should we respond when someone states that an unusually cold day disproves the whole thing?  I believe the correct scientific answer is that it is not possible to tell. But just for fun, let’s examine the question a bit more.

The Debate, as I see it

This editorial was going to state unequivocally that the planet is getting hotter, that human activity is the cause, and that it is in our interest, as runners and as human beings, to work to correct it. This was before the idea was proposed to Marathon & Beyond Editor Rich Benyo. Rich surprised me by being skeptical about the whole thing. In a series of back and forth emails, he questioned whether the earth is truly getting hotter (it depends on which measurements you choose to accept, and over which period of time), and also whether human activity is the cause (the exact “relationship” between carbon dioxide and other gasses to global temperatures is far from established). Rich produced information from other skeptics, including Michael Crichton and Bill Wenmark, to support his arguments. As one who also prides himself on being questioning, skeptical and open-minded about things, it occurred to me that I was indeed accepting without much contest the scientific majority view, sometimes stated as a “consensus” on the subject. Crichton stated that whenever we hear that there is scientific consensus, we should probably all be incredulous to some extent.

Everyone would like to see this in simple terms. The earth is either getting warmer, or it isn’t. If it is, humans are either causing it, or they aren’t. In my research I learned, unfortunately, that the answers are not so clear. Yes, most agree, the planet is getting warmer. Remember Global Cooling, as postulated by some scientists in the 1970’s? Actually, over some time periods, it is doing that too. It all depends on what time frame and scale you’re using. It also depends on measurement methods, coverage area, and a whole lot of other stuff. The term, “climate change” has been substituted for “global warming” of late, and this is even more vague. Of course the climate is changing; it always is. Could a record high temperature on a certain day (like October 7, 2007) in a specific location (like Chicago) be a direct result of global warming / climate change? Record highs and lows occur all the time. Some climatologists do tell us that extreme weather, especially on the warm side, is becoming more common. But there is dispute here as well.

Is human activity causing the earth to warm? Al Gore and others show what appears to be a clear relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperatures. Yet some point out that the link between greenhouse gasses and climate has yet to be established. And, they continue, even if carbon does cause the earth’s temperatures to rise, climates are pretty darn complicated; this would likely be only one of many factors in the mix. Other possible causes may include variations in solar radiation or geothermal activity.

Crighton and others point out that if the United States were to adopt the International treaties and roll back our production of greenhouse gasses, the financial costs would be tremendous. There would be a major impact to our economy and to our entire way of life. The point, as I understand it, is that all this cost would be for something that isn’t even “proven”.

So, after all the emails, reading and general debate, what am I left with? To be sure, my eyes have been opened, and a bit of doubt has crept in. To an extent, I no longer see it as a “closed” issue. There is still plenty of room for debate and further study. I also understand that the answer may never be completely cut and dried. There will always be other factors.

But then I think about our shrinking polar ice caps and glaciers, our rising sea levels, the changes in vegetation and the data produced by scientists about rising global temperatures. And I also think about some of the extreme heat I’ve had to deal with during my runs, including that day in Chicago. I’ve seen too much over my lengthy lifetime to believe that the climate changes haven’t turned radical in the most recent years. I think about how our output of carbon dioxide and methane (not just from runners!) are going through the roof. Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it certainly raises the question of it. Debates continue among politicians, the media, individuals and scientists. But I believe, and most scientists believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the case that human activity is causing the global climate change. Even if the real answer lies somewhere between the two sides of the debate, this still supports the case.

In the scientific world, those who make extraordinary claims are required to produce extraordinary evidence. The debate has been about whether the evidence provided to support human-induced global warming is indeed sufficient. But let’s put that aside for a moment and examine what I think is the bottom line here: what if they’re right, and what if they’re wrong?

If the environmentalists, and the majority of scientists are correct, and humans are indeed causing the climate to change drastically, then we are truly in deep trouble. We would, I think, need to act immediately to begin to correct the situation. In this case, we may or may not be at a “tipping” point, where adding to the problem will cause events to spiral out of control. The costs, which may have been overstated anyway, would be nothing compared to the costs of a global disaster. 

If the environmentalists are wrong, we may be changing our way of life almost unnecessarily. I say almost, because even without human induced climate change, there is still good reason to change some things. The burning of fossil fuels causes a myriad of other problems, among which are dependence on foreign governments for fuel, various leaks and spills, air and water pollution, and the exhaustion of non-renewable resources. Cleaning up our act is the right thing to do, no matter what. Yes, it’s expensive and painful to do things correctly. Isn’t that always the case? As fuel costs increase, as resources are exhausted, as pollution increases, we’re going to have to do something anyway. Why not do the right thing?

Where does this leave us? A little mixed-up, perhaps. Ultimately, however, some of us may feel like we ought to do something useful.

What You Can Do

Have I convinced you? Chances are you had already formed some opinions on the issue. This article may have either reinforced what you already believed, or made you angry or angrier. Either way, you may not have changed your beliefs. I hope I’ve at least given you food for thought. One thing I may be able to do, however, is convince you to get involved.

Far be it for me to suggest that you join the Sierra Club, install a windmill in your backyard or march on Washington. (I’ve done only the former.) Not that I don’t believe these actions will help. I could make the case that by becoming an environmental activist, you would be acting in your own best interest as a living, breathing entity on this planet, not to mention a person who spends time running outdoors and racing occasional marathons. But these things are simply beyond the scope of this, or possibly any, running related article. Actually, far be it for me to tell you that you ought to do anything specific, running-related or not, to help fight global warming. What I will do, however, is suggest a few things for you, as a runner, to think about.

First and foremost, getting involved means getting informed. Read books and articles on the subject of global climate change. Search the web, an excellent source of information, whilst bearing in mind, of course, that anyone can say anything there. For starters, here are just a few web sources that I believe are good:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

And here are a couple books:

An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore

The Weather Makers, by Tim Flannery

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, by Lawrence Solomon

Fight Global Warming Now: The Handbook for Taking Action  in Your Community by Bill McKibben

There are plenty more. Check them out for yourself.

Secondly, consider the planet when you plan your running-related travel. Yes, it’s fun and exciting to travel to a race in a different city, state or country. But perhaps you should also consider those races that are closer to home; they may be just as much fun. Or, when you do plan to run a faraway race, you can do something that many of us do anyway: try to combine the running event with travel that you would have been doing anyway, such as a vacation or a business trip. This way at least you’re not making an additional trip for the running alone.

Likewise, think about whether it’s really necessary to drive somewhere for your regular training runs. Some of us drive to the track for speed-work, to some venue for group runs, or to simply run at a different locale. Is it possible, instead to simply run from home? I’m making a few changes here: I now usually run to and from the track, even though this makes for a longer warm-up and cool-down than I’d like.  I also forego many of my solitary runs at locations away from my home. I still do some driving and running in order to meet friends for our group runs.

Finally, get involved with green racing. I understand that most Marathon & Beyond readers are probably more interested in running in, rather than running (as in organizing), races. But even you non-organizing types can still help by volunteering. By all means, volunteer at any race you can, but as you do so, also try keep the environment in mind. By this I mean be aware of opportunities to make your race greener. There are many prospects for this, large and small, at virtually every event. This may mean making suggestions, such as those outlined in the Green Racing sidebar, to the race director. Or it may mean doing smaller things that may not be in your job description, like recycling plastic bottles or just picking up litter.

For those who do organize races, the rest of us are in your debt. Please consider making your event an environmentally friendly one. Refer to the Green Racing sidebar to find some ideas.

For those planning to run a marathon, here is one other thought: vote with your feet. When you choose a marathon to run, you weigh many factors: large or small, close or far, flat or hilly, roads or trails. To this list add another deciding factor: green or not so green. Lean towards green. Check out http://runnersworld-greenteam.com/ for a list of green races.

Oh, and just one other thing: pick up that darned empty GU package you just dropped on the trail!

...................

SIDEBAR: Green Racing

Marathon & Beyond Publisher Jan Seeley made a presentation called Greening Your Event at a Race Directors’ Conference during the AT&T Austin Marathon weekend activities. Jan and Rich Benyo may agree or disagree on some of the finer points of the climate change debate, but I believe they, along with most folks would concur that everyone can benefit from more environmentally-friendly race events. Below I have summarized some of the information that Jan presented. I have also included ideas from Road Race Management’s publication, Guide to Greener Running Events, Edited by Keith Peters.

A marathon has an environmental impact. Consider:

Prior to the race:

·         The race committee may travel to other race expos to promote their event, and they also mail and otherwise distribute brochures and other information.

·         The runners will wear out as many as three pairs of shoes whilst training.

·         During the day or days prior to the race, runners arrive from all corners of the country and the globe.

·         Vendors and runners travel to the expo, where the runners receive goody bags, t-shirts and other paraphernalia.

·         Runners may attend a buffet-style pasta feed with disposable plates, cups, and plastic-ware.

On race day:

·         Runners, volunteers, spectators and race officials travel to the race venue.

·         Runners visit porta-potties and discard extra clothing and water bottles.

·         There are usually official and press vehicles to accompany runners.

·         Refreshments in disposable containers are provided at aid stations. 

As the race concludes:

·         Runners receive medals, space blankets and refreshments.

·         There is often a post-race party with more refreshments.

·         A postcard/results book is mailed to all entrants.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Let’s think green and see what happens.

Prior to the race:

·         Brochures and other information can be printed on recycled paper, or perhaps not printed at all in favor of on-line registration and email information distribution.

·         Eco-friendly shirts, recycled/recyclable race numbers, bio-degradable or cloth goody bags can all be provided. Goody bags can also be reused as drop-bags.

·         For other race-related purchasing, local vendors should be considered.

·         An all organic pasta dinner can be provided. Biodegradable or reusable plates, etc. should be used.

·         Race officials can provide a link on the web site to help participants hook up with others to carpool to the race, such as http://www.rideshare.us.

·         Information can also be provided to enable runners the opportunity to offset the carbon emissions of their race related travel.

·         At the expo, old running shoes and clothing can be collected and distributed to charities.

·         Green vendors and speakers should be encouraged.

·         Buses can be provided for transportation between hotels and the expo, dinner and the starting area.

·         Race numbers can be reused from prior years.

On race day:

·         Alternative fuel options for spectator, race officials, and runner transportation should be considered. The number of vehicles on the road can be reduced by employing lead cyclists and paramedics on bicycles.

·         Preferred parking/VIP access for carpoolers can be provided.

·         The runners themselves should be encouraged to be eco-friendly during the race.

·         Install greener porta-potties that use environmentally friendly chemicals rather than formaldehyde.

·         Reusable or biodegradable water containers should be used.

·         Recycling and composting bins should be provided.  

As the race concludes:

·         Try to serve organic food at the finish line. Austin features a farmers market at theirs.

·         Leftover food can be donated to charity.

·         Consider locally-made rewards.

Jan provides a few additional Green Ideas: Accept green donations from your participants to go to green organizations. Contribute race proceeds to environmentally-friendly local entities. Partner with additional environmentally conscious organizations in your community. Finally, invite an environmental expert to evaluate your race and give you a “report card.”

Where to start? The Council for Responsible Sport (CRS) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) have published guidelines for sustainability and ecology requirements. These are summarized in the Guide to Greener Running Events. In addition,

·         Implement the ideas presented here, beginning with those that are most practical.

·         Order The Road Race Management Guide to Greener Running Events, edited by Keith Peters. It is available at http://roadracemanagement.com/.

·         Read The ‘Greening’ of a Marathon by Mike Lungren. Marathon & Beyond, Issue 3.5, 1999, pp. 38-44.

·         Join the Greenteam, “a community for race events, runners and active individuals who care about the environment and a longer and healthier course for the planet.” For more information, go to http://runnersworld-greenteam.com/.

Cool Run on a Hot Planet

I wrote this in 2008. I'd hoped to have it published in Runners World or Marathon & Beyond. M & B did eventually publish an article that I wrote about the environment, but the final product was very different from this original. I still like this one a whole heck of a lot. Incidentally, I can't run like this anymore. But some day, I'll be back.



It’s 4:10 AM Sunday morning, and I roll out of bed and begin to get ready for my long run. I know that I should probably take it easy after yesterday’s hot 10K, but I’m weird like that. I have another race next weekend; if I don’t get my long run in now, when would I? And the early morning thing? I’m weird like that too. I like to have the run done early so I can lead a nearly normal life for the rest of the day. I like to beat the traffic; I’ll have the roads mostly to myself for most of the run. Mostly, I like to beat the heat by running early; I don’t do well when it’s hot. Today was predicted to be another scorcher. Also on this day, I want to do some running while it’s still dark in order to catch a glimpse of some shooting stars; the annual Perseid Meteor shower is nearly peaking.

By 5:00 AM, I’m out running. I exit my subdivision and head towards the darker semi-country roads, looking up as much as possible. Compared to the daytime temperatures we’ve had, this morning feels fairly cool. I see the Pleiades star cluster in the sky, and then I look towards the east-southeast and see the Constellation Orion rising. It’s been another long, hot summer in this part of the world. I occasionally have a totally irrational fear that summer will never end. I’m (really) weird like that. The tropics are just fine, thank you, but I want them to stay where they are. Seeing Orion rising signals that autumn, with its cooler temperatures, is not too far off. This somehow reassures me a bit, as it does every August when I see it rise for the first time. It also gets me thinking.

Climatologists inform us that short-term weather patterns in any particular part of the world cannot be attributed directly to the climate-changing event also known as global warming. To say that the heat here in Ohio today, this week, or even this year, is due to global warming, is a non sequitur. Yet, when the scientists say that recent years rank as the hottest the earth has seen since records have been kept, it still manages to scare me into thinking that the warm spell here on my corner of the world is part of the overall mess. I’m weird like that. Like the frog that stays in the water that is gradually heated up versus the one that hops right back out when placed in already hot water, we often don’t notice the changes. I feel like I do, however. Maybe I’ve just been rambling around this planet for too many decades. Its summer, some say: it’s supposed to be hot. Yes, I reply, but not this hot, for this long, and without a break since early spring.

At 5:40 AM it’s beginning to get lighter. I haven’t seen a single meteor. It seems like I see them at times when they’re not expected, and not when they are. Soon I head through a heavily wooded area where I’m usually bombarded by deerflies. Today they’re not so bad, perhaps because it’s still fairly dark, or perhaps they’re laying low because of the summer heat.

Around 6:40 AM I arrive back home for a pit stop: energy-gel, water and a bathroom break. Those first 11 miles were very slow. My ‘ole legs were having a tough time getting back into it after yesterday’s race. I decide to head circuitously over to the track where I can more closely monitor my pace in order to pick it up a bit. It’s light out, and it’s getting warmer, as I begin running again.

At 7:00 AM the sun is rising, and it’s warmer still. For some reason, I begin considering my own impact on the planet. The predominant scientific view is that human activity is the cause of climate change, and I accept this. I understand that just by running, I’m producing more carbon dioxide than I would be if I had just slept in like a normal person. More importantly, by living my typical American lifestyle, I produce far more global warming gasses than the individual people of any other country. My family and I have made some small changes to reduce our impact, but there is certainly much more that we can and should do. Eliminating the running activity isn’t one of them.

By 7:30 AM I’ve made another pit stop and am ready to hit the track. A hawk screeches in the distance. It feels hot, but I know it could be much worse. Almost as if by magic, I pick the pace up. I’m weird like that. Even so, I’m not running quite as fast as I’d like. I’d wanted to be running at planned marathon pace at this point, and that’s just not happening. I manage 3 miles here before I head back home again.

I’m grateful that the track is east of my house as I run with the hot sun at my back instead of in my face. I think of how it can’t be just individual choices to change the world; we need political will and leadership here as well. We need to work individually, yes, but also as a nation and as a member (even a leader) of the global community to solve this problem. I think about the many ways we are adding to the problem rather than working to correct it, and how this issue isn’t even a political or controversial one in other (more) civilized countries; they are simply progressively making the necessary changes. Here’s what troubles me most of all: when the subject occasionally arises, I cannot even manage to convince my close running friends or others that this issue needs immediate attention, such that we should take action with our votes. We all see the world from different viewpoints, and perhaps mine is weird like that more than most. But if I can’t change even these few minds, how in the world is the rest of the country ever going to come around?

Now it’s 8:20 AM and I’ve arrived back home. It’s been a pretty decent long run – 22 miles in all. The sun is higher in the sky. The “scorcher” prediction is coming true; it’s really hot now.

Flat Earth

Are you aware that there is such a thing as the Flat Earth Society? I was, but I was surprised to learn that, at least for a few people, it's still pretty serious stuff. According to the Wikipedia Flat Earth entry, no one has provided proof that the world is not flat. Here I had been thinking that it was a tongue in cheek thing.

Since it is, evidently, taken seriously by some, does this mean that we ought to hold regular debates? Should the news, whenever noting anything at all about the earth being spherical, be compelled to also mention the "other side of the issue"? Or should the weight of scientific evidence to the contrary preclude the need for further debate?

If people want to believe something, either seriously or perhaps jokingly, they certainly can. Extremely strange beliefs that people hold would be an excellent topic for a future post in this or perhaps some other blog. But just because someone believes something doesn't in and of itself necessitate that they be given equal time with someone else who has scientific consensus on their side.

By now you can see where this is going. There is a contingent out there who will not believe in scientific evidence, except where it suits them. Again, this is their right. I only have a problem when they try tp convince others, especially children, that they're right.  In some cases, it's all due to their religious beliefs, as is the case for evolution. In other cases, like for climate change, it's due to the money.

If you're a polluter, it certainly does not suit you to believe the science, You will spend your nearly unlimited resources trying to muck up the truth in order to convince people that, "the science isn't in yet." Worst of all, you will buy more and more politicians, until you get your way.

So when there's a "debate" about climate change, think of it in the same terms as a debate about the spherical vs flat earth.

Election Issue (FB Rant Re-post)

Herewith, I am re-posting a long-winded rant that I recently made on Facebook. I generally don't get political there. I fully appreciate that chances of convincing even one person to change their mind in today's political climate are next to nil.

But I ranted anyway. I feel that the environment, as an issue, needs a voice. I would bet that it doesn't even come up at tonight's presidential debate. Yet as I state below, in my opinion, there is no other political issue that even comes close in importance.

Whether climate change and other environmental concerns really should be political issues at all is an important question; one that I'll address in a future blog. But it is and they are, albeit ones that don't come up nearly as much as it should during the campaign itself. They'll surface later, for better or worse... and that's depending on who gets elected. Here's my rant:
......


Which issue do you think is the most important one facing our country? The collective answer will surely help to decide the presidential election. Many would probably say the economy and jobs, or terrorism and safety. Race relations, gun control, health care and abortion would certainly be on the list as well. Although these and other problems are certainly important to all of us, in my mind, the single most important issue facing our nation, as well as the entire world, is the environment.
If we don’t take steps to care for the planet we live on, how can we possibly take care of one another? On the other hand, if we do look after Planet Earth; if we do clean up our act, we will surely then look after the people on it as well. By putting Planet Earth first, our lives, and those of our children and grandchildren, will undoubtedly reap great rewards. It’s that simple, and it explains why I see all other issues as pale in comparison.

Environmental matters include concerns over the oceans, overall water and air pollution, but especially climate change. The related science is backed up by systematic study after study, with conclusions that are indisputable.

News of the environment is nearly always bad. Most notably, climate change has resulted in unprecedented global temperatures for every single month since last autumn. The warming of the Pacific Ocean has been a partial cause, but this El Nino year is far worse than any other in human history.

Most importantly, there is something we can do about it. We can reduce, re-use and recycle. We can turn our thermostats down in the winter and up in the summer. We can drive less and walk more. Mostly, use common sense in order to have a smaller footprint. Helpful though they are though, these are small things. There is a much more effective way to influence the environment in a truly positive way, and it doesn’t hurt a bit: Vote for the right people, especially in the Presidential race.

One candidate is on the record as saying, "Well, I think the climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money. I know much about climate change. I'd be — received environmental awards. And I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China. Obviously, I joke. But this is done for the benefit of China, because China does not do anything to help climate change. They burn everything you could burn; they couldn't care less. They have very — you know, their standards are nothing. But they — in the meantime, they can undercut us on price. So it's very hard on our business." Another time, this person used the term, “hoax” in relation to global warming three times in one sentence: "Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and … a lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, okay? It's a hoax, a lot of it."
Although this person’s personality, mannerisms and speech are abhorrent to some, other people feel that he, and the party that he represents, is right to deny climate change and science in general. If climate change is a hoax, then surely all of science should also be in question, and we may as well exploit, squander and pollute Earth’s resources to our collective hearts’ content.

The other political party does not have an unblemished record in regards to environmental matters. They’ve made blunders, bowed to political pressure in some cases, and most importantly, dragged their feet on much needed environmental legislation. But at least they acknowledge that the science is legitimate.

And they do try. Our president angered many when he issued executive orders to bypass Congress in order to meet agreements he made with the Paris climate accord and with China’s President. I feel that if there was ever a justifiable need to bypass non-existent congressional approval, this was it. It was right to give us a fighting chance, a baby step, in fighting climate change. This party’s 2016 candidate also acknowledges science. I am confident that she will continue the course of caring for the earth.

I understand that there is nothing I can say here to change anyone’s mind that’s already made up. But for those who haven’t decided, for those who may not bother to vote, please consider: the choice is stark. One candidate believes in science and will most likely at least try to care for the environment, and therefore our heritage. The other will deny science and exploit earth’s resources for extremely short term gain for a few, and long term disaster for all.

Don't..... About this Blog

I would like to poop in your swimming pool. I am aware that doing so might possibly make things bad for the rest of the swimmers, but I truly don't want to spend the time, trouble and money to get out of the pool to use the facilities. Besides, will it really be so awful? Yes, I know there are studies, and that there is scientific "consensus" that "proves" that pooping is bad for other swimmers. But what do scientists know?  And I and my friends simply don't like the obtrusive and expensive regulation to require use of facilities instead of going directly and immediately in the pool.

I am trying to convince the pool oversight committee that they should let us poop wherever we want. Regulation hurts business. Since I have a great deal of money - some might say, unlimited resources - and already have some committee members in my pocket, I think I will get my way. I will spend my money as needed to get my message across. In addition, I can pay some scientists to muck the issue up, such that the news will consider the whole "debate" as one having two sides.

By being allowed to poop in the pool, I will have more money to hire people - it'll be great for business! If I can't do what I want, the reduced employment will hurt the entire economy. I am, after all, a job-creator.

....

That, I believe, sums up the arguments in favor of pollution. Included in my definition, and according to the US Supreme Court, that of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is greenhouse gas emission. If I have mis-characterized the "debate", or if I have missed anything at all, I would sincerely appreciate being enlightened.

It needs to be emphasized that I am not a climate scientist, or for that matter, a scientist of any kind. Nevertheless, as a concerned father and grandfather who wants to help his kids and grandkids have a fighting chance for a clean environment, I care about the future of the planet, and I do indeed have something to say. The fight to save our Earth needs all the help it can get.