Open Letter to Mike DeWine, Robert Cupp, and Larry Obhof

 

Open Letter to Messrs Mike DeWine, Ohio Governor, Robert Cupp, Speaker of Ohio House, Larry Obhof, Ohio Senate President

The State of Ohio is undergoing yet another embarrassment as Sam Randazzo has stepped down from his position as Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). At the time of this writing, it is not known whether or how much this may be related to the scandal where House Speaker Larry Householder and four political associates were arrested on federal racketeering charges involving $61 million in bribes tied to the nuclear subsidies for House Bill 6 (HB 6). But it sure looks that way. And it sure looks awful for the State of Ohio, the Ohio Legislature, and the Ohio Executive branch.

Mr. Randazzo was appointed by Governor DeWine and approved by the Ohio Legislature. He has a long record of supporting dirty fossil fuels and hindering all attempts to install renewable energy. As a result, Ohio’s reputation as a haven for dirty energy and pollution has continued to worsen. Now its reputation as a seat of corruption continues as well. Worst of all, HB 6 is still on the books.

HB 6 was a terrible law for the people of Ohio right from the beginning. As you know, HB 6 seeks to bail out FirstEnergy’s nuclear and coal plants by forcing virtually every Ohioan to pay a surcharge. It also removes renewable energy standards that would have helped keep Ohio cleaner and greener. The law has been called the worst energy bill of the 21st century.

This law is bad for the health (since it also removes some environmental protection) and welfare (since it requires all to pay for a bailout) of Ohioans. It needs to be repealed immediately.

The repeal needs to be complete. Previous hearings since the scandal have demonstrated spineless equivocation by the Ohio Legislature. Let us be clear: there is no justification for not repealing it in its entirety. Once that is complete, the Ohio Legislature should begin to draft legislation to help correct Ohio’s filthy, pollution-causing energy policy. Clean, renewable energy standards and policies work for other states. They will work in Ohio too. Furthermore, any corrective action should be funded solely by FirstEnergy stockholders and not everyday Ohioans as a bailout.

Of course, the Ohio Legislature will need to do most of the work to repeal and remove this bad law. But Governor DeWine needs to provide the leadership to get this done. Please do it quickly. Ohio cannot wait.

Insurance and Support of Fossil Fuel

Are you shopping for home, auto, or other insurance? I was, and I nearly purchased some from Safeco, which is part of Liberty Mutual Insurance. From aRolling Stone article and other sources, I learned that Liberty Mutual provides indispensable insurance to TC Energy (a fossil fuel infrastructure company) in order to enable construction of the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline, which would carry extracted tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the U.S. It appears that Big Oil, Big Money (some large banks are still bankrolling oil), and Big Insurance work in unison to prop up the fossil fuel economy at the expense of climate change.

 

According to Reuters, a group of about 60 American businesses recently urged their insurers to stop providing coverage to and investment in the fossil fuel industry. They said in part, “The insurance industry is underwriting and investing in fossil fuels which we now know are the key drivers of climate change. As insurance customers, we are therefore expressing our desire for insurance coverage in the U.S. market that isn’t tied to supporting fossil fuels and actively supports renewable energy.” Insurers targeted in the letter include American International Group Inc, Axis Capital, Chubb Ltd, Hartford Financial Services, and Liberty Mutual.

 

I decided that I did not want any profits Liberty Mutual made from my purchase to be used to finance fossil fuel companies. I shopped some more and purchased from another insurance company. If you are in the market for insurance, please consider the climate-related track record of the company you’re buying from.

 

While you weren’t paying attention

 

There are no permanent victories in the environmental business ~ Bill McKibben

That the coronavirus pandemic sucks all the oxygen out of the room should surprise no one. It garners nearly all our attention these days, leaving little room for concern about other matters. The Trump Administration has chosen to use this health and economic crisis as an opportunity to further erode and dismantle our nation’s environmental protection without as much scrutiny as these actions would have otherwise caused.

In just the past week, the Administration made announcements about two decisions that will prove disastrous to Alaska’s otherwise nearly pristine environment. First, it will start selling drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area of environmental concern and contention for decades. Second, it will proceed to allow building the Pebble Mine to extract gold, copper, and other metals on the headwaters of the streams that feed the world’s premier salmon run area, Bristol Bay.

Why should we care? The pandemic is, rightly, of utmost importance. We surely do need to pay heed to all important developments; our health, even our lives, may be at stake. But the environment will be with us always. Trump’s rape of it is not only continuing, but even accelerating while our attention is diverted.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been an area of environmental protection for more than fifty years. It is the largest remaining stretch of wilderness in the United States. Trump has considered Arctic drilling as foremost in importance to his initiative to expand domestic fossil fuel production on federal lands. The ANWR spans 19 million acres in northeastern Alaska. The drilling would occur on 1.5 million acres in the refuge’s coastal plain, which is believed to contain large onshore reserves of oil and gas. It would upset already vulnerable and even endangered wildlife. Once the drilling begins, it cannot be undone.

The Pebble Mine permit from the Trump administration comes despite concerns from environmentalists that it will severely damage Alaska’s world-renowned sockeye (and chinook, coho, chum, and pink) salmon fishery in nearby Bristol Bay. Earlier, Trump had ordered logging protections removed from nearby Tongass National Forest. It is the largest temperate rainforest on planet Earth.

There is some hope, although more action will surely be needed. Environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, are taking legal action to try to stop the plunder. Also, it is not clear how much interest there will be from energy companies at a time when oil prices are low, and many countries are trying to wean themselves from fossil fuels. Furthermore, banks may be unwilling to finance the effort. Regarding the Pebble Mine, local opposition centers on the fact that the mine will destroy the way of life afforded to Alaska’s fishing community. Even Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr., who agree with the President on most issues, reportedly oppose the mine. Yes, there may be hope.

Most importantly, we all need to continue to pay attention, even amid the pandemic, when this Administration continues and even accelerates its plans to destroy our nation’s environmental protection.

Governor DeWine, tear down this law

Open Letter to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine:

Governor DeWine, tear down this law. House Bill 6 was a terrible law for the people of Ohio right from the beginning. With the recent indictments, we are now aware of how awful it truly is. It needs to be repealed immediately.

Your response to the pandemic, although uneven, has proven you to be passionate about the health and welfare of Ohioans. Your record on environmental matters is uneven and more concerning. You supported measures to prevent harmful algal blooms due to pollution in Lake Erie, but you also appointed a clean energy critic to lead the Public Utilities Commission as well as the Ohio Power Siting Board. This person has created the ‘poison pill’ to thwart longstanding attempts to create renewable energy in Lake Erie.

You also supported HB 6. As you know, HB 6 seeks to bail out FirstEnergy’s nuclear and coal plants by forcing virtually every Ohioan to pay a surcharge.

We now understand that FirstEnergy was the source of $61 million funneled through a nonprofit group to maintain the alleged criminal conspiracy. In fact, it was “a conspiracy to pass and maintain a $1.6 billion bailout in exchange for $61 million in dark money,” U.S. Attorney David M. DeVillers. Finally, some of the money was allegedly used to line the pockets of Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and some associates.

Governor DeWine, this law is bad for the health (since it also removes some environmental protection) and welfare (since it requires all to pay for a bailout) of Ohioans. You recently said, “Because people did bad things does not mean the policy is not a good policy.” I strongly disagree. People did bad things precisely because HB 6 was bad policy that would otherwise not have become law. You also note that nuclear energy does not contribute to climate change. This is true, but the coal plant bailout and stripping of other environmental protection that are included in the bill do. Furthermore, any bailout should be funded solely by FirstEnergy stockholders and not everyday Ohioans.

Of course, the Ohio Legislature will need to do most of the work to repeal and remove this bad law. But you, Governor DeWine need to provide the leadership to get this done. Please do it quickly.

Leadership

Occasionally, a current events type thought comes along that isn't directly related to environmental matters, but (I feel) belongs as a don't poop in the pool post nonetheless. Here goes.

The Marseillaise came on the radio this morning, so of course, I turned the volume up to eleven and blasted it. It’s Bastille Day, after all. I began thinking about France’s President, Emmanuel Macron. I believe that he is a great leader during these challenging times. This in turn led me to think about other great leaders of our current era, including Angela Merkel of Germany, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand, and Justin Trudeau of Canada. It also led me to do some research about leadership in difficult times. Adversity is best overcome by instilling trust, compassion, stability, and hope. Any of that happening in America right now?

The New York Times today addressed the question of whether Joe Biden, who doesn’t necessarily have a strong ideology, could become a transformational president. The answer was that, despite the enormous challenges, he could. But the potential for sweeping change is real, even if Biden isn’t most liberals’ idea of a visionary.

It’s been said that ‘Every nation gets the government it deserves.’ I don’t think this is entirely true, or at all fair. But I do think it applies at least some of the time. I certainly believe that we deserve better than what we have right now. What can we do to deserve and make it better?

I'll just finish by saying that a great and transformational leader will do the right thing regarding climate change and other environmental concerns. There. That was about the environment, after all. Wasn't it?

Planet of the Humans, a Critique

A new documentary available on youtube, Planet of the Humans posits that industrial wind farms, solar farms, biomass, and biofuels are wrecking natural environments, causing more environmental harm than good. Filmmaker Jeff Gibbs and Producer Michael Moore challenge assumptions the environmental movement have taken as gospel for the past twenty or more years.

Much is revealed about the deleterious effects of the use of ethanol, biomass, and biofuels on the environment. The more surprising disclosure is the relatively short (about 20-year) lifespan of wind turbines and the environmental harm in the construction of solar panels.

The final message is that billionaires, even the ones claiming to be environmentalists, are not our friends. Al Gore, Bill McKibbin, Denis Hayes, Michael Brune, Richard Branson, Michael Bloomberg, and others are all shown to have underlying corporate and profit motives, some of which are antithetical to clean energy and sustainability.

The film is intended to be disturbing to environmentalists who have embraced green energy. Is it successful? Somewhat. The point that infinite growth on a finite planet is in itself unsustainable is certainly valid. Whether billionaires are our friends (not so, according to the film) is debatable; certainly, some are, some not, and some somewhere in between.

Ultimately, the film is terribly one-sided. It will surely add fuel to the anti-environmentalists out there. It’s good to look at the things we think are the solution and to question them. It’s quite another to do this to present it as if green, sustainable energy is as bad or worse than the fossil fuel burning it replaces. That simply isn’t true.

Earth Day at 50 amid the Coronavirus Crisis: a Personal Perspective

The original Earth Day came shortly after the first moon landing and images of Earth from the moon

I was a junior in high school when the first Earth Day was observed in April 1970. Although I was aware that it was happening, I can’t say I was involved. I wish I had; I’ve always been an environmentalist at heart, but it’s only been the last ten years or so that I’ve been one in deed. As Earth Day turns 50 years old April 22, 2020, we find ourselves in the midst of the coronavirus crisis, an event that threatens to overshadow concern for the environment or anything else with longer-term consequences. Regarding Planet Earth, this must not happen. Of course, we need to be concerned about the virus, but we also must continue to fight for the environment. Our future depends on it.

There were dire threats to the earth in 1970. Rivers caught fire, cities were choking with smog, and pollution from coal, lead, and other particulate matter threatened to poison every aspect of our lives. Famines, revolts, and wars raged across parts of Africa and Asia. Books such as The Population Bomb and The Limits of Growth warned us that efforts to correct the mounting environmental problems were nearly futile.

Although I didn’t attend those Earth Day events in 1970, they did have my attention. I observed the water and air pollution first-hand, back then. I’d been to Los Angeles years earlier, and the nearly-unbreathable smog was stifling. I nearly choked from the chemical-laden air every time I would drive by the Cleveland steel mills. I witnessed the poisoned Cuyahoga River, a dead flowing mass of mud, trash, and chemicals as it spilled into equally dead Lake Erie. My thoughts at the time were not to protest or even object. It was more of a lament. This was the world that I was born into, and there wasn’t much that could be done about it. It was fine that others did take it upon themselves to become activists; I just wouldn’t be among them.


Earth Day, 2020


Earth Day, 2020 certainly is different in many, but not all ways. The Dan Horvath of 1970 would be flabbergasted by the life of Dan Horvath of 2020. Lifestyle aside, consider the different concerns of the two Earth Days. Many of the environmental concerns of a half-century ago have been reduced, mitigated, or eliminated. Technical advances have experienced exponential acceleration, and they have made our lives nearly unrecognizable from those of fifty years ago. These advances have touched every aspect of our daily lives, for better or worse. For the environment, it’s often been for the better; American and European cities generally have far less smog and other air pollution. Rivers and lakes are also generally cleaner and support more fish and wildlife. I can swim in Lake Erie, and I can drive near manufacturing areas without choking.

Yet we now find ourselves with a host of new problems: rising pollution sources in emerging super-economies China and India, plastic pollution, and the existential threat of climate change. Some political leaders such as President Trump appear all too eager to reduce and even remove the very environmental regulations that have enabled our access to clean air and water. They threaten our future by denying climate science. These problems have led my wife Debbie and me to become activists. In recent years, we have attended climate marches and strikes, we’ve become regular attendees of local Sierra Club group meetings, we’ve written to Congressmen and Senators, and we’ve advocated for local recycling. As you may have noted, I also write blog posts. The two of us would be involved in Earth Day 2020 observance in some way if the coronavirus hadn’t disrupted such plans. As it now appears, we will be attending the Earth Day 2020 events online from our home. We’re okay with this; we prefer to keep ourselves and others safe and well.

Debbie and I at the 2017 People's Climate March in Washington

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic


How did we get to a point where a virus could upend the lives of virtually every person on the planet? The answer has to do with the environment in which we now find ourselves. At the beginning of the third decade of the twenty-first century, we have global supply chains, with most manufacturing in third-world countries. China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and other emerging economic giants make the stuff that we in the first world buy, use, and discard. This situation has dramatically enhanced our quality of life, but it has also come at a cost. Part of that cost should have been predictable, like sweat-shop conditions in Asian factories, plastic pollution, and the overwhelming debt caused by over-consumption without production. And now there’s climate change as well. But other results include unprecedented mobility on a global scale; a grave concern for any potential pandemic. Like this one. Make no mistake, our lifestyle and our impact on the environment are entirely the root cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ironically, the reduction of economic activity due to the pandemic has been mostly positive. Pollution levels in China and also worldwide have been dramatically reduced. Although the coronavirus will likely be with us for years, we can hope that a vaccine will be developed within the next eighteen months or so to bring the crisis much more under control. In any case, the effect on the economy and the planet in general, for better or worse, will be to some extent temporary.


The Case for Optimism


The fight for the welfare of Planet Earth will continue regardless of how Earth Day 2020 is being observed. It will continue regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic. Life, and even the environment, will even improve, as it has been doing. The idea that our lives are better than ever before in history is the subject of the book, Enlightenment Now, by Steven Pinker. It’s not just technological advances. We, and this planet we live on, have changed as well.

According to Pinker, enlightenment has increased wealth while reducing poverty and inequality. Life around the planet is simply better than ever before in history. There are fewer crimes, wars, accidents, natural deaths, and less political oppression than ever. We humans have a propensity for solving problems, and having the will, knowledge, and resources to do this has enabled a dramatic improvement in quality of life. This includes the vast reduction of the environmental concerns of the past. There is almost no downside to any of this. Pinker does acknowledge that we now face an existential threat in climate change. He doesn’t predict that we will necessarily or easily solve this problem. He merely points out that we as a species have managed to overcome other seemingly insurmountable problems (slavery, world wars, mass starvation, the hole in the ozone layer) that have faced us in the past.

My take on this is that there is at least reason for hope. Amid the crisis of the current pandemic; amid the climate crisis, plastic pollution, and all our other difficulties, we can still engineer a better future for ourselves and our planet.


Earth Day, 2070


The April 2020 edition of National Geographic features an optimistic and a pessimistic view of what planet Earth will be like in 2070, one hundred years after the first Earth Day. It is a compelling case for consideration of how our present course of action will influence our future. I won’t be around in 2070, but my kids might. And my grand-kids probably will be. What will the future hold for them? Will the planet be so hot and polluted as to be nearly unlivable by humans, much less nature? Or will the future be green and verdant (albeit warmer), based on our expanded use of renewable energy and care for the environment? Much to my surprise, I was fascinated more by the optimistic scenario than the pessimistic one. Although the reality will likely lie somewhere in between, I still felt it probable that the rose-colored premise may be closer to the truth.

National Geographic, April 2020 issue

It may also be that something out of the blue will change everything so completely that we can’t even foresee it now. Witness the temporary disruption of the coronavirus. The next disruption (disease or otherwise) may be worse.

But we have it within our power to guide and influence our future, disruptions or not. What we do now will be our legacy. It starts with doing our part as individuals for the environment, increasing our activism, and mostly, voting as if our lives depend on it. They do.

A Challenge for You

Hey Conservative and Libertarian Friends, here’s a challenge for you: Just once will you please post something to the effect that, ‘Climate science is correct for practical purposes. Climate change is real and it’s happening now. Global warming is caused by human activity. We need to modify our behavior to mitigate the crisis.’ A statement such as this, without qualification or equivocation, will go a long way for you.

I know. It’s cool to be a skeptic. You believe the fake science and fake news that’s fed to you through your right-wing sound chamber. The one that is funded by the deep-pocketed fossil fuel industry.

The coolest skeptics of all do question biased, unqualified information. They conditionally, at least, accept scientific facts.

Sorry to Inconvenience You

‘Let me get this straight,’ begins the snarky meme, ‘I go to the store and buy ham wrapped in plastic, bread in a plastic bag, milk in a plastic jug, mustard in a plastic container, etc., and they won’t give me a plastic bag to carry it home because it’s bad for the environment?’

There are three very straightforward answers: 1) Yes, it’s only one thing, but at least it’s a start; 2) Yes, it’s a start and people are working on better non-plastic wrapping for those other items as well; and 3) Yes, life on our planet (including that of your kids and grandkids) depends on all of us drastically reducing plastic waste. Sorry that you may have been inconvenienced such that you felt the need to repost this smart little meme.

Another meme making the rounds shows a pile of trash along with the words, ‘Thank God California banned plastic straws.’ This ridicule is along the same lines as that of the plastic bag one, and of course, the response is the same. We have to start somewhere. Once again, sorry to inconvenience you.

Finally, there have been all kinds of memes making fun of Greta Thunberg. These are the meanest of all, and the least defensible. Much has been written about these attacks, including dontpoopinthepool posts, The Latest from the Right, and The Attacks on Greta Thunberg Continue. Thank goodness that the frequency of these mean attacks appears to be subsiding.

Yes, everyone wants to be funny, and everyone wants to appear smart. There are better ways to do so than taking sides against the environment. Even when you’re inconvenienced.