Qualification

In the news this week:

-> White House and EPA plans to gut support of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 

-> President Trump signed an executive order aimed at rolling back major environmental regulations to protect American waterways

The assault on the environment continues. Don't even get started on how we need to cut the budget deficit. The same people who are so concerned about that want massive increases to military spending.

Everyone says they like clean air and water, even President Trump. Some people, like him, then begin to qualify it.  

You are either for clean air and water, or you are for corporate profits, and therefore against them. 

False Dichotomies

Beliefs



We all have our belief systems. Some have more of a basis on facts, but all rely at least to some extent on faith. Even those of us who espouse a scientific view must still have some faith in the science of their peers as well as those who have come before and helped build the pyramid of scientific facts upon which our current beliefs are based. Then there are those who base their beliefs more on faith than fact. Many a debate has been had between those with a scientific and those with a religion based world view.



Even if we accept that science vs religion is a dichotomy (and some of us would not concede this), the environment in general, and climate change in particular, does not need to be in the middle of it. For even those of great religious belief must still accept that some scientific facts are true. And some of those facts have to do with keeping our planet verdant for future generations. Little to nothing in religion tells people that they should exploit natural resources until they are exhausted, burn fossil fuels until the air and water are polluted, or dump industrial or coal waste into water systems.






Regulation



Here is another dichotomy, and, I believe, another false one: environmental regulation suppresses jobs and the overall economy. It's true that regulations do sometimes reduce jobs in certain sectors, but they then create new jobs in others. In fact, an award-winning 2013 paper by Berkeley economist W. Reed Walker shows that there is "increasing evidence that benefits from environmental policy far exceed the costs."






Support of Renewable Energy



And finally there's this related one: the government has no business supporting renewable energy. Jobs and the economy are based on our fossil fuels. This article, from that bastion of liberal thinking, Forbes magazine, debunks and disputes this entirely.  It's still (in spite of our recent election results) not too late for our country to take a leading role in the economy of the future.

In past posts, I've listed sources that show our government's historical and continuing subsidization of the fossil fuel industry. It's well past time for this to stop, and to start putting clean energy first.

In What Universe?

Things are happening so fast in Washington, that it's nearly impossible for us normal people to process it. I've heard that so many lies are emanating from the Executive branch that the fact-checkers are facing exhaustion. One thing is perfectly clear, however: the environment is under attack.

Last week President Trump signed an act of Congress rolling back the stream protection rule, a regulation to protect streams from mining pollution. Yes, this really happened. This will, in effect, allow coal waste to be dumped into rivers.

I have seen and heard arguments about why this should be good for jobs, industry and preventing governmental overreach. I have seen and heard that we can "have a clean environment without needless regulation." I have heard the assertion that this rule was only put in place by President Obama in the last days of his Administration. Here is what I have to say to the Republicans and their new President about these justifications.

You have no moral or ethical justification whatsoever. Greed has won this battle, even as the war continues. In what Universe is it okay to dump coal waste in streams? How do you pass a law like this, and then face your children and grandchildren?

Now comes the next phase of the assault on clean air and water. Senate Republicans have confirmed Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency that he and President Trump have promised to dismantle.

To my Republican friends, I have to ask: you are presumably getting what you asked for. What has happened to your human decency?

Debate with a Climate Change Skeptic

In 2000 Debbie and I returned to the Cleveland, Ohio area, for good. Notice the comma in that sentence; it’s important.

After living in the Detroit area for fourteen years, and in the far southern part of Ohio for the seven year prior to that, we did move here for good in the sense that this would be one of our last moves, and certainly our last big one. But the for good part has an additional meaning: we returned to be closer to our family and many of our old friends. We are happy that we did it; it’s proven to be a very good move.

Although we were sad to have left our Michigan friends, the old Ohio buddies welcomed us back. We also made several new friends, and many of these were through running. One of the very first of those to welcome me personally was Mike George. Mike was one of several that I met through the Dead Runners Society (aka DRS, an international internet group of runners who write about their running).

Since we’ve stayed in touch, Mike and I have now been friends for seventeen years. We traveled to Maryland together to run the JFK 50-Mile run, and even met up in Prague before the Prague Marathon. We now work at the same company and still occasionally run together.

I know what you’re thinking. That’s nice Dan, but what does it have to do with pooping (or not) in the pool? And the answer is: lots.

Mike is a self-described climate change skeptic. He has written some thoughtful, even analytical comments in response to my If You Believe post. My answer follows, but first I want to say that we need to keep this kind of dialogue going. I truly appreciate all comments and criticism. But I am still struggling mightily to understand how and why reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people – many of them family members and friends like Mike – either a) don’t believe the climate is changing, b) believe it’s changing but the change is not man-made, or c) believe in anthropogenic climate change, but don’t think it’s important enough to vote accordingly. This struggle is described in greater detail in my An Open Letter post, and it's still going.

Now that that’s out of the way, I should say that I’m not so sure I’m the best person to conduct a debate such as this, for several reasons:

1) I consider myself a lousy debater. I almost never win. I can only barely convince my wife that I’m not such an awful guy, and that’s only after 41 years of marriage (just kidding there – I think she thinks highly of me).

2) Even though I believe in the science, I’m certainly not a scientist. I only write about it in this blog because I feel it’s important with regards to the future of our little planet. Where’s Bill Nye when you need him?

3) Despite what I said about keeping the dialogue going, I have other feelings in the back of my head, to the effect that we ought to be well beyond debate on this issue. We no longer debate whether the earth is the round, whether we’re at the center of the universe, or whether gravity, relativity or electricity exist. That would be counter-productive; discussion on those topics now centers around how best to work with the facts at hand. It’s the same with climate change. It’s where that issue/debate ought to be now.

Now, aren’t you happy that’s out of the way? On to Mike’s assertions.

The amount of change appears to vary widely, depending on the source. Mike cites one source stating the rise has been +1.0 C in the past 50 years, and another claiming +0.8 C in 100 years. My response is that this is the internet; anyone can say anything. Some discrepancies may be due to different start and end points, including, if it’s a little older, no reference to the data of the past couple record heat years. My preference is data from NASA. I don’t think there can be any dispute of that. This page states a rise of 0.6 C to 0.9 C degrees between 1906 and 2005.

Secondly, Mike questions data projected into the past, before humans began to record it. One of my favorite charts begins 20000 BCE. Where and how do they get data going back that far, or even as far back as 1950? The answer is that there is an entire field dedicated to this end called paleoclimatology. Here is a high level overview. The Wikipedia page explains that, ‘it uses a variety of proxy methods from the Earth and life sciences to obtain data previously preserved within things such as rocks, sediments, ice sheets, tree rings, corals, shells and microfossils.’

Thirdly, Mike asserts that variation in solar radiation is considerable, and ought to have a much greater impact on the earth’s temperatures than the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million (PPM). According to information from the EPA, many factors, both natural and human, cause changes in Earth’s energy balance, including variations in the sun's energy, changes in the reflectivity of earth’s atmosphere/surface, and changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by earth’s atmosphere. The EPA goes on to say, ‘Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.’

One final piece of information: a general purpose reference provided by Mike himself, that I think provides some very useful information.

I lied. This recent article by Bill McKibbin is as pertinent as important as any.

I very much doubt that I’ve convinced Mike, who does admit that he’s better informed after some of the same research. This is a little discouraging. If we can't convince a friend who is thoughtful and thorough, who can we convince? Anyone?

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.