Specifics

Environmentalists are well aware that the Trump Administration is putting forth toxic policies at a huge human and environmental cost. Others, such as those who voted for him, or even those who say they're neutral, may not be so savvy. Here, courtesy of the Sierra Club is a list of seven current policies that should be of concern to all; they will damage our planet for generations.

• Moving forward with construction of the environmentally destructive, inhumane border wall.
• A new budget that cuts major environmental and health programs.
• Stripping federal protections for gray wolves in the lower 48 states.
• Beginning seismic testing for offshore drilling off the Atlantic Coast, endangering marine mammals along with countless coastal economies.
• Finalizing new rules gutting the Endangered Species Act.
• Issuing seismic testing permits for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain, harming or even killing polar bears.
• Finalizing a reckless new 5-year offshore drilling plan, the first draft of which made more than 90% of U.S. waters available to oil and gas companies.

Not included here, presumably because they're not quite so current, are dropping from the Paris Climate Accord, and allowing the dumping of mining waste into streams and rivers.

You Know Better

This is an open letter to those of my friends and family who know better. It adds up to quite a few of you. I hope you read through it all.

You know better than all of the scientists who study Climate Change. Okay, I'll bring up the 97% agreement you hear about, but only to stipulate that the actual number is higher than that. But whether it's 97 or 99 percent, it's enough to call a consensus. You wouldn't know about the consensus by watching Fox News, listening to talk radio, or listening to the President. Those people know better, and that's why you do as well.

Real scientists, those conducting peer-reviewed studies that are published in scientific journals, all agree; there is no debate on the matter. Is it possible that they are wrong, and that you and Fox News are right?

Of course, it is. In your mind, it may even be likely. After all, you have President Trump on your side. And let's just apply some common sense here. We can't even see carbon dioxide, so how can we say that we're pumping so much of it into the atmosphere. And it's been a cold couple weeks, so how can they say the earth is warming? Forget for the moment that most of Modern Physics is outside our realm of common sense as well.

In fact, history is rife with examples of science getting things wrong. Some individuals (I am thinking of people such as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein)  have changed the world by proving the existing science incomplete, inadequate, or just plain incorrect. Will it happen again? I'm sure it will.

There's only one little itsy-bitsy item to consider: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The great thing about science, the reason I don't know better, is that it's based on provable facts and that it is self-correcting. In all those instances where the existing science did get it wrong, once that extraordinary proof was presented, the new paradigm was made part of the existing base of knowledge.

Will Climate Science, in particular, be proven wrong? Will you, who know better, be the one to do it? I, for one, will be more than happy to see your extraordinary proof.

Tale of Two Archipelagos

Debbie and I were fortunate to have been able to visit two island chains in the Indian Ocean during a cruise: the Seychelles and the Maldives. For those who have heard of them but not visited, they may both conjure thoughts of island-paradise. But from our perspective, they were quite different.

Although there are other types of islands, most are volcanic or coral. Volcanic islands are mountainous, while coral ones are flat and often just above sea level. Some island chains, or archipelagos, have both, although many have one type or the other. The Seychelles are volcanic and mountainous, while the Maldives are coral and flat. But the differences don’t end there.

Island of Mahe, Seychelles

The Seychelles (we visited Praslin, Mahe, and Coco Islands), considered by some the original Garden of Eden, are as close to an island paradise as you can get. Other than tea production, the main industry is tourism. The locals understand this well, and they nurture their assets accordingly. More importantly, they consider the environment as critical to their current and future well-being. Literal and figurative signs regarding the importance of the environment, including climate change, were everywhere.

The Maldives feature excellent beaches, snorkeling, and diving. Several of our fellow passengers can attest to that. But it’s only true for the outer islands.

Island of Male, Maldives

Our arrival into the chain was greeted by several small, flat, beachy islands. But when we approached the inhabited ones, we saw piles of trash that formed artificial mountains, burning garbage, trash in the ocean, air pollution, and a plethora of boats and people. The main and central island of Male is something to behold. It is entirely one city. There’s nothing but buildings, jumbled streets, motorbikes, and people, obviously way too many.

After walking just a bit, the rubbish, pollution, and din of the city forced us to turn around and retreat back to the cruise ship.

The obvious problem: too many people. The solution, like it or not, will come soon. Rising sea levels will affect the Maldives in short order.

When he leaves

One thing is for sure. Donald J. Trump will leave the Office of President in one of four ways:

1)      He will resign and/or leave for health reasons

2)      He will be removed by impeachment or via the 25^th Amendment

3)      He will be voted out of office during the 2020 Election

4)      He will complete his first and second terms and vacate at that time

Those are in order of preference. I wish they were in order of likelihood as well, but no one knows for sure what will happen in the next minute, let alone the next year or years.

The second for sure thing is that our next president will have a mess to clean up. If there were a word stronger than mess, I would have used it. To qualify it, let’s just say that it’s of unprecedented proportions. The damage that’s being done to our economy (the stock market is tanking, and the rest of the economy is about to follow), our country’s integrity (look no further than the Trump lie count), our place in the world (we’ve managed to make enemies of our friends and aid our enemies), and our environment (the rest of the story) are incalculable.

Regarding the destruction, it is the devastation to the environment that will have the most lasting effect. It’s also been the area where Trump has been the most efficient; it will take the best legal efforts to undo everything. Unfortunately, the consequences will be something our children and their children will have to endure.

Air pollution, water pollution, and added carbon and other greenhouse gasses will cause untold deaths and damage for decades to come. This does not even take into account the missed opportunities for global leadership and jobs (YES, JOBS) in the new economy.

And it’s all on Trump and his supporters’ hands.

Doubling Down on Poison

Forget for the moment that President Donald Trump is a felon, a liar, a misogynist, a narcissist, and likely a traitor. Forget for the moment the damage he is doing to American justice, institutions, and credibility. In terms of lasting, long-term damage that has the greatest impact, look no further than his environmental policies.

Trump continues to poison the planet, and as usual, he’s doubling down on his toxic policies, most currently at the Katowice, Poland Climate Change Conference, also known as COP 24. Under Trump’s direction, the U.S. stood with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Russia to block full endorsement of thecritical U.N. climate report by the world’s leading scientists, that found that the world has about a decade to cut carbon emissions by nearly half to avoid catastrophic warming.

Even that wasn’t enough. Trump’s U.S. delegation also tried to make the case that coal and other dirty fossil fuels are really desirable in order to not “sacrifice economic prosperity or energy security.” They were laughed at, mocked, and ridiculed, as would be expected at a conference dedicated to saving rather than spoiling the earth.

Meanwhile, human emissions continue to cause the planet to warm, oceans to rise, arctic and Antarctic ice to melt, temperatures to increase, and wildfires to burn. And Trump continues to fuel the fires. Shame on him and all that support him.

And today we learn that the Trump EPA Proposes Major Rollback Of Federal Water Protections. The rape of the environment continues.

The day Trump and his ilk leave office is a day the earth, and everyone on it, can breathe a sigh of relief.

Existential

ex·is·ten·tial
adjective
relating to existence.
PHILOSOPHY
concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.

The philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian and social critic Noam Chomsky has said that climate change (as well as nuclear war) poses an existential threat. He’s not the only one. California Governor Jerry Brown said as much when he committed his state to set a goal of 100 percent renewable energy by 2045. And United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently called it that at the R20 Austrian World Summit.

Really? A threat to our very existence?

It depends on your definition of ‘our.’ (You probably thought I was going to relate it to the definition of ‘existence.’ Nope. The definition above lays that out as well as can be.) If by ‘our’ existence, you mean, all life on earth, including, but not limited to human beings, then I disagree.

The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, is out. Its prognosis for the planet is not good: There may be as little as 12 years to act on climate change to reach this goal. With the current rise of 1 degree above pre-industrial levels, we are experiencing the terrible effects: melting ice caps, rising sea levels, damaging weather extremes to name a few. Another degree or less will make things much worse. “Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C,” according to the report. Vox summarizes, "2°C of warming is worse than 1.5°C, and 1.5°C is much worse than the 1°C we’re experiencing now."

What’s more, all this is happening even sooner than expected. The worst-case, if nothing at all is done, global temperatures could rise more than 4 degrees above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. This would result in a ‘hothouse earth’ scenario.

Even if this happens, I believe life will still go on. We humans will still manage to survive as a species. At least a few of us. And for those, not so well.

On the other hand, if you mean that ‘our’ means,  our way of life, then I think you’re spot on. Even in the best case scenario, things are grim, and all people will suffer. But either way, some of us will probably survive.

It’s only a matter of degree.

Here’s the thing though. The UN report tells us that there's still a chance. We can right this ship; we only need to start now. This is what you can do:

1) Vote
2) Vote for candidates who believe climate change is occurring
3) Vote for candidates who believe climate change is caused by human activity
4) Vote for candidates who are willing to take action to reverse human-caused climate change

Please, make no exceptions. We must act now. Not tomorrow. Our existence depends on it.

It’s even more than a matter of degree.

Righteous Indignation and Our Better Angels

Have you ever been so angry that you fantasized about killing someone? Don’t answer; this is just a thought experiment. But it may surprise you to learn that in a study of college students, a majority of had indeed had such feelings. Since few of us actually carry such a thing out, what does it say about us that we can think about it, but not do it?

What does this say about human nature and our propensity for violent behavior? Some measure of violence is built into our DNA. And yet the ability to cooperate and to love are there as well. I prefer to think that most people land on the good side of the good to bad behavior scale. Am I being realistic?

I recently read two books by social psychologist Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of our Nature, Why Violence Has Declined, and  Enlightenment Now. In the former book, the author makes the strong case that violence in human society has declined over time. The incidence of war, homicide, assault of all kinds all trend in a positive direction, no matter the timeframe. The reasons are varied and complex, but the most prominent explanation is that we human beings prefer not to die. Further, we are willing to cooperate to make prevention happen. In the latter one, we learn that in spite of everything, life is getting better over time, due to the increasing enlightenment of humanity.

Why is this information in my blog about the environment? Because there is absolutely nothing that I am more indignant about than the environment. I have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who wants to pollute or make it easier for others to do so. I consider such behavior morally repugnant. But it is probably a good thing to take a step back and think about my own righteous indignation.

Life is getting better! Contrast this concept with any news you see, and also with prevailing attitudes of most observers. That violence is increasing and our way of life is deteriorating is a central tenant of both the right and the left philosophies. These books prove them wrong!

Yet human nature isn't entirely sugarcoated. It’s not all rainbows and unicorns. We’re still violent, self-serving animals. The point is that we can learn to control our not-so-good urges by making such behavior unacceptable.

If you have indeed been angry enough to hurt or kill someone, have you thought about why you are so angry? Was it vengeance? Revenge for a real or perceived wrong is one of the most common reasons for violence. Could it be fear? Anger and violence is often a result of fear and the concept that someone should be hurt before they hurt us. Or, could it be Righteous Indignation?

I will discuss righteous indignation further, but first, let me tell you about how my wife murdered a dog. My wife is a kind and peaceful soul, and she is not in the habit of killing or hurting people or animals. But once upon a time, we lived in a remote area in southern Ohio, close to one neighboring house, but no others. We were friendly with our neighbors, but they had a mean dog. This dog killed our cat, bit me, and once came into our yard, charging our daughters, ages 2 and 3, who were playing there. I was able to stop him by getting between our girls and the dog, but that was the last straw. What if I hadn’t been so close by? The two of us were indignant about the dog and its owner.

One day, when no one was home next door, Debbie made a nice beef and rat poison stew and brought it over to feed to Tippy. Tippy loved it and lapped it all up.

At first, it was the worst of all possible outcomes. The neighbor took Tippy to a vet and got his stomach pumped and an IV. He recovered, and our neighbor, who wasn’t rich, was left with the bill. She did ask how we thought Tippy may have gotten hold of rat poison.

But there was a turn of events. Weeks later, our neighbor let Tippy out on a cold day. He took one step, then keeled over with a heart attack. I believe that the rat poison had weakened his heart and caused it. I can’t say that we were saddened. In fact, I’ve never been so proud of my wife than I was at that time.

I consider the story an example of killing in self-defense. You might also consider it a case of righteous indignation used constructively (at least for our own family). We felt absolutely in the right to protect ourselves. We humans generally feel that violence is justified in such cases, whether you agree in this instance or not. Other forms of violence are not so justifiable.

Righteous Indignation is retribution, anger, and/or contempt combined with a feeling that it is one is right to feel that way. It is anger without guilt. It may be based on religion, race or ethnicity, or political viewpoint. Those who feel righteous do believe that their anger, hatred or even violence is justified. But others, some of whom may not agree with their ideology or religion, may disagree.

David Brin is a Ph.D. Physicist and popular Science Fiction writer. He famously challenged academic and other research psychologists to study the addicting effects of righteous indignation. There are several points to be made here:
1) The author freely admits that the topic is outside his primary area of expertise. In fact, that’s why it’s an open letter.
2) He believes that, despite the reduction in overall violence, Righteous Indignation is a growing problem. He believes that social media exacerbates it.
3) He believes that our brains react to righteous indignation exactly like they react to addictive drugs.

In fact, there has been some measure of research on that last point. When we experience righteousness and when we take addicting drugs, the same centers of our brain light up. It feels good to be right! Brin argues that our incidence of righteousness is on the increase. If you are with six people who feel one way about something, and there are six others who take the opposite stance, chances are that you will talk amongst yourselves to reinforce your own beliefs. Of course, the others will do the same. Social media creates an echo chamber where we hear more and more of the reinforcing messages and less of those that we disagree with.

There have been times in our history when righteous indignation was necessary. How would our Greatest Generation have won World War II without the certainty that they were right? That it was a matter of good versus evil, and we were on the side of good. On the other hand, consider that perhaps Nazis felt righteous in exterminating human beings because of race and religion.

What is the downside of all this? Intolerance, lack of understanding of others and even ourselves, and possibly even violence, war or genocide. Not everyone can be on the good side every time. I think it’s best to at least understand what is happening when we do take a side.

It’s fine to have a point of view. It’s not so fine to not understand that, or to let it win against our better angels.