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.

Obfuscation

Obfuscation is a wonderful word. Say it out loud, and you already know the meaning just by the sound of it. For the record, the definition is: ‘the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.’

Climate science deniers claim to be skeptical about the amount of global warming (“it’s not so bad”), humanity’s role (“you can’t say how much we’ve contributed”), and the 97% scientific consensus (“it’s nowhere near that”). Most are sincere; they believe what they want to be true, and they listen to those who reinforce those false beliefs.

During the holidays, we gather with family and friends to enjoy each others’ company. Although we may try to avoid discussion of topics such as religion or politics, climate change shouldn’t necessarily be off-limits. Why should it be political, or even controversial? The reason is, those who’ve made it their business to obfuscate the topic have to this point, been successful. Who would do such a thing?

ExxonMobil knew about human-caused climate change as early as 1981, well before it became more widely known and accepted. It wasn’t until 1988 that NASA Climate Scientist James Hansen testified to Congress about the science of climate change to place the information in the public domain. Not only did Exxon know through their scientific modeling that the burning of fossil fuels (their product) causes the buildup of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere leading to catastrophic results, they actively tried to squelch the report and the science itself.

Exxon was joined by Peabody Energy, the Koch brothers, and others in actively funding climate science denial. Much of the funding enables obfuscation of the science by muddying the waters. Remember the “you can’t say how much we’ve contributed” argument? (By the way, it’s 100%.)

Now that it’s generally known that Exxon did know, and did actively obfuscate the facts. Now that we do know the facts, will we (finally) do the right thing?

The Attacks on Greta Thunberg Continue

The attacks on Greta Thunberg were discussed in this recent post. They haven't stopped. Here's a social media response to the criticism that I recently gave.

Either you believe the science of climate change or you don’t. If you do, then you understand that the problem is global and it requires global solutions. The Paris Agreement that you mention, was a first step, but only that. It’s so disappointing that one nation, in a fit of insane arrogance, pulled out. Since that agreement doesn’t go far enough, a champion, especially a young one who can garner support from other young people, is exactly what is needed. If you have a better way to reach zero emissions in a couple decades, I would be happy to listen. On the other hand, if you do not believe the science, then you’ve bought into the obfuscation and outright mendacity fomented by the likes of Exxon and the Koch family. They have paid for access to opinions of the far right, and they’re getting their money’s worth. Either way, leave the kid alone.