Notable (notorious) climate skeptic Anthony Watts has made much of looking at scientists work and seemingly showing where there problems with that work. Evidently, however, he has some concerns when he faces such a look; perhaps because that look provided a clear and accessible demonstration of the shallowness of Watts’ claims. A recent video by Peter Sinclair’s excellent “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” series (see, for example, this GESN post) highlighted how Watts’ work is fundamentally flawed.
Watts complained to YouTube, evidently asserting copyright infringement, and, voila, the video “Watts Up With Watts?” is no longer available.
So what do you do when someone posts a YouTube video saying you’re a crock? One way is to complain and get it wiped clean off the ‘inter-tubes.’ …
The video was removed after Watts complained under YouTube’s Copyright Infringement guidelines. This has become known as a DMCA Takedown – with the DMCA being the US copyright law used to criminalize anyone infringing and/or circumventing copyrighted works.
Before I posted Sinclair’s youtube video, as I normally do with any YouTube video I post, I vetted it from a DMCA point of view and, quite frankly I don’t know what part of the video Watts would have a problem with. There’s nothing I saw in the video that appears to break any copyright as it relates to Watts.
Now maybe he took issue with the short (credited) clip at the beginning from Will Ferrell’s Anchorman movie…. but I think this is more about a video that thoroughly shreds Watts and his argument that the world is wrong about climate change and he is right.
So what is it Watts? Instead of hiding behind an automated service that deletes any video on YouTube that someone claims infringes DMCA, why don’t you email me (desmogblog [at] gmail [dot] com) and explain why you think Sinclair’s video should not be viewed by the public.
Perhaps, Kevin, it is simply because Watts is uncomfortable when people are too skeptical about skeptics.
This guest post comes from mwmwm, who is found normally at ApocaDocs. This is a powerful, must read, discussion about the seriousness of the “convergence of emergencies” that we, as a society and a species, face in the coming years and decades.
This morning, I started my day with a coffee cup and DailyKos, intrigued by the internicene conflict between the estimable bonddad (who has informed me countless times), and bobswern (who has also informed me countless times), each of whom posted diaries disagreeing with each other (Bonddad, bobswern) about whether we are seeing “the bottom” of the recession, and whether a gloomy or merely less-gloomy future awaits us).
Their analysis was fascinating; less fascinating was the implicit and explicit sniping between adherents (and authors) to the different philosophies and assumptions of the others.
But in both analyses, there was something seriously lacking.
After highlighting the absurdity of Senator Claire McCaskill’s comments re Global Warming in Twitting Claire and To Twit Claire, a musing step back contemplation. Putting aside simply doing the right thing, recognizing the science, taking the Energy Smart path, and fighting to convince her voters that she’s right as she seeks to put the nation on an Energy Smart path for a prosperous, secure, and climate-friendly future, what “should” (or “could”) Claire McCaskill do when it comes to energy and climate legislation?
Now, a quick moment to review the bidding:
Missouri is one of the most coal-dependent states (roughly 83% of its electricity), even though that coal is all imported.
Claire has, repeatedly, stated that “Global warming is real,and its a serious problem.”
Claire has, repeatedly, stated things like climate legislation ‘should not unfairly punish Missouri citizens’ and that she will work with ‘moderates’ to assure that climate legislation doesn’t unfairly punish Missouri businesses and citizens.
Missouri residents overwhelmingly voted for moving toward renewable energy, even though the ballot measure explicitly stated that this might mean higher utility bills.
While there many questions to ask Claire, why not seek to help Claire turn this around: Rather than fighting the twisted logic that, somehow, climate legislation will “unfairly punish Missouri’, why not seek to assure that clean energy legislation will ‘unfairly’ favor Missouri?
A simple fact: Claire’s seeming intention to fight to protect Missouri’s archaic and heavily-polluting energy system will foster continuing to dig a deeper hole, on multiple grounds, for Missouri rather than crafting a strategy for a more competitive and prosperous Missouri in the years and decades to come.
Rather than struggling to protect the burning of coal (imported from other states, thus sending Missouri rate-payers’ hard-earned money to other states), couldn’t Claire embrace the two-thirds of Missourians who have voted for clean energy, the two-thirds who embraced a serious renewable electricity standard even though the ballot measure explicitly stated that the measure could (COULD) lead to increased utility bills?
Now, when it came to passing the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act out of the House of Representatives, there were votes ‘bought’ with expenditures (necessary expenditures — but now targeted to specific districts rather than uncertain as to where the jobs would go). Being able to point to X jobs, $Y spending to come in provides powerful press release material for any member of Congress. Rather than embracing delay, rather than seeking some form of false middle ground between science and sufferers of anti-science syndrome, could not Claire step up for Missourians and their future in a far different way than her current strategy?
Huh??? What does this mean?
Consider this alternative path, an outline for Claire McCaskill to follow in negotiating with other Senators and the Obama Administration:
Missouri is highly coal dependent with, in fact, a relatively modern coal-burning infrastructure
This coal dependency enables relatively low electricity rates.
These low rates, however, come at a high cost in terms of pollution damage.
Just like all Americans, Missourians want a clean energy future, but to phase out the modern coal-burning infrastructure could prove to be an economic burden.
Just as the Federal government helped other portions of the country achieve a clean energy grid (through, for example, building of minor things like the Hoover Dam), America should help Missouri accelerate its way toward a clean energy future in part because so many of the benefits (such as reduced acid raid for New York, reduced burden on the rail lines for moving coal) accrue outside Missouri.
If we were ‘to be Claire’, this could be used to support a request along these lines:
Provide additional assistance to Missouri for:
Energy efficiency in businesses, homes, public buildings
Deploying renewable energy production
Establish in Missouri a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) center focused on biomass energy (along with guaranteed funding for biomass demonstration facilities in Missouri)
Request $2 billion per year for these measures (okay, wouldn’t get that, but don’t start with your minimum requirement)
If Claire McCaskill were able to go back to Missouri citizens with a $billion (or $500 million or $1.5 billion) per year in targeted funding that would lead to jobs in Missouri, more Missouri spending staying in Missouri, improved business competitive position, a leadership position in critical arenas for a clean energy future, and savings for Missorians (businesses and housholds) on their energy bills, she would be a hero to the two-thirds plus of Missouri voters who have already demonstrated, in the ballot box, their support for a clean-energy future.
Claire faces a choice. Right now she is regaling, it seems, in portraying herself as “moderate” because she places herself between those concerned about Global Warming and those who simply wish to say no to science and the reality of what we are already seeing around the world. She can continue this path which will sabotage (both environmentally and fiscally) effective energy / climate legislation or she can carve out a leadership position that advantages her state while helping move the nation (and the globe) forward toward a more prosperous, more secure, more climate-friendly future.
When it comes to “unfairly”, Claire can continue with the truthiness-laden concerns of worrying about ‘unfair punishment’ or she could turn herself to serving her voters by seeking to assure that legislation unfairly benefits Missouri.
[Senator McCaskill] listened politely, then in an empathetic voice asked how we felt about China and India’s lack of cooperation in climate change negotiations, referring to the recent G8 summit in Italy. Our delegation of young people in the room clearly were on a different page than her, and responded with enthusiasm that we’d rather start the clean energy transition than follow (in more eloquent words, citing strong investment by China into alternative energy).
Claire responded by turning to speak on the economic difficulty she believes ACES would place on Missourians in particular. She said that she knows “10-15” manufacturing companies that are on the “bubble” in Missouri, even “one or two” that have already had to move jobs overseas. Claire claimed a “chasm” existed between the current and future energy infrastructures. In sum, her argument was that if we attempt to transition too quickly from our current mode of energy production, many companies (energy and otherwise) would suffer.
Thus, fearful that there might be negative impacts in the short term, Claire is willing to sacrifice the long term: the long term competitiveness of Missouri in a world economy to be dominated by clean energy options and the long term viability of Missouri in the face of ever-mounting Global Warming impacts.
That discussion is worth reading, not just for understanding the chasm between Claire and Missourians concerned about creating a prosperous clean-energy future, but also for a window as to the communication challenge before us:
A door opened in the room- an assistant alerting Claire her next meeting had arrived, so I made my last pitch, telling her that despite how it may appear, there are many in Missouri who believe ACES should be strengthened and passed, especially young people like those before her. “You know what, though?” Claire said, returning to her empathetic tone. She reported that, out of the letters she’s received from Missourians, (approximate numbers) around 200 were “against” ACES and only 10-15 “for”.
Let us assume that this is accurate, just “10-15 [letters] for” action on climate change legislation? Okay, Missourians, can’t you do better than that?
Now, there is also the question of face-to-face discussions with her staff (a vehicle for communicating with Claire). For example, just tomorrow night, the astroturf Americans for Prosperity (key supports of Tax Day Tea Parties, for example) has a special session set up for tomorrow with a McCaskill staffer.
Town Hall Meeting with Sen. McCaskill’s District Director
Come join us Monday Night in St. Louis
Date: Monday, July 27, 2009
Time: 7:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: St. Louis Community College – Forest Park Campus (Student Center/Highlander Lounge)
Street: 5600 Oakland Ave, Saint Louis, MO
Michelee Sherod, McCaskill’s district director, will be there for this AFP event. (Reminder, AFP calls global warming “hysteria” and scientists presenting the facts on climate change “alarmists”. ) This is an opportunity for Sen. McCaskill and her staff to hear from the 2/3rds of real Missourians who believe in clean energy and are counting on Claire to help lead on (rather than help degrade) federal climate change legislation. Imagine if an AFP event is half filled with people calling for respect for science and for action to enhance Missouri’s future. If you live in St. Louis or the area, join others Missourians who believe in a clean energy future to weigh in with Sen. McCaskill’s office.
Time for a tale of moving from someone excited about creating a new relationship with a company and one of its products to a household walking away with some serious bad taste in terms of dealing with the firm.
(A brief note: To be clear for a moment: in terms of woe and desperation, this discussion rates pretty low (if at all). There are far too many people — within my own community, within the United States, globally — with serious problems, serious issues. This is a situation of having the luxury of having a problem …)
As some might be aware, I had the chance to test drive a new Ford Fusion Hybrid a month ago. What I didn’t discuss then (planning on future discussions) was that, just prior to delivery of the Fusion, my 1996 Honda Accord came up with a major maintenance problem that led to a euthanasia decision (couldn’t justify a $3500 or so repair on a car ‘valued’ at $1400 with uncertain additional repairs to come). Sigh … had been hoping that that Honda would hold off until a PHEV was generally available, for which the household has been saving for and planning on for a few years, but time to ‘go out and buy’ a car to replace it. (To be clear, this is a big and not casual investment/spending choice for the household.) And, unlike the normal approach of buying used, the decision was ‘new, hybrid’ …
When it came to ‘new, hybrid’, the analysis of family requirements vs options boiled down to two options: Fusion Hybrid or Prius 2010. Of course there were some real Fusion disadvantages compared to the Prius (fuel efficiency fell far short of a Prius (36 highway, 41 city for Fusion vs 48 highway, 51 city for Prius), the storage much smaller than the Prius; the dashboard feedback system was a bit weird in terms of the Human-Systems Interface (HSI); and, well, Toyota’s key system is a joy …). The family reaction to the Fusion Hybrid was, without exception, a strongly positive one. It really was a pleasure to drive and we were comfortable in it. This would be the sort of car where, if going out with boss or friends, we’d be the ones driving as this was going to be a serious upgrading from that beat-up 14 year old Accord. Thus, with some angst about the cost but with joy looking forward to a new car, the die was cast: we were going to be (hopefully) proud and happy Ford owners.
So, the find and buy the new car challenge begins.
After a bit of searching (not a huge amount, mind you), hooked up with Castle Ford and quickly negotiated to a deal for an Ice Blue Ford Fusion Hybrid with a 502 package that they had on the lot. The fully-loaded version (really wanted that navigation, the sun-roof, sigh …): some $30,160 (as opposed to MSRP of $31,940). Set this up mid-day, Wednesday, 1 July, with an agreement to drive to the Castle Ford 3 July to pick up the car and made a deposit over the phone. Cool — excitement in the household.
Later that evening, called in to say ‘hey, we can pick up the car right away instead of waiting two days’ and was told: “[the person] who made the deal with you didn’t have the right to make the deal, he isn’t here right now, and the price will be $100s higher …”
Now, here is a moment to provide perspective. I was straightforward with everyone involved in this process. I told them that I didn’t need to do a test drive because, as media, Ford had lent me a car for a media test drive.
Thus, when told the price was going to be higher, I had a WTF moment. In short, I asked: “Do you agree that I had made a deal with your employee for a specific price that is lower than what you are demanding now? You are aware that I made a deposit based on that lower price? You are aware that I am media, that I already am writing on the Ford Fusion Hybrid?” The answer to all of those was, from the Castle Ford sales person: yes. And, the higher price was the price demanded. Simply put, I’m not that type of guy and told them that their behavior was unethical, potentially illegal, and that I don’t do business with people like that.
Deal falling through … some morose faces in the family.
And, I went looking elsewhere. After a series of looks around the region (and around the country), with some people telling me that I could get a Ford Fusion Hybrid (FFH) with the 502 package from them for $1000s above MSRP and others telling me that I could get a decent price but would have to wait for the car, I found a Green FFH 502 package at Jerry’s Ford and for a better price: $30,600 out the door (tax & tags, but not warranty or add-ons). Called Thursday night, made an agreement to pick up the car Friday, 3 July.
Cool. Family happy again.
Only hiccup … while green looks great, it gets hot in the sun and that heating isn’t great for energy reasons. Hey, Jerry’s salesman, do you have that “Ice Blue”? “No problem. Come in, sign the paperwork, and we can have it to you in a few hours at the same price.” Wow, okay, that’s great.
Now, I told that salesman that, especially because there would be two trips to the dealer and we only had one car available, I would appreciate their handling this as quickly as possible. “No problem, paperwork will be ready, in and out quickly.”
Went there Friday and, well, that ‘in and out quickly’ wasn’t lived up to. After a few hours, including pushing on ‘what is taking so long’, the line back was “well, hope it isn’t a deal killer, but the Ice Blue has to come from farther away, can you accept $178 more and car can’t be here today, but will be here tomorrow.’ Sigh … At that time, getting committed, just said ‘yes’, let’s do this. And, time for a loaner car.
Saturday, 4 July, headed over with better 95+% to jointly sign paper, return loaner, pay, and get the new car. That quick in and out … easily 90+ minutes and, well, car isn’t there yet but should be in Monday, Tuesday at the latest. Sigh … okay. Here’s a $1500 deposit check to seal the deal.
Monday. No phone call. Tuesday. No phone call. Tuesday eve, called the dealer/salesman: “car isn’t here yet”. Sigh.
Wednesday: no phone call. Thursday: No phone call. Friday, better 95+% calls dealer. The sales manager (note, names not being used) stated “impossible that salesman told you he’d have the car by Monday”. Hmmm, the better 95+% really doesn’t appreciate being called a liar and otherwise rudely handled.
And, the saga continues … At least ten times between from the start of this process, we called, talked with sales person or sales manager, and were promised return calls within five minutes.
18 July: We’ve had enough. The process has started to find a 2010 Prius. The better 95+% is happy with that solution and the kids are accepting. Call to Jerry’s Ford to say: are you going to get your act together or do we buy a Toyota tomorrow and, by the way, we will return the loaner car and get the check Sunday? “OMG, how can you do that?” Promise: phone call back within minutes for scheduling the FFH’s delivery. Yeah, right, no phone call. Sunday, mid-day, call to Jerry’s Ford: salesman, ‘jeez, don’t know if we’ll ever be able to get you the car, can’t get you the check today, but will call you tomorrow and then send someone to your home Monday evening with the check and to get back the loaner car.’
Sunday afternoon, we bought a new Toyota Prius (from a dealer whose salesman dealt with everything quite straightforward, called back within minutes as promised, had the paperwork all ready when we arrived) and, so far, am averaging 54.3 mpg.
And, a break, Ford should be aware that they lost an energy-related maven (and connector) who had had multiple people ask about the FFH and who would have been driving the FFH to meetings like Netroots’ Nation where, it seems likely, many might have asked about the car and had a chance to see it. Lousy (atrocious) customer relations by a set of Ford dealers and Ford has lost someone who likely, for years to come, would have sung praises of their vehicle.
The saga continued for four more days. Any surprise that there wasn’t a call Monday? And, well, Tuesday, a phone message from the salesman received at 9:30 pm: ‘We have the check in hand. We can’t get a driver to your house. We must have the car back today.’ Hmmm … no one there at 9:30 pm.
Wednesday call to dealer. “Well, we don’t have the check yet. But, if you bring the car we’ll send you a check.” Okay, Jerry’s Ford, you’ve got to be kidding. No check. No car. And, you said days earlier that you already had a check all prepared.
And, well, over 10 phone calls to Jerry’s Ford and to the Jerry’s Automotive Group, with messages, trying to talk to some management other than the rude sales manager went unresponded to. But, an agreement finally with Jerry’s Ford: Despite the promise to send someone to your house, check in hand, come in at 1 pm with the loaner car and get the check, which we already have.
Better 95+% went to Jerry’s, with the car, at the appointed time. Handed over the keys to the loaner (after walking to prove that there was no damage and pointing out that there was gas in the car to where it was when we got it (“That wasn’t necessary. Why did you think you needed to do that?” Perhaps, Jerry’s team, because you were far from fully honest and far from fair in dealing with us … perhaps.)
Okay, ‘where’s the check to repay the deposit which you cashed over two weeks earlier’? “We don’t have the check. Will mail it to you.” Are you kidding? “Do you have proof that we cashed the check? Where is your bank statement?” Are you kidding? Jerry’s Ford staff left a message on our home phone stating that they had check in hand. They stated, multiple times, over the phone that come in with car and they’d give the check. Now that they have the loaner car in hand, they asked for material that they could have demanded at other times. Threat: here is the phone number for the Virginia Commonwealth Attorney: give me a check to repay me my money or I am calling them. After three hours, finally, the check is in hand. That check is now cashed.
And, rather than a long-term, satisfied customer, the Jerry’s Automotive Group has a household that will never do business with them.
Evidently, for Jerry’s Automotive (and for Castle Ford) and Ford, business is booming to such an extent and customers are growing on trees such that decent customer service is irrelevant to the business plan.
And, rather than Ford having a maven who would enthusiastically share experiences about a Ford Fusion Hybrid (to be honest, whether positive or not) for years to come, Toyota has another customer.
A month ago, non-violent protesters infiltrated an anti-Progress Mines (Massey Energy) Mountaintop Removal site in Western Virginia. Through the early morning, they snaked through desolated terrain, formally beautiful mountains and valleys, reminiscent of a World War I battlefield. A trained group climbed the dragline and put up a Stop Mountaintop Removal sign.
Everyone involved had training in non-violent protest. Everyone involved knew that, no matter their actions, they risked physical harm from angered Massey Energy employees. They knew that they risked arrest for this action. Yet, they went in anyway because they know the harm that Mountaintop Removal is wrecking West Virginia and the devastation that coal is contributing to globally. People willing to sacrifice their safety and their liberty for something larger than themselves merit a simple description: hero.
And, when called, the police quickly arrived and eventually arrested 19 of the protesters. And, the FBI is investigating the incident (hmmm … probably not Massey Energy’s devastating impacts on the area and the planet).
In contrast, at a July 4th picnic with many of locals concerned about Mountain Top Removal went a bit differently than one might expect. The vast majority of those there: local citizens ranging in age from babies in their parents arms to octogenarians proud of the generations of their families there with them. To this event came 20 or so (rather obviously) drunken Massey Energy employees (okay, 20 or so people wearing Massey Energy clothing claiming that they worked for the company) who disrupted the event, cursing, and threatening people’s lives — quite directly. One witness account from jacquesellul.
My wife and I were present at the event and witnessed the? trespass and harassment. The MountainKeepers Festival is a family event with music, food, (no alcohol), and friends hanging out together.
The violent and obscene talk and physical threats certainly were frightening to children and their parents. It should be noted that some of the trespassers tried to prevent overt violence, and that others in the vicinity refrained from coming over.
Intimidation and threats are an ongoing occurrence.
The police arrived — over two hours after they were called. Despite publicly available film evidence of crimes (at minimum drunk and disorderly), there is no sign of impending arrests.
Hmmm … people make a peaceful protest and 19 people are arrested on site. On the other hand, people disrupt a private event, threaten people’s lives, and the “Friend of Coal” Gov. Joe Manchin has ignored the situation so far and the rest of the West Virginia State Government remains starkly silent.
And, the indications are that the potential exists for real, rather than simply threatened, violence to hit this battlefield for the future of West Virginia and the planet. Check out the comment sections to the video of the protest and the video of the picnic.
July 22nd, 2009 · Comments Off on John Stewart and The Congressional Process: the Cap & Trade example
Referred to as ‘sausage making’, the legislative process isn’t pretty (despite those beautiful Rose Garden signing sessions). And, too often, the result from the legislative process isn’t pretty. And, where the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act has gone isn’t pretty and the potential paths forward make it far too likely to end up as a something truly ugly — with some great elements but too many add-on and weakening elements distorting it nearly beyond recognition compared to sensible policy moving forward. As Jon Stewart put it last night,
Kids, you want to see how a bill becomes a horribly compromised law? Let me introduce you to a friend of mine, Capt & Trade.
As noted just a few days ago, discussing a historic NAACP climate change resolution, the “environmental” movement has had a reputation as some form of lily-white activity for those with enough resources to have the luxury of caring about the planet’s future. While there were (and, sadly, are) some truths to this, the Environmental Justice movement has long been a counter example. And, increasingly, activism to change directions on humanity’s interaction with and influence on the planetary system is becoming more like the mix of races, religions, ethnicity, etc that is America.
Earlier today, the Navajo Nation Council chose to take the Navajo Nation on a new, green path, with a decision to support a green jobs development path.
40 years ago, today, Neil Armstrong took “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
It had been just over eight years earlier when a young President John F Kennedy walked into the House of Representatives and made the call to go to the moon.
We choose not to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.
In just eight years, from science fiction to reality. In just eight years, the creation of massive new industries, new government organizations, an entire new career aspiration for millions of Americans (Astronaut). A government program (a highly successful program from before the drive to drown the bathtub) sparked by the vision of a brilliant, eloquent, and forceful young President. A government program that, in a myriad of ways, changed the very nature of our society, changed humanity’s conception of Earth, changed our economy, and sparked innovations both directly to support the program and indirectly from inspiring millions to look beyond themselves and to think beyond their previous constraints toward something new, something greater.
When it comes to the challenges before us (the US and the globe), the Apollo analogy is a powerful one — the idea of a President setting an objective and a massive endeavor being put together to achieve something many thought impossible on an, well, impossible timeline. To take the United States from what seemed to be a position of disadvantage to one of advantage, to ‘win’ the space race. Many concerned about America’s economic challenges, our energy problems, and the looming catastrophes of global warming look to the Apollo Program for inspiration. From the eloquent power of Apollo’s Fire to the strong organizational power of The Apollo Alliance, there is an intense power to the appeal to the greatness of The Apollo Program’s quite tangible achievements as a model for tackling the very serious challenges before us (both the U.S. and all of us).
We must, however, apply some of the critical lessons of Thinking in Time, most critically understanding the parallels and disconnects between the analogy and the situation that we face today. The analogy of a Presidential call, of putting together a massive technological undertaking that created entire new technologies in achieving a vision, and so on … all of these do have powerful appeal.
But, there are quite serious disconnects that we cannot fail to examine and understand:
Despite the size and national appeal of The Apollo Program, it was not something that changed the daily lives of the average American nor did it require massive international agreements and cooperation to be achieved. Like the Manhattan Project (another common analogy, appeal), this was achieved by scientists and engineers (mainly) who worked, to a huge extent, in isolation from the greater society.
Tackling the challenges of climate change and taking advantage of the opportunities of a new energy (green) economy will involve every American.
RE the scientists and engineers, The Apollo Program was principally a scientific and engineering challenge. There were other obstacles (that $200 billion in funding, for example) and clearly other impacts (sparking a wave of new engineers in American universities and sparking new businesses with an impact that continues to this day), but this was a scientific/engineering problem, not a social organization and economic structure challenge.
Dealing with Global Warming will require rethinking and engagement across essentially every aspect of modern human civilization. It is not simply a technological but also a social, economic, and cultural challenge before us.
While there were many who questioned The Apollo Program and whether this was the best use of limited resources, there was not a powerful mafia seeking to derail the US government’s vision. The space program had ‘bipartisan’ support and was seen in the context of a bipartisan agreement as to threat.
Today, we face the reality that there are those willing to lie and deceive (who are, actually, actually lying and decieving) to retard any movement forward, to inhibit any opportunity for the United States to move forward to a stronger, safer, sustainable future. In the 1960s, there was not a powerful portion of the American political system gleefully seeking to drain the government of resources and drown it in the bathtub The Fifth Column fighting The Apollo Program didn’t exist, those fighting action to deal with climate change’s real threats are brazenly open in their deception efforts.
The Apollo Program had an inspirational goal and the space program ended up with massive impacts on human society (Tang for breakfast, anyone?), but let’s us face facts: if The Apollo Program had failed, if it had not sent someone to the moon, how many millions of people would have died, how many species would have gone extinct.
The stakes are high with Global Warming. We aren’t talking about the lives of a few (brave) astronauts at the top of a rocket, in space alone with no hope of succur, but about billions hurtling through space on ‘Spaceship Earth’ which is having some serious contamination going on in its life-support systems.
The Apollo program had a finite, tangible, measurable target: putting Neil Armstrong on the moon to utter his famous words. Anything short of that was failure. Anything after that was icing on the cake.
There will be no clear-cut “done” for the challenge of turning the tide on Global Warming’s rising seas (at least not in the lifetime of anyone alive today or their children or grandchildren). We will have serious problems in the years ahead, with the lingering impacts of the CO2 already emitted — even if we magically stopped all human CO2 emissions tomorrow. Sadly, there are many paths to failure — it is hard to see the icing on the cake (even if there is the potential for many victories, such as bringing a clean energy boom to the U.S. economy.)
To think thoughtfully in time means to be able to weave together multiple analogies, understanding the weaknesses and strengths of each, understanding how the different perspectives and messages of the different analogies can help us understand where we are, where we might go, and how we might get there.
The Apollo Analogy tells us that we (the United States and, well, perhaps humanity) can organize to achieve something greater than ourselves.
The Apollo Analogy tells us that we can surprise ourselves by the rapidity and extent of change, if we set ourselves to it.
The Apollo Analogy tells us that stretch targets, objectives that seem next-to-impossible can lead us to do better than imagined.
As for the last, the power of serious targets, this tells me that it is time to be taking seriously Al Gore’s target of 100% clean electricity within a decade. This is a “stretch target”. It is time to be taking seriously 350.org and the need to chart a path not to simply slow emissions, but to chart and navigate a path toward actually reducing atmospheric Co2 concentrations. It is time for a brilliant, eloquent, and forceful young President to take a vision of something better to the American people rather than to accept inadequate compromises that are the best the political system can deliver.
The Apollo Analogy tells of the power of vision … and calls to meet it.
There’s no Christmas in July for Andrew Spadafora.
Spadafora has, over the years, built up what might be Long Island’s largest Christmas light display. And, associated with that, has been raising money for the Schneider Children’s Hospital: some $180,000 in fundraising. But, the still unpaid portions of the $41,000 that the 2008 means that Spadafora “can’t afford to put up his nearly 1 million lights this year.”
Do you love those displays of Christmas (or Hannukah or Kwanza or …) lights? Are you awed by those so impassioned that they string up 1000s of lights in awesome displays worthy of a city center? I once did, pausing on cold winter nights, white clouds issuing from my mouth, enjoying being in the glow of beautiful displays. And, in a way, I was inspired that they would spend $1000s (or $10,000s) on displays and the electricity to power them so that others could enjoy the sight on those cold winter nights.
But … no longer … not for awhile. Far too often nowadays, my winter evenings I can wear short sleeve shirts rather than bulky coats and gloves. And, energy is no longer a question simply of money. I’ve reached the point of feeling like a Scrooge; feeling outrage over the tons of C02 going into the atmosphere via neighbors’ 10,000 light displays rather than feeling ‘joyous’.
Without question, Spadafora’s displays brought joy to many (and dismay to many in the neighborhood, almost certainly). Yet, without question, between the 100,000s of kilowatt hours of burned electricity and the gallons of gasoline burned by people caught in traffic as they sought to drive by the display, this is a form of excess that contributes to endangering the future of the very children Spadafora seeks to help via fundraising.
The Earth is ancient far beyond the understanding of most people. There have been giant continents, populated repeatedly with immense herds of large animals, innumerable deadly carnivores, forests stretching thousands upon thousands of miles, and deserts that today would encompass whole, and large, continents.
The Earth has also had many climates. It has been a hot, blasted wasteland, and it has been a frozen ball where once nearly the entire planet was covered in thousands of feet of blue ice.
It has been a garden with forests and seas stretching around the globe, a place where unknown millions of forms of life have arisen, lived for eon after eon after eon, and then perished. Many left no trace. Over that gulf of time, the Earth has been many things, and it has been each of those many things for millions and millions of years at a time.
We humans will become extinct. It is an absolute certainty, and there is not even the least shred of doubt about it. In the long run, we’re all extinct.
The only question is whether it will happen sooner because we let the corporations push us into extinction through greed, or later because we regain control of our lives.
Comments Off on Earth has been many, many planets over the eonsTags:environmental
(or Hannukah or Kwanza or …) lights? Are you awed by those so impassioned that they string up