Dr. Robert Musil held his hand palm down, just over knee high. "This is where global warming ranks in today's political dialog.." He brought his hand head high. "What's here?" From the 50 people gathered at Cafe Semolino in Hays, Kansas, last month came the quick response: "Jobs! The economy."
Speaking without a script, Musil sometimes rambled. But his three-part thesis was clear: (1) global warming is an international concern (2) ordinary citizens should not be sideline spectators, but demand timely progress (3) success requires persistence. Don't give up.
For Musil the fact of global warming is just that--a fact.
No show of hands, but I'm guessing those present were mostly in agreement. A handful of students, surely there for extra-credit, got glassy-eyed at times. Too low-tech, I suppose.
The focus soon sharpened to what efficiency might accomplish: turning thermostats down, swapping out incandescent bulbs, remembering to switch off the lights or turn off the TV when nobody's in the room. A gentleman perched on a stool toward the back spoke up. Eating less meat, he said, would reduce demand on fossil fuel. Fattening livestock is not fossil fuel efficient. There were some grimaces and squirms at shorting ourselves on t-bones, or even burgers. Surely some cattle ranchers were present, too. Americans not only like their creature comforts but generally feel entitled.
Randy Rodgers, a retired wildlife biologist, expressed concern about the exploding global population and the related impact on natural resources and our environment. That tied in with what the stool-percher had said. I thought to myself, maybe people in the third world and the developing nations aren't so envious of our proclaimed freedom as they are our consumerist lifestyle. Maybe they think they too should have a throwaway lifestyle --with token recycling to salve their consciences. Maybe they resent developed nations like ours having troops in their countries to secure our access to their critical resources they want to control.
Musil then elaborated on how U.S. fossil fuel dependency led to stationing troops in other countries and to the support of dictators, and how military action is tied to oil addiction.
Then coal came up--and of how "clean" it isn't. Neural synapses sparkled and Sunflower's proposal for adding a coal-fired plant near Holcomb KS popped into everybody's brain. Local Voices columnist Jon Hauxwell asked the key question of the evening.. How can we deal with the loss of short-term fossil fuel profits and jobs in favor of long-term benefits in a transition to greener energy? Why should the future trump the present? Are we our brothers' keeper?
Dr. Jeffery Curtis, Hays cardiologist, related his experiences in North Carolina tobacco country. As a physician he had felt obligated to warn his clients about the dangers of tobacco. They didn't want to hear that, he said. Their jobs, their livelihoods, as well as the local economy, relied on tobacco farming. And a successful tobacco industry meant that people had to buy and use tobacco products. So... they were stubbornly resistant to change and wanted to hear no challenges to their thinking. The mindset also described North Carolina coal mining country
The tobacco industry itself did all that it could to deny evidence of harm-- to confuse people about the science-- and to ward off any threat to their corporate profit. Today more and more in the fossil fuels industry can no longer credibly deny the facts of anthropogenic global warming, and are making investments in green energy. But there are others, like Exxon-Mobil and their allies, who continue to run persistent and often sophisticated propaganda campaigns to deny, confuse, and deny. Just like the tobacco industry.
And so at the end we began to revisit the beginning. The challenge--not just for Americans but for all of humanity and the biosphere-- is to make a transition. That shift promises to be neither painless nor instantaneous--just necessary for our biosphere, and for people to make a living. The issue that resonates with the general public is jobs, the economy.
I thank Randy Rodgers for his reminder that we should rethink our consumerist lifestyle and our assumption that the natural resources of Planet Earth are limitless and ours to exploit without consequence to ourselves and our fellow creatures. Our sense of entitlement is synonymous with selfishness. And selfishness ultimately pays a price.
I thank Dr. Curtis for bringing up tobacco addiction. Getting off tobacco or kicking the fossil fuels addiction requires hard work and involves significant discomfort and changes in lifestyle. But if we care about our own health, the health of those around us, and the health of our planet, we'll accept the challenge.
You can help by writing your congressman, quizzing your candidates, penning a letter to the editor, encouraging your friends, treading a little lighter on the planet. And voting for candidates who are not global warming deniers.
There are new jobs to be created in this country--good ones--in the blossoming of a green energy economy. America, the land of imagination and innovation, should be leading the way.
Robert K. Musil, who teaches about global warming and environmental politics at American University, was in Hays for the week at the invitation of Fort Hays State University. Musil's group Physicians for Social Responsibility shared a Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. He is the author of "Hope for a Heated Planet.














Comments (2)
The “New Age” environmental movement, also known as “enviro-statism,” was founded sometime during the early ‘60s on one of the most egregious frauds in human history: DDT is a human-killing poison. But with the assault on this life-saving, Nobel Prize winning wonder chemical, the Enviro-Statist was just getting started. Today the noxious bogeyman presented to civil society is man-made “global warming,” and ironically, not all that long ago it was “global-cooling” at the heart of all the rage. And just like today’s global-warming hysteria, global-cooling was being sold to the public as fact – with an almost unanimous scientific consensus among the experts. Of course, there was no Ice Age. The experts were wrong. Today, enviro-statism has swung in the opposite direction, and man once again is the culprit.
In 1988, Newsweek magazine announced that all scientists were in agreement with global-warming, this should have been a big red flag warning. Modern global-warming is such a multifaceted issue that agreement on all or many aspects of it would be unreasonable. A big problem that scientists have is the paucity of data in the more remote past makes claims unverifiable. Temperature measurements at surface stations worldwide contain unchecked distortions. Carbon dioxide measurements are sometimes cherry-picked to reflect an increase. Plus, statistical analysis of overall data collection is processed quite often without significant interactions with mainstream statisticians (i.e., the flawed “hockey-stick effect” study conducted by the IPCC in 2001). Further corrupting global-warming studies is that it has become politicized thanks in part to ill informed politicians, politicized scientists, and Hollywood activism. A biased and predetermined answer is sought out and reached on this debate while the “jury” is still out deliberating. It doesn’t seem to matter to the Enviro-Statist that a flawed method is used – the answer is correct anyway. “Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science” (Dr. Edward Wegman – George Mason University).
A sympathetic media, junk science, misrepresentations, and fear mongering are all tools at the exposal of the modern day environmentalist to promote public hysteria. An alarmed civil society that is responding to a true crisis, or a hoax, will expect the government to act, despite traditional limitations on governmental authority. This is a tailor-made scenario for the “New Age” enviro-statist. How much liberty are you willing to surrender for unsubstantiated science? How much soft- tyranny are you willing to tolerate for what could be the biggest hoax of the century?
Posted by Jonathan
|
October 22, 2010 2:19 AM
Posted on October 22, 2010 02:19
Jonathan. I encourage you to identify yourself by name and address so that you can take "credit" for your point of view. I doubt that will happen given your need for the safety of anonymity. I'll be responding soon...not in the comment section but on the Front Page. Stay tuned.
Posted by Bob Hooper
|
October 22, 2010 7:03 PM
Posted on October 22, 2010 19:03