Category Archives: environment

A Republican Plan for Climate Change?

A group of conservative Republican leaders has published a credible sounding proposal for slowing climate change, a goal previously championed mostly by liberal Democrats.  The proposal, if scientifically and economically valid, could unite those who care about our climate across partisan and culture war divides. We face an increasingly urgent threat to mankind’s future.  This proposal deserves immediate objective study and all the collaboration we can muster.

The idea is called a “Carbon Dividends Plan”.   They have organized as “The Climate Council“.  You can click the link to see their work and hear them discuss it.  Here are the basics: Continue reading A Republican Plan for Climate Change?

A CHRISTMAS NEWSLETTER

Instead of a Christmas column from me, I tried to imagine a message from someone far wiser.

Dear American Friends:

I’ve noticed that many of you send newsy letters about your families as part of your celebration of my birthday.  This year I decided to try it myself by writing to all of you.  Christians often call me Father, Son, or Holy Ghost – three different ways to see me.  Today I’m writing as Son.

It’s been a disappointing year for Dad and me.  H.G., my spirit partner, is sad because so few of you welcome her into your thinking and conversations.  Many of you don’t seem to hear her.

Your wars in the Middle East have killed about four million people in the last 25 years.  Most of them are Dad’s Muslim children.  He loves them as much as he loves you and he wants you to quit killing each other.

You’ve been writing “In God we trust” on your buildings.  Dad’s not impressed.  If you trusted him, you’d be taking his advice about which things are most important.  I explained that to you once when I said that all of Dad’s laws are based on just two things.  Love him; and love your neighbor as yourself.  Everything that his prophets said, the laws they gave, and all that I taught comes from those two instructions.  Love God.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  I know that’s sometimes difficult for you to do but it isn’t complicated.

Did you notice that when I lived on your planet, I tried to be a respectful friend of people regardless of their station in life or whether they agreed with me?  I enjoyed time with Roman soldiers that invaded my country, tax collectors, prostitutes, and lepers.  I ignored nationality and welcomed whoever came to me.  When I saw injustice, I spoke up about it.  Think about that when you’re deciding whether to deport people who came into your nation hungry, needy, and looking for work.  You must love and respect people of all races and cultures, whether straight or LGBTQ.  There are no exceptions to “love your neighbor”.

Back at the beginning of time, Dad put you in charge.  In one of the books that your ancestors wrote about him, they called it “having dominion” over the whole earth.  You sometimes call it “free will”.  Dad lets you make your own decisions and then he lets you live with the consequences – good ones and bad ones.

You’ve learned a lot from your science.  You can produce food, shelter, clothing and other things that you need.  You know how to cure some of the illnesses that killed your ancestors.   Those are great things and you should be proud of what you’ve achieved.  You should apply my “love your neighbor” teaching to those things too.  You have brothers and sisters who are starving.  Here in your wealthy nation you often reserve your nearly miraculous health care for those who have money or insurance.

You’ve written your laws so that individuals and businesses get to own knowledge.  Anyone who wants to use the knowledge to save a life has to pay whoever owns the knowledge.  Such greed makes some of you angry at others.  You need to do something about that.

You’re making a mess of the planet that Dad gave you.  It’s getting warmer and you’re about to flood a lot of it.  You already know that from your science but you’re not doing much about it.  Is that because it would cost money?  But won’t it cost more when the floods come?  And wouldn’t the work to clean up the planet create jobs for people who don’t have a way to support themselves today?

Even though Dad and I are sad and disappointed we still want to help.  When I tried really hard about 2000 years ago, people like you crucified me for my trouble.  We’re not going to do that again, but Dad did send H.G. to help you find your way.  Listen to her.  Look inside yourself.  She’s there and if you pay close attention to her you’ll discover how to love your neighbor; and then you will know what to do.

Thanks for reading this.  Dad, H.G. and I will be thinking of you and wishing you a Happy 2017.

Your friend,

Jesus

Cleaning Up North Carolina Energy Laws

North Carolina’s Republican legislators have passed energy and environmental laws that impede innovation and economic competition by clean energy entrepreneurs.  They show little regard for the interests of individual citizens and ignore twenty-first century science.  Consider these examples.

In order to build a solar or wind energy installation, the company must own or lease the property where it will be built, comply with local zoning and land use rules, and acquire right of way for transmission of the energy that they produce to customers without use of eminent domain powers or other government authority.  A bill (S-843) recently passed by the State Senate’s “small government” Republicans would add a maze of new regulations and barriers including a 1.5 mile setback from the property line and a 35 decibel (human whisper) noise limit at the property line for wind farms.  Solar farms would have to be invisible from adjoining property.  The bill removes corporate protections for stockholders in wind and solar farms, making them individually liable for damages caused by the corporation.  And it requires the corporation to set aside sufficient money to return the land to its original state after the renewable energy site is closed.

State Law is starkly different for production of natural gas or oil via fracking.  Corporations do not have to own or lease the property under which they drill.  They are allowed to drill horizontally under private property without agreement by the landowner and to put wells on someone else’s land without permission.  Payments to the landowner will be set by a government agency and the landowner can’t refuse the arrangement.  Local governments are not allowed to regulate fracking via zoning, or in any other way.  A government agency can force land owners to accept a pipeline for delivery of oil or gas to market.  Executives who violate laws or rules governing fracking can not be prosecuted for anything more than a misdemeanor.  Owners of corporations are not personally liable for damages that their companies cause.  There is no requirement to return the land and water to it’s original condition after the fracking is completed or set aside money for potential damages.

There is no evidence of substantial or long-term environmental damage by wind or solar farms. Fracking, on the other hand,  is a proven cause of well contamination, air pollution, and earthquakes.  The energy produced by solar and wind farms is as clean as any that is available.  Gas and oil consumption contribute heavily to climate change by putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

North Carolina has few earthquakes but we do have inactive geologic faults. Two decades ago those statements were true of Oklahoma but that state experienced 581 earthquakes in 2014.  In that year frackers injected over 64 billion gallons of wastewater under Oklahoma and that is clearly the cause of the earthquakes. (Scientific American, July 2016)   It appears that frackers will not be required to pay for Oklahoma’s earthquake damage. It is clear, however that Oklahoma property owners will need earthquake insurance. The price of that coverage is bound to rise along with the number of quakes.

Why would a state legislature allow local zoning and regulation of wind and solar while denying it for gas and oil?  Why make individual stockholders of clean energy companies responsible for damages caused by the corporation while immunizing frackers from similar claims?  Why is government’s power used to enable environment-damaging industries while discouraging clean energy development?

The success of clean energy producers is visible in the form of solar and wind farms that produce electricity without pollution.  Not everyone likes the changed landscape.  Huge petroleum, gas, coal, and utility companies have a lot of influence with legislators and they don’t like competition from clean energy.

We need to let the market work by applying the same standards across all energy sectors.  If they pollute, they should pay to clean it up.  If they need  a right of way to get energy to the market, the same laws and regulations should apply to all forms of energy.  If they violate safety and environmental standards, criminal and civil penalties should be the same for all businesses.

Legislators who espouse free market principles should be able to collaborate with environmentally conscious colleagues to create fair competition and a cleaner state for all of us.  They will if voters demand it.

 

KILLING BERTA CACERES

A friend recently described the life and death of Berta Caceres to me. Today, I’m sharing her story with you along with concerns about America’s role in the affairs of other nations.

Berta Cacares and Pope Francis with other human rights activists
Berta Caceras and other human rights advocates with Pope Francis during his visit to Honduras.

Caceres was co-founder of COPINH, an organization created to protect the interests of the indigenous Lenca people of Honduras and to save their natural environment from rapacious development.  She and her organization received threats and were victims of violence over the years.  The controversy escalated when COPINH was able to stop construction of a huge hydroelectric dam that would have taken water and land historically belonging to the Lenca people.  It was jointly sponsored by Honduras-based DESA and Sinohydro, a Chinese company that is the world’s largest dam builder.  Defeating that project earned Caceres the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize (perhaps the world’s most prestigious environmental recognition).  It also earned her the enmity of some very powerful people.

On March 2, 2016 Berta Caceres was shot and killed in her bed.  The assassins were reportedly  graduates of the “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation” (AKA “School of the Americas”) that is jointly operated by the US Army and the CIA.  That school also educated at least 10 military dictators including Manuel Noriega (Panama) and Juan Velasco Alvarado (overthrew the government of Peru).  Their training by American professionals included assassination and torture.

In January, 2006, Manuel Zelaya was elected President of Honduras.  He ran on socialist principles and soon created closer ties to Venezuela and Cuba.  That engendered concern from Honduran and American business interests and from the Bush Administration in the US.  In June 2009, Zelaya was kidnapped and taken to Costa Rica by the Honduran military.   Pre-arranged support from the Honduran Supreme Court included immediate installation of Pofiro Lobo as President.

Honduran social cleansing victims discovered
“Social cleansing” to reduce the population of ethnic minorities that oppose the government have been reported. This man was thought to be a victim. Read more HERE.

Central American Nations and the European Union called for Zelaya’s return to power but dropped their insistence when the Obama Administration, in the person of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, encouraged recognition of the new regime.  The never-stated quid pro quo may have been American acceptance of the regime’s legitimacy and its domestic policies in exchange for their collaboration in a war against drug lords.  The Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America reports specifics of 229 politically related Murders under President Lobo.  Many who died or disappeared at the hands of government death squads were environmentalists or social reformers.

When the journal “Intercept” interviewed Berta Caraces about security concerns and threats from government, businesses and paramilitary interests she said “The army has an assassination list of 18 wanted human rights fighters with my name at the top, I take lots of care but in the end, in this country where there is total impunity I am vulnerable.  When they want to kill me, they will do it.” The Catholic Herald reports that many church-affiliated groups are urging the US to conduct transparent investigations of multiple political murders including that of Berta Caraces, but the US has not responded.

There are rumors that the dam project will be resurrected with support from banking, land development and construction interests.  Assassinations and arrests of opponents continue, as does the drug trade; and Honduras continues to have the world’s highest murder rate.

Mass market journalists have paid little attention to these events, but recently the well respected National Catholic Reporter (US based) has confirmed the story and added that, “The leader of the coup, Honduran General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, was a graduate of the notorious School of the Americas, a U.S. Army training program nicknamed “School of Assassins” for the sizable number of graduates who have engaged in coups, as well as the torture and murder of political opponents.”  Nevertheless, US policy created by Secretary Clinton and still supported by her today is to refuse refugees from Honduras while continuing to accept them from Cuba.

After all the bloodshed, it seems that the US would have learned that training and equipping citizens of other nations to kill each other and overthrow their governments doesn’t help anyone.   It certainly did not help Honduras control the drug trade or help Iraq eliminate terrorists and it made lots of new enemies for Americans.  We’ve tried it without success in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Peru, Chile, Cuba, Syria, Guatemala, Nicaragua and probably in some places that I don’t know about.  It’s evil.  Let’s resolve to never do it again!

DID THE NC LEGISLATURE VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTION?

Buried deep on page 24 of the undebated “technical corrections” bill authored by North Carolina’s Republican leadership is a provision that takes away all authority for local governments to regulate fracking and oil and gas exploration.  My admittedly amateur opinion is that the legislature may have violated the State Constitution which says it part:

Sec. 5. Conservation of natural resources.

It shall be the policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry, and to this end it shall be a proper function of the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions to acquire and preserve park, recreational, and scenic areas, to control and limit the pollution of our air and water, to control excessive noise, and in every other appropriate way to preserve as a part of the common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches, historical sites, openlands, and places of beauty.

I hope that one of the municipalities that has restricted fracking will pursue the question in court.  It’s difficult for me, as a non-attorney, to see how the legislature can take away the powers granted to municipalities by the constitution.

 

IS POPE FRANCIS ALSO A PROPHET?

On June 13 of this year, Papa Franciscus (Better known as Pope Francis) sent a letter  (encyclical) asking each of us who share Planet Earth to attend to its deteriorating condition; discuss it among ourselves; and make decisions about how to maintain it.  Acknowledging that only about a third of humans claim to be Christians and about half of Christians are Catholic; he crafted his letter to speak to all of us about caring for the Earth – and ultimately about caring for each other.

Francis described Creation – our planet and our universe – as a gift to mankind that we will pass on to successive generations.  Using biblical language, he pointed out that, “…the Genesis account which grants man ‘dominion over the earth’…” does not warrant “the unbridled exploitation of nature…” Continue reading IS POPE FRANCIS ALSO A PROPHET?

WHY WOULD RENEE ELLMERS ELIMINATE EPA?

Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R – NC) wants to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the  federal agency that sets and enforces standards for safe water and air.  She should justify her goal.  We need congressional representatives who think carefully and speak wisely about such important matters.  Her statement seems reckless, and if she can’t justify it then she does not belong in our Congress.  Continue reading WHY WOULD RENEE ELLMERS ELIMINATE EPA?

ADDICTION TO FOSSIL FUEL

Two major reports on climate change have been published in recent weeks, adding to the already imposing evidence that we humans are changing our planet in ways that threaten our own livelihoods and interests. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (United Nations) and the American Climate Assessment are available in both summary and detailed form. They include historic trends, predictions for the future, and suggested courses of action. The reports leave no doubt about some basic conclusions. Climate change is under way. Burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and that is a major cause of climate change. Deforestation reduces the environment’s ability to remove the CO2. It is clear that human actions are the major causes of climate change. The changes on their way include extreme variance in weather – droughts in some places, floods in others, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and gradual death of coral reefs. We can slow them down, but it is too late to prevent them. Continue reading ADDICTION TO FOSSIL FUEL

IF WE VOTE WE WIN

“If we vote, we win.” I have heard that statement several times from earnest sounding first time candidates for public office. It is not as catchy, but I would modify their slogan to say, “If we are well informed and vote, we win.” We are fortunate to live in a republic where that is true, but it only matters if citizens accept the responsibility of selecting good candidates for public office.

Have you heard it said that, “We have the best government that money can buy.”? That is a cynical but too-often true statement. How did it happen? Perhaps we have become the best voters that money can buy – and if so, that is an even greater concern. Our national worship at the altar of profit and greed has led us to allow corporations and the extremely wealthy to influence us to an extent that threatens the existence of government by and for the people.

Our Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have all the same rights as individuals and that unlimited political spending is a “free speech” right, thereby allowing unlimited amounts of anonymous money to be used to influence our votes and our opinions on issues. There are even ways for big donors to claim charitable tax deductions for their contributions to organizations whose purpose is to convince us that we should vote the way the wealthy donors want us to vote. Their money hires marketing experts who seek ways to link their goals to our personal values and religious convictions – and it works. Special interests like petroleum companies, agribusiness, and the extremely wealthy fund immense advertising (propaganda) campaigns to convince us of their viewpoints without disclosing that they are behind the advertisements.

There are two things we can do to take control of our government. First, be as well informed as we can be. And second, ignore the advertising – all of it. An ad may say that it was sponsored by an organization with a high sounding name. Don’t trust it. It was probably paid for by someone with a lot of money who wants to influence you – someone who is working for their interest, not yours. To be well informed we should pay attention to our few legitimate, fact based news media and we should ask our questions directly of candidates in public forums. We should also trust our own instincts on issues. Most of the time, deep down, we know what is right. After we have done those things, then we will be ready to vote.

Will we trust ourselves or will we trust what the propaganda machines tell us? The propaganda machines of the Communist and Fascist powers of the 20th century demonstrated that if you say something often enough, many people will believe it despite any amount of evidence to the contrary. The propaganda machines operating in the USA today are run by special interest groups and corporations. They are very good at what they do and they often persuade both voters and government to ignore facts – the same facts that corporations take into account in their own planning. One example of this is the debate about climate change. Well documented scientific research tells us that human use of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change and that sea levels are rising as a result of that. Special interest groups, including fossil fuel companies, have run massive campaigns to convince us that it is not true. They have influenced our government so much that the State of North Carolina is removing information on the subject from their websites. The State also made it illegal for coastal planning agencies to project changes in sea level greater than the continuation of historical trends. That suits the needs of coastal real estate interests, supports re-building coastal roads that have been wiped out by storms and suits the needs of energy companies. But there is one business interest group that needs to evaluate the facts realistically. That is the flood insurance industry. Insurance companies are changing their risk zones and drastically raising insurance rates because they know that climate change and sea level rise are real.

How has government responded? Initially there was at least one intelligent response – to get the government out of the business of subsidizing flood insurance in high risk areas. But recently, after strong pressure from coastal real estate interests, the government has resumed heavily subsidizing insurance. The insurance companies and the real estate interests and the owners of coastal property will all do well and when the damage is done to their property, it will be repaired through insurance that was subsidized by taxpayers and by the national debt.

How can the same government that denies climate change and sea level rise also be the one that subsidizes higher insurance premiums made necessary by the projected rise of sea level? The answer is that the corporate propaganda machines have made it all seem very reasonable. That is just one example of big money influence on government policy. You can find many more if you look for them. We know it is wrong but we the voters elected the people who did it. There are other elections coming. If we are well informed and if we vote, we will win.

ARE WE VICTIMS OF SUCCESS?

We human inhabitants of planet earth have a problem that we would rather not face or discuss. That problem is our astonishing rate of population growth. The human population of our world was estimated to be about 1,000 million in 1800. By 1900 our numbers had increased by 65% to 1,650 million. By 2000 it had increased to 5,973 million – roughly six times as many as in 1800. At expected rates of growth, we will be close to 9,000 million souls by 2050.

So far, we have been reasonably successful in adapting the way we live to accommodate more people. When there was conflict over rights to graze animals wherever we wanted, we invented the idea of private property rights so that we would know who had the right to use which land. When our cities reached a size which allowed vermin to transmit disease, we suffered the plague. Eventually we learned that by getting garbage and sewage out of the city, we could avoid the plague and many other health problems. Later on we learned how to share water with rules that regulate how much one person can take from a stream or well so that there will be water left for others to use. When rules were ineffective or inconvenient, warfare has sometimes been an alternative. Biblical history says that the tribes of Israel slaughtered the inhabitants of the land that they wanted and took it as a place to live. In a similar situation, Americans of European ancestry killed off the Native American population and forced the survivors to relocate to reservations. The competition for land and resources has sometimes been brutal but humans have thrived as a species through whatever means seemed necessary at the time.

Modern health care, agribusiness and industrial scale animal production have succeeded in extending our lives, feeding our burgeoning population and avoiding famine. They enabled the record-breaking population growth of the 20th and 21st centuries but added dangerous chemicals to our food and environment in the process. We ignore warnings about poor air quality and fish that are unsafe to eat. In some places (Beijing for example) the air is often unsafe to breathe and hard to see through. Global warming is creating sea level rise which will make some coastal population centers uninhabitable in the next century. New York, Miami, and New Orleans are endangered along with many coastal cities around the world. Mountain gorillas, tigers and elephants are among those who will not survive in the wild if we continue taking their land for human habitation. There are predictions that future wars are more likely to be fought over scarce clean water than oil.

While US states sue each other for allowing their businesses to create pollution which crosses into other states, advocates of economic development and job growth are winning legislative debates to allow hydraulic fracturing for natural gas and expanded use of coal without holding the energy companies responsible for correcting environmental damage that they cause. 21st century children born around the world will want modern, high tech lives requiring more jobs and more energy.

There is no one with the power or authority to restrict population growth. That is up to individuals. By all appearances, decisions about consumption of energy and other resources will be much the same. I don’t know who first said that, “When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.” but that sentence sums up the situation in which we find ourselves. Individuals will decide to create more children and the population will continue to grow.

The idea of collective action to control population may seem as repugnant today as restrictions on water use seemed when they were first suggested. China’s “one child per family” law has been withdrawn. Ideas, such as higher taxes on anyone with more than two children or life-long tax reduction to anyone who undergoes voluntary sterilization are generally dismissed as “extremist” and no “moderate” alternatives are offered. Some of our religions (fundamentalist Islam and traditional Mormonism) teach procreation as a responsibility. The largest Christian denomination (Catholicism) teaches that artificial birth control is morally wrong. They fight against including birth control in foreign aid to poor nations with high birth rates and against including it in health care plans. They are so effective that one of our major political parties (Republican) backs those positions. The prospects for meaningful collective action seem dim.

With improving technology, we can probably continue growing our population for a few more generations before some science-fiction sounding combination of disease, famine and war imposes population control on a hotter planet with less land and bigger oceans. In the meantime we might do well to explore this lesson in humility. Modern humans as a species have existed for about 200,000 years. Dinosaurs lasted over 160,000,000 years. Now all of them are gone. There is little question that the Earth and life will survive. There is less certainty about humanity. No individual needs population control but humanity does. When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. That leaves considerable doubt as to whether we can last as long as the dinosaurs did. Will humans be victims of our own success or will we evolve enough and care enough to leave a healthy planet for our descendants? We are all responsible.