The young folks see the need to act now

“I am growing up in a world whose life systems are unraveling”

Jamie Margolin

The young Mr. Margolin is an attendee at the second annual International Congress of Youth in San Juan, Puerto Rico. People like him and Greta Thunberg recognize the need to act.

Unfortunately, too many of the adults in legislative positions are too beholden to funders to do the right thing. Whether it is not acting on climate change, allowing companies to pollute, or perpetuating profit margins for industries that prey on consumers off fear or some form of pacifier, the legislators are obsequient to their cash cows. And, why do these funders give them money? The Return On Investment (ROI) is huge. The fossil fuel industry has benefitted from multi-trillion dollars of government welfare.

But, these young people look at what is happening and clearly realize what the beholden legislators cannot – WE ARE SCREWED, unless we act. What makes their battles so uphill, is the funders are spending an awful lot of money to keep their ROI going.

The money being spent to convince people climate change is a hoax, not too bad, a natural evolution, etc, dwarfs those trying to get scientific peer reviewed information. As an example, there are about 700 peer reviewed websites discussing the realities of climate change, but there are 30,000 plus faux science sites. And, the current US president’s cabinets are busy burying peer reviewed reports on climate change, deleting data and reports and repositioning or running off climate scientists. Yet, one more climate scientist left the Dept. of Agriculture last week, as his warnings on rice harvests were being buried. “Why?” is an excellent question.

Climate change is not just causing rising sea levels, but that is a huge problem for coastal cities like Miami, the most at risk large city in the world. We are seeing stallled weather systems consistently flood areas. We are seeing drought areas experience worse droughts. We are seeing larger forest fires. And, we are seeing more tick and misquito borne illnesses with more standing water and higher average heat.

Action is occurring due to innovators, cities and states. We need the US federal government to leverage these efforts and not block them or mask the problem. The kids get it. They will also live with the world we are leaving. So, what kind of world do we want to leave them?

Advertisements

Credit risk appraiser Moody’s buys a firm that assesses climate change risk

Even for those not very familiar with Moody’s, this headline speaks volumes about the impact of the risk of climate change on our country and planet. In a July 24, 2019 article in The New York Times by Christopher Flavelle called “Moody’s Buys Climate Data Firm, Signaling New Scrutiny of Climate Risks,” the company that measures credit risks for bond investors in companies, cities, counties, states and countries, has added to its expertise. Per Flavelle’s article

“Moody’s Corporation has purchased a controlling stake in a firm that measures the physical risks of climate change, the latest indication that global warming can threaten the creditworthiness of governments and companies around the world.

The rating agency bought a majority share in Four Twenty Seven, a California-based company that measures a range of hazards, including extreme rainfall, hurricanes, heat stress and sea level rise, and tracks their impact on 2,000 companies and 196 countries. In the US, the data covers 761 cities and more than 3,000 counties.

‘We are taking these risks very seriously,’ said Myriam Durand, global head of assessments at Moody’s Investor Service, who said the purchase would allow its credit analysts to be more precise in their review of climate-related risks. ‘You can’t mitigate what you don’t understand.’

Sudden shocks such as floods, wildfires, or storms can hurt businesses and send residents fleeing, taking away the tax revenue that government s use to pay debts. And, longer term threats – such as rising seas or higher temperatures – can make those places less desirable to live in, hurting property values and, in turn, the amount raised by taxes.”

To illustrate this risk, the same day I read a reprint of this article in The Charlotte Observer, the local paper ran a story on the town of Fair Bluff, NC which has been flooded twice in that past four years due to Hurricanes Matthew and Florence which lingered over their area. Sitting near the Lumber River, the citizens of Fair Bluff saw the river rise well beyond flood range. The previous flood of this magnitude occurred 90 years before. Sadly, the population and business is declining due to rebuilding costs. As a result, so is the tax revenue to provide services.

There is a huge financial impact of climate change on the lives and business of people and communities. Rebuilding a town that may continue to be in harms way adds to the risk and some people are choosing to relocate. And, It is not just small towns. Houston has had two major floods over the past five years, as well. Houston has felt on a larger scale what Fair Bluff has felt. Not only do the rains of the Hurricane sit over them, the rivers upstate overfill and flow toward the sea. This causes extra flooding.

So, Moody’s is improving their ability to assess repayment risk to bondholders. A city that has rebuilt or prepared poorly is at greater risk of flight of people, businesses and tax dollars. What should also be alarming to American citizens is while Moody’s is taking forward thinking action, the US government is stripping climate change reports from their websites and demoting, transferring or running off Ph.Ds who are expert in measuring and addressing climate change. In short, we are throwing away a technical advantage that could help the US and the world.

Repeating what Ms. Durand said above, “You can’t mitigate what you don’t understand.”  So, please ask all politicians what they plan to do about climate change including the US president. And, a question for those who still buy the hoax stuff, why is Moody’s spending all of that money on a hoax?

 

An ostrich pulls his head out of the sand

This story should not be newsworthy as it is long overdue, but unfortunately it is. A headline from a USA Today last week proclaimed “Trump ally Lindsey Graham says president should ‘admit climate change is real’.” Senator Graham went on to say per the article:

“‘I’m tired of playing defense on the environment,’Graham told reporters on Capitol Hill Wednesday as he and other GOP lawmakers announced the formation of the Roosevelt Conservation Caucus, which will ’embrace and promote constructive efforts to resolve conservation and environmental problems.'”

I have written often about addressing climate change. Progress in fighting climate change is happening, but it desperately needs the leverage of the US federal government. Plus, we must alter harmful deregulation to our environment.

Rather than belabor these points, let me say I left the Republican Party about a dozen years ago, in part due to its stance on climate change. My thesis is if the GOP is going to play ostrich-with-its-head-in-the-sand on an existensial threat to our existence, how can I trust its judgment on other issues.

So, thank you Senator Graham for pulling your head out of the sand and asking the US president to join you. As an independent voter and parent, I take seriously the threats to our environment and agree the GOP needs to alter its path on these topics.

The Good and Bad

Several stories crossed my screen, so I decided to pair good and bad news items on related topics.

Good: Ford and Volkswagen are co-investing in developing electric vehicles sharing development costs.

Bad: In spite of the significant decline in bee populations, the Trump administration has approved a bee-harmlng pesticide.

Good: The American economy is now into its 121st consecutive month of growth with nine straight years of 2 million plus jobs created.

Bad: The 2019 economy has softened some from 2018 due to trade/ tariff concerns, slowing global markets, waning impact of the 2017 tax law, growing US debt, and increased uncertainty which impedes investment and it should slow even more as predicted by economists.

Good: The interest in space travel and exploration involves an increasing number of countries – Japan and China have gone to the moon, eg. That spawns more interest in science which is terrific.

Bad: With the heavy cost of space travel, why don’t countries share the burden as Ford and Volkswagen are doing above? There is a lot of dupication of effort requiring money that could be invested here on earth to address water, food and climate issues.

Good: In spite of the US announcing a withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Accord, other countries, states, cities, investment groups, companies and innovators continue to execute ideas that are addressing the issue.

Bad: The US federal governmenf needs to do more, not less to abet these efforts. Yet, another concern is getting little notoriety – the global water crisis, which is made even worse by climate change. Another city in India of 5 million people is in dire straights as its reservoir has almost dried up.

We should celebrate the good, but address the bad. We seem to be ignoring too many signals. It is hard to move forward, if we only look in the rearview. mirror. Food, water, climate, debt are signaling needs that must be addressed.

 

 

 

When you ask a question

I have written about this before, but am consistently reminded of it watching a variety of talk shows, including news and news-opinion shows. A pet peeve of mine is someone asking a question and not letting the person answer it. This is followed closely by people who interrupt another person asking a question.

Watching the Showtime mini-series “The Loudest Voice,” about Roger Ailes leading the creation of Fox News, he valued his talk show hosts talking over guests who were making fact-based arguments that countered the mission of the station. That mission was to tell conservative viewers what they wanted to hear.

But, it is not just on Fox, as it occurs on CBS Morning News, Real Time with Bill Maher, The View, etc. I appreciate many of Bill Maher’s opinions as he is well-informed, but I see him often derail good conversation from his guests. Let them talk I say to the TV screen.

The same goes for Joy Behar on The View and Gayle King on CBS Morning News. They both have strong opinions, many I may agree with, but all too frequently they derail good conversation or speak over the guest. Let them talk I say to the screen.

My best example is a Fox host had a guest who had written a well-researched book about the life of Jesus. When he was asked to come on Fox, it was obvious he was there to be verbally beat-up by the host. It was so overt, he asked if it was OK for him to talk. His opinion did not matter.

Two other practices stand in the way of good discussion. The first is the side-by-side talking heads, which make a very unequal issue look like a 50/50 debate. John Oliver once addressed this by having 97 scientists come out to debate three over climate change. Often the 50/50 debate pits an extreme view against a normative one; so if the extreme view wins the debate, viewers feel that makes the good talker’s position correct. It just means they are a better talker over two minutes. Again, with climate change, a glib marketer would often win short debates with scientists who found it difficult to boil points down to short sound bytes.

The second is the interviewer asking the question with the answer in it. This is prevalent on 60 Minutes, where too often the interviewee repeats what the interviewer said. That is force feeding in my mind – let them frame their answer.

This is a key reason I watch PBS Newshour. They have informed guests, who act civilly toward each other and the host. When they are not civil, they tend not to be invited back. The host lets each have time to talk and counter the other. Often, there is mutual agreement on many points, which makes you think more when they differ.

So, interviewers, ask your question, then let people talk. You might learn something.

A few Sunday meanderings

Good morning one and all. I hope your weekend is going well. Reading the Sunday newspaper and a few stories online, I thought I might meander a little on this Sunday, typing in tune with cicadas chirping outside.

A simple concept with a lot of big numbers – Swiss scientists have confirmed that planting one trillion trees would be one of the least expensive ways to take carbon out of the air. They note there are 3.5 million square miles of available land to do so. In the documentary “Ice on Fire,” which I wrote about a few weeks back, planting and maintaining forests was one of several key options that we should do. The scientists note this will only work if we stop putting so much carbon there in the first place.

A British ambassador speaks the truth about the US White House – Per a CNN report as reported by AFP.com, “Britain’s ambassador in the United States has described President Donald Trump and his administration as ‘inept’ and ‘uniquely dysfunctional’, according to leaked diplomatic memos published by the Mail on Sunday. Ambassador Kim Darroch reportedly said Trump’s presidency could ‘crash and burn’ and ‘end in disgrace’, in the cache of secret cables and briefing notes sent back to Britain seen by the newspaper.”  This is not news to people who pay attention to the machinations of the White House incumbent. My prediction is this will be called fake news from a loser network by said incumbent.

A day in the life, two more shootings in my city – If we rewrote John Lennon’s portion of the famous song “A Day in the Life.” which blended two separate songs, the other by Paul McCartney, we might have the following:  “I read the news today, oh boy, about two more shootings in the city I live. One was shot in an expensive hotel corridor, while the others in a famous fast food chain.”  Recognizing I did a poor job matching words with the notes, the sentiment is valid. Maybe, we should just report when no one is shot in the city, as that would be more newsworthy.

False equivalences abound – This is a pet peeve of Bill Maher, with which I agree. When someone commits a series of poor behaviors or says inappropriate things, members of the supporting tribe will parade out a false equivalence that is intended to balance the scales. The past few years, these false equivalences are paraded out to show that the president is not the only politician who lies. While that is true, the president has lapped the field several times with his lies. He lies far more than he does not, he has been recorded with over 10,000 lies as president, and five former associates (not the media, not Democrats) have been quoted, one under the oath, that the president is not very truthful including, but not limited to, his attorney fixer Michael Cohen, his former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, his former White Counsel Don McGahn, his former National Economic Advisor Gary Cohn and former attorney Thomas Wells. The latter noted “Donald Trump lies every day even about things of no consequence.”

Why does the last item matter so much? Just read the leaked correspondence of the British ambassador. We are not trustworthy because our president is not trustworthy. And, it is hard to solve problems and build relationships if you cannot tell the truth. The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. Climate change is a problem, but he tells us it is a hoax. Guns are part of our shooting death problems, but he won’t admit they are. He tells the children detention centers are well run. And, so on.

 

 

Weariness and Frankness

This independent voter is weary of people not addressing the obvious and rationalizing actions and behaviors that are less productive. Having been a member of both parties, a Democrat for about ten years of my early adult life and about twenty years as a Republican, I define myself as fiscally conservative and socially progressive. Both parties have some good ideas, while both have some bad ones.

So, let me be frank with my opinions, built off this foundation.

Democrats can defeat Trump, but they can also lose to him. Please study why George McGovern and Walter Mondale got shellacked in 1972 and 1984 and why Michael Dukakis and John Kerry lost in 1988 and 2004. It is not ironic that winning candidates Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were more moderate Democrats. Democrats cannot beat Trump without Independents and some Republicans. They could start by working now to address shoring up the ACA as they committed to do in the mid-terms and not waiting until 2021. Medicare for All is worth the discussion, but we need to address issues today, especially after the healthcare fiasco the GOP went through in 2017.

With that said, people need to look under the hood as to why more progressive Democrats have a few socialistic ideas. We should not ignore that the US economy is fettered capitalism with some socialist underpinnings. On the top end down, we have rules that govern collusion, monopolies, interlocking boards, insider trading, bankruptcy, etc. and on the bottom end up, we have socialistic programs that offer Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Workers Comp, and unemployment protections. Yet, the reason for their focus is America has a widened disparity between the haves and have nots. The key is to have a good debate as to how we address this disparity, not name-call ideas to win elections. Plus, this discussion must be done in the context of our huge debt and deficit problem (see below).

Seeing a dozen Oregon Republican state lawmakers leave the state to avoid voting for a Carbon Cap and Trade bill should be a clarion call. Cap and Trade used to be a GOP idea, but fossil fuel funders told them not to like it. We are facing a climate change crisis and voters must ask what candidates are going to do about climate change. Let me emphasize I left the GOP twelve years ago in large part due to its stance on climate change. Fortunately, climate change action is not waiting on head-in-the-sand politicians, but could be leveraged by more federal help.

My concerns are exacerbated as not only did the US president announce our withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Accord, he asked the G20 this week to soften language on climate change. It should be noted this is in contrast to his businessman stance, where a few years ago Trump staff requested in writing the Scottish government give them permission to build a sea wall at one of his golf courses to hold back the rising seas due to climate change. The word you are looking for his hypocrisy. The other words are fossil-fuel funding.

An issue not being discussed is rising US debt and deficit. Both parties are to blame. Nonpartisan groups and the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Committee clearly state this problem cannot be solved with just spending cuts and tax increases – it must have both, as the math will not otherwise work. These groups also note the GOP tax cut in December, 2017 was imprudent. But, Democrat candidates speaking of tax increases to pay for new social programs are being imprudent, as well. We need tax increases and spending cuts to pay for the poor stewardship of their predecessors.

When America forgets its ideals, we become just another country. I hear we must be a nation of laws, but we are treating migrants like chattel and not following due legal process. There is a reason so many attorneys are volunteering their services to migrants. If we are concerned about illegal immigrants, punishing companies that hire them would limit the economic slavery that goes on every day. Yet, we should also recognize that these folks are doing many jobs Americans don’t want. So, a thoughtful, humane and fact-based solution is warranted rather than a political one. Both parties are to blame, but I hold this president to account for making a recurring problem much worse with his words and actions. He reneged on a bipartisan agreement sixteen months ago and the House never took up a bipartisan Senate bill passed in 2013.

Finally, if we are to be a nation of laws, we should be gravely concerned the country is being run like a mafia family. The White House incumbent is clearly making money off the presidency and favoring countries where he sees business growth for his empire. It greatly troubles me that is daughter and son-in-law are serving unvetted and unapproved roles in the White House, because the president values loyalty over competence and experience. Then, comes the lying, bullying and denigration of critics, allies, media, public servants, etc. I have long been concerned over his setting policy off his lies be it climate change, voter fraud, Russian influence, Saudi prince innocence, Iran nuclear deal, the ACA, environmental pollution, and so on.

There is so much more I could write about. We need Americans to pay attention to better news sources, question things, and push back on politicians asking what they intend to do about issues. We need Congress to remember their job of governance. I feel this president is a clear and present danger to our democracy, our planet and even the Republican party. We are a Republic, not a kingdom and certainly not a mafia-ruled domain.