September 10, 2019--Jack: Elizabeth Warren

A quivering Jack slid into the banquette next to me.

"You seem all excited this morning."

"Why shouldn't I be," he said to me. Rona had her head buried in the Times.

"Because the hurricane didn't strike Alabama?"

"I can't believe people are still talking about that," Jack said, "What's the big deal?"

"It shows Trump as either geographically challenged or unhinged."

"Could be both," I added with a snicker.

"Or maybe as you wrote," he turned to face me squarely, "That he's trying to nudge Alabamans to replace their Democratic senator with a Republican."

"A sexual predator no less."

Ignoring that, he said, "Look, I only have a minute. Let me get to what I want to talk with you about."

"What's got you all excited?"

"The latest CBS poll. I read about it this morning and raced right over to see you."

"I didn't see it yet," I said, "Enlighten me."

"It has Poca . . . I mean Elizabeth Warren in the lead. About one point ahead of Biden. But still in the lead."

"I thought you were ignoring polls," from behind the paper, Rona said, "It's too early blah, blah, blah. The polls don't capture Trump's people accurately, blah, blah, blah."

"This one's a little different," Jack said, "It tallies . . ."

"To save you time, let's agree that you're now interested in polls because they contain news you like."

"I'll acknowledge that," he said, smiling, "But let me tell you what this one shows."

"Go on," Rona sounded weary.

"It projects the delegate count. How delegates to the Democratic convention will vote for the various candidates. It shows Warren with slight leads over Biden and Bernie. What's interesting is that Biden's and Sanders's numbers are holding steady while Warren is picking up delegates from other candidates' supporters. Candidates like Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke who are slipping further and further behind."

"This whole thing feels bogus to me," I said, "As far as I know no one yet knows who the delegates are going to be. So how can they be polled?"

Jack didn't respond, so I asked, "What else do you have on your mind? There must be more than this flimsy material."

"I'll admit this polling business is a little technical for me, but you have to agree that Warren is doing better and better."

"It does look like that. But why this sudden interest in Warren? I assume she's not one of your favorites."

"It means if she somehow holds on and wins the nomination get ready for four more years of The Donald."

"My recurrent nightmare," Rona said, still using the paper as a scrim.

"Don't be so gleeful," I said, "Polls still show Biden with pretty good leads. Of likely voters not fictitious delegates. In fact, in the early primary states--Iowa and South Carolina among others--Biden appears to be increasing his lead. And they show him trouncing Trump."

Jack said, "But if Warren wins the nomination Trump gets reelected. After Hillary do you think this country's ready for a woman?"

"I do," I said, "And polls, again polls, show that."

"But this woman? Warren wants Medicare for all, the end of private health insurance, student loan forgiveness--a trillion dollar item--free college--another trillion--open borders, including free food stamps and health insurance for even illegal immigrants. And more trillions, I think it adds up to three trillion, for climate change. I could go on. If she wins the nomination I can hear Trump saying, 'Thank you, thank you. There is a God,'"

"Be careful what you wish for," Rona had folded and put down the paper. "She was supposed to get killed when she first ran for the Senate in Massachusetts but won overwhelmingly. And now we're seeing her rising in the polls and doing very well when it comes to raising money for her campaign."

"Speaking of that," Jack said with a toothy grin, "Also in that paper of yours, on the front page," he tapped it where it lay on the table, "there's a story about how though she says she rejects the practice of going after wealthy donors she has been doing that for years and as a result has tens of million stashed away in her campaign war chest. What a hypocrite. I can't wait until the Republicans and the media get their hands on that."

"Funny, about that," I said, "I come to a totally different conclusion."

"I'm all ears."

"It shows me she's pragmatic. Not just an ideological policy wonk. She's in it to win it. That she's willingly to do what she has to do to gather the resources she needs to prevail. Even if it makes her vulnerable to the charge that she's 'just another politician.'"

"Like you're socialist friends you live in dreamland. I live in the real world where things are not so clear."

"And I live in a world," I said, "where Trump's approval ratings are slipping below 40 percent."

Jack had slid out of the booth and, without a goodbye, headed for the door.

February 15, 2019--National Emergencies

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unintentionally just set the agenda for the Democrat who will be elected in 2020 to succeed Trump as president.

He was good enough to set both the programmatic and the strategic agenda. With the latter being about how to govern.

Thank you Mitch.

Mitch did this when attempting to discourage Trump from declaring, in his case, a phony emergency.

Do not declare a national emergency, he urged Trump, to get your way with the border wall because if you do you will set a precedent for future presidents. Like the Democrat who will come after you in less than two years. A progressive who might use your precedent to declare emergencies involving gun "rights" and the climate.

When it comes to Trump, McConnell is whistling in the wind because for Trump there are no precedents. A precedent is something that applies to the future, but with Trump there is no such thing as the future. He is all about the now, caring only about himself, ignoring who or what comes next; and thus he will declare an emergency this morning to allow him to reap political credit from his base (meaning Ann Coulter, who two days ago called him a "weenie,"  and Sean Hannity) for building, or pretending to build the wall.

But for a normal person who might become president, governing by the strategic use of national emergencies in an era where nothing can be enacted by a broken and hyper-partisan Congress may make sense and to declare at least two emergencies--one to deal with the scourge of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of murderous people and the other for another genuine emergency, global warming--sounds like a plan for Kamala Harris or Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar.

February 8, 2019--Climate

The one thing I am incapable of reading and writing about is the planet's perilously changing climate.

I pride myself on my ability to identify and solve problems. I made a long career doing just that from the City University of New York to New York University to the Ford Foundation.

But about the climate I able to offer only a sense of hopeless despair. No solutions. Therefore, I run from the subject.

Not proud of myself, I have difficulty following or participating in global warming discussions. I confess this means I've given up hope that there are ways to bring about meaningful remediation. Though I know it is critical that we urgently do all we can to try.

What can one think, more, what can one do when greeted as readers were two days ago by a headline and story in the "New York Times" that the "'Climate Crisis' May Melt Most Himalayan Glaciers by 2100"?

I ignored my own practice of running from the subject and read how at least a third of these glaciers will melt by the end of the century, even "if the world's most ambitious climate change targets are met."

If these goals are not met (and most experts agree this seems likely) by 2100 the world's highest mountain range will lose two-thirds of its glaciers.

This would mean that the Himalayas could heat up by 8 degrees Fahrenheit by century's end, bringing "radical disruptions to the food and water supplies, and mass population displacement."

"Normal" Himalayan glacier melt, I read, provides water to about a quarter of the world's population.

And then yesterday, the "Times" in an above-the-fold front-page graph and story about rising global temperatures, reported that 2018 was the fourth hottest year since 1880.

Though I will be long gone, all I can think about is what kind of a world I am participating in bequeathing to my one-year-old niece. 

November 26, 2018--National Climate Assessment

I for one want to thank the Trump administration for the sensitivity they showed by not publishing the latest "National Climate Assessment" until the day after Thanksgiving. 

By then at least half the turkey and stuffing I consumed had been digested and reading the report on only a half-full stomach kept me from you-know-what.

The work of 13 governmental entities, now Trump-led science and environmental entities, it is about as pessimistic and depressing as anything on the subject that I have encountered.

There is nothing to feel good about, almost nothing hopeful, and with Trump president for at least another two years, since, catering to his base, he will not agree to do anything that can slow down the doomsday climate clock, truly scary.

Half joking, when there has been a dire UN report or others by groups of concerned scientists, learning more about the unrelenting cataclysmic consequences of climate change, I have quipped, "Well, at least I'm old enough to be dead by then." 

In fact I will be, but now saying this is no longer just a quip.

Evidence of the potential political power of last Friday's release of the National Assessment is the fact that Trump attempted to bury it by having it published on the quietest news day of the year. When everyone is sleeping late, fighting off gastritis, watching football, or shopping  So there was nothing "sensitive" about circulating the report right after Thanksgiving. 

The administration's hope was that by today when things get ginned up again, along with Ivanka's emails, the results of the midterm elections, and Trump's spat with Chief Justice Roberts, it will already be old news. Which to Trump is almost as useful as labelling something threatening as fake news.

But the report about the climate got Rona and me talking more broadly about science. Particularly wondering why so many Americans, including pandering conservative political leaders, do not, as the press puts it, believe in science. "Believe" as if science is something theological. By this it is meant that these people, among other things, do not believe, as opposed to mobilizing actual facts, in evolution, cosmology, or any imputation that humans are contributing to global warming and the resulting storms and massive forest fires.

Some of this lack of belief is in fact theological. Many who do not believe in science believe that we are moving rapidly to Armageddon. A time when the world and all humans will come to the End. 

A striking number do not see these cataclysms to be undesirable but in fact, via highly-selective and distorted interpretations of the Bible, they welcome the eventual Second Coming of Christ and the ultimate Last Judgement when these folks expect they will be ushered into Heaven. 

Thus, the last thing they want is any interference in this divine plan. Particularly by governments or the "deep state," which to many is the work of the Antichrist.

Then there are others who reject science because of their lack of science literacy. They feel excluded from its methods and lessons because, sadly, they know almost nothing about science. Baffled and frustrated by relativity and quantum mechanics, which is understandable, they are even essentially untutored when it comes to knowing anything about Newton's more approachable universe.

Science, then, also contributes to the great educational and cultural divide that separates Americans by educational attainment, culture, and socioeconomics. To passionately reject science is one response by those who have been labeled deplorables or, in fear and ignorance, some claim, cling to guns and God.

And then, ever suspicious of liberals' alleged push to have big government intrude more and more in people's lives, limiting their freedom, many conservative extremists see environmental science as conspiring to tell Americans how to live. From what kind of cars to drive to forcing people to give up incandescent light bulbs. It gets that specific.

And so here we are with many of us feeling fortunate that we will have passed on well before an actual, non-millennialist End. 

But what then about our children and grandchildren? 

Put pushing back against these anti-science forces at the top of your political to-do list. I know it's a long list but . . .

May 30, 2017--A Word About Intelligent Design

There is a hot debate underway among progressives and others who do not in any way support Donald Trump about how to relate, if at all, to those who voted for and are sticking by President Trump.

The fact that I have difficulty referring to him as "President," is indicative of how complicated this situation is. About as complicated as how Republicans in the main had difficulty thinking about Barack Obama as "President" and opposed him aggressively, seeking from Inauguration Day to bring him down.

So Democrats and Republicans share that.

I have been arguing here for some time that, while opposing most of Trump's initiatives, progressives need to reach out to the most independent-minded of Trump supporters in an attempt to convince them that we understand their frustration and anger and make the case to them that traditional Democrats share many of their concerns and would like to welcome them back to our enlarged tent. Even including abortion opponents and Second Amendment defenders.

Others argue that we shouldn't waste our time reaching out to them. They are so unredeemable from a progressive perspective that we should not engage with them.

Yesterday, guest-blogger Sharon made that case forcefully--

If I have given up trying to reason with and understand people I already know who perhaps have spent too many years being brainwashed by Fox News, trolls and "news" outlets even further right, I have even less interest engaging strangers who want people to be free not to have health care.  I hold in special contempt those who encourage conspiracy theories that spur the lunatic fringe to shoot up pizza parlors, etc.

I respect this, understand, but disagree. I feel we have to do the opposite--no matter how difficult or infuriating, we need to seek opportunities to talk about our differences to see if there is any possibility of finding some common ground. 

In that spirit, Rona and I have been talking about how to have these difficult dialogues. Unlike our life in New York City where, politically, pretty much everyone we know has nothing but contempt for Trump and his supporters, we are fortunate up in Maine to know people with a wide range of views, including some who are eager to talk across the divide.

Thus, we have been searching for issues, topics around which to organize potential discussions. We even made a list. The first few topics are not good places to begin since about them there is little or no possibility for compromise. For example, abortion. If to opponents it is murder and for supporters it's a woman's right, there is not much to talk about. There is nothing to negotiate.

Here are some of the topics--

Abortion
The Second Amendment
Immigration
Healthcare
Same-sex marriage
Prayer in school
Taxes
The deficit
Government regulations
Iran
Russia
Climate change
Contraception
Food stamps
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Evolution/Intelligent Design

We have had considerable success talking about SSI. A number of conservative friends expressed vehement opposition to it, claiming that almost everyone receiving benefits is perpetrating a fraud, lying about their circumstances, and thus should be denied ongoing assistance  To complexify matters and to see if there might be some room for give, I looked up who actually receives SSI benefits and found that 33 percent of the 8 million are children or elderly and 15 percent more are significantly disabled and incapable of working. When discussing these recipients in turn, all on the far right agreed it was important to continue to help these people. To many of them it was the Christian way.

I then said, "So we agree about nearly 50 percent. That's progress, and of course it's OK to disagree about the rest."

With this in mind, Rona suggested that maybe we should move on to talk about Evolution. Many who are deeply conservative and often evangelicals who believe the Bible is the literal truth do not want to see it taught in public schools. They either call for its outright ban or, at a minimum, that it be taught alongside the theory of Intelligent Design (ID).

"Where's the give with this?" I asked, quite skeptical.

"There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support Evolution," Rona said, "But, hear me out, no valid scientific evidence that discredits Intelligent Design."

"What?"

"That's right. Tell me how you know, how we know that there was not some force of nature, or something more divine that guided the evolutionary process? Therefore, why not concede that it's worth putting this out for discussion? Doesn't a good education include teaching the history of controversies? Like Evolution and ID?" 

"Interesting point. Maybe this is like same-sex marriage. Twenty years ago only a small minority favored it but in more recent years it received overwhelming support, so much so that the Supreme Court stretched to find it to be constitutional."

"Bottom line," Rona said, "As difficult as it is and how unpleasant it can be, if we want to have a more inclusive and civil country, we need to not give up on having these kinds of conversations."

"I agree," I said, "But I do understand why others might come to a different conclusion."

"I'll predict that we could also have productive conversations about climate change and . . ."

I cut her off, "Let's take this one step at a time. I'm already feeling exhausted."

May 22, 2017--"Vile Scumbag"

A friend, referring to Donald Trump, posted this on Facebook--

Vile scumbag. How I so purely and truly despise this spineless sack of shit coward. When will the carnage end? It is just so exhausting.

About all other subjects, my progressive friend is an otherwise moderate and thoughtful person. He is also literate. But here he is so in a rage that he's sputtering semi-coherently.

I have other liberal friends, all of whom oppose the death penalty, who are so crazed that they are cheering the death of Fox News' founder, Roger Ailes and they are so excited that he is dead that they are wishing the same fate for Steve Bannon and Rupert Murdock. I am sure others are on their death list.

When I try to get them to tell me why they have these feelings of murderous fury they say, in effect, isn't it obvious. Two words--Donald and Trump.

When I press, some confess that their rage is connected to the anxiety and fear Trump and his presidency have unleashed.

They are afraid about what will happen to the environment and the Earth (the New York Times on Saturday published a piece about the accelerating melting of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antartica--it is occurring so rapidly that many scientists are saying that by the end of the century, sea levels will rise by up to six feet, enough to inundate much of New York City and south Florida); they are worried about their jobs (many are professionals who work for or are funded by the rapidly shrinking government); they have deep fears about what their children will be facing (many are mired in tens of thousands of dollars of student debt and living in their parents' basements); and almost all are panicking about their 401(k)s.

Above all, most are feeling unable to do anything about it.

Rage comes largely from feeling powerless.

These are very efficacious people who are used to helping make things happen. They pride themselves on their ability to take on complicated problems and move them toward solution. They have been upwardly mobile and feel that this is because they have earned their way and deserve to be part of the professional and managerial classes.

Now, as they see things, everything is changing, becoming upended by the barbarians who have seized control. Used to feeling accomplished and even superior, they are now finding themselves being treated disdainfully. Being dismissed. And worse than death, being ignored.

The "deplorables" are in charge. The knowledge my friends have acquired, the history they have participated in shaping is no longer, they feel, valued. And since they cannot figure out what to do, what to think, or how to fight back, rather than dig in for the long haul and devote themselves to a sustained and relentless political and cultural resurgence, when together, they complain, they fulminate.

When I ask them what they think will make a difference, they say joining the "resistance" movement. When I ask what's planned, they say more marches. When I ask when the next one is scheduled, they say they do not know. When I ask how long ago was the last one, they tell me they are not sure. Maybe a month or two.

I tell them I don't think this will get the job done. In the latest polls, last week, 84 percent of Republicans say they think Donald Trump is doing a good job. Considering what he has been up to, we need to figure out why that is. We need to figure out how to push these numbers and, forgive me, figure out ways to reach out to some of them and get them to consider other ways to think about what's going on. About how they are being manipulated and taken advantage of.

In the meantime, some friends say they plan to post more on Facebook.

November 23, 2016--Trump Tacking

I have many friends who have already given up on the Trump presidency even though there are nearly two whole months to go before he actually becomes president.

I share their concern but haven't as yet given up on him. Like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I remain skeptical but am attempting to keep an open mind.

I have also tried to persuade these friends to do likewise.

But in general with that I am getting nowhere. They remain furious and even resentful about his election and what they have concluded he is about. Some acknowledge that the situation is literally making them physically sick. I've even had a few share their list of gastric and neurological symptoms.

Trying to be helpful, I've suggested we wait to see what he actually does. Will he choose Rudy or Mitt to be secretary of state? Perhaps that will be a litmus test for where he is and where he is headed.

It is a little strange, I admit, to be hanging my hopes on Mitt Romney. But so it goes.

Here, though, are a few things to keep in mind when deciding if it is or isn't time to give up on Trump.

As I write this--late afternoon Tuesday--this is what was being heard today from Donald Trump and his spokespeople--

He voluntarily acknowledged that his foundation has been involved in "self-dealing," including inappropriately spending foundation money to pay for an enormous portrait of himself. This fessing up likely to effectively end the investigation of the way it operates.

At his meeting with New York Times reporters and executives, Trump acknowledged that he is concluding that humans are contributing to global warming and that he will "take a look" at the Paris climate accords.

He announced that he will not call for further investigations of either Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server or the operations of the Clinton Foundation. "They have gone through enough," he declared. It was also learned that he has spoken further with Barack Obama about transition and policy matters.

And, influenced by his apparent pick to run the Pentagon, General "Mad Dog" Mattis, he expressed doubt about "the value of torturing terrorists."

In a video tape, in which he spoke about his agenda for the first 100 days, Trump did not mention Obamacare, the Wall, or immigration.

And he "disavowed" support from the alt-right white supremacists, expressing regret that he in any way has contributed to their "energizing."

Then, toward the end of the afternoon, before heading to Florida for Thanksgiving, word leaked that Mitt Romany was likely to be his choice for secretary of state.

Considering what else is at issue, this is not enough to change most of my friends' minds. But I would argue that it is a promising start.

June 10, 2016--Always Talk To Strangers: One Brief Moment

From July 19, 2006--

The sun was setting over the Tetons.  A small crowd of visitors with drinks in hand gathered outside the Jackson Lake Lodge to watch the sun roll behind those magnificent mountains before dropping off the edge of the earth and plunging us all into instant darkness and chilling breezes.

“I take a lot of pictures but never develop any.”  Rona and I were snapped out of our contemplative end-of-day reverie by a mountain of a man with a camera hanging from his neck that was so huge with its protruding lens that only his awesome bulk could support it.  He appeared to be from the middle of the country, likely a farmer, and from his tractor we imagined he had seen enough sunsets in his life to satisfy him.  What was so special about another even in a spectacular place such as this? 

Being from New York City though, where at best there are only glimpses of the sky, we of course could never get enough of these sunsets and are thus additionally expert at extracting their full meaning from every degree of the sun’s decline.  

Thus, we ignored him.

But he persisted, “I’ve been coming here ever year since 1987.  Sometimes twice a year.  Me and the Mrs. drive our RV here all the way from Georgia, where we’re from.”   

Resisting being brought back to the mundane, I tried half-turning my back to him.  Rona peered into her glass of sweet Vermouth, playing with the ice. 

“You see my son over there?" he persisted, "He was three the first time we came here.  He also had a camera.  He'd spend three whole days taking pictures and carefully advancing the film.  They still used film back then.  When we were about to leave he took the film out of the camera and threw it in the trash.  In one of them cans right there.  My wife, Rosie, she was fit to be tied and while she rummaged around in the trash looking for the film I asked Billy, he's the tall one there by the bench, why he did that.  Exasperated, he said to me, ‘Dad, I’m done taking those pictures.’ He was annoyed why I was asking about it.  He told us just taking the pictures was what was important to him.  Not the pictures themselves.  You see he knew to me at that time it was the pictures themselves that were important."

That got our attention.  We’re always interested in anything that promised something new and what he was saying about what was important to each of them seemed to promise that.  I felt I had mischaracterized him. Made invalid assumptions based on how he looked. So I asked, “Then what keeps bringing the three of you back here every year?" I smiled, "It’s a long drive.”

“Well, you see I’m a forester, a freelance one, and I come here to check on this place.  To see how things are changing.  And they are.  No doubt 'bout that.  And I don’t mean the result of them fires up in Yellowstone.  That’s a part of nature.  And good at that.  It’s the other thing that worries me.”

“The ‘other thing?’”

“You know what the scientists have been saying.  I’ll show you what I mean.  Look over there at Mount Moran.  You see that glacier over there?”  We looked across Jackson Lake and nodded.  “Well, when I started trekking out here that glacier was twice the size it is now.  Don’t take me for a tree-hugger.  That I’m not.  But it seems to me that we have this one brief moment."

"I'm not sure I'm following thou," I said.

"For me it’s almost over, my heart’s not been right, but for Billy over there, who’s only twenty-two, I’m worried.  You know, in the past it was religious fanatics and cult leaders who predicted the end of the world was coming.  They even came up with dates for that.  Of course it never happened.  Not yet anyway. But what’s different now is that we have every scientist agreeing that things are not heading in a good direction for us.  So that’s why I keep my eye on that glacier.”

Though understanding, this was not a lesson we had come all this way to hear--we wanted to just take things in--so I changed the subject, “You mentioned that you do forestry work freelance.  I always assumed that guys in your field all worked for the government.”

“Well, that’s true.  Everyone else I went to school with does work for the Forestry Service or some other government agency.  I, though, saw a niche for myself so I’ve been doin' it on my own.”

“How’s that?  How does that work?”

He suddenly turned silent; but since he started this I pressed him New-York style, “You worked for developers or something?”

After a moment he shrugged and said, “Sort of like that.”  I held up to give him a minute.  It was clear that he really didn’t want to talk about this.  But he added, “You’ve driven around this area, right?”

“Yes, just yesterday and today through eastern Washington and then across the panhandle of Idaho to get here.”

“And what did you see?”

“Most of it was amazingly beautiful,” Rona said, “We followed the Clearwater River for more than 200 miles.”

“And?”

We didn’t get where he was going with this so we just looked back at him.  He hitched his pants up over that remarkable belly, “Did you see all those developments closing in?”  We nodded again.

He didn’t answer his own question.  He just stood there staring off at Mount Moran. 

Then he looked around to catch Rosie’s eye, she had been circling us,  “There she is.  I better get going before I catch hell.  Nice talkin’ to you. But one more thing.”


"Yeah?" 


"Like you, Billy just wants to take it one moment at a time. Can't really blame him, considering." He gestured across the lake, "So that's what's going on with him and the camera. He knows what's happening out there and prefers not to make a record of it. What else can I tell you?" He took a deep breath, and from deep within himself said, "There is one last thing before I go."


"What's that?"


"I'm just carrying around this here camera. Haven't taken a picture with it the past three years."   

He laughed and with that was gone.

May 17, 2106--Midcoast: Climate Refugees

A day before heading out, a friend from Maine called to "alert" us to "big changes."

Immediately, this made me anxious. One thing I love about Maine is that it doesn't change very much.

"In what way?" I asked not really wanting to hear what he had to say.

"The weather."

Puzzled, I asked, "You mean black fly season?"

"That never changes. No, I mean the climate."

I really didn't want to talk with him about this. Not for a few days anyway until we are settled in and calmed down. Then I'll be better prepared for his continuing concerns about climate change. It's another one of things that never changes in Maine--his going on and on about the climate.

I know, I know. But time in Maine is supposed to be relatively carefree for us. But, I know.

In spite of myself, with an edge, I asked, "So what is it now?"

"You know about the big forest fires up in Alberta?"

"Sure. But what does that have to do with . . . ?"

"Everything. If you look at the globe. I mean a map of the world in global form, not the flat projections, you'll see that there's a sub-arctic belt of forests that goes all the way from northern Europe and Russia through Canada and then arcs over the northern-most part of Maine."

"And?"

"And that means that as things warm and dry all of these forests are in peril. They could ignite in a global conflagration."

"Now that's a happy picture."

"Have you noticed when you look on the Internet at the Intellicast website, the one I recommended you use when you're up here--I find it to be most accurate--that there have been a lot of weather alerts posted?"

"Yes, for windy conditions and some occasional coastal flooding warnings. When there's a nor'easter."

"There are the usual number of those but then this year for the first time in a long while there have been alerts about the danger of forest fires. When we have these it's more typically later in the summer, not after a winter of snowfall and melt."

"And this year it didn't snow that much. I noticed that."

"I'm not talking about changes in the weather but in the larger climate. That's what has me worried about what's going on in western Canada."

"I can see that." By then he had me fully engaged. Joining in, I said, "I recently read that if the global climate heats up by only four degrees there will be catastrophic consequences. Including, from the map I saw, to the coast of Maine. Hopefully I'll be long dead, but where our house is might become part of the flood plain. At the moment, though, we're right on the coast but because of water levels are not required to have flood insurance."

"At the moment. That says it all. And, I read," my friend continued, "that when this happens, there will be the first big wave of climate refugees. In the northern half of the Western Hemisphere, much of it to northern Canada where up to 100 million are anticipated. Now, the population of Canada is only 30 million."

"I read that too," I said.

"Which brings me back to Maine."

"Because?"

"Because we too should expect millions of refugees from the lower 48 states."

"Are you sensing that already?"

"Maybe a trickle. Young families from south of here who are relocating to farms just in from the coast. There was an article in the local paper about that. About who's moving here and for what reasons. Quite a few apparently for climate-change reasons."

"So what are you recommending?" I was finding this depressing and wanted to get back to packing up.

"Learn to grow beans, put in a few hundred gallons of water, get a gun, and make sure you have lots of ammo."

"That's it?"

"Well, you asked."

October 28, 2015--Fahrenheit 120

"Did you see the piece in the New York Times about a study that concludes that by the year 2100, only eighty-five years from now, areas of the Persian Gulf will be so hot and humid that being outdoors for just a few hours for most people would be deadly?"

Jeff, who mentioned this, is a sober citizen, not prone to being an alarmist. He not a Prepper waiting for a natural apocalypse with a basement full of dried beans, bottled water, and gold coins.

"The study is by a couple of real experts, one from MIT, the other from Loyola Marymount in LA."

"I'm far from an authority on the subject," I said, "But the last I heard we wouldn't get to that dangerous point for another 200 years. Not that that's comforting, though thankfully I'll be long gone. Even Rona as well."

"Please leave me out of this doom and gloom talk," she said, "I'm just trying to get through the days."

"They claim that the deadly weather is largely caused by climate change and that humans are making it worse by the way we live and consume energy."

"If I'm right about recalling the 200 year timetable, why are they now saying we have only 85 years?"

"Though temperatures will routinely hit, 120, it will be life threatening primarily because of the accelerating rise in humidity around the Gulf. That's a new perception. Everyone has been focusing on temperature. The elevated humidity won't allow perspiration to evaporate and thus our bodies will not be able to cool themselves. This will put a deadly strain on the heart and . . ."

"Spare me, please," Rona said, cutting us off, "If you don't mind, pass me the Portland paper. They have a decent gossip column. Not Page Six, but still pretty good."

"I think we're focusing on the wrong thing," Jeff pushed ahead.

"Meaning?"

"That the Earth's problem is only secondarily about our use of fossil fuels. The real problem is population growth."

"Go on. I think I agree with you."

"Is the Earth really bountiful enough for the current seven billion people? Not only do we have a carbon problem but because of the size of the population we also have a water problem, a protein problem, a habitation problem, an ecological problem, an assets problem, a crime and terrorism problem. I could go on. But my point remains--we're focused on the wrong thing. Our use of energy is a big problem, don't get me wrong, but it pales in comparison to the population problem."

Rona remained buried in the paper.

"If you think political people here are unwilling to confront the science that proves human contributions to climate change, imagine the kind of discussion, non-discussions, we'd have about population control--contraception, abortion, family planning, limiting the number of children permitted. All very hot-button social issues."

"As you know, it's not my inclination to be pessimistic," Jeff raced on, "but it's hard to remain optimistic when faced with all these global issues."

"A year or so ago," I said, "I wrote a piece about population, trying to make a version of the same point. Anecdotally, I mentioned how during my lifetime the population of the United States nearly tripled, up from about 125 million to about 330 million now."

"That's because you're 200 years old," Rona muttered without looking up.

"That's a powerful point," Jeff said, "What would happen if our population tripled again during the next 50-60  years? To about a billion? Forget for the moment the rest of the world. Do you think we could handle a billion people? My guess is we would have some of the same problems as much of Africa, India--totally polluted--and China--even worse."

"And then you're saying there's the Persian Gulf."

Rona looked up at us, "Let me read you this thing about the Kardashians. They're unbelievable."

Before I could say anything, Jeff said, " Please do. I need a little escape."

"Well, it says here that Khloe . . ."

October 24, 2014--Midcoast: Just Talk

After a complicated breakfast with Jim, during which a nuanced and balanced conversation about affirmative action and same-sex relationships descended into indiscriminate Obama bashing (Jim whispered conspiratorially as we were leaving, after I confessed disappointment in Barack Obama's presidency, "Don't you agree that he's working to bring down America?") over anniversary dinner later in the evening with other friends, we got to talking about how in small towns such as this one, where people depend upon, even need each other to get through life's perils, we generally find ways to disagree and often those with whom we have the sharpest disputes are the very ones we call on when things are most urgent; and, if we are honest about that and, more important about ourselves, we discover that our differences almost always amount to just words.

They amount to just words because, in truth, most of us are not actively or directly engaged in working to bring about social or political change (no matter its ideological direction or content) and are not that active in fraternal or civic organizations. Rather we talk. Talk passionately about things we believe in while remaining relatively unengaged.

Is this too cynical a view?

In some ways yes. In other cases maybe not. Like so much here this too can be complicated.

It is not cynical when it comes to holding accountable many of my fellow liberals (me as well) who are especially adept at the talking while this cynical view is unfair for many of those of more conservative persuasion who tend to be more actively and directly involved in the life of the community.

They are more likely to be volunteer firemen or, as a member of the EMS squad, are the ones likely to come in the middle of a stormy night to race us to the local ER. Or active on the Town Board. Or lead discussions about why source separation of trash is important--not necessary as liberals would have it to preserve the environment but because the Town can make money selling recyclables and thereby lower taxes.

About that, Rona wondered out loud if our environmentalist-minded friend, Peggy (to pick on her), back in New York City recycles as much or as assiduously as Jim in Bristol, Maine.

"No way," I said, agitated by my awareness of Peggy's hypocrisy as well as mine.

Jim, who is 81, is active on the local school board even though his youngest is in her thirties. "I have grandchildren, you know," he shrugs as if that explains it all.

And though he's not so sure about including a lot about climate change in Earth Science or referring too much to Evolution in Biology, he's out there in the middle of winter determined not to miss even one meeting while I talk, talk, talk about how we can't ignore the lessons of science, not only if we want to try to repair our planet but also to prepare our youngsters to be competitive in the global world of the 21st century. And though the signboard by the school I drive by at least twice a day says "All Are Welcome" to board meetings I haven't made it to one yet though every year I intend to make them all.

When I confess this to him, to help alleviate my guilt, he reminds me that I was an educator for more than 40 years and I do write and publish my views on schooling. That I've "paid my dues," and--

"But," I say before he can finish making excuses for me, "Yes, but still . . . I know. . . Maybe next . . .

He smiles to let me off the hook but . . .

Bottom line--a lot of things seem to work better here because at the most fundamental level we all know it is our relating and caring for each other that counts more than the talk, which in spite of various forms of inflation, is still cheap.

May 14, 2014--Marco Rubio in 2016

According to a string of recent reports in the New York Times about climate change--

A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun to fall apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported. . . . If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries. 

These latest findings by NASA and other earth scientists appeared in Science magazine and Geophysical Research Letters.

When confronted with this evidence, Senator Marco Rubio, an almost-announced candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said he does not "believe" this to be true, that he disagrees with the science, and most important to his political aspirations, does not "believe" that humans are responsible for climate change. To him and most other conservatives, climate is always changing. Thus, there is nothing new happening or to be concerned about.

This from a senator who represents Florida, half of which will disappear under water in coming decades.

I put "believe" in quotes not only because that is the word Rubio used repeatedly during a series of TV interviews on Sunday, but because it represents the heart of the political part of the problem--progressives cite scientific evidence when they argue that humans are in fact contributing to global warming while conservatives base their case on belief.

Rubio over and over again claimed that the science is either flawed or ideologically based. And just as often said he didn't "believe" it.

In his words--

I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. And I do not believe that the laws that they propose will do anything about it.

He did not cite any evidence that what we are seeing is a totally natural phenomenon and, irresponsibly, was not challenged by any of his interviewers to do so. He was simply allowed to get away with critiquing the scientific evidence without citing any contrary scientific evidence.

He did not cite even one study when making his case. I suppose if he knew enough to do so his anti-science Tea Party supporters would feel he had somehow gone over to the other side by citing even flawed science. Any science at all. They don't believe in science.

Nor was he asked, "What if you're wrong? How will you be able to look your grandchildren in the eye when later in the century their houses in south Florida will be literally underwater? When they ask you what you were doing when there was still time to do something?"

I suppose Senator Rubio, or Vice President Rubio, will say he still doesn't believe its happening.

May 23, 2013--Malthus

On our way north from Florida Rona suggested we drive up the Delmarva Peninsula. Along Chesapeake Bay. The last time we did was more than 25 years ago and it was interesting and beautiful.

"I remember that," I said, "Rural fishing villages and ancient farmlands. It was enchanted. A place that time seemed to forget."

But when only a few miles north of the 20-mile bridge from Norfolk, we encountered a seamless string of shopping plazas where there were more Pizza Huts and Dunkin' Donuts than farms and rolling pastures.

"What happened?" I sighed, "Are all these condos second-homes for folks who work acrooss the Bay in Washington?"

"Probably," Rona said, upset that she had recommend this now spoiled route. "I know Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have homes here."

Later, when checking with friends who live and work in DC, they confirmed that many of the ticky-tacky houses were indeed vacation or retirement homes, but most were for the increased population of the Peninsula.

This got me thinking more generally about the growth in population, something surprisingly not all that much discussed when we talk about global issues, very much including climate change.

Some quick research revealed that the population in the U.S. grew from 130 million the year I was born to 316 million now, an increase of 240 percent. And the population of the world during that same time grew from 2.3 billion to about 7.0 billion, a staggering increase of 329 percent.

This does not bode well for the planet. or humans. If the rate of growth continues for another 50-60 years we will see another doubling in the size of the population. That is unless a series of health, war, or environmental catastrophes intercede.

From recent reports that the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air now exceeds 400 parts per million--the first time this has been true in nearly 3.0 million years (well before humans evolved) a generally-agreed dangerous level--it may be that we are approaching a point of no return. There may be no turning back from the combination of high population growth and, due to economic development, the concomitant use of carbon and fossil fuel. Unless we change our behavior, together they will continue to shape a doomsday scenario.

The sustainability of exponential population growth was very much a part of late 18th century discourse. At the same time that Enlightenment thinkers such as William Godwin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were proclaiming that human progress was limitless, there were others arguing that this was a false notion, that because resources were not infinite, human progress would inevitably be constrained as population grew to the point where it outstripped our very finite resources.

Best known was the Reverend Robert Malthus who proclaimed the Iron Law of Population, which could be summarized from something he wrote in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population--

"The increase in population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence."

Malthus' Malthusian jeremiad was quickly pushed aside as the Industrial Revolution produced such a wealth of goods and services that it did look as if progress was boundless.

But now we know the Iron Law is more true than false; and, as part of the mix, as we struggle with climate and sustainability issues, should be population concerns. It is hard to imagine anyone making a convincing case that the Earth is capable of supporting a global population of 10 to 15 billion. But during the remainder of this century that is where we are in fact headed. If this were to occur, the consequences will not be pretty.