Congress has been considering changing mortgage banking, reducing the role of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, the two federal superbanks that have been insuring and buying our mortgages for decades. Actually, the government should stop encouraging the suburbanization of America. Read the rest of this entry »
I just got back from Chicago where I attended a national meeting of political scientists. One of them described at length the local, national and international barriers to doing anything about climate change. His basic point was that those whose livelihood seemed to depend on activities that are bringing on climate change are strategically placed to prevent the rest of us from doing anything. His point is that to make anything happen it would be necessary to make people come to think about what they are doing as wrong in the teeth of evidence that it is good for them in their own lifetimes. That also makes them totally resistant to the idea that climate change is happening, that human activity is a substantial cause of the change, that it will do any damage and that it is worth dealing with. Ouch for the rest of us.
Then I attended a meeting where the speaker described the change of ideas. He regarded those changes as inexplicable. For most of human history war had been considered noble, a good thing, that made people stronger and better. Then just before World War I, that started to change. After that war, no one makes claims about the generic benefit of war – war has become an occasionally necessary evil, but not a good thing. And for most of human history, people had slaves. Those that could would. Slaves and slavery were valued. It made you a big shot, and made your life easier. Then suddenly in the eighteenth century it changed dramatically in Europe. England began to block the slave trade and shortly it was banned in Latin America, the serfs were freed in Russia, and only the U.S. clung to slavery of the modern nation states.
In the speaker’s description, both ideas turned in reaction to novels that separately described war and slavery as disgusting, as indeed they are. In regard to war, the novel described the scene of rotting and dismembered corpses on a battlefield. In the case of slavery, another novel described the brutality of the way slaves were treated. Both of course were accurate. The facts, however, were not new. What was new was disgust.
I’m no novelist but global warming is disgusting. Global warming is an extinction of ourselves. We and our children and children’s children will be strewn on nature’s battlefield gasping for water and air, our bellies distended for lack of food, our homes lost to the elements, our skin alternately burned and frozen, unable to protect our children, wives, husbands or parents, indeed some will become too desperate to care. Global warming will take everything from us that makes us human. It has been doing that piecemeal in the aftermath of storms that have left people totally destitute in parts of the world. It will exceed our capacity to put people back on their feet as the oceans take back the coasts. It will poison us, as a warming climate spreads diseases for which we have no defenses, leaving us to rot from diseases few of us have seen and none of us care to see except as the noblest of doctors and nurses. It will extinguish our food supplies and it is attacking the supply of the air we breathe.
Global warming is disgusting. Pass it on.
— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, April 8, 2014.
I don’t think of myself as a motivational speaker. I try to explain, and hope my commentaries provide helpful explanations. But this time, I want to challenge and motivate everyone to take strong action on the environmental catastrophe facing us.
We know burning gas, oil, coal and wood release carbon and help produce global warming. Some of that carbon acidifies the oceans when it’s absorbed. Air and water contamination destroy our food supplies, by destroying habitat and causing draught, among other ways. That destroys us. Global warming and ocean acidification threaten the oxygen we breathe. They threaten to sicken us with new diseases. The science is now well known.
Law generally defines murder as an intentional killing. And we infer that people intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions. And we know. Aren’t those of us who stand by guilty of mass murder-suicide, intending the natural and probable consequence of our use of carbon fuels, the death of many, perhaps billions, of human beings. Isn’t it reckless indifference to human life to fire global warming into this crowded planet. Read the rest of this entry »