The Natural Patriot

Golden sunlight, that is.

I have been wondering how long it would take for this to happen.  An area the size of the United States, virtually barren of people, useless for agriculture or, seemingly, anything else.  But with one, previously unappreciated asset: year-round, blazing sunshine.

So while our leaders in this country, acting and prospective, are beginning to recognize that perhaps cranking up more coal plants is not the ideal solution to our energy needs in a changing world, the Europeans are characteristically out ahead and thinking creatively about the future.  And the future could be bright, so to speak.  From Nature News reports that the power needs of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa could be met by an ambitious idea to network renewable energies across the region, centered on a massive solar energy collection system in the Sahara:

“The cornerstone of the plan, developed by a group of scientists, economists and businessmen, involves peppering the Sahara Desert with solar thermal power plants, then transmitting the electricity through massive grids . . . The European Union has a binding target to get 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, so the idea is gaining support in some areas. “It makes a lot of sense to profit from the high amount of solar radiation in the deserts,” says Robert Pitz-Paal, head of the solar research department at the German aerospace agency DLR. But with a price tag of almost €400 billion (US$595 billion), it remains to be seen if DESERTEC will be adopted politically.

The DESERTEC scenario foresees a mix of renewable energies, from wind to geothermal to biomass power (see map). But the core is solar thermal power, which uses solar energy stored in a special heat-retaining fluid to drive a turbine and create power. First demonstrated in 1982 with a 10-megawatt plant in California’s Mojave Desert, solar thermal plants can now produce electricity at a cost of about 15-20 eurocents per kilowatt-hour. According to the DLR, further improvements in technology and scale could bring that down to less than 10 eurocents per kilowatt-hour, making it more competitive with coal.”

There are many challenges to this plan, obviously, including getting the cost down to the point of being competitive, relying on countries like Algeria and Libya for energy (isn’t getting out of that neck of the woods another major reason why we want to get away from oil?), and transmitting all that electricity to the distant population centers where it’s needed.  But at least it’s a plan.  And, as I was told more than once in grad school, if it was easy somebody would have done it already.

Flipping through the channels just now, I come upon the latest Republican version of that spectacle we call the presidential “debate”. 

If you cut your teeth on constant kaleidoscopic multimedia and had internet in your kindergarten class, as today’s young voters did, you probably won’t feel the queasy dizziness, as I do, as the winding yellow and blue lines cross the candidates’ faces giving us instantaneous audience reaction to each word of their carefully vetted and memorized comments.  Perhaps the networks are worried that the American citizenry of today, accustomed as we are to the substanceless sound and fury that passes for news, don’t have the patience to just sit down and listen to the candidates without all the bells and whistles.

Admittedly, the squiggling lines are entertaining in a disconcerting sort of way.  They show, for example, that when John McCaine flatly repudiates torture, Republican men’s reaction plummets — the only combat veteran on the stage is not man enough, evidently.  But the blue line perks up right quick when the other armchair warriors get chesty and start cranking up the war-on-terror talking points. Interesting also that Governor Huckabee’s response to a question involving same-sex marriage has a much stronger effect on the women’s reactions than the men’s.  I wouldn’t have predicted that. On the other hand the audience reaction comes from a sample of 12 men and 12 women. Is this representative – who knows?

Then for comic relief there’s Ron Paul, who occupies the Republican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich’s position as court jester in the Democratic camp. At least he riles things up a bit on those occasions when he gets a token crack at the microphone.

But here is the question that was on the screen when I happened to land on the channel, and which caught me:

Do you believe every word of the Bible?

We’ve already seen in a previous debate some of the silliness that this question leads to. Is this really what the American people (or at least the roughly half of the population that is Republican) want to know from the prospective leader of the free world? Is this really what the citizenry considers a critical test of a candidates’s suitabiliy for the job?

We’ve come a long way since 1776, and it’s not necessarily upward on the ladder of (political) evolution.  Do you believe every word of the Bible?  Actually the real issue is the implied question: Are you committed to using the Christian Bible (presumably King James Version since we are talking about individual words here) as your central guiding policy document?

It seems appropriate to turn for guidance on this question (as I have before) to some of the visionary men who actually built this country, wrestled with the profound dilemmas posed by putting democracy into practice in the real world — inluding the religious extremism that threatened democcracy in that age as it does in every age — and successfully created a nation that has weathered 200 years of storms and appears so far to be surviving even the current administration’s sustained and systematic assault on democracy:

Thomas Jefferson:

“Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.”

John Adams:

“There is a germ of religion in human nature so strong that whenever an order of men can persuade the people by flattery or terror that they have salvation at their disposal, there can be no end to fraud, violence, or usurpation.”

Adams again:

“We can never be so certain of any Prophecy; or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle as We are, from the revelation of nature i.e. nature’s God that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or Prophecies might frighten Us out of our Witts; might scare us to death; might induce Us to lie; to say that We believe that 2 and 2 make 5. But We should not believe it. We should know the contrary.”

James Madison:

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial . . . What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

Benjamin Franklin:

“I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments without reflecting on them for those that appeared unsupportable and even absurd.  All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their places of worship; and, as I have never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all.”

These quotes, along with many more and a penetrating analysis of the faith (or lack thereof) of the founding fathers may be found in Brooke Allen’s excellent book, Moral Minority.

But would this crop of candidates be good Natural Patriots? One noteworthy impression from the debate: not a word from any of the candidates about our energy future or the broader environmental crisis that poses the single greatest challenge facing America and the world.  Perhaps not coincidentally, there was a bright flashy commercial advertising . . . coal.  Here’s hoping that that’s what each one of these guys finds in his Christmas stocking from the American voters this year.

To see what the presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle plan to do (or not) about environmental issues, and the record of what they’ve done (or not) in the past, check here. 

We’ve stepped it up.  We’ve watched and discussed An Inconvenient Truth.  We’ve listened intently to the news of the IPCC’s recent Synthesis Report on climate change.  We’ve switched out our light bulbs to compact fluorescents and are doggedly swimming, against the tide, toward phasing out disposable plastic bags. Some of us who can afford them have invested in hybrid cars.  We’ve even written letters to our elected representatives.

What next?  Global warming is a global problem and real solutions will require mass action — political leadership and major policy changes — and soon.  How to keep up the pressure and the momentum?

One answer is Focus the Nation:

“January 31st 2008, Focus the Nation is a national teach-in engaging millions of students and citizens with political leaders and decision makers about Global Warming Solutions.

We stand at a unique moment in human history. Decisions that are ours to make today – to stabilize global warming pollution and invest in clean energy solutions – will have a profound impact not only on our lives and the lives of our children, but indeed for every human being who will ever walk the face of the planet from now until the end of time. At this moment in time, we owe our young people one day of focused discussion about global warming solutions for America

More than just that one day, Focus the Nation: Global Warming Solutions for America is an unprecedented educational initiative, involving over a thousand colleges, universities, high schools, middle schools, faith groups, civic organizations and businesses. Focus the Nation is a catalyzing force helping shift the national conversation about global warming towards a determination to face this civilizational challenge.

A teach-in is a day when an entire school turns its attention to a single issue—when faculty, students and staff put aside business as usual, and focus the full weight of campus engagement on one topic.”

Preparations are now under way for a Focus the Nation teach-in day on 31 January 2008 at The College of William and Mary.  So mark your calendar and stay tuned. Or find an event near you.

Right, I promised something about pumpkin pie, or at least some fare less likely to produce indigestion than the end of the world as we know it (although the conversation during the Thanksgiving holiday with the extended family did, perhaps inevitably, ultimately turn in that direction).

As we all know (or think we know) from grade-school history, the official First Thanksgiving was observed by the English pilgrims, with their Wampanoag neighbors, at Plymouth colony in 1621, for the general purpose of giving their heartfelt thanks that, somewhat aganst the odds, a small fraction of their number had survived the starvation, disease, horrible accidents, and hostile attacks to which colonists of previously unknown but already populated lands in those rustic days were prone at all times.

Of course, giving thanks for surviving another year with enough crops to face the winter has been a cause for celebration since the beginning of time and in probably all cultures, including those of many of the North American Indians, as well as the Spanish and English adventurers, soldiers, and would-be settlers that found their way to this continent in the early days. So it’s not surprising that some argument has arisen about who observed the first “official” Thanksgiving on American soil (implicitly meaning the first one involving Europeans). Partisans from my neck o’ the woods (including our Governor) have been making noise for some time that settlers in Virginia had a Thanksgiving feast even earlier. 

“Historians have also recorded other ceremonies of thanks among European settlers in North America, including British colonists in Berkeley Plantation, Virginia. At this site near the Charles River in December of 1619, a group of British settlers led by Captain John Woodlief knelt in prayer and pledged ‘Thanksgiving’ to God for their healthy arrival after a long voyage across the Atlantic. This event has been acknowledged by some scholars and writers as the official first Thanksgiving among European settlers on record.”

This year, even President Bush himself visited the Berkley Plantation site of this earlier Thanksgiving event and took the opportunty to fan the flames of North-South rivalry over the issue (perhaps trying to win back some cred with the southern voters lost to his party’s downward spiral in recent years). 

Be all that as it may, my interest here is not in the minutiae of who was first, but on how this holiday illustrates our American (and of course, everyone’s throughout the world) intimate dependence on the bounty of Nature. As Edward Winslow wrote in A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, in 1621:

“Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, among other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed upon our governor, and upon the captain, and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakersof our plenty.”

Moreover:

“People tend to think of English food as bland, but, in fact, the pilgrims used many spices, including cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg, pepper, and dried fruit, in sauces for meats . . . Since the pilgrims and Wampanoag Indians had no refrigeration in the seventeenth century, they tended to dry a lot of their foods to preserve them. They dried Indian corn, hams, fish, and herbs.”

There’s a reason for this — the spices over which great wars were waged, fortunes were made and lost, and nations rose and fell in the Old World, served not only the familiar purpose of making food tasty, but also of making it safer, particularly meat.  In general, what we know as spices are the defensive chemical weapons that plants produce to battle the insects, microbes, and other enemies constantly trying to make a meal of them.  When chosen carefully and used in moderation, these chemicals not only taste good but fulfill the same antimicrobial role for us that they did for the plants that fashioned them.  It is not coincidence that strong spices are much more common in the cuisine of more tropical countries where meat spolis quickly than in, say, Norway.  And there is strong circumstantial evidence that the spices most commonly used in cooking are those that have broad antimicrobial effectiveness. 

Interestingly, the menu at that first Thanksgiving almost certainly did not include corn, sweet potatoes, pumpkin pie, ham, or even cranberries, all of which are considered staples of the feast in various parts of the USA today.  Instead, the table was likely laden with Cod, Eel, Clams, Lobster, and even perhaps . . . eagle.

Which brings me, circuitously, to how history has treated the noble creature that has come to serve as the symbol of Thanksgiving, but which some believe might have had a more illustrious career as our nation’s symbol. Alas, here we encounter another appealing but apocryphal piece of Americana.  That great polymath scientist, inventor, keen observer of Nature (like many of the other Founding Fathers) and wit Ben Franklin did indeed extoll the turkey’s virtues relative to those of the bald eagle. But contrary to legend, this did not produce a debate about which of these birds should become the national symbol.  The truth appears more prosaic — ol’ Ben discussed this idea only privately in a letter to his daughter:

“For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.

“With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping & Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country . . .

“I am on this account not displeased that the Figure [the eagle adorning the recently adopted Great Seal of the USA] is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America . . . He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.”

The rest, as they say, is history.

Life sure seems hard these days.  Yes, I know, in the material sense it could hardly be better for Americans like me, and it’s obscene to complain when so many people worldwide are barely surviving.  The hardness comes instead from what might be called the curse of knowledge, the curse of beginning to see with alarming clarity the debt that this prosperity has generated, and the realization that it’s coming due.  IPCC reports, statistics on deforestation and biodiversity loss, and so on.  What certain right-wingers like to refer to as “the litany”, seemingly thinking that a contemptuous tone of voice can magically make the litany go away.

When I was a kid I would sometimes daydream about what it would be like to know the future–how cool would that be, but then . . . would you want to know what fate awaits you?  Would the burden be too much to carry?  How would you go about your life if you knew in advance the exact day of your death? 

This, it strikes me, is not far from our situation at the beginning of the new millennium, with our dawning understanding of the irrevocable mess we’ve made for ourselves on this planet.  The dawning sense that the planet itself has become synonymous with the scale of our activities, from the sublime to the hideous.  Now we really can see the future, admittedly within broad confidence limits, but the picture is growing ever clearer and harder to ignore. Even the professional diplomats at the UN, infamous for the infinitely dilute pronouncements that emerge from consensus-building among representatives from hundreds of nations, are sounding really alarmed (from the NY Times):

“Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, describing climate change as ‘the defining challenge of our age,’ [said] ‘Today the world’s scientists have spoken, clearly and in one voice . . . In Bali, I expect the world’s policymakers to do the same . . . The breakthrough needed in Bali is for a comprehensive climate change deal that all nations can embrace.’

‘The sense of urgency when you put these pieces together is new and striking,’ said Martin Parry, a British climate expert who was co-chairman of the delegation that wrote the second report. ‘I’ve come out of this process more pessimistic about the possibilities than I thought I would.’  The panel, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last month, said the world would have to reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 to prevent serious climate disruptions.  ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,’ said Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC. ‘What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.’”

The curse of knowledge is as old as humanity itself.  I’m reminded of the ancient story of primal man taking that fateful bite of apple from what is sometimes referred to as the tree of knowledge. After which humanity was symbolically booted from the garden of earthly delights. Of course, the main moral of that story was about the danger of getting too big for your britches, and the importance of maintaining the appropriate humility in the grand scheme of things (a worthwhile moral of our present predicament, for that matter).  Nevertheless, the effect of having surreptitiously taken that bite – of taking on the role of god — was very much the same as our present predicament, the loss of innocence and the exile to a less perfect world, where we will have to make our way as best we can.

I wasn’t particularly interested in climate change even a year or so ago, and certainly never intended for it to become a theme of this blog – being depressing is surely not the way to attract readers.  But the devil, as the old saying goes, fools with the best-laid plans. As difficult as it is to face the emerging picture of our future, it’s even more difficult to ignore it without entering a fantasy land.  Yet it’s hard to shake the feeling that this latter option is precisely what the vast majority of humanity is doing.  As Ian Jack of the Guardian writes:

“I suppose we are in that state called denial, though that word suggests a refusal to acknowledge what Hulme wants us to stop calling a looming catastrophe. But a catastrophe is what it is, and our behaviour may be a reaction to that knowledge rather an avoidance of it; we may, in fact, be full and overflowing with acknowledgment. Future historians, should they exist, will surely look back on our time and see in its manic excesses the evidence of a society gathering its rosebuds while it may. At a conference on climate change last year I heard someone say that the fear of global warming was like the fear of death: always there but impossible to dwell on.”

Indeed. I’ve often felt that facing the emerging environmental future is a lot like walking up to the edge of a precipitous cliff.  It’s frightening enough to make you dizzy.  One has to recognize that it’s there, lest you stray off into the void.  Yet you simply can’t look straight at it for long.  And of course that inability to face the threats is precisely the problem that seems likely to ensure that they will arrive. 

Wow, that was depressing, It ought to kill my blog stats once and for all.  Right, now that I’ve got that off my chest, I pledge to turn to something lighter and happier next.  For my own sanity if nothing else.  Perhaps pumpkin pie.  There is, after all, a big wide world full of things to be thankful for, when one looks beyond the shadows.  And I don’t think it’s pathologically optimistic to believe that there will still be an amazing world to stoke our sense of wonder in centuries to come.  But it seems increasingly certain that it will be a world we would scarcely recognize. 

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Yesterday, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Fourth, and most authoritative, Synthesis Report on the scientific consensus on global climate change and strategies for mitigating its impacts. The 23-page summary is well worth reading, particularly for the much stronger confidence expressed in fingering human activities for causing a range of climate changes, compared with earlier IPCC reports.

What does it mean locally? In a meeting organized by the National Environmental Trust, Jay Taylor of Wetlands Watch and I met yesterday with reporters at the Norfolk Farm Market to discuss what the IPCC Report means for us locally in the Hampton Roads region.  The question is a timely one since this region is home to roughly a million and a half people, the world’s largest naval base, and one of the eastern USA’s largest industrial ports.  And much of that population and infrastructure are situated on very low-lying land.  And — adding insult to the injury of rising global sea levels — the land in the Hampton Roads area is gradually sinking. So we get the double whammy.

The story in the Daily Press, “Experts speak on climate change“, by Austin Bogues was well done and generally captures the gist of the comments Jay and I made. I might have emphasized some of our other points, but hey - these reporters are working on deadline and have limited space to work with.

The story in the Virginian Pilot I can only describe as surreal.  On the last page of the Hampton Roads section, our discussion of climate change impacts were tacked into the last few paragraphs of a story on the reopening of the local skating rink (”Rink reopens for season 3“).  No, I am not making this up.

Now, I understand that these are regional newspapers that have to focus on issues of local interest (hence the front-page leader about . . . an inspirational cancer survivor).  And that there has been a lot of news on climate change lately, which tends to saturate readers’ short attention spans, accustomed as we have become to rapid-fire stimulation by more exciting news like the travails of Britney and her kids and hairstyle. And, to be fair, the Daily Press did carry the AP wire story on the release of the IPCC report, on page A22 (though it’s not in the online version of the Daily Press, you can find the AP story elsewhere).

Still.

We are talking here about, literally, the future of planet earth.  As the NY Times reported:

“Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gases had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster, which could leave island nations submerged and abandoned, reduce African crop yields by 50 percent, and cause a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product . . . ‘If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,’ said Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC. ‘What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.’”

The next two or three years. So I can’t help being struck by the irony of the American media’s choice of subject matter.  And please do not interpret this as sour grapes.  I honestly don’t care where or even if my personal comments show up in the paper. I do care deeply about the future of my home and the larger world.  That future, clearly, is in real danger.  And we don’t have time to screw around waiting for it. That is the real message of the IPCC report.

I suppose I shouldn’t overlook the bright side, however.  Even in this reliably red state, most newspapers evidently no longer feel it is necessary to scrounge up a professional skeptic to provide some “balance” on the controversial topic of climate change. It appears, as Nancy Pelosi flatly stated when she took the helm of the House, that “that debate is over.”  The news is now about what we can expect locally, evidently accepting that the change is coming, although it may take some effort to drive home the IPCC’s latest message that change is coming much faster than previously estimated. 

Now, if we can just get people’s attention.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is basking in the glory of sharing the Nobel Prize with Al Gore for their “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”.  Rolling along on that momentum, the IPCC will release its fourth Synthesis Report on climate change this coming Saturday 17 November.  A preview of the report’s contents is outlined here. 

But what does this mean to us regular folks locally?  Here in my neck of the woods, the release will be publicized at an event hosted by the National Environmental Trust:

Saturday 17 November
11:00 AM
Farmer’s Market, Norfolk
(MacArthur Center, Monticello Ave & Freemason St)

The event will raise awareness of the major findings and implications of the new report, and ask citizens to sit down at the table and write their elected officials requesting action.  I’ll be there to offer a few words on what science has to say about the local consequences of climate change, that is, the projected consequences of climate change on the ground (and in the water) here in the Tidewater region of Virginia (see, for example, here). 

The most exciting recent development is that, for the first time, the political climate (if you’ll pardon the pun) appears actually to be favorable for real, substantive legislation at the national level.  I’m proud to say that Virginia’s senior Senator, John Warner, has emerged as one of the leading congressional advocates of real action to curb climate change.  He has introduced, with co-sponsorship by Senator Joe Liebermann of Connecticut and a diverse bipartisan group of Senators, ”America’s Climate Security Act“, which has now survived passage through subcommittee and broken through to hearings in the full Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

The last IPCC Synthesis Report for policymakers (the Third Assessment Report) came out in 2001 and a lot has happened since. The scientific evidence for human-induced climate change is much stronger. Skeptics are steadily becoming an endangered species – although we will undoubtedly hear a lot from them, perhaps (one can only hope) their last gasps, as the new Synthesis report is released and makes the rounds in advance of the meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) in Bali, Indonesia in December.  The USA will be sending two delegations to the Bali conference, one from the Bush administration and one from Congressional Democrats, with predictably mixed messages.  In the words of Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Executive Secretary:

 “The Bali conference will be the culmination of a momentous twelve months in the climate debate and needs a breakthrough in the form of a roadmap for a future climate change deal. Early in the year, scientific evidence of global warming, as set out in the fourth assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), put the reality of human-induced global warming beyond any doubt. What we are facing is not only an environmental problem, but has much wider implications: For economic growth, water and food security, and for people’s survival - especially those living in the poorest communities in developing countries. The recent joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC for its work in disseminating knowledge on climate change further underlines the implications for overall peace and security.”

For general background, the BBC has compiled 10 of the arguments most often made against the IPCC consensus, and some of the counter-arguments made by scientists who agree with the IPCC.  See that piece here.