Are We Ready for the Next Step in the Evolution Toward (Or Away From) Eco-Consciousness?

Are We Ready for the Next Step in the Evolution Toward (Or Away From) Eco-Consciousness?I had a funny little experience the other day that I thought I’d share.

I was pushing my shopping cart though our local Trader Joe’s, an American grocery store chain known for its high quality, low prices, and a reasonable attempt to offer wholesome, nutritious foods, when I noticed an attractive woman in her early 30s with her daughter, perhaps four, in front of me.  I started to pass around them when the woman ran into a friend and had begun what I could see was to be a brief hello, but I noticed that the girl, instantly bored, had immediately pulled a plastic bag intended for fruits and vegetables off the dispenser and began to play with it.  In a second or so, the bag was open and on top of her head and a moment later had covered an ear.  Recognizing this as a safety issue, I stopped and watched, waiting for the situation to either subside or escalate into something that required intervention.  Almost immediately after that point, however, the woman turned around, saw what her daughter was doing, and said, “Oh no, sweetie, don’t play with bags like that; it’s dangerous.”  Then she looked up at me, as she noticed that I had involved myself here.  She saw that I was visibly happy with the way the situation had played itself out.  She began, “You were ready to…”

I smiled in return, “Yes.  In the one-out-of-a-billion chance that you had not said what you did, I was ready to use those exact words.” She nodded warmly, and we went our separate ways.

Yes, I was ready.  But I’m not at all ready with a plan in mind if Ted Cruz becomes the U.S. president in 2016. The list of horrors is endless, and the consequences are unimaginable.

In combination with our Congress, a President Cruz would make sure we say goodbye to half a century of progress in terms of the environment.  At a minimum, these people would disembowel the EPA and all other powers of the federal government vis-a-vis environmental protection, all supposedly based on the new president’s most sincere, honest-to-God interpretation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  And he’s got a point: the Founding Fathers didn’t contemplate a global catastrophe in the making that would militate towards empowering the federal government to put regulations on pollutants.

Cruz’s position, based on this bizarre reading of the Constitution: remove all powers of the U.S. government to safeguard its people against climate change, ocean acidification, lung disease, loss of biodiversity, etc.  Yes, this will mean doing whatever the oil companies want and losing step with the rest of the world with respect to taking any effort whatsoever in terms of environmental protection.

It takes real work on the listener’s part to infer this from the way Cruz speaks and what comes out of his mouth, but the guy, in fact, is very well educated on constitutional matters.  (Earlier in his life, he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.)  Now, he proposes to use his schooling and background to remove the U.S. from any position of importance in the defining issue of our generation.

I was prepared to have a serious but loving talk with a four-year-old, but, sorry to say under this circumstance, I’ll be helpless to manage my homeland, one of the world’s super-powers, from running amok.

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
13 comments on “Are We Ready for the Next Step in the Evolution Toward (Or Away From) Eco-Consciousness?
  1. Clark Zivojnovich says:

    It would be a great improvement in the dialog if people started using the proper term to describe the current and ever increasing environmental issues we are facing. It is not Climate Change, but Climate Disruption!

    • I go back and forth on this. Yes, technically, it’s correct that what we are experiencing is more precisely described as “climate disruption,” but I’m not convinced that we need to popularize a new term. People who legitimately concern themselves with this know that all these terms (including AGW) are essentially equivalent.

      • Les Blevins says:

        Keep pondering the big issues people. I like that. Those who can ponder the big issues and go back and forth as they reflect thoughtfully and appear to be deep thinkers while holding a finger to the chin are probably about as valuable in the overall scheme of things as apples in a basket, which I also like to see. All together now,, lets all say “duh” together on the count of three. One,, two,,,

      • Ben Wheeler says:

        Don’t do it! Change the name (again) and you just give the deniers another topic to harp about. “AHA! You started out with ‘global warming’, we had a cold winter so NOW you call it ‘climate change’ and now you are switching to ‘disruption’!” Don’t give them another diversion.

      • marcopolo says:

        Craig,

        The English language has always been designed to communicate “propaganda” in its most obvious and subtle forms. That’s the nature of all human communication, especially from major trading civilizations.

        Self-interest, is always at the heart of human communication. Even communication which may seem altruistic, is at heart motivated by some psychological need.

        Global Warming, climate change, climate disruption, etc, are all terms employed to more effectively describe particular viewpoints.

        The most ardent advocates of these terms, usually have very little knowledge of the science behind the phenomena of ” Climate Change ” , and less interest. Their passion stems from a frustrated desire to perpetrate a different philosophy for human civilization. The frustration is evident, when like most ideologues they can’t understand why the majority of people reject their philosophy, opting instead for everything these advocates despise.

        It’s only natural, that when those who see themselves as the moral and intellectual guardians of social progress, find their ideas rejected, seek to clad themselves in the robes of more popular movements.

        Thus, the old conservation, or environmental movement found itself Hi-jacked and transformed, into a giant political “watermelon” ! An illusion of skin deep ‘Green ‘ , but under the outer pretense, light pink getting darker, until at the core is the old deep red !

        The actual science behind “climate change”, has become lost in a cacophony of self-interest and distortion. A vast industry has emerged, mostly funded by taxpayers, to create a new social movement, with semi-religious overtones. Rationality, has largely disappeared, replaced by a cornucopia of public finding for a new environmental industry based on an illusion.

        This is not to say that their is no real science, or rationality in the scientific community about “bio-sphere climatic research”, rather that it has been drowned out by the huge industry that has arisen, motivated by political or ideological self-interest.

        Civilization, always become politically divided between those who think that individuals need to be ” controlled for their own good “, and those who feel that individual members of society should be free to succeed or fail, and live life according to their own standards.

        Climate skeptics rightly observe that the remedies to effects of “climate change”, often resemble the old joke about the man who is asked :

        ” why are you wearing a tin foil hat” ? The man replies ” To repel an alien invasion ” ! When informed ” but there are no aliens !”, the man smugly replies, (and with irrefutable logic) “see how effective is my hat ” !!

        Humans are by nature creative and inventive. New technologies continually arise as a result of self-interest and need. Not all are beneficial, but each gathers its share of ardent advocates, until competition renders some technologies obsolete, and the advocates move on to the next passionate enthusiasm.

        It’s always been difficult for humans to separate folly from wisdom, possibly because in each folly there is some wisdom, and sometimes what seems like wisdom, results in the worst folly.

        I certainly don’t agree with many of the political positions adopted by Ted Cruz, including that the US constitution should always be interpreted as according to will of the “founding Fathers”. However, Ted Cruz is only expressing a viewpoint held by many Americans, that in the recent years, especially with the rise of social media, the US Federal government has been usurping many of the rights and privileges of the States, to change society.

        Ted Cruz and his supporters, agree with some validity, that this development has seen an increasing tend by small, but powerful, elites, dominate the Federal politics. Ted Cruz would argue that the voice of smaller local communities, and citizens, are being lost in a world of increasingly forced homogenization.

        Ted Cruz voices the opinion of many when he argues that individual rights, the right of smaller states, and communities, are being sacrificed in the name of ” a global catastrophe ” prophesied by ideologues.

        He, and his supporters, may be completely wrong ! But, then again, every “fascist” or totalitarian, has always claimed an “impending disaster” , to justify the usurping of power, for “the public good” .

        Despite your fears, a President Cruz, would find himself unable to resist the genuine need for federal agencies to co-ordinate and regulate the efforts by states and local authorities to establish and enforce environmental programs. That’s the fundamental basis of the US Constitution, to establish a federal system to act in the “united’ interested of the States.

        A Cruz administration may not be as activist as you would like, but it not be able to demolish 50 years of environmental policy either.

        • Re: your point that self-interest is behind every action, and that altruistic deeds fill psychological needs: this is hard to dispute. When I do something good, it most certainly makes me feel good. Thus the underlying reason that explains why I do something good isn’t straightforward. Another line of attack on altruism that is that some people’s brains are simply wired so as to push them in the direction of self-sacrifice and philanthropy; in that way, they’re no more morally praise-worthy than great baseball players or artists or chess masters.

          Personally, I don’t find either of these arguments too compelling.

  2. Les Blevins says:

    I prefer the term “human induced climate disruption” to put the more accurate moniker on it. Another case of climate disruption we know about happened several times in the past when volcanoes did the deed and people had no hand in it.

  3. Les Blevins says:

    Still I see plenty of people willing to comment on this blog but it seems to me that no one is as willing and prepared to empower humanity to roll back our pumping far too much carbon into the atmosphere all around the world as I am.

    Here is a notice I’ve posted on Facebook and elsewhere.

    STRATEGIC ALLIANCE OR INVESTMENT NEEDED FOR NOVEL NEW CONCEPT REPOWERING TECH ONLY SIX MONTHS TO ONE YEAR FROM MARKET ENTRY.

    Advanced Alternative Energy Corp. (AAEC) has developed technology designed to allow towns, cities and even counties to convert nearly completely to renewable energy. AAEC is for those who understand that distributed alternative/renewable energy derived from coal, solar, wind, biomass and waste is a viable pathway to stall global warming and produce a better future for our descendants, and for our communities and for humanity. AAEC offers a viable way to move beyond talking about climate change and controlling it. Fossil Fuel firms and utilities oppose what AAEC offers and want to maintain their monopoly positions as sole energy providers and pass unlimited costs in cleaning up their operations to their customers, even if better options are available.
    AAEC has invented, patented, tested and further developed a new concept low-carbon energy technology we’ve designed for serving as the core technology for far cleaner renewable energy production systems and energy efficiency improvements across the North American landscape and around the world. AAEC’s novel new concept technology consists of a biomass, fossil fuel, and municipal waste combustion, gasification and pyrolysis conversion technology that can provide scalable heat and power requirements as well as both biofuel and biochar production for stand-alone use or as backup for alternative energy systems that depend on solar, wind or other intermittent sources of energy, and in this way it will help enable a doubling of the deployment of alternative energy projects around the world in coming decades.

    AAEC management believes we will do better and be safer in the long run if we can deploy a practical way to power all societies on extraction of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted into earth’s atmosphere while also reducing ongoing greenhouse emissions and begin protecting our communities and electric power grids. We are claiming to be the inventor of one of the “tools” needed to enable humanity to overhaul the power delivery system, in the USA and elsewhere, and help get us out of the box fossil fuels and governmental inaction have humanity boxed up in. We propose to do this through deployment of advanced alternative energy projects at the village, community and county scale, and because good paying infrastructure jobs are also needed. Thus AAEC is seeking support from all that may care to support this project.

    AAEC’s product lines can be manufactured in the US and in most any locality on any continent for the local and regional market. This we believe will create licensing opportunities and many thousands of good paying jobs, and these are among the things we are offering to an alternative energy hungry world. For further details please contact:

    Les Blevins, President Advanced Alternative Energy
    1207 N 1800 Rd., Lawrence, KS 66049
    Phone 785-842-1943 – Email LBlevins@aaecorp.com
    For more info see
    http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html
    http://advancedalternativeenergycorp.com
    https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=45587557&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advanced-Alternative-Energy/277213435730720
    http://buildings.ideascale.com/a/dtd/SCALABLE-MIXED-WASTE-TO-ENERGY-CONVERSION-TECHNOLOGY/84117-33602

  4. If he is elected, it may not be a complete loss. He is so radical that if he is elected and the people see the resulting damage or attempt to cause damage, they may be inoculated against his positions and we will not have to be concerned about people like him for a long time. Sometimes it takes a catastrophe to awaken people.

    It is not only environmental matters on which he would be a disaster if he actually succeeded in doing what he wants to do. His attitude on civil rights and economic matters, if actually implemented, would set us back to the late 1800s when the Robber Barons and Jim Crow ruled.

  5. Les Blevins says:

    Frank I think it usually takes a catastrophe to awaken the people, especially the American people. Winston Churchill said you can count on the Americans to do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else. (or words to that effect)

    I felt about George W. like you do about Cruz. I thought the Republicans were smart enough not to nominate him (being a known party boy and slacker who was born with a silver foot in his mouth) but I was wrong, then came the economic catastrophe during the final year of his last term brought about by two unfunded wars abroad we put on the U.S. credit card.

  6. Les Blevins says:

    Craig’s so called “biomass expert” apparently doesn’t see any benefit to my new technology concept of the multi-fuel & multi-process capable fuels conversion system that can do most anything we might need just like the so called “experts of their day who said the automobile will never amount to anything more than a rich man’s toy because there were really no roads outside of cities fit for cross country auto travel and few filling stations where one could get gasoline in 1905.

  7. breathonthewind says:

    From the title and the teaser I anticipated an entirely different type of article. One that might be closer to these comments on “appropriate language.” When discussing and researching environmental and technological issues I try to keep in mind that what is factual and what is popular are completely different things. Our final course is like that of a sailboat being squeezed between the wind and the resistance of the water on its keel.

    You could have injected yourself into the problem of plastic bags on little girls heads with the sacrifice of social equilibrium… but society is quick to condemn such interference on a slight chance of the girl fatally inhaling a bit of plastic (or she tries it again later when no one is there to catch her.) Your measured response was a good alternative to suing the manufacture after the fact.

    When it comes to the climate… change, denial, warming, disruption or several other modifiers that show how we feel about the issue… I have noticed people love to categorize themselves. It confirms where we stand in society and adds to our identity while it polarizes our society. It is also is a conservative approach: we are conserving our thinking resources. Once we know our camp we don’t have to constantly rethink our view every time we read an article or see a new piece of information and we come close to the saying, “Don’t bother me with the facts because I have already made up my mind.”

    A true step in evolution in Eco-consciousness and perhaps a “new rules” is not to simply pour more fuel (fossil or renewable) on to an ever growing fire, but to “boldly go where [few] have gone before” and constantly and seriously consider our own as well as opposing views. To avoid the “Box” of thinking to establish a foundation and instead learn to fly.