The New Law of Nature

The truth is palpable, overwhelming, scorching, toxic and virulent.

In the 2006 documentary, Al Gore, in a calculated understatement, called it “inconvenient.”

Today is it undeniable to the vast majority. Tomorrow it will be undeniable even to today’s deniers.

Chief among the deniers are our two major presidential candidates, both of whom depend on contributors addicted to carbon-fuel-derived profit and greed. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, coupled with Congress and the majority of congressional candidates, lack any political incentive to act. They are focused on November and money.

They need to be focused on NOW and muster the will to speak and act now. Imagine them standing together on the same podium, united in word and action.

It would take courage; it won’t happen.

The political problem goes beyond money and greed. To bring about needed change, the political establishments (here AND abroad) must demand that each of us change radically. The laws required would be draconian. Forget “personal freedom,” at least as we know it.

Here in America, we don’t do draconian, at least not on ourselves. We do draconian in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Africa — any place the oil or coal or uranium is. Sometimes— because the resources are hidden away — our draconian measures are done here at home, in the aquifers of the Great Plains or the watersheds of Appalachia or the Gulf Coast or the Alaska wilderness.

The victims are the poor and nature.

The Climate Change we are coming to know results from another, countervailing draconian law — a New Law of Nature. It can’t be ruled unconstitutional. It can't be amended. There will be no filibusters or cloture.

It will force change on us whether we or our leaders like it or not.

Many are already thirsty and starving. Soon the effects will hit and further shrink the middle class. Eventually it will strike even the plutocrats and oligarchs. It will burst their bubbles of isolation and privilege.  It will breach their security gates and go undetected by their surveillance cameras. There will be no new mansions to flee to. The greedy will be stranded on a dying planet of dust, drought and desolation.

Is there nothing we can do? Elections won’t help (see above.) There are changes that each of us can make as individuals, and many are. Most of us aren’t doing enough, not nearly enough. And the hour is late.

We have in our Quaker congregation a group that calls itself “The Global Coolers.” Others rightly can call themselves by that name, but the large majority of us are “Global Warmers,” or, worse, “Global Kool-Aiders.”

The Coolers, and others, try to raise our awareness. Some ride bikes. Some eat less. Their food  comes from nearby. They switch off lights and appliances. They install solar panels.

They are too few in number. But they may be the saved among the human species, for the survivors will be those willing and able to live with the least.

It all sounds vaguely, and profoundly, biblical.

NEXT: Cracking the political nut....

Speaking of Change

Change, a vital concept, is in danger of becoming a hollow gong in the 2008 political campaign.

Before the meaning is hammered out of it, it’s worth looking at what kind of changes we are talking about — and not talking about in 2008.

I’m thinking of three.

One is so obvious that no one states it outright.

After eight miserable years, at long last, we will be changing the government of this country. It can only be for the better. George W. Bush, certainly the worst president within living memory, can take his bubble world back to the Crawford ranch and practice pronouncing “nuclear.” Cheney can go quail hunting with sacrificial friends. The only change that won’t happen, and isn’t happening, is among the self-righteous, power-mad conservative elite who put these two in power. They are without shame.

That John McCain would stoop so low as to seek their support ought to be reason enough to ensure his defeat.

The second change is the one heralded by the Obama campaign slogan. If Obama makes it to the White House, which seems likely, we will have a president bred and imbued with an international world view. Other nations and peoples will no longer be seen as objects of exploitation. This nation's leadership and people will no longer see themselves as entitled and superior. Because of that change, we at last may shift our resources from bullying to building, both at home and abroad.

From such humility may emerge a new confidence in American ideals that are lived rather than ritually celebrated. No longer will our leaders trample on our rights while they mouth praise in pledges of allegiance from flag-draped podiums.

We may no longer merely hold these American truths to be self-evident; we may actually infuse our lives with them.

Imagine.

This election will go a long way to revealing to Americans what they are and have been from before the nation's founding — a multi-racial society. We may be able to free ourselves of the grip of what George Orwell called the “smelly little orthodoxies” and the hateful dogmas of zealots, sexists and bigots.

The change that is happening as I write this — as the votes in the “Potomac primaries” are counted — is the re-engagement of youth in politics. My great fear for several years has been that we have been losing an entire generation to a media fantasy world. Males in particular seemed at risk, and they may still be, as college admissions suggest. I’d like to know the demographics of the youth who are suddenly so engaged in this year’s campaign. Hillary Clinton may lose her race, but my guess is that this election is producing thousands of young Hillarys, who just so happen to be working for Barack Obama.

Those are the major changes that Obama ’s campaign signals.

Finally, there’s the change that no candidate seems willing to talk about in this election year. Al Gore might call it “inconvenient.” It is certainly inevitable. It is a change dictated by a planet in rapid flux. Humans call it “global warming,” but if the eons-old planet could speak, it would call it simply more “global changing.”

If we humans are to survive, we must change how we live. For Americans, it means rethinking our values, particularly our materialistic, consumptive values. Oil is not the only addiction we must beat. We are addicted to nationalism in an age of global communication and interdependency. We are addicted to individualism to the detriment of community and others in need. We are addicted to our own false sense of superiority both as human beings and as Americans.

If we and our fellow humans are to survive, we must change both radically and fast.

The times require a leader both willing and capable to inspire us to make these “inconvenient” changes.

A growing number of Americans are coming to believe that Barack Obama may be, just may be, that leader.

Oregon: Refuge from Global Warming?

The raging fires in Southern California and the extreme drought in southeastern U.S. (to say nothing of Katrina) got me thinking about how we in the cool, green, water-rich Northwest must look to folks in these ravaged parts of the country.

“Inviting” comes to mind.

Ten years ago I got involved in Metro 2040 planning, a small piece of which resulted in Hillsdale’s being designated a “Town Center,” a place that could accept higher population density. Back then the regional planners estimated that the three-county Metro area would increase by 1 million residents by 2040. It seemed an astonishing number. After all, we are at an estimated 1.5 million today.

I just checked the state figures on-line and the estimated population for 2040 remains virtually the same as a decade ago. The Metro region will gain 920,000 new residents by 2040.

The site has a brief description of methodology, which looks at three factors: birth rates, death rates and migration.

In light of fires, droughts, hurricanes and other global-warming related disasters, I was particularly interested in how demographers viewed migration.

Here is what the state site says:

Migration:

Age/sex-specific in-and-out migration rates for Oregon and its Counties were determined for each of the five-year period from 1980 through 2000 (1980-85, 1985-90, 1990-95, and 1995-2000). Detailed in-and-out migration data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses were modified and utilized to reflect the recent net migration trend.

The problem is that those time periods were very different from the present. In short, that was then; this is now. Tomorrow doesn’t promise to be any better, climate-wise.

Sorely missing is any mention of climate change and its burgeoning influence on life in the rest of the country and on the planet.

I also checked in with Metro, where John Coney, senior public affairs coordinator, flatly told me that climate change is not part of the agency’s calculations.

Until we include migration caused by global warming in our population projections, our calculations — and hence our planning — are virtually worthless.