EPA and the CPP

Analyzing the EPA's decision to cut the Clean Power Plan

OUR MISSION:  The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

Look at the Environmental Protection Agency website and that sentence stands by itself at the top of the mission page.  Now, note the comments made by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt upon the rescinding of the Clean Power Plan: “The war on coal is over”, he said, and he focused on jobs when pressed about the consequences of his decision.  This alone shows how the dismissal of the Clean Power Plan this past week is yet another example of unethical politics as this administration ignores their moral obligation to the country, but let’s delve further into the situation to explain why this is so.

First, though, let’s put this in perspective with a strikingly similar example that we’ve seen in our recent past.  When research started to come out about the dangers of cigarettes, many people didn’t want to believe it.  The tobacco industry and their supporters paid for their own ‘research’ that supposedly disputed these findings and confused much of the public for a while.  ‘Big Tobacco’ spent large amounts of money on lobbying efforts and, thus, had some politicians in their corner.  Besides, it would ‘harm jobs and local economies to regulate tobacco’, they argued.  Does any of this sound familiar?  Luckily, smarter and more ethical heads prevailed and we’re much healthier for it.  And, of course, cigarettes and tobacco are still around, just as coal would be, but they are regulated and the dangers are muted as the health implications are now well accepted and undeniable.  Can you imagine that, if instead, we had our president and head of an organization tasked with improving the health of American citizens saying that the ‘war on cigarettes is over’, disputing the science, and encouraging the opening of more cigarette manufacturing companies to bring about job growth?  Hopefully, that sounds as asinine to you as it should.  Some will say that it's not the same thing, and it's not.  But, hopefully, you can see the direct parallels to Trump and Pruitt’s actions.   

·         EPA - Their title is the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Agency.  Their mission is to protect the human HEALTH and the ENVIRONMENT.  Yes, other factors of course play a role, but Pruitt makes no secret that he is favoring the coal industry and his close ties to the oil and gas industry are well known.  Obviously, though, helping the coal industry is NOT HIS JOB!  I can understand saying that there is a possibility that the regulations may have been too stringent, but then tell us what your suggestion or plan is before disbanding the regulations all together.  His goal clearly appears to be helping the polluters over any improvement to health and environment.

·         Okay, he has made it clear that he wants to take into account how businesses are affected, so let’s think like a successful business for a second.  First of all, a target is typically set to stretch the company’s or employee’s ingenuity and resources and is not something that you already know you can meet.  Most of us learn that at a young age.  Perhaps more importantly, though, if the target is found to be too difficult, maybe you adjust it a bit to make the target a little more reasonable.  You don’t just do away with the target altogether without a replacement, and you most definitely don’t go in the complete opposite direction, as promoting coal companies would do in this case.

·         Most complaints about the efficacy of the CPP focus on the CO₂ information, but that is just part of the issue.  Remember that the mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment.  Well, there is a scientific consensus that there is NO SAFE LEVEL of coal-fired power plant pollution that is healthy to breathe.  They have literally found NO threshold, says George Thurston, professor of environmental medicine at NYU, and saying otherwise is ‘completely in conflict with scientific knowledge’.  Therefore, doing away with the CPP without any kind of replacement in place while promoting coal burning plants goes directly against their mission.  Harmful effects of climate related changes are widely accepted and most serious to children.  Specifically related to CO2 emissions, here is just one study, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196488/.  You can easily look up data on asthma, illnesses, and deaths related to pollution.  Just make sure to use common sense.  Look at data comparing more polluted vs. less polluted areas and direct relations to diseases with pollution.  Many will confuse the issue by showing such things as asthma rates rising even as air quality improves, but this is obviously because of dramatic rises in other asthma contributing factors such as obesity.

·         You may be arguing that the EPA is working on a replacement based on a few statements and stories put out there.  First, it’s a requirement that the EPA accept public comment on the repeal and a discussion on a replacement and that, obviously, should have been done in advance of repealing the CPP.  But, believe it or not, it’s right in their proposal to cut the CPP that the EPA has yet to determine whether or not they will create an additional rule on the regulation of greenhouse gasses!

·         Those who focus their argument on scientific factors say that the CPP was useless because the calculations show it potentially would only have resulted in a 2% reduction in atmospheric CO2 and 0.01 degree C drop in temperature.  On the face of it, this sounds like a fair and cogent argument.  The problem is that it is such a short-sighted, biased, and morally lacking argument as to be scary in its implications.  As mentioned previously, the CPP also improved breathing conditions from coal-fired plants, and it also addressed SO₂ and NO_x emissions (remember acid rain and smog?), both of which have significant health effects.  But, to specifically address the CO2 and temperature data, we knew when the plan was put into place that it was possible that those changes by the US alone may be small, especially in the short term, which is why it’s vital to educate yourself on why the plan was implemented.  For one, CO2 effects on climate extend potentially thousands of years after emissions cease as it lingers in the atmosphere¹.  We were the first, and worst, at putting these pollutants into the air and the rest of the world followed.  The US is (was?) looked upon as a world leader.  Now, seeing the damage and extreme danger, we attempted to do the opposite; to do our part to clean up the environment and set an example that would be the impetus for the rest of the world to follow.  This was essential because the data shows that it’s going to take a world-wide effort to possibly make the needed changes to meet the necessary differences in levels.  And, it worked.  China, another historically large CO₂ polluter, submitted a plan to the U.N. to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and almost every other country  across the globe has pledged to address the issue.   So, what does the US do now?  We not only decide the plan is not worth it for us, but we go even further and plan to go back to putting MORE pollutants into the air!  I guess, for this administration, the wealth of the rich is more important than the health of the people.  Luckily, at this point, it looks like we’ve lost our role as a leader and we’re looked upon as fools, in this area at least, and other countries are sticking to their plans, probably because they also see an economic and political power benefit from it as well as environmental and recognize the shifting tides in energy.  Hopefully, our lack of foresight doesn’t result in other countries deciding to follow in our footsteps.

·         Finally, the EPA has both a LEGAL and MORAL obligation to limit carbon pollution.  The ‘endangerment finding’ was issued in 2009 after the US Supreme Court ruled in 2007 (and upheld in 2012) that the ‘EPA not only had the authority to regulate climate gases as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act, but was obligated to do so. The court directed the EPA to examine the scientific evidence and determine if greenhouse gases posed a threat to the public.  The EPA did that — examining everything from the potential for more damaging hurricanes, to death rates due to ozone and heat exposure, to deadly exposure to pathogens — and concluded in unambiguous terms that there was “compelling” reason to believe the gases threaten the health of Americans, and that the threat would get worse.  The agency’s conclusion rested on thousands of pages of peer-reviewed research, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, and from the National Research Council. The agency wrote its rules and subjected them to public criticism. The public submitted voluminous comments, all of which were reviewed by the EPA before it issued a final rule.’ (https://www.propublica.org/article/is-the-epa-landmark-endangerment-finding-now-itself-imperiled).  So, no matter what the head of the agency or the president thinks they believe, they are legally required to act on carbon emissions unless they have the facts to the contrary to prove their case.

What’s right for the greater good and long-lasting benefits to human beings?  Let’s put our focus on making the world the best possible place for both us and our future generations so they can continue to thrive.  That SHOULD be the priority, especially when that’s your job!

1.       https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2014/07/01/reducing-carbon-dioxide-emissions-must-be-priority-mitigating-climate-change-stud

2.       http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/sep/21/scott-walker/even-epa-says-obamas-power-plan-will-have-only-mar/

3.       http://www.denverpost.com/2017/10/09/trump-administration-roll-back-clean-power-plan/

4.       http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/politics/environmental-protection-agency-scott-pruitt-clean-power-plan/index.html

Better, Richer, and Stronger Together

Better Together, Richer Together, Stronger Together

It’s ingenious, really.  Disgusting and infuriating, but genius nonetheless.  The Russians played a clever game to fan the flames of discourse, expose and exaggerate tensions that have been festering for some time, and deepen mistrust in the the American political system.  However, while they may have gotten the upper hand and won the first battle, there’s a clear path to victory in this war:  unity.  Luckily for us, historically, this is what Americans do best in times of crisis; put our differences aside and come together as one.  Right now is the perfect opportunity to recognize that our fears, prejudices, and pride have been exposed as a major weakness, perhaps our greatest weakness, and exploited by a major foreign power so effectively as to almost render us blind.  Right now it is imperative that we acknowledge our preconceptions so that we can move past and learn from them in order to render future such attacks useless.  Having a foreign power engaging in such massive efforts to sway and divide public opinion is and should be of great concern to every American citizen, irregardless of political persuasion.

For example, it is known that the Russians bought an ad on Facebook ‘supporting’ Black Lives Matter, which exaggerated the extreme responses to Ferguson and Baltimore to play on people’s fear.  They did this for just about every hot-button and controversial topic: promoting gun-rights and the second amendment, propagating false warnings about illegal immigrants, targeting LGBT issues, and so on.  They also, then, put up sham websites so that those that clicked on the posts would be directed to more misleading claims.  They harped on issues that caused any kind of strife among different segments of our society.  In the meantime, others in our very own country were (and still are) also explicitly involved with spreading, if not initiating, false narratives based solely on hate and fear and with the intent to further drive mistrust in certain groups of people.  Predictably, many fell in step with this because of deep-rooted preconceived notions and years of ill-conceived discriminatory teachings fed off of the smallest of kernels of truth, often taken out of context and exaggerated massively.  These diabolical people who organized these attacks also know that it’s human psychology that people will engrain a notion even if the initial story that formed it has been proven to be false.  

I’m not putting all of this on any one side either for, while I personally stand for equality and justice for all, I realize that this has occurred on every side of the aisle.  BLM, Confederates, LGBT, women’s rights, you name it, these issues have been targets and are usually complicated by the fact that people are unwilling to listen to concerns and communicate effectively, which means the issues can’t be properly addressed.  This results in those with said concerns further digging in their heels instead of finding common ground or recognizing their misconceptions.  Of course, I realize that some people aren’t going to listen or adapt no matter what you say.  But, those are also the ones that will lose out in the end.  Once people come together, once people start talking and working to understand one another, the more likely we’ll see true equality and justice.  Then, and only then, will we be able to fight off future attacks on our way of life such as those the Russians have pulled off.

Sadly, it’s going to be more difficult than it should be.  Ideally, we should have leadership that stands against foreign interference, understands underlying issues and tensions, initiates peaceful dialog, and strives for equality.  We don’t have that at the highest level in our government currently.  That doesn’t make things impossible, though. However, it does require those supporting this administration to open their eyes and see the problem and for those on the other side to not assume every republican is like the President and some of his cronies.  When the President is the only one calling the Russian interference fake, it’s a problem.  Whether it helped him win or not is of no consequence, it’s a big deal.  When the President enacts executive orders based on fear perpetrated by these stories, it’s a problem.  Then, you have the issue of Breitbart News, who is notorious for publishing inflammatory and false stories.  For example, they, along with Info Wars, Fox News, and others, purposely spread misinformation about a supposed knife-point rape by immigrants in Iowa that caused a massive amount of anger and mistrust of government and immigrants.  These are exactly the kind of stories that Russia would exploit and some of our own biased media helped them right along.  So, to then have Breitbart’s executive chair, Steve Bannon, become White House Chief Strategist, is a problem.  If these stories were about a particular person it would be slander or libel.  Yet, a man that makes a living doing this was tapped to one of the most influential positions in our government.  To further demonstrate how successful these campaigns have been, just this past week the state of Alabama elected a man as their senate GOP candidate who had no clue what DACA was but cited blatantly false stories about sharia law being declared in ‘Indiana and/or Illinois’.  There are many more issues, the list is disturbingly long, but there shouldn’t be a need to go on for people to realize the obstacles we face. I’d rather focus on the positives and solutions.

It’s up to us.  If we want to win this war and stop letting a foreign power put wedges between sectors in our society, it’s up to us.  Before you get too fired up about any particular article or news story, validate it.  Before accepting the veracity of headlines and clips, try to find the full clip or story to make sure it wasn’t purposely taken out of context.  If you’ve fallen for fake stories in the past, whether they be about muslims, immigrants, blacks, supremacists, etc., realize it, own it, and try your best to recognize any underlying bias that remains.  

There is no single great race.  There is no dominant sex.  Freedom of religion along with the separation of church and state are fundamental to a well-functioning and long-lasting democracy or republic.  White, black, gay, trans, muslim, catholic, male, female, rich, poor, doctor, janitor, democrat, or republican, we all have an important part to play and contribute to what makes this country great.  As long as we’re striving for equality, we’ll succeed.  As long as we’re accepting of our differences and recognize that as a strength, we’ll succeed.  As long as we accept that immigrants and refugees make essential improvements to our economy and society, we’ll succeed.  As long as we lend a hand and talk with all walks of life instead of making judgments based on those that want us divided, we will succeed.  We win by loving, playing, praying, working, and when needed, fighting, alongside our diverse citizenry.

We are better when we all come together.  We are richer when we all come together.  And, when we unite and show the world our acceptance and faith in humanity, no one is stronger.  We do this and Russia or anyone else’s push to divide us and cause mistrust in our government blows up in their faces.

Shooting response - learn and adapt

My parents were both great teachers, by profession and with my siblings and I.  Whenever a major event happened, they made sure to use it as a teaching moment knowing that is when the lessons would be internalized and changes would be made.  Sadly, our current administration doesn't seem to abide by that smart teaching, learning, and adapting philosophy.  After the hurricane season resulted in the predicted strong storms, their response was that it wasn't the time to talk about climate change.  And it worked in their favor, people moved on and nothing has come of it.  Now, after the next predictable mass shooting, the deadliest in modern history, their response is that now isn't time to talk about gun legislation!  If you truly mourn for the victims, instead of ignoring the obvious and hoping the feelings pass, let's take the time to do what we should; learn and try to come up with and attempt some solutions.  

Let's not forget.  Stop politicking and start doing.  All of us.

Part II - response to a comment:

477 days, 521 mass shootings.  Before anyone gets up in arms about the semantics, I think it's more than fair to define an incident involving 4 or more injuries or deaths as a mass shooting.  And, that doesn't take into account the thousands of other homicides and accidents.  Do seat belts prevent all car deaths? Of course not, but they drastically reduce them.  Why can't we put some kind of safety device (pin, bracelet, etc.) on guns to make them safer and less vulnerable to theft?  We can't have tint that is too dark or do certain things to soup up our vehicles.  Why can't we make it illegal to buy aftermarket accessories such as the bump stock that essentially turns a gun into an automatic weapon?  We have to show a license and have a limit on certain OTC medicines.  Why can't we limit a person's number of gun purchases?  There is a 21 year old age limit on alcohol, why not guns?  Regular inspections are required on cars.  Why not for guns?  We can microstamp guns and bullets more effectively to make it easier to identify perpetrators, which would discourage their use in crimes.  And, of course, there's the issue of universal background checks.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.  But, NOTHING can be done?!  Bad people are just going to do bad things from time to time?!  Disturbingly, sickeningly, it is illegal to do gun violence research!  This can be absolutely vital to find out which measures or combination of measures would work best.  Now these next few delve into the second amendment debate, but it's insane to allow someone on a terror watch list be able to easily buy a gun.  Many shootings occur because of mental illness and depression leading to suicidal tendencies.  The same goes for domestic violence and we know that it's not uncommon that alcohol is involved in gun violence.  If we know this, we should be able to do something about it.  This administration has banned immigrants from several countries because of a FEAR that someone may get through our already thorough screening.  But NOTHING can be done about gun violence?!  Bad people are just going to do bad things from time to time?!  No, much CAN and SHOULD be done about it.  No solution is perfect and we can't stop every shooting from happening, but we can make it a lot more difficult and save many lives in the process.  Our leaders need to stop being biased and swayed by money and the perception of power and start doing what's right, moral, and ethical.

Let’s come together; it’s time. Overcoming The Great Divide driven by The Great Divider

Let’s come together; it’s time

Overcoming The Great Divide driven by The Great Divider

It’s time.  No, I take that back.  It’s long past time.  

Let’s come together, arm in arm.  

Please hear me out.

Would I kneel during the national anthem?  No.  I understand that the flag is a symbol of our country and it represents the blood, sweat, tears, and much more that our great veterans and soldiers have put on the line for this great nation.  However, I also realize that these esteemed men and women don’t and didn’t fight for symbolic reasons but for something much greater:  freedom, liberty, and justice FOR ALL.  These ideals are the true purpose behind the fight.  Yes, America is the best country in the world and affords greater freedoms than anywhere on the planet.  But, to pretend that it is fair to all is to blindly ignore reality, which too many have been doing for far too long.  I have personally witnessed it, have family affected by it, and have seen it simply dismissed.  That is why I would stand, but I would also stand next to someone that is kneeling in silent peaceful protest and lock my arm with their’s as a sign of unity and respect.  THAT is what this country is about.  If you’re angry at those kneeling, your anger is misplaced.  You should be angry at those such as the current President who is purposely causing division among our people, which resulted in more people kneeling and protesting during the anthem than ever before.  Ironically, displaying our great country’s strength, we are witnessing more people coming together in unity, whether they choose to kneel or stand in peaceful reflection, than we have ever seen.  Let’s adapt our way of thinking in the current climate:  let’s choose unity instead of division, understanding instead of derision, peace instead of strife. 

To demonstrate where I’m coming from, let’s talk about a different flag.  ‘They are doing no harm with their peaceful display and we will take no action’.  Want to take a guess as to the background story?  I’m paraphrasing the response that my sister-in-law received recently from her home owner’s group after a disturbing event.  She is a very successful doctor, an OB, who lives in a beautiful resort in West Virginia on the edge of a pristine lake.  Her husband, who is successful in his own right and the type that is always smiling and out in the community volunteering to coach kids teams or lend a hand, happens to be black and they have two beautiful and brilliant young children together.  Amazingly, someone recently decided to place a flag on public property directly facing their yard … a confederate flag.  Now, I know the controversy about what the flag represents, but no matter what side you’re on it’s impossible to not understand it’s significance in this situation.  Home owners associations can tell you to cut your grass if it’s a few inches too high, change your fence if it’s not the right color, not use loud music past 10:00, or what types of trees and shrubs you can and cannot have on your property.  But, they permitted this open display.  

Fine, while an overtly rebellious act, it was ‘peaceful’.  However, it brings to light the great prejudice and division that still exists in our society.  It’s easy to dismiss the message when you’re not the one getting questioned or put under extra scrutiny because of your skin color.  It’s easy to ignore when you’re not the one getting pulled over repeatedly for no real reason.  It’s easy to say these situations are brought upon by the people involved when you have never experienced it yourself.  It’s easy when it’s not you explaining to your kids why someone would think less of them simply because of the genetic expression of melanin in their skin.  We’ve come a long way, yes.  We still have a long way to go.  Oppression exists, and it happens right around us in broad daylight on a daily basis.  To now say that these same people that are forced to face a confederate flag and/or still have to deal with this discrimination should be vilified if they choose to kneel peacefully and quietly during an anthem to bring light to their situation is to show a true double-standard.  

Let’s recognize our problems and acknowledge the plights of others.  The only wrong side is the one that doesn’t listen.  If you do kneel, understand why others would be upset and find a way to show respect to those that have fought for this country and our freedoms.  

There’s irony in the fact that many who have mocked political correctness are now so focused on feeling disrespected when others kneel for the anthem that they disregard the real message and don’t see their own hypocrisy.  It’s a form of political correctness to stand for the anthem, one that I choose to abide by, but the overarching meaning and glory of the United States is in our actions to each other and in our laws that govern us.  Let’s continue to fight to fix those, because we ARE still fighting.  Those that kneel are fighting in their own manner and are willing to stick their necks on the line to do so.  Whether they're wealthy or not, sports stars or not, that has no consequence on the message.  

Stand if you wish.  Kneel if you wish.  But, let’s do it together, peacefully and quietly, arm in arm, hand in hand.  We are strong, we are proud, and we are ONE.  Let's be the beacon of strength for the rest of the world to emulate.

Supremacy, monuments, and movements

I wake up this morning while on vacation saddened and fearful, both at what has brought us to this point as a nation and what the consequences may be with numerous white supremacist rallies planned for this weekend across the country.  However, I am also proud of the many true Americans lending their voice to the charge against senseless bigotry and racism.  Please allow me to make a few points:

The President:  I still see people standing by the President's remarks and sentiments.  But, luckily, there are many more that realize the gravity of what he has put forth.  It upsets me to say, but there will most likely be violent clashes at these rallies.  Engaging physically in this manner is not the way to solve any of these problems.  What is even more sad, is that supporters will use this to say that Trump was right instead of realizing that he is the largest reason that the number of clashes are happening and growing.  A leader must understand the psyche of his people, how his words will resonate with various groups, and stand on the pinnacle of moral and ethical grounds. 

But, you may say, 'he condemned the groups and people refuse to see that'.  When the head of the KKK comes out to publicly thank him for the remarks, the speech did not reach the mark.  A true leader, seeing this, would have immediately come out again to clarify and truly condemn seeing that the initial statement didn't reach it's intended goal.

Our country valiantly stood up and fought against the Nazis and white supremacists and what they stood for in WWII.  Those are the soldiers that SHOULD have statues erected in honor of them.  Our ancestors risked their lives, and many ultimately gave their lives, to defend us from the ideals that these groups propose to put forth. 

For these reasons, it is the president, who should be the unifier of this country, who is now causing this clash to escalate.  He has emboldened the Nazis, white supremacists, and KKK on one side, while also, without saying it outright, challenged the violent on the far left to do something about it.  It's simple psychology and he could have, and should have, been able to denounce the one while making the charge of peaceful protest to the other, but his hollow words don't come off that way.  In the meantime, those true Americans who stand up for our values of equality and justice for all also feel the need to make their case and are caught in the middle.

Monuments:  Speaking of monuments, let's delve into that aspect of current events.  Many are saying this all comes down to protecting our history and monuments.  If that were the case, then why were there chants of anti-Semitic and white supremacist nature and why were the hate groups largely involved.  No, it gave an excuse to mobilize and shows why the monuments were a problem in the first place.  As we can see, the protests also have backfired as many cities are removing these statues and monuments after what happened.

Are we getting rid of our history by doing so, though?  No, that's absolutely ridiculous.  Saying that books will be burned next, or that people will want the pyramids removed, or, as Trump did, that George Washington monuments will be next just shows your lack of understanding.  The last thing those that are fighting for this want is for people to forget what happened!  It's important to have books and education on this important period of our history, lest we be doomed to repeat it.  And, comparing a national hero who had slaves consistent with his times, although not consistent with our current values but who also happened to free them, with those who fought against our very own country with slavery being a major component of that fight again shows a deep lack of understanding and appreciation.

These monuments aren't about education or teaching history.  They were erected to glorify the confederates and what they stood for.  In addition, they were put in place, not right after the civil war, but mostly during times of oppression in the Jim Crow era.  Imagine seeing a monument honoring a kamikaze in Honolulu, or a German WWII soldier in our nations capital.  But, these weren't American citizens you say.  Okay, look up the history of Benedict Arnold monuments and how the public and military has fought to keep his name off of any depictions.

Movements:  I've also seen many supporters try to compare the white supremacist movement to the black lives matter movement.  Some who claim to denounce recent actions are saying in the same breath that the white supremacists don't speak for them just like black lives matter doesn't.  There is a major flaw here.  There is no comparison.  One is rightfully saying that they want their race to be treated as equal, to not be discriminated against, and for the law to be applied the same for them as it is for other races.  The other is saying our race is superior and we want to continue to have our special privileges over other races.  To compare the two is plain ignorance, and when they start chanting white lives matter or calling their marches white lives matter, it is only showing the derogatory nature of their stance instead of any semblance of honorable charge.

I could go on, but will refrain from doing so.  My message to you is this:  People are created equal.  If you feel otherwise, try to engage in civil discourse with those of other cultures and understand their history and background.  Do this on a personal level instead of making judgements based on editorials or articles.  Take classes or work on community projects where you have to team up toward a common goal.  Don't hate.  The fight for supremacy will always ultimately lose to the fight for equality, for the face of supremacy from one demographic to another across the globe is vastly different while the face of equality is universal.  Finally, your collective voices and peaceful actions will almost always reign supreme against threats and violence; be intelligent in fighting the good fight.

The Key to the City

A NUN, A CELEBRATION, AND A KEY

     There are times that restore your faith in humanity, places where you always feel welcome and people of all persuasions manage to act as family, and there are people that manage to brighten the room and leave you feeling fuller just by being in their presence.  Sister Janice Rospert is one such person and has done an amazing job to help make Beckley, WV such a place, and the celebration of her departure for Ohio yesterday was such a time.

     Sister Janice's unique influence was brought to my attention when I was a freshman in college.  As young couples are wont to do, Monette and I had many deep discussions about our upbringing and experiences when we first started dating over 22 years ago.  A recurring theme was her respect and admiration for Sister Janice, who she knew through her church and schooling, and that she considered her one of her biggest role models.  Her impact was so great, along with Monette's Aunt Pat, who is also a nun, that Monette at one point considered that path for herself.  I apologize, Sister, but I'm selfishly glad that she didn't follow in that direction!  Even so, Sister Janice's teachings, guidance, and attitude toward life has helped guide Monette throughout her life and I will be forever appreciative of that.

     "You've GOT to meet Sister Janice!  She's one of the best people I know."  Monette would often tell me.  And, she was, as usual, right.  I remember that we met with her in her living room the first time that I had that pleasure.  The first thing that was evident was that the respect was mutual.  You can usually tell when someone is genuine, and Sister Janice was genuinely delighted to visit with Monette and respected her as much as Monette respected Sister Janice.  Secondly, I found myself perfectly comfortable to sit and chat with her about life over tea and cookies, sharing many laughs, and it felt like we had long been friends by the time we left.  I didn't grow up Catholic, so I likely had an unfair stereotype of a nun before the encounter, but she dispelled much of that within seconds.  Sister Janice even gave us the great honor of being a part of our wedding, another instance for which we will always be grateful.  As I've come to realize since, she has this genuine appreciation and way of touching everyone she encounters.

     I have had the pleasure of meeting countless people of various walks of life through the years and can truly say that Sister Janice is one of a kind.  She lives a life of selflessness and gratuity, generosity and sincerity, compassion and empathy.  People feel comfortable coming to her to grieve, to laugh, or for counsel.  All the while, she is uniquely human and a delight to just have a conversation with.  Yes, she is a nun and what she has done for the Church I can't even put into words.  But, even so, her gifts and reach go well beyond the confines of the Church.

     So, when we heard that Sister Janice was leaving Beckley to head back to Ohio with her family and the church was having a celebration for her, we cleared our schedule to make sure we could be there.  She joked that when she left to come to Beckley only 12 people showed up to say goodbye.  Well, yesterday they held a luncheon in a gymnasium and still underestimated the numbers that would come out.  The space was standing room only.  It was truly emotional to see the enormous impact that one quiet and humble nun that has never sought out adulations can make on a community.  This point became even more clear when the Mayor showed up to bestow upon her the honor of receiving the key to the city!  Mind you, this isn't a sports star; this isn't a politician often in the limelight; or is it a famous actor or comedian as you usually see given this kind of award.  But, there has never been anyone more deserving of the honor.  To our amazement, when she was asked to speak she asked for forgiveness.  Forgiveness for times when she couldn't be there for someone, spoke in anger (which no one has ever heard as far as I know), or didn't say the right thing to console the grieving.  Then, she held up a sign she had made to tell everyone that she loved them.

     Anyone who has met Sister Janice knows that, when you leave her presence, you feel better about yourself and/or your situation, and have a more positive outlook on life.  She does this effortlessly because it is from the heart and she is always 100% real.  I knew what she meant to Monette, and how much I thought of her.  But, to see the raw emotion of people young and old, of countless nationalities and persuasions, and how this one special person's genuine selfless life has impacted so many, one person at a time, was more than inspiring.  Never one to seek accolades or recognition, it was great to witness a community realizing that Sister Janice deserved just that more than anyone.  I came away, as is always the case when talking with her, with the desire to do more.  The true meaning of life is to try to leave the world a better place than when you arrived, in whatever way you can, however small that may seem.  Thank you, Sister Janice, for reminding me of that and for everything you have done for myself, Monette, and everyone else you have reached.  The community that you're moving to in Ohio doesn't know how lucky they are to have you moving in.

In defense of the Paris Agreement and rebuttal to the free-market argument

In defense of the Paris Agreement and a rebuttal to the free-market argument

In the aftermath of our President’s decision to remove the US from the Paris Agreement, I continue to see many people trying to justify pulling out with poor information or understanding of the accord, jumping on a ‘free-market’ bandwagon, or plain denial of the relevance.  Let me try to break down a few points for you to ponder.

·         Let’s start by tackling the accord and the accompanying agreements surrounding it to clear up a few things.  First, don’t just listen to talking points, educate yourself.  Here is the link to the actual Paris Agreement from the United Nations website. (http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php).  As I mentioned in one of my posts, the whole stated mission is to set overtly ambitious goals.  So those that say that the terms were too strict don't understand the concept behind the agreement. Athletes and scientists alike know that to get the biggest effect you set targets, some of which should seem out of reach. If you don't reach the top target you get a great way toward it, but those that are focused with tunnel vision often can reach what was once thought impossible. Also, the data saying those targets can't be reached, by necessity, take into account current situations and can't anticipate advances in technology. We have seen countless times that humans can achieve amazing things when given the opportunity - just look at the human genome project and the advances that have come from it and various vaccines and medications developed on short order. But, we can’t achieve these goals with deregulations and decreases in funding for scientific research.  Per usual, Trump’s speech on the subject was filled with inaccuracies and purposely misleading statements.  We need to be urged to look at facts.  (https://www.apnews.com/079e907d81d14e7ca56eb5279f285f71/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Attack-draws-visceral-Trump-tweets,-not-facts?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics)

•   Here's the most prevalent statement I hear:  It wasn’t a fair deal for the Americans.  The Chinese didn’t put anything into it and neither did India or Russia.  Let’s break this down: 

I’ve even seen the attached ridiculous meme going around:

First, this shows that people don’t even bother to try to understand or find their own facts.  Please, read the actual agreement between the United States and China in regards to their efforts on climate change and in regards to the funds:  https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-china-joint-presidential-statement-climate-change. 

Especially, look at #15 on the list. 

The reason China doesn’t contribute to the Green Climate Fund is because they agreed to put 20 billion Yen ($3.1 billion) to set up the South-South Climate Cooperation Fund to give specific help to the region of the world that is currently the worst polluter in a bilateral deal with the US as they pledged toward the GCF.  Yes, you read that right, they actually have committed MORE money than the US toward a climate fund in cooperation with the US.  On top of this, China has invested the most money by far of any other nation in sustainable energy efforts.

So, what about India?  India has been mired in a very major financial crisis.  But, even still, they have committed to and invested in strong efforts to curb their emissions; and they released a statement last week saying they would continue to do so with or without help from other countries because they realize how important an issue it is.  (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6278)

And, Russia?  Is it really a surprise that Trump wants to join Putin as not contributing to the deal?

Also, for all of those pointing the finger at China for being the biggest polluter.  Look deeper at the numbers:  The United States has emitted the greatest amount of CO2 of anyone in history, still ahead of China and well over 20% of the total amount.  In addition, while China is the biggest polluter in absolute terms currently (but now actively making progress toward curbing it), put this in perspective: US emits 16.4 metric tons of CO₂ per person whereas China emits only 7.5 metric tons of CO₂ per person.  That should really put our excess in perspective.

Per person carbon production and consumption
[Data Source: Kuishuang Feng & Klaus Hubacek, University of Maryland.]

 Or, how about we break the Green Climate Fund down into dollars per person as people seem to think it unfair what the US had pledged to put into the fund.

Source: http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized (By the way, you can track the progress of the fund here as well)

So, why is it unfair that the US should do its part to clean things up and make the world habitable for our grandchildren?

•   Next, let's continue on this tack and talk about the idea that the Paris Agreement was all about economics and that we can do more good without being in the accord:

The obvious issue with this, to begin with, is the selfish and centrist attitude it takes to even make this argument.  But, I’ll break down some of the facts in addition to what I’ve stated above already.  The goal is to try to reduce CO2 emissions and clean up the atmosphere for our ultimate healthy survival.  Yes, the data is clear and you have to try hard to believe the arguments against climate change over the overwhelming majority of evidence for it.  I will put something together to break down all of the arguments for climate change in time, but that is a long task and I need to find more hours in the day to finish that soon.  For now, just know that the temperatures are easily measured, are rising quickly, and for the first time in history doing so in a manner not able to be predicted by nature alone.  The difference does, however, correlate with CO₂ emissions.  I know some want to dispute this, but I will address that in a different blog.  For now, just look at this for one easy to follow, graphical reference:  https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/.  This agreement was a tremendous accomplishment to build cooperation to combat this pressing issue.  But, even if you don't believe in climate change, the result would be a healthier and safer environment in any case.

I know some people have this ‘America-First’ mentality right now, but this is much more than an America-only problem.  This is a world-wide issue and to curb the problem to the extent that is needed we need a world-wide effort.  Having American support and involvement helped bring many countries on board to the Paris Agreement because of the leadership and validity it brought to the solution.  Most have heard about the 2 degree limit that we’re trying to avoid, but most don’t understand what that means.  First, we are already over halfway to that target!  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2-degrees-celsius-un-report_us_58296d8be4b060adb56f0ca9)  That should put it into a little bit more of a perspective.  Secondly, people continue to cite, as the president did, that the Paris Agreement would only make about a 0.17 degree difference insinuating that it’s not worth the trouble.  That is actually substantial, however, and he also didn’t understand how that number was derived.  He cited an MIT study, but the study actually said that the difference is what would be expected from going from the original Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement in an effort to make a bigger impact with more of the world involved.  The author of the study actually released a statement saying that he completely disagreed with Trump’s analysis that that rise wasn’t a big deal and went on to say that without an agreement in place the rise would be on the order of 1 degree Celcius by 2100 - that’s not that far away.  (http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602).  In other words, it was essential to get buy-in from nations across the world; the all-inclusive climate agreements are essential!  

People also argue that the agreement was useless because it didn’t hold countries accountable.  Will some countries fail to uphold their end of the bargain?  Yeah, probably.  However, the overall effect with all but two small countries in the pact is much better than not having the agreement, but it also goes well beyond that.  This deal is akin to going to a fruit stand where you pay on the honor system - except with other people looking over you and checking your wallet every few visits (the Paris agreement included five year checks) and publicly releasing what you took and what you've paid.  Some will try to cheat the system, but most will abide by the code, achieving an overall net positive.  And, there is absolutely no harm to the environment from the Paris agreement, contrary to the ludicrous statement to that effect that some try to claim.

•   But, you say, having a better free market will solve problems faster than with governmental regulations, and without having to kill jobs.  Many people have jumped on this after reading this article: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/trump-paris-accord-exit-is-good-for-the-environment-commentary.html.

That sounds good and all, but this falls in line with the previous argument and doesn’t hold up to the facts.  As mentioned above, for one, we need a world-wide effort, not just US-based.  Interestingly, in an effort to correlate why the deal wouldn't work, this article compares the Paris deal to OPEC saying that it wouldn’t work if not enforceable.  There are problems with this argument.  I’m actually not a big fan of OPEC, but it worked as intended for a long time.  What has led to issues, though, is that increased oil prices led to innovation that dropped the cost of extraction and led to an oversupply.  If that were the case for Climate Change, this innovation would be a GOOD thing and is one of the major goals of the agreement.  In addition, guess who is the one causing the most problems for OPEC?  The US, of course, as they refuse to follow OPEC’s recommendation to reduce their production (http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/11/investing/opec-oil-u-s-supply/index.html).  But, as I said, greater innovation would be a good thing in regards to the Paris agreement and, as the MIT research, in addition to others, showed, we would get much closer to the goal even if some of the countries did not pull their weight.

•   Another major argument from this article is that the US would make a bigger effect by fixing up it’s own mess in house. 

While that would be nice, and we certainly have areas that we can address, sadly this wouldn’t do nearly enough.  And, while I’m a fan of free-market enterprise and drivers, that argument doesn’t cut it here.  Yes, market drivers have helped lead to advances in more fuel efficient cars and is partially why solar panels have come down in price.  But, the big assumption here is that there would be a market driver to continue to reduce CO₂ emissions and the efforts we make in the US will make a difference world-wide.  What is that free-market driver?  Oil prices are now low.  And, while the article states that innovation led to advances in solar panels, it was largely due to a push for clean energy and government funded research and innovation.  (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/04/24/innovation-government-was-crucial-after-all/) and (http://innovationreform.org/issues/indispensable-r-d/)  Trump has made it known that he wants to increase coal mining and is cutting regulations for the coal industry while proposing major reductions in funding for energy innovation programs.  Hence, he’s pushing the market driver in the OPPOSITE direction!  The only way the market-driver theory works is if there is an actual driver.  Trump is killing those drivers with his moves.

In addition, this idea is directly opposed by those actually in the business such as Elon Musk, Exxon, and Conoco Phillips, and as ‘25 major U.S. companies — including Apple, Facebook, Mars Incorporated and Morgan Stanley stated when they published a full-page letter in several newspapers that read: “By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth. U.S. companies are well positioned to lead in these markets. Withdrawing from the agreement will limit our access to them and could expose us to retaliatory measures.” (https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/02/why-pulling-out-of-paris-accords-damages-americas-economic-future/).’  I’ve actually heard people say that people like Musk are whining b/c they have gotten so much in subsidies.  But, that would then mean that the government funding was working.

•   These regulations only kill jobs?

This is what some want you to believe, but the evidence doesn’t back that up.  Coglianese and Carrigan show evidence that regulation plays little role in the number of jobs in the US in their book, “Does Regulation Kill Jobs”, and a major study by famed economist Richard Morgenstern showed that, on average, $1 million in regulation induced spending led to a net total of 1.5 jobs lost.  Some like to cite another MIT study that showed that the Clean Air Act resulted in a loss of 590,000 jobs.  But, the author, Michael Greenstone, said himself that the law didn’t have much of an impact on total employment in the industry as he didn’t explore if the act actually created jobs or if those that lost jobs found new positions in this cited work.  The best option, in my opinion, is to invest in ways to educate miners, coal workers, and others that are out of jobs to work in advancing industries.

But, let me finish with a bit of optimism.  I agree that it looks like the damage may be mitigated, but this is in SPITE of Trump, not because of him.  Other countries have agreed to continue, if not accelerate, their focus on meeting their climate goals.  In addition, many city leaders and innovators in the United States have agreed to bunk Trump’s agenda and continue to strive toward the Paris agreement’s goals even if we're out as a country.  So, in that respect, we are selfishly saving money and may be okay, but it wouldn’t have happened without the climate agreements and the US’s help in bringing the world together toward that effort in the first place.  We will eventually be back as a world leader.  In the meantime, let’s hope other countries don’t follow Trump’s lead and, as individuals, let's be diligent to know the facts and do our part, however small that may seem.