Is It High Tide on Main Street? Here’s One Man’s View on Global Warming

“Doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs.”  That’s what my mother would have called them.  It was her way of describing important people.  You know, the educated folks who present themselves well and become leaders of their community.  It describes most of the people I meet these days.  Not so many doctors but a lot of professionals and CEO’s. 

One such CEO stands out.  He is John Englander, the guy whom Jacque Cousteau picked to be his successor as CEO of the Cousteau Society.  I met him in my office a few years ago (I don’t remember who introduced us).  “I am writing a book,” he told me.  “I’ll send you a copy.”  And, he did.  I have an autographed first edition published in 2012.

I read a lot but nearly everything I read (and watch or listen to) is on my iPad.  So, John’s book, High Tide on Main Street:  Rising Sea Level and the Coming Coastal Crisis, sat on my shelf along with a dozen others – unread.

Then came Hurricane Sandy, which was soon followed by an email from John.  “Did you read my book?” he asked.  “I predicted this.”  And, so he did.  He discusses the impact of rising sea levels globally and uses chapter 12 to describe the impact on several cities.  As for New York, he asserts that the “broad arm of Long Island, the rivers around Manhattan that continue up the Hudson River Valley can, under certain circumstances, act as a funnel, amplifying storm surge effects for Manhattan.”  He cites a study done by the Army Corps of Engineers that identifies the conditions under which a “storm surge of nearly 30 feet at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel” could flood subways and tunnels.  He points out that, in August 2011, Hurricane Irene was an inch short of doing so. 

And, that was a year before Sandy. 

But, I am getting ahead of myself.  What High Tide does best is describe the effects of CO² emissions on global temperatures and how slight changes can have a catastrophic impact.  A one degree difference in temperature can make determine whether snow melt will cause a rise in sea levels in any year.  He describes the methods by which scientists have identified the 612-foot range of sea levels over the past billion years and focuses our attention on how sea levels have been affected by glaciers. 

It’s a vicious cycle.  Rising temperatures cause glacial snowmelt, which in turn release more CO², which causes temperatures to rise which…  Well, you get the idea. 

The net of all this discussion is that “we are increasing carbon dioxide levels roughly 20,000 times faster than at any time in the last 540 Million years.  Temperatures … are now rising about 55 times faster than they did during the most recent cycle of glacial melting”. 

Figures lie and liars figure.  Princeton Professor William Happer, writingin the Wall Street Journal, discussed the lack of temperature rise over thelast 10 years and cites the same United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as Englander.  The difference is that Happer uses the absence of complete data in the study to debunk global climate change while Englander writes a whole chapter about scientific methods and includes data from several other studies to describe the impact of rising CO² levels on glacial melting. 

Rather than ignore what doesn’t fit his point of view, Englander brings all of it into the discussion including the economic and national security impact.  Whether you support the view that mankind is causing global climate change or not, you cannot ignore its impact. 

New York can be protected according to Englander and last week’s announcement of a $20B plan by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg fits the bill.  But, New York sits on a granite foundation while such cities as Miami and Venice, Italy cannot be saved.  In place of granite bedrock, they sit on limestone, which acts like a sponge absorbing more water as sea levels rise. 

High Tide also offers solutions and describes the economic impact of doing nothing.  While Englander makes a hard sell, he doesn’t soft-peddle the challenges of the appropriate responses.  Solutions ranging from “retreat” to “defense” are explored while explaining that different geographies require different solutions. 

He also discusses the feasibility of technological advances that offer alternatives to burning fossil fuel. What I like most about High Tide is that it boils a lot of scientific information down to language that a non-scientist can understand.  In addition, the book doesn’t shy from any of the related topics including the politics of deploying solutions. 

Still there is one question that Englander doesn’t answer.

WHO WILL LEAD?

An Oxymoron: Future Conservatives

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post titled "I think I'm Turning Liberal...  I Really Think So".  The piece was a critique of the current liberal paradigm in this country and I got lots of responses.

Conservatives could benefit from some self-reflection as well.  To recapture a majority, they must evolve their approach to governing.  Is it an oxymoron to think of conservatism evolving to some future state? Conservatives focus on traditional values not evolution of their values.

Today’s American conservatives often quote the founders, using the U.S. Constitution as a construct for pursuing a 21^st Century policy agenda.  The Constitution reflects the philosophies of Spinoza, Locke and Voltaire.  A philosophy that promoted civil liberty, political freedom, limited government, the rule of law and free markets -- tenets that today’s conservatives continue to espouse.  The irony is that, during the Age of Enlightenment, the term that defined these tenets was “Classical Liberalism”. 

That what was liberal at our founding is conservative by 21^st Century standards is perhaps a measure of how societies evolve.  Can conservatives achieve any political gains with a public that seems to be moving in the opposite direction?  Do conservatives have to embrace some of the philosophical and political prescriptions of liberals to regain their electoral mojo?  I don’t think so.

People don’t vote on the basis of philosophical prescriptions; they vote for what resonates with them emotionally.  That’s why the President could be elected on the flimsy promise of “Hope and Change”. 

But Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” theme during the 80’s was no more substantive; and, no Republican has been able to connect with the emotional core of the public the way that Reagan did in the years since. 

The nation needs real reform.  Conservatives understand that our debt and deficits are not sustainable.  They understand that our entitlement programs need restructuring to survive.  There are big changes required to get the country on track. 

Reagan understood that big change requires big majorities.  You can’t persuade the majority by standing at one end of the political spectrum, hurling epithets at the other.  Reagan’s “Morning in America” pitch was optimistic about our future at a time when we were also in crisis.  It was the faith he expressed in America that sold the voting public on his vision. 

The public and the media have focused on the excesses of Wall Street and the failures of a capitalist economy to support its middle class.  While some of the criticism is deserved, what is undermining the middle class is not capitalism but a government that is undermining the value of the assets we have worked so hard to accumulate. 

At their core, Americans – no matter their race, gender, ethnicity or sexual preference – are aspirational.  That is, our culture fosters ambition and self-sufficiency.  Aspirational Americans may wish for their government to provide assistance to the most needy; however, they do not wish for a segment of the population to be motivated not to work. 

If you eyeball this chart, you can see that an individual making an annual salary of $25,000 receives the equivalent of $20,000 per year in government assistance.  It’s pretty hard to improve your annual income by 80% and it’s unlikely that many will try if they will lose the equivalent in government support.

Aspirational Americans don’t wish for their hard earned wealth to be shared in this way.  All they want is an opportunity to succeed on their own merits.  They want access to a great education, equal opportunity for employment and civil liberties -- values that are consistent with classical liberals, our founders.  Conservatives preach these values but often don’t live up to them.

Instead, Republican politicians support corporate America.  Support that manifests itself in subsidies for ethanol, tax breaks for big oil and tax exempt bonds for corporate projects.  The founders never intended the government to be at the behest of corporations. It is supposed to serve the people.  Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

Conservatives like to quote Adam Smith’s work “The Wealth of Nations” and speak of the “invisible hand” of the market as a the cure for what ails us.  But, they should also remember Smith’s words about government. "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”

They can regain their electoral mojo without sacrificing their values.  They just need to start practicing what they preach.   

WHO WILL LEAD?