One of my favorite quotes from a very famous Floridian, pulitzer prize winner, Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings.

 ******************************************************************************

 If there can be such a thing as instinctual memory, the consciousness of land and water must lie deeper in the core of us than any knowledge of our fellow beings.

We were bred of the earth before we were born of our mothers.  Once born we can live without our mothers, or fathers, or any other kin, or any friend, or human love.

We cannot live without the earth or apart from it, and something is shriveled in man’s heart when he turns away from it and concerns himself only with the affairs of men.

Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings

author of “The Yearling”

from her memoirs “Cross Creek”

From the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/g-8-failure-reflects-us-f_b_228597.html

Dr. James Hansen

Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Posted: July 9, 2009 10:33 AM

G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change

Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, but he writes on this policy-related topic as a private citizen.

It didn’t take long for the counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey to push back against President Obama’s agenda. As the president was arriving in Italy for his first Group of Eight summit, the New York Times was reporting that efforts to close ranks on global warming between the G-8 and the emerging economies had already tanked:

The world’s major industrial nations and emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on significant cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, unraveling an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following the talks.

Of course, emission targets in 2050 have limited practical meaning — present leaders will be dead or doddering by then — so these differences may be patched up. The important point is that other nations are unlikely to make real concessions on emissions if the United States is not addressing the climate matter seriously.

With a workable climate bill in his pocket, President Obama might have been able to begin building that global consensus in Italy. Instead, it looks as if the delegates from other nations may have done what 219 U.S. House members who voted up Waxman-Markey last month did not: critically read the 1,400-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and deduce that it’s no more fit to rescue our climate than a V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon.

I share that conclusion, and have explained why to members of Congress before and will again at aCapitol Hill briefing on July 13. Science has exposed the climate threat and revealed this inconvenient truth: If we burn even half of Earth’s remaining fossil fuels we will destroy the planet as humanity knows it. The added emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide will set our Earth irreversibly onto a course toward an ice-free state, a course that will initiate a chain reaction of irreversible and catastrophic climate changes.

The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere now stands at 387 parts per million, the highest level in 600,000 years and more than 100 ppm higher than the amount at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Burning just the oil and gas sitting in known fields will drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm and ignite a devil’s cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back. But if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide, coal, we have a chance to bring CO2 back to 350 ppm and still lower through agricultural and forestry practices that increase carbon storage in trees and soil.

The essential step, then, is to phase out coal emissions over the next two decades. And to declare off limits artificial high-carbon fuels such as tar sands and shale while moving to phase out dependence on conventional petroleum as well.

This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won’t get there with the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests.

For all its “green” aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like “cap-and-trade” scheme. Here are a few of the bill’s egregious flaws:

• It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

 

• It sets meager targets — 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year’s level — and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious “offsets,” by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.

 

 

• Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, “has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives.”

 

 

• It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, “businesses and households won’t be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense,” thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.

There is an alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source (mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the “fee-and-dividend” version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead.

A carbon fee-and-dividend would be an economic stimulus and boon for the public. By the time the fee reached the equivalent of $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton of CO2) the rebate in the United States would be $2000-3000 per adult or $6000-9000 for a family with two children.

Fee-and-dividend would work hand-in-glove with new building, appliance, and vehicle efficiency standards. A rising carbon fee is the best enforcement mechanism for building standards, and it provides an incentive to move to ever higher energy efficiencies and carbon-free energy sources. As engineering and cultural tipping points are reached, the phase-over to post-fossil energy sources will accelerate. Tar sands and shale would be dead and there would be no need to drill Earth’s pristine extremes for the last drops of oil.

Some leaders of big environmental organizations have said I’m naïve to posit an alternative to cap-and-trade, and have suggested I stick to climate modeling. Let’s pass a bill, any bill, now and improve it later, they say. The real naïveté is their belief that they, and not the fossil-fuel interests, are driving the legislative process.

The fact is that the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions. It’s less than worthless, because it will delay by at least a decade starting on a path that is fundamentally sound from the standpoints of both economics and climate preservation.

Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who died this week, suffered for 40 years — as did our country — from his failure to turn back from a failed policy. As grave as the blunders of the Vietnam War were, the consequences of a failed climate policy will be more severe by orders of magnitude.

With the Senate debate over climate now beginning, there is still time to turn back from cap-and-trade and toward fee-and-dividend. We need to start now. Without political leadership creating a truly viable policy like a carbon fee, not only won’t we get meaningful climate legislation through the Senate, we won’t be able to create the concerted approach we need globally to prevent catastrophic climate change.

 I read the story in the Oregonian, and then the legions of comments after, mostly disgraceful, negative, mean spirited stuff, all hidden behind monikers and “post names”, never the real identity of the person.   A link to the article is below:

 http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/07/challenge_may_follow_renaming.html

This is what I wrote as my comment, and as always, I used my real name.  Please feel free to comment, here or at the Oregonian article comment section.

*****************************************************************************

Street names get changed all over from time to time.  In the county I grew up in, which has grown significantly in the 35 years since I left, the entire county (actually the entire state) switched to a “central grid” street numbering scheme because the old RFD system of Route numbers and Box numbers gave no clue as to where the house actually sits.  Emergency services could find the house quickly, nor could anyone else without elaborate directions.  This didn’t just happen in Florida, but all over the country, even the remote mountain cabin my brother lives in (in the mountains of western North Carolina).

So the 303 E. Bougainvillia of my childhood (and until I was in my early 50s) has now become a five numbered address in the NE section of the county, and my brother’s home, which was for decades, Route 6, box 355, Burnesville NC, is now 627 Winter Star Road.

I know people don’t like change.  My only point is, it happens.  One of the reasons I had suggested “Division” as the choice is that absolutely no one, even a friend in his 70s, a Portland native, who was a county planner his whole life, can tell me how and why Division got it’s name.  Who was Division?  Why Division?  What did it divide?  No one seems to know.My choice was Division, though Grand or Broadway would have made more sense too.  But the “hoopla” about any of those streets forced it over to 39th.

This “majority” thing is tricky.  We actually live in a Constitutional Republic, not a pure “Democracy”.  Will of the majority can be very brutal at times.  I grew up in the civil rights era, and I can assure you that white people everywhere were not at all willing to consider the issues of non white people.  Some of the most brutally racist events in history occurred in Chicago, Boston, and yes, here in Portland.

As a gay man, who has had my existence, dignity, humanity and civil rights put on a ballot measure every two or four years for over 30 years (my entire adult life), and then I get to see the percentages of people who hate me when the ballots are counted, I can assure you that not all things should be determined by majority rule.

As someone who is not a native to the region, who was born in a state with a Spanish name, in a city with a Spanish name, and lived another 22 years in a city with a Spanish name, I find all of this objection sadly provincial at best, and disgustingly racist at worst.

Within days of John Kennedy’s assassination, Grand Central Blvd. in Tampa Florida, which was the main street through the heart of the city (much like Burnside here) was changed to Kennedy Blvd.  The only people who objected were the ones who thought his getting shot was a good idea.

None of we whites in the south wanted integration.  But a couple of years later, most of us realized what idiots we’d been for having made such a fuss.  The rest died with a hardened heart.  Is that what some of you will do?  Stay angry because the world has changed and you don’t like it?  Carry that grudge till you die?

One of the reasons integration had to happen was that national and international business would never relocate to a segregated area.  Look at the south now, an economic powerhouse, because it changed.  Long held traditions, in a region which is the most “historically oriented” region in America, realized that some traditions are not worth keeping.

Cesar Chavez made a difference, and not just for Latino people, what he did, and stood for affected us all, he fought against abusive use of pesticides on produce, and civil rights for GLBTQ people, something he championed decades ago when it was not popular to do so.

Every time you bring produce home from the store you are benefitting from his work.

Our city does not need a reputation as a back water, provincial place.  That’s how we lose opportunities. Displaying a progressive posture, yes, with a street named after Mr. Chavez, helps us attract businesses and jobs of the future.

I’m truly sorry that this is so difficult for some people here, but all this spewing of ignorance and narrow mindedness simply demonstrate why the name change needed to happen.

Ed Garren

www.edgarren.us

This mornings New York Times has the following article about how fluctuations in the price of oil are making both budgeting, and the possibility of an economic recovery very difficult.  Here’s a link to the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/06oil.html?emc=eta1 

Being a psychotherapist, who is trained to listen and intuit the significance of what is NOT said, and combining it with what IS said, an obvious picture is emerging out of this situation.

Remember when Rush Limbaugh made the statement that he wanted Obama to fail at getting the country back on it’s feet?

We know that Rush is the mouthpiece for the most greedy elements of Republican party leadership.  We also know that those “most greedy elements” are hip deep in the energy industry.

“Connect the dots” people, if they play with the price of oil, and soak up any extra money that might get back into circulation by inflating the price of oil, what happens to the economic recovery?

It fails.

If the Democrats fail at getting the country back on it’s feet, then the Republicans come in, gloating, boasting,  ”we told you all along that the Democrats don’t know what to do, that government does not work” and they get back in power.

Don’t fall for it.  There is enough oil around to keep prices stable, but the oil industry uses any burp or belch as an excuse to jack up prices.   When they do, remember who is really the brains behind the charade, and think of Rush Limbaugh’s statements about wanting the president (and therefore the country) to fail.

Any way you can get away from using gasoline, or using less of it will help the country.   If you can buy a car or other major product that is made in America, that helps the economy.

The new Ford Fusion Hybrid gets 41 MPG in the city and is a real kick to drive.  Here’s one review:

http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=3610 

Insist on the production of electric cars for city use.  We have the technology GM’s EV1 was a great car, killed by the oil industry, watch the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car” for details.  A link to watch the entire movie on YouTube is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3rw9MsHB8Y

Encourage municipalities to convert to electric busses and trolley cars.    Write your congress person and tell them that now the “we the people” own General Motors that they return to production of electric cars (like the EV1) and make the technology available to other auto manufacturers (like they sell other components to competitors) so that Chrysler can also make electric cars.  A modern electric car can go over 120 miles on one charge, enough for virtually all daily driving a person does.  Cost wise, it’s the same as driving a gasoline car, except the gasoline costs less than 50 cents a gallon.  And, the energy is made in the United States, not the middle east or some other off shore place.

Also, insist that there be a full congressional investigation of all the connections and collusion between the energy industry and the Bush/Cheney era, who stole their way into the treasury in the first place.

The sooner we get away from oil, the stronger our country will be.

And remember, if Rush says something outlandish again, he’s just telling you what they are planning on doing, and thank him for spilling the beans.

 Here is a YouTube video of Bonnie speaking recently at a symposium on Marriage Equality, talking about her spiritual journey as a Quaker and a Lesbian, and how she came to know the importance of marriage equality, and how the current inequality hurts children, parents, and society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtbziDMuIc 

Bonnie Tinker was killed in a Truck/Bicycle accident last week in Virginia.  She was 61.  The long time Human Rights activist was the founder of “Love Makes a Family”, a group that advocates for the rights of so called “Alternative Families.”  The full story can be found at the following link:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/to_the_end_friends_say_bonnie.html

I had the absolutely delightful honor of meeting Bonnie at a “Separation of Church and State” conference about a month ago at Portland State University.

 I made some observations about not being so patient with people who hate us (GLBTQ persons), and that patience in the face of injustice is never a virtue.

Afterwards Bonnie came up with that beaming smile of hers, and we recognized each other as kindred spirits. We exchanged phone numbers, and planned to get together soon. Now “soon” won’t be happening, though I suspect she’s looking down and smiling as I write this.

Something that our detractors rarely seem to understand is how passionately we “activists” love life, and want as many people as possible to have a fair shot at living a full and rich life. “The World” is always trying to make us less than human, less than full children of a loving God, less important.

Too many people buy into it, and then look at people like Bonnie, myself, or other activists and angrily ask “Why do you think you’re so important?”

Nelson Mandella answered the question very well: 

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us.

We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?

Actually, who are you not to be?

You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you.

We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.

It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone.

And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our own fear: our presence automatically liberates others.”

–Nelson Mandela

Bonnie understood this, personal liberation is why we are all here, it is how we grow closer to God, and more appreciative of the life God has given us.Even though I barely knew her, I will miss her healing strength in this broken world.

May she rest in peace, and may the rest of us continue to make trouble wherever there is oppression.