Uncategorized

An open letter to President Elect Donald Trump

Leave a comment

Nov 17 2016

Dear President Elect Donald Trump,

First let me congratulate you on your election victory.   During your victory speech  you said

“Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, …. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.”

I will take you at your word that you truly believe this to be a desirable goal of your future Presidency.    Bringing our very diverse country together is a noble thought, a worthwhile goal, and would be an amazing achievement.  As you transition from President Elect to President of the United States I hope you see this goal as your responsibility, an obligation to the people of the United States and do whatever you can to facilitate this noble goal.  The national protests over your election victory illustrate how difficult the task of bringing the nation together will be.  I also trust you recognize the divisive nature of your appointment of Steve Bannon as your chief strategist, which will make this task all the more difficult.

During your victory speech  you also stated:

“For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people, …  I’m reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so that we can work together and unify our great country.”

I am one of those who did not vote for you in the election. You asked for guidance and help in working together and unifying the country.  I am taking you at your word and would like to offer you some advice as to how you could start down the path toward reconciliation.

I found many of your statements during the election highly offensive, fanning the flames of hatred, and creating deeper divisions within an already deeply divided country.  If your desired goal is unity, you could start by leading the country on a path toward reconciliation.  Good leadership starts by setting an example.  Therefore, I humbly suggest that you could set an example by acknowledging your role in deepening the divisions among us and then proceed down a path toward reconciliation.  Such a path starts with repentance, followed by apology, change in behavior and restitution.  Only then does reconciliation become a realistic possibility.

The first step is to acknowledge, publicly and to God, the role your statements have in dividing the country.   If you do not feel a sense of responsibility for your divisive speech, or contrition for your words, then I do not see how you can be effective in leading the country down a path of reconciliation, rather your words will continue to embolden those who choose hate over love.

After accepting responsibility, the next step is apology.  As just one example, the  NY times  made a list of the 282 people places and things that you have insulted on twitter during the course of the campaign; in my opinion you owe each of them an apology.  Generally, apologies need to be specific, addressed to the appropriate audience and include a promise to stop the destructive behavior.  It would help if you made a commitment to complete these apologies in the first 100 days of your Presidency.  The sincerity of apologies is often judged by seeing if there is a change in behavior.  You could condemn the current rise in violence against Americans based on their race, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation as well as a pledge to use your future office as President to combat such violence.  Another suggestion is to require that your staff and advisers have not and will not engage in divisive behavior.

After an apology and a change in behavior the next step is restitution, an attempt at mitigating the effects of the wrong.  The nature of the restitution is not determined by the offender, but is something accepted by the offended or hurt individual(s).  If you choose to apologize to the 282 people, places and things that you offended on twitter, there could be 282 different forms of restitution.

Once acknowledgement, repentance, apology, and restitution are accomplished, then and only then is reconciliation a realistic possibility.  Reconciliation is a gift offered by those who have been injured, not something that the offender demands.   Apologies do not eliminate the hurt and harm that has been done; the words and injury do not disappear because of an act of contrition.  Restitution does not make the harm disappear; rather it speaks to willingness of the offender to take responsibility for their actions.  Reconciliation is based on an evaluation by the offended that a continued relationship is warranted despite the wounds that have been inflicted.  Not everyone will be willing to accept reconciliation, but that does not eliminate the moral requirement on the offender to proceed toward this goal.

Perhaps during this process you will come to understand why some of your proposals have created such division, emboldened increased violence, and lead to the protests of your election.

The willingness to repent, apologize, change behavior, offer restitution and hope for reconciliation is not a sign of weakness; rather it is a sign of good moral character.   The decision to not go down this path could be interpreted either as a sign of weakness, or a sign that you do not see anything wrong with your words, behavior and proposals.  If you do not see anything wrong with your words, behavior and proposals over the course of your presidential campaign, then in all likelihood this country will remain highly divided during your Presidency.

Now that you are the President Elect of the United States, I hope and pray that you will choose to lead the United States toward reconciliation by example, heading down a path that acknowledges the hurt and harm done by your campaign, offers apologies for that harm, changes your future behavior, offers restitution and seeks reconciliation.

Sincerely,

David A. Larrabee

Also posted in my Huffington Post Blog

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-larrabee/open-letter-to-president-_5_b_13138638.html

 

Climate Change, Environmental Ethics, Techno-idolatry

Techno-idolatry and Climate Change

Leave a comment

As I write this blog the negotiators at the COP 21 talks are attempting to come to an agreement.  They are motivated by both the projections of future environmental disasters and the realization that this has already started.  The stated cause is the rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) that are being poured into the atmosphere by modern civilization.  The solutions being proposed are high technology: photovoltaic cells, wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, increased hydroelectricity, and yes, nuclear power.  The list of high technological actions includes carbon capture: which burns fossil fuel, captures the carbon dioxide and then pumps the carbon dioxide back in to the ground with the intention that it stay there … well … long enough.

It would seem that Paris is faced with a dichotomy: climate catastrophe or technological nirvana.  There are two problems with this dichotomy. First, it is a false dichotomy, and second, the future being proposed is no nirvana.

There is a third way: change our lifestyles so that we are more in harmony with the needs of the Earth.  This web site is dedicated to that third way.  This way does not reject technological progress, but rather sees it as one tool among many for our living in harmony.

One simple change that has a major impact on climate change would be for each of us to move closer to a more vegan lifestyle.  In 2006, the United Nations issued a statement about our love affair with beef and dairy products. “Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation …” (Here is the link).   The Union of Concerned Scientists came to a similar conclusion, with suggestions how to minimize the impact. (Here is the link).  Simply put: don’t eat beef or dairy products.  There are other changes we can make to the way we live that minimize our impact on the environment which we will cover in subsequent blogs.

The solutions that are being proposed replace the fossil fuel industry by a new “green industry.”  A great example is the solar roof top industry.  There is place for solar roof top solar and it can be a helpful addition to the climate change arsenal.  This strategy replaces one industry (gas companies) by another (roof top solar manufacturers).  In so doing, the stability of the current economic system is maintained.  The replacement of coal fired electric plants by off shore wind farms is another example of replacing one industry by another, maintaining the stability of the economic system.  Exxon’s economic sin was not that it produced fossil fuels, but that it did not use the profits to purchase a dominant share in the green technology! Behind these solutions is a faith that we can solve ecological problems through technical innovation and then create the corporations necessary to implement these solutions.

The last 100 years have given us technological marvels in a seemly never-ending parade of advances.  There is a faith, that seems natural, that if we only have enough talented, funded people working on the problems that they will be solved.  This is an attractive vision where our standard of living can go on increasing forever and ultimately will include the entire population of the planet.  It is the positive vision of science fiction where the city of tomorrow has limitless energy, no limits on food production, unlimited transportation, and all material want is eliminated.  This is an almost narcotic eschatological vision that worships human ability to overcome all obstacles.

The problem with such visions is that humans will not be able to harness unlimited energy.  It requires energy to grow food, manufacture material objects (like cell phones), and power the vehicles that transport humans and material goods.  So, such a vision is fatally flawed.  Such a vision is a form of idolatry:  a faith in the unlimited possibility of human ingenuity.

Why then do our leaders, including those in Paris, seek to assure us that such a vision is a viable future?  Corporate capitalism requires exponential growth.  Companies are judged by their percentage of growth.  The solution to the climate crisis involves the developed countries consuming less, and that is a threat to every business that views its success in term of how fast they are growing.  Ultimately, the world cannot sustain 7,300,000,000 people living at the United States standard of material wealth and energy consumption.  It is quite probable that the United States will not be able to maintain its current per capita energy consumption in a sustainable manner without destroying much of the environment within the United States.  (I will explore the reasons for this statement in future blog entries.)

The future however, need not be that of an apocalyptic nightmare.  The bright future will however require that we rethink what we mean by “the good life.”  A life that places a larger value of living in harmony with the Earth, being in community with our neighbors (including non-human neighbors), and working toward a future where material wealth is secondary to spiritual and relational health.  This is ancient wisdom that we have forgotten.

Climate Change, Environmental Ethics

United States Repentance at the Paris Climate Talks?

Leave a comment

Imagine last week that a few relatives came to Thanksgiving dinner and immediately sat down finishing their fair share of the dinner before most other guests even sat down. By the time the other guests sat down, the gluttonous guests are devouring their second dinner.  The early arrivals are into their third helping while the remaining guests are just starting to eat, having barely picked up their forks.

The United States is one of the gluttonous guests at the world’s dinner of carbon emissions.

The United States’ position at the Paris climate talks should be one of shame, repentance and begging for forgiveness.  Energy is the lifeblood of modern civilization and fossil fuels has fueled the developed world’s appetite for energy.  Who gets what energy is a matter of vital concern for all countries.  Numbers matter and what the numbers show is that the United States (of which I am a citizen) has already consumed more than our fair share and will continue to do so in the future.  The United States cannot morally point its’ figurative finger at other nations on issues of climate change.

Here are the numbers as I read them:

Myles Allen et al. have estimated that the total cumulative carbon emissions from human sources will need to be limited to less than a trillion metric tonnes of carbon, if a peak warming of less than 2oC is to be achieved.(1)  Unfortunately, we have already emitted more than half of this amount. (2)

The United States has emitted about 100 billion metric tonnes of carbon as of 2012. (3)  The United States, with about 4.4% of the world’s population, has emitted at least 17% of the world’s carbon emissions to date. (4)  If the United States were to have no net carbon emissions starting today, we will have emitted about 10-11% of the trillion metric tonnes of carbon limit suggested by Allen et. al.  This is about 2.5 times more than our fair share!  Yes we are on our third helping of carbon emissions! Yet we are still emitting carbon dioxide equivalents at the rate of 5.8 billion metric tonnes a year. (5)

What if we ignore the past and only look to the future?  There are about 400 billion metric tonnes of carbon left to be emitted before we hit the trillion tonne limit in an attempt to limit temperature rise to 2oC.  The United States fair share would be just under 18 billion metric tonnes.  At our current rate of carbon emissions we will use our fair share in the next 11 or 12 years.  (6) It is a virtual certainty that we will continue to consume more than our fair share.  We refuse to get up from the table and let others have their fair share of dinner.

The Gospel of Matthew could inform the United States posturing during the climate talks in Paris.

 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.  Matthew 7:3-5 (NRSV)

The log in our own eye is both our historical emissions and our current rate of carbon emissions.  The speck in the eyes of the less developed countries is their emissions as they try to economically develop their country to improve the quality of life of their citizens.

Numbers matter.  The United States should come to the Paris climate talks with a spirit of repentance.  We need to ask the forgiveness of the rest of the world for our over consumption of the world’s resources and our endangering God’s creation in the process.  We then need to leave the Paris climate talks with an all-out aggressive plan to limit our gluttony and maybe then we can all sit down together at the dinner table.

Notes:

(1) Myles R. Allen, David J. Frame, Chris Huntingford, Chris D. Jones, Jason A. Lowe, Malte Meinshausen, and Nicolai Meinshausen. “Warming Caused by Cumulative Carbon Emissions Towards the Trillionth Tonne.” Nature 458 (2009): 1163-66.  The numbers presented are in terms of the mass of carbon, not the mass of carbon dioxide.

(2) For a cumulative carbon emission clock see http://www.trillionthtonne.org/  as of this writing the world has emitted almost 600 Billion metric tonnes of carbon.

(3) Or 366,421 million metric tonnes of CO2 according to the world resources institute see http://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/cait-country-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

(4) I have used the figure of 100 Billion metric tonnes of Carbon for the total emissions of Carbon up to 2012 to which I have added 4.7 Billion tonnes to account for the emissions in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015.  This number can vary depending on the details of the calculation and some sources put the U.S. share to global cumulative carbon emissions as high as 29%.

(5) This is the number for 2013 as reported in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 (EPA 430-R-15-004) which was cited in the United States INDC at COP 21  see page 2-6.  In terms of Million Metric tonnes of Carbon equivalent (not CO2) this number is 1,579.

(6) Preliminary calculations suggest that if the United States were to follow our commitments in the INDC submitted for COP 21, and we held to the rate of decline of CO2 emissions past 2025 (the last date of the commitment) then we would use up our fair share between 2028 and 2029.  We would achieve zero emissions in about 2058 and have used up just under twice our fair share.  More on this later.

Note:  This post was edited so that the quoted amount of CO2 emissions reflected the number the US submitted at COP 21 for 2013.   Footnote 5 was added to document this number. Footnote 4 was similarly updated which slightly effected some of the figures, so they were changed. The number of years to use up our fair share was corrected.  A note was added to show how the planning in the United States INDC submission to COP 21 changed the time frame to using up our fair share (footnote 6).

A dialog between Science, economics and Religion