Living Large in Carson City: What’s a Liberal to do?

Posted on by technoscribe50: Gary Brady-Herndon

“Better to be afraid and prepared, than happy and dead.”
― Lenore Stutznegger

Writing about politics, the economy, or the state of American democracy is becoming increasingly hard. Doom and gloom permeates just about every news cycle. In 2022 the crossover into how we live our lives on a day-to-day basis is getting just as difficult. Wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, extreme flooding, and a plethora of other climate related events are pressing topics that cannot be ignored. Americans find that their lives are increasingly susceptible to the ravages of the bugaboo de jour that Mother Nature serves up on an endless cycle year after year. People are dying, losing their homes, and generally holding their breath in hopes that the next round of cataclysmic events doesn’t fall heavily on their doorsteps.

The time worn adage that the governments of the world have everything under control is all but laughable on its face. Since December of 2015 when 200 nations across the globe met in Paris to discuss what could be done to address climate change, most of the world breathed a sigh of relief thinking that, finally, something was being done to meet this challenge head on and make a difference. Or so the world thought.

The Paris Agreement did the best and the least it could do to appease all of the participating nations to get them to sign on to the document. Think, herding angry, wild and feral cats. The scenario is akin to walking into a darkened room to find a time bomb set to explode in 3 minutes. Diplomats and politicians too often think first about their country’s needs weighed against stymieing economic growth even if the topic is saving the world. The two are often contrary to sane or prudent actions. The Agreement did acknowledge that the burning of fossil fuels by humankind “as the primary engine of economic growth” had to come to an end for both the largest and smallest of countries. An article appearing in Time Magazine just after the signing of the Agreement laid our the basic parameters of the deal which was as vague as it was insufficient. The article stated:

“The deal requires any country that ratifies it to act to stem its greenhouse gas emissions in the coming century, with the goal of peaking greenhouse gas emissions “as soon as possible” and continuing the reductions as the century progresses. Countries will aim to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100 with an ideal target of keeping temperature rise below 1.5°C (2.7°F).” Time

At the time the Agreement was touted as a significant step in the long road to stemming the devastating tide of climate change across the world. The Agreement called for a two step verification process. First the signing of the document then the individual nation’s ratification of it. Not all the nations involved stayed the course and signed then ratified the Agreement. The United Nation’s website states, “. . . of those 197 signed, only 190 have ratified the Paris Agreement. (America was onboard under Barrack Obama until 2017 when Donald Trump began the process of withdrawing America’s support and left the Agreement in 2020. Once in office, Joe Biden signed an Executive Order to rejoin the Agreement.) The Agreement can be seen as a modest success after years of climate denial by nation’s across the world.” UN Paris Agreement

As would be expected, a majority of the delegate nations were somewhat pleased by the Agreement’s modest success. It addressed everything from greenhouse gases to transparency to as “John Coequyt, the Sierra Club’s director of federal and international climate campaigns, said the agreement included “all the core elements that the environmental community wanted.” Of course, there were also many naysayers. Some people thought the Agreement didn’t go far enough and more needed to be done. Then there are those like some of America’s conservatives who do not believe in the science behind climate change. Others like Friends of the Earth U.S. President Erich Pica said the agreement is “not a fair, just or science-based deal” because it fails to adequately address losses due to climate change in the most vulnerable countries. What to know . . .

Due to the unique structure of the Agreement, each country set their own goals in limiting the effects of climate change. Not every nation has met those goals. Still, most would agree that something being done is better than no progress at all. Right? The question is: are the goals being met enough to make a difference in the world by the end of the century? Everything said before comes down to this crucial question, and the answer lies within the realm of science and climatologists as it should be. This is where things get ugly.

The goal of eliminating worldwide greenhouse gases to ensure temperatures don’t rise above the 2°C (preferably 1.5°C) by 2021 was a compromise that nations of the world could sign off on in a show of solidarity. It’s an arbitrary goal hammered out during the Agreement that allowed attendees to agree to something acceptable without doing damage to the economies of both small and large governments. It was a noble gesture, and one that on the surface appeared to be a positive step in the fight to save the planet from devastating climate change. However, as in all things as important as fighting climate change, the devil is in the details.

On August 1, 2022, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published the findings of eleven scientific researchers from around the globe titled “Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios“. The paper states, “They propose a research agenda into the consequences of global warming, specifically the worst-case scenarios they claim have been understudied.” Worst case scenarios? Understudied? It appears that the Paris Agreement’s stated goals were less than comprehensive when it comes to the actual reality of what climate change could entail for the future of the world. Most people who take climate change seriously understand on some level that bad things will result from not stemming the effects of climate change. The findings of the eleven researchers move the ball down the field bypassing the head in the sand approach the world used to deny or playdown the effect of the changes that could occur.

The paper is chock full of data, suggested outcomes, and extensively sourced to back up the paper’s findings. Fundamentally, the researchers say that by studying the “worst case scenarios” it will better inform the world on the steps that have to be taken to really understand what has to be done, and done quickly to save the planet and humankind. The abstract to the paper states,

“The proposed agenda covers four main questions: 1) What is the potential for climate change to drive mass extinction events? 2) What are the mechanisms that could result in human mass mortality and morbidity? 3) What are human societies’ vulnerabilities to climate-triggered risk cascades, such as from conflict, political instability, and systemic financial risk? 4) How can these multiple strands of evidence—together with other global dangers—be usefully synthesized into an “integrated catastrophe assessment”?

The authors cite the Toronto Conference declaration in 1988 the effects of climate change are ‘”potentially second only to a global nuclear war”‘. Additionally, they note, the catastrophic effects of climate change are poorly understood and need more studies by the world’s scientific community. They also give evidence attributed to the Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that “quantitative” estimates placing the warming increase at 3 °C or above.” This flies in the face of the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C to 2°C global increase by 2100. However, the Paris base is not altogether a superfluous figure. The paper notes by understanding the cascading effects that occur between now and the turn of the century at the 1.5°C to 2°C global increase in warming will better inform scientists on what measures are necessary to undertake to face the potential for worldwide catastrophe. The paper notes that the Paris Agreement settled on the figures they did because ‘”the culture of climate science (is) to ‘err on the side of least drama, to not to be alarmists”‘.

The key take away here is the “cascading effects” that will occur between now and the end of the century. While it is noble of the nations to sign on to the Agreement and work to achieve the modest goal of not going beyond the 1.5°C to 2°C global increase, it doesn’t ameliorate the damage already done, nor does it stop the damage that will continue as the years go by. This is where the cascading effect comes into play. Wildfires, famine, conflicts that will surely come as sea levels rise and people move across borders into neighboring countries are only a few of the scenarios. The fact that climate change is occurring at an unprecedented rate should be enough to alarm even the most die-hard naysayers.

Honestly, the report is so filled with data this post cannot adequately sum up the depth of information included in the paper. The upshot one might take away from the report is nations of the world cannot become complacent of the very real danger that faces the earth by 2100. When the researchers write about “global catastrophic and decimation risks” or “extinction threat”, they are not employing scare tactics. They are merely pointing out that many of the terms associated with global warming are not clearly understood and require further extensive research to help leaders and scientists to understand the dire consequences of not immediately confronting the future outcomes that the world’s societies will face down the road.

While this report is not “light reading”, the information is presented in a way that anyone can understand the findings they report in the paper. Please go to Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios and see for yourself.

Living Large In Carson City: Putting Lipstick On A Pig: Volume XXX Edition

Posted on by technoscribe50: Gary Brady-Herndon

He (she) could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time.

Hunter S. Thompson

The first day of the impeachment trial began, and I had been putting off sitting down in front of the television to tune it in. It just seemed so futile and unseemly to sit and listen to grown men of supposed stature lie blatantly about a man who is so undeniably guilty. Not just of minor human fragility, but a man of deeply depraved and wicked moral tendency. A man who is gladly wrecking our democracy, our way of life, and all of the the truths that make America the greatest nation on the planet. Or well, it used to be. Trump has sullied our good name on the world stage by acting out like a two year old who has lost his binky. He is literally that pathetic and obtuse. Now, the trial is goes into the final weekend with a vote on not allowing witnesses and a scheduled acquittal on all counts next Wednesday. Thanks Mitch . . . for nothing.

Okay, I succumbed and started watching snippets of the speeches daily from both sides. The takeaway from the Republican’s side was to simply lie, lie, and lie some more. It repulsed me to hear Trump’s White House lawyer, Pat A. Cipollone, rebut the Democrats claims and accusations without even a hint of irony or regard for the truth. It boggles the mind and tests the realms of reality to envision, let alone understand, what Trump’s crew of vipers posing as lawyers did to come up with such hogwash then spout it out on the Senate floor without breaking down laughing.

The very real fact that should disturb anyone who loves and cherishes this country’s freedoms and place in the world is the rise of the ubër conservative. Not the down and dirty ragtag Trump basket of deplorables, they have always been around. It’s the sleek, sauve and creepy guys in expensive suits who seem to have sprung  fully mature out of Trump’s forehead (apologies to Athena and Zeus). They are rich and  powerful and becoming even more so under the Trump regime. Some, like the White House’s Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, crazy Rudy Giuliani, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Gordon Sondland, and others come off more as clowns than actual players. Their obvious greed and lack of a moral compass designates them as slimy hanger ons – nothing more.  Granted, they can do enough harm simply by existing in Trump’s swamp world, but because of their buffoonery they are seen as not exactly to sharpest knives in the drawer or the most diabolical.

No, the dangerous types are of the likes of Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin,  Attorney General William Barr, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and that prophet of doom Senior Policy Advisor Stephen Miller. These people not only manufacture the Kool Aid they have found a way to survive and thrive on it. To be honest, this only a short list and space will not allow me to delve into the numerous questionable conservative judicial appointments, wacked out evangelicals who hang on Trump’s coattails like a scrum of lice, or the irresponsible department heads who exist only to do Trump’s wishes.

The depths of depravity that the likes of Mnuchin will slip into came evident at the annual Davos Economic Forum circle jerk on climate change last week. In an article by international climate activist Payal Parekh titled “We can’t trust the billionaires of Davos to solve a climate crisis they created”, Parekh makes an insightful comment,

While Australia is burning and frontline communities all over the world are threatened by the very real consequences of the climate crisis, Davos-style meetings will never give us the answers we need. In truth, it would be foolish for anyone to expect a private club whose 1000 member companies have paid between 60,000 to 600,000 swiss francs to be a member (the more you pay the more access you have) should be trusted to solve an issue they created. The Guardian

There were those there that spoke truth to power. Both Prince Charles of Great Britain and Sweden’s Greta Thunberg gave impassioned speeches telling the world the truth about the crisis the world faces. Thunberg was especially pointed in her criticism and demands on behalf of the world’s youth. She stated,

In Chapter Two, on page 108 in the SR 1.5 IPCC report that came out in 2018, it says that if we are to have a 67 percent chance of limiting the global average temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, we had on January 1st, 2018, about 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit in that budget.

And, of course, that number is much lower today, as we emit, about 42 gigatons of CO2 every year, including in land use. With today’s emissions levels, that remaining budget is gone within less than eight years. These numbers aren’t anyone’s opinions or political views. This is the current best available science. Though many scientists suggest these figures are too moderate, these are the ones that have been accepted through the IPCC. WeForum

Yet, leave it to Mnuchin in his creepy, elitist frat-boy demeanor to strike exactly the wrong tone when he shot back at Thunberg’s statements.

Asked by a reporter at the World Economic Forum in Davos whether the climate policies Thunberg advocates would hinder US economic growth, Mnuchin answered, “Is she the chief economist, or who is she? I’m confused.”

“It’s a joke,” he went on. “After she goes and studies economics in college she can come back and explain that to us.” Vox

These are the people running our government. Their lack of self-awareness, willful neglect and immature understanding of what is at stake to our environment and future of the planet is stunning in its obtuseness and sheer audacity of their head in the sand approach. No, Thunberg does not have a degree in economics, but  the question is not why is she commenting on the peril facing our world, but why are people like Mnuchin not asking the same hard questions. It doesn’t take a genius in economics to understand the issue as Mnuchin’s comments so vividly illustrate

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is another case in point. How these people get elected to public office is unfathomable. Pompeo’s only qualification for holding the Secretary of State position is the fact that he is a Trump sycophant without little of anything that might be called a “soul”. His demeanor is that of a thuggish husband without the cheek stubble and  a dirty stained wife beater t-shirt. His recent outrageous treatment of a NPR reporter of the venerable All Things Considered public radio show was unconscionable as it was indicative of his fear of not being treated like a great pasha of Trump world.  It seems beyond low ball, easy-to-answer questions that allow him free reign to bash Iran he is unable to hold his water when dealing with important issues like Ukraine and the conspiracy Trump created.

These two are only the tip of a very unctuous swamp pool that has swallowed up Washington, D.C. and the White House. The “players” of Trump world’s attitude reminds me of Tom Wolfe’s lead character in his book Bonfire of the Vanities. Not unlike the characters in Donald Trump: The Presidency, Wolfe’s leading man is  Sherman McCoy. McCoy is a Wall Street investment banker who is riding high on both the unbridled opportunism of a bull market and his on inflated ego. McCoy sees himself and his cohorts as “masters of the universe”, not unlike Trump and his avariousious cadre of suits who claim both allegiance to him and the spoils of governing.

Getting back to the impeachment trial, week two saw the Trump lawyers present their side in defense of Trump and his actions. Has there ever been a more audacious collection of liars and dissimulators to ever walk the face of the earth? Alan Dershowitz, a once respected professor and lawyer, can be seen as the worst. His argument on why Trump should not be removed from office ultimately comes down to this statement by Dershowitz,

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Dershowitz’s argument during a Senate question-and-answer session reverberated across Capitol Hill and social media, sparking warnings that—if accepted—Trump or any other president would be free to do whatever they please as long as they can claim they were acting to advance their chances of reelection.

“This of course would mean that a president could not be impeached for doing literally anything in the service of his own reelection,” tweeted Cornell Law professor Josh Chafetz. Raw Story via Common

Dershowitz’s statement is the description of a Third world monarchy, and that dear reader (as many across Washington noted) is the template for authoritarianism.