Opinion: Time for Tahoe to act, not just react
By Garry Bowen
The summer of 1997 was indeed a heady time: coffee with Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Richard Rominger at the Lone Eagle Grill in Incline; a lawn meeting with Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Jim Lyons at Tallac, entertaining an invitation to join an upcoming panel on Forest Health, the result of my having written a white paper to Vice President Al Gore’s domain while in the White House (the Office of Environmental Quality) on behalf of both of Tahoe’s Resource Conservation Districts, offspring’s of the USDA Forest Service’s “first cousin”, the Natural Resource Conservation Service.
To this day, the NRCS and the RCD serve the Tahoe basin very well, in so many ways across the community, as well as most of the other local agency efforts. But while the community needs to be reminded of this important ongoing work at various times, it is Monday’s visit by Al Gore that will be the subject of yet another reminder.
Garry Bowen
Those “heady times” came to mind at Sand Harbor on Aug. 19 as it became apparent to me that we have been missing the enthusiasm with which he spoke that morning, in spite of the emerging danger that he’s been so battered by in pointing out. Denying that climate change is now so obviously upon us seems to make the dwindling numbers even more vociferous, and the squeaky wheel still gets way too much credence, to our continued detriment.
When Gore can attest that “it is time to renew our commitment . . . to go the rest of the way,” he was not just talking about our local efforts at reestablishing the hallowed clarity of Lake Tahoe, but more in the vein of his other comments about climate change in referring to the release of “90 million tons of CO2 that will be released today” into the sky like it’s an “open sewer”. That his enthusiasm leads to “hope … tempered by a realization that much more has to be done” really reflected that from now on, Lake Tahoe could in fact “be a symbol, not in name only, but to truly and genuinely play a vital role in inspiring the (rest of) the world” as to the importance of preserving the systems that support all of life, not just the local budgetary concerns of contributing to any public/private partnership – for the time being.
He said the original presidential summit, all those years ago, “was accomplished without partisanship or ideology” and that Lake Tahoe still retains the “chance to move beyond that”. He also went beyond the now-regular boundary of each year’s annual summit by upping the ante in saying that Tahoe should now think about spawning an annual global event with “awe-inspiring and demonstrable” examples of the “cooperation” that makes him so proud of being a part of bringing attention to Lake Tahoe in the latter part of the last century. “Awe-inspiring and demonstrable” examples are, of course, a missing ingredient.
Unfortunately, the word cooperation has to be “in quotes” for now, as the necessary community spirit to match Gore’s enthusiasm, vim and vigor for his subject matter is not yet as readily apparent as needed, in that local dealings are still not so much about change as they are about maintaining whatever the power structure thinks of itself as “leading” – bringing the slippage back up to par, instead of instituting the types of change that would suit them better. Joanne Marchetta of TRPA is right: “it will take (much) more than growth control and design standards for new buildings”: it will take individual recognition and responsibility to meet or exceed those standards and to sincerely care enough about our surroundings that there is active participation in creating truly sustainable lifestyles … life will soon depend upon it on unheard-of levels.
Active participation means that Lake Tahoe not just be thought of in terms of its natural beauty (all of nature has a beauty of its own) or as a function of any “picture-postcard mentality” (a term coined by an economist with the Forest Service Research Station), currently favored for real-estate valuations.
For Gore’s energetic statements from Monday, Tahoe will have to learn of the subtle (but profound) distinction between aiming for “sustainable communities”, seemingly just a step or two from where we now find ourselves, and in learning the certain significance of scientific sustainability in restoring life-giving processes.
To truly match Gore’s enthusiastic support in thinking of Tahoe as a “model for combating global warming” (surely we’ll want to think of ourselves that way, but then conflate and deny what it will actually take to do so). The ability-to-sustain will actually have to be taught, but fortunately there are easy ways to do that – aside from any mere program that the powers-that-be think will be sufficient and politically correct.
Even the mighty EPA decided in late 2011 that our global problems are so daunting that no individual program will work, so they have called for sustainability to be “embedded” in everything they do, from administration, to policy, to implementation. If Gore’s suggestion is to be realized and we think about becoming a global beacon for answers, then we’d better create better questions as to how to “get there”, so Tahoe does not trip itself up in trying to be what others already know they’re not: sustainable.
“Going the rest of the way” does not mean “more-of-the-same (just a little different)” – it means embracing the tremendous work of the Sustainable Sites Initiative, the U.S. Green Building Council, the International Living Future Institute, and the very people who work every day wanting to make a difference right here in the Basin and in all of the outdoor world – Tahoe is not in a vacuum, but it can resonate with a renewed emphasis of using the resources it gets with the very best leverage possible – that’s an important beacon of its’ own – “good enough for government” is not anymore – but can be.
As William McDonough, the “mastermind of sustainable development” said, “it will take more than simply being ‘less bad’ ”, or even Jerry Garcia (Grateful Dead), “picking between the lesser of two evils is still evil”.
The foregoing is an adequate reflection of what’s been learned in the interim 15 years since those heady days headed up by Senator Reid’s orchestration of a first-time visit anywhere by a sitting president and vice president, and the ongoing support of both our states’ senatorial contingent – but Gore’s rallying cry early this week calls for much more than “more of the same (but better)” as Marchetta implies.
The world is actually waiting for such a leadership example; why not Lake Tahoe? It is most decidedly not “the sustainability powerhouse of the nation”, but could be, with the right motivational direction – do we dare extend ourselves to meet such a challenge?
It took 16 years for Gore to stir us up once more – can we stand another decade or more again? I think not.
Garry Bowen has a 50-year connection to the South Shore, with an immediate past devoted to global sustainability, on most of its current fronts: green building, energy and water efficiencies, and public health. He may be reached at tahoefuture@gmail.com or (775) 690.6900.
How much carbon did dear old Al Gore spew into the air when he flew in and out on his private jet? Why cant Al fly commercial, he can still fly first class. How many people attending the summit at Sand Harbor took public transportation or carpooled? Mostly what bothers me about the envoirnmental movement is how hippocritical most of the people involved are. We need to make many changes and we all want the lake to stay clear and clean, but why is their only one way, Theirs?
The sycophant of my enemy is my enemy. Hey, Gary you forgot to use the term “smart growth” to describe the totalitarian society you are promoting. Get with it and please don’t slip up again. Your handlers may get angry.
Rhinopoker and youareajohnson,
That’s all you take away from Garry’s(walked the walk) opinion about our stewardship of Lake Tahoe and the bigger picture of global sustainability,
the fact that former Pres. Gore flew into the basin on private aircraft?
Try making an effort to understand some of the issues involved instead of just kneejerk hatred for environmentalists drummed into your mind by hate radio and fox ewes.
Gore didn’t fly in on a private jet; he flew in on Alaska Airlines because of their carbon trading policies. They’re one of the few airlines that actually offsets their emissions.
it is so predictable that the anti environmentalist rhetoric is always the same. No creative minds exist with the tea partier/gop regiem. I mean just look at who they think is going to be the next leader…noone comes to mind and they just sit there saying duhhhhhhh…
The inconvenient truth Algore and the junk scientists have to deal with is that temperatures aren’t rising, but falling. In fact, since the early 1990s we’ve had global cooling. It got so embarrassing Al and the junk scientists started calling it “climate change.” Some days it rains, some days it doesn’t and some days it’s a little of both. That’s real change. The U.N. panel concedes that global warming has in fact given way to global cooling, but attributes this to “short-term factors.” The minions of the compliant media, ever eager to blow hard about the coming end of the world, when women and minorities will suffer most, will rattle and twitter about the U.N. climate report with their usual tingle and flutter.
The Obama Regime tried to elbow Algore aside to lead with his assertion that hurricanes are getting worse and that only he has the power to put them in their place. Hurricanes are actually getting not worse, but fewer. Only three major hurricanes have made landfall so far in Mr. Obama’s presidency. Grover Cleveland, who was president between 1885 and 1889, entertained 26 major hurricanes during his presidency, and that was before global warning was invented.
We were scheduled to see an enormous melting of polar ice by now, but even the ice won’t co-operate. The U.S. Navy forecasts twice as much mid-September ice this year as it measured in 2012.
Now what were you saying about that fraud named Algore?
Thanks to Jack for clarifying Al’s flight on Alaska Airlines. . .and to others for “assuming” my stance to be of ‘handlers’; we in Tahoe (my hometown as a Viking, as a point) might be better off if I did in fact have better ‘support’; instead I’m working with people in 20 countries across 10 Greenwich Mean Time zones [2 are IPCC members sharing the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore] who have the instinct & spirit to understand the need for change on a level that could elevate Tahoe (and the rest of the planet) to what it can be instead of it being consumed, as is most of America right now, by so much politicization – we are soon to reach a point where it will be much more obvious that it will not matter much at all what side you happen to be “on”. . .as to A.B: can’t dignify that with a response. . .
Who would have thought: two comments with facts that directly conflict with one another. Of course, how Mr. Gore arrived here is completely irrelevant to the message and to the discussion, IMHO, but there we are. Two conflicting “facts”… I would call it a metaphor for the entire subject.
Dumb,
In response to your bogus attempt at projecting false equivalency to the arguments made by 97% of real climate scientists vs. the “facts” of 3% climate change deniers, I give you a quote from Isaac Asimov:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding through political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that Democracy means ‘My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Just curious AB where you get your data, this info is from the American Meteorological Society 2012 State of the Climate report, what data are you using? Fox news?
“Conditions in 2012
The global surface temperature ranked among the top 10 warmest years on record. Over land and ocean combined, 2012 was between 0.14° and 0.17° Celsius (0.25°and 0.31° Fahrenheit) above the 1981–2010 average, depending on the analysis. The globally averaged annual temperature over land was 0.24°–0.29°C (0.43°-0.52°F) above average. And averaged globally, the 2012 ocean temperature was 0.10°–0.14°C (0.18°-0.25°F) above average”
Thank you Garry for your work and your patience in dealing with the frustration that must come when one of your articles is posted here.
For the folks hereabouts who just woke up this morning and pulled a new scientific fact out of their ears, they might find this site helpful when they feel like returning to reality.
And for the rest, who have put up with their squalling, the site might provide a happy return to reality.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths
I’m excited to read the responses, as it may show others (1) exactly how much work there is yet to do, and (2) how inspired one must be to actually learn what they’ll need to know to overcome all the various (and wrong) viewpoints – in short, what we’re really up against. . .
As someone has said, “you can’t veto status quo”, even as “quo” has long ago “lost its’ status”.
The sustainability answer lies in the fact that it is actually REJUVENATING to learn what a fantastic planet this is, and why we’d better do better than just consume everything it has to offer. That’s why I liked Gore’s enthusiasm. . .
As E.O. Wilson was recently quoted, when asked to define Nature now, responded: “Nature – what’s left when Man gets done with it” – frightening !
Sorry, Bill, there is no false equivalency, as I didn’t even attempt to make an argument supporting either “side”. Perhaps you didn’t understand my comment. I made an observation about the existence of two “facts” in separate comments, neither of which did I support or defend. You may attack the messenger all you like, but two conflicting facts must bring anyone with an active intellect to the conclusion that at least one of the comments regarding Mr. Gore’s mode of travel is not a fact. Nor does it actually affect the conversation about Mr. Bowen’s opinion piece. The scientific fact is obvious and well-documented. Indeed, denial of the published science as regards this subject is not understandable. However, why the personal attack? I didn’t even try to take a position.
Hey Dumb,
I know what “two conflicting facts” means, I also know what a metaphor is. I did not fail to understand your comment. Your attempt at false equivalency re: the “entire subject” is obvious, not a personal attack.
Ah, let me explain. I tried to point out that many folks think that they know the facts, when it is apparent that they do not. Hence the metaphor comment. Again, I do not see any false equivalency. Why the invective?
Since you insist on continuing this false equivalency accusation, would you mind explaining where you see it? Your explanation may help to improve my communication skills. Thanks.
I just wanted to point out that many folks are very passionate about this subject and often take very confrontational positions because they assume too much about others’ opinions. It appears to me that you may have done exactly that, Bill.
Gary and BB, would you please explain to your mesmerized readers why Lake Tahoe and Yosemite were under 1000’s of feet of ice just 10,000 years ago.
If I am not mistaken there were very few humans or SUV’s spewing CO2 to cause its melting. Facts are so inconvenient are they not. BTW, anyone that believes 97% of hard science scientists believe in AGW are just loyal followers of Chicken Little.
Johnson,
I’ve often wondered why that fact is never discussed. Over the millions of years that this planet has been around, we’ve had extreme cold and extreme hot, all before humans were even a blip on the radar. Death Valley was once under an ice cap, which melted and created a huge freshwater lake with lush vegetation….long before SUV’s and Republicans.
Makes it hard for me to buy into the theory that these climate changes are caused by man.
Dave. Exactly so. Some facts are convenient and others not so much. IMHO, this debate is mostly from uninformed and passionate people with the best intentions. However, intentions do not equate to fact or conclusions. I don’t have an opinion yet as the data is incomplete. Science does not require belief, it requires factual data. The current data points to some effects by man as well as some effects by nature. There is no solid conclusion that defines exactly what can be done, if anything, about the effects. Certainly, we cannot wantonly continue to pollute as much as we want. The last thing we need is to give any government agencies (or quasi-government, like TRPA) unlimited funding to “solve” this problem. Thank you for your dedication, Garry.
BTW, no response Bill?
Dumbfounded,
I agree. I often wonder if the belief that humans are RESPONSIBLE for global warming (climate change) relates back to our belief that we are somehow significant in this universe. In the grand scheme of things, we are minuscule and our actions are irrelevant.
Dumb,
In your original post you allude to there being two different sets of facts being a metaphor for the entire climate change debate. I think the I.Asimov quote I provided in my previous post pretty much covers my opinion about people who give equal weight to the climate change deniers “facts” vs. real scientist’s peer reviewed data.
Your inability to form an opinion about this subject, despite the overwhelming available scientific data from real climatologists from all over the world, leads me to believe you are the one who is uninformed.
There is absolutely no doubt that the earth has gone through all the changes the deniers describe over 10’s of thousands of years and numerous species have come and gone because of these changes. The warnings from scientists today about our overuse of fossil fuels and belligerent pollution of land and water are meant to help save the destruction of a certain species in this particular time period…US. To think that there is nothing mankind can do to change these self-destructive behaviors is willful ignorance. The main reason so many refuse to accept reality is because a change in lifestyle would be “inconvenient”. EOM
OK, you are free to be obtuse and ignore what I wrote. I said none of what you attribute to me, and you know it. In fact, I indicated exactly the opposite. I denied nothing. All the best to you.
To callmejohnson (and any others needing or wanting further clarification):
In the very recent past, another group of scientists, comprised of palentologists (and others), the Geophysical Union (GPU) made the very considered decision that we are now officially in the Anthropocene Era.
These eras usually cover 10’s of thousands of years (from the very broadest perspectives of science), and the reason for the careful deliberation was due to the types of uninformed (some would say ignorant) debates we now see. . .
The most cogent reason they decided to “enter” another era name was justified by the emerging facts that “man has so dominated all of the systems of the Earth” that we are now accelerating whatever natural processes occur by our lack of concern with our surroundings – only money & hubris decide whether we move forward on even the solutions, while we continue to deny our own capacity to destroy, as if destroying is our only fate in being on this planet, justified only by more & more “growth” and the profit therefrom – which no longer “computes”. . . that’s why I used the simpler implication of Dr. E.O Wilson’s quote above.
To continue on the path of doing nothing (or, as little as is “humanly” possible) gives credence to another quote I use (from around 1000 A.D): “against stupidity, the Gods themselves, contend in vain”…
Money does not exist in nature, but life, as we know now it, does. . .what can we do about it ?
At least ‘Chicken Little’ cried out that the ‘sky is falling !, the sky is falling !”. CL was also wrong – the sky is merely filling up with smoke, and the “90 million tons/day of excess (“over-the-top”) CO2 that nature didn’t cause or create. . .is this to be our legacy ?
Each of us can & must do what we can in answer. . . doing nothing is not an option now. . .