It’s the singer not the song
that moves the music along.
—Join Together, The Who
The song of our current environmental distress is being played, but the music of change is not moving along. We need a singer. Actually, we need more than one, we all need to join together with the band, so that we can make the music move along. Let us join together as the band, that we may, as a singular, unified body, become the voice of the singer that carries the music.
Did you watch the Oscars? Yea me neither. But, this morning I ran across this great speech by Leonardo DiCaprio. It is a great speech and it gives light to the political issues that go along with climate change and other issues with man vs nature. It is great to see someone who is so know and like around the world to bring this topic to national television and into the public spotlight.
It is hard to talk about climate change with people. Sometimes you just do not know when it is appropriate or how the other people will react to the topic. But, it still needs to be talked about so we can move forward and finally come together globally and do something about it. This is just another reason to like this great actor.
After reading several chapters from Klein’s book, This Changes Everything, I had somewhat of a realization. And it scared me. I did not necessarily agree with all of the points Klein made, but it is safe to say that after reading the excerpts, I had a changed perspective on the necessities of our situation.
I’ve been a conservative my entire life, not necessarily a republican, and honestly I would refer to myself as more of a traditionalist than anything. Anyways, I’m not necessarily a fan of big government. This is where I became conflicted after the reading. I realized that sometimes, in dire situations, it becomes extremely necessary to make decisions based off what is needed rather than particular beliefs. I realized what those in Washington are always struggling with: the need of the nation (and/or the people) comes before individual beliefs. I saw that given the situation we are approaching involving the Anthropocene, big government is definitely going to be needed to make several of the necessary societal changes that the private sector has failed to meet.
This is was both a conflict of beliefs, but even more so, a so called “light bulb” moment. What I saw as necessary didn’t align with what I believed, in fact it was the exact opposite. I’m conflicted because what I see as necessary is clashing with my belief system. I see no alternative. The big power players in the private sector are not going to be willing to give up their power and make the tough decisions necessary, and the government is the only entity with some (though definitely limited) domain over these players. There needs to be some sort of intervention, and at this point, the government is the only one who can do so. Currently the are failing, and with elections coming up, this is going to be an issue that I put a lot of thought into–what candidate can best lead this nation as we enter the Anthropocene and usher in the changes that are needed?
It also leaves me with several pressing questions (thanks to Dr. Durbin and the rest of the class as these were mostly taken either directly or indirectly from discussion):
Fear plagues my mind and renders me blind to all optimistic foresight. Massive revolution is the only alternative to giving up. The people have failed us. The powerful have failed us. The government is failing us. What option do we really have in face of an oncoming disaster, when the only safeguards we have ever known have miserably failed to see the plea of the planet in this dire time of need? We need a war-type effort. Sacrifices need to be made. It’s time for metaphorical bloodshed. The irrational needs to be done, because the rational has been negligent to necessity. The reasonability of agreements, pacts, coalitions, governments, individual and societal solutions have all failed us. It is time to make a storm, it’s time to force the rain. Let revolution create a wake of change.
When you flip a light switch in your home…do you know where that electricity is coming from? Do you know if it is from coal, solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear? Chances are you really do not know where your electricity originates. Do you know what laws in your state govern how much of your power comes from renewable sources? Or, the lack of a law that states what percentage of the state’s total energy production must come from renewable energy.
In 2005 Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius negotiated a bill that would require that 20% of Kansas’s power be produced by renewable sources by 2020. Twenty percent is really not that high of a target, but it was a good start. It was signed into law in 2009 by the proceeding governor Mark Parkinson. It was enacted not only to spur wind energy development, and the economy that goes with it, but also to address the growing concern over fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions and the impacts it plays in global climate change. It also gave a lifetime property tax exemption for renewable energy projects and that the utility company cannot charge their customers the excess costs of converting to renewable energy.
In 2015 a bill was introduced into the Kansas legislature called Senate Bill 91. The purpose was to repeal the 2005 bill that made the reduction in fossil fuel energy production and increase to 20% of renewable energy production mandatory by 2020. It also would limit the property tax exemption to only ten years and that utility companies can charge the excess costs of renewable energy to the customers.
Peter Hancock of the Lawrence Journal-World had this to say in May of 2015. “What may be most remarkable about Senate Bill 91 is that neither the electric utilities covered by the current mandate nor their customers who pay the electric bills asked for the legislation.”
Neither Westar Energy nor Kansas City Power & Light (Kansas’s two largest energy producers) had received customer complaints about the mandate. “Our customers have expressed preference for renewable energy,” said Westar spokeswoman Gina Penzig.”
“We believe the free market is the best place to decide where energy comes from,” said Jeff Glendening, a lobbyist for the free-market political group Americans for Prosperity, when asked why the bill was introduced. “We believe that’s the most efficient, that consumers will benefit from a free market.”
Many believe that this will drive up the cost of electricity by using renewable energy sources. But,…
We have been able to meet the requirements under RPS (renewable portfolio standards) and negotiate rates that keep prices in line with the cost of electricity from other resources,” Penzig said.
More can be read at:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2015/may/12/renewable-energy-bills-more-about-ideology-science/
So who was responsible for bringing SB 91 to the legislature? A free market political group called Americans for Prosperity (AFP), Kansas Chamber of Commerce, and of course, the Koch Industries. Koch Industries is run by Charles and David Koch, who are major contributors to the AFP and other Conservative political groups.
The current Kansas State Legislatures are mostly from the Republican Party. The Senate has 40 Republicans and 8 Democrats and the House of Representatives has 97 Republicans and 28 Democrats. The final Yea-Nay vote from the Senate was 35 yea to 3 nay and 2 no votes. In the House it was 105 yea and 16 nay with 4 no votes. Since I live in Riley County and my representatives are Tom Hawk (D) who was one of the “did not vote.” My House representative is Sydney Carlin and she voted nay (glad my voice got heard).
The bill passed and on January 1, 2016 it became “voluntary” for utilities to meet the 20% goal by 2020.
This to me is the step in the wrong direction. We need combat climate change and to keep our resources for as long as possible so the future generations can enjoy and use them too. This will have to be a global fight and it involves everyone…at every level. There are only so many things individuals and societies can accomplish without the government mandating change.
In Kansas we are going backwards. It will take state and federal legislation to reduce emissions and to move forward with renewable energy. But, when money drives the economy (and the government) the legislation repeals a policy that is good for OUR future. Doing this without the people’s choice! My choice is renewable energy…and hopefully I can make more people understand the necessity for it.
(Thanks McKenna)
There is still a positive that I will tell you about. On January 11, 2016 Westar Energy put in an order from Siemens Corporation for 122 wind turbines (280 MW) for the Western Plains Wind Farm Project.
“Westar is committed to growing renewables. By the end of 2016, 25% of our residential energy will be produced from renewable sources. You can do your part in making a better future for Kansas by committing up to 100% of your energy coming from renewables as well.
Westar Wind is an easy, affordable means of supporting renewable energy. Residential and commercial customers can choose to have more of their energy come from the wind, from 1% to 100% of their power for the additional cost of just $0.0025/kWh.” (https://www.westarenergy.com/westar-wind)
I applaud Westar energy for volunteering to go renewable without the need for mandate. Hopefully more power generation companies can follow suit.
Throughout my life I have made the voyage from a small town north of San Antonio down to the great Gulf of Mexico. As a kid all that I payed attention to was how quickly we were getting there and how many times my sister and I decided it was time to have an argument in the car. What seemed to skip my mind as if nothing was wrong was the continuous stops that we had to make that were not due to my sister and I arguing about what movie we were going to watch next. The traffic and road work seemed to hinder us at any given point, we’d finally make it through one stop only to happen upon another about 20 miles or so down the road. This inevitably turned what should have been our three hour trip into at least a 5 hour stop and go game of frogger between our 97′ Chevy Silverado and the continuous stream of workers littering the side of the road as if a bunch of ants continually trying to complete their work. No matter what time of year it was, what the weather condition or how blazing the sweltering heat of the sun was, we were always able to count on the many faces of annoyed road workers that never seemed to be able to catch a break.
Sixteen years ago and even further back we could see how we were using these simple methods to temporarily fix what would eventually become a very big problem. When traveling our we want our memories to be filled with the fun times that we had and the amazing things that we were able to see. Instead we are greeted with miles upon miles of “Road Work Ahead” and “Give Em a Break” signs, all so we can make a quick non-ideal solution so we can get to our money and resources quicker. These quick solutions to roads being built with the idea that only the rural folk that live in the area may have been suitable in the past, but not anymore.
As south Texas has seen a rise in oil production they obviously have needed more ways to get to and from the production sight and to transport the product out. If we were using normal trucks to accomplish this, it wouldn’t be as big of a problem. The average pickup-truck weighs around 6,5000 pounds, not causing very much wear and tear on your average road. Oil tankers and mass transportation vehicles weigh around 60,000 pounds, which when constantly going to and from sights really starts to beat the tar out of the roads so to speak. Normal roads like we used to have in the good ole days simply will not cut it anymore. The public has to come to this understanding and start demanding a more sustainable road be built. It may cost more at the beginning, but if we are able to build nicer and safer roads that do not have to be constantly worked on and widen like to picture that I have included above to continue to allow the mass transportation out of rural areas then we are only throwing money into a pothole that our road workers will never be able to fill.
We wander in the unknown, and that is how I feel. The fact that there is so much that we really plainly don’t know about the Anthropocene is what stimulates my thoughts and concerns about it, and it is also this lack of “known-ness” which allows for my current wayfaring. Additionally, as humanity embarks on the journey towards our future, we will wander, but we will wander with a certain orientation. We point ourselves towards living the Anthropocene, but there are so many numerous paths that we could take that all lead in that direction–it is impossible to tell which one(s) we shall eventually take. This is similar to the approach I have as I write on this blog.
The Anthropocene, how we will live in it, the future, it’s all so unknown that there is no way to divert all attention to any set path, only to a specific direction. As I write, I try to encompass as large a variety of ideas that I possibly can that involve taking on the Anthropocene or have something to do with humans living in it. However, I too have an orientation; a direction in which I have pointed the scope of my writing. This direction is set based off the parameter that the Anthropocene is upon us and it is critical that humanity, as a we, begin to deal with it head on in the appropriate ways, including making the necessary changes, despite the consequences. No forced change is welcome, and I fully understand this, but as a whole we need to see beyond the scope of our individual and societal “progresses” that we may pursue a truly better future. Because I fear, that it the only way we will live in the Anthropocene; it’s time we realized that shit is inevitably going to hit the fan, what we need to determine how we deal with the mess.
No, Dr. Durbin I won’t count this as a part of my word count for the week. However, after getting a feeling that the general class consensus on Trump is not one of adoration, I thought that this video would lighten some spirits for all of us dealing with a typical Monday from hell. Just a short break from the seriousness of classwork.
If any of you readers attend or associate with K-State, you are probably aware of the “drama” before last Saturday’s home game against the Jayhawks. For those of you who are in the dark on this, I will provide a brief overview. So, the KSU administration banned the playing of the song “Sandstorm” at Saturday’s game, because the student section tends to chant “F**k KU” to the beat whenever the song is played. Obviously, this is not good for school publicity.
However, if you were in attendance Saturday, you know that late in the game, the administration broke and decided to play the song. To put a lot of what happened into one phrase: The Octagon of Doom went insane. But what I would like to point out in the situation that unfolded is the power that was held by the K-State student section.
See, all week, all over campus, students were complaining about the ban on playing the song, and were despising the administration. But in the end, none of the individual efforts made much of a difference: not the tweets or the yaks, the complaints or the curses, none of it. Yet, during the game against KU, as the student body banded together in the unified “F**k KU” chant to whatever song they could possibly muster, the administration eventually lifted the ban and played the song. Part of the decision had to come from the fact that it was a close game at the time, but nevertheless, if it had not been for the unification of the students, standing against the administration, I don’t thing that the ban would have been lifted. The act of many students, coming together with the same purpose and mindset, by far outweighs the same students all voicing their concerns separately. When there is unification, one strong voice is heard, when there is multiple individuals, there is only chatter.
To me, whatever your opinion on the playing of “Sandstorm,” this is a great example of how a collective group hold much more value, and can accomplish much more, than the same number of individuals not banded together. As we begin and continue to combat the Anthropocene, it is not the acts of lone individuals that will have effect. It is those individuals joining together to form a single voice, because that is the only voice than can really stimulate change effectively. Individual efforts are not worthless, but when compared to what can be done by groups, communities, societies of individuals joined collectively, the difference is beyond measure.
The K-State student section was determined as a whole and that is why they were able to make a difference, despite higher authorities that thought differently. We need change, but change, significant and meaningful change, the change the we need, cannot be brought about by the I, but by the we.
This post is based off the article “Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene,” by Roy Scranton.)
Throughout his article, Scranton paints a dark picture. He puts together vivid illustrations of an apocalypse-type Earth: Food riots, wars over freshwater, coastal cities submerged, mass extinctions, droughts, increased storms, and, ultimately, the end of civilization as we know it. Scranton goes all in as he describes this future of utter disaster for humanity. It’s as if he’s trying to scare the reader. Though I think he possibly dramatizes the future, I also believe that he purposefully creates this apocalyptic image to show readers the honest desperation of the situation and how necessary it is for us to change.
As the article continues, Scranton, an Iraqi War veteran, eventually makes the point that one way he was able to overcome his fears while in Iraq was to meditate on death. To some, this may seem like an extremely obscure way of dealing with one’s fear, but it is a practice that actually has deep roots in our human history. Scranton says, regarding his meditations each day while serving in Iraq, “Instead of fearing my end, I owned it.” He then elaborated further, saying: “Then, before we rolled out through the gate, I’d tell myself that I didn’t need to worry, because I was already dead.”
Scranton then ties this concept to the Anthropocene by saying that the first and biggest step that civilization can take towards true progress is to realize that it is already dead. In his final sentence, we are left with this statement, “If we want to learn to live in the Anthropocene, we must first learn how to die.” Obviously, Scranton emphasizes death again and again in the article, and then he even mentions that if we are to live in the Anthropocene, we must first learn to die. What is he getting at with the repeated concept of death?
First, it should be made clear that Scranton is not talking about literal human death. Literal death may be involved within the death he speaks of, but that is not where he places his emphasis. The death Scranton is referring to is our death as a civilization. What he is trying to tell us is that if we are to succeed at living in the Anthropocene (hell, if we are to even simply survive in it) we must realize that there is no turning back, that the death of our way of life is eminent, and that we have no rational choice other than to accept it. It is time for us to recognize that what we are currently doing cannot go on forever, and that our behavior must change, because our (thought to be) immortal ways of life are coming to an end.
Without the acceptance of the death of our present situation, we cannot freely move towards living in the Anthropocene. Scranton preaches that the sooner we, humanity, can acknowledge that we are already dead, the sooner we will be able to go about dealing with the problems that the Anthropocene poses. When we learn that we are already dead, whether or not we are successful is of no factor. Once we realize this, we can overcome our pessimism of hopelessness at combatting the problem we face. In other words, the faster humans can learn to die in the Anthropocene, the more easily it will be for us to make the changes necessary to sustain our lives in this new and unpredictable era.
Where The Blacktop Ends 