(June 2006)

The Uncommon Denominator

A Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
www.commonwealinstitute.org

"The famous balance of nature is the most extraordinary of all cybernetic systems.
Left to itself, it is always self-regulated."
—Joseph Krutch, Saturday Review, June 8, 1963

Talking Points: Notes for a global warming survival guide
Talking Points II: Be part of the solution
Wit and Wisdom: Two tasteless environmental jokes
Quoted! Zalmay Khalilzad and Ann Coulter
Check It Out: "An Inconvenient Truth"
Eye on the Right: Frank Luntz's 2006 playbook
Featured Article: "Hawking, We Have a Problem"
Happenings: Monthly round-up
Endorsements: Jamin Raskin
Get Involved: Spread the word; become a contributor

TALKING POINTS

Is it too early to begin talking about how to survive the collapse of civilization? If the more pessimistic predictions about global warming are to be believed — and there is reason to believe them — within a decade or two the trend may become irreversible, leading to an accelerating global environmental catastrophe and, as a possible consequence, the breakdown of many of the social and economic systems that much of the world has come to take for granted. The mind does not have to over-extend itself to imagine how a combination of widespread agricultural failure, mass death, and the reduction of entire populations to desperate poverty could reverse the last 500 years of human development, force society into low-tech survival mode, and brutally test the endurance, ingenuity, and general fitness of every individual.

It's too early, certainly, for any responsible person to lose hope in the power of social activism to right a listing ship, to withdraw into fatalistic despair, or to forget that human beings have a remarkable capacity for pulling through. Still, the smart money would advocate thinking seriously about how one and one's community would fare in the event, and about developing contingency plans now rather than later. That would involve beginning to work on a kind of triple track — one track devoted to the usual business of getting by or getting ahead within the systems and structures of our society, a second to pushing for important changes to avert environmental catastrophe, and a third to identifying ways of becoming independent of those systems and structures, that is, to preparing for the worst-case scenario.

A highly technological society in which most people have no good idea how most of the technology works is intrinsically fragile. We in the industrialized West use computers all the time, and yet how many of us could really explain the difference between volts, watts, and amperes, let alone the functioning of a microchip? How long would it take for us to figure out how to repair a simple engine? Et cetera. And compounding this vulnerability of knowledge is a vulnerability of scale: The workings of government and the goings-on of large corporations take place mostly beyond the ability of regular people to influence them. As stockholders and voters, we theoretically have input, but as practical matter we nonetheless rely on the responsible behavior of these entities. In the event of massive social disruption, there is no telling how government and industry might react, and whether — God forbid — a struggle for resources might end up pitting ordinary citizens against the big institutions,

Imagine a scenario, then, in which the systems and structures we have come to depend upon — the power grid, the phone lines and wireless towers, water and garbage collection — begin to break down under the stresses of environmental calamity. Crime surges and government overreacts, or underreacts. Civic participation becomes increasingly meaningless in the face of elemental exigencies: food, shelter, safety, survival. Transportation and communications networks operate sporadically, or fail altogether. The financial system is thrown into turmoil, as people desperately seek to convert savings to usable assets, and as markets experience massive distortion. Black markets thrive, especially in weapons. A public health calamity leads to massive numbers of refugees streaming into the major cities.

Futurists and sci-fi writers love to think about this stuff, and such a scenario is offered here in that spirit: What if, what if….? With every passing year, however, it seems less futuristic and less sci-fi.

One of the best-selling books of the last few years has been "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Guide," which provides information on how to deal with unexpected snake-bites and plane-crashes and so forth, and which has recently come out in an "Extreme Edition." Hmmm. Just a fun read to keep in the bathroom — or a symptom of some deeper cultural intuition? Perhaps the next edition should be titled the "Global Warming Survival Guide." On page one would be listed: "How to Establish a Viable Self-Sufficient Community." And where's what it might say:

Identify who might participate in such a community. Short answer: family and friends willing to work hard and show a cooperative spirit. Anthropologists have shown that a natural unit of primate social organization consists of about 110-130 individuals (the tribe, the regiment, etc.), and this might be an optimum final figure, but at first several families living together would probably be sufficient. Think about the practical skills different people would bring to the endeavor — medical training, an ability to hunt or fish, basic engineering proficiency, talent with cloth and needle — and imagine their regular roles in the community.

Acquire a piece of land with the right attributes. It should be suited for agriculture (i.e., not the desert or the tundra) and, if possible, for hunting and fishing. It should be in a strategic location (i.e., distant from the refugee hordes, but not totally isolated from society). And it should be in an area that can withstand a 2-5 degree rise in average temperature and a 15-20 foot rise in sea level. Purchase the land ASAP, pooling money if necessary.

Recognize the need to physically defend the community. The model here is not a bunch of hippies camping out in Taos, but a safe and secure permanent settlement where people can live, work, reproduce, and pass along culture without being attacked, plundered, or overrun by criminals or refugees. There will likely be no local law enforcement in such a place, and it would be only prudent to build fortifications and to be trained in the use of firearms.

Establish rules of conduct that participants must abide by. Every society, however large or small, however intimate its members, has to have a system of law, or else it will descend into dysfunction. This necessitates, unfortunately, a system of enforcement, which in turn implies two crucial activities: judgment and punishment. The details of how this would all operate would depend on the community members, of course, but one course of action seems sound: Have participants, upon joining, sign a contract explicitly stating the rules they agree to follow and the potential sanctions they agree to face.

Determine how information will be acquired and shared. There will be no CNN in Rancho Warmo, and no daily delivery of the New York Times. A ham radio seems the best option, but it is also worth remembering that Native American tribes managed to communicate quite effectively with drums and smoke signals.

Recognize the need to participate in the external economy. Even if it just means trading or bartering with other communal settlements (see above on "strategic location"). No alternative community has ever survived by withdrawing into righteous isolation from the rest of the world. Such practical intercourse, and the symbiosis it reveals, will also provide the motivation and foundation for mutual security, for the formation of healthy social and reproductive ties, and for the transmission of culture.

Stockpile tools. They are both indispensable and hard to manufacture. The basic implements like hammers, shovels, crowbars, and so forth, will go a long way. For important tools that require electricity, such as drills, bring a generator.

Anticipate limited, if any, availability of fossil fuels. There is considerable agreement that we are in the Peak Oil phase, after which petroleum will become harder to extract and increasingly expensive. Incorporate small-scale renewable energy sources (especially wind and solar) and resource conservation measures (e.g., underground water cisterns, significant insulation, and passive solar design) into the daily operations of Rancho Warmo.

Bring know-how, or people who have the know-how. What happens when the generator breaks? How do you set a broken bone? Can the nearby stream be diverted for irrigation? How is adobe made? The questions go on without end, and the more answers we have up front, the better.

At the beginning of the 21st century, human ingenuity finds itself in a race with human self-destructiveness. Hopefully ingenuity will pull us out of the accelerating environmental crisis without the worst-case scenarios coming to pass. That is why, again, the responsible course of action is to not to despair or withdraw, but as individuals to work as hard as we can for the common good, to do everything we can in our personal lives to reduce our environmental footprint, and to apply pressure on those who have the power to really make a difference. This is the kind of ingenuity we're all hoping will prevail.

Another kind of ingenuity would help see us through the worst-case scenario. This is the kind of ingenuity reflected, for example, in the Norwegian government's recent announcement that it is building a seed bank on the Arctic island of Svalbard. The Global Seed Vault, which Norway's Minister of Agriculture likened to Noah's Ark, would preserve 3 million varieties of plants such that human agriculture could be reconstituted following a planetary catastrophe. In coming years, watch for many more such precautionary measures being taken — in unexpected ways and in unexpected quarters. To survive and to rebuild itself, civilization will have to adapt, be smart, make painful adjustments — and maybe that's a salutary thing. The alternative community sketched out here is offered with that in mind — with high hopes for the future, but with an eye on the exit.

TALKING POINTS II

Despite the ongoing campaign to discredit the science of global warming, a recent TIME/ ABC News/ Stanford University poll reports some encouraging, if surprising, news about American attitudes toward the problem. According to the survey, 85% of Americans now believe that global warming is underway and 80% believe that human activity is contributing to the problem — although two-thirds still think, incorrectly, that there is significant scientific disagreement on the issue (this is one baneful result of the Right's disinformation campaign). Moreover, a majority of Americans (60%) think that "a good amount" or "a great deal" can be done to reduce future warming, and 35% percent think the federal government should do more to solve the problem (as opposed to 5% who think it should do less, and 25% who think it's doing about the right amount). Clearly, there's room for improvement in these numbers, but the truth slowly seems to be sinking in, and the desire for concerted action seems to be rising. Because the United States is a disproportionate contributor to greenhouse gases, this is welcome news for the rest of the planet.

Many of us realize that, while the federal government needs to step up quickly and aggressively to address the problem of global warming, we should not sit around waiting for it to do so. We know that it is time to take action ourselves.

So you ask: What can I do to help?

First, always keep in mind that we don't buy energy for itself, but for the services that it provides. It is simply a means to an end. What people want are warm showers, lighted rooms, cool air in the summer, heat in the winter, a convenient way to get to and from work, and so on. If we could have all these things while using less energy, we would be happy indeed. And yet Americans, even those who are concerned about global warming, tend to be very inefficient in their use of energy. The upside is that, since inefficiency accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas production, a key part of the solution is in our own power (so to speak).

To see how dramatic the benefits of improved energy efficiency can be, in the context of existing capacity, we need only look at what happened in California in 2000-2001. That year, California started to experience rolling blackouts and rapidly growing energy costs. At the time, many people said the state had been under-investing in new power plants, that the blackouts resulted from excess demand on the system, and that for California to get out of the crisis, it would have to increase capacity by 83%. (Of course, today we know that the reason California faced an energy crisis was because energy providers had figured out how to game the system by taking energy plants offline). What California did instead was to put together a crash energy efficiency program that stopped the crisis in its tracks. As the Natural Resources Defense Council reported this spring:

"The state poured $1 billion in emergency funding into a newly invigorated set of incentive programs dubbed "Flex Your Power." And Californians flexed, big-time. In short order, they replaced nearly eight million light bulbs with CFLs [compact fluorescent light bulbs] in their homes. Cities and towns installed thousands of light-emitting diode (LED) traffic lights, which use less than half as much electricity as the incandescent lamps they replaced. Factories swapped out thousands of old motors for more-efficient new ones."

The program saved enough energy to meet all of Los Angeles' daily needs, and all those new light bulbs, traffic lights and motors continue to save energy, long after the crisis is over. Today, California enjoys one of the lowest per-capita energy consumption levels in the country — about 7,000 kwh/person compared to the national average of 12,000 kwh/person. Just imagine what could be recovered in costs if everyone in the United States were as efficient as Californians in their energy usage.

Here, then, are some practical tips and resources for reducing your own domestic energy consumption.

For starters, find out how much energy you are using by getting a home energy audit. If your power company doesn't provide one, you can use the on-line energy audit tool provided by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This audit will help you figure out how you can get more value for your money and help reduce your greenhouse gas emissions.

Next, buy energy efficient appliances. Look for the Energy Star for appliances that have been rated for their efficiency. Often you can earn tax rebates from your state when you purchase an energy efficient appliance. When thinking of appliances for the outdoors, find non-polluting mowers and leaf blowers.

Visit the Environmental Defense website for other actions you can take. While you are there, sign up to switch out your old incandescent light bulbs with the new compact florescent bulbs that fit into regular light bulb sockets — you'll save both energy and money.

Check to see if your utility has any programs that promote higher efficiency and if they don't, ask them to consider putting a program together. (PG&E customers can get lots of information by visiting the PG&E Energy Efficiency website.) Buy renewable power if you can find it in your area and work with your community to see what you can do to make it more available.

Take public transportation, walk, or bicycle whenever possible. Or if you are in the market for a new car, consider a hybrid car, which will not only be more fuel efficient, but also much cleaner in its emissions. Buy the most fuel efficient car you can afford.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, become more of a proselyte, more of a squeaky wheel. Talk to your workplace supervisors and suggest that they also take an energy audit — for their sake as well as the environment's. Encourage your neighbors to do the same. Lobby your local government, at town council meetings or other venues, to take energy efficiency seriously, and write your state and federal representatives asking that they start taking more responsibility to address global warming. After all, we will all need to do our share to put the brake on global warming.

— Mary Ratcliff

WIT AND WISDOM

"Hot outside today, isn't it? It is so hot today that Al Gore has a new movie, 'An Inconvenient Rash'." — David Letterman

"Last week President Bush created the world's largest protected marine area, dubbed the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument. The preserve is larger than all of America's national parks combined. It contains sea life that has inspired some of our most breathtaking screensavers." — Jon Stewart

QUOTED!

"Although our staff retain a professional demeanor, strains are apparent. We see that their personal fears are reinforcing divisive sectarian or ethnic channels, despite talk of reconciliation by officials.

Employees are apprehensive enough that we fear they may exaggerate developments or steer us towards news that comports with their own worldview. Objectivity, civility, and logic that make for a functional workplace may falter if social pressures outside the Green Zone don't abate." — American Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, in a June 06, 2006, memo to the Secretary of State which describes increasing harassment and intimidation of Iraqi staff members. The memo was obtained and reprinted by the Washington Post.

"These women got paid.

They ought to take their money and shut up about it." — Conservative author and talking-head Ann Coulter, describing the widows of 9/11 victims, on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson." Coulter's criticisms of the widows are even more venomous in her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, in which she writes: "And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

CHECK IT OUT

If you have not yet seen "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's riveting movie about global warming, do so SOON — before it leaves the theaters.

But don't just listen to the Uncommon Denominator. Here's what Roger Ebert, in a June 2 review, had to say: "When I said I was going to a press screening of 'An Inconvenient Truth,' a friend said, 'Al Gore talking about the environment! Bor...ing!' This is not a boring film. The director, Davis Guggenheim, uses words, images and Gore's concise litany of facts to build a film that is fascinating and relentless. In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to."

And don't just go by yourself. Bring people! Gail Slocum, the former mayor of Menlo Park, California, had this smart advice:

"Consider buying a block of 10 or so tickets a day or more in advance and giving them to people you know as gifts. Benefits are not only that additional sales will help the movie get wider distribution, but also it's a gift that can really energize action on what we care so much about.

"Don't just think of 'friends and family' — consider inviting our local leaders and state elected officials. You could offer to give them 2 tickets or go with them in a group — perhaps out for dinner before or tea after to discuss. Here I'm thinking of your local Planning Commissioners, City Council members, Supervisors, Assembly and State Senate members, up and coming future leaders etc ...And not just the ones we always agree with — we can't only preach to the choir! Same goes for business-people whose businesses could do more to reduce their emissions. Be bold! I believe this movie can get through to a wide variety of types of people."

In a recent interview with Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, Gore suggested that Americans may be near a "tipping point" of understanding on the issue:

"I hope that we are close to a tipping point beyond which the country will begin to face this very seriously and the majority of politicians in both parties will begin to compete by offering meaningful solutions. We're nowhere close to that yet, but a tipping point by definition is a time of very rapid change — and I think that the potential for this change has been building up, with the evangelical ministers speaking out, General Electric and Republican CEOs saying we have to address it, grass-roots organizations — all of these things are happening at the same time because through various means people are seeing a new reality."

Above all, "An Inconvenient Truth" will help people see that "new reality."

Click here to read more about the movie, and find a theater in your area where it's playing.

In the meantime, check out Gore's hilarious routine on Saturday Night Live.

EYE ON THE RIGHT

As we approach the 2006 elections, it's time to start bracing for the right-wing spin machine to move into full swing. While much of the macro-strategy ("smear! cheat! scare!") is directed by Karl Rove, the deceptively boyish Frank Luntz advises conservatives on the nitty-gritty of language and framing. His playbook for the 2006 election is 138 pages long, but here, for your delectation, is just a quick sample of what it says — a taste of what we can expect over the next four months. The appendix is subtitled "The 14 Words Never To Use," and it provides an interesting window into the conservative linguisphere:

Never Say:	Instead Say:
1. Government	Washington
2. Privatization/Private Accounts	Personalization/Personal Accounts
3. Tax Reform	Tax Simplification
4. Inheritance/Estate Tax	The Death Tax
5. A Global Economy/Globalization	Free Market Economy
6. Outsourcing	Taxation, Regulation, Litigation, Innovation
7. Undocumented Workers	Illegal Aliens
8. Foreign Trade	International Trade
9. Drilling for Oil	Exploring for Energy
10. Tort Reform	Lawsuit Abuse Reform
11. Trial Lawyer	Personal Injury Lawyer
12. Corporate Transparency	Corporate Accountability
13. School Choice	Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity
14. Healthcare "Choice"	"The Right to Choose"

The entire Luntz Playbook is available online, in different formats.

And now that you know some of what Luntz advises conservatives never to say, you know exactly a few of the terms TO use if you want to counter their agenda.

FEATURED ARTICLE

The following is an excerpt from Joe Kaplinsky's "Hawking, We Have a Problem", which appears in the June 2006 issue of Spiked magazine. The article appeared in response to physicist Stephen Hawking's recent suggestion that humanity might have to settle other planets or solar systems in the face of the looming environmental crisis on earth:

"In reality, we will only get to a destination like Mars if we are driven by a positive vision and purpose, such as the quest for knowledge. Looking for life on Mars is one such quest. If Mars has life, even bacterial life, which is independent of life forms on Earth, then it will show that life arises easily and is most likely spread across the universe. If life is found that somehow relates to life as we know it on Earth, that will suggest that life can survive the journey through space — and also raise the possibility that life came to Earth from outside. If Mars is found to be barren, it will shorten the odds that the Earth is truly unique

"It is people who have a passion for such knowledge who will make a mission to Mars a reality — people who are consumed by the need to know; who are tormented by the limitations of robot explorers; for whom pictures of red rocks are simply not enough. It is those who have new ideas for new experiments on Mars, and who cannot wait years for the next robotic lander to get there, who will make the case for humans venturing there instead. In short, a positive view of humanity might spur us to further explore space, whereas arguments for space travel as a means of saving us from our own self-destructive tendencies are likely to have the unintended consequence of making us less willing to explore and take risks