It is the end of a
year, the end of a decade, and truth be told, my personal book is ever closer
to an epilogue than it is to the introduction.
While I have a few chapters left to write, let me pretend to be wise and
discuss what I have seen over the last seven decades.
During the
fifties, war with
Russia was so imminent that most Americans knew that, eventually,
the majority of us would die in a nuclear war.
Civil Defense was the priority of government and the basement of every
public building became an impromptu bomb shelter, stocked with empty water
barrels that could double as emergency toilets and piles of large tin cans of
unsalted crackers that were so distantly related to food that their shelf life
was measured in centuries.
I can attest to
the culinary quality of those crackers—bad—because, as a starving college
student, I ate more than one can of them that I had liberated from the
basement/shelter of the hotel where I worked.
While the crackers were incredibly bland, hunger and imagination are the
best sauces for any meal.
Khrushchev pounded
his shoe on the forum at the United Nations (figuratively, if not literally)
and promised that Russia was going to bury us—and as a child, I believed
him. At school, they gave me a yellow
government pamphlet instructing us how to turn our home into a bomb
shelter. When I delivered this important
life-saving message to my father, he flatly refused to participate in the
madness. Whether this was because we
already had a tornado shelter or because we literally lived across the lake
from a strategic bomber base that was undoubtedly on the Russian top ten target
list was never clear to me…
Still, it was an
emergency, so the government raised taxes and passed laws that were eagerly
approved by a fearful nation.
During the
sixties, the world
was running out of petroleum, so we were suddenly on the brink of an energy
crisis of staggering proportions: within a decade the world’s supply of
petroleum would be exhausted. Even
though, as Texans, we privately laughed at the idea of Yankees freezing in the
dark, even oil-rich Texans began to panic.
It didn’t take long before one out of every seven vehicles on the road
was a VW bug (though most of the other six remained pickups) and everyone fretted
about the rising cost of gasoline.
Detroit slowly
began dying, and as the government realized it was an emergency, it promptly
raised taxes and passed laws that were eagerly approved by a fearful
nation. There was a national speed limit
of 55 miles an hour, and there was an irrational gas-rationing system in which
we all bought gas on alternate days and were limited to how much gas we could
buy. Naturally, this meant that everyone
filled up the tank every other day, insuring long lines of panicky drivers.
I remember an
editorial cartoon criticizing this idiotic policy, showing a frightened couple
in a car were staring wide-eyed at the dash instrument panel. “Oh, no!” the husband exclaimed. “Only 7/8ths of a tank left and not a gas
station in sight.”
During the
seventies, we were
all alarmed that an ice age was coming because the growing collection of
greenhouse gases would block the sun. In
a miniature throwback to the fifties, this growing problem might be accelerated
by a nuclear winter after the still inevitable nuclear war.
Maybe it is
because I spent a lot of the seventies on an island in the Gulf of Mexico where
cold weather was not a major concern, but I can’t remember just what we were
supposed to do to combat the imminent ice age, I just remember that it was
going to hit within a decade, and that government passed laws and raised taxes
to the relief of a frightened nation.
Whatever the solution was, it must have worked.
During the
eighties, the whole
world was about to starve because acid rain was going to wipe out all crops,
kill lakes and rivers, and devastate forests.
The acid rain was due to the rising amounts of sulfur dioxide produced
by coal-fired power plants which produced sulphuric and nitric acids when mixed
with atmospheric water.
This was such an
emergency that life as we know it would be devastated within ten years if
drastic action wasn’t undertaken immediately.
This was dramatically underscored when Thorbjorn Bernsten, the Norwegian
secretary for the environment called his British counterpart a drittsekk (“sack
of shit”) for not agreeing to act on the emergency immediately. (If a doom saying Scandihoovian with a vowel
deprived name sounds eerily reminiscent of some recent events….Well, history
does occasionally repeat itself.)
Naturally (and I
bet you saw this coming), the government raised taxes and enacted laws—some of
which actually worked. Cars got
catalytic converters and the formulation of fuels changed. Most of the problem in the Western world,
however, was eliminated by coal plants switching over to cheaper and cleaner
natural gas. To what extent acid rain
actually could have threatened food production is an ongoing experiment in
China, where today they burn half the world’s production of coal.
During the
nineties, the world
was about to be fried by a solar death ray as the ozone layer was being rapidly
depleted. People followed the shrinking
size of the ozone hole over the South pole like it was a sports team while
newspapers regularly reported the phenomena of vast herds of Argentine sheep
blinded by solar radiation.
While taxes were
raised and new laws were passed, there were talks of limiting the altitude of
commercial air flights and grounding the Space Shuttle. Meanwhile, three scientists studying the
situation discovered that most of the problem was caused by CFC’s used in hair
spray and other household goods. While
the scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize, industry switched from CFC’s to
HFC (which does not harm ozone). You
will be happy to learn that the ozone hole is currently the smallest it has
been since we began tracking it and it is due to permanently close by 2050,
(and the stories about blind sheep were all apocryphal).
Today, I don’t even have to tell you that
our current menace to life on earth as we know it is global warming, so that we
have only a decade to save ourselves from immanent global destruction. Luckily, government is going to save us—once
more—by raising taxes and passing new laws.
Even as I wrote that last sentence, the television announced that the
city council of San Francisco is working to ban disposable coffee cups. (How am I supposed to believe that a city
that turns itself into a giant toilet really cares about the environment?)
There are several
lessons to be learned about the last seventy years. First, all of the problems were real, and all
had solutions. While “government
science” is probably an oxymoron, science is real, and it provided answers to
most of the problems above. While we
must listen to scientists, we need to calmly assess the messages we hear.
Global warming is
real, of course, the actions of humans have an effect on the environment. But, how much measured against natural
cycles? What are the feedback
mechanisms? We should address the
problems rationally, and not simply pass new laws and throw new tax money at
the problems. If the government had
taken the amount of money spent subsidizing a solar industry before the
technology was ready and had used it wisely, we would be far ahead globally,
today. For the amount of taxpayer money
we spent subsidizing just Tesla and Solyndra, we could have furnished free coal
scrubbers for every coal-fired electrical plant in India and China.
Enacting feel-good
laws restricting disposable straws and coffee cups is not going to change the
fact that the vast majority of the plastic waste floating in the Pacific Ocean
comes from Asia. Such solutions are, at
best, trying to create a “no-peeing zone” in the global swimming pool.
Lastly, we should
be skeptical of deadlines tossed off by politicians, who know less about
science and technology than my cat does.
Depending on which politician you want to listen to, by now Miami should
either be covered by an ice sheet or be completely underwater. Instead, let us heed the words of a different
politician, Calving Coolidge, who wisely said, “Of ten troubles you see
a-coming, nine never arrive.”
Note.
Actually, that was the quote I learned in a school in West Texas so
small that we had several grades inside one old portable Army barracks
building. It turns out that the far more
erudite Coolidge actually said, "If you see ten troubles
coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will
run into the ditch before they reach you.”
I think the Texas translation is better.
We need to listen,
but be skeptical about dire predictions about the future. A few decades ago, an archaeologist friend of
mine said that the most frequent mistake in science fiction books and movies
was the future seldom retired any traces of the past. In essence, that any world, at any time,
still contained much of the unchanged past, so that any modern city, for
example, would still possess many old buildings. Or as Alphonse Karr said, “The more things
change, the more they stay the same.”
Note.
Well, since I’m trying to quote people correctly in this blog, though I
don’t know why, as should probably say what the famous Frog writer actually
said was, “Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.” I’m not sure if there is a Texas version of
this, the only thing my father ever said about change was, “The bird that eats
worms today will be eaten by them tomorrow.”
Close enough.
On the eve of a
new decade, we should remember that the human race has just lived through what
is arguably the best decade in human history.
People are living longer, with more prosperity than ever before. Literacy rates are up, infant mortality is
down, and medical treatments and vaccines are available for many of the
diseases that have always plagued mankind.
While much remains to be done, even though I am a historian, I would far
rather live in the world of tomorrow than at any time in the past.
I have a New Year’s
resolution I recommend to everyone. As
we breathe in the future and exhale the past, let us resolve to not let
politicians use fear and panic to get us to support their folly.
Very wise. One of the best year-end commentaries I've read so far and reassuring since it agrees with my way of thinking, especially having recently had a conversation (nee dogfight) with a leftist union guy in which I was roundly denounced as anti-science. The trouble is I've actually been in graduate school and I've seen what a "scientist" will do to get a federal grant. I think you more nearly hit the progressive nail on it's little pointy head. Just saying...
ReplyDelete