Loose Change, Hard Facts

UCLA Professor, Jared Diamond noted in his seminal Guns, Germs & Steel book that civilization spread east-west, not north south, because sedentary agriculture – that transitional phase of human growth that actually allowed people to stay in one place and develop science, art, philosophy, political systems and complex interrelated economies – flourished only when temperatures were relatively consistent. A seed planted in one venue could easily be planted in land exposed to roughly the same seasonal climate (that’s east or west), but would not geminate in a substantially warmer or colder climate (north-south). That’s just the nature of plants.

Climate has always been a factor in social development… and as another of Mr. Diamond’s books explains, Collapse. With global warming, we are effectively imposing the functional equivalent of that north-south conundrum, but his time it’s the climate pattern, not the people, that is moving.

I’ve certainly blogged about the political ramifications of millions of people rendered homeless on fallow dusty farms, the costs of land mass erosion, fires, flood and mega-storms, but there are the slow changes that will upend all of our economic political assumptions about what we eat, where we live and how we survive. Right here in the United States. We can debate what causes what, but nature could care less. Changes will happen. It’s physics, which is not susceptible to change by reason of human whim. People will die. And life will change… everywhere.

I live in much-maligned California, the most hated state by those most passionate MAGA followers, the bane of red state politicos and the rather unsubtle enemy of Trump administration. We’re a whole lot more than the Silicon Valley or Hollywood. By itself, California is the sixth largest economy in the world and one of America’s most important food producers. Rapidly changing climate patterns are searing into that reality. The dead California orchard pictured above is just the beginning.

Prepare for higher food prices in the near term and severe food shortages in the foreseeable future. Michael Hiltzig, writing for the March 11^th Los Angeles Times, explains: “The California we know is the breadbasket of the nation, producing more than two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts, including almonds, pistachios, oranges, apricots, nectarines and prunes, and more than a third of its vegetables, including artichokes, broccoli, spinach and carrots. It’s all valued at more than $50 billion a year.

“That’s the assessment of a recent paper by a University of California team led by Tapan Pathak of UC Merced. But the researchers focused on a different aspect of California agriculture: You can kiss much of it goodbye because of climate change.

“The paper, published in the journal Agronomy last month, is the most thorough review of the literature on the regional impact of climate change in recent memory. It makes grim reading.

“Among the chief manifestations of climate change will be changes in precipitation patterns, leading to more drought and more flooding, and spottier water storage. Generally warmer temperatures, not to mention more frequent and severe heat waves, will reduce yields of wine grapes, strawberries and walnuts; shorter chill seasons will make vast areas no longer suitable for chestnuts, pecans, apricots, kiwis, apples, cherries and pears. Plant diseases and pests will move into regions where they haven’t been a problem before.

“Few crops will escape the dire effects of the transformation. Seasonal chilling is necessary to break some crops out of dormancy and launch pollination and flowering.

“By the end of this century, according to a study cited by the UC paper, the shrinking winter chill period will reduce the acreage of the Central Valley suitable for chestnut, pecan and quince by 22%, and for apricot, peach, nectarine and walnut by more than half. By 2000, only 4% of the Central Valley was suitable for apples, cherries and pears, but none of that will be left by 2060 under almost any climate change scenario.

“Put it all together, and the prospect is for a dramatic change in the mix of California produce and overall output. The UC paper foresees a decline of more than 40% in avocado yields, and as much as 20% in almonds, table grapes, oranges and walnuts. (Wine grape yields will be generally unaffected, but their quality might be compromised.)” Ah, the Mid-Western grain belt is right there with us as well. Red states without sustainable crops? Count on it!

But cutting back on pollution, including releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and effluents into our public waterways and aquifers favors new forms of business (lacking the equivalent political clout of incumbent mega-industries) that provide green jobs and alternative energy at the expense of big corporate forces that prefer to make their traditional revenue flow without the costs of socially-responsible pollution controls and environmental limitations.

Supporting these business incumbents doesn’t particularly change the number of jobs; it simply favors old world polluting jobs over the growth of new jobs in clean energy and environmentally responsible manufacturing and resource extraction. Even as the Trump administration pulls back the EPA, you will notice that manufacturing and resource extraction are increasingly automated, where a real-job impact (a) is still falling and (b) the highly-paid skillsets are the ones most targeted by this automation effort. Donald Trump has also nixed his own political appointees call to open a formal debate and federal study to settle the (truly non-existent?) climate change dispute as a waste of federal money. He’s right; this dispute was factually settled a long time ago.

But so much of what is happening is so destructive, so contrary to what the majority of Americans really want, that governmental decisions and policies have to be sheltered from public view. Also writing for the March 11^th Los Angeles Times, Evan Halper illustrates with a very harsh example: “As Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt jetted around the country last year, regularly flying first or business class at hefty taxpayer expense, his stated mission was often a noble one: to hear from Americans about how Washington could most effectively and fairly enforce the Clean Water Act.

“Yet when Pruitt showed up in North Dakota in August to seek guidance on how to rewrite a landmark Obama-era water protection rule, it was clear there were some voices he did not care to hear… The general public was barred from participating in the roundtable Pruitt presided over at the University of North Dakota. An EPA official even threatened to call security on reporters who tried to linger.

“What happened at the meeting is still a mystery to all but the invitees, a list dominated by industry and Pruitt’s political allies. The same is true of many of the other 16 such roundtables Pruitt held as he developed his plan to weaken a federal rule that protects the drinking water of 117 million Americans.

“Such behind-closed-doors deliberation is a hallmark of the agency under Pruitt, an EPA administrator who spent $25,000 to set up a secure phone booth in his office and said security concerns guided his luxury plane travel. Pruitt’s security detail said flying in coach exposed him to too much interaction with hostile members of the public. Under fire for the costly plane tickets, which were revealed in records obtained by the nonprofit watchdog Environmental Integrity Project, Pruitt said Feb. 28 that he would start trying to fly coach when possible.

“But the buffer Pruitt has created from critics among the public extends beyond his choice of airline seating. It also defines decision making at his agency… Pruitt purged scientists from an independent EPA advisory board that, among other things, rigorously reviewed the science behind President Obama’s water rule and found it to be sound. An EPA regulatory reform task force advising Pruitt on the rollback of clean water and air rules operates largely in the shadows. Pruitt’s advisors ordered economic data that reflected the benefits of Obama’s water rule erased from a key federal report, over the objections of career staffers at the EPA.

“Pruitt rejects any suggestion he is bending the rules. He says the agency is working ‘through the robust public process of providing long-term regulatory certainty across all 50 states about what waters are subject to federal regulation.’… The effort is aimed at removing federal Clean Water Act protection from millions of miles of streams and wetlands, including more than 80% of the waters in California and the arid West. In January, the Trump administration suspended for two years the new guidelines protecting those waters as it scrambles to draft a replacement rule that substantially narrows the reach of the act.

“Pruitt is, indeed, making a robust effort to connect with stakeholders — spending a lot of public dollars along the way. But his audiences are typically handpicked, and almost always industry-friendly.”

Our next collective opportunity to send a message to those in power now will be the November mid-term elections. We have to tilt against a still-significantly-gerrymandered reality in many red states, plus a Citizens United bias that still favor rich business interests over any other voice, but if enough Americans can cut through efforts further to polarize us (hello, Russia) and the reams of truly fake news disseminated by alt-right sympathizers and their enablers, we just might stem the tide of incredibly negative destruction of the air we breathe and the water we drink… perhaps even the productivity of our farms. And then there is the presidential election in 2020. Step by step, we can take our country back… to the betterment of most of us!

I’m Peter Dekom, and “yes we can.”