Chuitna Citizens Coalition Gets Rights on Lower Reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 But Not Main And Middle Reaches

 The decision is just out.  Here's the DNR press release with links to the decision.  Haven't had time to figure out what it means.  At first glance this looks like a cutting the baby in thirds decision that will leave everyone dissatisfied, but then the parts of the Creek where rights weren't granted, it seems, weren't denied, but deferred because "they were not ready for decision."  

[Note at 11:17am same day after a little more careful reading:  It also says at the end:  "We will not approve significant impacts to the Chuitna River."  The mine plans to excavate thousands of acres 300 feet deep, including parts of the river.  They then say they will restore it after the coal mining.  But shutting down of the river - even if they actually can restore it later - has to qualify as "significant impacts" and so this seems to be a significant win for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition.]


Here's the press release: (with links to the whole decision)

"Decision reached on water reservation applications in Chuitna River watershed

The Division of Mining, Land & Water has issued a decision on the Chuitna Citizens Coalition Inc.'s three applications for instream flow reservations for Middle Creek/Stream 2003, a tributary of the Chuitna River. Two of the applications are for segments of the stream located within the footprint of the proposed Chuitna Coal project.
After review of the facts in the administrative record, public comments and hearing, the decision grants the Chuitna Citizen Coalition's application for the lower reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 but does not grant its applications for the creek's main and middle reaches. This decision does not award any permits or water rights to the proposed coal project.
This decision is a reasoned approach that reached conclusion on the lower reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 while denying the applications for reservations on the main and middle reaches because they are not ready for decision. The division cannot not yet determine, on this incomplete record, which of the competing applications for the same water would be subject to a preference as the most beneficial use. The division will adjudicate any remaining requests for water rights or instream flow applications in the Chuitna River watershed after the Clean Water Act 404, Surface Mining Coal Regulatory Act (SMCRA) and Title 16 fish habitat permits are done so that we can consider impacts to the watershed by an approved mine plan. We will not approve significant impacts to the Chuitna River. [emphasis added]

Please review the following documents to better understand the decision.

• October 6, 2015 Decision on water reservation applications for the Chuitna River watershed (PDF)
• Map of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 with reservation application reaches identified (PDF)

• October 7, 2015 Press Release (316 KB)"

OK, that's it for now.  The mine company, PacRim, and the various other opponents flat out said the reservation should be rejected, so in that sense it's a loss for them and a win for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition, but I hate to talk in terms of wins and losses.

This is not over and the decision is likely to be challenged in court. 

Watching The Pieces On The Chess Board: Climate Change, Ukraine, Oil Prices, Putin Support of Asad, Greek Debt, Refugee Crisis

Let's start with this LA Times headline Tuesday:

"A crisis of unity exposed in EU" 

In the last couple of weeks I've been thinking about how Europe's influx of refugees is causing great disruption in Europe not to mention the horrors that are causing the refugees to leave their homes.  But there's one clear winner - Russia, of course.  A united Europe is not good for Putin's ambitions.

As I see this, we get news about the world in fragments, and often that's how they stay in our brain - fragmented.  But everything is related to everything.  So this post is a way for me to try to connect in my own head a lot of these fragments.    And I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but let's look at some of the moves on the chess board.


1.  Russia's march into the Crimea made for daily headlines such as this back in spring 2014.

2.  Western reaction was strong and included sanctions.   

3.  Sanctions against Russia caused Putin to retaliate including threats to Europe's natural gas supply.

4.   EU stands firm on sanctions.

5.  And don't forget Russia's offer to help Greece with its debt to the rest of the EU.

6.  Meanwhile, the Syrian civil war expands as ISIS comes in.  And Russia continues its support of Syria's Asad.


7.  The Saudis, unhappy with Russia's support of Asad,  have increased oil production, which led to lower oil prices.  Since oil is critical to Russia's economy, the Saudis were hoping the economic impact would lead Russia to drop support of Asad, according to the New York Times.









 8. Back to the  Los Angeles Times headline  that I began with:

A crisis of unity exposed in EU

Some of the 28-nation bloc’s key initiatives are in jeopardy amid deep discord over the influx of refugees.

BY HENRY CHU

   LONDON — Just three years ago, the European Union basked in the glory of a Nobel Peace Prize and boasted of being a tight-knit community bound by “European values” of democracy, diversity and dignity.    By its own measure, the 28-nation club is now looking decidedly less European and even less a union these days as it grapples with the continent’s biggest refugee crisis since World War II.. .

So, if millions of Syrian (and other) refugees flood into Europe, critical parts of the European unity get tested.  Schengen - the agreement that eliminated stops at border crossings between most European countries - has been one of the most important symbols of the EU's unity.  And now Hungary's building of a border wall to block the refugees, raises question about Schengen.  Croatia has only applied to be a Schengen member so it isn't a breach of Schengen yet. But now Austria is talking about closing its borders with Hungary, which would be a breach. 

Another symbol of that unity is the Euro which came into crisis with the Greek debt showdown.  And the Russians offered to support Greece against the rest of Europe.

If, in fact, the refugees help break down the European Union, then Russia's European opposition is much weaker economically and militarily and Putin would have much more freedom to treat his people and neighbors as he pleases.   


Abdul Jalil Al-Marhoun  argues that Russia's key goal in Syria is access to the Mediterranean Sea.  While a port in Syria would be a useful base, he argues, it's not essential.  A weaker Europe would make securing this route much easier.  Especially through the narrow strait by Istanbul.

Click to enlarge and focus - map from Wikipedia

The map shows the Black Sea geography.  Russia has a major naval base in Sevastopol which it leased from the Ukraine for, according to a state sponsored  Russia Today article: 

"$526.5 million for the base, as well as writing off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt."  

After the takeover, that agreement was voided by the Duma.  That's over half a billion savings for Russia and loss for Ukraine.  A Center for Strategic and International Studies article describes the strategic benefits to Russia of this naval base.


Life is much simpler when the news anchors just say "the good guys" and "the bad guys" and that's all you have to know.   And when news is made up of discrete unrelated incidents of video violence.  News is merely entertainment - real life examples of action movies.  But it doesn't help us understand how and why things are happening.  For that you have to think like a chess player - each move is about the position of all the pieces and where they will be three or four or five moves hence.   Certainly Putin, head of a nation of chess players, has in mind strategy such as this offered by the United States Chess Federation:

"When you are considering a move, ask yourself these questions:

• Will the piece I'm moving go to a better square than the one it's on now? 
• Can I improve my position even more by increasing the effectiveness of a different piece? 
• Will the piece I move be safe on its new square?  
• If it's a pawn, consider: Can I keep it protected from attack? 
• If it's another piece, consider: Can the enemy drive it away, thus making me lose valuable time?

Even if your intended move has good points, it may not be the best move at that moment. Emanuel Lasker, a former world champion, said: "When you see a good move, wait---look for a better one!" Following this advice is bound to improve your chess." 

Maybe American schools should start teaching chess so American students can learn to think about the long term implications of their actions.


Oh yes, climate change.  How does that fit in here?  From Scientific American:

"Drying and drought in Syria from 2006 to 2011—the worst on record there—destroyed agriculture, causing many farm families to migrate to cities. The influx added to social stresses already created by refugees pouring in from the war in Iraq, explains Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who co-authored the study. The drought also pushed up food prices, aggravating poverty. “We’re not saying the drought caused the war,” Seager said. 'We’re saying that added to all the other stressors, it helped kick things over the threshold into open conflict. And a drought of that severity was made much more likely by the ongoing human-driven drying of that region.'”

"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." [UPDATED]

Busy rainy day.

Biked over to UAA for the Citizens Climate Lobby meeting.  More on that later.  Really good talk by Jerry Taylor of the Libertarian Niskanen Center.  Also the Anchorage chapter got mentioned for commissioning the study of the impact on rural Alaska of a carbon fee with rebate done by ISER economist Steve Colt.  But I can only write so much in one post, so that will wait. 

Right after the meeting I got a ride to Arctic Valley for the Earth Care Jamboree.  Lots of thoughts and ideas, few of which will get into this post.

Libby Roderick kicked things off musically upstairs against the dramatic view of the fall colors on the slope behind her. 

She also led a workshop on Money.  She focused on the disconnect between what people say they believe - particularly on climate change - and how they spend and invest their money.  She frequently broke for the participants to talk in pairs about the themes.

The title quote comes from this workshop.  We

didn't spend any time on it, but for this post I looked it up and found the author to be Frederic Jameson and it pops up in reviews of post-apocalypse movies and books. lamenting the lack of imagination to develop post-capitalist worlds.  For example, in a Snowpiercer review:

"This film is great as a film. I am however tired of these premises in which humanity is deprived of some antagonistically outer threat, humans or world cause, that kills off everybody except a small population and let them return to a state of basic barbarian living. Another quote from Slavoj Zizek mirrors this appending doom: 

'this is what I fear; this is the true dilemma. When the big Other in the form of the state collapses, what we will have is a regression …to some kind of far more totalitarian … pre-state … form of the big Other. Or even to New Age consciousness. There they try to make the big Other exist, perhaps in the form of natural balance'”

There were lots of doors we peeked at in the workshop, but didn't go through as Libby raised money related questions:  people's emotional reactions to money;  the effects of their upbringing on how they think about money;  how people support or fight global warming by how they spend and invest their money;  why money, particularly one's own monetary situation, is rarely talked about with others.

[UPDATE March 21, 2019:  I notice that people get to this post frequently, but I had forgotten the details so I checked today and see that while I reference Frederic Jameson as the author, I don't really have the quote in here.  It's from an article, "Future City",  in New Left Review, 2003:  Here's the paragraph that includes this post's title:

"For it is the end of the world that is in question here; and that could be exhilarating if apocalypse were the only way of imagining that world’s disappearance (whether we have to do here with the bang or the whimper is not the interesting question). It is the old world that deserves the bile and the satire, this new one is merely its own self-effacement, and its slippage into what Dick called kipple or gubble, what LeGuin once described as the buildings ‘melting. They were getting soggy and shaky, like jello left out in the sun. The corners had already run down the sides, leaving great creamy smears.’ Someone once said that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism. We can now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way of imagining the end of the world." (emphasis added)]

There was an interfaith panel that included:

Rev Dr. Curtis Karns
Yukon Presbyterians for Earth Care

David Bishop Mahaffey
Orthodox Church in America

Dr. Genmyo Zeekyk
Anchorage Zen Community

Prof. Doug Causey
Friends (Quakers)
University of Alaska Anchorage











I went to an afternoon workshop on activism.  It was called "Social Movements and Peaceful

 

Carson Chavana prepping for workshop

Resistance" hosted by Carson Chavana, who's been active fighting against the Chuitna coal mine, and The Rising Tide, Alaska chapter.  This was one of the groups that had people blockading Shell's   icebreaker MSV Fennica as it left Portland, Oregon on its way to drill in the Chukchi Sea.  I tend to be on the non-violent end of the continuum, but I found the workshop stimulating.  There were distinctions made between civil disobedience and activism. (I think the second term was activism, but due to my amazing magical powers I made their flier disappear was I walked from the couch to my desk. I'm still working on the part of this trick that makes it reappear.) Civil disobedience accepts the legitimacy of the government and challenges bad laws by breaking them and getting the judge or legislature to change the law.  Activists don't accept the legitimacy of the government, arguing they have been corrupted by the corporate paid lobbyists who have twisted the laws to favor their interests.  (I'm paraphrasing here.)

Kirby Spangler

Kirby Spangler, who's a member of
There was also a participatory exercise on defining violence and the morality of different actions.  Is breaking a window a form of violence and would you do it or not?  Is eating meat a form of violence and would you do it or not?  What about taking some parts from a bulldozer that is going to be used to destroy some structure?  These questions made us all reconsider distinctions in types of violence.  Is violence against property the same as violence against humans?  Is physical destruction different from disabling the bulldozer?  Are there times when violence is justified?  I think there was some agreement that one can't evaluate an action without some context.  Self-defense and defending human life were two examples that a lot of people used to justify violence.  While these are old debates, it was useful for me to revisit them and to see the variety of stances people had. 


Meanwhile, it kept raining most of the day, but the landscapes outside the building were spectacular as the clouds obscured the views here and then later there.  But always there were the fall colors of the tundra.

Earth Care Jamboree Includes Naked Mabel and Vinyl Floors

Someone asked if I'd post an announcement for the Earth Care Jamboree this Saturday.  I don't normally do requests, but I do post about events that might look interesting to my readers, events that I might attend myself.  And this seems like one.  And the Citizens Climate Lobby, a group I'm a member of, will have a table at the event. 

From what I can tell, there will be music, speakers, workshops, and lots of connections to make.

The main sponsor is the

"The Interfaith Earth Care Action Network (IECAN) [which] is a collaborative group of individuals representing faith communities across Southcentral Alaska, who saw a need to create a space where faith communities can come together to support and empower one another to speak out and take action on climate change."

[So how do you pronounce IECAN?  I.E. Can?]  [I'm trying to get this post up while my granddaughter is tugging on me to take her to the playground.  You know who's going to win this one.]

Here's a link to their blog which has all the details for Saturday.  But I'll give you a sneak preview of just a couple of the people who will be speaking:

Craig Fleener

Craig Fleener is Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in from Fort Yukon Alaska.  He serves as Arctic Policy Advisor to the Governor of Alaska.  Mr. Fleener served as a permanent participant on the Arctic Council and has participated in the work of several of the working groups of the Arctic Council. Mr. Fleener is a wildlife biologist with a specialty in moose management and human dimensions of wildlife and fisheries. 

Xavier Mason

Xavier Mason is a recent UAA graduate and commencement speaker. He is deeply involved in campus and community organizations: co-founder of Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity, CBPP Leadership Fellow, and candidate for Oxford's Rhode Scholarship and is currently awaiting designation from the World Economic Forum as a Global Shaper. Xavier will be speaking as the president of the NAACP Youth Council.

 

Doug Causey

Doug Causey is Professor of Biological Sciences, Director of the Applied Environmental Research Center, and Senior Advisor to the Chancellor on Arctic Policy at the University of Alaska Anchorage. He arrived to UAA in June 2005 from Harvard University where he was Senior Biologist at the Museum of Comparative Zoology and Senior Fellow of the JF Kennedy School of Government.  Previous to that, he served as Program Director at the National Science Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs.  An ecologist and evolutionary biologist by training, he has authored over one hundred fifty publications on topics as diverse as the biology of Arctic marine birds, Arctic Climate Change, and the ecology of Alaskan bats.  His research focuses on the dynamics of Arctic ecosystems and climate change, and he has published extensively on policy issues related to the Arctic environment, environmental security, and the resilience of High Arctic communities.

 Climate change seems like an impossible cause to make a difference on, but I've found with Citizens Climate Lobby that individuals can make a difference on climate change.  I'm sure that at this jamboree you'll be able to find lots of ways you can make small contributions to making the planet a better place.  And even though your contribution is small, combined with lots of other small contributions, it will make a big difference.

OK, you get the point.  Arctic Valley, starting at 11am on Saturday, September 12.  I've got a date at the playground waiting right now. 

California Water Savings: “We never thought [conservation] was a bad thing."

Every change has consequences.  From the LA Times:

 ". . .  in a paradox of conservation, water agencies say the unprecedented savings — 31% in July over July 2013 — are causing or compounding a slew of problems.
   Sanitation districts are yanking tree roots out of manholes and stepping up maintenance on their pipes to prevent corrosion and the spread of odors. And when people use less potable water, officials say, there’s less wastewater available to recycle.
   Water suppliers, meanwhile, say the dramatic decrease in consumption has created multimillion-dollar revenue shortfalls. .  . 
 
   “It’s unintended consequences,” said George Tchobanoglous, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis. “We never thought [conservation] was a bad thing. Every citizen thinks he or she is saving mankind, and I’m sympathetic, but it just so happens that our basic infrastructure was not designed with that in mind.”
 
. . .   Shorter showers, more efficient toilets and other reductions in indoor water usage have meant less wastewater flowing through sewer pipes, sanitation officials say. With less flow to flush the solids down the system, those solids are collecting and can eventually damage pipes.
   “The costs that we’re going to face due to corroding pipes is going to be astronomical,” Tchobanoglous said. “It’ll dwarf everything else.”

Climate change costs are going to be much greater than anyone has really anticipated.  Every change will have hidden costs because the infrastructure was designed to be used differently.  The more we cut down on carbon use now, the less staggering climate change will be.  The costs of cutting back are tiny compared to the costs of not cutting back. 

The president is talking about glaciers and saving them for our grandchildren to see.  But since most people in the world have never seen a glacier, losing sightseeing opportunities is the least of the problems global climate change is bringing.  It's the hidden, unforeseen things like the impact of less water in the LA sewer system that will eventually cost people in convenience and in dollars.

Sam Daley-Harris, Citizens Climate Lobby, and Japan Summer Festival

Today's Citizens' Climate Lobby international phone meeting (that the Anchorage group calls into from UAA) featured:

Sam Daley-Harris, Center for Citizen Empowerment and Transformation

How can we maximize the leverage from the media we generate and other actions we take? RESULTS founder and CCL mentor Sam Daley–Harris will join our August call and coach us on best practices to ensure that our actions have the greatest impact with members of Congress. After 15 years with RESULTS, Sam founded the Microcredit Summit Campaign, which he left in 2012 to establish the Center for Citizen Empowerment and Transformation.

As I sit here trying to write, I realize I'm getting blasé about these really good speakers.  They're all so good and the meetings are so efficiently run - the reasons I kept going to meetings - that this has become the expectation.  If the Alaska legislature were 1/3 as efficient and effective, Alaska would be humming with a balanced budget and serious programs for making Alaska a more caring and equitable place.

As we left, they were setting up the Japanese Summer Festival at the Cuddy Center.

The event goes from 12pm to 5pm today and parking's free.  It's on the west end of campus near the Wendy Williamson auditorium.

These two, apparently had their setting up chores done, and were 'going' at it.

There was a table of Ikebana. 















The dining room at the Cuddy has the bazaar.  There was food in various places, music, folks in various kinds of Japanese dress.

And a great sale on Pocky. 


 As I post this, the Japan Day celebration has three and a half hours to go.  And it's a spectacularly beautiful day. 

Why Wasn't I Surprised That The Guy Who Killed Cecil The Lion Was A Dentist?

It's been a while since I noticed the DDS on the ends of the names of people who have trophy bears in the Anchorage Airport. 

These are only two bears representing two dentists over a 40 year period so let's not jump to conclusions about dentists. Yet.  .  .
Not all the stuffed bears at the airport had their shooters identified, but a couple that did were hunting or fishing guides.


Dr. Walter Palmer of Minnesota, is reported to have said of the death of Cecil:

“I hired several professional guides, and they secured all proper permits,” read a statement from Palmer to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “To my knowledge, everything about this trip was legal and properly handled and conducted.”
He added: “I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a study until the end of the hunt. I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt. I deeply regret that my pursuit of an activity I love and practice responsibly and legally resulted in the taking of this lion."

Let's remember that most of us know almost nothing about Dr. Palmer and we're filling in the details to fit our own belief systems.  I think we all have a tendency to believe what we want to believe - those of us reading the stories and Dr. Palmer himself..  He wanted a lion and the guys he contacted said they'd get him one.  How carefully did he look into their credentials?  How would an American hunter even check Zimbabwean credentials?  As for the rest of us, many are blasting some version of the evil hunter killing innocent animals.   Others are praising the good hunters and singling Palmer out as the bad apple that gives all hunters a bad rep.

While I'm not likely to let this guy off easily, the real issue to me is: what is it that causes grown men, with a good education to want to go out and kill animals, not for food, but for trophies?  (And a follow up question that I won't explore here, is how this sort of killing connected to killing human beings?)   My representative in Congress is known for his wall full of animal heads and hides. He even missed a key subcommittee vote because he was on safari in South Africa.  I had a student once who explained how hunting was a bonding experience between him and his dad.  I get that, and I'm glad my dad and I bonded over other things, like hiking, books, art, baseball, and movies, rather than killing animals.

Some defend hunting as part of their cultural tradition and point out how hunters help protect the environment where animals live.  I think there's merit to those arguments, up to a point.  There are lots of traditions that modern societies no longer openly practice - like slavery, like beating kids as punishment, like cock and dog fighting,  like burning witches, like exorcising demons, or child labor and child marriage.

I look at that picture of Dr. Eberle and wonder what he was thinking at the time.  I too like to shoot animals, but with my camera rather than a gun.  That allows me a connection with the animal, but allows the animal to go on living and for others to enjoy seeing them too.   What causes grown men to want to kill big animals and display them?  Is it some sort of feelings of inadequacy, of lack of power?  Is it part of the DNA  they inherited from ancestors who hunted for survival?

A New Zealand study, done to help a government agency prepare to manage hunting on public estates, looked at lots of previous studies to try to determine motivations and satisfactions of hunters. 

Decker and Connelly (1989) proposed three categories of motivations; achievement oriented, affiliation oriented, and appreciation oriented.

• -Achievement oriented hunters are motivated by the attainment of a particular goal,  which may be harvesting an animal for meat, a trophy or a display of skill.

• -Affiliation oriented hunters participate in hunting with the primary purpose of fostering personal relationships with friends, family or hunting companions.

• -Appreciation oriented hunters are motivated by a desire to be outdoors, escape everyday stress or to relax.

The study goes on to list a much wider range of specifics, that tend to fall into these categories.  It doesn't seem to get into deeper psychological reasons such as the need to demonstrate power (maybe getting a trophy is the proxy for this) or where these needs come from.  Why some people (mostly men) have such a need to kill animals and others do not.  There's lots to ponder here. 

I'd also note that the Alaska Dental Association strongly opposed the use of dental aides to perform basic dental work in rural Alaska.  Most, I'm sure, believed that dentists would give better care and that aides lacked the extensive training necessary to make critical decisions.  They didn't seem to weigh the benefits of many, many more kids and adults getting very simple basic dental care and education that local aides could provide in an area where few dentists lived.    I think their belief was genuine, but colored by their own conscious or unconscious self interests.  As are most all of our beliefs. One such interest was simply the same as all professional licensing - limiting the amount of competition.  Also dentists could fly out to rural Alaska and see patients and also go hunting and fishing on the side.  That is true of many urban, non-Native Alaskans who provide professional services in rural Alaska.  And my saying it shouldn't cause people to question the motives of people who do such work.  But we should be aware of how such side benefits might bias one's beliefs about what's right and wrong, good and bad.

When it comes to endangered species, there are bigger issues  - like resource extraction that destroys habitat, like overpopulation that impinges on wild habitat for housing and food.  And climate change which is changing the landscape world wide.  We should be concerned with individual abuses such as luring a well known collared lion out of a refuge to be shot.  But the bigger environmental trends are much more impactful and threatening to all living things, including humans.  These are the least immediately visible and seemingly the hardest to fight.  But there are ways and many people are pursuing them.  One just has to look, and the internet makes that easy. 

How Plastics Saved The Elephant

I ran across a Scientific American article on the history of plastic.  It reminded me how much history has to teach us and how much of it we don't know. 

Thai work elephants 1967-8

"elephants, the paper warned in 1867, were in grave danger of being "numbered with extinct species" because of humans' insatiable demand for the ivory in their tusks. Ivory, at the time, was used for all manner of things, from buttonhooks to boxes, piano keys to combs. But one of the biggest uses was for billiard balls. Billiards had come to captivate upper-crust society in the United States as well as in Europe. Every estate, every mansion had a billiards table, and by the mid-1800s, there was growing concern that there would soon be no more elephants left to keep the game tables stocked with balls. The situation was most dire in Ceylon, source of the ivory that made the best billiard balls. There, in the northern part of the island, the Times reported, "upon the reward of a few shillings per head being offered by the authorities, 3,500 pachyderms were dispatched in less than three years by the natives." All told, at least one million pounds of ivory were consumed each year, sparking fears of an ivory shortage. "Long before the elephants are no more and the mammoths used up," the Times hoped, 'an adequate substitute may [be] found.'"

 Plastics.  It's mind boggling to know that humans nearly wiped out elephants 150 years ago, just so they could play billiards!

The savior of the elephants?

Plastics freed us from the confines of the natural world, from the material constraints and limited supplies that had long bounded human activity. That new elasticity unfixed social boundaries as well. The arrival of these malleable and versatile materials gave producers the ability to create a treasure trove of new products while expanding opportunities for people of modest means to become consumers. Plastics held out the promise of a new material and cultural democracy. The comb, that most ancient of personal accessories, enabled anyone to keep that promise close.

There was even a contest to find a substitute for ivory so they could keep making billiard balls when the supply of ivory was gone.

The need for natural material to make combs almost wiped out the hawkbill turtle.  In fact plastics - first made from plant material and then from oil - saved a lot of creaturers.

Celluloid could be rendered with the rich creamy hues and striations of the finest tusks from Ceylon, a faux material marketed as French Ivory. It could be mottled in browns and ambers to emulate tortoiseshell; traced with veining to look like marble; infused with the bright colors of coral, lapis lazuli, or carnelian to resemble those and other semiprecious stones; or blackened to look like ebony or jet. Celluloid made it possible to produce counterfeits so exact that they deceived "even the eye of the expert," as Hyatt's company boasted in one pamphlet. "As petroleum came to the relief of the whale," the pamphlet stated, so "has celluloid given the elephant, the tortoise, and the coral insect a respite in their native haunts; and it will no longer be necessary to ransack the earth in pursuit of substances which are constantly growing scarcer."

 As the human population increases, we make heavier use of critical materials, up to the point that we may use them all up - and in the case of animal based materials, cause extinction.  If we are lucky, we find a substitute to give relief to those natural sources. 

But then we get dependent on the new material to the point of endangering the natural world again.   And the local humans who live in that now destroyed natural environment.

Our petroleum use, which saved the whale a hundred years ago, is now causing climate change.  Today petroleum based sports enthusiasts, like the billiard players, continue their dangerous games.  But the rest of us are guilty too.  We can't get free of our addiction to fossil fuel powered cars and airplanes and electricity.   Some, though, are rushing to create alternative sources of energy and finding ways to wean humans from oil. Meanwhile those companies that have gotten rich off of fossil fuels, are fighting any curtailment of the source of their wealth and we continue to buy their products to fuel our lifestyles which we can't imagine without fossil fuels.

And our search for other natural resources as well as our growing human population's encroachment into forests continues to make the survival of non-human species like the elephant and the tiger and millions of smaller, non-iconic species iffy. 

The whole article is fascinating and has lots more details.

Corrected Post - Chris Dixon is NEXT Monday - Merchants of Doubt Today

I mistakenly posted that Chris would be talking today.  It's next Monday.  So I'm reposting this with the changes. 

Chris Dixon - UAA  NEXT Monday   Bookstore  - 4pm-6pm  Free Parking (just park, don't worry)

Merchants of Doubt - Bear Tooth - 5:45pm TODAY

Here's the online bio you find about Chris:

Chris Dixon, originally from Anchorage, is a longtime community organizer, writer, and educator with a PhD from the University of California at Santa Cruz. He serves on the board of the Institute for Anarchist Studies and the advisory board for the activist journal Upping the Anti. He currently lives in Ottawa, Canada, on unceded Algonquin Territory. His new book is Another Politics: Talking Across Today's Transformative Movements and is published by University of California Press.

I'd add that I've known Chris since he was a classmate of my daughter's at Steller.  Though I haven't seen him for years. This guy was special as a teenager and has stayed special. More than special. He didn't give up his young idealism and vision to become an adult.  He's found a way to live his values.


Here's some YouTube of him talking in Winnepeg in January of this year. It's long, but at least look at the first few minutes after the intro. Oh, yeah, the intro was written by Angela Davis.





The other must see event today is the showing of Merchants of Doubt at the Bear Tooth at 5:45.

This movie looks at the cadre of 'experts' who are paid to attack public belief in things like toxic chemicals and climate change.  It's close to what this blog, at base, is about. 

Inspired by the acclaimed book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt takes audiences on a satirically comedic, yet illuminating ride into the heart of conjuring American spin. Filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the curtain on a secretive group of highly charismatic, silver-tongued pundits-for-hire who present themselves in the media as scientific authorities – yet have the contrary aim of spreading maximum confusion about well-studied public threats ranging from toxic chemicals to pharmaceuticals to climate change.

Here's the trailer:




Here's the author of the book the movie is based on talking about the book. 

Why Our Brains Are Wired To Ignore Climate Change.

That's the subtitle of a book by George Marshall, the Citizens' Climate Lobby speaker at Saturday's international phone in meeting.  He called in from Wales, I believe, and spoke to the 250 or so local chapters around the US and Canada.  (I don't recall hearing that the European, Asian, Australian, or South American chapters are in on the calls.)

I'm in LA, so I biked over to the LA chapter meeting in Westwood.  It was fun to meet CCL folks here and I got a lot of ideas from them to take back to Anchorage - events they're participating in, they've made CCL T-shirts, and they were really well focused on evaluating which of their activities had the most impact so they can best use their time.

And it was also interesting to ponder on how in Anchorage, with a population of 310,000 we get 10-12 people at most meetings and the LA group had only eight people (plus they poached one Alaskan). (Several of their regular members were out of town or otherwise busy Saturday.)  We talked about how it is harder in a big metropolitan area to get people than in a smaller place where people know each other better.  And even though California is a very blue state in the midst of an historic drought, they related that people really don't want to talk about it - which is what the speaker, George Marshall said too.  But in Anchorage, I don't see that.  People talk about climate change all the time - it's effects are much more visible.  And maybe the effects we have - glaciers retreating at record rates, sea ice disappearance meaning more open water and massive erosion of coast lines and villages on them, permafrost melting, snow-free dogsledding - are all easier to connect to global warming.  And we also have a Fairbanks chapter and a couple more chapters hatching - in the MatSu valley and in Sitka.  Whereas the LA chapter covers a bunch of congressional districts, we in Alaska can all focus on one member of congress.

Our group was pretty old, pretty white, and economically comfortable.  There needs to be a younger and more diverse group. And we do in Anchorage.   On the other hand, this older, well educated group, have the perspective, time, and resources to fight this battle.  We have our grand children's futures at stake. 

Anyway, the book, as Marshall described it, goes into how the brain is wired - the rational thinking side is slower to act than the emotional side.  And since this is

1. a complex problem that requires a lot of patience to truly understand
2. a problem people don't want to accept 
3. a story they don't like 
4. and a story teller they don't like

the doubters will continue to doubt.   He also discussed confirmation bias - that we seek out and believe those 'facts' that support our preset beliefs.  This is a problem for both sides - the believers in climate change and the doubters. 

This is a problem that has costs today, for a problem that most people see as out in the future (and for the doubters, if at all).

So, his advice is to change the structure of the story.

• It's something happening here and now - it's what's behind the severe weather patterns we are seeing around the globe
• There's a powerful story here, but there is no 'enemy' and enemies are important for getting people to act   - so we tend to make the doubters the enemy which isn't a story they buy

He talked about this as the biggest story we DON'T tell.  There is a great silence.  This isn't part of my experience, but I recognize that because I'm tuned into this story, I see it everywhere. Other people at the meeting did mention later that they experienced people not wanting to talk about climate change.  In fact he said we should take a page from the religious communities that  takes their messages out to strangers. He talked about a 'socially constructed science' that makes people purposely avoid the topic and likened it to the silence about apartheid in South Africa - which was also a big silence. 

He said he respects the energy and drive of the Tea Party who are opposed to how things are and we should treat them respectfully (ah, yes, my detractors don't like that message I keep giving) and engage them in climate change discussions and get them away from the other issues that are distracting them.  He praised CCL for its conviction that we must speak with those who don't agree with us and that we treat them with respect. 

Great change can happen quickly, he said, and recommended Adam Hochschild's Bury The Chains, an account of high a small group in England took on all the vested interests to get slavery banned at the end of the 18th Century.

In some ways, this speaker had less to tell me that I didn't know than most other speakers, but there were still some nuggets and reinforcement of things I know, but haven't articulated lately. 

You can listen in to the meeting here (while you jog or clean the bathroom or whatever task you have where you can listen too).

One thought I had was about how to make this story very much here and now - it's to ask the person I talk to, to think about the world they will be leaving for their children and grandchildren.  To take their ages and add 25 years.  How old will they be?  Anyone over 50 knows that 25 years will come quickly.  I think of my 2 year old granddaughter and nearly one year old grandson.  I don't want them to be in their mid-twenties in a world of chaos caused by climate change.  Where weather patterns have disrupted human food production and people are literally fighting for food and water.  It's already happening around the world.  The revolt in Syria happened after years of drought and increasing economic instability for farmers.  While we currently have the resources to recover from storms like Sandy, other parts of the world don't, and as time goes by, and disasters become even more common,  neither will we.

That's why I think this fight is worth fighting now.  As someone said Saturday, maybe Marshall, the gains we make now are like compound interest - the benefits grow quickly.  But, in this case, the benefits really are just a lessening of the climate caused disruptions of humanity. 

And I'm at CCL meetings the first Saturday of each month, because they are highly and efficiently focused on one goal now - getting a carbon fee with dividend passed by congress.  Shi-Ling Hsu The Case for a  Carbon Tax convinced me that this was the most politically feasible option that could seriously lower carbon emissions.  This organization is incredible at energizing and supporting its members, networking with like-minded organizations, and moving toward the goal.  Being there is a lesson for any non-profit on how to operate.  (I say this as a very critical student of organization behavior.)

Margie and crew, thanks for being such gracious hosts to this Alaskan. 

Obama Offers Refuge On US Land To Nine Climate Threatened Nations

President Obama today announced that the US would provide new homelands for the nine most climate-change endangered island nations in the world (see table below).  Here is part of the text of the president's speech: 

These nine nations, with a total land size of 1300 square miles (almost the size of Yosemite National Park, 4/5 the size of Rhode Island, and 2/3 the size of Anchorage, Alaska) with a total population of just under 900.000 (less than 1/3 of one percent of the US population), are severely threatened by sea level rise caused by global warming.

These are independent nations whose very existence is threatened by changes in the world's climate caused, in large part, by the side effects of our great prosperity.  We have a moral obligation to the people of these nations, an obligation to assure them that the world will not only find space for them to live, but will also respect their cultures and sovereignty.

There are many different ways the world can react to the crisis faced by these nations.  The world has shown, time and again, its generosity to nations suffering from natural disasters.  But the nations of the world often take a long time to come to agreements  to assist in  human caused disasters.  Thus, today I am guaranteeing that if, by 2020, the United Nations or other international bodies have not found a fair and suitable way to relocate these nations, the United States will find federally owned land in the United States.  The people of each nation must decide whether they want to remain sovereign nations or not.  If they do, they can have the same status US Indian tribes have as sovereign nations within the United States.

These are just the nine nations most immediately threatened by climate change.  I am taking the lead today in this, in hopes that other nations will quickly line up to assist the other nations that will face climate change related disasters later."

Pacific Ocean	Caribbean Sea	Indian Ocean	Size m2 / k2	Population
Marshall Islands			70/181	68,000
Kiribati			313/811	103,500
Tuvalu			10/26	10, 837
Tonga			289/748	103,036
Federated States of Micronesia			271/702	106,104
Cook Islands			91/240	19,569
	Antigua		108/281	80,161
	Nevis		35/93	12,106
		Maldives	115/298	393,500

From Reuters Youtube of Maldives President Cabinet Meeting

The president of the Maldives sent an official thank you letter after a cabinet meeting in their under water chamber.  Other island presidents praised Obama for his humanity and foresight. 

Republicans in the House and Senate were quick to blast the president.  Former Canadian citizen  Ted Cruz blasted the president for proposing to bring more immigrants to the US before solving the existing immigration problem.  He went on to say it was totally unnecessary anyway: 

"The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened,"

House Speaker John Boehner found the idea of giving federal land to foreigners outrageous.  

"That land belongs to the states it's in."

Senate majority leader  Mitch McConnell was nearly unintelligible, his face red and contorted, as he listened to the speech.  

"Half those lands are former British colonies.  Let the English take them in."

In response to reporters' questions about his critics' charges, Obama said,

"The United States is also a former British colony, and few of us would choose to go back to Great Britain.  And yes, there are low lying US cities that are threatened, like Manhattan and Miami.  We will help New Yorkers cope as their island goes underwater.  Remember, too, they are United States citizens who have the right to move anywhere in the US.   However, we are certain that Floridians, whose governor has banned the terms climate change and global warming, will trust that Governor Scott will also ban climate change itself.  We will, of course, send scuba gear for residents, just in case their governor's voodoo doesn't work. 

All of the critics of this policy are also strong supporters, as am I,  of Israel, a country that was created in the Middle East, at a time when the Jewish people faced the possibility of extinction.  If we can ask the people who were living in what now is Israel to share their land, surely Americans can share a tiny fraction of our land with these tiny island nations."

Three law suits have already been  filed in federal courts challenging the president's power to carry out any of these promises.  For the president's complete speech and Republican responses, click here.    For people who wish to know more about this issue, here is a report I've found since writing, but before publishing, this post.

Missouri Senator Blunt Offers Budget Amendment To Preclude Future Carbon Fee

 From Sen. Blunt's website:

 Blunt image from SemoTimes

WASHINGTON D.C. – U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) introduced an amendment to the FY2016 budget today to protect families in Missouri and across America from a carbon tax, which would lead to skyrocketing energy costs for families nationwide. Blunt’s amendment, which is co-sponsored by U.S. Senator John Thune (S.D.), would create a Point of Order against any bill that contains a tax or fee on carbon emissions from sources that are direct or indirect sources of emissions. To read the text of the amendment, click here.

This amendment's intent is to preempt legislation that would create a carbon fee or tax and require 60 votes to override this amendment.  The press release also falsely predicts rising energy costs and lost jobs.  (Actually, it probably depends on the assumptions they made about what such a fee would look like, assumptions that are radically different from the carbon fee proposal of Citizens Climate Lobby that I'll discuss below.)

SEMO Times  [Southeast Missouri], seems to just print the press release as is:

 WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) introduced an amendment to the FY2016 budget today to protect families in Missouri and across America from a carbon tax, which would lead to skyrocketing energy costs for families nationwide. Blunt’s amendment, which is co-sponsored by U.S. Senator John Thune (S.D.), would create a Point of Order against any bill that contains a tax or fee on carbon emissions from sources that are direct or indirect sources of emissions. To read the text of the amendment, click here.

Actually, a carbon fee, such as the one proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby, would distribute the money raised by the fee back to the American public - much like the Alaska Permanent Fund. 

"A national carbon price, with full revenue return and border adjustments, will do four things:

• internalize the social cost of carbon-based fuels, 
• rapidly achieve large emission reductions, 
• stimulate the economy & 
• recruit global participation.[1]"

I know about this because I'm a member of the Citizens Climate Lobby and I've been going to their monthly international phone meetings and have done the homework to see that the carbon fee proposal is the most politically feasible option to reduce carbon emissions.  A carbon fee is supported by a number of conservatives because it uses market forces rather than regulation.  


A REMI study showed that the 'dividend' paid back to the public would off-set any additional costs of carbon products.

"The results of the study demonstrate that there are probable benefits to taxing carbon dioxide emissions and returning the money to consumers through F&D [Fee and Dividend]. The following are highlights of the national level results of the study in 2025.

• • 2.1 million more jobs under the F&D carbon tax than in the baseline
  • 33% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from baseline conditions
    
  • 13,000 premature deaths saved from improvements in air quality 
• 
  These principal results are not to say the outcome is universally positive, and there are certain industries and regions in the United States that may do better or worse under a carbon pricing system. For example, the industries tied directly to households, such as healthcare, retail, and housing construction, tend to do well because F&D increases the overall level of consumer spending. There are other important results in 2025. The F&D rebates return nearly $400 billion to households—or almost $300 per month for a family of four, and the carbon tax aids in retirements of coal plants and accelerates investments in wind, solar, and nuclear power. The impact to the total cost of living is less than 3% from the baseline, and gross domestic product (GDP) increases between $80 billion and $90 billion."
  

The REMI study assumes a carbon fee that is refunded to the public. 

"Such a carbon tax would begin at $10 per metric ton in 2016 and escalate in a linear fashion at $10 per year upward, although this study’s timeline ends with the models’ horizon in 2035."

REMI (Regional Economic Models Inc.) is an economic modeliing research company that specializes in projecting the economic impacts of various proposals on the economies of states and the US as a whole.  It used the same basic model it uses for the many studies commissioned by US states and its assumptions about the carbon fee were those in the CCL carbon fee proposed legislation.  CCL commissioned the study. 

In contrast, a study by NERA, presumably the same study or a similar one used for the dire predictions of Sen. Blunt's press release used different assumptions:

"A carbon tax that begins at $20/metric ton of co2  in 2013 and increases at 4 percent per year."

The revenue is not used to pay US consumers as in the CCL proposal that REMI tested.

So, while the NERA study is probably just as accurate as the REMI study, it starts with different and questionable assumptions and numbers.  I didn't find the proposed legislation  they used to make those assumptions.  The way to produce the kind of results your clients want is to use the right assumptions as you start your modeling.

The REMI study also showed that the fee would create jobs, not reduce them.

So, which study should you believe?  One commissioned and paid for by corporate interests whose basic product is the source of climate change or one commissioned by a citizens group that is concerned with the sustainability of the planet and whose motivation stems from concern for their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren?  Actually, CCL was hoping that such a study would show that the economic impacts were much less damaging than opponents (like Blunt) claimed.  They were pleasantly surprised to find out the impacts would actually add jobs and stimulate the economy.  There certainly can be biases in both studies, but we seen how the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail to hide the health effects of tobacco and a new movie - Merchants of Doubt - is supposed to show how a similar campaign is being waged to attack legitimate climate change science.

Sourcewatch (Center for Media and Democracy)  has this entry about NERA and a study for the coal industry: 

In June 2011, a coal industry front group, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) released a report stating that clean-air rules proposed by the Obama administration would cost utilities $17.8 billion annually and raise electricity rates 11.5 percent on average in 2016.^[2][3]
ACCCE paid for National Economic Research Associates Inc. to conduct the report, which a Bloomberg report described "as part of a campaign to delay compliance deadlines in the pending rules." The report estimated that regulations cutting emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides would lead to the “premature” retirements of coal-fired power plants that can generate 47.8 gigawatts of electricity, about 15 percent of coal’s U.S. production capacity.
Representative Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the energy subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has said he plans to introduce a bill to give utilities more time to comply with the rules. New maximum levels for nitrogen oxides, a component of smog, and sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, are scheduled to take effect in 2012. The US Environmental Protection Agency is under a court order to produce a final mercury rule in November 2011. Utilities would have as long as four years to meet the mercury standard.^[4]

Unfortunately, this doesn't analyze the data or compare it to other studies on the topic.  Its key point is that the study was for a coal company front group that Bloomberg says was a campaign to delay regulations.  A red flag, but not quite damning proof.

I found this portrait of Blunt on what appears to be a Boston College  Model United Nations website. 

The United States Chamber of Commerce has awarded Blunt a 97% pro-business rating, he has consistently voted in favor of deregulation, and he maintains close ties with the Koch Brothers in Kansas City. [Koch's are headquartered in Topeka, Kansas, just 63 miles from Kansas City, Missouri.]  With a son that was a former governor and considerable real estate holdings in Missouri, Blunt is among the most powerful Senators in terms of constituent influence. Among the largest businesses located in Missouri is Monstanto. Blunt's Farmers Assurance Provision was dubbed the "Monsanto Protection Act" by liberal lawmakers. It is more than likely that Blunt maintains close ties with Hugh Grant, Pierre Courduroux, and Brett Begemann, Chief Executives at Monsanto. Blunt is consistently accused of promoting corporations and providing slack to companies that benefit his son, Andrew, and power brokers in Missouri.
Republican Allies
Blunt allies with Senator Ted Cruz, as well as much of the Tea Party core with his radical stance on healthcare. Conversely, his conservative stances on business, social issues, and public insurance enrage Democratic leadership.

 I think there are probably a lot of loose ends here, but you get the point.  It probably wouldn't hurt to call your Senator - whatever state you're in - and let him or her know that you oppose this amendment and they should vote against it.  

Snowfree Lawn, Street Showing Pavement - Good Reason To Go To CCL Saturday

This is what our street looked like March 20, 2011 from the corner.  The snow and ice were starting to melt, but there was plenty of snow still in the street. 

Here's t our street looking to that same corner yesterday, March 4, 2015.  The middle of the street had large swaths clear to the pavement with hard ice on the sides.  (There was a slick surface in the morning as the overnight temperatures dipped below freezing and met the street surface, damp from melting ice.)  At the corner (you see in the picture above) the pavement was clear and dry.

Below is our front lawn.  Usually at this time of year it's still well covered with snow.  A few patches might be bare under the tree.  Toward the middle or end of the month the sidewalk and front might start to clear and we get a little excited.  Then comes another several inches of snow to cover everything back up. 

No, this one year doesn't prove global warming is here and real.  However, this year, plus all the weird weather around the world for the last 20 years, plus the studies of many, many climate scientists, does.

Denying climate change and human's role in climate change is like saying, "The speedometer is wrong" when you're going 90 miles an hour toward the cliff.  You're either drunk, delusional, or you have some vested interest in not believing.  Could the speedometer be wrong?  It does happen, but we can also see the landscape going by our windows really fast.  And maybe they've put a giant water balloon at the edge of the cliff so we will stop safely.  But slowing down seems like a much more prudent approach.  Even if you'll be late for your appointment. 

Still have doubts about climate change?  Or want to do something to slow it down?  The Citizens Climate Lobby meets Saturday at UAA's Rasmuson Hall at 8:30 am in room 220. [I just learned that this month the meeting has been changed to Wed. evening.] We'll hook into the national telephone link with the other nearly 300 chapters around the US, Canada, and beyond.  So, if you aren't in Anchorage, you can find a local chapter.   These folks are amazingly well informed, well connected, and run interesting and efficient meetings.

You can find your local chapter here.   Really, they will be pleased to see you.  Times are different in different time zones.  The phone call is at 10am Pacific Time.  You want to be there for that. 

Low Tech Drying

Maybe it's because we never had a dryer at home.  For me hanging up the clothes to dry is restful - even when it's inside.

The clothespin and a line is such a simple design.  And with the low winter humidity inside Anchorage homes, the clothes  dry quickly. I like to think that it helps the humidity, but I'm sure only negligibly.

The simple dollar website cites about 3.3 kilowatt hours per load.  And Municipal Light and Power says 1 kw hour costs me 5.6 ₵.   So I'm not doing it for the money since it only saves about 17₵  per load, and reduces my carbon footprint slightly.  But if one million other folks did the same it would have an impact.

Mindless tasks you can do without thinking let the brain relax and wander, and they're a good break from more concentrated brain work.

I don't want to give the impression I always use the clothesline.  But I feel better when I do.

"Two things I’d never written: a love story and a science play. So I wrote THE ICE-BREAKER."

So writes playwright David Rambo on his website.  Two things I've blogged about are plays and climate change, but I've never written about them in the same post.  Rambo's notes go on:

"Following the success of Randall Arney’s production of GOD’S MAN IN TEXAS at the Geffen Playhouse, I was offered a commission from the Geffen and A.S.K. Theatre Projects. We kicked some ideas around, but nothing stuck – until I read a New Yorker article by the marvelous writer Elizabeth Kolbert about discovering the history of climate over millennia through drilling into the Greenland ice cap. I gave Randall the article with a note, “I think there’s a metaphor here I can’t resist.”
Thus began a year of research about climate science. I sought out geologists and climate specialists, read everything I could find on the Arctic and the logistics of ice core drilling. My initial sense was that the play should be intimate, about people more than science.
To let all the research settle in my mind, I gave myself a retreat: a drive through the southwest in the summer. My route was chased by wildfires, the desert sky turned purple and threatening with hailstorms, I went for days without having to speak to another human – it was an extraordinary couple of weeks.
The play took shape. I loved it, but the Geffen didn’t. Happily, The Magic Theatre in San Francisco did. Director Art Manke introduced it to them and we got a Sloan Foundation grant to help mount a premiere, along with the National New Plays Network. Art later staged it at The Laguna Playhouse, which was about as perfect a realization of the play as I could have hoped for.
THE ICE-BREAKER isn’t produced as much as it should be; maybe some theatres feel climate science is too controversial. That’s a shame; it’s a lovely, heartbreaking, thought-provoking visit with to people as strong and as vulnerable as the planet."

 He ends with this note:

THE ICE-BREAKER isn’t produced as much as it should be; maybe some theatres feel climate science is too controversial. That’s a shame; it’s a lovely, heartbreaking, thought-provoking visit with to people as strong and as vulnerable as the planet.

Well, it's not too controversial for Cyrano's and opening night is tomorrow  Friday at 7pm.
And the opening night proceeds go to Citizens Climate Lobby Anchorage chapter which I've written about now and then.  CCL is the most efficient and organized and no-nonsense group I've ever seen close up.

They will have their international call in meeting Saturday morning after the play at 8:30am at UAA Rasmusson Hall 220.