Heath Haussamen
Two features in the Sunday edition of the New York Times point to the dramatically perilous future we might face if we don’t start seriously addressing the challenges before us.
The first dealt with a politically hot topic: The federal deficit. The Times came up an interactive chart you can use to devise your own plan to address the deficit. You can find the chart here.
Here’s what The Times had to say about how daunting a challenge the deficit really is:
“Imagine that Democrats and Republicans somehow came together and agreed on a grand bargain to cut the deficit.
“They decided to cut the pay of federal workers over the next several years, close military bases, reduce foreign aid, eliminate earmarks, expand the payroll tax and cut Social Security benefits for high earners, as the chairmen of a bipartisan commission recommended last week.
“Democrats also accepted the plan from John Boehner, the presumptive House speaker, to make large cuts to social programs. Republicans accepted President Obama’s proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire on income above $250,000.
“If the two parties managed to do all of this, how much of the country’s long-term deficit would they eliminate?
“About one-third of it.”
Try it out. The chart makes clear that doing just what liberals want, or just what conservatives want, doesn’t cut it. There are difficult decisions and massive compromises to be made.
Then consider this: Solving The Times’ chart only cuts the deficit to a level “that economists consider sustainable.” It doesn’t eliminate the entire deficit – and it does nothing to address the other massive problem of the nation’s debt.
And let’s be honest. In the current political climate, Democrats won’t accept Boehner’s plan, and Obama has already pretty much abandoned his proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire because the GOP wouldn’t support it.
Melting ice sheets threaten coasts
The other Times’ feature was an article that highlighted a second frightening situation. While the American public and politicians are busy debating whether climate change is caused by humans – or whether it’s even happening at all – this is what’s going on:
“Scientists long believed that the collapse of the gigantic ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years, with sea level possibly rising as little as seven inches in this century, about the same amount as in the 20th century.
“But researchers have recently been startled to see big changes unfold in both Greenland and Antarctica.
“As a result of recent calculations that take the changes into account, many scientists now say that sea level is likely to rise perhaps three feet by 2100 — an increase that, should it come to pass, would pose a threat to coastal regions the world over.
“And the calculations suggest that the rise could conceivably exceed six feet, which would put thousands of square miles of the American coastline under water and would probably displace tens of millions of people in Asia.”
To make that most tangible:
“In the United States, parts of the East Coast and Gulf Coast would be hit hard. In New York, coastal flooding could become routine, with large parts of Queens and Brooklyn especially vulnerable. About 15 percent of the urbanized land in the Miami region could be inundated. The ocean could encroach more than a mile inland in parts of North Carolina.
“Abroad, some of the world’s great cities — London, Cairo, Bangkok, Venice and Shanghai among them — would be critically endangered by a three-foot rise in the sea.”
The problem? Neither the United States, nor any other nation, has “made tracking and understanding the changes in the ice a strategic national priority,” the article states. That means researchers lack basic information, so it’s impossible for scientists to be certain of how serious the situation is.
One of the last satellites that was watching ice sheets recently shut down. Funding has been cut. More satellites won’t be launched into space for at least five years.
Serious times
We – the people of this state, nation and planet – are living in serious times. Yet our politicians and media spend too much time focused on partisan bickering and less important issues like speculation on when Prince William might get married. They are controlled by two-year election cycles and 24-hour news cycles. In general, they only think about the immediate future. They’re not tackling our long-term problems.
Our corporations spend billions to influence politicians, media outlets and public opinion. Many of them are contributing to our problems. Making a profit is more important to them than protecting our future.
And we citizens allow our political, media and corporate systems to be dysfunctional, to avoid tackling long-term problems. But these are not problems we can ignore any longer.
There appears to be a good chance that many of the world’s coastal areas are going to be swallowed by oceans during this century, requiring ridiculously expensive infrastructure projects or massive relocations of people and maybe even cities. The question may not be whether we’re going to have to deal with it, but, instead, how are we going to do it?
While the problem of the nation’s deficit and debt is simply overwhelming, it’s not going to go away. It threatens the national and world economies and must also be dealt with.
These are some of the complicated, difficult tasks our society must confront even though we’re so hesitant to think long-term and act accordingly.
We can start by electing politicians who pledge to think long-term – and re-electing the few who already do that. We can support media organizations that focus on shining light on important issues and potential solutions. We can boycott businesses that are part of the problem.
In other words, we the people need to become more educated and deliberate in how we live our lives. We need to take a more active role in our society. The powers-that-be won’t change their ways unless we as citizens demand it.