Minerals and Sea Lanes and NATO, Too

Dear Trump supporters:

Six months ago you knew you were going to vote for the former president. You had concerns about the border and inflation. However, I am curious where Greenland was on your list of issues. My hunch is, if you are being honest, nowhere. The largest island was not on the political radar then. We knew little about Greenland. Of course, I had heard of the almost mythological Greenlanders, Erik the Red and Lief Erikson, but that was about it until a Borgen season heavily featured Greenland. (I probably should do some explaining about that Danish TV series to my conservative friends because I assume you are not aware of it. Perhaps as Trump tries to bully Denmark, the show will be an item of interest again.) Borgen got me to read Stephen R. Brown’s White Eskimo: Knud Rasmussen’s Fearless Journey into the Heart of the Arctic about that amazing explorer. But I was not aware this campaign season that my presidential vote should consider the future of Greenland. In his seemingly endless election rallies, I did not hear Trump mention Greenland. Yes, he did talk about Greenland in 2019, which provoked much mockery, but then his mind wandered, and he did not refer to the island again. Although nothing has happened since November to change the importance of it, Trump, quiet about Greenland while seeking votes, seems now obsessed with it.

One could ask why, but I have different question for you, Trump follower. Where is Greenland now on your list of concerns? Why is it there at all? The obvious answer is because Trump has said Greenland is crucial to the security and wellbeing of America. You, however, are not woke. No one tells you what to think. You make up your own mind. Other than Trump has spoken, what information has he or anyone else given to make Greenland important to you?

You might answer that your understanding now is that melting ice in Greenland will soon make mining possible for rare and valuable minerals and perhaps there are fossil fuels. In addition, melting ice in Greenland’s environs will open new sea lanes that will be important to the United States.

My questions increase. I assume that you, dear Trump acolyte, do not believe in climate change. After all, Trump has called it a hoax. Why then do you believe that the ice will continue to melt on and around Greenland? By what Trump has said, the melting could stop in an instant because there is no such thing as global warming. Apparently, Trump and you simultaneously believe that there is no climate change but that the climate will inevitably warm. Perhaps you feel that these dual thoughts mean Trump and you have top notch intellects, relying on what F. Scott Fitzgerald said in a 1936 short story: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” Of course, what is ignored about this oft-quoted platitude is that F. Scott said the mind must continue to function, which implies that it was working before. And, of course, what is even more ignored is that Fitzgerald, not a philosopher or psychologist, wrote this unlikely “truism” in a piece of fiction. But I digress.

Another question: Although you don’t believe in climate change but believe it will continue, how do you feel about free enterprise, free markets, capitalism, and small government? I’m guessing you’re in favor of those things. But I ask you, is there anything stopping American companies from contracting for mining rights in Greenland without America’s having to possess the island? Companies get these rights all the time and all around the world. It is part of free enterprise. Why are Greenland’s precious minerals different? When you voted for Trump were you voting for a regime where American taxpayers pay billions, maybe trillions — which is what it would cost for America to buy and maintain Greenland — for the benefit of a few corporations?

Of course, six months ago, Trump minions pronounced concerns about the national debt. Where has this worry gone? Is there a source of money to buy and maintain Greenland other than through more debt? But, of course, just as it was with Trump last time around, deficits and the debt only matter when conservatives don’t control the government, not when they do.

If new sea lanes open as more non-climate-change warming continues, shipping could be easier and, therefore, cheaper. America should have free and fair access to these routes. What information does Trump have that we won’t have that access without owning Greenland? How does purchasing or seizing Greenland assure that? China may wish to be an arctic power, but Russia is the country that has the most at stake in the new sea lanes. Is Trump worried about what Putin is about to do up north? Wait. I thought the two were buddies. When Trump ends the Ukraine war, surely he and Putin can continue to amicably settle the question of arctic access for all. On the other hand, if those sea lanes need to be protected, do we really need all of Greenland? Why not rely on our military base there (which I have not heard Trump mention)? Gosh, I hope Greenland isn’t so mad at us that we can’t negotiate for a new base there. Finally, isn’t it cheaper to rent a room than buy the whole hotel? Trump might actually have some expertise on that topic.

Trump acolytes, I have a related question. Trump has railed against NATO. He has hinted that he would withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if other NATO countries don’t pony up more money. Will he pull out? This is crucially important. You can correct me if I don’t understand this, but I thought that NATO countries are not obligated to respond if one NATO country, say Turkey, attacks another, say Greece. On the other hand, NATO must act if a country outside NATO attacks a NATO country. If, for example, Russia invades Lithuania, NATO must defend the Baltic nation. Greenland is covered by NATO, I believe. If the United States is part of NATO and takes military action against Greenland, the rest of NATO can sit it out. But if Trump successfully withdraws America from the organization, NATO, comprising more than thirty countries, several with nuclear capabilities, would be obligated to respond to hostile U.S. military forces in Greenland.

Finally, Trump has indicated that if Denmark does not allow the Trump brand to be put on Greenland, he will impose heavy tariffs on that country. You might think, Fine. But there must be somewhere some Trump supporters who no longer want to be overweight. How do you feel about the tariffs when you learn that Denmark is the sole supplier to the U.S. of Ozempic?

Oh, Greenland. Your sea lanes and minerals. U.S. taxpayer money spent to aid corporations with an interest in those sea lanes and minerals. Increased deficits and debt for America. Possibly World War III. And even more expensive Ozempic. Oh, this could be interesting.

Greenland Redux

The last time around, Trump showed a fascination with Greenland. He wanted to buy it. Well, not personally. Once again forgetting pledges on deficits, he wanted our tax dollars to pay for it. To me at least, it was never clear why. Now, as the countdown to his next term continues, he again indicates, without giving reasons, that we should own Greenland. Whether he is serious may depend on what Elon has to say, but Trump’s comments sent me back to a post of mine in 2019 about Greenland. I have reposted it below.

President Trump wants to buy Greenland. My first reaction: I was surprised that he would want to buy white people. But then I did some reading, and I learned that Greenland’s population is 88% Greenlandic Inuit, with 12% Danes and other Europeans. Maybe that eight-to-one ratio explains the acquisition mania.

On the other hand, I never thought that Trump would think desirable a place that does not have forests to decimate and is not dependent on coal or other fossil fuels. In what seems ironic, Greenland is one of the greenest places on the planet. According to one source, seventy percent of its power comes from renewable sources, mostly from hydropower. But perhaps this is an attraction for Trump. He can fulfill his promise to bring back jobs to the West Virginia coal fields by “ordering” the Greenlanders under some national security rationale to use coal. I can see the slogan as Trump supporters wear tee shirts proclaiming, “Make Greenland Sooty (Again).”

I wondered how Greenlanders have reacted to the proposed purchase by a world leader who does not believe in climate change. Greenland is ground zero for global warming. An ice sheet covers four-fifths of the island; it weighs so much that it has depressed the central part of the island making it almost a thousand feet below sea level. The glaciers have been experiencing increased run-offs contributing to the rise of sea levels. Does a lessened ice mass also mean that the land will rise?

Perhaps, however, the Greenlanders favor global warming. It would not be surprising. Greenland’s capital and largest city, with a population of more than 17,000 (Quick! What is it?), Nuuk, averages high temperatures below freezing for more than half the year. I assume, however, that the tourist agencies point out that the temperatures in July regularly reach a relatively balmy fifty degrees Fahrenheit. A few degrees warmer and perhaps the residents will be able to break out bikinis and speedos. During the summer, the sun rises at 3:00 A.M. and sets at midnight, so there is a lot of daylight for any unrestrained outdoor frivolity. Of course, during the winters, the sun is above the horizon for only four hours, but those long nights perhaps call out for other appropriate activities.  

If Trump does buy Greenland, you would think he ought to make at least one visit, even though that is unlikely since he does not own a hotel there and won’t be able to bill the American taxpayers for his stay. But perhaps those long nights appeal to him for all the dark hour tweets he can unleash. I may not have anticipated that Trump would float the purchase idea, but surely no one should have been startled that he showed the usual pique when those nasty Danish threw ice water on the idea. Canceling a scheduled trip to Denmark seems par for his course, but, of course, he does not own a golf course in Denmark and does not apparently have a way to bill us taxpayers and increase his revenues by a Copenhagen visit.

It was expected that conservative pundits would weigh in and maintain that Trump was again showing his genius. Too often the difference between these commentators and a rubber stamp is that the latter leaves an impression, but I was surprised that Trump-is-always-right sycophants have cited climate change—yes, climate change!–as a reason why the U.S. should purchase Greenland. An article on the Fox News website states, “But what makes Greenland particularly valuable to the United States is global warming. The unavoidable receding of Arctic sea ice will open a new sea route in the Arctic that can be used for both commercial and military vessels.” What especially struck me about this contention was the use of the term unavoidable. Global warming is happening, the writer to my surprise wrote, but his position is that it is inevitable. Increasing temperatures can’t be helped, apparently. I guess the writer believes that it is God’s will, so we should just go with it and seize opportunities. If we can keep the warming going and the ice diminishing and the seas rising, new sea routes will open allowing ships to go where they have not gone before. So, stop being so negative about climate change (which Trump says is not happening) and revel in new sea lanes.

What the writer did not make clear, however, is why the new ship routes, if they occur, mean that it is essential that we own Greenland. Aren’t there many sea lanes around the world important to us where we do not own the adjacent land? Why is this different?

This writer also said, as did others who find a way to support Trump after he makes a pronouncement no matter what it is, that Greenland has valuable minerals that should not fall into China’s hands. Why, then, don’t we try to buy the mineral rights? Indeed, those of us who believe in free enterprise and fair trade should expect American corporations to see the opportunity and seek to get all this valuable stuff. These Trump-is-amazing writers don’t explain this apparent failure of American capitalism. Where is their faith in free enterprise without government intervention? Isn’t that the point of cutting governmental regulations, which they support?

One of those in the Trump-is-brilliant camp is Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. He recently published an op-ed piece in the New York Times. (Why is that when conservatives want to be taken as deep thinkers they so often publish in the “failing” Times? Mitch McConnell also placed an op-ed article with the “enemy of the people” the previous week. His piece was one about the importance of filibusters for our constitutional government glossing over that he had removed those all-important filibusters for Supreme Court nominees.) Cotton contended that the Greenlanders should welcome coming under American sovereignty. Denmark now subsidizes Greenland to the tune of at least $650 million dollars annually. America has more money than does the Danish government, so we can do even better for the Greenlanders, Cotton maintained. The Senator surprised me. He wants to commit to a new and expensive welfare program. He opposes entitlement programs for American citizens, but he wants to open the floodgates for those who are now foreigners. Is this the new conservatism? What do Cotton and the others feel about increased federal support for Puerto Rico? Or have I underestimated Trump? Were his remarks merely an opening salvo, and his real goal is to swap Puerto Rico for Greenland? The Art of the Deal may be more subtle than I ever thought.

I wonder, if in stating that America can increase governmental moneys in Greenland, whether Cotton has examined where the Danish subsidies go. Health care in Greenland is paid for by the government, and Danish subsidies support that. Cotton, who adamantly opposes the Affordable Care Act, expects America to expand single-payer medical services in the new possession. And here I thought that Trump supporters believed in America first!

Does Cotton realize that part of the healthcare in Greenland is for abortion on demand? Greenland now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. In fact, abortions have exceeded live births in recent years. (Remember those long nights.) He supports the laws that prevent the federal government from paying anything for abortions in the United States no matter how poor the woman or how the pregnancy—think rape and incest–occurred, but Cotton wants to increase funding for this medical procedure in Greenland. (I am told that when residents of Greenland’s capital Nuuk do want a baby, they say, “Let’s have a little Nuukie.”) And perhaps Cotton should also examine how education is funded in Greenland.

Cotton is a hardliner about our immigration system, concerned that Mexicans and Central Americans are lured here by all the goodies they can get out of our government. Shouldn’t he and other conservatives then be concerned that when we increase the freebies to Greenlanders, illegal immigration will uncontrollably increase there as refugees see Greenland as a new land of welfare opportunity? Perhaps Cotton, who supports Trump’s border wall, is already planning to build a wall around Greenland to stop illegal immigration that he must think will inevitably occur. Perhaps Cotton ought to give at least an estimate as to how much federal money he thinks we will spend over there.

I also wonder if Cotton and the other Trump-is-marvelous crowd have thought about the status of those who would fall under American sovereignty. If we own Greenland, will we provide a path to American citizenship for those who live there, or will they automatically be citizens? Will they have an unfettered right to permanent residence in the United States? If so, how long does one have to be a Greenlander for that right? Puerto Ricans are American citizens and can come and go to the United States whenever they wish. Guam, which we own, is similar. Those born on Guam are American citizens who can move to the rest of America. (For reasons I don’t understand while Guamanians have birthright citizenship, those born in American Samoa do not.) If Greenland is to be treated like Guam, aren’t conservatives concerned that refugees will flock to Greenland and have ice-floe babies who will be American citizens who can freely emigrate to America? I am guessing that before conservatives grapple with such questions, they will have to ascertain whether Greenlanders lean Democratic or Republican. And perhaps even more important: Will there be a path to statehood for Greenland? Just because they have fewer than 60,000 people doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have two Senators and three electoral votes, just as long as they vote Republican.

We have acquired much territory through purchase in our history. As far as I know, we never sought to find out whether the people who already lived on those lands desired a new sovereign. In essence, they were treated like Russian serfs. You buy the land, you buy the people on the land. Should we who proclaim democracy and government of “we the people” continue such a feudal practice? Will there be some sort of plebiscite; will the leaders of Greenland be consulted? (I have no idea who the chief griot of Greenland is, but I am confident neither does our president.)

The Fox News writer points out, however, that we have bought lands before—including the Louisiana purchase, the Gadsden Purchase, Florida, and Alaska, and he concludes that Trump could simply buy Greenland. Hold on–it has never been that simple. We do have a Constitution, and the consent of Congress or the Senate has been necessary for those purchases. We may say that President Jefferson and Secretary of State Monroe made the Louisiana Purchase, but in fact Congress ratified and authorized the funds for it. The Gadsden Purchase and the acquisitions of Florida, Alaska, and other lands came via treaties together with the authorization of the funds from Congress. A treaty, of course, requires not just the consent of the Senate, but consent by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. Do you really think that is going to happen? Or does Trump have another trick up his sleeve that he will maintain justifies him in his mind to take unilateral action and do another end run around our Constitution—that document that conservatives proclaim to love so dearly?

Not the Place to Die

On a previous trip to Florida, we had identified a continuing care community that interested us, but on our most recent visit we no longer liked it. My nephew asked me what had changed our minds.

The spouse and I have toured about a dozen continuing care places, or as I put it, places to die. We have concentrated on Type A communities. That means that the community has facilities for four types of care—independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing facilities, and memory care. The fee structures require a hefty sum to enter and then monthly fees that are also hefty. In a Type A community, however, the monthly fee does not increase should a resident move to a higher level of care. In other words, if I am paying $7,500 a month for independent living, I will continue to pay $7,500 if I move into assisted living even though the facility provides more care than I received before.

What I get for my monthly fee is similar from place to place but never precisely the same. Of course, the fee covers the rent for my apartment, utilities, real estate taxes, and usually weekly or biweekly housekeeping services. Some sort of meal plan is included. Sometimes this is a meal a day or thirty meals a month. In others, residents draw down from a set amount of monthly money. For example, residents may be “given” $350 each month, and this decreases each time the resident orders something. The food is generally cheaper than it would be in a commercial restaurant. The facility may have healthcare such as a nurse practitioner on site, and there is no additional charge for a visit to the nurse. They have aides for an emergency such as a fall. All seem to provide transportation weekly or semi-weekly to grocery stores, perhaps a mall, and religious services. The monthly fee also includes the use of the facilities such as a fitness center and meeting rooms. Many, but not all, have a swimming pool.

The places to die that the spouse and I have visited have 300-400 residents. Many have small, freestanding homes, often called villas, and two or three apartment building that connect with each other. The interconnected buildings almost always contain the public facilities—dining rooms, fitness center, etc. That ability to utilize facilities without going outside has seemed attractive, especially if the mobility of the spouse with her disability becomes worse, and she starts to use something like an electric scooter to get around.

The Florida place that interested us was larger — about 1,200 residents. That increased size allowed it to support better facilities than other places. It had five or six restaurants, while others have two or three. It had at least two fitness rooms that were well-equipped and staffed, good meeting rooms, a theater, and an aquatic center that many resorts would have been proud of. This included two swimming pools, one of which was an excellent lap pool, a spa, and two nearby pickleball courts.

It did not have the usual interconnecting buildings. Instead, in addition to some villas, this “village” had six or so separate 8-12 story buildings set around two “lakes” on seventy acres. It was necessary to go outside to utilize many of the facilities, but that seemed ok in Florida where the sun always shines (right?).

One of the buildings was brand new. It had lovely apartments with interesting floor plans. We have lived in a distinctive place for a long time and are spoiled by it. Moving into an ordinary apartment box, while perhaps inevitable, is not our first choice. So this was appealing. The place also cost less than many of the continuing care places we had seen in the north.

On our first visit we were only there for a couple of hours, and we didn’t think we should decide based on that. The marketing department said that we could come back for a two-night stay, and we decided to do that. Our concern was not the physical plant, apartment designs, or costs, but something more intangible–would we feel comfortable with the residents.

The spouse and I are lucky in having a broad circle of interesting friends. From our careers, we know scientists, lawyers, and academics, but we also spend time with full-time moms; a NYC reporter; an international correspondent; a marine engineer; investment bankers; Wall Street speculators; artists; a private equity entrepreneur; school teachers; a corporate financial officer; the head of an adoption agency; New York City government officials; architects; potters; bankruptcy specialists; a minister; nurses; owners of a boutique clothing company; restaurateurs; caterers; real estate managers; authors; workers in the tech industry; analysts for the Fed; a furniture company manager; an owner of a bar. You get the idea.

Most of these people are of my generation, but they are not stuck in the past. They often refer to an experience from earlier in their lives, but usually this is done to advance something in the present conversation. We may be old, but we don’t just look backward. When you are younger, fresh input comes from work and social life. That is less true at our age, but our friends are still mentally vibrant; they still want to learn; they are aware of current affairs and fashion and sports; they read all sorts of things, watch different kinds of streaming shows, go to plays and movies, attend concerts and exhibitions. I am lucky to have friends who regularly bring something new to the conversational table and who, in doing so, keep me more mentally alive.

The spouse and I don’t expect to duplicate our circle of friends in some new place, but we hope to find people who, because of their curiosity, knowledge, and activities, will be interesting to be with. We selfishly hope they will help keep us mentally alert and engaged. So we began to look for clues to see whether we might easily meet the kind of residents we hoped for in the place to die in Florida.

Our starting place was with the events calendars. All the places to die put out a weekly or monthly calendar of events. These include bus trips to grocery stores and places of worship, but also on-campus events such as sewing groups, knitting bees, watercolor classes, creative writing workshops, book groups, choral groups, bridge groups, improv classes, often serious lectures, entertainment from the outside, resident entertainment, and so on. We became concerned about our potential place when we realized that although it was three times the size of other places, it listed fewer activities than other places. I expect to be personally interested in only a few of the activities, but a variety of programs in which many participate signals something about the vibrancy of the place.

The calendar, it turns out, was somewhat misleading. The spouse noticed that there was no listing for mah-jongg (a deal-breaker!!!). When she mentioned that to someone, she was told that Joan so-and-so in Building A hosted mah-jongg, as did Mildred thus-and-such in Building C. For such facilities as the fitness center and the aquatic center, it was one community. However, for other purposes, the place seemed to break down into smaller building-by-building communities, and it felt as if you might not be entirely welcome in the Building A community if you resided in Building B.

Every place to die we have visited has a library. The best seem to have an acquisition budget; others are dependent on resident donations. I never expected to find all my reading in these libraries, but most of the libraries seemed to have some books I might like to read. The Florida place to die, however, did not have one library. It had one for each building. I suppose if the weather was inclement, it would be nice to go the lobby and find something to read, but by not consolidating the books, each building’s collection was skimpy. And most of the libraries we have seen had a shelf or more of books written by residents. I did not see that in this “village.”

Presumably some reading was going on. The calendar listed a book group, which later in the month was discussing a novel. But I thought that a place of over a thousand retired folks who had a lot of time to read might have multiple book groups, perhaps one for literature, another for history, and others for current events or poetry. Even my local bookstore has multiple book groups, and the attendees are working and raising families in addition to reading books.

What clinched our decision that we did not want to come to this place was our two meals with residents. The marketing person who took charge of us knew that our son was transgender and that, no doubt, is part of the reason our first night we had dinner in the more formal dining room with a lesbian couple, Maude and Phillie. They had been a couple for a dozen years. Phillie had been in a previous relationship of thirty-seven years, which ended when her partner died. They both had Philadelphia roots and had lived mostly in New Jersey. Maude had been a hairdresser who had gotten involved with organizations for the deaf. The other said that she had been retired since she was thirty-five, but I think she had been involved with real estate agencies.

We did learn from them that this Florida place had an active LGBTQ+ organization with over 220 members. Other communities we had visited often touted that they had gay residents, but this was remarkable. That was encouraging, and they should some interest in our son. My reaction changed when I asked them what constituted a typical day for them. They looked blankly at each other. One finally said that they went to the pool two or three times a week. And…..? They confessed that the amount the place allocated for food covered only about fifteen meals a month. They kept a full pantry, and then–giving me the inside scoop–they said they shopped at a Walmart supercenter because it had better prices than the nearer Publix.

The next day we had a poolside lunch with a couple originally from North Carolina where Lorraine had been a third grade teacher and her husband Clay a public school librarian. She said little other than that she was in charge of the place’s thrift shop, open four hours a week, and complained that few realized how much work it took to operate it. Other than an adamant “Yes” when the server asked if anyone wanted dessert, she literally said nothing. She looked surly, as if she had been dragged to a free lunch against her will. Clay’s volubility, however, helped to eliminate any awkward pauses. He told about his days at the village. Two or three days a week, as he had that morning, he went to aquatic aerobics. A couple of mornings he went to the gym. Other mornings, usually with a friend, he walked around the seventy-acre campus, stopping, I am sure, to chat with anyone he came across. Clay smiled proudly and said that others called him the mayor of the village. Clay said that the previous night, they had gone to one of the village’s cultural events—a cover concert of three crossover R&B stars, which he pronounced excellent.

When we told him about our dinner the previous night, he labeled Phillie “a real pistol.” He then went on to say that he had been talking to friends from home and told them that he and Lorraine were going out to dinner with another couple, Joe and Bob. His friends, he said, were amazed. They had not known anyone before who knew — much less dined with — an actual single-sex couple. I felt awkward hearing a story that I might have heard two decades ago.

Clay continued by saying that their travels had made them more sensitive to cultural differences. As an example he cited their trip to Morocco where he said they had made friends with their guide. The Moroccan pointed out that gender relations were much different in his country. For example, he had never kissed his wife in front of her parents. As they were walking, however, the guide took Clay’s hand. This clearly made Clay uncomfortable, and Clay said that this would not have happened in the good old U.S. of A. The guide said that this was a gesture of male friendship in his society. Clay clearly still felt uncomfortable with his memory of walking down a foreign street with another man holding his hand. I wondered why he was telling me this story.

Our assigned dining companions over the two meals were different from each other, but in a way important to the spouse and me, they were very much alike. They did not ask anything about us. That is a slight exaggeration. Clay did ask the derivation of my surname and what I had done for a living, but there was no follow up. And literally, none of the four asked the spouse anything—where she grew up; her education; her career; her hobbies. We certainly gave openings for conversation. We thought we might be early for our lunch, so we carried books. Lorraine and Clay did not even glance at them, much less ask about them. I wore a tee that said, “Be careful or I will put you in my blog.” No comment. The spouse said that we were going to take a trip to Provence in the fall sponsored by my alma mater. Nothing. And so on. Maude and Phillie were the same. They were all more than happy to talk about themselves (and a bit about our son), but a real conversation was beyond them. And in talking about themselves, they did not indicate that they read anything, watched movies, or attended lectures. They were pleasant people on one level, but….

The last night we ate at an informal restaurant on campus. The servers were interesting and funny, and the food, as it had been at the other meals, was good. As we looked around the room, we saw a man come in by himself. He sat down and to our surprise, opened a book. We finished eating before he did. On our way out, I stopped at his table and said, “Are you reading anything good? I am always looking for book recommendations.” He said that the book was about a lad growing up in Ireland, but he did not like the novel enough to recommend it. I pressed on and asked if he had read anything good recently. He paused and said no and continued, “I am not much of a reader.” I smiled, and as we started to leave, I could swear his eyes locked onto mine saying, “Please don’t go yet. I am lonely.”

We were more than ready to leave this place where we thought that we might like to live. Perhaps if we had to, we could carve out an acceptable life there, but….

If we needed a clincher, venturing outside our building to visit other places on campus was a trial. Florida was experiencing an early, but deadly, heat wave which was compounded by excessive humidity. Breathing was difficult and movement exhausting. Florida politicians may not believe in climate change or want to acknowledge global warming, but that will not stop its reality.

High-Priced Gas

          People are complaining about gasoline prices. This has a note of irony since many are willing to pay more per gallon of bottled water than they do for gas. Water has regularly cost more than gas even though it is only a miniscule percentage of us who can’t just open a kitchen tap and get safe water.

          High-cost gasoline, however, has widespread economic effects, and it has a political impact that high-priced water does not. The president must at least look as if he is trying to tame the cost of gasoline even though we know that he can do very little in the short run to affect gas prices. Governors have suspended state gas taxes–modest help to the driving public. In a Catch-22 situation, suspending gas taxes limits income needed for road construction and maintenance. Voters, who may grumble about the rising price of gas, speak regularly about the substandard state of the roads.

          These politically understandable actions, however, do not address the more important issue: gasoline-powered cars cause pollution, which harms health and contributes to the death of many. Data show that gasoline-powered cars are a major part of the problem of climate change. We should be using less gasoline, but, once again, the present crisis indicates that we are not about to give up our combustion engines.

          People need cars to get to work, schools, and the grocery store. We have built a country that depends on private vehicles, and it is hard to see the path to a lesser dependence on them. Consciously or not, inexpensive gasoline has helped shape our work, housing, schooling, and recreational choices, and climate change and pollution have been the result.

          We have seen a move to electric and hybrid vehicles, and that is a good thing. Newer cars need less gas than cars made a generation ago, and there is renewed talk that car companies should increase the gas mileage for their fleets. Still, even among my friends who hug trees and clean streams, many of us drive bigger vehicles with lower gas mileage than we need. We are reluctant to give up big cars and trucks. It’s our God-given right, a right encouraged by cheap gas.

          Higher gas prices could be an impetus to lower our dependence on oil. Even so and even though our president and other sensible leaders believe we should act on climate change, politicians know that expensive gas can kill a political career. The governmental responses have been especially discouraging because they have not been targeted to help those most who are truly harmed by the pump prices—the non-wealthy working people with families who, in our present societal structure, must use their cars extensively.

          For many of us, our cars and how much we drive them are luxuries. Higher gas prices should be an incentive for us to burn less gas. And, of course, that would mean that oil companies had reduced profits. Many politicians will avoid that hard fight. After all, oil companies give big money to campaigns. It’s easier to blame the opposing party for high prices.

          The present situation is another reminder that the road to a better climate is hard and filled with potholes. Perhaps we should just give up the notion that we can stop the atmospheric devastation and figure out how to adapt to the inevitable.