What is a WAUG KID? (Copy of a pervious post)

WAUG Kids belong to the What About Us? Generation(s), or WAUG generation. Their voices are silent because they have not been conceived yet - they are to be born on planet Earth in 20, 40, 60 or more years.

Everything we do each day contributes to the legacy these kids will inherit.

Kindness, good schooling, tolerance, understanding and justice will last only as long as we keep contributing our good behavior to the ongoing flow of culture. By "we," I mean people all over the world who are currently alive, making billions of good and bad choices each day.

Burning forests, tossing plastic into streams, pumping sewerage into rivers and lakes, carelessly disposing of every kind of material contributes negatively to the legacy we are leaving to the children to the WAUG generations. Being responsible and caring citizens of earth and working to improve the environment contributes positively to the legacy.

I call myself Dr. Waug, but my real name is James P. Louviere. I'm 72 years old, and for most of my life I was complacent, thinking "I'm doing my part as a parent, school teacher, professor, writer, religion teacher, musician and actor, and my legacy will be okay, even if I'm dirt poor." Then suddenly, about five years ago, I suffered a series of misfortunes that left me helpless for a couple of months. in a wheelchair, and then in intense physical therapy for 16 monts. I'm still not my former self. That's probably good, since my "former self" was too munch of a know-it-all, reckless, and what one of my professors called "cavalier." Since my collapse, I've been much chastened and forced to reconsider my position in life. In short, I've mellowed.

Through an undeserved stroke of good fortune, I was offered a guest professorship in Bangkok for a short time that prompted the President of Assumption University of Thailand to create special position in the Office of the President, where I was his editor and a special assignments ESD (English as a Second Language) instructor. The work opened my eyes to the larger world in a very powerful way - I coached graduate and undergraduate students and some staffers in English and helped a number of students with their theses and dissertations; I researched special topics for the University, edited university bulletins, graduate catalogs, and other publications, and was a guest contributor of weekly articles in The Bangkok Post's Education supplement from March to August, 2007. My work demanded that I help Thai, Indian, European, Myanmar, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodia and Philappine students.

Among my friends and colleagues were admirals, engineers, law professors, a physician, at least two martial arts experts, poets and musicians. I had lived and taught in Germany for over twenty years, and in New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana and New York City for another twenty six, but it was my Asian experience that really aroused my awareness of our current generations responsibility as the builders and guardians of the Legacy of Humanity that the "WAUG" Kids will have to cope with or enjoy when they reach their time of life.

There are some who care about particular areas of activity that involve our "Legacy." Some wealthy individuals want to endow Music Conservatories, Medical Research Labs, Art and Film Libraries, and some even try to send more food to starving children in Africa. Less well-off but equally well-meaning are some people who hope to stop medical research that harms caged animals; some groups want to ban fur coats, while others demand that people from one place be forbidden to live in some other place, which would be enforced at gunpoint and result in the round up, trial, and export of hundreds of thousands of people willing to do meanial work for low wages, work which "regular residents" refuse to do, even for higher wages.

Lots of untaxable income in the form of cash is made because various psychoactive substances are unavaialbe throgh commercial channels, and therefore, due to the basic law of supply and demnand, can fetch a very high price. Whole countries such as Mexico and Afghanistan are dominated by drug lords who form a kind of shadow government. Intervening in the face of such powerful and renegade groups is beyond most nations' capacity.Strangely, sports that kill animals, fishing and whaling that drives tuna and sharks and whales nearly to extinctin are allowed, and "sports" like driving gas hog cars around in 1000 consecutive left turns, consuming fuel, oil and tires and producing a lot of exhaust fumes as well as occasionally taking the lives of drivers and spectators are revered as "American Institutions" and viewed as a cash cow by broadcasters, and product sponsors like breweries and merchandise peddlers, approved broadcast media regulators, and tabbo subjects for environmental writers and "real American newspapers and TV critics.".

Arguing for sanity and responsibility with regard to fumes we pour into Earth's atmosphere, toxins we inject into the earth or pour into rivers, and the widespread sale of high-calorie, now-fiber, non-fresh and non-organic "food products" found in every supermarket is regarded by many Americans as "kookie" and "alarmist" behavior, even un-American and radical and unpatriotic.

alare a few "chicken littles" and "do-gooders" and "tree-huggers" who are scorned by "conservative" broadcasters and cartoonists and ridiculed viciously in letters to the editors and comments printed on the Internet. here seem to be only a tiny few who are even aware of it. Sadly, there are powerful individuals and groups that cynically ridicule those of us who do care. If we are concerned about the way we treat our planet, we are compared to "Chicken Little," who panicked that the sky was falling when he was hit on the head by a falling acorn. If we call for moderation and tolerance, we are called "bleeding hearts." If we welcome the poor and the ignorant and offer them solace, we are "unpatriotic" or at best "flakey."

So be it. I hope you will read this blog. I can't contribute to it every day, but I contribute to other blogs and websites, and work very hard to learn what we can and must do to preserve the good and lessen the evil in the Legacy of Humanity which the WAUG kids will inherit.

May you feel buoyed up by good fortune and the manifold little things that brighten each day, and may our Higher Powers look kindly upon you forever.

Thank you for finding out what WAUG kids are, and following my monologue. Please reply with your own comments, and, if you are so disposed, add a prayer or a "moment of silent reflection" to the flow of human energies that will be part of the WAUG kids' legacy.

James P. Louviere  PS - google for Waug Kids Declaration of Dependance" which I published recently.

Very Bad News from Britain ref Climate Change

You know I'm worried about future generations. The following post from the Web should put my worries in graphic form for you.

British Study Predicts Catastrophic Climate Change Within 50 YearsPosted by Danny Jensen on September 28, 2009 at 8:53 pm

mcaretaker's Flickr photostream/Creative Commons

A new study from the British Met Office warns that if global emissions are not drastically cut soon, the planet will facecatastrophic climate change within 50 years, five decades sooner than previous reports have projected. We’re talking about a dangerous tipping point that could be seen within our lifetime, not some far off, distant future world, which should serve as a startling wake-up call to those still reluctant to rush towards climate legislation or treaties.

And if you’ll recall from yesterday, the climate change forecast is looking to be even worse than previously thought, so if we fail to act, we can expect to see unprecedented rises in sea levels and temperatures, as well as increased drought and the collapse of vital ecosystems before our very eyes. A spokesperson from the Met Officesums up the dire situation quite well:

A four degree rise in global temperatures would have serious consequences for mankind with food security, water availability and health all being adversely affected. This report illustrates why it imperative for the world to reach an ambitious climate deal at Copenhagen which keeps the global temperature increase to below two degrees.

You can expect more reports like this to roll in as we approach the U.N. Climate Summit in December, and while we can’t expect the summit to be the magic bullet to combat climate change, if enough countries recognize the looming threat and decide to act, there is a chance we could change course for the better.

(James - DrWaug)

Something Borrowed, Something Blue, Something Very New

In my efforts to Save the Waug Kids, the kids of the "What About Us? Generation," I often get preachy and long-winded. Today's post, however, is very long, but it's by John Lemons. John is a very important person (a trye VIP), and his long piece ends with a stunning suggestion. I'll let you find it, since that's part of the fun of scanning the Internet.

Below is the latest publication in climateethics.org, with a preface by my friend and co-contributor, Professor Donald A. Brown, editor-in-chief of climateethics.org, Nobel laureate, and travelling lecturer who has spanned the globe to urge the application ethical, moral principles to the deliberations on climate change.

If you wish, please copy Dr. Lemons's message and give it the widest possible exposure.

John Lemons on the Ethics of Climate Change, with a very unusual suggestion at the end.

The Urgency to Address Global Climate Change: Possible Implications for New Directions of Climate Change Ethics

Editor’s Note: The following post is by Dr. John Lemons, an accomplished environmental scientist who has frequently written about issues that emerge at the environmental science-ethics interface. Dr. Lemons begins with a summary of recent scientific evidence that supports the conclusion that the world is running out of time to prevent catastrophic climate change. This is followed by observations that climate change ethics has failed to penetrate climate change decision-making. Because of this failure and the urgency of putting the world on a hard-to-imagine ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction trajectory, Dr. Lemons calls on ethicists to examine ethical issues entailed by those who choose to participate in non-violent civil disobedience as a way of bringing attention to the seriousness of the climate change crisis. Climateethics has frequently included articles that acknowledged strong scientific support for the dangerousness of the climate change crisis and recently has acknowledged the total failure of politicians and the media in the United States to acknowledge that the United States has duties and responsibilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and not just economic interests in climate change policy. See, for example, Ethical Issues Raised By US Blue Dog Democratic Senators’ Opposition to Climate Legislation – When May a Nation Make Domestic GHG Reduction Commitments Contingent on Other Nations’ Actions,http://climateethics.org/?p=206, and,The Crucial Missing Element in Media Coverage of the US Climate Change Debate: the Ethical Duty to Reduce GHG Emissions,http://climateethics.org/?p=138. However, as recently noted in ClimateEthics, one government’s climate change policy appears to have been motivated by ethical responsibility to the rest of the world, motivation that seems to have led to significant commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. See,The Strong Scottish Moral Leadership On Climate Change Compared To The Absence Of Any Acknowledged Ethical Duty In The US Debate,http://climateethics.org/?p=214. However, as we will see in future posts, even though Scotland made a strong policy commitment to GHG reductions apparently motivated in part by ethical considerations, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Scottish commitments equal their moral responsibilities. Therefore, Dr Lemons’ observation that ethical analyses of the climate change crisis has not yet led to policy change in most of the developed world is on target for the vast majority, if not all, developed countries. In addition, Dr. Lemons call for ethical analyses of responses to the climate change crisis that match the magnitude of the challenge is an appropriate new consideration for ClimateEthics. In this article, Dr. Lemons asks the appropriate question of climate change ethicists: “Given the lack of responsiveness to the climate change crisis by most developed countries, what should climate change ethicists be talking about?”

Dr Lemons's Message:

I. Introduction
The goal of this paper is twofold: (1)to briefly describe recent scientific information on global climate change that suggests a greater need for urgency of action than might have previously been thought, and (2)to suggest that philosophers develop ethical stances that support nonviolent civil disobedience action to mitigate the problem of global climate change given its urgency.

In a climatethics.org post “Climate Change: The Normative Dimensions of IPCC’s Approach to Uncertainty,” I described the conservative nature of the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) insofar as, e.g., concerned sea level rise projections, melting of the Arctic sea ice, dynamical melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and nonlinear events such as increased methane releases due to rising temperatures in permafrost (Lemons 2007). As mentioned in my post, the IPCC’s approach to use of scientific information is conservative because it is mandated by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization to reduce speculation in its review of scientific and technical peer–reviewed literature. Practically speaking, this means that the literature IPCC reviews is that about which a high degree of scientific confidence exists (e.g., say, 90 percent) and, hence, excludes information about threats or impacts that might be possible but are bounded by a lower degree of confidence.

Consequently, in the AR4 Report the IPCC decided to limit its projections of temperature changes within a 90 percent confidence level and, therefore, discounted a comparatively small but significant risk of larger temperature increases than those projected; if larger than projected temperature increases occurred this would, among other things, disproportionately affect regions in high latitudes as well as exacerbate climate change problems for future generations. A second example is that the IPCC (primarily) decided to exclude comparatively lower probabilities of rapid dynamical melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets and therefore discounted serious and irreversible damages from possible higher sea level rises. Finally, a third example is that IPCC decided to exclude non–linear events that could possibly result in higher or more rapid increases in temperature or sea level rise.

The international community is poised for the 2009 December UNFCCC COP in Copenhagen to consider how better to respond to global climate change in light of both the pressing need to do so as well as the need to replace the Kyoto Protocol due to expire in 2012. To be sure, among information to be assessed at the COP will be recent studies that demonstrate not only that the IPCC’s AR4 Report underestimated significant global change impacts but also demonstrate there is an even greater urgency or immediacy to take action to combat global climate change than previously thought. Following, I provide a few brief (but not inclusive) examples of recent information that supports a greater need for immediate action to combat global climate change.

II. Recent Scientific Findings
A. Arctic Climate Change
Recent evidence indicates that Arctic sea ice is declining at a significantly higher rate than projected by IPCC’s AR4 Report (Stroeve et al. 2007). Additional evidence shows an anomalous shift from the millennial–scale cooling of the Arctic (stemming from the decline of maximum temperatures during the first half of the present interglaciation which is about 10,000–6000 years ago) to warming begun in 1900 and which has been intensifying since 1950 wherein the region has warmed about 2.2 C with the decade from 1998–2008 being the warmest in 2000 years; and, further, that the warming in the Arctic contains a clear human “fingerprint” (Kaufman et al. 2009). One consequence of declining Arctic sea ice is that as it declines it becomes more vulnerable to melting.

B. Greenland Ice Sheet Melting
The IPCC’s AR4 Report basically excluded considerations of dynamical melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet because it felt that there was insufficient evidence to consider such melting and to do so would involve the IPCC in speculation as opposed to basing conclusions on scientific information about which there is a high degree of confidence. However, recent studies show that the loss of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet has increased in recent years and is more rapid than projected by IPCC’s models (e.g., 2007 melting was the most extensive since record keeping on the ice sheet began). One consequence is that sea levels are projected to rise more than 1.2 meters by 2100, significantly more than projected in IPCC’s AR4 Report (AMAP 2009).

C. Carbon Cycle Feedbacks
To a large extent, the IPCC’s AR4 did not consider some linear or non–linear feedbacks that might have consequences to climate change impacts. Recent studies have shown that the Arctic Sea is an important carbon sink, but that its carbon cycle is very sensitive to climate change (see, e.g., Bates 2009). For example, the uptake and fate of carbon in the Arctic Sea is influenced by physical and biological processes that are subject to global climate change impacts such as sea ice cover, seasonal phytoplankton growth, ocean circulation, ocean acidification, effects of rising temperatures, etc. All of these impacts are changing in a way that either decreases the ability of the Arctic Sea to uptake carbon dioxide or increases its release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

D. Degradation of Arctic Terrestrial and Sub–Sea Permafrost
Perhaps one of the most disturbing recent findings is that degradation of the Arctic terrestrial and sub–sea permafrost is releasing large amounts of methane that have been frozen as methane hydrates (see, e.g., Canadell and Raupach 2009). This is particularly worrisome because methane is about 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. Release of methane hydrates was not considered in the IPCC’s AR4 report. Yet, recent information indicates that: (1)large amounts of methane are frozen in arctic methane hydrates; (2)continental shelves hold most of this methane and they increasingly are being released as permafrost melts; (3)that sub–sea permafrost is already releasing methane; and (4)there is a positive feedback of methane release insofar as methane hydrates increase in volume when they are destabilized by an increase in temperature and this leads to abrupt methane releases to the atmosphere.

III. Ethical Implications of Recent Scientific Information
In my original climateethics.org post, I wrote: “If the IPCC had explicitly considered in AR4 the risks of higher temperatures outside the boundary of a 90 percent confidence level, dynamical melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, and non–linear responses to drivers of climate change this would have enabled public policy makers to be more effective in formulating responses to climate change under conditions of scientific uncertainty. Further, had IPCC done so this might have contributed to implementing the precautionary principle in responding to risks from a globally changing climate,” and, therefore, helped to address the problem of urgency.

In my view, the recent scientific facts I have briefly described support the need for greater urgency to combat global climate change, especially by the United States and other developed nations that have contributed disproportionately to both the magnitude and increasing rate of global climate change. Having said this, I see few if any positive signs that the United States in particular or more generally many developed nations are taking or will take sufficient and timely actions to address the urgency of the global climate change problem. For example, the recent “American Clean Energy and Security Act” (HR 2454, 26 June 2009) passed by the US House of Representatives is a weak bill insofar as mitigating the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. The Act called for only a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 levels and, hence, is far below IPCC’s reduction recommendations. Further, the prospects for the US Senate passing strong climate change legislation do not seem promising. Added to this situation is the fact that G8 statements state that member nations “will try (italics mine) to limit global warming to 2 C above pre–industrial levels” and do not contain binding or other recommendations for short–term emissions reductions (Guardian 2008). Given the lack of urgent action to combat global climate change, it could be argued that those involved in environmental ethics might wish to add an additional focus to their on–going studies and analyses that might (hopefully) better promote the urgency for action. If this is the case: What is to be done?

IV. New Focus for Climate Change Ethics?
A. Non–Violent Civil Disobedience In Human Affairs
On 8 October 2007, a small group of environmental activists climbed the interior of the Kingsnorth coal fired power plant in Kent, England, in order to paint on the smokestack a demand that Prime Minister Gordon Brown end such facilities, which release nearly 20,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere daily. Of course, the activists were caught by the police and arraigned on charges of trespass, damage to property, etc. (For a full accounting of this event, see Engler 2009).

Perhaps surprisingly, the activists were acquitted of charges by a 12–person jury after considering the defendants “necessity” defense, which although not used often does apply to situations in which a person violates a law to prevent a greater, imminent harm from occurring. In US criminal law, “necessity” may be either a possible justification or exculpation for breaking the law (Christie 1999).

In the Kingsnorth case, world–renowned climate scientist James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, flew to England to testify where he presented evidence that the Kingsnorth plant alone could be expected to cause sufficient global warming to prompt “the extinction of 400 species over its lifetime.” Citing a British government study (Stern 2007) showing that each ton of released carbon dioxide incurs $85 in future climate change costs, the activists contended that shutting the plant down for the day had prevented $1.6 million in damages–a far greater harm to society than any rendered by their paint on the plant’s smokestack–and that their transgressions should therefore be excused.

Hansen has done more than conduct scientific studies on global climate change and testify at, e.g., the Kingsnorth trial. On 23 June 2009, Hansen was arrested for his first time for nonviolent civil disobedience in West Virginia, the heart of the US coal country. Because coal is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions both in the United States and worldwide, and because there is enough coal left in the ground to heat the planet to catastrophic levels, that fossil fuel has been the focus of much new protest, as attested by Hansen’s arrest. Parenthetically, in March 2009, hundreds of people, including Hansen and “350.org” campaign organizer Bill McKibben, joined in “human chains” to block the entrances to a symbolic target: Washington, D.C.’s capitol power plant, a coal–burning facility built in 1910 that provides steam and refrigeration power to Capitol Hill. As a result of the protests, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to Acting Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers requesting that the plant switch to natural gas.

Hansen and McKibben are not alone in stepping outside of the confines of their professions and engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience. Increasingly, other groups and individuals are engaging in similar protests (Engler 2009).

B. If Not Now, When?
As a natural scientist I have been engaged in global climate change issues since the early 1980s, particularly with respect to the integration of science with public policy and ethics. However, at this point in time there is little that I see that is a cause for optimism in the battle to solve global climate change on an ethical basis, to reduce immediately and significantly the emissions of greenhouse gases based on the best available scientific information. I hope I am wrong in my pessimism.

My formative years were the 1960s and early 1970s, and during those times I witnessed and/or participated in nonviolent civil disobedience to promote an end to the Viet Nam war, to promote women’s rights, and to promote environmental welfare. Preceding these kinds of protests, of course, were those of the 1950s to end racial segregation in the southern US.

With respect to global climate change problems the question I now grapple with is: Is traditional ethical analysis of the problems sufficiently influential to public policy and decision–makers given the urgency to act? It seems to me the ethical foundation for mitigating global climate change is well established. But if these foundations are not influencing national and international policy and decisions to deal with the urgency of the problems, then perhaps those involved in environmental ethics should consider helping to provide an ethical defense of nonviolent civil disobedience to better promote policies to combat global climate change. Again, I make this suggestion knowing that, in part, progress on racial desegregation in the southern US, progress on equality for women, and progress to end the war in Viet Nam was furthered by nonviolent civil disobedience.

To the extent my perception that there is slow progress by developed nations in taking urgent action actions to combat global climate change is correct, and given the view that traditional academic analysis of the ethics of global climate change is not as effective as we might hope, my questions to the community of environmental ethicists are: (1)Is the time for civil disobedience now? (2)What ethical justification, if any, can environmental ethicists provide for civil disobedience to combat global climate change? (3)If the consensus of environmental ethicists is against justification of nonviolent civil disobedience, what alternative is there that might be more immediately effective than current approaches?

V. Postscript and Conclusion
I wish to be clear that I am not faulting those involved in the ethics of global climate change in their traditional focus of studies or influence with policy makers and decision¬–makers. Indeed, the work of such ethicists is never finished because each time a new climate change issue arises it introduces new questions for analyses. And, make no mistake that I believe ethicists have contributed greatly to a deeper understanding of the problems and prospects of global climate change. Simply put, my recommendation is that global climate change ethicists continue looking at proposed climate change policies and arguments through an ethical “lens” while, because of the urgency of taking action to combat global climate change, at the same time devoting new serious attention to examining when nonviolent civil disobedience is ethically justified.

By:

Dr. John Lemons
Professor Emeritus of Biology and Environmental Science
Department of Environmental Studies
University of New England
Biddeford, ME 04005
jlemons@une.edu

References:
(AMAP) Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. 2009. Update on Selected Climate Issues of Concern. Oslo, NO. 15 pp.
Bates, N.R. 2009. Marine Carbon Cycle Feedbacks. Pages 55–68 in: Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications (M. Sommerkorn and S.J. Hassol, eds.). World Wildlife Federation International Arctic Programme, Oslo, NO.

Canadell, J.G., and Raupach, M.R. 2009. Land Carbon Cycle Feedbacks. Pages 70–80 in: Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications (M. Sommerkorn and S.J. Hassol, eds.). World Wildlife Federation International Arctic Programme, Oslo, NO.

Christie, G.C. 1999. The Defense of Necessity Considered From Moral Points of View. Duke Law Journal 48: 975.

Engler, M. 2009. How to Kill a Coal Plant. URL: http//www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/18/climate/print.html
Guardian.co.uk. 8 July 2008. G8 Statement on Climate Change and Environment. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/08/climatechange.carbonemissions

Kaufman, D.S., Schneider, D.P., McKay, N.P., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Miller, G.H., Otto–Bliesner, B.L., Overpeck, J.T., and Vinther, Bo M. Recent Warming Reverses Long–Term Arctic Cooling. 2009. Science 325: 1236–1239.

Lemons, J. 2007. Climate Change: The Normative Dimensions of IPCC’s Approach to Scientific Uncertainty. URL: http://climateethics.org/?p=25

Stern, N. 2007. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury, London. URL: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.sternreview_index.htm

Stroeve, J., Holland, M.M., Meier, W., Scambos, T., and Serreze, M. 2007. Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster Than Forecast. Geophysical Research Letters 34: L09501, doi:10.1029/2007GL029703.

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm and is filed underAtmospheric Targets, Civil Disobedience And Climate Change,Economics and Cost, General Climate Ethics. You can follow any responses to this entry through theRSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Posted in BlogIt by

TWAINMAN

OMG it's the European Union and MTV to the Rescue~

Introduction:

First, please imagine an immense crowd of young girls and boys of every nation, race and family in the world standing in a great foyer, waiting to be called through the door where they will be born into the world as it will be later in this 21st century.

They don't "exist" in our time/space matrix, but like images on a long reel of movie film, they exist "in potentia," as philosophers used to say, just as surely as you or I "exist" like the images currently being viewed my an audience at a cinema.

What these young people have in common is:

1. They are not yet conceived or born and

2. They will inherit the earth and human societies that we leave as our legacy for them.

3. They are therefore dependent upon us for much of the good or bad conditions they experience in their lives.

Cases in point: Due to one cause or another, sea levels are rising. Kids born on low-lying islands or coastal plains may find their lives disrupted as their parents have to leave behind a way of life and find refuge in some new and perhaps inhospitable place.

Due to bad planning, kids may find themselves living in the shadow of a huge, leaky dam that's ready to collapse and inundate a million or more homes and workplaces. Not a good legacy, is it?

Due to stubborn and misguided diplomacy, children are born into a world where their homeland is subjugated by a stronger neighbor, and their future education and even nourishment may depend on the policies of their dominant neighbors. Not a great way to spend your life, is it?

Due to long-festering hatred and centuries of attacks and reprisals, some children may be born in refugee camps, destined for hunger, thirst, overcrowding, lack of education, lack of schooling, and lack of basic human rights. They will succumb to starvation, malnutrition, or depression and die unfulfilled and unmourned, and perhaps unburied.

My Personal Contribution, and the

Brilliant Idea of the EU-MTV Agreement

To solve this, I have renamed myself "DrWaug," and I have decided to be the spokesperson for the WAUG Kids, and I instituted "Save the WAUG Kids" around January 2008, and began my construction of "http://bostonmusicianscoop.com" and registered "http://worldmusiciansmovement" as a future website to unite musicians worldwide in a common effort to create new music that will lift the minds and hearts of humanity to assure two goals:

My Twin Goals:

Fixing our Legacy for the Sake of the WAUG Kids

1. To make humans behave more humanely toward others and

2. To make humans behave more respectfully toward our shared planet, Earth.

Nature demands that we work together. Otherwise we see that ugly aspect of human nature surging up around us: Suicide bombings, invasions of other nations by dominant nations, genocide, ethnic cleansing, forced starvation, and cruelty and hatred acted out wholesale across the globe.

Nature has given huma beings a planet with fresh air, fresh water, fruitful fields, bounteous oceans filled with a variety of coordinated, balanced aquatic life, and human beings have attacked the forests, polluted the rivers and lakes, savaged the creatures of the sea, and filled the atmosphere with new and toxic kinds of fumes and particulate matter, soot and salts that will drift about and settle out over centuries with serious consequences for the plants and animals, including the human species itself. Lead in the water and mercury vapors in the air are known for the way they destroy nervous systems and the human brain. Carbonic acid and sulfuric- and nitric- laced rain are currently destroying monuments, bridges, dams and roadways, and the concentration of these corrosive materials is growing steadily as years pass. Nature gives, and nature takes away.

Apes, monkeys, whales, dolphins, sharks and flounders, tigers, gorillas, elephants, parrots, humming birds, owls and buzzards, geese and ducks, frogs and toads, bears and wolves all have roles to play in the fabric of earthly life. Not one of these species is capable of destroying humanity. Not one is pouring toxic sludge into rivers. Not one is concentrating lead and mercury, cadmium and plutonium and depositing it in the earth, water, or air. Not one of these species or any of their "lower animals" or "primitive plant" cousins is guilty of ethnic cleansing, genocide, aerial bombings, gas attacks, hi-jacking relief supplies or food aid. Not one of these species has ever declared war on another, blacklisted opponents, imprisoned other animals or plants for their attitudes, opinions, or religious beliefs.

Only one species is considered a truly "Higher Animal." Yet that same species acts in ungodly ways, ingeniously concocts nerve gas, thermonuclear books, cluster books, land mines, and torture chambers.

It's a shame that so many human beings have to suffer because of the inhumanity of so many other human beings. It is a terrifying idea that all living things, human and non-human, can be exterminated by the actions of humans. But if the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is so roundly attacked by people who have never read its reports, or those who stand depend on carbon-burning processes to maintain their own wealth or way of life refuse to change their ways because of their personal commitment to the comforts carbon fuels produce, and humanity continues to pour millions of tons on carbon dioxide fumes into the atmosphere each year, humanity will have accomplished the "impossible" -- it will be the first species ever to actually destroy itself completely and bring about a world-wide collapse of a million or more species. leaving a desolate, storm-wracked planet with deserts where their used to be farms, grasslands and forests, and overheated polar regions devoid of ice, and mountain tops without snow and vast stretches of ocean, lakes and rivers without whales, sharks, tuna, cod salmon and seahorses, marlin, manatees, sturgeon, mackerel, and the dam-building beavers and fish-eating bears, seals and walruses we have grown to enjoy.

There will be no buzz on the Internet. No cell phones. No housing crisis or foreclosures, for there will be no people. The last of the population will go unburied. The dead forests will stand leafless and quiet, no birdsong, no chatter of squirrels.

Is this what our legacy will finally be?

The WAUG (What About Us? Generations) of Kids (who will be trying to grow into a decent life when they are finally conceived, carried and born in thirty or more years) are begging us to do something. As they enter their period of existence on the damaged planet, they will ask, "What didn't they do something before it was too late? Why did they listen to those fools who rejected what their best scientists told them? Why did they refuse to listen? The books were all out there - why didn't they read? Why did presidents and prime ministers and kings turn their back and allow the ruin and chaos to continue? Why didn't religious or philosophical or artistic leaders say something, condemn something, forbid something that was leading to our doom?

Maybe someone is finally doing something. The flawed and faulty European Union, unable to tackle many of its own disagreements, has reached out to MTV, the music television network, to join in making music young people will like, with an added dimension: the lyrics will educate young people about climate change, how real it is, how humanity is responsible for the worst of it, and how they can bring about change. Now if only they would add the other dimension, the need to be kind, forgiving, tolerant and humane to other people. Wow, would that be a great idea. But something is a lot better than nothings, and making music that slows pollution may at least slow down if not eliminate the process of planetary suicide that's currently underway.

To see what the EU and MTV plan to do, go to their website: http://www.mtvplay4climate.eu

How Can We Help the Waug Kids?

How can we help people who are not yet conceived?

Here's what I propose:

Invitation: Join me in An Impossible Dream!

	Inbox		X

Reply

James Louviere

show details 3:43 PM (0 minutes ago)

Hi

My name is James Louviere.

Here is my Impossible Dream. I hope you will dream it with me, and share my passion, and become a part of my future.

At age 72, I am struggling to pay my bills, I have difficulty walking, and I am unable to hear high pitched sounds, which means I don’t understand what people say, especially people with high voices, like most girls and women. So far, that's not very impressive, is it?

Yet I am dreaming of moving the entire human race to a better way of life, and leaving a massivly positive legacy for those to be born in the future.

I dream of moving everyone to be kinder, more responsible, more tolerant, more forgiving.

I dream of moving people and whole nations to treat Earth as a home, a precious gift, a jewel in the heavens.

All this for one sweet purpose: To create a decent legacy for children to be born in succeeding generations.

I call those children the WAUG Kids, the “What About Us? Generation” of young people born in the next twenty, forty, eighty, hundred years.

They are not yet born, nor even conceived. They have no voices. They can write no letters, express no hopes or desires, they cannot hound us for being negligent nor blame us, yet, for our cruelty.

Their advocates are few, their funds are nil, their “connections” generally unaware that they are going to have descendants in future times.

Why should we care about the WAUG Kids, if they don’t exist? Why did our great-great-grand parents care about us? They cared about us because they faced difficulties and wanted us to be happier, less burdened. If they were ill, they wished for remedies that would spare us the same illness.

If they were enslaved, persecuted, victimized by genocidal tyrants, they wanted us to be free.

If they were poor, they wanted to create the means for us to become comfortable and secure.

What about this generation? This generation, those of us among the currently “alive” people who can do something about the future of the Earth and its inhabitants, human and non-human, have but a fleeting moment in the course of all time to do something positive for future ages.

This time, this early decade of the twenty-first century, may be much more critical than any that have come before.

Why? Look at the current world, and you’ll see that enormous problems are as yet unsolved. Terrorism, poverty, thirst and starvation beset people on whole continents. The problems we see escalating today are not even recognized by huge populations. Even highly educated people turn their backs as millions starve in Africa, as billions are desperate for freedom and stability, and more and more abuse is heaped upon the land, sea and air of our home planet.

I am no saint, no prophet, no Gandhi or Siddhartha or Messiah. I am a poor old dreamer. But I have the means at my disposal, the words and technology to reach out across mountains and oceans and call for a world-wide population of talented and loving artists to join me in a movement that can help fix our problems and pass on to the children of following decades – or centuries? – a world that’s more comfortable, fair and livable than the one we currently call “real.”

My chosen medium is music – for melody and harmony and rhythm – and the beautiful grace of the dancers and their thrilling costumes moving with the music – pierce through all barriers and move the hearts and minds of people regardless of their language and condition in life. Emperors and kings as well as beggars and infants all respond to music.

I am only an amateur musician, but even my songs are out there on YouTube, moving a handful of viewers to be more positive and loving. Imagine if musicians from every culture and every political faction were to create music that was pure and positive and beautiful!

I will create a worldwide network of musicians who are pledged to work together with others of like mind to produce the music that will change the world.

My community of musicians will not exclude or offend or isolate others by promoting this or that particular “universal system” of belief or behavior. They will not try to convert people to a particular “-ism” or faction. Rather, they will emphasize only the universal value of the Golden Rule:

· Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.

· Treat your planet as you would want others to treat your own home.

If you are a musician of any kind, a composer, songwriter, instrumentalist, singer, dancer, designer, producer, technician, choreographer, manager or marketer, or “angel” (one who provides the funds to support the artists), please contact me at james@bostonmusicianscoop.com, a website/blog I’ve created, to express your enthusiasm for my project, to volunteer to help with it, or to provide possible funding. I am only a simple human being, but the Spirit that creates all of us resides in me and prompts me to step forward.

If you are not a musician, I welcome you as a fellow human being, a brother or sister, in the Human Family, one who is, for our fleeting time, able to help create a decent legacy for the children of the future by whatever means you have.

I am waiting to hear from you. The most responses I’ve ever gotten to anything I’ve ever done was to an article I published in The Science Teacher in February, 1988. It’s been replicated thousands and thousands of times with the permission of the National Science Teachers Association. Because of the nature of my new dream, I hope that the impact will be much greater, with many more responses by e-mail, and many offers of help.

James P. Louviere

My Most Popular Song