Why is it that so many people, including elected officials, deny science endorsed by over 95% of those with expertise in a given field? What will it take to get responsible action to address the challenges of climate change where here you have the added support of Pope Francis? Even with that level of scientific support and a global consensus of world leaders who say it’s a priority, elected bodies at both the state and national level continue to delay.

With that in mind, to those who oppose taking any serious action, I offer the following two scenarios:

What if you’re wrong: Where will we be if, at some point in the future, it becomes obvious that you were wrong and climate change indeed causes large-scale harm to the planet? By then, the earth and mankind will have paid an unbelievable price for such inaction.

What if you’re right: What if, relatively soon in this debate, my position—​supported overwhelmingly by solid science—​prevails and major changes are made to theoretically avoid these horrible results, and in time it is shown those actions were not needed? Beyond some significant expenses and the usual pain that goes with additional regulation, what then would be the harm?

Now compare the two scenarios—​mammoth amounts of devastation versus unneeded cost and regulation—​and I hope any reasonable person has to conclude that banking on the long shot (going with the roughly 5% and ignoring over 95% of the scientific community) is just too scary, if not outright crazy.
​
Now I am smart enough to know that my blog tends to reach folks who are likely to agree with me. So, particularly on this issue, I ask you to share and/or at least raise the key questions with folks who disagree. I do this with the hope that, before it is too late, we can take some steps toward sanity.

Update on the COP21 - Earth Day 2016:
Today, leaders from 170 nations assemble at the United Nations to sign the historic COP 21 climate pact. However, even with the global consensus that climate change is a real and serious threat to the planet’s future, many issues remain on the domestic political front for President Obama who will support the deal on behalf of the United States. Which leads me back to my question for the climate change deniers: what if you’re wrong?

Walking our neighborhood recently after an unusually heavy rain, I ran into my neighbor, Nelson Galle, who told me he had five and one half inches in his rain gauge. A couple of nights later in the evening paper, there was a front page article titled, “Rising Waters Expected at Tuttle.” Given heavy rains to the North, the runoff coming out of Nebraska was projected to cause the Tuttle Creek Lake to rise some fifteen to twenty feet. For me, that’s a lot of water that the Corp of Engineers will move as quickly as practical to the Missouri, to the Mississippi, to be flushed into the Gulf of Mexico. The question that leaped out for me was: Wouldn't it have been nice if we could have captured and held that water for a much needed time down the road?

With many projections being made that these big rains will become more common yet our total rainfall will not increase, I gave more thought to what it is we should be doing to address that challenge. I don’t see piping desalinated water from the west coast or the gulf as a realistic option, even if it became a practical answer for them. I’ve heard the idea of taking water out of the Missouri river and somehow getting it to where it is needed in Kansas, but that doesn’t seem practical. What I thought at that moment was that we should consider building additional reservoirs for water storage only, filled by flood waters which today help no one, even the ocean which is already rising on its own. Right there, I thought I had a great idea for a blog piece.

Then I had another one of those moments when the light comes on and just as if my Dad was reaching over and snapping my ear, I got the message that this might be really stupid. To confirm, I called my friend Joe Harkins, in my experience one of the very best public administrators with a specialty in water policy. He was polite but to the point in confirming my fear. He said all the good sites for reservoirs are taken, the federal government is not funding such any more, and that evaporation alone would make them unsuccessful. I don’t share this to discourage creative thinking, but a good second opinion is often quite helpful. Who knows, maybe someone reading about this bad idea may come up with something that works.

Below is a video with thoughts on how new ideas can be enhanced through good dialogue that encourages critical thinking without stifling creative thinking. Watch it here or check out all the Leading and Learning Moments on YouTube.

This Thursday, at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington D.C., the Chicago Council on Global Affairs will host the Global Food Security Symposium. The topic will be Healthy Food for a Healthy World: Leveraging Agriculture and Food to Improve Global Nutrition. Brilliant and experienced people from all over the world will be contributing, and they’ll be making this gathering another successful step in the challenge to feed the future. My attendance is as an advisory member to the Global Agricultural Development Initiative.

I was first asked to serve on the Advisory Group back in 2010, I’m sure on the recommendation of former Kansas Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, who has served as co-chair since its inception in 2008. The focus has been on the United States’ commitment to agricultural development as a way to alleviate global poverty, and last year’s report was titled: Advancing Global Food Security in the Face of a Changing Climate. In addition to the fundamental concerns tied to malnutrition and poverty, I am particularly interested in the potential impacts on national security coming from a growing population and the challenges to feed that growth, with the failure to do so leading to more potential hotspots for terrorism and other human rights issues.

As an alum of Kansas State University (Dairy Husbandry '62), I am particularly proud of the talent within our College of Agriculture and Research and Extension. The role they are playing in helping address the many challenges of more successfully feeding our growing population is quite significant. They are the home of four new Feed the Future Innovation Labs, started in 2013, with funding of $100 million over five years from the U.S. Agency for International Development. In addition, the National Science Foundation named K-State the lead institution for the world’s first NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Center for Wheat Genetic Resources. For the Kansan or American asking, “What’s in it for us?” I would point to the advancement of knowledge and research that will have mutual benefit, the development of markets for our products, and the progress being made toward a more secure, prosperous world for us all.  

Through the Global Agricultural Development Initiative, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has released a series of blog posts leading up to the Symposium that I highly recommend, especially to those who are interested in global food systems. The Symposium will be streaming live here, and they will also be sharing updates on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. I am looking forward to this year’s Symposium and encourage others to tune in.

Up until recently, Kansas policies placed a high value on research and public education as key economic drivers for the state. Just think for a moment about some of the wise investments and tremendous progress Kansas has made in the area of research in the fairly recent past. We’ve invested millions of dollars in the University of Kansas Cancer Center to successfully achieve the National Cancer Institute Designation. Likewise, we’ve invested $250 million plus to establish the Bioscience Research Institute at Kansas State University and to successfully bring the National Bio Agro Defense Facility, NBAF, to Manhattan. These are both very important successes that have major research implications and potential huge economic benefit for the state.

Where I’m headed is asking the question, as time goes on, with Kansas showing a lack of appreciation for research and decreasing funding to our two major public research institutions: isn’t it likely that we will pay a major price at some point?

For KU, the Cancer Institute Designation that has brought earlier access for Kansans to the latest cancer treatments, will that continue? The NCI Designation was for five years and will have to be renewed. In the current environment, how good will we look for renewal and/or expansion of that valuable designation? I think of the huge effort to attract the scientists, build the infrastructure, and put together a plan to implement that not only got the designation desired but put us on the path to producing real, tangible results. Will that all be for naught?

For NBAF to reach its full potential as a major federal lab, the talent to go into the building will make a big difference. Attracting that talent to a state disrespecting the value of research and cutting resources for education at all levels will not be easy. The same can be said for the Bioscience Research Institute, built with much Federal help, to be a level three lab and smooth the transition of zoonotic research from Plum Island to Kansas. As an economic aside, the potential to attract future private and Federal investment would surely be impacted.

How, in just a few years, could we go from bipartisan, united political leadership at all levels to an environment that questions the value of research in general and has little appreciation for the linkage to economic success for Kansas and its people? Will we continue on this path?

Also in this blog series on higher education: Focus on Higher Education: An Introduction, Some Personal Background, and It Hasn't Always Been This Way for Higher Education.