Listening to several new members of the U.S. House of Representatives, I see a much stronger commitment to focus on the issues they ran on and act on what they learned from the constituents they now represent. Seems like these new members were motivated to run, to serve, and fight for what is needed and not just take a step toward a long career in politics, which requires putting re-election efforts first and foremost. If my initial observations prove to be true and new members sell some veterans on putting the needs of the people first, like health care and infrastructure, we just might begin to address gridlock in Washington D.C.

Much of the success in increasing the size of the Democratic Caucus was achieved by talented women. If history is any lesson, this is a very good sign. The current women in Congress have, in general, been much more willing to cross the aisle and put country first. There is no indication that the new members wouldn’t follow that same pattern of bipartisanship. In Kansas, it was the women in the Legislature, in a well thought-out, nonpartisan way, that made major contributions to reversing some devastating outcomes of the Brownback Experiment. In Washington, for key crossover votes, almost without exception, Republican women are on that short list. At this moment there are not many Republican women in Congress, but there are several key ones who are willing to at least listen and set politics aside for the good of this country.

The Republican makeup of the U.S. House is different only in having fewer members in the caucus. It isn’t like there was any surge of new Republicans who fit the moderate mold replacing hard-line conservatives. I assume this is tied to the President’s dominance in Republican politics, including picking and supporting only candidates that are in line with the current far right direction. The Republican political machine probably doesn’t even recruit moderates that might be the most likely to win and to partner with Democrats.

While there will be plenty of opportunities to contrast with the President and speak up for American values, I believe another key for Democrats is not to go “investigation-crazy” now that they have power. Yes, some questions need to be answered, but I hope they pick the investigations with the strongest case that most Americans expect them to conduct. Hopefully, they stay away from dominating the evening news cycle with only coverage of what is being investigated. Much of what needs to be done for the good of the country has strong public support (for example, dealing with climate change). But if the public does not get the news on those issues and becomes distracted by one investigation after another, they won’t be the partner needed to get legislation into law.

In sum, much of these new members’ success, in my opinion, will depend heavily on what legislative plan is put together and how hard they are willing to work to avoid being just another different version of what we’ve had before. If all we get is lots of talk and investigating with no real effort made to reach across the aisle, progress, if any, will be limited. They need to remember the Senate is now even more Republican and if the Democrats’ effort to work with them comes across as partisan politics, I fear come 2020, the public will not be happy with either party. It may be impossible, but their efforts have got to be real and effectively communicated.

Despite the overwhelming evidence and grave warnings issued in a new US Government report on climate change, President Trump and supporters of the status quo continue to double-down on climate denial. In response to the report—​commissioned by Congress and conducted by departments within his own administration—​President Trump first worked to bury its release among the hoopla of “black Friday” and then flatly dismissed its findings, saying, “I don’t believe it.” As a concerned citizen and grandparent, the simple question I would ask to the President and anyone still denying the facts about climate change is: “What if you’re wrong?”

On December 5, 2015, I posted a blog entitled “Climate Change Skeptics, What If You’re Wrong?” I stand by that, and I'd encourage people on all sides of the issue to ask themselves that common sense question. Because, as a believer in science and a supporter of action on climate change, I would much rather be wrong and have paid some short term costs rather than face the grave consequences of inaction. And the evidence from the past three years has only strengthened my feeling about the issue, from scientific findings to the events unfolding that have already inflicted huge damage, including Hurricane Florence. But the real clincher is for me is what’s going on in California right now with fires causing damage that goes way beyond any historical pattern. I would hope that the significant loss of lives, the fact that a whole town is totally wiped out, and the unfortunate reality of more tragedy looming on the horizon would at some point get our attention.

Recently, Lynn and I were with grandchildren in Estes Park, Colorado. This area has been impacted by warmer weather in pretty dramatic ways. For starters, there are mountain pine beetles that have destroyed many pine trees due to warmer winters increasing the likelihood of damaging wildfires. There are areas where folks have built cabins and second homes in places of beauty without a second thought that they could go up in smoke at any time. The hotter, drier climate has changed all that and, as we watch California burn, you can’t help but think, “will Colorado be next?”

Since posting that first blog in 2015, I think it is fair to say we have made little or no progress on dealing with climate change. To be truthful, we really never recovered from the initial moniker “Global Warming.” It was used and abused by those who defended the status quo for various selfish reasons, including ignorance. There has been very little acceleration in US-based research and now, as a country, we have totally abandoned our international friends in dealing with the issue of climate change. Another report that really grabbed my attention from the United Nations moved up projections for crisis and irreparable damage. If significant progress is not made within the next ten years, it will be too late to save many of Earth's natural wonders such as coral reefs. And if the environmental impact hasn’t motivated you yet, the economic realities soon will. Indeed, the market is already shifting in response to climate change. So when will our government catch up? And, rather than simply reacting to the symptoms—​in terms of our environment, our economy, and our national security—​will we ever begin to be proactive about solutions or strategies to address root causes?

In order for progress to be made, we’ll have to change this pattern of indifference and ignorance about the problem. So how do we begin the process of putting pressure on our elected officials about the seriousness of climate change? One obvious barrier we have is the current state of politics, where an issue such as climate change gets little or no coverage in the press, and therefore, little or no educating of the American people. And compounding the problem is that as you listen to many newly elected or re-elected members of Congress as they list their priorities, climate change doesn’t tend to get mentioned. Although, as the economic impacts begin to hit home for more Americans, there is some hope this could change when the new Congress is gaveled in next year.

So what can we do? There are organized groups who are leading the cause for not just understanding of climate change but also action. What we need is for large numbers of citizens to join, to support, to lend a hand, and to help make climate change a voting issue. As I’ve always told my students, most elected officials will change their positions if their re-election is at risk. That can happen when rank-and-file citizens engage, which is what we need or it will not be just the trees that are burning.

Just when you think nothing more crazy can come from the Trump Administration, you learn of something that is truly dangerous, and this one hits close to home. Through the budget sent to Congress, the Administration is recommending moving operation of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Agriculture. Please don’t think of this as “inside baseball” that does not impact you or the state, or the country for that matter. It does. What makes this move particularly scary is the apparent interest in shaving some money from the operation of NBAF to help fund the Wall. Yes—​the Wall. The one along our southern border. This should be a cause for great local concern, and I know from experience it will take a very united Kansas front to turn this decision around.

As a reminder, NBAF came about as a result of 9/11 and the consensus agreement that the United States had to take Homeland Security much more seriously. This was especially true in areas where much more advanced research would be necessary. For example, the unbelievably dangerous zoonotic diseases—​the viruses that can move from animals to humans—​need much more attention. In 2001, the research being done in this area was happening at Plum Island off the east coast, under the control of the Department of Agriculture, with a focus only on animal disease research. At the time, that structural organization made sense. But, after 9/11, decision makers focused on the new national security threats (particularly bioterrorism and attacks on our food systems) wisely decided to build the new facility under the leadership and management of the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security. In substance and common sense, the location decision has not changed since.

Just think for a moment about the problems that will likely evolve. The current facility construction is handled through private contracts but closely watched by Homeland Security staff. Many of whom, one would assume, will continue to work at the facility to help wisely and safely oversee the many incredibly dangerous research projects that will follow. Now, one can say that is not a real problem. Just move the staff. Yes, but how many will follow and how well will Agriculture manage and fund them? Keep in mind, Ag has crop insurance and food assistance programs that always generate intense interest and questions when it comes to budgeting. Will NABF face operational cuts in order to satisfy those other legitimate needs? And remember, it looks pretty clear that the Administration is moving to get their money for the wall by shifting the dollars from existing current needs within Homeland Security to fund wall construction.

I have yet to talk to anyone who thinks this makes sense. There is very little public awareness or much communication coming from any Kansas elected official. At the very least, we should—​in a united fashion—​push back, ask the tough questions, and insist upon full disclosure of all the facts. I’ve tried to think of a comparison that could help put this into perspective. For me, this would be akin to moving the K-State women's basketball coaching staff to the football program to squeeze money for something totally unrelated and ill-fated—​like building a wall along the Colorado border as a way to keep the drugs from coming our way.
​
This decision merits serious discussion at all levels—​local, state, and federal. The strategy that helped Kansas successfully attract the NBAF facility was based on a strong, united Kansas voice on the matter. Elected officials from both parties and all levels of government agreed that this facility was in the best interest of the state and the region, and their support was backed by strategic investments in things like the Kansas Bioscience Authority (which was dealt its final blow by the Brownback Administration in 2016) to help spur the growth of a new industry around this important area for research and development. All together, this helped prove that Kansas was serious about the prospects of the federal facility and also that we were ready to make the necessary decisions to ensure its future safety and success. That Kansas voice must, once again, be raised on the issue—​this time, in support of a sane way forward for NBAF.

This spring wrapped up my six years on the Advisory Board for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ Initiative on Global Food and Agriculture. The release of our latest work product, Stability in the 21st Century: Global Food Security for Peace and Prosperity, was shared at a symposium in Washington D.C. on March 29th. From the experience, I learned a lot about the challenges we face in feeding a growing population around the world (estimated to be 10 billion by 2056) and the impacts on national security. I’m sure without the influence of former Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, I would have never had this opportunity. Dan and former Congressman Doug Bereuter from Nebraska currently chair the committee, following five years of outstanding leadership from Catherine Bertini, Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

My experience included getting acquainted with Roger Thurow, who has authored several books on food security. His most recent release, “The First 1,000 Days,” emphasizes the impact that the time span from conception to two years of age has on the rest of a child’s life. I also served with Howard Buffett, whose father Howard G. Buffett authored the book “40 Chances: Finding Hope in a Hungry World.” He graphically showed the incredible challenges many parts of the world have in feeding their people as well as showing the challenges we face in helping them address those issues. One of the most interesting contributors was Gordon Conway from the Imperial College of London, who taught me much about the importance of resilience in feeding the world given the reality of climate change. You can read more about this in my blog post from a previous symposium.

A significant focus for this Initiative was USAID and their Feed the Future program, which concentrates heavily on help to developing nations where significant potential for much larger food production exists but not without major help and change. Also working to address these challenges is Kansas State University and the College of Agriculture, with four Feed the Future Innovation Labs funded by USAID. Only the University of California at Davis has as many labs, with both having more than any other Land Grant Institution. This work will advance food security into the future, and I'm proud of the contributions being made by my alma mater to help address this global challenge.

The release of this report, our fourth product, not only pushes the importance of foreign aid but also makes the case for increasing such funding, which couldn’t be more timely. There have always been humanitarian concerns, but now, in addition, our own national security is a major issue. Such acceleration comes at a time in our country when the current administration has raised the possibility of dropping all foreign aid to fund increased military projects. It seems common sense to me that any country with a growing population and not enough food would be a target for internal instability and external exploitation. Contrast that with a country able to feed its population with help from outside while growing its internal capacity to feed themselves. I would oppose the current consideration of dropping foreign aid regardless (especially when you consider its percentage of the overall federal budget and the amount of good that is accomplished by a relatively small line item in the budget), but when you take the national security impacts into consideration, this is not just the usual partisan conversation. The differences of opinion on such an issue, if not dealt with intelligently over time, will put not just our country but all of the developed (and developing) world at serious risk. 

I have been enormously grateful for these experiences, and I plan to continue following and engaging issues related to this area of both personal passion for me and growing importance for our collective future.

​In the 2004 Kansas legislative session, the Republican-controlled legislature—​led by Representative Kenny Wilk and Senator Nick Jordan, working with Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her Secretary of Revenue Joan Wagnon—​created the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). For six years, it enjoyed across-the-board support from the Kansas Legislature, the Bioscience community, and communities and research institutions across the state. Funding came from income tax paid by the existing bioscience companies already employing people and doing business in Kansas.

KBA’s success was based on some really sound thinking that made good sense both for the private sector and the State of Kansas. The vision was to build on the already existing bioscience success in the state through strong public-private partnerships. Common sense indicated that much potential remained. In time, our dependence on agriculture, manufacturing, and the oil and gas sectors would have another partner. The genius of the plan was to take the existing revenue stream and put it into an Authority established by law. The Authority would be governed by appointments from the Governor and Legislative leaders to hire the talent to wisely invest and partner with projects in the best interests of the state. They would be able to work with outside investors, making commitments for periods longer than one fiscal year, and not dependent on annual appropriations from the Legislature—​a key for private sector involvement.   

Successes included providing key leadership and timely resources for Kansas to be awarded with the NBAF selection (National Bio and Agro Defense Facility) now being constructed in Manhattan. NBAF will do the highest level research on zoonotic diseases, the ones that can move from animals to humans. Also, the National Cancer Designation for the the KU Medical Center allows area citizens access to new drugs on trial. KBA resources were key for funding nationally-recognized consultants, hiring nationally respected cancer researchers, buying much needed support equipment, and securing key infrastructure improvements necessary to compete. Both projects required strong leadership from Kansas State University and the University of Kansas, as well as full support from our Congressional Delegation and the Kansas Legislature. These two projects alone will have broad positive impacts on the state of Kansas for decades to come, but it's likely that neither would have happened without the KBA's support and engagement.

The progress in that short six year window led to national recognition for Kansas and its growing bioscience sector and jealousy from surrounding states that didn’t have this engine for economic development.

Then came the election in November 2010 and a new Governor. Although nothing about the KBA was raised during the campaign, within 60 days of this new administration, that all changed. Concerns were raised that we were picking winners and losers (we did invest in proposals with the best potential), that we weren’t distributing the money across the state, and that the administration had evidence of criminal activity within the Authority and demanded a forensic audit.

No evidence of criminal activity was ever brought forward and a year later (and well over a million tax dollars wasted), they had found nothing of substance going back to the very beginning of the Authority. Oh yes, there were the drummed up charges against our CEO with the only findings tied to actions after the audit began.
​
The eventual death has been long and painful in coming. A tragedy for the state to be sure but only possible because enough legislators went along with the Governor’s actions and bought into a growing mentality that ignores the value of research and the need to wisely invest in the economic future of Kansas. For years, our state has been reaping the benefits of these important investments, but now I fear the only impacts we’ll feel will be the sighs of relief coming from the east, as economic developers in Missouri now see an opportunity to compete.

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 the neighborhood most every morning, on every other Tuesday I observe the relatively small number of households that participate in recycling. As I look at our own experience and see first-hand how much less we contribute to filling the landfill, I don’t find the modest cost and minor effort to sort as anything that should keep almost anyone from participating. It looks like a win-win to me.

This is particularly true in our community of Manhattan, Kansas. We have a successful private sector business built around recycling. It should be easy for us to see the real value from the quantity of waste not going to the landfill and, in the process, providing jobs and success for a local business. I know that picture is not available everywhere. I remember my best friend Joel at the ranch using a recycling program, until one day he saw the recycling truck pull into the local landfill to dump. I don’t know if that was a one-timer or not (or perhaps they had already separated the recyclables and were dumping the remaining waste from their facility), but I can understand that seeing it through that lens could easily lead to dumping it all or, at the very least, questioning the value of the program.  

Other cities and counties have different models, but many consist of some level of public-private partnership. Some towns that have publicly-run trash collection, for instance, choose to contract with a private company that handles the collection and sale of recycled materials. Other municipal governments choose to issue separate bins for recycling, manage the collection, and then sell the recyclable materials in bulk to a buyer in the private sector. There is usually an additional fee for the recycling service, however, the more people who adopt the program and contribute their recyclable materials, the more revenue that can be generated from the sale of the materials, and—especially when you factor in the reduction in waste heading to the landfill—the lower the per-household fee could be. So both the user and the government can experience lower costs in the long-run and we can make a bigger dent in the unsustainable growth happening in our landfills.

No matter the model, it is clear that awareness and education efforts must be part of the solution, as personal costs and environmental impacts will rely on getting more people to participate in recycling. Perhaps, over time, we can work to ease the concerns of people who are skeptical, like my friend Joel, and demonstrate the real value it has to our future. For me, it is quite simple. Whether for the environment or saving tax dollars by extending the life of the landfill, everyone—conservative, moderate, or liberal—should have at least one good reason to support a community recycling program. Any way you look at it, green is the winning color, either for the environment or the green in your wallet.

But I’d like to hear from you: Leave a comment below sharing your thoughts and/or experiences with recycling in your community or nationwide. Is recycling important? What program models have you seen in action? How could they be improved? What will it take to get more people to participate in recycling efforts?

Perhaps our dialogue can bring about some progress on this issue.

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.