Utah Fathers’ Climate Denial Leaves Chilling Family Legacy

As the climate denial hysterics begin to fade into history and take their place beside witch burning, Jim Crow, McCarthyism and other embarrassments in American history, I pause to ponder the emotional scars wrought upon the children of climate denier fathers.

Throughout history, children have been victims, by accident of birth to men who stood proudly and loudly on the wrong side of history. Consider the shame and humiliation of the children of white supremacists and racists, Neocons and Talibans, Nazis and Red-baiters, polygamists, homophobes and child-molesters.

Do the climate deniers ever consider the effect of their intellectual and moral short-comings on their children?

Never mind for a moment the life-long scars of the adult children of these backwater ignoramuses. What about the innocent school age children, forced in their own homes to witnesses in silent humiliation, the hysterics of a parent blogging about sun spots and global cooling and publicly airing deluded fantasies about world-wide conspiracies and global collusion between evil environmentalist, greedy scientists, media and governments and their polar bear accomplices?

What about these beautiful children who go to school each day to learn science and things like sustainability, energy conservation and correct principles of stewardship of the Earth with other children from sane homes with intellectually honest, responsible and moral parents?

What could be worse than being ashamed of your own parents, of harboring such an embarrassing secret, of growing into adulthood while shoving the family skeleton further into the closet with each passing year as global warming devastates the planet and entire populations of people and species disappear?

I cringe at the thought of older children, returning home to say Sanpete, Clinton and St. George Utah, for the holidays, year after year, to endure yet again the troubled, painful silence at the family dinner table, like a slowly metastasizing cancer, eased only by the promise of it’s abrupt end just in time for father’s quotidian intellectual nourishment and sole, sustaining validation at the hands of false prophets; Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly on the boob tube.  “Fox time is family time” becomes the unutterable truth and the family shame.

It cannot be easy to grow up resenting a father who loved you with everything he had. It cannot be fun to rue the thought of holidays at home, to invent excuses not to go and to consider using them. What is the cost of the sin of a lie that would spare you the predictably painful, surreal, albeit blessedly temporary visit to your parents and your ancestral home of shame?

What is the psychological cost to a child of not being able to share and celebrate with your parents the joy of your new life, a full happy, exciting one on your own terms, one surrounded by intellectually curious friends and the freedom to appreciate abstract art or a career in science, or the freedom to actually care about species extinction and your carbon foot print, and the freedom to love people you would never bring home for fear of embarrassment?

What must it be like to build a new life as an adult only to realize that the father who was to be your role model, whom you WANTED to be your role model, has become instead a manifestation of everything wrong in the world, an archetype that informs what you will explicitly reject as you build a new life and family without children because the earth has become a cruel place that can no longer guarantee a full life or natural death.

And what of the inescapable realization of the price your mother has paid, the suffering SHE has endured for the mistake of marrying a man whose ignorance and insecurity is exceeded only by his stubbornness?

And what, what of a life, a life condemned to be remembered with hurt, big hurt for a father, proud and loving man whose entire life was betrayed by a false righteousness, born, bought, paid for and at the ongoing mercy of a few cruel charlatans in the persons of Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Murdoch and people like them?

And what of the injustice of when happy childhood memories which in adulthood become sad and soul crushing reminders of a family poisoned by a father’s life squandered in righteous ignorance?

How does one integrate once fond memories of sitting on the front porch, perched on a father’s lap, bathing in his warmth and the security of his strong arms listening to him reminisce for the one-hundredth time, as if it were the first time, about how he and his siblings used to skate on the frozen pond at the edge of the field by the river before it stopped flooding and freezing or they would dance in the moonlight to the chorus of chirping bullfrogs on hot summer nights, before they disappeared along with the insects they used to feed on?

What of a son or daughter remembering as a child, how everyone would laugh when Dad would get so enraged by the deep-throated guy on the radio, that he would get up and shake his fist at a Volvo driving by, or how proud he was of you when you screamed “damned environmentalists” with such innocent indignation in front of all the neighbors at meeting about Scofield Reservoir? How sickening it must be to realize your childhood was a string of empty misconceived bonding moments with your Father?

I mourn for the injustice of the children and grandchildren of such selfish fathers, like the one in this video.

Share Utah:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis

, , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Ed Firmage on December 19, 2009 - 9:53 pm

    Beautifully done, Cliff dear friend. Hard-hitting, but we may not have the time to tippy-toe through the tulips. Happy Holidays. I’m grateful for your friendship. You’ve helped me through some very hard times. ed firmage

  2. #2 by Ken on December 20, 2009 - 12:51 am

    Cliff

    History will not only vindicate us but will not look kindly over global warming hysteria. Children of the future will look back with the same amusement as we did about the time when people believed the world was flat.

    I may teach my child that global warming is a bunch of bunk but I also teach her to conserve resources and only use what is needed. I would wager my family has a much lower carbon footprint that many so called environmentalists. I live, go to work, and school within a 5 mile radius, for now we live in a relatively small apartment till I get through school.

    Just because we do not believe in global warming does not mean we want to have dirty air and polluted waters. In fact I would rather see money going to actually cleaning up the environment instead of having it all go down the global warming rat hole.

    It is we conservatives that want to see us rely less on foreign sources of oil. We want the country to be energy independent but the “environmentalists” fight tooth and nail all viable options for energy production on a mass scale favoring unproven and unscalable solutions such as wind and solar. It is us who favor the cleanest of all energy solutions that of nuclear energy.

    I teach and encourage my child to learn all she can about science and to make sure she does not follow the ebbs and flows of pop science. She knows that true science requires vigorous scrutiny and that true scientists never are dogmatic and always act as the observer and never an advocate of a particular view point. She knows that true science must be challenged and that when scientists make claims their work must be independently verifiable and able to be duplicated with all the raw data. She knows that science is not about building a consensus but hard cold facts and the majority be damed. She knows that mixing science and politics is a deadly combination that corrupts the entire system especially when money is poured in that expects and demands a pre-conceived conclusion.

    No, history will not look kindly on the warmers especially if they manage to take away their freedom and Constitution and riddle them with a massive debt that hamstrings their progress. Mark my words it is you my friend that is on the wrong side of history as usual.

  3. #3 by Larry Bergan on December 20, 2009 - 2:16 am

    Ken said:

    It is we conservatives that want to see us rely less on foreign sources of oil.

    I have no words.

  4. #4 by Ken on December 20, 2009 - 3:28 am

    Larry

    Cat got your tongue?

    My point is that it is American conservatives that favor producing our own oil and energy needs while the left has strongly apposed all domestic drilling to a point where it is much more cost effective to look elsewere. The irony of it all is that since oil companies do not have to meet stringent environmental regulations over seas they are free to be much less concerned with environmental issues. As a result there is a net increase in world pollution rather than a decrease. If we were able to drill more here then we can have more control over how the oil and resources are extracted.

    The American left has done more to benefit Saudi Arabia, India, and China at the expense of US workers and we have a dirtier environment to show for it.

  5. #5 by Becky Stauffer on December 20, 2009 - 6:53 am

    Ken,

    You paint such a cozy and altruistic picture of environmentally-sensitive right-wingers. I’m afraid it’s not going down very well with me. You have to admit it’s practically the conservative agenda to oppose on principle anything that favors the environment. I always remember former congressman Jim Hansen’s great pride at having the worst voting record on environmental issues. Trouble is, conservatives’ kids also have to breath the fouled air, drink the tainted water, and very possibly suffer disease from exposure to dangerous substances shipped in to be stored in our state.

    Just ask the downwinders how they feel about trusting the government and industry.

    As for your carbon footprint, Ken, you admit it’s just “for now”. No doubt upon getting the degree and a new job, you’ll have a much different environmental agenda.

    Great post, Cliff.

  6. #6 by Uncle Rico on December 20, 2009 - 7:37 am

    The conservatives’ environmental credo: Drill baby, drill!

  7. #7 by Glenden Brown on December 20, 2009 - 8:55 am

    Ken,

    There’s a fundamental problem in your analysis – the US simply does not have sufficient oil reserves to meet our own demand. I forget the exact figures now but even if we got every single drop that is believed to be it ANWR, it would meet our domestic needs for a couple weeks. More drilling, more oil extraction isn’t a viable solution and even the best case scenario includes massive environmental degradation. There’s some history here too – the US was once the world’s leading oil producer and we produced most of what we needed for domestic use. Sometime in the 1970s that changed and it’s only gotten worse.

    As far global warming there is an actual scientific consensus that is happening and human actions make it worse. That’s not pop science. But even if the whole science of global warming is bunk, what is the downside of the kinds of actions being called for – reducing pollution, using natural resources more carefully, limiting greenhouse gases in our cities? Given the hazy inversion we’ve had in Salt Lake this week, I’m thinking those actions would be beneficial in and of themselves.

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on December 20, 2009 - 9:46 am

    Ken–

    The reason “drill baby drill” makes no sense is because nearly the entire North American continent has already been explored for oil and gas. In 1995, the USGS estimated that the onshore United States, including Alaska, had undiscovered, technically recoverable resources of 112.3 billion barrels of oil. That’s 15 years worth of consumption, and the estimate is almost 15 years old.

    In the 1980s, I had a job as a “juggie” with a seismic exploration company in southeastern Utah. We were looking for tiny pockets of oil in stratigraphic traps. Basically, scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    The amount of oil that’s left is so insignificant that climate scientist James Hansen has estimated that it’s OK (in terms of carbon emissions) to use all the domestic oil, as long as we stop burning coal.

  9. #9 by Becky Stauffer on December 20, 2009 - 10:00 am

    Just imagine the benefit today if everyone walked to church. With a Mormon church within walking distance of nearly everyone in the state, it would be an easy way to avoid adding to the muck.

    Did you and your family walk to church today, Ken?

  10. #10 by Cliff Lyon on December 20, 2009 - 11:37 am

    Ken, I see you have backed of the denial part and meekly claimed that you simply want to drill more here.

    Shall I construe this as an affirmation that you are no longer claiming conspiracy and that you accept AGW?

  11. #11 by Larry Bergan on December 20, 2009 - 2:55 pm

    I remember being concerned enough about this issue in the 70’s that when they lowered the speed limit to 55, I was excited. I like to drive fast like everybody else, but It was amazing that somebody was actually acting like a leader and taking something away from us that we didn’t need. All it took was an adjustment to our lifestyle.

    I always thought that was Nixon’s idea, but I’m not sure. Whoever implemented the plan was showing the kind of leadership that I’m sure Al Gore would have provided. Then came Ronald, (WE’RE AMERICANS, AND WE CAN USE AS MUCH OIL AS WE WANT), Reagan, and we’ve been fighting conservation ever since.

    The deadly temperature inversions we always experience this time of year is a visible and stinky reminder of what we haven’t done.

    Oh oh, Becky’s trying to cause trouble here and ask Mormons to walk to church. I would support them if they decided to wait until it’s safe to do that.

    Don’t breath the air!

  12. #12 by Larry Bergan on December 20, 2009 - 11:50 pm

    Let me try that one again:

    Oh oh, Becky’s trying to cause trouble here and ask Mormons to walk to church. :)

  13. #13 by Becky Stauffer on December 21, 2009 - 4:20 am

    That’s me, the troublemaker around here. :)

  14. #14 by ken on December 21, 2009 - 7:36 am

    Cliff

    No I am not backing of of AGW I am just saying that we should look for alternatives here including drilling our own oil with or without global warming. We don’t need a bogey man like “global warming” to see that energy independence is a national security issue.

    Glendon, the inversion is not pollution but a natural phenomenon for this valley. It was here long before Brother Brigham pulled out his last bottle of whiskey and said “This is the place”.

  15. #15 by James Farmer on December 21, 2009 - 8:32 am

    Ken:

    Do you even read any more? Everyone …. everyone … who picks up a newspaper or gets some news other than from wingnut propaganda outlets knows that America possesses but a pittance of the oil we need to run the country as it runs today. To say you appear uninformed when you make such statements is giving more than a benefit of the doubt.

  16. #16 by Glenden Brown on December 21, 2009 - 9:06 am

    Ken – and yet the inversion didn’t used to be toxic and it is now. Although, in all fairness, my grandmother remembered Salt Lake in the days when people had coal furnaces and the air was black and disgusting.

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on December 21, 2009 - 9:11 am

    Ken–

    The inversion may be natural phenomenon, but the carbon monoxide that gives me a headache all day long isn’t.

  18. #18 by ken on December 21, 2009 - 9:21 am

    Richard

    Yes the pollution makes it worse because everything lingers in the air instead of getting blown away but the inversion itself is not due to human activity.

  19. #19 by Becky Stauffer on December 21, 2009 - 7:22 pm

    Ken,

    So, wouldn’t it make sense if we took some steps to reduce pollution as much as we can? Do realize breathing this air right now is worse than smoking a pack of cigarettes? Not just for you but for your kids, too. Why waste the Earth if we can do something about it? There’s always a consequence, even if the wind blows our pollution away, it just goes somewhere else.

  20. #20 by Ken on December 21, 2009 - 7:45 pm

    Becky

    Yes we should reduce real pollution but we are too preoccupied with trying to reduce life giving gasses like C02. I’m sure the trees appreciate it. What if they decided they were producing just too much damn oxygen?

  21. #21 by Larry Bergan on December 21, 2009 - 8:06 pm

    Ken said a swear word. I take back the halo!

  22. #22 by Becky Stauffer on December 21, 2009 - 8:10 pm

    Ken,

    I trust you’re kidding. You realize the massive loss of trees (rain forest) is another of the terrible environmental disasters of our generation.

  23. #23 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 22, 2009 - 2:07 pm

    Ken–

    Plants don’t just breathe CO2. While an excess of CO2 helps them to produce and store additional food, too much of it will suffocate them the same as it suffocates us. No, just like animals, plants breathe oxygen. Odd, isn’t it, that they produce what they breathe? Not so much. As long as the proper chemicals are at their disposal (water, nutrients, etc.), they can recycle their own gas excretions to produce food for themselves.

    Throw animals into the mix and you get a bit of a “monkey” wrench in the works: you now have two life forms consuming the excretions of one! It’s a good thing there are so many cyanobacteria in the ocean to produce the excess oxygen necessary for humans, animals, and themselves, and isn’t it marvelous that the rainforests are pulling for the same “root” cause?

    Oh, wait. . .human actions are reducing the amount of trees and plankton dramatically. . .CO2 concentration is going up, up, up! Before we think about what we are breathing, maybe we should consider what they’re breathing, because if they stop breathing, we stop breathing. And what are they breathing? Oh yeah–oxygen.

    All sarcasm aside, your argument, limited as it is, ignores that this is a question of equilibrium. If human actions were to, say, create a dust bowl, you would always be able to say that nature reacted, that the inability of undersoil to fulfill the role of top soil is not due to human activity. You could pull rabbit after rabbit out of your hat, but it wouldn’t change the fact that it’s just verbal prestidigitation. If Earth reacts a certain way and we provoke that reaction (or cause the reaction’s nature to become toxic when it wasn’t before, as in the case of inversion), no amount of telling it that only it can make itself mad is going to fix the problem. Earth is very self-regulating and vastly powerful, but it’s only as forgiving as the offenders are puny. To use a naturalistic metaphor, the more violently we push it, the more violently the equal and opposite reaction will be.

    I agree with you, though, about our need for independence from oil. And what’s the very best kind of independence from a non-renewable source of energy? Using it only as a last resort, for when the windmills and solar panels break down. I don’t see you supporting such measures. Of course, reducing our pollution output would require a necessary reduction in our use of pollution-producing fuels, which would require a reduction in our overall need for oil. A reduction in our overall need for oil would reduce our need for foreign oil, wouldn’t it?

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

(will not be published)