THE BILLIONAIRE SPACE RACE: WHAT PRICE EXPLORATION?

Fifty-two summers after America put the first men

on the moon, in 2021 a “space race” again captivated the nation. This one generated not the unity the events of 1969 did, but a variety of views that conjured up longstanding questions about equity and

privilege when juxtaposed against the lure of adventure in space. Our reactions reflected that, ranging from the innately practical, through middle range theories, to the spiritual.

This race involved privately funded space forays that to some seemed like joyrides for the rich.  On

July 11, English entrepreneur Richard Branson flew on his company’s Virgin Galactic spaceplane above the 50-mile altitude the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recognizes as the beginning of space. 

Nine days later, the anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, Amazon chairman Jeff Bezos and three

others used his company’s Blue Origin rocket  and spacecraft for a ten-minute suborbital flight to an altitude of 66 miles. Bezos and his crew essentially mimicked NASA’s 1961 suborbital missions by Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom, America’s first men in space.

      

Woodson: First, Pay Your Fair Share of Taxes

Jeff Bezos’s space explorations don’t excite me. I 

view this as I view dead beat dads who drive expensive vehicles but don’t make child support payments.

According to ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization that investigates abuses of power, Bezos’s wealth exploded by $3.8 billion in 2007.  In that year and in 2011, he paid no federal income taxes. Between 2006 and 2018, his wealth increased by $127 billion and he paid a .98 per cent tax rate. During the same period, the median household in the United States earned $70,000 per year and paid a 14 per cent tax rate.

Following his flight, Bezos made unintelligible comments about Americans one day traveling into space when the earth becomes unlivable. A seat on that first flight went to the highest bidder at $28 million. That seems out of reach for most Americans.

Bezos said later, “I want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all this.” Mr. Bezos, Americans paid for “all this.” We held the country together with our tax dollars while you withheld yours for your private project.

Robert Reich, President Clinton’s first labor secretary, responded, “Amazon workers don’t need Bezos to thank them. They need him to stop union busting – and pay them what they deserve.”

Bezos should pay his fair share of taxes and let the American people decide when they want to spend money on space exploration. We need him to help the rest of us strengthen our social safety net, save the planet from greenhouse gases, and rebuild our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools.       

Rob:  A Mixed Bag

Few Americans cared more about space exploration than I did during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days. I rose at the crack of dawn for launches, missed school a few times, and could name every

astronaut in NASA’s first four groups. I was into it. I still am. I believe space exploration benefits humankind in general and the United States in particular through technological advancement, national security, and scientific progress.

Space exploration, manned and unmanned, can help us address problems like climate change, energy inefficiency, and manufacturing processes. I do not, therefore, condemn the efforts of billionaires as they vie for a role in space exploration.  As one commentator pointed out after the Bezos flight, many things we take for granted began with a wealthy person experimenting with something that seemed far-fetched and just another pleasure for the idle rich. SCHEDULED commercial air service? Nah, that’ll never work.  

Having said that, I’m not unsympathetic to the arguments of the critics, including my brother Walker. Both those who contend billionaires should spend their resources on other things (like higher

wages for their employees) and those who argue space exploration is a job for government have a point. I thought about that as I watched Bezos take off. But, it was still fun. I’m a sucker for rocket launches. Always have been. Always will be.      

Henry:  Discovery

I don’t find billionaires investing in space exploration difficult. It’s not my focus in this post. I agree with Woodson’s sentiment and  hope those moneyed interests will use their funds to invest in space exploration and in practical and immediate efforts that benefit humankind. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The issue reminds me of the love I have had, and still have, for flight and space exploration.

As a kid I collected model airplanes and subscribed to every publication I could on flight and space. My

junior high career book detailed a career in the Air Force as a test pilot and space explorer. I sought appointment to the Air Force Academy to further that dream, but my senators weren’t ready.

Today, my cell phone contains Skyview, NASA, Skywalk, and Satellite Tracker apps. I may have

cared more about space exploration than Rob during the early days. I agree with him on the benefits of space exploration. An aspect of the human spirit demands this stretch of the imagination and investigation of the difficult and

seemingly impossible. My longing tugs at philosophical and spiritual components. That we still reach for the stars strengthens my faith in our ability to carve a path toward our destiny. We are a part of all that space contains.

              If in a twinkle lies eternity

               and all we discover is known

               all encompassing must be the Power

               to hold us and time for so long

 

                If I am stretched from boundary to boundary

                and yet can be reduced to less than a single atom

                where lies that in between for all 

                and rushes forth for each of us to complete

 

                If we are but a single thought

                strung throughout Eternity

                of what wonderful thread

                to form us are we sewn 

TREES, TRUMP, AND CLIMATE CHANGE

We told ourselves as we planned this blog post we should write about something other than President Trump. We kicked around several ideas, eventually settling on climate change, a pressing issue to which we haven’t paid enough attention. This piece concerns climate change but, even writing about that, we still find ourselves writing about Trump.  In

discussing climate change, we can't ignore his short-sighted policies, including pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accords. Because of the climate-related disasters that have unfolded in recent days, the urgency of electing a president who will attack the problem, not ignore or make it worse, just increased.

First, there’s the incredible destruction wrought by Hurricane Dorian, which dealt the Bahamas a devastating blow and struck some

Devastation of Hurricane Dorian August 2019

coastal areas in the United States. The Bahamas will recover only after years and massive aid from the world community. We know the American people will help,    through generous private contributions and individual actions. What the U.S. government will do under Trump remains uncertain. He balked at doing more than the minimum for Puerto Rico after two hurricanes slammed that island back-to-back, and the people most affected there are U.S. citizens. Scientists say the damage from ever-more-powerful hurricanes like Dorian will only get worse in years to come.

Second, fires continue raging in the Amazon jungle in Brazil. That country’s new Trumpian - president, Jair Bolsonaro,  emphasizes    de-

velopment and seems indifferent about the fires. World leaders chastised Brazil about the destruction, but Bolsonaro rejected aid    from

the G-7 nations for helping fight the fires unless French President Emmanuel Macron apologized for what Bolsonaro considered as

insults to Brazil. Bolsonaro objected to Macron’s insistence the fires are all the world’s concern, not just Brazil’s and suggested Macron infringed Brazil’s sovereignty. Some scientists say losing the trees in the Amazon rain forest, and the underbrush that goes along with them, could have catastrophic consequences for large parts of the planet.

              

The Tree Solution

Among all this bad environmental news comes a potentially hopeful idea. If you want to do  something about climate change, plant

a tree! A study conducted by a group of scientists based in Switzerland and released in July suggested planting one trillion trees could cut atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by 25%. Release of the study unleashed optimism the world might have found a climate change solution almost everyone can get behind, reducing the conflict between supporters of fossil fuels and those who want wider use of clean energy like wind and solar.

Critics of the Swiss study dashed that hope quickly, saying (1) reforestation alone won’t solve the climate crisis and (2) since adult, full grown trees diminish carbon emissions the most, such a planting program wouldn’t have the desired effect soon enough. These critics reminded us we’re running out of time. They added that private property rights and other land use issues could reduce the effectiveness of reforestation programs.

How Trees Help

Even those who recognized the one trillion tree solution isn’t a magic bullet for the climate change problem acknowledge trees make a difference:

          

*Trees absorb large amounts of carbon, about 48 pounds a year for mature trees. Such trees release enough oxygen for four people.

*Trees protect coastal areas from flooding and storms by slowing storm surge and absorbing excess water.

*Trees anchor other plants and provide wildlife habitat.

*Trees – surprise, surprise – provide shade, keeping the earth cooler.

Some countries have moved forward with anti-climate change programs based on tree planting. Ireland, for example, recently announced it will plant 440 million trees

between now and 2040, about 22 million a year. That nation will also impose a carbon tax, increase its investment in renewable energy, and enact land use and agriculture rules that should reduce carbon emissions. Elsewhere, Ethiopia planted 350 million trees in one day as part of a reforestation program and India planted 50 million trees in one day in 2016.

Ethiopia Tree Count Map

                                                                                             Photo courtesy of Mother Nature Network

Needed: Comprehensive Approaches

Planting massive numbers of trees apparently won’t, by itself, solve the climate crisis.  That’s

probably a good thing, since knowing that discourages the idea a simple solution exists for this complex problem. Indeed, some Republicans who once denied we have a man-made climate change problem, now grudgingly acknowledge the situation, but assert a technological solution will appear in time. That, if true, would avoid hard choices   about

energy and spare the fossil fuel industry and its GOP-friendly executives (and donors) the reckoning that may come if climate change weans the United States off oil, gas, and coal. The fact no magic bullet solution apparently exists just means we should attack the problem comprehensively with a combination of government regulation and incentives, along with market-based solutions that reflect consumer demand and entrepreneurial innovation.

We don’t view low-tech solutions like tree planting campaigns as mutually exclusive with the development of solar energy, wind power, and electric cars that reduce carbon emissions. A lot of things - reliance on internal combustion engines for transportation, coal-fired electric generation, and deforestation driven by overbuilding and urban sprawl - created this problem. Fixing it will require more than one solution.

Individuals, acting alone, can’t solve this crisis. Every American over 18 can, however, do two things. First, plant a tree. Second, vote in 2020 for a president who will get the United States moving on climate change.