Celebrating Sun Day 2025

Earth Day is widely known as an annual event first held on April 22, 1970, and observed on that day every year since. But this year, Sun Day will be observed/celebrated in the U.S. for just the second time. It will be part of a global day of action focusing on solar energy and other forms of clean energy. 

The first Sun Day was celebrated on May 3, 1978, when Jimmy Carter was President. It was proposed by Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.) and Rep. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), then President. Carter threw his support behind it.

Before that first Sun Day, Carter created the Department of Energy and pushed tax breaks for clean energy in 1977. Two years later, he famously put solar panels on the White House roof, calling them a symbol of America’s future.

Sadly, Carter lost the 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan, and during his two terms, Reagan gutted the renewable energy programs, killed the tax incentives, and in 1986 had Carter’s solar panels removed from the White House.

The promoters of Sun Day 2025 hope to revitalize what Carter started nearly fifty years ago.

Sun Day 2025 will be celebrated on September 21, the day before the autumnal equinox. Bill McKibben has been the primary proponent of Sun Day 2025, and his new book, Here Comes the Sun: A Last Chance for the Climate and a Fresh Chance for Civilization, was released less than a month ago.

McKibben (b. 1960) is widely known as one of the leaders in the founding of 350.org in 2008. It quickly became the first planet-wide, grassroots climate change movement.**

Nearly ten years earlier, McKibben wrote The End of Nature, one of the earliest warnings about climate change. That book of “dark realism” helped establish McKibben as a leading voice in environmental activism long before he founded 350.org.

Now, though, McKibben says on the first page of his new book, “for the first time I can see a path forward. A path lit by the sun.” He concludes his Introduction with these words: “Our species, at what feels like a very dark moment, can take a giant leap into the light. Of the sun.”

So, Sun Day 2025 especially stresses the importance of solar energy, although wind energy is also acknowledged.

Solar energy is widely considered the best form of clean energy when factoring in both cost and limitless availability.

Regarding cost, solar photovoltaic (the term that describes the process of converting light directly into electrical voltage) is now less than half that of producing electricity by fossil fuels. For homeowners, solar panels drop electricity bills to near, or even below, zero during the hot summer months.**  

Not only is there an outstanding cost advantage, there is also an unlimited supply of solar energy. The sun delivers more energy to Earth in one hour than humanity uses in a year, and scientists indicate that that will continue to be true for the next five billion years.

Moreover, solar energy produces no negative impact on the environment. There are no emissions of harmful substances, and neither is there any noise pollution. In addition, there is minimal land disruption compared to wind farms (windmills/turbines used for wind power).

Finally, solar systems are quick to install, scalable (=easily able to be changed in size or scale) from rooftops to utility-scale farms, and increasingly paired with battery storage to provide power even when the sun isn’t shining. What could be better than energy that is cheap, clean, abundant, and scalable?

Have you taken the “giant leap into the light” that McKibben wrote about? If not, isn’t now the time to do so? Indeed, we all need to latch on to this “last chance for the climate” and this “fresh chance for civilization.”

_____

** The name 350.org comes from McKibben’s view that the world will not be safe from global warming unless the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere falls to 350 parts per million or below.

** My wife and I had solar panels installed on our house in 2019. This year, our electricity bills for the summer months of June, July, and August combined showed that we were given more than $26.50 of “overgeneration credit.” Thus, rather than paying high electricity bills for air conditioning in addition to normal year-round charges, we were paid for producing more electricity than we used. (Here is a link to “Let’s Go Solar!”, the blog article I posted in February 2019.)

 

The Plight of the Bumblebee

“Flight of the Bumblebee” is an orchestral interlude written by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov for an opera composed in 1899–1900. It is a delightful piece that I have enjoyed listening to from time to time for more than sixty years.

This article, though, is about the plight of bumblebees, honey bees, monarch butterflies and other important pollinators that are now dying out at present.

You probably have been hearing about this serious problem, deserving our attention, although it doesn’t make the nightly news very often. But here are some things I have recently found and read/watched:

On April 19, 2013, Bill Moyers presented and introduced a short documentary “Dance of the Honey Bee,” narrated by environmental activist Bill McKibben. Here is the link to this significant video.

Some of you may remember that McKibben, whom I mentioned in my May 15 blog article, is a major opponent of the Keystone Pipeline. He is also a strong proponent of bees: his 2013 book is titled Oil and Honey.

Last month HuffPost posted an article with some interesting interactive photos that you might want to take a look at. The title is “This Is What Your Grocery Store Looks Like Without Bees.”

Just a month ago, on June 20, the White House issued a Presidential memorandum titled “Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators.” That document begins with these words:

Pollinators contribute substantially to the economy of the United States and are vital to keeping fruits, nuts, and vegetables in our diets. Honey bee pollination alone adds more than $15 billion in value to agricultural crops each year in the United States.

(To see the whole document, click here.)

A few days later, journalist Gregory Barber of NPR posted an article titled “White House Task Force To Save Bees Stirs Hornet’s Nest.” As this article points out,

At the center of the controversy is the bee initiative’s language asking the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate the role of neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides that researchers have implicated in the disintegration of bee colonies.

And as you might guess, it is the companies that make and sell neonicotinoids who are most upset. Others, though, fear that discontinued use of insecticides would also reduce the production of corn and other crops used for human and animal food.

It is reported that in the U.S., neonicotinoids shield over 90% of the corn crop from pests.

The new government action is causing a big headache especially for the Bayer company, the pharmaceutical company founded in Germany in 1863 and the first to use the name Aspirin (even having that name trademarked until the end of WWI). It is the major producer of neonicotinoids.

Just as the tobacco companies used to do, Bayer is claiming that their pesticide product is safe for use. On their current website, they proclaim, “Bayer has proudly dedicated 25 years to ensuring the protection of bees through its Bee Care Program.”

Monsanto is another major producer of pesticides that are suspected of killing bees. And like Bayer, Monsanto is trying to debunk that charge. Last year they held the Honey Bee Health Summit (info. here).

In his Memorandum, though, the President said,

The problem is serious and requires immediate attention to ensure the sustainability of our food production systems, avoid additional economic impact on the agricultural sector, and protect the health of the environment.

I wish the Task Force well in their efforts to alleviate the plight of bumblebees and other pollinators. After all, our food supply depends on it!

What about the Keystone Pipeline?

The Keystone Pipeline, in the news for years, is currently a much debated topic in Congress and across the nation. There are strong opinions on both sides of the issue. And like in so many matters, the debate is largely between “conservatives” and “liberals.”

Keystone Pipeline is the name of the oil pipeline system in Canada and the United States. It runs from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Nebraska, Illinois and the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Three phases of the project are in operation, and the fourth is awaiting U.S. government approval. The latter, and the phase that has been so much in the news recently, is the Keystone XL Pipeline. (“XL” stands for “eXport Limited.”)

The first two phases were completed in 2010 and 2011 and the third phase in January of this year. Phase 1 included pipes laid from Nebraska across Missouri to Illinois. Many times I saw that construction in the country north of Clay County where I live, but I had no idea it was part of the Keystone Pipeline.

Phase 4 was proposed in 2008. It was approved in Canada (and South Dakota) in 2010, but later that year the Environmental Protection Agency raised serious questions, and in 2011 the Department of State postponed making a decision to approve the new construction.

The main arguments favoring construction of the fourth phase are: (1) The XL Pipeline would create jobs and stimulate the U.S. economy. (2) It would enhance energy security and support energy independence.

Although it is not usually explicitly said, one of the main reasons why many wealthy people (and people beholden to them) support the new pipeline is that it would make them wealthier.

In a related argument, a recent article in Forbes magazine declares, “Keystone XL should be built because we want the private sector to be free to do as it chooses sans government meddling” (5/4/14).

As usual, the conservatives (most Republicans) are on the side of the wealthy and opposed to government regulations and any curbs on “free enterprise.”

Similarly, there are two main reasons for opposing the plans for the fourth phase of the Keystone XL Pipeline. There are mainly environmental concerns, although not directly related:

(1) There is the threat of spills leading to massive contamination of water used for drinking, irrigation, and livestock watering. (2) It would lead to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting in acceleration of global warming.

Also as usual, the liberals (most Democrats) are on the side of protecting the environment and combating global warming—even though the Forbes article referred to environmentalists as still being “caught up in a global warming delusion.”

In the short haul, building the XL Pipeline would likely be beneficial to the country. But in thinking of the future, it is most likely to be unwise. Unfortunately, most politicians feel the necessity for short-term, current-benefit thinking.

The President is caught between the long-range benefits of disapproving and the short-term benefits of approving. My guess is he wants to prohibit the XL Pipeline, which would be good for the country in the long haul, but he realizes it would be detrimental to his party this year.

That, most likely, is why he keeps kicking the can down the road, as they say.

But I sincerely hope the President will keep listening to the voices of such people as Bill McKibben and the 350.org organization. They are representative of those who are seeking the long term well-being of the planet.