Archive for May 7th, 2007
May 7th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
The usual use of the concept of “negative space” is the utilization of the space around an object, the background, or even “white space.” It is the space in which the object or image takes form. Edgar Rubin’s vase is the classic example. Often people think of such uses of negative space as an “optical illusion.” However, the contrasting images are not really illusions - just different ways of seeing.
Negative space can also be a heuristic conceptual tool. In a word, it can be seen as “context.” It can be understood as a way of seeing, or perhaps of thinking. In this context, “negative space” is the broader terrain of the social background (space) which contains the meanings and understandings which shape and direct the social world. Negative Space becomes a place to explore and examine the disparate events and realities of the world around us.
Edgar Rubin’s vase from Wikipedia
May 7th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
I share with many of you a growing sense of anger and frustration at the constantly worsening situation in Iraq. Now, the “surge” is in place, and “gated communities” are being delineated over the objections of both Shia and Sunni residents. The Democrats have put on a good show of trying to rein in Bush, and have been rejected. However, are they really trying to rein him in, or just playing their part in an intricately choreographed deception?
The bill that Bush vetoed contained certain “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government. Among them was the approval of the “PSAs” (Production Sharing Agreements) initiated by the US Coalition Provisional Authority [see Troop Surges and Bloody Oil]. The oil agreement was moving through the approval process, but has now met representatives within the Iraqi parliament.
There has been a lot of pressure to get these agreements into law, and they turn over the majority of profits from Iraq’s oil to transnational oil companies. In other words, the development and exploitation of Iraq’s principle resource will lie in the hands of others. It was expected that these agreements would be in place sometime in May of this year. Once those agreements are law, then there is little incentive to maintain a U.S. occupation of Iraq. The oil companies have benefited handsomely from the dramatic disruption of Iraq’s oil production. They are likely willing to wait a long time for things to “stabilize” in Iraq, before actually calling in their PSA chits.
The fact that the PSAs were included in the supplemental funding bill is a clear signal that there is more than a Republican vested interest in who controls (and profits from) Iraq’s oil. Further, the foot dragging to get another bill through only buys time as the occupation continues, and the PSAs have time to become law. Further, as Jeremy Scahill points out, no one in Washington is addressing the issue of the private army we are funding. Even if U.S. forces are withdrawn, the (estimated) 48,000 mercenaries we have brought into Iraq are unlikely to be defunded - or removed. In fact, the size of that force may actually grow.
Meanwhile some more ominous changes are in motion. One area of concern is what is happening with the Kurds? It seems that outside the boundaries of the government of Iraq, the U.S. is engaged in separate negotiations with the Kurds. I guess we might have anticipated this since the Kurdish area is oil rich. However, it does seem to run counter to supposed efforts to create a unified Iraq. Further, it could run the U.S. right into the middle of another conflict. This one between Turkey and the Kurds in Iraq.
As you may recall, Turkey has a long history of conflict with the Kurds. This reared its head when the U.S. was trying to position U.S. forces in Turkey prior to the invasion of Iraq. Turkey withdrew its permission - partially because of public pressure in Turkey. However, underlying that was concerns about the creation of a Kurdish state. Those concerns have not been allayed over time. Certainly, the discussion of creating three “states” in Iraq are alarming to Turkey. In fact they have promised to invade if a Kurdish state is created along Turkey’s boarder.
So, what we have here is a growing independence of the Kurdish region from the “unified Iraq,” enhanced by separate relations between the Kurdish government and the United States, while Turkey moves from simmer towards boil. If Turkey invades the Kurdish region, what would be the response of the United States. This would be a sticky wicket indeed.
The other alarming shift is the possibility that the U.S. is going to end up actively engaged in genocide in Iraq. Purportedly, U.S. forces (particularly in Baghdad) are under the authority of Iraq. While that may be a legal fiction, what happens with the Iraqi forces are significant. Therefore, there should be some alarm that al Maliki seems to be purging the Army and police force of leaders who have aggressively gone after Shi’ite militias. Even prior to this purge, there have been concerns that Sunnis were the primary target of both Iraqi police and military, as well as the primary target of U.S. forces.
This places U.S. troops (and by extension the United States) possibly actively engaged in a genocidal offensive against Iraqi Sunnis.
All of this takes us back to the resistance of the Kurd and Sunni representatives in the Iraqi government to the PSAs. While I agree with the resistant “bloc” in regard to the PSAs, one has to wonder at the pressures that may be being brought to bear on both groups.
Is the price of the US friendship with Kurds support for the PSAs in exchange for protection against a possible Turkish invasion? Is the the tacit U.S. participation in a Sunni genocide a “lever” to get Sunni support of the PSAs? Or is the U.S playing of both sides of the fence in case the Shia end up in control of oil in the Sunni region of Iraq?
Meanwhile, the “bi-partisan” interest is still in the corporate control of Iraq’s oil regardless of blood, cost, or genocide. I am more than disgusted by the prospect and trends. I am sickened and enraged.
May 7th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
More and more people are aware of “peak oil,” or at least the concept that oil is an increasingly limited resource. Numerous discussions are flying about addressing the issue of oil, and responses to its increasing costs. The issue overlaps with global warming, and decreasing carbon dioxide emissions. Fuel replacements from nuclear, to biofuels, to hydrogen, to “clean” coal, to natural gas, are all put forward a viable replacements. Underlying this approach is the belief that we can just “swap” energy sources and continue as if nothing has happened. People are led to believe that we are just hitting a technological bump in the road. It is much more than that.
It should be on the front pages of every paper, and the top of each newscast, but it is not. The IEA (International Energy Agency) has sent out the warning of a “global gas shortage.” The basis of the IEA warning was that there is not adequate investment in natural gas to meet the swelling global demand. While they recommend that nations lay in “emergency supplies,” they also state this will not solve the emerging crisis. However, for those nations having natural gas this may been seen as an economic boom. (Boom and bust is the more likely scenario.)
The truth not mentioned is that shifting from oil to natural gas as a “replacement” fuel is also not a “silver bullet.” In fact, shifting from oil to natural gas will only accelerate the depletion of natural gas. Those who have explored the peak oil issue are well aware of the fact it is intimately linked to peak gas.
The same depletion scenario stands true for replacements such as and coal. Each of these also have their own toxic side. However, both radioactive materials (uranium, plutonium, etc.) and coal, are exhaustible resources. If we dramatically increase the demand for these resources to meet our energy needs, we also dramatically increase the rate of their depletion.
Meanwhile everyone seems to be jumping on the biofuels bandwagon. Amazingly, it has not taken long for the problems with this to be recognized:
Biofuels: The great green con
Ethanol Fuel Greener, But Not For Lungs
Palm Oil: The Biofuel of the Future Driving an Ecological Disaster Now
There are certain realities that must be faced here, and few are wanting to do so.
It is a bad idea to put food supply in conflict with energy supply.
- The demand for “biofuels” is driving destruction of forests and plains, and any place that can be cleared for biofuels crop production.
- This, in turn, will result in destruction of habitat and species extinction. It will also further disrupt water and natural drainage systems.
- Fuel crops will replace food crops resulting in dramatically increasing food costs, and mass hunger as food is simply not available.
It has been argued with some legitimacy that advancements in human development have been based on exploiting “cheap” energy sources. However, we seem to be on the brink of running out of cheap energy sources. Does this mean the collapse of humans and human societies? Perhaps.
The “West” took domination of much of the planet. This was not simply a physical conquest with exploitation of resources and people. It was the conquest of a paradigm, an ideology. Daniel Quinn frames it in his classic , as a civilizational split between “Takers” and “Leavers.” The Cliff Notes summary of the argument would be that Leaver societies live within the natural laws, and Taker societies live as if the laws of nature do not apply to them. Of particular significance in Ishmael is what Quinn refers to as the “peacekeeping law:”
- “You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them to access food.” (129)
- “No one species will make the life of the world its own.”
- “The world was not made for only one species.”
- “Humanity was not needed to bring order to the world.” (145-146)
The “Western” paradigm breaks each aspect of this “law.” However, the Western paradigm has become the framework of “development” and the standard for much of the world. As nations enter “development” phases, they follow this regime. China and India, both in the throws of explosive development, have embraced the western “development” path with a vengeance. China, which is an economic giant at the moment, has chosen to set itself in head to head competition with the United States for increasingly scarce resources - including energy resources. In the process, it is destroying the environment of China and spreading the effluents across the globe.
What all of this points to is that the “energy” crisis is but a facade for a much different crisis which we are refusing to address. That is a crisis of paradigm and “path.”
The crisis we must confront is that we cannot continue on the path we are on - with or without “cheap” energy. We cannot continue to view the Earth and all life on it, as here for our exploitation. We cannot base an economy on the consumption of goods, and we cannot view ourselves as separate and disconnected from the world we live on.
We have to change our ways of life, and we have to change our conceptualizations of our relationship to life. We have to use a different yardstick of “development” and “success.” I have a feeling that this is a much bigger crisis than the energy crisis. However, we may destroy the planet and ourselves before we become aware of this much more difficult issue.
We must acknowledge at some point that we are terraforming the only habitable planet that we know of. It is our home and we are destroying it.
May 7th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
According to a new study released by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the climate change models have significantly underestimated the amount of arctic melting that occurred from 1953 - 2006. The estimates had been based on a melt of 2.5% per decade. The new measurements by NSICD show a 7.8% melt. The impact is that current projections are off by about 30 years.
The figure is from the NSICD press release. It is clear from the figure that the actual amount of melt has been greater than the estimates. Further, starting somewhere in the mid to late 1990s the acceleration moved totally outside the range of the standard deviation (significance level of estimates) of existing models. If you follow the trend of the melt delineated by the red line, will “land” approximately 2050 with zero arctic ice versus the lowest range of the deviation which leaves approximately 2 million square miles of ice in 2050.
We have been told that the world has approximately 10 years to stop and change direction on our contributions to global warming. Using the new data, one would assume that the 10 years has just shifted to six years or less.
There are also significant changes happening with the polar currents. Researchers published an article in the Geophysical Research Letters. According to this study, the salinity and bottom pressure is changing at the Arctic. This “suggest(s) a shift from a clockwise to a counterclockwise pattern prevalent prior to the 1990s.”
This is very troublesome news indeed. The ocean circulation is a key ingredient in global climate and weather. The shift being noted in the above research, is not just a slowing of the current , but a reversal of the current. Such a change is likely already having significant effects, but it could throw all the models into the garbage. While ocean currents and climate are complext, certainly the massive melt of the Arctic polar ice is decreasing the salinity, which decreases the specific gravity, which impacts current flow and direction.
We could be past a point of no return, or we could be seeing the beginning of a “tipping point.” In other words, we might well overshoot global warming and move right into an ice age.
Meanwhile, the news being trumpeted out of the IPCC climate report is positive. Namely that there is time to change course, and that the change can be implemented without extreme economic impacts. I must say that I am baffled at such “optimism.” In light of the ongoing updates that indicate massive changes happening much faster than modeled or predicted, the message seems to be politically massaged. There has been an ongoing debate about whether presenting the realities of the challenge might be make the public seem hopeless.
The presentation by the co-chairs of the IPCC Working Group III gives and array of steps that can be taken to improve the situation. They suggest primarily energy efficiency measure for transportation and home/business, and less polluting energy production. They recommend policy changes, as well, as creating economic incentives (taxes and trading) to move industries and nations towards a smaller carbon footprint.
Earlier articles at UTJ discussing climate collapse and tipping points:
8/27/03 Tipping points - environment and global issues
2/04/04. Environmental collapse - sooner not later
5/27/04 Global Warming on Cats Paws
8/12/05 Global Warming - Have We Hit the “Tipping Point?
3/06/06 Global Warming - A Frightening Thought
