Posts filed under 'ONE PLANET'
July 8th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
With the apparent success of yesterday’s Live Earth concerts, one has to ask whether something new is being born. It is reported that the broadcasts reached 2 billion people. That is almost one-third of the population of the planet. If accurate, that is HUGE. Certainly, a third of the planet should be more than a critical mass to DO something.
I have said for a long time that what is needed to make significant change is someone in a position of power to take leadership. Al Gore is doing exactly that, and I believe he is doing it incredibly well. While there are those who would love to see him run for president, I believe he is much more effective right where he is.
I believe that the United States, and the world, needs a high visibility, highly credible, highly connected, voice to actually move us along the necessary path for planetary survival. Al Gore meets all of those requirements and he is fully committed and truly passionate about global warming. He is also totally focused on that ONE THING.
Maybe he could “save” the United States, and maybe he couldn’t, but the Presidency would hamstring is ability to be that leader that is needed.
The release of “An Inconvenient Truth” started an avalanche of change. The words “global warming” now find a presence on the evening news, and even weather reports. The words (particularly in weather forecasts) were assiduously avoided before that. The Weather Channel even has “Forecast Earth” now, which is expressly focused on global warming.
The Live Earth concerts, with its web site connections, and building of neighborhood and community action groups, will hopefully provide a reinvigorated push in the right direction. I am waiting to see what Gore’s next big push will be. I am sure it is planned, and in six months or so, it will be needed. It is too easy for folks to go back to “business as usual.” Further, we do have elections coming up in the United States. I would be amazed if there is not a dramatic effort to push candidates to take up this banner as one of the top (if not THE top) issue for the 2008 elections.
All of this media, and the changes in reporting, are having an effect. While national and global leaders seem to largely avoid the issue of global warming like old socks, the people are not likely to let that happen. Al Gore has recognized that the change necessary is not going to come from the designated leadership. It will only come from a tidal wave of public pressure. Now THAT is a big recognition for a career politician to make.
June 15th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
They stand in icy water; in crowded conditions; wet to the skin for 18 hour shifts. They work for one of the largest food processors in the world. They are paid below legal wage, and not paid overtime. Now, 167 of them sit in ICE custody after a raid on the North Portland (Oregon) plant at which they were employed. Some had ICE agents show up at their homes and take them into custody.
The workers (including legal immigrants) were employed at $7.00 an hour (below Oregon’s minimum wage of $7.80). They worked up to 18 hour shifts with no overtime in appalling conditions. Why did the workers stay?
Rodriguez, the former worker, said most employees did not report poor conditions and long shifts to authorities for fear of losing their jobs.
“Most of them didn’t have papers to work, so they had no choice; this is where they could find work,” Rodriguez said. “It made me sad, because these people came here to work. The women had little kids at home to feed.” [Work complaints hang over plant]
Now those children, like the children of the workers arrested at Michael Bianco, Inc - a military contractor being paid with our tax dollars - sit waiting for parents who will never come home.
Meanwhile, half a world away, Chinese authorities free 200 people from slavery in the brick kilns in Xinhua Province, China. The workers, including 29 children, had been held against their will (in some cases for years), without pay, and tortured with hot bricks if they did not work “hard” enough.
Human trafficking, which seems to be an ongoing issue, has again hit the news recently. The U.S. State Department has added more countries to the trafficking list. Some are “enemies,” and some are “allies,” but they include: Iran, Uzbekistan, and North Korea, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar. Human trafficking is virtually synonymous with slavery - or at the very least extreme exploitation. According to an article by Grant Podelco “U.S. Report Decries ‘Modern-Day Slavery’” at Tolerance Canada:
“According to U.S. government estimates, approximately 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders each year and about 80 percent of them are female. Up to half are minors.”
- 640,000 women
- 400,000 children
- almost a million people a year
- many of these are for the so-called “sex trade”
They too are “illegal immigrants” and their illegal status keeps them captive - as does the undocumented status of the workers as Del Monte or Michael Bianco. No papers, no protection, easily controlled and exploitable. These are not different issues, but part of the same issue.
I just go up the wall every time I hear an employer saying “We have absolutely nothing to gain by hiring illegal immigrants.” Or, I hear “THEY are driving down our economy,” “stealing our social services,” “taking jobs away from Americans,” COSTING us BILLIONS of dollars a year …”
The undocumented worker is much more controllable than a documented or even citizen worker who has the protection of law on their side. The “legal” worker can file an OSHA complaint, or a pay complaint, without fear of losing their family and their home. The legal worker has at least some “legs” to demand the law be followed. The undocumented worker does not. The employer has the only reasons they need to recruit and hire undocumented workers - the bottom line and a compliant workforce.
Let’s look at the Del Monte situation in Portland.
There were 167 workers rounded up. If we take one 18 hour “shift” for 167 workers, getting $7.00 an hour and no overtime, it looks like this:
Undocumented Worker
7.00 * 18 hrs = $126
$126 * 167 employees = $21042.00
Legal Worker
7.80 * 8hrs= $62.40
7.80 * 1.5 (overtime)= $11.70 * 10 hours= $117.00
One worker for a full 18 hour “shift” = $179.40
$179.40 * 167 employees= $29959.80
“Costs” saved in one shift - $8917.80.
Of course, those workers not paid for all of the time they worked, and yes, 18 hour shifts are “illegal.”
This calculation doesn’t even take into consideration the “savings” of not providing safety equipment, pumps needed to keep the water off the floor, etc.
One must address the issue that they are “undocumented.” That may be because they entered the country illegally, or it may be that their documents have lapsed. It may be that they are legally in the country, but their visa only permits them to work for a specific employer - like Del Monte. However, if Del Monte chose not to put those workers with visas to work at Del Monte, then those workers would have to sit and wait - with no pay. Many do not - they work “illegally” some place else.
But why are they here? Is it because it is the “land of opportunity.” For some, this is certainly true. However, one must look at the situation which the U.S. has dramatically participated in from Mexico to the tip of South America - the economic “transformation” of the nations south of the U.S. border. NAFTA alone is estimated to have displaced 40% of the small farmers in Mexico. “Displaced” to where, and to what? For many, it is to abject poverty and they head to where jobs are - regardless of how exploitative - the United States. Or they “earn” their way across the border as drug “mules.” Or children - now mostly grown - come to join family that they have waited more than a decade to join.
The hostility of the current atmosphere is being fanned by politicians, media figures like Lou Dobbs, and by racists with their own agenda. Of course the virulence only aids those companies with undocumented workers. It creates an atmosphere of fear which makes those workers and their families only more vulnerable.
No one calculates how much “consumers” are saving because of the economic processes at play on either side of the border. No one seems to calculate how much profit is made by companies exploiting a vulnerable workforce. Few look at the fact that most of these undocumented workers are paying taxes, and paying into social security and Medicaid - though they will never draw those funds. I find it difficult to imagine that these workers cost “us” more than they contribute - willingly and unwillingly.
Don’t get me wrong. I am adamantly against “illegal” immigration. However, I am against it because of the exploitation. It is the exploitation of these workers that drives down wages and working conditions in the U.S.
While I am against “illegal” immigration, I know full well that it is not an issue that is going to be resolved with 1,000 mile double fences with predator drones, and National Guard troops. Nor will it be solved with the construction of massive prison complexes in the desert. It will not be solved until we address the forces that are pushing folks into migration - poverty and fear for their lives. It will not be solved until “We the people” stand on the side of the people rather than on the side of the corporations.
Some day we will see that the lot of the people of the world is our lot. As the hegemonic forces at play in the world continue their inexorable absorption of power and control over the means to survival, we will see clearly just how linked our lives are. We will see the similarity between the mother from El Salvador working as a housekeeper in some executive’s house, and our scrabbling for enough to keep a roof over our heads and our children fed. Some day we will see that our interests are shared with her and not with a transnational corporation. Until then, most will see the incarceration and expulsion of 167 people as some victory for “Truth, Justice, and American Security.”
Links to Oregonian Articles
Work complaints hang over plant. Huntsberger and Wozniacka. Oregon Live Link
Raids included people’s homes. Bryon Denson. Oregon Live Link.
Raid sends illegal immigrants underground. Esmeralda Bermudez. Oregon Live Link
June 8th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Iraq is teetering on the edge, but this one is not into civil war. Iraq could find itself at war with Turkey. It is stunning to imagine that a nation in name only; with (reportedly) fewer than 10,000 soldiers “combat capable;” living under a foreign occupation and an increasingly bloody struggle for power; could find itself having to defend its “sovereignty” against Turkey.
The issue is the increasingly open conflict between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey. Turkey has a long history of conflict with the Kurds, and has been adamant about not allowing a Kurdish state on their border… and that Kurdish state has been a threat since the U.S. made an alliance with the Kurds prior to invasion and overthrow of Hussain.
Things have been getting increasingly hot on the Iraq-Turkey border. Tensions marked by threats and cross border raids, and recent shelling by Turkey (which are largely being officially denied). However, there is no denying the increasing tension, and Kurdish refusal of Turkey’s demands to stop the PKK - a labeled terrorist organization - from its alleged attacks inside Turkey.
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has stated that he would not stand in the way of a military request to attack across the border:
“Today a foreign news agency announced that Turkey was involved in an over-the-border operation. Later, these reports were denied. What is it that is desired with these sorts of reports? If actions based in northern Iraq and aimed at our country don’t make us uncomfortable, who will they make uncomfortable? There is no argument between our administration and the military’s General Staff on this front. If there are to be over-the-border operation steps taken, we will first enter into talks with our security forces, and then it will be carried to the Parliament. If a request comes from the armed forces, we will not stand in front of them. What the time comes, we will do what is needed.”
As I noted in my May 5, 2007 article Of Surges and Purges, open conflict - even war - between the Kurds and Turkey would place the United States in a very bad position. Two allies of the US essentially at war with each other, with the United States essentially pledged to protect Iraq, could result in the U.S. at war with Turkey.
While the sore point with Turkey are with the Kurds, the Kurds are in Iraq and part of the Iraqi government. An attack on the Kurds by another nation is an attack on Iraq. It seems unlikely (and perhaps in the long term unwise) to act as if such conflict is “regional” rather than national.
Utilizing a convoluted and callous logic, open conflict between Iraq and Turkey could serve multiple purposes. For Turkey, which is facing a political crisis in a power match between secular and religious tug of war for political power, a “war” might serve as a unifying action. Ironically, the same might be true with Iraq. While, the Kurds have been separate for some time from the rest of Iraq, they are part of Iraq. An invasion of northern Iraq could be a rallying and unifying point for Iraqis. It might also be a blessing to the U.S. occupation as Turkey could be labeled as the “invader” rather than U.S. forces. Of course, that might damage any alliance between the U.S. and Turkey.
Despite the fact of a long U.S. - Iraqi Kurd alliance, the U.S. has historically been willing to look the other way regarding attacks from Turkey. Under the long sanctions that were placed on Iraq, the United States implemented the northern “No-fly zone.”* While the Northern No-Fly Zone protected the Kurdish area from Hussain, those protections were periodically withdrawn so the Turkish Air Force could make bombing runs into northern Iraq.**
The fact that Turkey has been accepted to candidacy to membership in the European Union may prove a double-edged sword. Would the EU feel somewhat bound to back Turkey in such a conflict, or would it distance itself? There has already been some distancing of the EU from Turkey because of the political turmoil in Turkey.
Given that part of the EU has supported the U.S. invasion and occupation (most strongly Britain and Poland) would Turkish military action against Iraq pose a further challenge to a sometimes contentious European Union?
Certainly, the ongoing conflict between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey is yet one more instability in a region that is becoming increasingly unstable. It is not a desirable development to have that expand into “formal” military action. Such conflict, even at its present level, is thorn in the foot of stability in Iraq.
* Contrary to rhetoric, the no-fly zones did not have UN approval, and were not part of UN sanctions.
** This information from a personal military source who was part of that operation.
May 31st, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
There needs to be a call to action. Big Coal (like Peabody Energy Company aka Peabody Coal Company) is pushing hard to get us (via the government) to make massive investments in coal, and coal to liquid fuel legislation. The plan is to take our current estimated 250 year supply of coal and use it as a liquid fuel to replace imported oil. Imported oil makes up 60% of the oil used in the United States. This plan is so stupid on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start.
Coal is being pushed as an “alternative” fuel. Oh please spare me. Coal is neither “clean,” “green,” or renewable. There is a big push to increase coal for electric generation as well. Even though the “scrubbing” technology for emissions have improved, more plants using more coal means more emissions - including CO2 emissions. Let us not forget that “energy” is not the only crisis facing us. There is the “little” issue of global warming. The New York Times (May 29, 2007) produced the nice graphic (below) comparing the greenhouse gas emissions o0f different fuel sources. It is instructive in this discussion:
As you can see from the graphic, even with carbon sequestration, the coal to liquid fuel production increases emissions. Without sequestration is increases emissions
dramatically (119% according to the NY Times. Now the rub is that carbon sequestration is virtually an undeveloped technology. It involves capturing emissions and “putting” them somewhere other than the air. The most investigated suggestions are: on the seabed; underground; and in used up oil and gas wells. To the best of my knowledge, there is no commercially active sequestration projects on line yet. Therefore, we do not know whether this will even work - nor what the consequences are of doing it. Therefore, it is unlikely that these plants will start with their emissions being “sequestered.” That will happen as a “retro-fit” sometime in the future.
The next dumb part of this is that if our current coal supply is estimated to last 250 years at existing use levels, what happens if we quadruple the use? Well, that 250 years just became 60 years (or less). Then what?
Dumb idea take three. Can we replace 60% of our current oil consumption with liquefied coal? That seems highly unlikely to me. I do not know how much usable liquid fuel one can get out of say a ton of coal, but it would seem to take one heck of a lot of coal to produce 12 million barrels of gasoline a day (we currently use approximately 20 million * 60% foreign oil = 12 mil.). That translates into roughly 505 million gallons of gasoline (from coal) a day (roughly 42 galls in a barrel). Now that is one heck of a production line, and my estimate of quadrupling coal use just shot up dramatically. Say maybe 10-15 years of coal in the U.S. instead of 250 years?
Dumb idea take 4. This is expensive and the plan is to subsidize research, development, and production. Subsidize means that our tax dollars will underwrite the cost of this little adventure while we may look at $4.00 per gallon pump prices as a real steal. This is a freaking bonanza to the “energy” industry, but it is not a bonanza for us, or the next generation, or for the planet.
Among those who have sponsored and promoted this legislation is Presidential candidate Barak Obama. I am sure he feels he is representing Illinois coal interests with this support. However, one might wonder whether Illinois is represented - much less the rest of us.
I do not see one positive thing in this plan, but it is being pushed and pushed hard. The goal is to have it passed and to Bush by early July (2007). If you want to express yourself to your legislators, then I recommend that you do so quickly.
Here is a link to get you to your Congress people and Senators - Contacting Congress
Resources for further information
CNN Money. 5/24/07. Lawmakers mull coal-to-liquid fuel plans
Edmund Andrews. NY Times. 5/29/07.
Senate Bill 154 Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2007 (pdf)
Sponsors: Mr. BUNNING (for himself, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. PRYOR, Ms. MURKOWSKI,
Mr. BOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. ENZI, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. CRAIG
Senate Bill 155 Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (pdf)
Sponsors: Mr. BUNNING (for himself, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. PRYOR, Ms. MURKOWSKI,
Mr. BOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. ENZI, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. CRAIG
House Bill 370 Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (pdf)
Sponsors: Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. CANNON, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. HASTERT, and Mr. YARMUTH)
May 29th, 2007
By: Alan Farago. Originally published in the Orlando Sentinel
Image courtesy of Jeff’s Weather Blog
If you can see through the smoke of forest fires, consider the experiment of putting 18 million people, plus visitors, on a narrow peninsula — Florida — in the midst of an historic drought.
Soon enough, your eyes should stop itching. What should bother you more is what you can’t see: the effect of drought on shallow-water aquifers serving Floridians with drinking water.
Here is the problem for a state built on limestone: If the aquifer empties, salt water rushes in. A little home experiment can show most of what you need to know.
Fill a shallow plate with a film of water. That would be the bay, the gulf or the ocean.
Now wring a sponge dry. Call it drought.
That would be the Biscayne aquifer. The holes of the sponge are not so different from the geological formation beneath our feet, porous and filled with occlusions and voids that allow the water below ground to migrate the same way it does above ground.
If you have a good imagination, picture a straw pulling water from the sponge. That is a drinking-water well, and represents billions of dollars of pipes and pumps, serving the showers and sinks, the washers and sprinklers and farmland of one of the nation’s fastest-growing states.
The end of the experiment is simple. You put the semi-dry sponge in the plate with a little water and what happens is that the sea wicks into the aquifer.
The most serious consequence of historic drought conditions in Florida is the destruction of drinking-water wells by saltwater intrusion.
It is a really, really big problem, and if this drought goes on much longer, it will be news around the world.
If you have a freshwater swimming pool, you are probably aware that you can’t recirculate chloride in the same pool system. The pump may not be designed to handle the corrosive effects of salt.
Also, at a time when reducing energy demand is urgently needed, the cost or removing salt from municipal drinking-water wells and treatment facilities is untold, unfunded billions of dollars.
There is a further problem with saltwater intrusion, noted by environmentalists who have shouted themselves hoarse over the issue:
It is one thing to know about pollution on the surface where you can see it and take measures (one hopes) to avoid it.
It is quite another thing to wreck an underground aquifer you rely on for the only substance you can’t live without: drinking water.
Are water managers worried about that happening?
Yes.
Ever since Florida was settled, engineering skills have been applied to the draining of wetlands to make the land habitable.
Through the housing boom, elected officials pressed water managers to use more engineering and more industrial processes to wring the maximum productivity from Florida’s aquifers.
If you looked closely, you could see the effects on the ground and it made you want to cry: vast de-watered expanses of Florida, underlying water tables sucked dry by crop irrigation or municipalities.
It was only two years ago that water managers, frightened by a series of dangerous hurricanes, opened control gates to lower the water level of Lake Okeechobee and dumped billions of gallons of polluted fresh water, causing massive ecological destruction along both Florida coasts.
What does the current drought tell us, coming so quickly and so dramatically on the heels of overabundance?
One, that population pressure has removed the elasticity from demand and supply — extraordinary in a state that received more than 50 inches of average rainfall per year and wastes most of it in order for America’s most heavily subsidized crop, sugar, to be profitably grown south of Florida’s liquid heart.
Second, that restoration of the Everglades is more of a necessity than many people ever expected would arise from its benefits to nature.
There are a few critics who argue that global warming will make tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent on the Everglades a waste.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If we don’t take care of the interior part of the ecosystem — the Everglades — and make sure it is full of clean, fresh water at the right time of year, there won’t be drinking water at the edges.
Wherever those coastal edges are, in an age of global warming, that’s where most people will be.
Unless, of course, Florida turns into a pillar of salt.
Alan Farago of Coral Gables, who writes about the environment, can be reached at . He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.
May 29th, 2007
By Gerald Rellick
Cross-posted at Thomas Paine’s Corner, Radical Noesis and Uncommon Thought Journal
There is no shortage of political pundits now wading into the discussion of global warming, despite the scientific complexity of the field. One of the latest entries is Alexander Cockburn. I have read Cockburn regularly over the years, and while I recognized him as a very talented polemicist whose acerbic screeds I could tolerate when directed to the likes of Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara and Augusto Pinochet, his latest foray into the field of man-made global warming is scientifically dreadful, and hence irresponsible, and reflects journalism and public service at its worst. Were it not for the importance of global warming, we could easily dismiss his writing. But Cockburn has a sizeable reading audience through “The Nation” and his own publication, “Counterpunch.” And since educating the public on this matter is crucial if we are to do something about global warming, Cockburn needs to be taken to task for his dishonesty and slipshod journalism.
Cockburn’s writing is so confusing, so polemical, and his “science” so inaccurate that it’s difficult to know where to begin a critique. Nevertheless, let me try, although I believe that going toe-to-toe with him on points of fact is of no value. I’ll leave it to the legitimate climate scientists to deal with this if they wish. There exists a climate science forum for this (ref. 1). The scientists at this site have already taken apart George Will for his equally insipid writings on global warming (see ref. 2, “Will-full Ignorance”).
Cockburn tries to refute the consensus of the world’s leading climate scientists that man-made (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide is responsible for the planet’s current global warming trend. In his first article he does so by relying on the supposed expertise of one man who, it turns out, is no longer active in the field of climate research (ref. 3). Having received no doubt an avalanche of negative reviews, Cockburn begins his second article (ref. 4) by going on the attack:
“No response is more predictable than the reflexive squawk of the greenhouse fearmongers that anyone questioning their claims is in the pay of the energy companies.”
Cockburn throws out this sentence as a straw man. Anyone familiar with Cockburn is unlikely to charge him with being in collusion with any interest but his ego. Like any good polemicist Cockburn is drawn further into his subject by the negative reaction to it. This is quite simply what Cockburn does for a living. So we now have three articles – each worse than the previous – with the promise of at least two more to come.
In his third article (ref. 5) Cockburn gets all twisted around on the interpretation of carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere, in the oceans and in plant life. Aside from his erroneous interpretations, what is most striking is his casual dismissal of scientists and the scientific method. Although a non-scientist, and one who has just demonstrated in three consecutive articles little or no learning of the relevant science of which he writes, Cockburn forges ahead and challenges the scientists in their own fields of expertise, calling them, for example, “misguided,” and operating on a “naïve and scientifically silly assumption” about how plant-based carbon gets into the atmosphere. To suggest that highly educated and respected scientists throughout the world would overlook something as fundamental and basic as this – but the non-scientist Cockburn would catch it – is utterly preposterous. This is about as credible as Cockburn telling us how, in his other job as an operating room janitor, he uncovered the medical malfeasance of a team of neurosurgeons, claiming they were incorrectly reading CAT and MRI brain scans – all this due to a few weekends of self-study in neurosurgery.
Cockburn also attacks at the personal level. Cockburn calls his critics in the scientific community “greenhouse fearmongers.” He implies they have personal agendas, tied to their need for financial support. But the truth is that any scientist who challenges the anthropogenic global warming scenario – either legitimately or illegitimately –would find almost unlimited financial support from the oil, coal and gas industries, all of which seek to burn their fossil fuels with impunity.
What we see in these writings is an unqualified intrusion into the very complex interdisciplinary field of climate science, which involves cooperative expertise in atmospheric chemistry and physics, geophysics, meteorology and oceanography. And while the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that man-made climate change is real, these same scientists also agree there are many details still under debate, but which will, in due time, be sorted out through the scientific process.
What makes the subject of global warming so attractive to lay journalists, compared to, say, neurosurgery, is that global warming is not remote from everyday life. It affects every person on the planet and, perhaps more importantly from the decision-making level, has profound financial and political-power implications. This opens the door to charges of biased interests and even conspiracy – the very life blood of polemicists like Cockburn.
At bottom, there is no intellectual honesty in Cockburn, just bad journalism, “bad faith,” and the need to be seen and read.
There is one truly strange comment by Cockburn near the end of his third article. It suggests that he’s either writing all this as a spoof or he’s become totally detached from reality:
“I had hoped to deal with criticisms at the end of the series [but] have changed my plans, since committed greenhousers like George Monbiot charge that I have ignored their rebukes. In actual fact I was offline, in Russia, flying thither over the Arctic and thus able to make a direct review of the ice cap.”
Is he serious? Perhaps next Cockburn will fly over New Orleans and tell us what needs to be done to get that city back on its feet.
References:
Ref. 1. http://www.realclimate.org/
Ref. 2. “Will-full ignorance,” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=90
Ref. 3. “Is Global Warming a Sin?”, The Nation, May 14, 2007, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070514/cockburn
Ref. 4 “Who Are the Merchants of Fear?”, The Nation, May 28, 2007,
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070528/cockburn
Ref. 5. “The Greenhousers Strike Back, and Strike Out,” The Nation, June 11, 2007, http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070611&s=cockburn),
——————–
Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked in the aerospace industry for 22 years. He now teaches in the California Community College system. He can be reached at
May 21st, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
(Image courtesy of James Dragesic of the Australian Gvt. Antarctic Division)
It was reported that scientists have found more than 700 new species of sea life in the Antarctic. Hailed as a “treasure trove,” the species were found by the Andeep (Antarctic benthic deep-sea biodiversity) project in waters thought “too hostile” to contain life.
It always makes me sad when “new species” are discovered because it generally means that they will be gone soon. It means that technological, consuming and polluting society has crashed its way into an area that had remained remote an unexploited.
It seems that it is always because the forest has been destroyed to the “deep forest,” or a previously inaccessible area has been made accessible. The species - and sometimes people - who have lived quite fine for millennia, are suddenly exposed and then destroyed.
With the sea life deep in the Antarctic, multiple threats now present themselves: the threat of being discovered and sampled and studied and - if there is a commercial possibility - exploited; the threat of global warming. Both threats are the consequences of a societal paradigm that frames itself as separate from the world and the inhabitants of it.
We need to come to an awareness, that we are not part of a society that values life - only one that values its own life. We need the awareness that we are an “anti-biotic” society - against life. If the world, including this society, are going to survive, then that consciousness needs to change dramatically. Culturally and institutionally we need to become “pro-biotic” - pro-life - and that is all life, not just our own. Pro-biotic does not mean moving to a “sustainability” platform that trades development against destruction. We are past any hope of “sustainable development” in that context. We need to repair before we can even consider sustainability.
We see the resistance to repairing the damage in the various approaches to addressing carbon emissions and global warming. The capitalist approach is “carbon trading.” Buying carbon stock. Spreading out emissions, or sequestering emissions underground or on the ocean floor. The scientists tell us clearly that we need an immediate 80% reduction in carbon emissions. That is not carbon “neutral.” That is reduce. It doesn’t mean stopping where we are. Further, that even with an 80% reduction, that so much damage is done that no one can predict the recovery time.
Meanwhile, there are 700 newly “discovered” species under the rapidly melting Antarctic ice, and the race is on to catalogue them before they go extinct.
Links of Interest
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
intute: science, engineering & technology
U.S. Antarctic Program
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.
Next Posts
