Home

Advertisement

mojave_wolf [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mojave_wolf

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

State of the world . . . from energy to eating to how climate change is a good thing for some . . [Apr. 9th, 2008|02:26 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ]

The following article, "The Next President's First Task (A Manifesto)", is well worth reading.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/rfk_manifesto200805

Key quotes:

We know that nations that “decarbonize” their economies reap immediate rewards. Sweden announced in 2006 the phaseout of all fossil fuels (and nuclear energy) by 2020. In 1991 the Swedes enacted a carbon tax—now up to $150 a ton—and as a result thousands of entrepreneurs rushed to develop new ways of generating energy from wind, the sun, and the tides, and from woodchips, agricultural waste, and garbage. Growth rates climbed to upwards of three times those of the U.S.

Iceland was 80 percent dependent on imported coal and oil in the 1970s and was among the poorest economies in Europe. Today, Iceland is 100 percent energy-independent, with 90 percent of the nation’s homes heated by geothermal and its remaining electrical needs met by hydro. The International Monetary Fund now ranks Iceland the fourth most affluent nation on earth. The country, which previously had to beg for corporate investment, now has companies lined up to relocate there to take advantage of its low-cost clean energy.


and

As for solar, according to a study in Scientific American, photovoltaic and solar-thermal installations across just 19 percent of the most barren desert land in the Southwest could supply nearly all of our nation’s electricity needs without any rooftop installation, even assuming every American owned a plug-in hybrid.

These sorts of facts are why I'm convinced most resistance to alternative energy is based on things other than the usually stated economic reasons; there are no good economic reasons for the country as a whole not to have already invested more than we have in alternate energy sources; and no good reasons not to start now. It's also why I think the people advocating nuclear are mostly either unwitting dupes or people who are purely motivated by large company profits -- nuclear, like fossil fuels, allows for great consolidation and control in the hands of a few mega-corporations. Solar doesn't *need* to be decentralized, but I already know people who have 100% solar and/or wind powered residences, even w/existing technologies; while I doubt that will ever be the norm, the technology ultimately allows individual people and companies/buildings a lot more autonomy, thus providing sort of a long term threat to corporate energy control.

Other alternative energy sources? Not so sure what the resistance from the current energy giants is to some of them, but I think it may be similar to the factors behind seemingly irrational prejudice in the US auto industry against everything from installing seatbelts to developing/providing more fuel efficient cars . . . (I say seemingly irrational, but it's both actually irrational and sort of logical depending on how you look it; everything from diverse divestment portfolios to the issues raised in a paper a friend of mine wrote back in law school about how transactions costs can, for some people at least, include such things as having to overcome personal prejudices) Or I could just be over-cynical . . .

I thought this was especially timely in light of this post from Turkana, mentioning that global warming had been "grossly underestimated" and that even the EU --who are vastly ahead of the US in this area -- needed to greatly modify their targets.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012295.php
& this ditty about how global warming is good for something, after all . . .
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012302.php

And for those who, like me, have felt the increased food prices at the grocery store, and/or have followed the news about hording and penalties for hording rice in various countries around the world, Krugman's explanation is the best combination of comprehensive and easy-to-follow that I've yet seen . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(hat-tip to The Sideshow for this one)
(some of these have been around and I've been meaning to post about them for a few days; apologies if you've all already read them)(the Vanity Fair green issue the rfk essay comes from has several good things in it)
linkpost comment

Politics. [Jan. 18th, 2008|09:09 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , ]

Some Democrats in Congress want to isolate Dodd for not being a good little fascist lapdog like so many of them:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/15/dodd-facing-fight-within-his-caucus-on-fisa/


(hat-tip to http://sideshow.me.uk/ for the link -- this site consistently has great political links, and I recommend it most highly. Thanks to [info]donfitch for tipping me off to this site about a year ago)

***************

Very weird that my sample ballot listed "Polling Place: None / By mail". I don't remember having previously voted by mail. Has there been a major election I just couldn't miss but have now forgotten since November 2006, when I have a sure memory of voting at a local precinct? The last election here was for school boards, and I didn't vote because I knew nothing about any of the candidates, and none of them had a public statement or platform that was much more specific than "I want to give our children the best education possible in a fiscally responsible manner", so I sat that one out.

*******************

Still unsure on the Hillary/Edwards thing. So much of all this is just making a semi-educated guess what they're going to do when they're in office . . . Leaning her way a bit because I feel she'll be the best on environmental issues (compare her record to Edwards on nuclear power in particular; and this is where Obama loses any chance of me voting for him except against a Republican), and because I expect her to be at least as good as Bill was on reproductive freedom, and he was great there, even vetoing the anti D&E bill that had broad public support, for all that he supposedly was overly poll driven (he was, but on this, and stopping the rape camps in Bosnia, and on intervening to help end dictatorship in Haiti, a mess we were certainly partially responsible for, he did the right thing in the face of very strong poll numbers against him)(note that these were interventions in the affairs of other nations that actually made things there *better*, and without bankrupting the US, and that were not done for financial gain of the administration and their buddies), and because despite her stupidity on Iraq her overall Congressional record has been the best of anyone still in the race other than Kucinich, I think, and because the rest of her stated agenda basically is as good as or nearly as good as Edwards' and I have more faith in her to successfully enact it, even though her rhetoric isn't nearly as in line with my way of thinking as Edwards (and even though I do have to give him credit for greatly improving the overall tone of the debate, which I do, and even though I've known, gone to school with, and worked with quite a few trial lawyers and quite a few corporate lawyers, and I tend to very much like genuinely crusading trial lawyers, which I believe Edwards is). And honestly, if the whole thing comes down to a wash, which might be how I feel on election day, there are four things working against Edwards:

(1) "I like her better" isn't a reason for anyone *else* to vote for her, or under most circumstances even for me to -- I endorsed Dodd previously w/out any sense of him as a person at all -- but in a toss-up, this suddenly matters, plus, more imporatantly,

(2) I think she's the toughest, mentally strongest candidate out there, and that *does* matter; and

(3) the same reason I initially dismissed *all* the white guys candidacy -- unless they are noticably better, of course I'd rather vote for the candidate representing a historically (and still today, if a bit less so) oppressed group, if for no other reason than so she can prove the bigots (see Chris Mathews, among others) wrong once she gets in office, and

(4) both Hillary's most vocal critics and the kind of attacks they throw at her tend to really, really, *really* annoy me, and I shall take pleasure in their dismay.

Again, none of these are decisive unless it is otherwise a toss-up, but I think it might be. Both of them realize that dogged, determined partisanship is what won the environmental and civil rights battles of the 60's and 70's, (in case anyone missed it, this isn't just a dig at Obama's repeated call for bipartisianship, which is only going to be possible if one side caves and that's usually the dems on such things as the Patriot Act and Iraq and the drug war and tax cuts for the rich combined with service cuts for the poor and the Reagan/Bush decimation of environmental regulation, so please NO to bipartisanship; but also at Obama's expressed admiration for not just Reagan's rhetoric, but his expressed admiration for Reagan's reaction to the big government "excesses" of the 60's and 70's), both of them were both stupid and political cowards on the Iraq war vote (Obama would get credit for voting otherwise here if he'd done *anything* since coming to national prominence to convince me he would have been less of a political coward in their spot--he might have been less stupid, because he certainly has a brilliant political mind, but then a *lot* of people were wrong about how that would play out, and the pressures on him would have been very different on the national scene)(to the at least two and I think more still-Kucinich supporters out there--yes, you're right, he was there and he voted the right way and he's honest and his agenda is indeed better than anyone else's all round, no argument, and I don't blame you a bit for favoring him), and otherwise their positive/negative ratio tends to balance out about the same, if with minor differences here and there.

It would be nice if one of them would join really solidly with Dodd, though, swearing to stick by him to the better end on the telecomm immunity issue and even pledging to try and whip up support for this cause, and an appeal for turning back the tide on the rising police state, among the general populace.
link5 comments|post comment

In hopes of derailing the juggernaut, "Why I can't get excited about Obama . . ." [Jan. 6th, 2008|03:13 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , ]

When I saw him at the 2004 convention, I said "this guy is our great Democratic hope for the future! He speaks as well as (Bill) Clinton except better because he knows when to stop! He's got all the energy and dynamism that most of the other possible future candidates lack, and he didn't vote for the Iraq invasion!"


Since then, while I still think he's the best and most charismatic speechmaker of the lot and second only to (Hillary) Clinton in debating skills, he's lost me, and has been near the bottom among my Democrat choices for months. Here's why:

(1) His support for nuclear power (see the book "Why Nuclear Power is Not the Answer" by Helen Caldicott, I think, for a better & lengthier and more detailed argument than I could possibly give if you don't think this is a big deal) and liquid coal. Both of these are environmental disasters to a greater degree than oil and gas have been, and horrible ideas all round. To me, saying you support investment in more nuclear power plants is like saying you support more judges like Scalia/Thomas/Alito, and think Iraq worked out so well you want to invade a couple of more countries as soon as possible.

(2) His repeated overtures to the right wing fundamentalists. Now, the other leading democratic candidates are guilty of this to some degree as well, but his overtures to them make me more nervous, especially backed by his refusal to get rid of the homophobic fundie "gayness can be cured" guy from his South Carolina support concert.

(3) Having skimmed his book "The Audacity of Hope", the following things from there:
where he keeps talking about the "undeniably vexing issue of abortion" and you have to read to the end to figure out that he is pro-choice--probably--but clearly has a lot of sympathy for anti-choicers,
where he seems to blame the democrats as much as the republicans for the rancor in washington despite the dems having moved steadily rightwards for years and compromised themselves to death, practically, (aside from your own observations over the years, I strongly recommend Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" for more details on this) and (related)
his level of sympathy for red-state democrats who vote conservatively and/or don't speak their conscience in order to get elected/re-elected.

(4) He didn't even support the filibuster of Alito . . . . Yes, he voted against him, but he knew the vote wasn't going to be enough without the filibuster, and if ever there was a time for a filibuster, this was it. Almost as bad and a lot more recent than the Iraq votes of Hillary & Edwards, plus far worse coming from someone who claims to be the most outspoken for progressive change.

(5) He *is* the most outspoken for progressive change, but there's absolutely zero indication that he's going to try to accomplish any more than the others -- he's almost never specific except when forced to be, and when he does offer specific policy plans, as with health care, they seem very similar to something one or more of the other candidates has already put forward. When you actually look at both his specifics thus far, combined with what he's done since being in *national* office, he actually seems less likely to accomplish--or even try for--real change than either Edwards or Clinton. Coming from someone with his campaign-speak, this not only rubs me the wrong way, it makes me fearful that an Obama election followed by a socially conservative, economically moderate presidency will make a lot of progressives simply quit voting.

(6) He keeps speaking in vague rousing platitudes without specifics just like that other charismatic, well speaking politician, Ronald Reagan. I don't think Reagan was a good president. And things like "hope freed the slaves" actually bug me far more than "morning in america", since the latter is just empty phrasing, while the former makes it sound like happy feelings rather than grim determination, warfare, and the whole blood sweat & tears thing was what was needed. Except for shooting-type warfare, I think sacrifice and fighting more than hope will be needed to fix many of our problems now, anyone who's studied the current situation realizes this, and anyone who implies different is being well beyond disingenuous.

That said, if he gets the nom I'll almost certainly vote for him -- not only because I like him much, much much more than any of the Republicans, but also because the supreme court appointments are just too important (tho this is another area where I have less confidence in him than Clinton, Edwards or Richardson), plus the Republicans have shown themselves too fond of invading countries for non-existent reasons to be given further opportunity. But I'd a hell of a lot rather see any of the other three top candidates.

(x-posted to "progressives")
link5 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]

Advertisement