So, I was thinking of how we have a new president in the White House, and he is supposed to be much more "green" than the last, and this is a good thing. Maybe he can, with congress's help, at least make a passing attempt at stemming our rape of the environment. Maybe not. Either way, I feel I should put everything into perspective with this historical reference that illustrates, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
In 1979, during a time of rampant inflation, what was then being called an "energy crisis," complaints about foreign oil dependency, and troubles in the middle east, President Jimmy Carter did what was, in its own way, a grand thing. He had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. In a speech at the unveiling he said:
". . . and this dependence on foreign sources of oil, is of great concern to all of us. In the year 2000 the solar water heater . . . which is being dedicated today, supplying cheap, efficient energy, a generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one the greatest, and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American People."
Pretty stirring words, and one might say a step in the right direction, but, Carter would not be president forever, and the man who replaced him, Ronald Reagan, had them removed, for unknown reasons. Things change, then they change back. Politics in America will always be this way.
To further put things in context, let's follow the story further, and see that the bad guy is not always the bad guy, and the good guy not always good.
In 2003, George W. Bush, a decidedly not "green" politician, from a different party, and probably the farthest president from Jimmy Carter, ideology wise, had new solar panels installed on the White House, and did not announce it to the media, or make a speech, or have an unveiling. He just did it.
Now, my own loyalties lie with Carter above Bush, as I greatly admire the former, but it is worth mentioning that some politicians draw attention to the good they do, even what is mostly symbolic, and some do not, but no matter which way a thing is done, in a few years a new leader comes along, and things change again. Most times, they're merely changing back.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Secretary of Energy Choices
Well, I've recently been looking at the details of Barrack Obama's new presidency, and of course one of the first thing I looked at was who he chose for Secretary of Energy, which is a very important position, in my opinion, especially with all this new impetus to "go green." Now, looking at who Obama has chosen for this position, as opposed to the men who held it for the last eight years, gives a pretty good example of the differences between two presidents. But first, some background.
In case you're wondering, the position of Secretary of Energy is a Cabinet position that was originally developed in 1977 to focus on energy production and regulation, but during the 1980s shifted to development of technology for better, more efficient energy sources as well as education regarding energy, and later the department's efforts were more often devoted to nuclear waste disposal and maintenance of environmental quality. Today it seems to be focused on regulating (or not regulating during the Bush years) the energy sector.
When George W. Bush came into power in 2000, he filled most of his cabinet with people who were left over from his father's presidency, or held party favor, and with this position things worked much the same. He chose a man name Spencer Abraham, who was long active in the Republican party (he was Michagan state chairman from 1983 to 1990), and a republican senator from 1994 until 2000, when he lost his seat to a Democrat. Luckily for him, George W. Bush was coming into office, and was willing to appoint any loyal party member to those empty cabinet seats, and so gave it to Abraham. Now you might ask, what qualifications, besides his party connections, did this man have, to be the United States Secretary of Energy? Why, a degree in law from Harvard, or course!
Now, just in case you wonder where his loyalties might have lay, since leaving office in 2005, he founded "The Abraham Group," which is pretty much a lobbying group and adviser to oil and pipeline companies. Also, he has been named Chairman of the Board of Areva Inc., the US subsidiary of a French nuclear energy company.
We all know how much Bush learned after those first four years, though, and so for his second term he appointed a new Energy Secretary, and this one had a science degree! From M.I.T.! Okay, so Samuel Bodman had worked for over twenty years in the financial sector, but still, somewhere back there he had a degree in chemical engineering, and so was a better choice than before.
Of course, he had also served as CEO of a Fortune 300 chemical company, before being Deputy Secretary of Treasury in Bush's first term, and then as Deputy Secretary of Commerce after that, but he did go to M.I.T., and Bush was noted for appointing people with little or no qualifications, so at least there's that.
Obama, on the other hand, has chosen for this position Steven Chu, the winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics. A Nobel laureate! Talk about qualified! He has been a professor of physics since 1976, both at Stanford, where he was also chair of his department, and the University of California, Berkeley. He is also of the opinion that technology must move away from fossil fuels, and is a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, a force for momentum at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Also, he was an early member of Project Steve, an educational campaign for the teaching of evolution.
Now, who would you trust more, the man who chose a party favored lawyer, and a chemical company CEO, or a Nobel Prize winning physicist? I know who I'd choose.
In case you're wondering, the position of Secretary of Energy is a Cabinet position that was originally developed in 1977 to focus on energy production and regulation, but during the 1980s shifted to development of technology for better, more efficient energy sources as well as education regarding energy, and later the department's efforts were more often devoted to nuclear waste disposal and maintenance of environmental quality. Today it seems to be focused on regulating (or not regulating during the Bush years) the energy sector.
When George W. Bush came into power in 2000, he filled most of his cabinet with people who were left over from his father's presidency, or held party favor, and with this position things worked much the same. He chose a man name Spencer Abraham, who was long active in the Republican party (he was Michagan state chairman from 1983 to 1990), and a republican senator from 1994 until 2000, when he lost his seat to a Democrat. Luckily for him, George W. Bush was coming into office, and was willing to appoint any loyal party member to those empty cabinet seats, and so gave it to Abraham. Now you might ask, what qualifications, besides his party connections, did this man have, to be the United States Secretary of Energy? Why, a degree in law from Harvard, or course!
Now, just in case you wonder where his loyalties might have lay, since leaving office in 2005, he founded "The Abraham Group," which is pretty much a lobbying group and adviser to oil and pipeline companies. Also, he has been named Chairman of the Board of Areva Inc., the US subsidiary of a French nuclear energy company.
We all know how much Bush learned after those first four years, though, and so for his second term he appointed a new Energy Secretary, and this one had a science degree! From M.I.T.! Okay, so Samuel Bodman had worked for over twenty years in the financial sector, but still, somewhere back there he had a degree in chemical engineering, and so was a better choice than before.
Of course, he had also served as CEO of a Fortune 300 chemical company, before being Deputy Secretary of Treasury in Bush's first term, and then as Deputy Secretary of Commerce after that, but he did go to M.I.T., and Bush was noted for appointing people with little or no qualifications, so at least there's that.
Obama, on the other hand, has chosen for this position Steven Chu, the winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics. A Nobel laureate! Talk about qualified! He has been a professor of physics since 1976, both at Stanford, where he was also chair of his department, and the University of California, Berkeley. He is also of the opinion that technology must move away from fossil fuels, and is a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, a force for momentum at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Also, he was an early member of Project Steve, an educational campaign for the teaching of evolution.
Now, who would you trust more, the man who chose a party favored lawyer, and a chemical company CEO, or a Nobel Prize winning physicist? I know who I'd choose.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Venezuela and Impeachment
So, I was just reading some propaganda about Hugo Chavez, and then to counteract the bullshit, I began reading some articles in favor of him, and of course most of the truth was found in the middle. No, he's not satan, or some despot, and no he's not going to help us all start a new socialist revolution, but he has done very good things for Venezuela, and he has pissed off the American government/corporate groups through his use of his nations oil reserves to actually profit his country, and it's people, at least half the time, as opposed to before when virtually all profits were going to the big oil companies.
Either way, he is a controversial figure, and I'm sure you're all aware of the facts, so I'll go on to other things. In my reading I came across something interesting. Evidently, in the Venezuelan constitution there is a clause that says this, "All magistrates and other offices (including the president) filled by popular vote are subject to revocation. Once half (their) term of office....has elapsed, 20% of (registered) voters (by petition may call for) a referendum to revoke such official's mandate. When a number of voters equal to or greater than the number of those who elected the official vote in favor of revocation (provided the total is 25% or more of registered voters), the official's mandate shall be deemed revoked...."
Now that is a damn interesting clause. I can't think of any parallel to it in our "democracy," one in which no president has ever been successfully impeached, not even ones so atrocious as George W. Bush or Andrew Jackson. Shouldn't, in a system where the majority elects its leaders, there be a way for the people to directly oust those leaders, if they so chose? Short of violence, anyway.
On closer inspection we realize that this idea involves some pretty big numbers, for instance 20% of the registered voters is bigger than it sounds, but let's look at an example, again from Venezuela, where 4.7 million signatures were gathered for the highly controversial (at least outside the country) referendum on extending consecutive term limits. In a country with only around 15.6 million registered voters this is more than a 20%, and if those signatures were gathered for this instead, would be more than enough to begin the process of ousting an elected official. So it proves it is at least possible, and provides more evidence that people in Venezuela actually like Hugo Chavez. It's worth mentioning that over 50% of Venezuela's population is registered to vote, but I digress.
Shouldn't we have something similar? In the most "free," "democratic" country on earth?
Shouldn't we at least be able to match this "totalitarian regime?"
It all leads to what I don't understand about the western press. Venezuela is usually referred to as nondemocratic. Authoritarian. Lumped together with China and Iran and North Korea and the like. But Venezuela IS a democracy. Hugo Chavez is ridiculously popular, and sweeps the elections whenever he runs. In 2006 he won 62% of the vote, in a country where, again, over 50% of the population is registered, with a 75% turnout, and a voting process performed under the auspices of international observers. Even if one might argue against his policies, hell even if we agreed he was satan incarnate, it wouldn't change the fact that he was democratically elected.
Isn't that supposedly all the U.S. government officially wants?
Either way, he is a controversial figure, and I'm sure you're all aware of the facts, so I'll go on to other things. In my reading I came across something interesting. Evidently, in the Venezuelan constitution there is a clause that says this, "All magistrates and other offices (including the president) filled by popular vote are subject to revocation. Once half (their) term of office....has elapsed, 20% of (registered) voters (by petition may call for) a referendum to revoke such official's mandate. When a number of voters equal to or greater than the number of those who elected the official vote in favor of revocation (provided the total is 25% or more of registered voters), the official's mandate shall be deemed revoked...."
Now that is a damn interesting clause. I can't think of any parallel to it in our "democracy," one in which no president has ever been successfully impeached, not even ones so atrocious as George W. Bush or Andrew Jackson. Shouldn't, in a system where the majority elects its leaders, there be a way for the people to directly oust those leaders, if they so chose? Short of violence, anyway.
On closer inspection we realize that this idea involves some pretty big numbers, for instance 20% of the registered voters is bigger than it sounds, but let's look at an example, again from Venezuela, where 4.7 million signatures were gathered for the highly controversial (at least outside the country) referendum on extending consecutive term limits. In a country with only around 15.6 million registered voters this is more than a 20%, and if those signatures were gathered for this instead, would be more than enough to begin the process of ousting an elected official. So it proves it is at least possible, and provides more evidence that people in Venezuela actually like Hugo Chavez. It's worth mentioning that over 50% of Venezuela's population is registered to vote, but I digress.
Shouldn't we have something similar? In the most "free," "democratic" country on earth?
Shouldn't we at least be able to match this "totalitarian regime?"
It all leads to what I don't understand about the western press. Venezuela is usually referred to as nondemocratic. Authoritarian. Lumped together with China and Iran and North Korea and the like. But Venezuela IS a democracy. Hugo Chavez is ridiculously popular, and sweeps the elections whenever he runs. In 2006 he won 62% of the vote, in a country where, again, over 50% of the population is registered, with a 75% turnout, and a voting process performed under the auspices of international observers. Even if one might argue against his policies, hell even if we agreed he was satan incarnate, it wouldn't change the fact that he was democratically elected.
Isn't that supposedly all the U.S. government officially wants?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Coal Smoke & Mirrors
Often times numbers scare me. Numbers like "1.970 Tg of CO2 produced," which I mentioned in my video about so-called "clean coal." Sometimes, numbers just piss me off. Numbers like those in an article I recently read about the coal industry which pushes the propaganda.
Here's the numbers: In 2008 the "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity," the mouthpiece for the coal industry, which is fully funded by coal companies, spent $45,000,000 ($45 million doesn't get the point across like all those zeros) on its "America's Power" campaign which touts the benefits "clean coal." What's more, the companies themselves spent more than $125,000,000 on lobbying against federal legislation promoting clean energy. That's quite a bit of money.
How much did they actually spend on new cleaner coal technologies, like carbon capture and storage? Well, over about three years, all those companies combined spent $3.5 billion. Well, you might say, that seems like a lot, but consider this, that figure is for the forty eight companies which fund the "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity." The gross profits for those same companies in 2007 alone: $57,000,000,000. $57 billion. In profit. So, they put about 6% of their profits into research for this new technology. Somehow that doesn't mesh with the idea that they are fully behind the new tech, and fully behind the environment.
Just something to think about next time you see a commercial for "clean coal."
Here's the numbers: In 2008 the "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity," the mouthpiece for the coal industry, which is fully funded by coal companies, spent $45,000,000 ($45 million doesn't get the point across like all those zeros) on its "America's Power" campaign which touts the benefits "clean coal." What's more, the companies themselves spent more than $125,000,000 on lobbying against federal legislation promoting clean energy. That's quite a bit of money.
How much did they actually spend on new cleaner coal technologies, like carbon capture and storage? Well, over about three years, all those companies combined spent $3.5 billion. Well, you might say, that seems like a lot, but consider this, that figure is for the forty eight companies which fund the "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity." The gross profits for those same companies in 2007 alone: $57,000,000,000. $57 billion. In profit. So, they put about 6% of their profits into research for this new technology. Somehow that doesn't mesh with the idea that they are fully behind the new tech, and fully behind the environment.
Just something to think about next time you see a commercial for "clean coal."
Trash and the Recession
So I was reading this article that a friend of mine forwarded about the decline in landfill waste since the beginning of the so-called "recession," and how in California, which traditionally has the busiest landfills, rates have dropped in some places by 30%! This naturally brought a smile to my face, especially when the article quoted people who were saying "finding second uses for oversized packaging such as cereal boxes and for disposable glasses and plates before tossing them in the recycling bin." SCORE!
The smile slightly soured though, when I continued the article and got the numbers, as it often does, for example with "clean coal." What exactly is this decline in real figures? Well, in one landfill, only 66,000 tons were deposited in the landfill...in December. Sixty six thousand tons. In one month. And this is what they are calling the biggest decline they've ever seen. Tons. Food for though.
Also distressing, at least for its showing how razor thin the edge is our economy sits on, is because of the lack of consumerism, recycled materials such as cardboard and plastic, have dropped in commodity prices, sometimes by up to 90%. So, many recycling operations are shutting down because of lack of profits to be derived from post consumer goods. Some cities that have curbside recycling programs have discovered that they can no longer profit from the sale of those recycled materials, and so have laid off their sorting crews, and now just dump all the recyclables in the landfill with everything else.
My city has just in the last two weeks started its own curbside recycling program. I wonder what they're actually doing with it all.
The smile slightly soured though, when I continued the article and got the numbers, as it often does, for example with "clean coal." What exactly is this decline in real figures? Well, in one landfill, only 66,000 tons were deposited in the landfill...in December. Sixty six thousand tons. In one month. And this is what they are calling the biggest decline they've ever seen. Tons. Food for though.
Also distressing, at least for its showing how razor thin the edge is our economy sits on, is because of the lack of consumerism, recycled materials such as cardboard and plastic, have dropped in commodity prices, sometimes by up to 90%. So, many recycling operations are shutting down because of lack of profits to be derived from post consumer goods. Some cities that have curbside recycling programs have discovered that they can no longer profit from the sale of those recycled materials, and so have laid off their sorting crews, and now just dump all the recyclables in the landfill with everything else.
My city has just in the last two weeks started its own curbside recycling program. I wonder what they're actually doing with it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
