So back in 2000 I told you forestry was a silly solution to global warming... (I didn't draw the comic, but I used it during the elections...) Today we have a spate of news articles which cast scientific doubt on the idea too. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/67/24523#1 http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/67/24525 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html

I've always been suspicious of this whole "carbon-trading" idea, and if this stuff is really true -- that forestry is, in some cases at least, counterproductive towards solving global warming -- then pardon the imagery, but that's a spike in the lumbermill of the carbon trading market, isn't it? A lot of the positive credits in the carbon trading system derive from forestry or agriculture in some form. Same holds true for a lot of " Carbon Neutral / Carbon Offset " programs, like the ones Al & Tipper Gore use.

Hey now, I like trees as much as the next guy. Probably more, I'm a certified tree-hugger. But preserving our natural carbon sinks, the rainforest, is a much better-tuned solution to the complex workings of the Earth, than to simply dump trees somewhere and then say we now have the right to pollute. Saying that artificial forests in locations chosen for mankind's convenience, don't alleviate mankind's pollution, is absolutely not the same thing as saying that we need our natural rainforests to survive. The idea is that we shouldn't be fouling our nest in the first place -- we need to stop pollution -- the various quick-fix solutions where we pollute in one area to our heart's content and then capture it somewhere else in the ecosystem, always strike me as a bad idea. Mother nature, by definition, has her system right. If we make one small mistake in our calculations... such as, forgetting that forests absorb heat as well as carbon... then such quick-fix solutions could conceivably make the problems far worse. Conserve, and don't polllute. That's the best strategy.

Any Engineer will tell you, that when you are trying to solve a chronic problem -- such as, the dependence of our society on polluting energy and processes -- the first thing you do is minimize the problem as much as you possibly can, before trying to apply solutions. CONSERVE, FIRST. SWITCH AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS, SECOND. Prevention is always, always, always cheaper than cure.

Or else... guys, this is what's ultimately in store for the majority of the 90% of humans who prefer to live within 100 miles of a major body of water.

More Global Warming and Sea Change news:

• http://www.jointoceancommission.org/images/report-card-06.pdf (Needs Adobe Acrobat Reader)
• http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061120fa_fact3?page=1
• http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?cnn=yes
• http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021407J.shtml

• http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/12/27/the-top-ten-astronomy-images-of-2006/

• http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070131.html
• http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/dotf-20061101.html

But of course there's more political commentary too...

• Joe Bageant Nails It ! !

• More in my Ongoing Series about Markets and Deceit:

> As a criminal I learned to use people’s humanity against them. For white collar criminals good traits that people have, such as trust, are weaknesses to be exploited.


• Iraq, terrorism, and foreign policy:
  • What 'Some Guy with a Website' said.
  • It was obvious then, and it is obvious now.
  • What do 3,000 commas look like?

Sorry for the long absence...  I've been dragged through hell at work.  But a few headlines just can't be ignored.  In light of the party changeover in Congress, even the quote-unquote "MSM" has been talking like the Democrats are going to Save Everything and Right all the Wrongs that have been committed over the last six years; wrongs which the MSM basically just started noticing on Wednesday, November 8th.

This sudden optimism is all part of the show, folks:  by kissing up to the party that just won the elections, the media help incumbent politicians lower the standards of the electorate and make it seem a big deal when the Democrats do anything -- when in fact they don't intend to change very much about this country at all.  (And yes, the same thing happens when Republicans suddenly take power in an election:  the media leads us to believe taxes will magically vanish and the economy will hum, when instead what we get are staggering deficits and further corporate monopolism.) 

The time is now, when things appear to be going well -- that's when we need to pressure politicians to serve us instead of their own corrupt agendas.  Their first priority, upon getting elected, is typically, to be sure they get elected again next time.  Our first priority should be to address their concern:  tell them they're not going to get re-elected unless they perform for us.  If we wait until the next election looms, before pressuring them, it's too late -- not that they ever stop amassing favors and money from corrupt interests, but they don't take our pressure as seriously because they think they know how to game the system by that time.

This is why I criticize the Democrats at every chance I get.  This is why Al Gore once complained, "Environmentalists don't know how to take 'yes' for an answer."  It's only people who are quitting the game, who take "yes" for an answer.  If we shut up and take "yes" for an answer, delivery of the promise a politician just said "yes" to is typically postponed 'til after the next election -- because he thinks he has your support sewn up.

So now that the election is over, we still have yet to address the potentially lethal problems of the world.

Continuing with the Global Warming theme from my previous list of hot links...

• How to Survive Global Warming! 

• Map Sea Level Rise in your neighborhood!

 

Ya wanna really get your blood boiling?  Consider this.

 

• The Federal Government recently cut research funds for Geothermal and Hydropower research because they're "Mature Technologies".

 

• Yet Coal and Petroleum continue to receive massive Federal subsidies, because they're apparently not "Mature" enough yet to be competitive. (Coal gets $5.8 Billion in subsidies, Gas and Petroleum get $21.2 Billion.) 

Do you believe that Coal and Petroleum are incapable of competing in a "free" marketplace against Geothermal and Hydropower?  Since we import the vast majority of our oil, isn't this subsidy equivalent to exporting jobs and tax dollars out of the country -- since the ultimate beneficiaries will likely be foreigners instead of home-grown energy sources?

If Solar Power had received the same privileges and subsidies when Einstein invented it 50 years ago, that coal and petroleum have been receiving for the past century or more, then we would all be driving solar cars today, and never pay for gasoline again.  (Which might not be such a great idea, as Andy Singer will be quick to point out, but at the moment I'm just trying to illustrate the unfairness of this century-old policy.)

This is the sort of thing the Democrats would be already going about correcting if they really wanted to change the political system.  Fossil fuels have a stranglehold on our politics, and that's 75% of what's wrong with our country right there.  Things aren't going to change until their influence is broken.  But I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Democrats.  The vast majority of elected Democrats are products of the existing system, they will talk brave talk in situations when they know words don't matter, yet they won't lift a finger to change the status quo because they fear that change will put them out of a job. 

Get off yer butts and install fluorescent light bulbs. Cut down your car use past the point you thought possible. My estimate is, that our generation will live long enough that we might not be able to forgive ourselves, if we look back on our past and realize we could have done even one tiny thing more to fight the problem.

• Massachusetts Supreme Court orders all citizens into same-sex marriages.

 

• Competing bill would save traditional marriage from sharks.

 

• It is never unacceptable to think.  Thomas Paine was a true patriot.

 

• "He asked me if I had any other T-shirts to put on, and I told him that I had checked in all of my bags and I asked him 'why do you want me to take off my t-shirt? Isn't it my constitutional right to express myself in this way?' The second man in a greenish suit interfered and said 'people here in the US don't understand these things about constitutional rights'.

Got that right, buddy!  Arab-Americans:  our countrymen, people whose perspectives we need in order to fight terror -- caught in the middle, hated and mistrusted everywhere.

 

• Now we will start hearing the rationalizations about why we're losing Iraq, yet can't leave.  Message to John McCain:  Escalation is a false god.

 

• Veterans' Aid cuts, versus supporting the troops:  who is the patriot here?

Motorcycle gangs support the troops -- pardon the overbroad stereotype there, but it's for effect -- while Reverend Phelps protests their funerals, because he says the U.S. army is a homosexual organization.    At least somebody is actively fighting the rightward pull which Bush and Phelps are both providing. And once again, as always, it's those on the margins of society -- in this case, bikers -- taking the real action. People who say that, for example, punks and bikers and Greens can't accomplish anything because they're not working "within the system": guys, the system is Bush and Phelps. Phelps doesn't represent mainstream religion, but with his protests and oration, he is working within the system. And I'm not saying there's a direct relationship, but the government and religious systems come more in line with his views every year.

 

I am pleased and proud to have contributed significantly to the Surfrider Foundation official position paper on Global Warming: (What's posted on the Web is kind-of a final draft which will be officially released in paper form later this month; it still has a few punctuation errors remaining but it's pretty much done...)

http://www.surfrider.org/srui.aspx?uiq=a-z/global_warming

I believe this is an excellent web page to give a thorough understanding of the Global Warming problem, backed up by a lot of evidence and weblinks, in layman's terms. Many of the varied implications of Global Warming -- such as ocean acidification -- still to this day haven't been discussed much outside of environmental circles; the full list may surprise you.

I am very proud of the report, but I'm saddened and outraged about the need to write it in the first place. I remember that my generation -- following the example of those old, smelly, drugged-up, passé "Hippies" whom everyone seems to hate so much today -- has been trying to tell adults for 30 years, that a lifestyle based on pollution is unsustainable. We've always been told that the drastic changes necessary to fix this were "impractical" and "unrealistic". The fact that, as kids back in the late 70s, we didn't grasp all the political, economic, and societal ramifications does not detract from the fact that we used our young judgment and we were RIGHT. Today it seems that Mother Earth is sending us a clear signal: continued survival of human life on its present course may be "impractical" and "unrealistic".

Can you imagine what our society would be like if suddenly there was a "NO DUMPING" rule in the atmosphere like the one adopted in 1978 for the ocean? Not only wouldn't we be driving cars, buses, or trains (as we know them today), and planes would be out of the question -- but pretty much any factory or power plant you know of, would have to be completely redesigned, if the technology was even possible. You can't imagine it except in the vaguest terms, because it would have such a huge impact on so many things we take for granted.

And the ocean and the air, we now know, are two interlocked parts of one system. My recollection is that "Global Warming" first became a theory after Coastal Engineers noticed that the sea level was rising more rapidly than expected, and nobody could think of an explanation for that besides the melting of the ice caps. And nobody could think of an explanation for _that_, besides a general atmospheric warming. Global warming is not some cockamamie theory that bored scientists invented in order to tie down research grants -- it's a theory, like the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity, which was devised in order to explain OBSERVED FACTS.

After we spent months working on the Surfrider report, suddenly the issue has popped up in the major media. The L.A.Times had a jaw-dropping report on the very latest findings about the ways mankind is destroying the oceans -- through Global Warming and through other issues as well. They focus on the most startling new revelations, but believe me, this is not hype, if anything L.A. Times understates the problems. Did you know, for example, that -- because plastic never biodegrades, not even in salt water -- there is a huge floating "Garbage Patch", twice the size of Texas, floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean... composed of all the plastic that's ever been blown by the wind out of landfills, swept up by stormwater or washed into rivers? You read that right, TWICE the size of TEXAS. Larger than many of the world's nations. You'll find details in the L.A. Times. I strongly recommend the series.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-oceans-series,0,7842752.special
(You need Macromedia Flash player to display the main page -- most computers have Flash -- if not, I can send you links to the five individual articles.)

And if this stuff has got you curious to read more specific details, Mother Jones launched a very large compendium about the death of the oceans:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2006/03/oceans_index.html

When the oceans are ruined, the world cannot support life as we know it. Read these articles and ask yourself, what sort of world are we leaving for our children? Has anyone out there read "The Cold Equations," a short story by Tom Godwin. Well, "The Cold Equations" tell us that if the human race continues to foul our nest like we have been doing for hundreds of years, large numbers of us will die. No arguments. No nuances. No economic cost/benefit ratios. That's that.

Get off yer butts and install flourescent light bulbs. Cut down your car use past the point you thought possible. My estimate is, that our generation will live long enough that we might not be able to forgive ourselves, if we look back on our past and realize we could have done even one tiny thing more to fight the problem.

Next up: Here's a challenging essay on America, the Third World, the relative merits of both, and the "traveller's antennae" (a term from another author)...

http://inertiacrept.livejournal.com/43187.html

I really hope you will go there and "READ-THE-WHOLE-THING"(TM) It's well-written. Once again, this is not my work, this is a page from somebody else's travel journal, a dude who has been living in Guatamala (whereas, I currently live in Coahuila, not so many pure-Mayans around here). These are some excerpts for those too lazy to click through :

I'm coming to believe that while living in another country is alienating and strange, coming home is often even more so. ...This is the transformative power of living abroad - backpacking wouldn't be so popular among the mind-altering drugs crowd if it was not itself incredibly mind-altering.

...So while I've been [living] in Coban, [Guatamala], I've gone on two vacations. The second of the two, the weekend before last, was back to the United States in the form of Houston. ... From the second I stepped off of the plane, everything seemed different. The airplane terminal seemed clean and empty, everything smelled better. ...

I remember standing outside of a bookstore, waiting to cross the street, and thinking "The light will change, they will stop. There is a light, first of all, and it works, and it is not broken, but more importantly, people will stop when the light is red, and go when it is green, and they won't honk or swerve around each other or stop in the middle of the intersection to buy a phonecard." ...

This became suddenly profound, some high-water mark of civilization, something real and demonstrative of something really great and important about America. And the bookstore! I might occasionally rail against choice as an abstract concept (mostly because I get tired of making them... there's something horribly imposing about being asked to differentiate between 200 types of toothpaste), but the absence of choice is no better. And in Guatemala, choice is sporadic. There are 50 different kinds of soda, for sure, but only one guy who can fix your refrigerator... and he's rich.

[After discussing backpackers again] ... I still think backpacking is something we should all have the chance to do, even if it does run the risk of turning our idea of the third world into a sort of playground for personal/psychological growth, a phenomenon that I generally find conjoined with all the overdemonstrative decadence of voluntary poverty. That was a mean chunk of sentence, but I hope you know what I'm getting at - the willing assumption of the trappings of poverty doesn't constitute an understanding of poverty any more than dipping your toe in the pool constitutes swimming. This isn't to say that the experience lacks merit, but it's important to eventually figure out that you ain't even looking to take a swim so much as stare at your reflection in the water.

Seeing as I'm a volunteer assuming the trappings of poverty in a Second World country, and I expect a lot of culture shock when and if I finally return to America... I found this entry very interesting. What do you think about it?

But of course we can't abandon the political commentary altogether:

"The courts should also stand by Bush v. Gore’s equal protection analysis for the simple reason that it was right (even if the remedy of stopping the recount was not). Elections that systematically make it less likely that some voters will get to cast a vote that is counted are a denial of equal protection of the law. The conservative justices may have been able to see this unfairness only when they looked at the problem from Mr. Bush’s perspective, but it is just as true when the N.A.A.C.P. and groups like it raise the objection."

ALAN WEISBECKER

Those of you following my website for years already know, that I rarely, rarely, ever use it for commercial purposes -- but I am not above doing so. This is one of those times. One of my favorite authors, A.C. Weisbecker, is about to release a new book through a small publishing company. Therefore he is relying on what you'd call viral marketing -- electronic word-of-mouth. A.C.W. has written a memoir about his work in publishing and film, retirement to a surf paradise in Costa Rica, and his subsequent expulsion from paradise, and it looks to be in his inimitable style. I can't wait to get my hands on it, so I pre-ordered it. If you want to do the same, you should go to the publisher's page. (unwieldy long URL)

I also recommend, if you haven't already, go to his general site to read funny, thoughtful, and well-written articles on a host of subjects, or sign up for his e-mail newsletter.

Why am I such a fan of Weisbecker? You'd know if you have read "Cosmic Banditos", his first book, a quasi-fictitious story where drug runners in Columbia mug a tourist who is a physics professor -- they read his textbook, and then go on a quest to discover the deeper meaning of life, particle physics, and subatomic synchronicity. Roughly every other chapter ends with the phrase "...and then I was knocked unconscious by flying debris." One of the funniest books I have ever read, and I've read a lot.

He then totally stunned me with his second book, "In Search of Captain Zero", an autobiography (with a touch of poetic license) whose themes of friendship, betrayal, longing, travel and especially surf, really resonated with my own life. Another marvellous read.

I felt tremendously privileged to meet this guy, shake hands with him, and mercilessly drop in on a couple of his waves out there in Pavones. So, the least I can do is plug his book. It'll be good karma for when I finally write up my own damn novels.

...as long as I'm throwing plugs, I am also looking forward to the Peaceful Warrior movie. It's such a cliché, but the book really "changed my life". If the movie manages to capture just a fraction of the book's philosophical spirit, I will be overjoyed. Go see it!

SPEAKING OF GETTING ALONG PEACEFULLY:
I think millions of married couples, and likewise millions of long-term unmarried couples, will get a huge benefit from reading this article:

"What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage"

Some people might say the techniques mentioned in the article are manipulative, but I seriously think these are solid strategies for living with someone different than you, and not being drawn in by provocation.

...now with that out of the way -- time for some more <snark>y political commentary!

SURGEON GENERAL REPORTS, SECONDHAND SMOKE A DANGER

June 28, 2006 — Breathing any amount of someone else's tobacco smoke harms nonsmokers, the surgeon general declared Tuesday — a strong condemnation of secondhand smoke that is sure to fuel nationwide efforts to ban smoking in public.

"The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard," said U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona.

More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to smokers' fumes — what Carmona termed "involuntary smoking" — and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses.

No, don't you see? Just because America's highest-ranking doctors all agree on something doesn't mean "the debate is over". There is no scientific concensus!

Why, there was more smoke in the air during the "Medieval Fume Period", according to the eminently unbiased scientists at the Marlboro Center for the Study of Gaseous Inhalation. Yet the historical records don't show any kind of plague of cancer back then.

Even if there is a lot of tobacco smoke in the air today, it doesn't mean that humans are causing it. It might just be from forest fires hitting tobacco plantations, in which case it would be pointless to ask Americans to give up smoking. That would cripple our economy needlessly. It could all be part of a natural cycle, and I predict we'll see a huge decrease in atmospheric smoke levels over the next few years.

Besides, nobody at the Surgeon General's office ever addresses all the positive benefits that we can expect from heart disease, lung cancer, and other pulmonary illnesses. I have read numerous studies that say those things will make the world much more habitable, productive, and comfortable!

</end snark> I just found it ironic, that many Global Warming "skeptics" have adopted syllogisms used in the past by the tobacco industry. With this latest report on smoking, maybe the exchange of ideas will now proceed in the other direction...

Listen, folks, did you hear that? I hate to have to say it -- truly it causes me great pain -- but that was the sound of democracy dying. And nobody seems to have commented on it.

The House erupted in impassioned election-year debate over the Iraq war on Thursday... "We must renew our resolve that the actions of evildoers will not dictate American policy," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in remarks laden with references to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Okay, fair enough. I'm fine with what Hastert said, even though I snuck in a sarcastic link there. --But speaking of dictating American policy, since when does the Pentagon hand out a book of War Debate Points to Senators on the Senate Floor?

Why, starting YESTERDAY, that's when!

Choreographed by the GOP, the debate unfolded four months before midterm elections that will decide the control of Congress. The administration, for its part, was so determined to get its message out that the Pentagon distributed a highly unusual "debate prep book" filled with ready-made answers for criticism of the war. ...

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the document. It was sent to both Republicans and Democrats and it laid out the administration's positions in strong terms and offered page after page of counterpoints to criticisms that Democrats typically level against Bush's war policies.

This is a fine line. Yeah, sure, Senators can go to the Pentagon and get reports and strategies and arguments. Senators can go to the Pentagon and get biased analyses and misleading facts, if such is their inclination. But when the President (the "Administration") sends biased material TO the Senate, under the imprimatur of the Pentagon -- and the Senate quotes from it as if it were serious -- that crosses the line. The Debate Prep Book says: "Iraq will become a haven for terrorists, murderers and thugs," if the United States leaves "before the job is done." Will Become? WILL BECOME? HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING IN THE NEWS FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS?

What else do we have to endure before we realize: Democracy in our country is not pinin', it's passed on! This republic is no more! It has ceased to be! Democracy has expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late Democracy. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, rational civic debate in this country now rests in peace, if you hadn't nailed it to the Congressional gavel it would be pushing up the daisies! The ideals of our Founding Fathers have rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This is an EX-Democracy!

So, I'm curious: Who in the DoD, exactly, wrote these pro-war talking points? I'm quite willing to bet it wasn't anybody like Daniel, here in this article.

"When we talk about supporting the troops, what are we talking about? We're taking these kids, we're using them up and throwing them out, and not taking responsibility for it. If people knew stories like [Daniel's], they wouldn't be so cavalier about saying they're supporting the troops, putting stickers on their cars, and feeling like it's done."

Wal-Mart Suddenly Goes Green!

"We are looking at innovative ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This used to be controversial, but the science is in and it is overwhelming. Climate change doesn't cause hurricanes, but hot ocean water makes them more powerful. Climate change doesn't cause rainfall, but it can increase the frequency and severity of heavy flooding. Climate change doesn't cause droughts, but it makes droughts longer. We believe every company has a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases as quickly as it can."

Seems Wal-Mart has realized one vital maxim that so many fundamentalist right-wing capitalist GOPers have so far failed to grasp: The apocalypse is just really bad for business.

George Bush and others (including quite a few Democrats) continue to insist that the United States must not ratify the Kyoto Protocol to control Greenhouse Gases, because it would be "too expensive" and might have a fatal effect on our economic growth and productivity.

Well guess what? Soon this summer, the real-life, spent costs of the Iraq war will exceed the projected costs of compliance with Kyoto.

Pfew! Good thing that was all money well spent, eh? Otherwise our economy might be in serious trouble right now.

Also, let's talk Immigration:

On the Domestic Spying issue:

The government put the terrorists under surveillance, which was fine because I was not a terrorist.

Then it put the leakers under surveillance, and I didn't speak up because I was not a leaker.

Then it put the reporters under surveillance, and I didn't speak up because I was not a reporter.

Then it put me under surveillance.

Soon we were all being watched or listened to, and no one dared to speak up for anyone...

Juan Cole: "Raw Story says that the Bush administration is tracing the telephone calls of ABC and other reporters in an attempt to find the source of leaks. The leaks are of things like the fact that the Bush administration is tracing people's phone calls."