Read this free on-line book. You will learn more about energy and climate change in a clearly and simply written booklet. David MacKay simplifies the issue, yet gives hard data to support his arguments. It is what IPCC and other climate change organizations should be doing
Sustainable Energy — without the hot air
David JC MacKay
Saturday, March 28, 2009
stupid Arecibo
Two decades ago a rum plant closed in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. This plant was on prime ocean-front property west of downtown, an ideal location for sensible beach-front development, promoting tourism, environmental protection, and desperately-needed recreational opportunities for those of us who live here.
In fact, there have long been plans to build tourism infrastructure in Arecibo, some of which has moved forward. The Camuy Caverns and Arecibo Observatory greatly improved their visitor facilities and experience in the last decade, and the city renovated the old lighthouse and built a theme park around it. There are some new and other improved hotels nearby. Slow progress is apparent. Then, the best opportunity of all appears, as the city finally removes the remnants of the rum factory and its intoxicated grounds. What are we getting on that beautiful beach front? A Home Depot and CVS Pharmacy.
This can only be described as lunacy, and quite evidently corrupt lunacy at that. If history teaches us anything, this lunacy will move ahead with little or no resistance. How can we take this sitting down. While we give away our prime real estate to major multinationals with no interest in the local community, we will destroy local hardware stores, and the local pharmacies, which were already on the margin, will likely be finished off by this incursion.
STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!
In fact, there have long been plans to build tourism infrastructure in Arecibo, some of which has moved forward. The Camuy Caverns and Arecibo Observatory greatly improved their visitor facilities and experience in the last decade, and the city renovated the old lighthouse and built a theme park around it. There are some new and other improved hotels nearby. Slow progress is apparent. Then, the best opportunity of all appears, as the city finally removes the remnants of the rum factory and its intoxicated grounds. What are we getting on that beautiful beach front? A Home Depot and CVS Pharmacy.
This can only be described as lunacy, and quite evidently corrupt lunacy at that. If history teaches us anything, this lunacy will move ahead with little or no resistance. How can we take this sitting down. While we give away our prime real estate to major multinationals with no interest in the local community, we will destroy local hardware stores, and the local pharmacies, which were already on the margin, will likely be finished off by this incursion.
STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama!!!
I am thrilled, almost euphoric!
America has made the right electoral choice, and has demonstrated that it is time to finally look forward. Retrograde policies have had their chance, and they have been shown wanting before all of our eyes. That 47% of the electorate does not see this is troubling, but it is now incumbant on those of us who see a progressive way forward to demonstrate that we are on the right side of destiny. As the results of "marriage" amendments in the various states show, there is still a long way to go. Nevertheless, we should not concern ourselves to turn those injustices just yet. We have first to demonstrate that our ideas are superior and will lead the USA towards a brighter future.
There are so many issues on which Obama's ideas are superior, it would require a dissertation to describe them all. To focus on those where McCain was simply bankrupt, you can look at healthcare, foreign policy, the economy and economic crisis, and tax policy.
Our way to the future will involve universal and affordable healthcare. We would probably have gotten there after McCain completely destroyed any semblance of a just and workable system, but Obama can take us there without such a crisis. Hopefully, that will happen.
Our foreign policy must be willing to take risks by showing apparent weakness. Belligerent policies lead to conflict, as Bush II's policies have shown. Just today (11/5/08), Russia is acting to counter the missile shield the US is installing in eastern Europe by deploying new missiles. In fact, the US missile shield will not protect us, and it will hurt us. I know that Obama is pro-BMD, but I also believe that he will talk to and respect our adversaries as much as our friends. Those dialogs will lead to increased mutual understanding and reduce the need for costly and likely impotent defenses. There are many challenges, and it will take a long time to resolve them---much longer thanks to 8 years of belligerence---but Obama can take us in the right direction. McCain would lead us further down the path to another global war.
On the economy, remarkably McCain still does not recognize the bankruptcy of deregulation. Not only does he want to destroy the healthcare system with such policy, but he would continue such governance of the economy. Self-regulation has led us to an economic crisis that is unprecedented, except by the 1929 crash. In 1929 (and later in 1932 when FDR took the presidency), the US was running budget surpluses, so government intervention was more realistic and affordable, albeit in a deeper (to this point) crisis. But the fix is not in re-regulation; that will only maintain the economy once it returns to strength. Re-invigorating the US and world economy will require confidence amongst the holders of world capital. To that end, Obama has a little of Ronald Reagan in him. Reagan, in spite of his espousing of ultimately failed and dangerous policies, engendered confidence in the people. Obama will have to do the same, and it seems to me he has the makeup to do so. Success in this area will require a steady hand and consistent policy, neither of which have been demonstrated by McCain over the course of the campaign, while Obama has appeared much better.
Tax policy is a difficult area where I hope that Obama will break through. We have been through 28 years of class warfare when it comes to taxation, and now it is not only possible, but likely, that your millionaire boss pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than you do from your "pay as you go" middle-class salary. This is grossly unfair, regressive, and economically unsustainable. We have created an aristocracy in our country, something that our founders rebelled against. McCain supports tax policies that would not only perpetuate this situation, but make it far worse. Change, recovery, will not be painless, but the holders of wealth in our country are more capable of supporting such pain, and they should be willing, even enthusiastically, to accept such pain. They will pay higher taxes, but in the long run, it will be best for them, just as it will be for the rest of us. Paying taxis IS PATRIOTIC! Borrowing from China is not.
My final thought is on the choice of running mate. I am still in denial that a coherent, rational person would consider someone of such thin qualifications for such a crucial post. However, even should Palin not have been so shallow in her preparations, her political and personal beliefs are precisely those that have brought us to the edge of a second great depression. Her choice was a disaster for the McCain campaign, and it could have been a disaster for the whole nation. It was her choice that convinced me that the John McCain of 2008 was not the competent and rational man who ran in 2000.
Republicans have consistently shown a desire to rule. They have tried to mandate from narrow majorities, and as a result, they have divided the country with false "facts" and, frankly, incompetent ideas and governance. On the other hand, Democratic presidents have shown that their goal is to govern. Governing means taking a broader view of issues and the world, and as a result, forming consensus for good ideas. Remember, our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people".
America has made the right electoral choice, and has demonstrated that it is time to finally look forward. Retrograde policies have had their chance, and they have been shown wanting before all of our eyes. That 47% of the electorate does not see this is troubling, but it is now incumbant on those of us who see a progressive way forward to demonstrate that we are on the right side of destiny. As the results of "marriage" amendments in the various states show, there is still a long way to go. Nevertheless, we should not concern ourselves to turn those injustices just yet. We have first to demonstrate that our ideas are superior and will lead the USA towards a brighter future.
There are so many issues on which Obama's ideas are superior, it would require a dissertation to describe them all. To focus on those where McCain was simply bankrupt, you can look at healthcare, foreign policy, the economy and economic crisis, and tax policy.
Our way to the future will involve universal and affordable healthcare. We would probably have gotten there after McCain completely destroyed any semblance of a just and workable system, but Obama can take us there without such a crisis. Hopefully, that will happen.
Our foreign policy must be willing to take risks by showing apparent weakness. Belligerent policies lead to conflict, as Bush II's policies have shown. Just today (11/5/08), Russia is acting to counter the missile shield the US is installing in eastern Europe by deploying new missiles. In fact, the US missile shield will not protect us, and it will hurt us. I know that Obama is pro-BMD, but I also believe that he will talk to and respect our adversaries as much as our friends. Those dialogs will lead to increased mutual understanding and reduce the need for costly and likely impotent defenses. There are many challenges, and it will take a long time to resolve them---much longer thanks to 8 years of belligerence---but Obama can take us in the right direction. McCain would lead us further down the path to another global war.
On the economy, remarkably McCain still does not recognize the bankruptcy of deregulation. Not only does he want to destroy the healthcare system with such policy, but he would continue such governance of the economy. Self-regulation has led us to an economic crisis that is unprecedented, except by the 1929 crash. In 1929 (and later in 1932 when FDR took the presidency), the US was running budget surpluses, so government intervention was more realistic and affordable, albeit in a deeper (to this point) crisis. But the fix is not in re-regulation; that will only maintain the economy once it returns to strength. Re-invigorating the US and world economy will require confidence amongst the holders of world capital. To that end, Obama has a little of Ronald Reagan in him. Reagan, in spite of his espousing of ultimately failed and dangerous policies, engendered confidence in the people. Obama will have to do the same, and it seems to me he has the makeup to do so. Success in this area will require a steady hand and consistent policy, neither of which have been demonstrated by McCain over the course of the campaign, while Obama has appeared much better.
Tax policy is a difficult area where I hope that Obama will break through. We have been through 28 years of class warfare when it comes to taxation, and now it is not only possible, but likely, that your millionaire boss pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than you do from your "pay as you go" middle-class salary. This is grossly unfair, regressive, and economically unsustainable. We have created an aristocracy in our country, something that our founders rebelled against. McCain supports tax policies that would not only perpetuate this situation, but make it far worse. Change, recovery, will not be painless, but the holders of wealth in our country are more capable of supporting such pain, and they should be willing, even enthusiastically, to accept such pain. They will pay higher taxes, but in the long run, it will be best for them, just as it will be for the rest of us. Paying taxis IS PATRIOTIC! Borrowing from China is not.
My final thought is on the choice of running mate. I am still in denial that a coherent, rational person would consider someone of such thin qualifications for such a crucial post. However, even should Palin not have been so shallow in her preparations, her political and personal beliefs are precisely those that have brought us to the edge of a second great depression. Her choice was a disaster for the McCain campaign, and it could have been a disaster for the whole nation. It was her choice that convinced me that the John McCain of 2008 was not the competent and rational man who ran in 2000.
Republicans have consistently shown a desire to rule. They have tried to mandate from narrow majorities, and as a result, they have divided the country with false "facts" and, frankly, incompetent ideas and governance. On the other hand, Democratic presidents have shown that their goal is to govern. Governing means taking a broader view of issues and the world, and as a result, forming consensus for good ideas. Remember, our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people".
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
"drill baby drill"
Listening to Thomas Friedman describe that surreal scene at the GOP convention, Giuliani leading a cheer: "Drill! Baby Drill!" These people are truly the friends of the major oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia (Canada too, but we'll keep that one to the side). By drilling for oil we are taking a short-term (a few weeks exuberance) price benefit for a long term huge penalty, as fuel prices go through the roof because our demand goes up. STOP!
Not only is it time to get off of fossil fuels, but it is time for an Apollo + Manhattan Project for energy independence and clean energy. And Obama has to put his strength behind it. He is being softly supportive, but this is an issue that can win him the election.
Not only is it time to get off of fossil fuels, but it is time for an Apollo + Manhattan Project for energy independence and clean energy. And Obama has to put his strength behind it. He is being softly supportive, but this is an issue that can win him the election.
Monday, September 8, 2008
women and the presidential campaign
I want to say something about the two prominent women in the conventions.
First, Sarah Palin.
I will confess that I do find her frightening. Not only did she excite the GOP to actually (possibly) vote for McCain, but she seems to have charmed the press into quiet googly-eyed submission. Having read something of her policies and beliefs, she is truly scary. She makes W seem centrist (though far from leftist). She is on the extreme kook wing of the GOP. Her denial of science, laid out in my previous post, makes her unqualified to begin with. Her cow-towing to the oil industry is very concerning: do we have another Cheney coming? And her radical stance on hunting reminds me of the John Birch society and worse.
I am not what many would consider "typical liberal" on hunting. In fact, I am a supporter. In the years I lived in Colorado I discovered that hunters were probably the most powerful allies environmentalists could have. But then, I never met a hunter with views like Palin. Most of them agreed that healthy predator populations were important to maintain healthy prey populations, and that hunters and predators (wolves mostly) were interested in different members of a herd. (Hunters: big & healthy; Wolves: weak, sickly, old).
Second, Hillary Clinton
I was pleased that Obama did not choose Sen. Clinton as his running mate. I liked them both as candidates, though I did not consider either of them the best candidate for the Dems, but that is for another post. Clinton would not be a good second fiddle to Obama. First of all, she is not a second fiddle. Second, a VP generally has very limited authority or influence. Only if the president is weak and frightened (like W) can the VP have an important role. Clinton is a powerful senator who can truly have policy impact in the Senate, if she cannot be president. The country will be better off with her in the Senate, and should Obama fail to defeat McCain or be an effective president, Clinton will be waiting in the wings for 2012. That said, I hope Bill Richardson is still in the picture come next election. Although I like Joe Biden, I think Richardson would have been the best VP choice.
First, Sarah Palin.
I will confess that I do find her frightening. Not only did she excite the GOP to actually (possibly) vote for McCain, but she seems to have charmed the press into quiet googly-eyed submission. Having read something of her policies and beliefs, she is truly scary. She makes W seem centrist (though far from leftist). She is on the extreme kook wing of the GOP. Her denial of science, laid out in my previous post, makes her unqualified to begin with. Her cow-towing to the oil industry is very concerning: do we have another Cheney coming? And her radical stance on hunting reminds me of the John Birch society and worse.
I am not what many would consider "typical liberal" on hunting. In fact, I am a supporter. In the years I lived in Colorado I discovered that hunters were probably the most powerful allies environmentalists could have. But then, I never met a hunter with views like Palin. Most of them agreed that healthy predator populations were important to maintain healthy prey populations, and that hunters and predators (wolves mostly) were interested in different members of a herd. (Hunters: big & healthy; Wolves: weak, sickly, old).
Second, Hillary Clinton
I was pleased that Obama did not choose Sen. Clinton as his running mate. I liked them both as candidates, though I did not consider either of them the best candidate for the Dems, but that is for another post. Clinton would not be a good second fiddle to Obama. First of all, she is not a second fiddle. Second, a VP generally has very limited authority or influence. Only if the president is weak and frightened (like W) can the VP have an important role. Clinton is a powerful senator who can truly have policy impact in the Senate, if she cannot be president. The country will be better off with her in the Senate, and should Obama fail to defeat McCain or be an effective president, Clinton will be waiting in the wings for 2012. That said, I hope Bill Richardson is still in the picture come next election. Although I like Joe Biden, I think Richardson would have been the best VP choice.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
qualifications to lead ...
From my unfortunate vantage point as an unenfranchised voter, it is incredible to me that people in the US can consider as qualified for high office someone who has no respect for science. Especially after 8 years of such leadership. There is an element of the "right" that considers science to be "opinion". This element threatens the future of the US as a scientific, technological, and, in fact, intellectual leader in the world. If they have their way, the US will be a nuclear armed country populated by ignoramuses. This is extraordinarily dangerous and threatening to our future.
Denial of such well-established scientific theories (in the scientific sense) as evolution would leave our children ignorant of the processes by which biological systems form. It threatens our ability to cultivate the eager minds of our youth to become the discoverers of cures for terrible diseases.
Denial of the profound evidence for global climate change is not simply stupid, it is colossally dangerous. The implications of climate change are terrible to contemplate, and such denial asks to leave our children with a world that spirals into the worst of all possible scenarios. These are not just environmental, but geopolitical and economic as well.
As scientists always deal with uncertainties, let us consider the highly unlikely possibility that human-induced climate change is not taking place. Do we continue with business as usual? Eventually fossil fuels will run out. The US cannot produce more than a few percent of the fuels it uses, and this would also be the case should we open all potential development of fossil-based fuels on US territory, including coal, natural gas, oil, etc. So we will remain dependent on sources from wonderfully democratic and stable countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. In the meantime, in Europe and Asia, huge investments are being made in alternative energies, including solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. When oil peaks, and we need to urgently pursue other sources, we will be forced to purchase energy from China and Europe. This at at time when we are long past being an exporting nation and when our economy will need a shot that can be gotten through competing in the creation of new energy technologies.
Now suppose we go on with business as usual, accepting the arguments of people like Sen. Inhofe that global warming is a "hoax". What happens when Sen. Inhofe is shown to be wrong. In the US we will have to deal with migration from flooded coastal areas, the loss of a great portion of low-lying states like Florida, at the same time as our economy has tanked because new technology development has gone to China. Will we use our ace in the hole, nukes, to fight off such competition. We're going down, so let's take the rest of the world with us? Globally, mass migrations are taking place, as countries like Bangladesh disappear under rising seas. Expanding deserts push more from once fertile fields, with all that it implies.
The right-wing in the US is playing a very dangerous hand, and the selection of a VP candidate like Palin further demonstrates that the GOP is not qualified to lead us. It is too bad. Eight years ago it seemed the GOP actually had a realist leader who was appropriate for the times. Even John McCain has sacrificed wisdom for folly in the pursuit of power.
The Democrats may be bungling fools when it comes to implementing policy, but at least their principles are correct. What is frightening is their ability to lose, especially now, as the stakes get higher and higher, and true, realistic, and effective leadership is necessary.
Denial of such well-established scientific theories (in the scientific sense) as evolution would leave our children ignorant of the processes by which biological systems form. It threatens our ability to cultivate the eager minds of our youth to become the discoverers of cures for terrible diseases.
Denial of the profound evidence for global climate change is not simply stupid, it is colossally dangerous. The implications of climate change are terrible to contemplate, and such denial asks to leave our children with a world that spirals into the worst of all possible scenarios. These are not just environmental, but geopolitical and economic as well.
As scientists always deal with uncertainties, let us consider the highly unlikely possibility that human-induced climate change is not taking place. Do we continue with business as usual? Eventually fossil fuels will run out. The US cannot produce more than a few percent of the fuels it uses, and this would also be the case should we open all potential development of fossil-based fuels on US territory, including coal, natural gas, oil, etc. So we will remain dependent on sources from wonderfully democratic and stable countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. In the meantime, in Europe and Asia, huge investments are being made in alternative energies, including solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. When oil peaks, and we need to urgently pursue other sources, we will be forced to purchase energy from China and Europe. This at at time when we are long past being an exporting nation and when our economy will need a shot that can be gotten through competing in the creation of new energy technologies.
Now suppose we go on with business as usual, accepting the arguments of people like Sen. Inhofe that global warming is a "hoax". What happens when Sen. Inhofe is shown to be wrong. In the US we will have to deal with migration from flooded coastal areas, the loss of a great portion of low-lying states like Florida, at the same time as our economy has tanked because new technology development has gone to China. Will we use our ace in the hole, nukes, to fight off such competition. We're going down, so let's take the rest of the world with us? Globally, mass migrations are taking place, as countries like Bangladesh disappear under rising seas. Expanding deserts push more from once fertile fields, with all that it implies.
The right-wing in the US is playing a very dangerous hand, and the selection of a VP candidate like Palin further demonstrates that the GOP is not qualified to lead us. It is too bad. Eight years ago it seemed the GOP actually had a realist leader who was appropriate for the times. Even John McCain has sacrificed wisdom for folly in the pursuit of power.
The Democrats may be bungling fools when it comes to implementing policy, but at least their principles are correct. What is frightening is their ability to lose, especially now, as the stakes get higher and higher, and true, realistic, and effective leadership is necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)