Archive for May, 2006

Corrupt Mexico Passes Its Troubles onto U.S.

Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

By David L. Brown

We wrote recently about the rampant corruption and lawlessness that is the shame of Mexico and an important root cause of the illegal immigration problems we are experiencing in the U.S. That post was titled “Our Unstable Third World Neighbor.” (To read it, search the site archives.)

How bad is it in Mexico? Here’s the opinion of veteran foreign correspondent and columnist Georgie Anne Geyer:

“In short, Mexico is so corrupt, so oligopolistic, so rotting inside with the privilege of the rich that it has to send its poor and its potential political activists to another country. And on top of that, it tries to blame the United States for its own failures.

“When I was in Mexico last fall, after dozens of visits over the years, people on every political and social level confirmed these accusations, complaining to me of Fox’s failures.”

The rest of her column can be read here as it appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

(more…)

Escalating “Quasi-ness” of Canadian Tar Sands

Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

by Val Germann

We have commented more than once on the massive Canadian tar sands project, one that has seen Alberta pass Texas as an oil producing district. The situtation up there is about as perfect an illustration as you will find of what Eugene S. Schwartz called a “quasi-solution” to a problem. And it’s getting more “quasi” every day, as an article today on the Washington POST‘s website illustrates.

The digging — into an area the size of Maryland and Virginia combined — has proliferated at gold-rush speed, spurred by high oil prices, new technology and an unquenched U.S. thirst for the fuel. The expansion has presented ecological problems that experts thought they would have decades to resolve.

It seems that the environmental costs have been “unexpectedly high” and problems once thought to be the province of the far future are appearing right now. Well, we here at Star Phoenix Base are not surprised at what the full cost of tar sands oil are turning out to be. The answer was right there in the process itself and had to be known to many long before the first shovel of bitumen was put into a coker.

Read the POST article and remember: THIS is what the back side of the Hubbert Curve is going to look like. And it’s not pretty at all, not at all.

**

Get Ready for Super Poison Ivy!

Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

By David L. Brown

There is one more danger to be aware of from global warming—the itchy, scratchy effect of poison ivy. According to an Associated Press report, a study reported in the current issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that higher levels of CO2 allow the noxious weed to grow faster and produce more violent reactions. Here’s an excerpt from the AP story:

Compared to poison ivy grown in usual atmospheric conditions, those exposed to the extra-high carbon dioxide grew about three times larger – and produced more allergenic form of urushiol, scientists from Duke and Harvard University reported.

“The fertilization effect of rising CO2 on poison ivy … and the shift toward a more allergenic form of urushiol have important implications for the future health of both humans and forests,” the study concludes. Read it all.

Despite widespread efforts to minimize the potential effects of global warming, the list of dangerous potential effects continues to grow steadily longer. One thing is for sure: a warmer planet is not going to be a better, more pleasant place.

The Ethanol Delusion: There Is No Free Lunch

Tuesday, May 30th, 2006

By David L. Brown

Star Phoenix Base has commented in depth on the fact that ethanol—whether made from corn, switchgrass, or another farm crop—is not a good answer to our nation’s oil dependence. There are many reasons for this, which we have covered in the following postings (you can find them by searching the site archives):

  1. Switchgrass…Energy Source of the Future? Not!
  2. Ethanol and the Second Law
  3. A Glorious Delusion: Turning Topsoil to Fuel
  4. Sending More Pork to the Farm?
  5. Nation’s Soils to Lose Big as Ethanol Ramps Up

Now we are disturbed to read of a new movement aimed at putting pressure on government and oil companies to vastly increase the use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. The issue is introduced by actor and environmental activist Robert Redford in a guest essay he wrote for CNN.com (Read it here). Redford refers to a variety of alternative energy programs, but then focuses on one with which we cannot agree—ethanol.

Star Phoenix Base is as concerned as anyone can be about the energy crisis facing our nation, but the reality of agricultural science and economics cannot support a major move to ethanol as an “easy answer” to these problems. And yet, that is exactly what the movement Redford supports is advocating.

The program is sponsored by a group of politically activist organizations including the ultra-left moveon.org. As Redford describes the ethanol initiative in his CNN article:

Recently, a dynamic new campaign launched to seize and grow these opportunities and break our energy dependence. It’s called KickTheOilHabit.org, and it has the backing of a diverse coalition of organizations. Its first action was to challenge oil companies to double the number of renewable fuel pumps at their stations within the year and pledge to offer E85 ethanol fuel at half of all gas stations within the decade.

As the organization states, E85 fuel is now available at only 600 stations, and there are 170,000 total stations in the U.S. That means they are advocating increasing the number of statons that offer this alternative fuel from 600 to 85,000. That is an enormous increase of 142 times the present level. It would be wonderful if this new alternative to oil could help us throw off our dependence on OPEC. But, we cannot, and for a simple reason: The U.S. already is using 15 percent of our corn crop to produce ethanol, most of which is used in 10 percent gasohol blends rather than the 85 percent blend the group advocates.

(more…)

Water Vapor Wildcard in Global Warming Game

Monday, May 29th, 2006

by Val Germann

Left out of almost all discussions concerning “global warming” is the fact that water vapor contributes about two-thirds of the warming effect caused by our atmosphere. This lacuna exists because water vapor is not considered a “greenhouse gas” by the people who regulate such things, in part because water vapor can’t be regulated. But water vapor is important — very important — and must not be ignored.

And it won’t be ignored much longer because it appears to be on the increase, world wide, driven by the temperature effects of the designated “greenhouse gases” like carbon-dioxide, methane, and the various CFCs and HFCs. Here’s a quote from a late-2005 National Geographic News article concerning the rapid warming Europe has seen, which is melting glaciers in the Alps :

By plotting recent climate data and geographical data, the researchers found that the increase in greenhouse gases in Europe has caused a major disruption in the natural cycle of water evaporating from the surface of the Earth.

The water cycle—in which water evaporates, rises into the atmosphere, and eventually returns to Earth in the form of precipitation—has been disrupted to the point where the water vapor itself is helping to fuel the temperature increase, Philipona said.

Though I can’t locate the reference at this time, recent data from the Boulder, Colorado, atmospheric observing station indicates that water vapor there has been increasing about one percent per-year for the last two decades. The implications are clear: a water vapor positive feedback loop has likely been activated, kicked into gear by the temperature increases caused by CO2 and its fellow travelers.

Here is the REAL wildcard in the global warming game, one that could send the planet rapidly reeling upward in temperature, to a new equilbrium many degrees higher than currently thought possible. This is so even though increased water vapor may lead to increasing cloud cover.

That is, the planet Venus, with a surface temperature so high that lead would run like water, is totally covered by dense clouds everywhere and all the time.

Read the entire article here.

**

Egg-regious Errors in Chicken Logic

Monday, May 29th, 2006

By David L. Brown

It is being claimed that one of the most pressing questions of the ages has been answered—albeit without scientific rigor and in order to promote the release of a new Disney cartoon movie.

Addressing the major scientific issue of which came first, the chicken or the egg, a panel of eggsperts have concluded that the egg had to come first. Star Phoenix Base doesn’t think this is egg-sactly right, but first here is the main story as reported on CNN.com today:

LONDON, England — It’s a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal’s life.

Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, told the UK Press Association the pecking order was clear.

The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

“Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg,” he added. “So, I would conclude that the egg came first.” Read it all.

Now why would we differ with this conclusion? We’re not generally inclined to just go along with the rest of the flock, so we decided to peck out the alternatives, refusing to put all of our theoretical eggs in one basket so to speak. Of course, it is always difficult to gauge the distant past, to an era when the chicken was merely a twinkle in Col. Sanders’ eye. But let us give it a try.

First, Prof. Brookfield uses false logic in assigning a “pecking order” to this question, since only chickens, not eggs, are capable of pecking. This pun-ishing approach to a serious question is obviously intended to confuse the issue.

(more…)

Outlook Worsens for World’s Forests

Saturday, May 27th, 2006

By David L. Brown

There is horrible news today for those of us who had been led to believe that large portions of the planet’s forests were under the protection of sound stewardship. According to a news report from the Associated Press, of the two-thirds of the world’s forests that are supposed to be under responsible management or protection, most are in fact at risk. Here’s the lede, with the key graf in bold:

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Almost all the world’s tropical forests remain effectively unprotected even though two-thirds have been designated for some sort of preservation over the past two decades, according to a report released Thursday.

The study of tropical forest management by the International Tropical Timber Organization surveyed 2 billion acres – two-thirds of the world’s tropical forests – in 33 countries.

All of those forests were designated by the governments and landowners overseeing them as being under “sustainable management,” meaning they were completely protected as conservation areas, or designated as sites where economic activities such as logging were only allowed if they didn’t destroy the forest.

However, the group said that what it called “the most extensive survey ever” found that less than 5 percent of these forests were managed in a sustainable way last year. Read it all.

Humankind appears to be at war with nature, and in serious danger of winning. Total victory over nature will mean the end of humanity, so it’s a battle we do not really want to win. The problem is that what affects humanity as a whole does not concern individuals who see a chance to turn a profit from the destruction of a natural resource, such as a forest.

You and I may look at a forest as a thing of beauty, but exploiters see only logs, lumber, toothpicks and chopsticks. No, that’s wrong—what they actually see is money. And sad to say, those whose jobs it is to protect the environment are all too often paid off to look the other way. Greed and corruption are the norm, it seems, and the rape and pillage of our environment continues.

The ongoing destruction of the Earth’s forests is an ecological disaster beyond comprehension. Forests are the “lungs” of our planet, mediating the movement of moisture between land, sea and sky and refreshing our atmosphere with the oxygen that sustains animal life.
What can YOU do to help stop the destruction of forests? One thing is to learn more about the problem. A place to start is on this website for the Forest Stewardship Council, an organization that strives to certify wood products as having been produced through approved, sustainable methods. Here is a summary of the Council’s goals:

In many forests around the world, logging still contributes to habitat destruction, water pollution, displacement of indigenous peoples, and violence against people who work in the forest and the wildlife that dwells there. Many consumers of wood and paper, and many forest products companies believe that the link between logging and these negative impacts can be broken, and that forests can be managed and protected at the same time. Forest Stewardship Council certification is one way to improve the practice of forestry.

As always, it helps to speak out. Contact your Congressman and Senators to express your concern for forest loss. And, you may want to support the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Forest Stewardship Council and other groups as a volunteer or through donations. If enough of us act and speak out, our actions and voices may begin to be recognized.

Americans Doing Jobs Our Government Won’t Do

Saturday, May 27th, 2006

By David L. Brown

In a ground-breaking ceremony today, members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps began construction of a security fence on private property along the Arizona-Mexico border. Modeled after the fences built by the Israeli government in Gaza and the West Bank and which have reduced Palestinian terror attacks in those areas by 95%, the “wall” is actually a complete system including two fences with ditches on each side to prevent tunneling and keep out vehicles, plus coiled barbed wire (“concertina wire”) on both sides. Security cameras will allow Minutemen volunteer sentries to keep watch remotely from the comfort of their homes anywhere in the country thanks to the miracle of the Internet.

Here is a diagram of the border security fence as proposed by the Minuteman group, and with thanks to their web site:

The image “http://www.minutemanhq.com/images/bf_display.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

The reasons for the multiple levels of protection are explained this way on the Minuteman web site:

In order to be effective, a fence should not be easy to compromise by climbing over it with a ladder, cutting through it with wire cutters, ramming it with a vehicle, or tunneling under it undetected. No fence can be a 100% impenetrable barrier—but a good design will be time-consuming enough to get through that Border Patrol agents can be alerted to get to a point of attempted intrusion before the intrusion can be completed. We thank Colin Hanna and We Need A Fence.com for the design concept.

The group has cooperation from four private property owners so far, and estimates the cost of the security system at less than $150 per foot. That is a lot of money, about three-quarters of a million dollars per mile. However, assuming that about 1250 miles need to be built, it amounts to “only” about one billion dollars, far less than the cost of 9/11 to our nation.

The Minutemen are asking for donations (go here for details), but this is obviously a job that the Federal Government should be doing, and which it should make a top priority. Let’s hope the example of the Minuteman group helps motivate action from Washington, which seems bent on arranging amnesty for illegal trespassers on our national territory when it should be focused on closing the door first. The House and Senate are about to begin negotiations on immigration bills that are quite different. The House bill is far more sensible, placing border security ahead of amnesty. Write your Congressman and Senators to put them on notice about your feelings on this crucial issue. I have, and I plan to write them again soon. I do not oppose a program to eventually assimilate the millions of illegals already in our country—but before we start handing out lollipops we must make sure the entire population of Mexico doesn’t show up to get in line. That means a border system such as envisioned by the Minuteman Corps has to come first, and soon.

Saving the Planet, One Quasi-Solution at a Time!

Saturday, May 27th, 2006

by Val Germann

Not too long ago this writer introduced a term invented in 1971 by computer scientist Eugene S. Schwartz: the “quasi-solution.” For Schwartz, all technological “solutions” were at least partly “quasi,” if not crwazi (or crazee!), because they were always at least incomplete and many times counterproductive. And they were incomplete or counterproductive due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Entropy Law. Yes, even the Gods struggle in vain against Entropy.

Today, of course, the primary technological “fix” revolves around the god “efficiency” — which is directly related to size. Yes, bigger is better, in every way, where production and even marketing is concerned. This idea gained serious traction back in the day of the original Standard Oil and U.S. Steel, when America still had a “horse and buggy” economy in most places. But it’s still the rage today, as the latest wave of mergers and acquisitions goes to show. Yes, indeed, bigger is always better, just ask almost anyone. However, don’t ask them the questions: “Better for whom and in what ways?” No, that would be wrong.

Eons ago, back when I was taking economics courses at the graduate level, I was exposed to a concept that has stuck with me through the years: minimum optimal scale. This idea was a precept of the quasi-discredited (today) school of Institutional Economics, which could be the subject of another article.

No matter, it’s “minimum optimal scale” I’m concerned with today. In a nutshell, the idea is that for any process there are economies of scale up to a point of diminishing returns to that scale, and that’s where the growth in scale should stop. Embedded in this concept is the original idea of economic competition combined with a recognition of the Second Law, and what would become Schwartz’s “Quasi-Solution.”

For Adam Smith “competition” implied many buyers and sellers in the relevant market, which resulted in the non-existance of what is called “monopoly power.” A fine example of this is the position of wheat farmers here in the U.S. — selling into a market in which they have no power over price at all, because there are tens of thousands of wheat farmers and they are not organized. However, the other side of the wheat market consists of exactly five huge and privately-held agri-businesses, an “oligopoly” which IS organized and does in fact have “monopoly power” — and lots of it. Those firms “share the market” under a “rivalry regime” which sees them primarily protecting their share against their rivals while at the same time protecting their group all from outsiders. And they do NOT “compete” with each other on something like the price they give farmers.

I mention the above because my set of quasi-solutions works directly against the interests of giant firms like the ones in the grain markets and so has exactly ZERO chance of ever being put into practice. This is because giant firms have the money and staff to suffocate or co-opt all socio-political phenomena not to their liking. The spectacle of British Petroleum and General Electric both “going green” recently drives the point home, and with a .50-caliber bullet! (more…)

Islam and Communism: Brothers Under the Skin

Thursday, May 25th, 2006

The Islamic Threat to World Peace — Part II
Author’s Note: This is the second in an occasional series of essays on the subject of radical Islam and the threat it represents to the future of the world.

By David L. Brown

In a previous post, “Is Islam a Religion or a Cult,” I made the case that Islam, at least in its radical forms, is not a religion at all but a militaristic cult of world domination. Here are the stories of two philosophies that may at first glance seem quite different, but which are revealed by even a cursory examination to have strange and enigmatic parallels.

FIRST we will examine Communism, which was established by Karl Marx and his followers. Communism is a totalitarian cult which denies the existence of a deity and gives lip service to the concept of economic equality while its leaders wallow in comfort on the backs of its generally disenfranchised citizens (for present-day examples see Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea). International Communism has the goal of total world domination, conversion or subjugation to all who refuse to accept its philosophies, and the spreading of its ideas through brainwashing, intimidation and violence.

SECOND we will examine Islam, which was established by the Prophet Mohammed and his followers. Islam is a totalitarian cult which worships a mythical deity and gives lip service to the concept of economic equality while its leaders wallow in comfort on the backs of generally disenfranchised citizens (for present-day examples see Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran). Islam has the goal of total world domination, conversion or subjugation to all who refuse to accept its philosophies, and the spreading of its ideas through brainwashing, intimidation and violence.

Hmmm, it seems we have a lot of similarities here. But—and this is where things get interesting—the West has responded to these two very similar and parallel threats in ways that are astonishingly different.

Imagine if during the Cold War the Soviet Union had spent billions to establish Communist Educational Centers throughout the United States? What if they had staffed those centers with Communist political officers (Commisars) who held regular public meetings in which they espoused hatred for Capitalism and the West and exhorted participants to acts of “protest” and violence against non-Communists “wherever they may be found”? Would we have allowed it? Hell no! There is no way imaginable that such a thing could have had even the slightest chance of succeeding.

(more…)