Archive for August, 2007

Most Diabolically Misleading Magazine Cover Ever?

Saturday, August 25th, 2007

By David L. Brown

We have written much about the activities of climate change naysayers, many of them in actuality puppets whose strings are pulled by ExxonMobil and the like. The mainstream press generally takes a “balanced” approach to reporting on the subject, in which the opinions of climate scientists (who are almost unanimously convinced of the real threat of global warming) are diluted through the words and writings of those running dogs of Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Ag and all their associates.

So today at the grocery store I noticed that the current issue of Newsweek features an “expose” of the climate change coverup that has been bankrolled by self-interested corporations. Was I happy? Was I impressed at their courageous and forthright reportage? Well, frankly no. In fact, I was outraged.

Why? Well, here is the magazine’s cover as it appears this week:

newsweek.jpg

OK, do you start to see why this struck me the wrong way? To the casual glance of tens of millions of Americans as they stand in checkout lines or wander past magazine racks the screaming 60 point headline, to which their eyes are drawn like magnets by the flaming image of the Sun, states exactly what ExxonMobil would like us all to think: “Global Warming Is A Hoax.”

Only those who notice the asterisk and lean close can read the little “footnote” in the lower left of the cover, which begins to put the proper perspective on the story — and even that doesn’t come right out and state that the “naysayers” in question are wrong. To get that message loud and clear you have to actually read the in-depth article inside.

(more…)

Posted in Climate Change, Communications | 1 Comment »

A Landscape of Ignorance and Deceit

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007

By David L. Brown

One of the discouraging facts about climate change debate is that too much of the “conversation” takes place beyond the bounds of informed awareness or even common sense.

For example we often hear statements such as “Well, it’s (fill in temperature) here at (fill in place), so there can be no global warming.” Such ignorant remarks are so common that they have become part of the general commentary about the weather that serves as a substitute for conversation in our increasingly barren intellectual landscape.

On the other side of the great divide of ill-informed opinion about climate change are the empty-headed “environmentalists” (a.k.a. “tree huggers”) that flock to demonstrations, make vacuous public statements, and otherwise display their ignorance. A recent segment on the Penn and Teller television series “Bullshit” illustrates this gulf of stupidity. In it they set up a situation in which they film a young woman at an environmental rally who approaches participants with an invitation to sign a petition to ban “dihydro monoxide” (H2O). She accurately describes this as “a chemical that is found in rivers and reservoirs,” that is used by the makers of styrofoam and the nuclear industry, that is present in our food and even baby formula and so forth.

The “pitch” deliberately mimics the kind of environmental hysteria these people are used to hearing. And it works: Hundreds of people, hearing these alarming facts (but being completely clueless that the “chemical” in question is common water) gladly sign the petition to ban this horrible substance. This is ignorance, trusting credulousness, and stupidity all wrapped up in a single example.

Tree huggers in general are the latest incarnation of the hippie culture born during the 1960s, and as many of them see it the “solution” to environmental problems is for all of us to return to nature. In other words, we should all live in the forest in happy hippie communes while subsisting on mushrooms and pine cones. Hmm, not very practical and especially in a world with more than 6.5 billion people. I think these people grew up watching too many Disney cartoon movies and think that the world really is like that. (more…)

Posted in Climate Change, Default File | 1 Comment »

Zimbabwe Teeters On Brink of Anarchy

Sunday, August 19th, 2007

By David L. Brown

Under Robert Mugabe’s thuggish rule, Zimbabwe — the Central African nation once known for its strong economy, vibrant agriculture, and relatively high standard of living — has become a poster child for Third World collapse. Now, the once thriving nation is nearing total breakdown says a report in The Sunday Telegraph today. According to the newspaper’s web site:

The economy of Zimbabwe is facing total collapse within four months, leaving the country facing a slide into Congo-style anarchy, The Sunday Telegraph has been told.

Western officials fear the business, farming and financial sectors may be crippled by Christmas, triggering a collapse of government control that could leave the country prey to warlords and ignite long-suppressed tribal tensions.

The stark warning of the scale of the crisis comes despite the welcome given to Mr Mugabe by fellow African leaders at a summit in neighboring Zambia last week, where critics had hoped he might be pressurized into changing his policies.

It also follows reports that Britain’s military is reviewing contingency plans to evacuate more than 20,000 Britons, were any widespread state of emergency to occur.

Speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, one Western official said: “It is hard to be definitive, but probably within months, by the end of the year, we will see the formal economy cease to work.”

Thus another Third World nation is teetering on the brink of anarchy, civil war, and famine. This provides a grim reminder of the direction in which much of the world is headed as population growth, particularly in poor or “developing” places, outstrips food and other resources. As in Zimbabwe, there are various factors involved including mismanagement by leaders who typically are self-appointed dictators who make it SOP to divert large portions of their national GDP into their own private Swiss bank accounts while living the high life on the backs of their starving people.

At the root of the problem, however, is the pressure of growing populations as they crash into the brick wall of fixed resources. Places such as Zimbabwe have long been unable to feed their people without the help of imported food and foreign aid from the West. In this case a major factor has been the confiscation of modern and efficient White-owned farms that once made Zimbabwe (and its former incarnation as Rhodesia) a model of success. As that agricultural base was destroyed, the nation sank steadily toward its present situation on the brink of complete disaster.

Unfortunately, the world’s population has soared well beyond the ability of the Earth to support those teeming numbers in any sustainable way. As a result, land is being abused and mismanaged, leading to desertification and erosion. Now as we enter the long heralded era of declining oil supplies, America, Europe and other leading agricultural producers have decided to turn farm crops into ethanol to replace gasoline.

(more…)

Posted in Agriculture Issues, Default File, Politics, Population Issues | Comments Off

Sweetening the Ethanol Pot

Friday, August 17th, 2007

By David L. Brown

If there was ever any doubt that a major underlying factor behind the ethanol mania is the desire of the federal government to funnel more cash to farmers, here’s the saccharine truth as reported today by the Associated Press (read it here on FoxNews.com):

WASHINGTON — Congress is hoping that an ethanol industry with an endless appetite for corn will have a sweet tooth too.

Under the farm bill the House passed last month, the federal government would buy surplus sugar and sell it to ethanol producers, where it would be used in a mixture with corn. The program was inserted as a hedge against a looming North American Free Trade Agreement provision, which will let Mexico export unlimited amounts of sugar to the U.S. starting next year.

The U.S. sugar program currently props up sugar prices through a combination of price guarantees and import quotas. Once the limit on Mexican imports expires, the government could be faced with a price-depressing glut of sugar, which in turn could lead to taxpayer-funded government purchases of surplus sugar.

So now another food product may be diverted from its proper purpose, feeding human beings or their livestock and pets, and turned into fake gasoline. Note that the express purpose of this is to prevent sugar prices from dropping in order to benefit producers. The representative who added this provision to the bill is Collin Peterson, who represents the sugar beet producing area of Minnesota’s Red River Valley. The fact that this would benefit a few farmers while punishing several hundred million American consumers who will pay more for processed foods containing the sweet stuff apparently does not enter into consideration.

Actually, the makers of processed foods already mark up the cost of the ingredients they use by such a huge margin that in this case higher sugar costs may not make much difference. That is not the case with corn, which is a major feedstuff for beef, hog, chicken and dairy farmers. Corn farmers are benefiting from the government subsidies being provided to produce ethanol from corn, but the “unintended consequence” is that livestock and dairy farmers are being punished and so are consumers who are already paying more for meat and dairy products.

It is a shame to see valuable foods going into ethanol production, and especially when it could be possible to develop alternatives. In Brazil much of that nation’s fuel needs are already being met by ethanol produced from sugar cane, not the processed sugar itself. Even better, studies have shown that the crop residue from sugar cane production, called bagasse, could be an excellent source for cellulosic ethanol production that relies on crop residues such as corn stalks, straw, wood chips, bagasse, and other byproducts of agriculture.

The administration doesn’t seem to care much for Peterson’s idea. According to the AP story:

Mark Keenum, agriculture undersecretary for farm and foreign agricultural services, said the Agriculture Department tried to sell 100,000 tons of surplus sugar in 2001 for ethanol, but was only able to sell 10,000 tons — and at a significant loss.

“It would lock the department into a management process that’s not been proven to be successful in the past,” Keenum said.

A spokesman for the sugar industry pointed out that the situation has changed, apparently referring to the rapid growth in ethanol capacity and the higher corn costs that have resulted from the new demand. However, even Rep. Peterson admitted that “some amount of subsidy” would be required to make his proposal work. In this model, the government would absorb the cost of buying the sugar at a higher price than ethanol producers would be willing to pay for it.
Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Ag Committee, looks with favor on the idea according to the AP report so there may be a significant chance that it remains in the final Agriculture Bill when it comes out of the Congress.

A voice of warning came from the consumer advocate group Taxpayers for Common Sense. The AP quoted a TCS spokesman as follows:

“This is not exactly the best thing for the consumer,” said Demian Moore, a senior policy analyst with the group who specializes in agriculture policy. “It’s just another subsidy for an industry that doesn’t need to be subsidized.”

Posted in Agriculture Issues, Politics | Comments Off

Congress Encounters the Energy Tar Baby

Monday, August 13th, 2007

By David L. Brown

Our nation, and indeed all the nations of the entire world, are facing a serious energy crisis. Because of the danger of climate change we cannot continue to burn increasing amounts of fossil fuels. Clean alternatives must be found. Even more threatening to our economy is the fact that the Earth may be nearing or even have passed the so-called Hubbert Peak for petroleum recovery, after which oil production cannot be sustained except through heroic and increasingly expensive efforts.

Naturally our representatives in Washington are eager to “solve” these energy problems, and the only way they know how to approach anything is by passing new laws. Lots of new laws. (Why do they so seldom address problems by repealing existing laws that may have created the problems in the first place?)

Unfortunately, there is apparently no clear vision in the halls of Congress about what to do about energy — at least no vision that extends as far as from one end of the Capitol Building to the other. Perhaps it is because there are too many special interests involved (Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Auto to name just three). Remembering the situation in which B’rer Fox found himself when engaging in fisticuffs with the Tar Baby, perhaps we should have some sympathy for our befuddled legislators as they struggle to “solve” our nation’s looming energy crisis.

To their credit, both houses have now passed versions of a new energy bill, the Senate in June and the House just last week. But there is one very big problem: The two bills have about as much in common as Bart and Lisa Simpson. The conference committee charged with attempting to lash up a compromise between these disparate bills will face a daunting and perhaps impossible task.

Here, thanks to information included in a report posted on the Energy Legal Blog, are some examples of just how different the two bills are:

  • The House bill passed August 4 by a 241 to 172 vote requires that by 2020 public utilities produce at least 15 percent of their power from renewable sources such as wind and solar. The Senate version has no such provision.
  • The House bill would cut $16 billion from tax breaks for oil and gas companies and would apply the savings to incentives for energy efficiency. The Senate version does not address this.
  • The Senate bill calls for an increase to 35 mpg in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) automobile efficiency standards by 2020 for a range of vehicles, including cars, SUVs and light trucks. The House bill includes no provisions concerning CAFE standards.
  • The Senate bill (quite unwisely in my opinion) would mandate an increase in the use of ethanol to seven times the present level by 2022, and require that 85 percent of cars manufactured by 2015 be capable of running on E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. The House, perhaps in its great wisdom although more likely due to mere oversight, sets no such targets.
  • The Senate version provides financial support for programs to produce liquid fuels from coal, another issue the House bill does not address.
  • The Senate bill also includes a provision making it unlawful to charge an “unconscionably excessive price” for oil products, including gasoline. The House bill does not plan to criminalize inflation.

One of two things can happen if the conference committee succeeds in crafting a compromise bill: Either the best features of both bills can be included in the final draft, or those features can be bargained away to yield a watered-down version. In the worst case the entire process could get bogged down and have to be started all over again in the next session of Congress. Based on recent experience, the gloomier alternatives are probably the most likely.

(more…)

Posted in Energy Technology, Law and Regulatory Issues, Politics | 1 Comment »

A Tool for Every Task

Thursday, August 9th, 2007

By David L. Brown

I saw an image today that reminded me just how complex are the environmental problems facing today’s world. It shows a Swiss Army Knife that has been named by the Guiness Book of Records as “Most Functional Penknife.” Here’s the picture of what is called the “Giant Collector’s Knife,” as reported on FoxNews.com:

0_61_080907_knife.jpg

I’m not sure this thing would qualify as a mere penknife. In fact, it would probably be well suited to facing down a gang of terrorists armed with scimitars who would no doubt run screaming into the arms of Allah at the very sight of it. And with a total of 85 tools it surely is not limited to sharpening the point of your quill pen, as a penknife is intended to do. (You do still use quill pens, don’t you?) At a glance, it looks like a crew of plumbers, carpenters and electricians could make a fine living with one of these babies and no need for additional tools of any kind. You could build a house big enough to house John Edwards with one of these things and about a million tons of construction materials.

Now considering that this thing weighs two pounds eleven ounces and costs $1200, it might not be your first choice as something to carry around in your jeans (especially in the open position as pictured which, if you’re a guy, could pose a significant threat to your manhood).

But all that aside: Taken as a physical analogy to what it might take to solve the serious challenges posed by global warming, over-population, pollution, climate change and resource depletion, the image of this incredibly useful Swiss Army Knife may be a fairly good representation. Just a thought. Heh.

Posted in Satire, Irony, and Humor | Comments Off

Burying the Truth

Wednesday, August 8th, 2007

By David L. Brown

A few weeks ago we reported on a contest sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists (see post “Vote for Best ‘Science Idol’ Editorial Cartoon,” July 7). According to the organization, the competition “draws attention to the growing problem of political interference in federal government science on issues as diverse as drug safety and global warming”.

At the time I promised to post the winning cartoon when it was announced, so here it is:

idol-07-winner-truth.jpg

The subject of the contest, and the focus of the winning cartoon, are both particularly timely in view of the news we reported on recently [see my article titled “More Evidence of Suppressed Science,” posted July 11). In that piece I examined a claim by Richard Carmona, who was the United States’ Surgeon General from 2002 to 2006 who reportedly “accused the White House of political interference and muzzling him on key issues such as embryonic stem cell research.”

As always, what goes around comes around and Truth is often viewed by some as dangerous and something to be hidden, especially if it happens to be “inconvenient” to paraphrase Al Gore.

Posted in Politics, Satire, Irony, and Humor | Comments Off

Smogfest In Store for 2008 Olympics

Wednesday, August 8th, 2007

By David L. Brown

We have written before about the rising problem of air pollution in China, raising concerns that the increasing smog problem in Beijing could threaten the success of next year’s Olympic Games.

The point is well made by this photograph from Reuters today showing a celebration marking the one-year countdown to the opening of the Games next year. The view of celebrants in Tiananmen Square, against a backdrop of thick smog, clearly demonstrates the terrible problem of air pollution that is plaguing China as it continues to bring on line one or two new coal-fired power plants each week.

artbeijingdancersap.jpg

When I visited China in 1985 air pollution was already a problem in the capital city, even though there were relatively few vehicles. I remember watching buses lurching through the streets packed with so many people that they made a sardine can seem spacious, each one belching huge quantities of thick, greasy diesel smoke. My photographs at the nearby Summer Palace and even the distant Great Wall were marred by gray skies, the result of smoke and smog. And come to think of it, my visit to Tiananmen Square took place under atmospheric conditions similar to what is pictured above.

According to Chinese authorities things have gotten better in recent years, which means that they must have gotten a lot worse since I was there over 20 years ago. It is all relative. The Chinese have seen an improvement, but to our Western eyes the clouds of smog are startling. We have largely forgotten what it is like to experience significant smog conditions. The days of London’s “pea soup fogs,” Pittsburgh’s once smoke-engulfed steel mills, and the Los Angeles skyline looming from a haze of smog are long gone.

The last time I witnessed anything like what is shown in the picture above was about a decade ago during a driving trip to the Yucatan region of Mexico. As we drove near to Mexico City to the East, from 50 miles away we could see a vast cloud of dirty air hovering above the over-populated city.

How is a worldwide audience going to react to the sight of Olympic contenders wheezing and coughing, cameras peering through murky air to record the Games, and clouds of smoke rolling across the city? I suppose those who live in Mexico City and other Third World places will not see anything out of the ordinary, but to those of us who are accustomed to relatively clean air it will provide a revelation about the state of affairs in the Middle Kingdom.

I have read that the Chinese are proposing to shut down power plants in the Beijing area during the Games to reduce the smog. That seems to me to be a vain hope on two counts. First, the city requires vast amounts of electricity just to operate, and that will be particularly true during the Games. If the Chinese attempt to bring in electricity from far-flung locations and shut down the nearby plants, that will mean that many other parts of the country could be left without power. Second, as we know the air pollution problem over South Asia is widespread and far from just a local effect.

Here are a few of our previous posts related to the pollution problem in China: “China Becomes World Leader in Carbon Emissions,” posted June 20, 2007; “The Trouble with China, The Great Squanderer,” posted September 7, 2006; “China’s Pollution Rising Amid Signs of Concern,” posted August 15, 2006; and “China’s Massive Air Pollution Crossing Pacific,” posted August 2, 2006.

Clearly, the Chinese race to attempt to attain First World status through copying the 19th Century path of the Industrial Revolution is fraught with problems. Considering that the troubles of greenhouse gas and air quality pollution have been identified as unsustainable in the West, how is it that the Red Chinese believe they can create an entire new Industrial Revolution in the 21st Century based on the burning of vast quantities of fossil fuels?

As is so often the case, there are no easy solutions to environmental problems and certainly not in this instance. It seems that China is going to lose face on this issue in a huge way when the eyes of the world turn to Beijing twelve months from now. I suspect that hosting the 2008 Olympics will not turn out to be the public relations coup for which the Chinese are hoping.

Posted in Fossil Fuels, Pollution | Comments Off

Is Global Warming Coverup Turning to Progress?

Wednesday, August 8th, 2007

By David L. Brown

In earlier posts we have discussed the question of how government and powerful energy-related multinational corporations may have acted to suppress information about climate change and confuse the issue in the minds of ordinary citizens. There appears to be ample evidence that this has occurred, and it is a curious example of how the general public — even well-educated individuals — can be hoodwinked.

To those of us who are science-literate and pay attention to knowledgeable sources such as the National Research Council, Britain’s Lord Stern, the IPCC and NASA’s James Hansen, there is no question but that so-called global warming is real and that climate change is taking place. Virtually every respected scientist with expertise in related fields agrees with this, and yet here in the U.S their voices have all-too-often been either outright gagged by government officials or their opinions “refuted” by flaks and talking heads working for the anti-global warming forces.

One of the strongest voices attempting to bring attention to the threat of climate change has been former Vice President Al Gore. Here is his latest word on the subject, delivered at a forum in Singapore and reported by the Associated Press here:

“There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community,” Gore said… “In actuality, there is very little disagreement.”

Gore likened the campaign to the millions of dollars spent by U.S. tobacco companies years ago on creating the appearance of scientific debate on smoking’s harmful effects.

“This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science,” Gore said. “We live in a world where what used to be called ‘propaganda’ now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion.”

After the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] made up of the world’s top climate scientists, released a report in February that warned that the cause of global warming is “very likely” man-made, “the deniers offered a bounty of $10,000 for each article disputing the consensus that people could crank out and get published somewhere,” Gore said.

“They’re trying to manipulate opinion and they are taking us for fools,” he said.

He said Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, is one of the major fuel companies involved in trying to mislead the public about global warming.

[For more on this, read my post "ExxonMobil's Great Global Warming Coverup," posted here on January 3.]

“Some of the tobacco companies spent millions of dollars to create the appearance that there was disagreement on the science. And some of the large coal and utility companies and the largest oil company, ExxonMobil, have been involved in doing that exact same thing for the last several years,” Gore said.

Predictably, according to the AP, ExxonMobil replied that Gore’s “allegation” was “completely false.” This does not fit well with published records showing that the oil giant has consistently funded nay-sayers on the question of climate change, both individuals and organizations such as conservative think tanks.

But is the worm beginning to turn? It seems that the overwhelming and growing mass of evidence in support of climate change is beginning to make outright denial an untenable position, even for the Bush administration which has been a strong supporter of the energy companies. Back in May the President announced plans for an international summit to address climate change. [See my post "Bush on GHG: Breath of Air or More BS?" posted May 14.]

It appears that Bush may have meant what he said, because according to a report from the Chinese news service Xinhua, his administration is moving ahead on the commitment. Here is an excerpt of the story datelined Washington, as reported on the news agency’s China View web site here:

U.S. President George W. Bush sets a high-level conference on global warming in September that will include the U.S., the European Union, the United Nations and other 11 nations, a senior governmental official announced Friday.

The exact date for the first of a series of climate conference is set for Sept. 27-28, the official said.

Bush proposed that by the end of next year, America and other nations set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases that spur global warming. This is the main purpose of the climate conference.

Bush unveiled a long-term strategy on climate change in late May before a summit of the G8, urging major nations to set a global emission goal.

In a letter to invitees, Bush assured them that “the United States is committed to collaborating with other major economies” to agree on a global framework for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, according to Reuters report.

Bush agreed with other leaders of the G8 in June to make “substantial” but unspecified reductions in climate-warming emissions and to negotiate a new global climate pact that would extend and broaden the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012.

It remains to be seen whether Bush is truly serious about addressing climate change, but if he is this could signal a major 180 degree policy turn. In fact, using the analogy of a ship it could be described as turning away from a deadly reef toward the open sea.

But it should be pointed out that serious political problems remain, not least the insistence of “developing nations” such as China, which is now the No. 1 polluter in the world, that they be given exemption from drastic efforts to contain greenhouse gas emissions. That was the worm in the apple of the Kyoto Accord, which placed the burden of solving global warming squarely onto the developed world while allowing rapid industrialization in places such as China, India, and South America to continue to spew out carbon.

I will close by commenting that it took reading a Chinese news report to find out about this development. Where is the U.S. mainstream media? Oh, yes, I forgot there are more important things to write about, such as Paris Hilton’s latest escapades, the political opinions of Sean Penn, Michael Jackson’s whereabouts, etc. etc. ad vomitum. Jeeesh!

Posted in Climate Change, Politics | Comments Off