Putting Things In the Present

By David L. Brown

I’m a writer, as anyone who has followed this blog may have realized. In recent years I’ve gotten seriously into fiction. Of course, the novel The Star Phoenix was the inspiration for this blog (the original novel is now available as a two-book Kindle version on Amazon under the title “Promise of the Phoenix.” You can find them at bargain prices here and here). The Star Phoenix was written in the mid-90s, and a lot of liquid’s gone under the overpass since then.

About two years ago I self-published my second novel, Quantum Cowboy (available as both print-on-demand trade paperback and eBook formats on Amazon and other sites. The $2.99 Kindle edition can be purchased here). At about the same time I published a non-fiction book titled Dead End Path: How Industrial Agriculture Has Stolen Our Future, also available at various online sites including here.) In the past year I’ve written another as-yet unpublished novel and am about three-quarters of the way through yet another. The first is a murder mystery and the current one is a science fiction novel.

Now you may wonder why I’m bringing all this up, and there’s a good reason. You see, I’ve had a kind of epiphany about my writing style and I wanted to share my discovery. You see, both of these newest books are written in the present tense. Yes, as if the action is taking place right now, not at some time in the past or in a galaxy far, far away.

Until recently, for the most part writing fiction in the present tense was considered a no-no. We’re all familiar with the common past tense format of nearly every story or novel we’ve ever read. It’s de rigour, it seems, to take the position of a storyteller relating something that happened once-upon-a-time. It’s interesting that even science fiction stories set in the far future are written in…wait for it…the past tense. Well, of course, because that’s just the way books are written.

But does that really make sense? Well, maybe not. After I started experimenting with the present tense in my murder mystery, Retirement Man, I soon learned to love telling a story that’s happening in the here and now, just as the story unfolds. It puts the reader right into the middle of the action, and I like it.

Now many old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud writers and critics have a problem with fiction in the present tense, and they’re quick to tell you why. It’s unnatural, they say. It doesn’t give the writer enough latitude, stuck in the present. It’s just not the way writing is done. To all of which I say bushwah and codswallop.

Continue reading

Posted in Book Reviews, On Writing | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Putting Things In the Present

Technology—Promise or Curse?

By David L. Brown

Historian Niall Ferguson in an article published in The Daily Beast raises a question that’s long interested me. He asks, in effect, which vision of the future we should embrace: The idea that technology will make the world a better place, or the vision of a world in catastrophic economic decline?

Here”s a brief excerpt from the beginning of his essay, titled “Don’t Believe the Techno-Utopian Hype” (you can read the whole thing here):

Are you a technoptimist or a depressimist? This is the question I have been pondering after a weekend hanging with some of the superstars of Silicon Valley.

I had never previously appreciated the immense gap that now exists between technological optimism, on the one hand, and economic pessimism, on the other. Silicon Valley sees a bright and beautiful future ahead. Wall Street and Washington see only storm clouds. The geeks think we’re on the verge of The Singularity. The wonks retort that we’re in the middle of a Depression.

Let’s start with the technoptimists. Last Saturday I listened with fascination as a panel of tech titans debated the question: “Will science and technology produce more dramatic changes in solving the world’s major problems over the next 25 years than have been produced over the last 25 years?”

They all thought so. We heard a description of what Google’s Project Glass, the Internet-enabled spectacles, can already do. (For example, the spectacles can be used to check if another speaker is lying.) Next up: a search engine inside the brain itself. We heard that within the next 25 years, it will be possible to take 1,000-mile journeys by being fired through tubes. We also heard that biotechnology will deliver genetic “photocopies” of human organs that need replacing. And we were promised genetically engineered bugs, capable of excreting clean fuel. The only note of pessimism came from an eminent neuroscientist, who conceded that a major breakthrough in the prevention of brain degeneration was unlikely in the next quarter century.

Ferguson,  a professor at Harvard and also associated with Oxford University in England and The Hoover Institution at Stanford, takes the same point of view that has always struck me as the right path. In effect, he asks: What is the value of technology that merely puts people out of work and provides wonderful whiz-bang stuff that has no real benefits for anyone. He points out that fifty years ago we were promised flying cars, and instead we have Twitter.

Continue reading

Posted in Conflict and War, Economics, Energy Technology, Politics, Resource Depletion, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Technology—Promise or Curse?

One-way Trip to Mars Is Not ‘Suicide’

By David L. Brown

In the news today are headlines about a “suicide” mission to Mars being planned by a private company. Here is a link to an article at Fox News about the plans announced by the Dutch company Mars One.

Now I know a bit about the meaning of words, and suicide this is not. Suicide is when one kills one’s self outright or embarks on a course that will inevitably result in their death (think Kamikaze pilots and terrorist bombers). That is not at all what Mars One has in mind. In fact, their plan is to create a habitat on Mars and then send volunteers to actually live there and continue to build the base for further expansion. Yes, it is envisioned as a one-way trip, at least for the time being, but no suicide is intended. In fact, the idea is that the volunteers will live out their natural lives on Mars, or even possibly return to Earth later when advanced technology makes it possible. They may even reproduce and create new generations of Martians.

In short, the word ‘suicide’ should never have been applied to this plan (and I’m not saying the idea itself might be without danger). The correct terms are migration or colonization, the processes through which people permanently move to a different location, in this case on another planet

It’s not suicide when you decide to move to another city (although come to think of  it, it could amount to the same thing if one were to relocate to certain inner-city neighborhoods in Detroit, Philadelphia or East St. Louis), so why should one-way trips to the proposed Martian colony be described with that word?

We didn’t call it suicide when John Glenn soared into space, or when Buzz Aldrin touched down on the moon. Of course, we hoped they would survive and they did. We will hope the Mars colonists will, too, if any should ever arrive there. I’m not optimistic about the prospects for human habitation in space, but let’s not put the wrong labels on new ideas. It would be a wonderful achievement to see a permanent presence on the Red Planet.

Posted in Astronomy, Space Exploration, Technology | Comments Off on One-way Trip to Mars Is Not ‘Suicide’

A Tragedy in the Making

By David L. Brown

As drought and heat continue to destroy a significant portion of the US crop, a large tranche of corn continues to be mandated for use in ethanol production. The purpose of this is to enrich farmers and channel money to corn producing states in order to secure votes. (It makes no kind of economic sense as a fuel source.) Now that the world faces more widespread famine (it’s already been a reality in many places for several years), it might make sense to shut down the ethanol plants for the time being, as this excerpt from an article today on WIRED (here) suggests (emphasis added):

“In the short run, USDA needs to figure out a way to remove the mandate on ethanol use from corn,” said Timmer [an agricultural economist]. “If we could free up 20 to 30 percent of the U.S. crop, reduced as it is, it would bring corn prices down very quickly.

New speculation limits are scheduled to be enacted by year’s end, but drought means that may be too late, said Bar-Yam [president of the New England Complex Systems Institute, a kind of scientific and technology think tank]. In the meantime, the USDA has rebuffed all requests to reduce corn biofuel allotments.

So it would make sense, but the USDA isn’t having any part of that. Well, duh because obviously farmers and ethanol barons are more important than 7 billion human beings and the reputation of the United States. Well, how is it going to fly when third world people are starving wholesale? They get to suffer and die horrible deaths while the U.S. in all the great wisdom of the USDA (headed by a rain-praying lawyer and professional politician) continues to turn huge amounts of corn into ethanol. Do we want to make America the Great Satan in fact as well as in name? If so, this will certainly do it. With hardly any effort at all we can make our country the most hated in the history of the world. When you open a future dictionary to the word “Evil” there will be a picture of Uncle Sam pointing at you. That’s what these idiots are doing.

Meanwhile, here’s a chart showing what happens when food prices rise. The numbers represent incidents of social unrest.

The Wired article suggests that “some think” food prices may have led to the so-called Arab Spring (it’s pretty plain that they did), and that therefore it was a “good thing.” Boy, if that’s good I’d hate to see what they consider bad. The idea that a bunch of raving lunatics taking over third world countries has something to do with “democracy” is totally nuts. It’s anarchy is what it is, followed by theocratic chaos, mayhem and murder. Somalia et al. are hardly models for Jeffersonian democracy. Incidentally, if you doubt the connection, note the number of incidents of food-related social unrest last year in the nations most affected by the Arab Spring: Tunisia 300+, Libya 10,000+, Egypt 800+, and now Syria 900+. Hmm, where there’s smoke and so forth.

One could assume that the 2008 and 2011 events (all centered on sharp rises in the UN’s FAO food index shown by the black dotted line) will be followed by similar events in spades when the presently developing food price spike gets its boots on (which is happening right now). Many of these represent small, insignificant countries (in Western eyes, at least although the indigenous peoples might beg to differ), but there are also some significant ones, including India with 1.5 billion mouths to feed. What happens if a major population subset such as India falls into out-and-out famine? India is presently suffering a reduced Monsoon so food shortages may be coming there soon, incidental to the crisis in world supplies which will severely limit or eliminate the possibility of filling production shortfalls with imports.

China doesn’t appear on the chart and I don’t understand why, because it also has been suffering something like 50,000 minor revolts and demonstrations each year, many of which must be food related. I guess it’s not on the list because the wise leaders of China say “nuh uh, it didn’t happen.” They must have legions of Winston Smiths busily rewriting history there in the Middle Kingdom. Northern China is also presently affected by drought. If India or China (or both) were to fall into widespread famine and anarchy It would be like Somalia X1000.

Continue reading

Posted in Agriculture Issues, Climate Change, Economics, Ethical Issues, Famine, Global Security, Politics, Population Issues | Comments Off on A Tragedy in the Making

‘Red Tide’ Strikes Texas Coast

By David L. Brown

“Red Tide.” It may sound like the title for the latest Tom Clancy novel, but it’s a very real phenomenon. I observed its effects today on the Texas Gulf Coast as evidenced by tens of thousands of dead fish littering the beaches of Padre Island.

Beach dunes along the Gulf of Mexico, Padre Island

So-called red tides are caused by blooms of algae that deplete oxygen and in some cases yield toxins that are fatal to fish, birds and other animals living in or near the water. According to locals, the present outbreak began about a month ago and is the first to strike the region in about four years. Red tides develop quickly and dissipate as the algae uses up existing nutrients and oxygen and proceeds to die off. Little is understood about the causes of the blooms, which are named for the discoloration in the water that sometimes takes place, often reddish but sometimes green or brown. Warnings had been posted against consuming oysters and other mollusks that could be contaminated with toxins produced by the algae.

Padre Island is a long barrier island extending along the Texas coast from Corpus Christi south to near the Mexican border. It is a favorite recreational area, and yet when I visited the Padre Island National Seashore headquarters today there were few tourists and a hostess told me it was as quiet as she had ever seen it.

I strolled along the beach observing tiny crabs scuttling for shelter as I approached and seabirds clustering at the water’s edge in search of their lunch. Arrayed in a band near what must have been the previous high water mark were thousands of dead fish of all sizes, from minnows to fairly large mullet. Here is a photo showing some of the dead fish I observed.

Dead fish resulting from red tide, Padre Island

Although algae blooms sometimes result from runoff of agricultural fertilizer, this is by no means the only cause. The phenomenon has been observed for thousands of years and appears in many parts of the world.

Posted in Disease and Pandemics, Ocean Depletion, Pollution | Comments Off on ‘Red Tide’ Strikes Texas Coast

Realism and Inevitability

By David L. Brown

Those who have followed this website over the past five-plus years know that a major theme of my ranting and posturing has been in relation to the very real dangers of economic, environmental, social and technological breakdowns that are looming over our civilization. A major theme has been climate change, which along with resource depletion lies at the heart of the threat.

As reported in earlier posts, I have made the transition from pessimist to realist and now accept that there is almost certainly nothing that can be done to effectively turn the tide of change that is dooming the planet to an uncertain future. As a realist I must view things as they really are, not as we might hope they could be. It is one thing to say that global warming can be reversed and the damage prevented. Yes, it is absolutely possible, as are many other things. But will it happen? Sadly, there isn’t a snowflake’s chance in Hades that it will.

Why, you may be thinking, there he goes back into pessimist mode. Not so. Any rational examination of the facts —human nature, history, the desire of people to avoid change, and the stark economic truth that human civilization is verging on insolvency — will reveal a multitude of reasons why those difficult steps that would be required to reverse global warming will not be taken.

Simply put, we don’t want to do it, we can’t afford to do it, and the harsh truth is that it is far too late to take effective steps without creating economic and social chaos. The coming change is inevitable and unstoppable.

So, what is the alternative? Obviously, to put our collective heads in the sand like the proverbial ostriches and pretend there is nothing wrong.

It is to me a rather extraordinary fact that during the past year a few minor blunders by climate change scientists have been blown into an enormous mountain of denial. Climate change has been declared as a scam and the deniers have won the day. It’s not real, never was, all a bunch of hokum cooked up by scientists in search of research grants, fame and fortune. Let’s all put our fingers in our ears and chant “La, La, La, I Can’t Hear You!” whenever anyone mentions the true facts of global change that face us.

Now in my realist view, this is a necessary condition. If we cannot reverse climate change, why should we make the sacrifices and accept the consequences of a failed attempt? Better to let things run their course. There is another “solution,” one that is far easier for humankind to accept because it requires no effort whatsoever. Left to her own initiative, Gaia (a.k.a. Mother Nature) will take care of this problem as she always has. She has kept the planet on course for several billion years, and there is no doubt she will continue to do so for many more. When she is done, the “problem” will not exist. Like the dinosaurs, the human race will likely be extinct and our civilizations mere ruins beneath the drifting sands.

Oh how  cynical we realists can be, when the facts create the near certainty of our coming troubles. And those facts are written large in the everyday news (although ignored or twisted by the deniers as they perform their necessary function of guiding our heads into the sand). Just the other day I read that England is experiencing the warmest November in 300 years. Nowhere did I see anyone suggest that is in any way related to the possibility of global warming. I live in the Southwest, where the past decade has seen almost unrelenting drought. Climate change? Nah, just, you know, natural variations and probably caused by the Sun.

It is interesting that in addition to denying the fact of climate change, deniers go out of their way to explain there is no connection between climate change and human activity. Hmm, want it both ways, not only doesn’t it exist, but we had nothing to do with it. It reminds me of a favorite quote from Bart Simpson, who famously said “I wasn’t there, I didn’t do it, and you can’t prove anything.” Indeed, that could be the motto of the climate change deniers.

For my own part, I plan to live out my life the best way I can. Like all creatures of nature, I face my own personal extinction. What the human race does for itself as a species is up to the future to tell, and is wholly in the hands of Gaia. She will not shirk her duties and as recounted in reports of her Old Testament persona, Her will shall be done.


Posted in Climate Change, Essays and Opinion, Melting Planet | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Realism and Inevitability

An Apology and a New Beginning

By David L. Brown

If there’s anybody out there I owe you an apology and this update. Much to my embarrassment I have not posted to this personal website for many months. In my defense I will report that my beloved wife Patricia was in failing health and had been diagnosed with cancer. She died on June 21, 2011, first day of Spring. Needless to say, I have been diverted from pleasures such as this personal blog.

On a happier note, I can report that I have made the transition to full-time RV living, as reported on by my cat Tiggy in her regular postings under the heading Travels with Tiggy (see link on the right). Tiggy is also writing a column for the bimonthly newspaper The Bosque Beast, and apparently has made a great hit with readers, some of which are apparently animals such as dogs and other cats.

I am getting myself into a healing mode and plan to begin writing again. I published two books last year, a novel titled Quantum Cowboy, and a non-fiction book titled Dead End Path. Both are available on Amazon either as print or ebooks. I have several other projects that I want to pursue during the coming months, including another non-fiction project and a couple of novel ideas. I will also be making photographs as time goes on, mainly because as both writer and photographer I must actively create in both media.

Tiggy will keep you updated on our travels and I will resume posting my thoughts and ideas here (I promise, Scout’s honor.)

Posted in Default File | Comments Off on An Apology and a New Beginning

The Tragedy of Climate Change Denial

By David L. Brown

Well, we all know that it has been really cold in many places this winter, and that that is proof positive that global warming is a hoax. Oh, didn’t you know that? It’s true, and all you need to do to convince yourself of that is to listen to raving ignorant pols and pundits who heed the malicious maunderings of climate change deniers.

Seriously, there is something strange about people who claim that because it’s cold in the winter that the planet is not warming. Did anyone ever predict that warm winters would result? Only the most ignorant and mentally challenged idiot would make such a claim … or so it would seem. In fact, we hear that kind of clueless statement rather frequently. Does that mean there are a lot of ignorant folks around, many of them in places of authority? Well, perhaps. It’s not enough to merely observe that they are ill-informed, because they have bought into a thesis that is  supported not by science, but by disinformation and lies.

The professional deniers, many of them driven by monetary support from special interests, have been spinning and twisting the facts of climate change like a cat’s cradle. They make up facts, distort others, make ridiculous claims, take minor point out of context and blow them up as big as Mount Everest and, well, they use every trick in the propaganda handbook. And tthey get away with it because a large percentage of human beings were never taught the art of analytic reasoning, the ability to sort out the truth from the deluge of lies and misinformation. Those who have been labeled as sheep and whose understanding of logic is minuscule or nonexistent.

There’s another factor at work here, I suspect, and that is the desire not to know that the world may be in trouble due to human activities. After all, what a far more comfortable thing it is to believe that things are just hunky and also dory and that everything will always be just wonderful? It’s human nature to suppress thoughts about bad things. An example that comes to mind is the way Americans almost unanimously denied the coming of World War Two, right up until December 7, 1941. That day something happened, and the world changed.

global-warming-250x326Here we see a hint of the principle of tipping points, in that instance the Pearl Harbor attack. The denial of climate change is likely to follow a similar pattern. Until there are obvious signs of the effect of global warming, little is likely to be done about it. Nevermind that there already are significant signs of exactly those effects, such as disappearing Arctic ice, warming oceans, melting tundra. Those actual pieces of evidence are ignored and countered with anecdotes about cold winter days, snow storms, and conspiracy theories alleging that thousands of scientists are engaged in an enormous hoax led by the evil Al Gore.

What is the reality? Well, here’s one: the year 2010, despite whatever you may have heard, was probably the warmest on record. Here’s another factoid: the ten warmest years since records began being kept occurred since 1998. Those are facts, as confirmed by three separate scientific organizations. Here’s the report as seen on the BBC website (yes, you have to go beyond the borders of America to get much news about such things as “facts.”)

2010 was the warmest year since global temperature records began in 1850 – although margins of uncertainty make it a statistical tie with 1998 and 2005.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) concludes 2010 was 0.53C warmer than the average for the period 1961-90 – a period commonly used as a baseline.

The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998, it notes.

The WMO analysis combines data from three leading research agencies, and is regarded as the most authoritative.

The three records are maintained by the US-based National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) and National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and jointly in the UK by the Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

They use broadly the same data from weather stations, ocean buoys and satellites across the world; but each analyses that data in different ways, leading to slight differences in their conclusions.

But those are only scientific facts, and thus much less persuasive then anecdotes about cold days in winter (it’s winter, for crying out loud, what do they expect?) and unusual snowfalls. People see what they want to see, and if on some future day they see the results of catastrophic climate tipping points it will probably be far too late to do anything about it. That’s the tragedy of denial.

Posted in Climate Change, Melting Planet, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Tragedy of Climate Change Denial

Good News for Polar Bears (Or Maybe Not)

By David L. Brown

Hooray! According to Reuters, polar bear researchers have determined that the iconic bears may not be doomed after all. Here’s the lead from the article, which you can read here:

(Reuters) – All is not lost for the polar bear, despite the rapid melt of Arctic sea ice that they need to survive, researchers reported on Wednesday.

The study was reported by a leading polar bear expert associated with the U.S. Geological Survey and published in the prestigious journal Nature, so it’s gotta be good solid science, right? Well, of course. This is great news, because last we heard the bears were headed toward extinction. So let’s see what’s changed in  their favor. Um, the article goes on to state:

[the] new study concludes that significant curbs in carbon emissions would effectively cool the planet, rebuild ice and save the Arctic habitat and the bears in it.

Polar bear facepalm
Polar bear facepalm

Well, there you have it. Simple, really. Why didn’t I think of that. It’s a real Homer Simpson Doh! moment that somebody didn’t figure this out before. All we need to do is reverse global warming, by dramatically reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere, thus allowing the Arctic ice to rebuild, and voila! No problemo for those white bears. Heck, we can probably do that by tomorrow, or at least by Wednesday.

And while the article doesn’t mention it, I expect that fairies will  appear to make sure there are plenty of seals for the bears to eat, and unicorns will be seen prancing among the ice floes spreading multi-colored confetti to brighten the picture even more. For the polar bears, everything will be fine, just fine, so we don’t have to worry about that anymore, do we? Whew!

Seriously, sometimes you have to wonder don’t you? Personally, I’m still standing by the prediction I made about five years ago that the Arctic Ocean would become essentially ice free in the summer of 2015. You know,  due to reality and all? Yeah, that, the inconvenient thingy.

Posted in Climate Change, Extinction, Melting Planet | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Good News for Polar Bears (Or Maybe Not)

California Stays the Course on Green Energy

By David L. Brown

Another example of the way in which energy moguls work to block development of sustainable, clean energy was the recent introduction of Prop. 23 in California. This proposition, which came to a vote on November 2, quite simply was aimed at dismantling the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006. Also known as AB 32,  the GWSA calls for the state’s producers of greenhouse gas to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Many initiatives are well under way to replace fossil fuels, create greater efficiency in existing technologies, and move the state toward a cleaner “green” future. Beginning to take effect in 2012, the act will require about a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from present levels by the target date ten years from now.

This seems a moderate goal, perhaps even less than might be hoped. But nonetheless, it had drawn fire from the usual suspects, who organized Prop. 23 to demand that AB32 be suspended until the state’s employment rate dropped below 5.5 percent for a full 12 months. Because this is an unlikely event (that level has been reached only three times in the past 40 years), the proposition in reality was a move to permanently gut the GWSA.

And who was behind this end run to set California up to continue down the dead end path toward oblivion as resource depletion continues to undermine the old economic infrastructure while forward-looking nations such as China and Germany stake their futures on rapid development of alternative energy? Why, the usual suspects, of course. Although the California Republican and Libertarian Parties signed on to support the proposition, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger strongly opposed the proposition and was joined by GOP candidates Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman among others, proving that the party structure is increasingly at odds with its own candidates.

But politicians weren’s the real conspirators behind the proposition. The individuals and corporate entities that acted in support of the proposition wrapped themselves in a cloak of deception, claiming to be concerned with jobs. In fact, they called their effort the California Jobs Initiative. And yet, a look at the list of major donors to the movement tells a different story. Top contributor was a company called Valero Energy ($4.05 million), followed by (among others) Tesoro ($1.525 million), Flint Hills Resources, LP ($1 million; this is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, a major supporter of anti-global warming initiatives); Occidental Petroleum ($300K), National Petrochemical and Refiners Assn. ($100K), Tower Energy Group ($200K); World Oil Corp. ($100K); Southern Counties Oil ($50K); Frontier Oil ($50K);  Murray Energy ($30K); and Berry Petrochemical ($30K).

Hmm, do we see a pattern here? Are these leading supporters of a move to block California from improving its greenhouse gas footprint acting out of concern for the jobs of Californians—or from their own self-interested desire to continue to profit from fossil fuels and the destruction of the environment? It’s rather clear that the answer is the latter, the profit one, the evil one, rather than the charitable desire to protect jobs. for ordinary Californians. In fact, suspending the act would have put paid to at least 50,000 new jobs relating to clean energy initiatives.

To put this in further perspective, let’s take a closer look at some of those supporters of the proposal to block the green act. No. 1 contributor Valero operates two oil refineries in California. No. 2 donor Tesoro is the 24th largest producer of air pollution in the United States. And Koch Industries, the third largest contributor, is one of the top 10 corporate polluters in the nation.

What more can we say, except to applaud the wisdom of California voters who soundly defeated Prop. 23 by a 22 percent margin, approximately 61 percent to 39 percent. The Golden State may face deep and serious problems but at least its people have the courage to stand up against polluters and those that Ayn Rand called “looters,” the corporate highway robbers who want to continue their nasty ways at all costs.

California, and the world at large, needs to vastly expand support of alternative energy programs. It’s not the time to listen to those who advise us to inserting our heads into the sand in ostrich-like denial.

In an editorial written prior to the election, Science magazine editor Bruce Alberts had this to say:

The public and private investment in energy innovation now totals only about 0.3% of U.S. energy expenditures. California’s Proposition 23 needs to be soundly defeated, sending a clear signal to Washington that the people of the United States are ready and willing to mobilize its considerable resources in the vital drive to a sustainable energy future.

To which I add, bravo! And thanks to California voters the message has been sent.

Posted in Age of Oil, Climate Change, Conservation Issues, Economics, Energy Technology, Fossil Fuels, Melting Planet, Politics, Pollution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Stays the Course on Green Energy