header image
 

State legislature abandons science for ‘Unintelligent (and unimaginable) Design’

I suddenly feel the value of my degree from Alaska’s state university plummet faster than the economy…Kudos to ADN for today’s story on how the state is seeking ‘a certain scientific viewpoint’ to counter unanimous consensus the world over by the scientific community on global warming.  Unless Palin vetoes the bill by May 26th, $2 million will be spent on gathering support from ‘the science community’ that counters climate change claims.  This is going lower than bringing G. Gordon Liddy here to preach the gospel of oil and the folly of the wildlife refuge.  If this proposal goes through, I’ll be conveying here what ’scientists’ will take place in the study and will be broadcasting their lack of integrity and soul selling here. 

What rock are the state’s marine mammal biologists hiding under right now?  Are they sleeping well at night?  This is more of the same bullshit of politicians dictating environmental policy when they shouldn’t even be allowed to touch it with a ten foot pole.  Why have any scientists working for the state or the federal government at all?  Let’s just put that money into the military and go get some more oil….

Dumb as We Wanna Be

By Thomas L. Friedman, NY Times columnist

Published: April 30, 2008

It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

 

 

 

Beating the very ‘Deadhorse’

In the midst of my southwest relocation, I choked on my mate when I read about a state-funded organization’s plan to bring G. Gordon Liddy to Alaska to broadcast for a week and preach about the merits of drilling into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  ADN reported, in an April 19th story, that Arctic Power will bring this chrome dome to our great state to try to sway public opinion towards pillaging ANWR for a miniscule amount of oil that WILL NOT AFFECT GAS PRICES (See Oil Economics and ANWR below from a March 15th post).  What’s more, all of the buffoons running for president have said they will not open it up.  Of all the expenditures the state has a hand in, this is up there in the Hall of Sham (along with APFC investments, see March 4th and 18th posts below…).

If the state adds up all of its expeditures on the ANWR Occupation Plan- Mr. Stevens personnel alone undoubtedly has spent a figure with many a zero.  That’s a lot of money spent trying to destroy one of the greatest assets the state has, an unparalleled and unique National Wildlife Refuge.  Stop beating this pointless and unpopular idea to a bloody bloody pulp and build some damn solar and wind farms, throw big figures into home efficiency upgrades, and think without oil.

You’re paying for and supporting more media than you realize

Even though you may have stopped getting your news from TV, you click and click and give away revenue to every news page you visit in the form of more ‘hits’ and advertising revenue.  Print newspapers, television, and radio news programs used to be the only way to get news.  Today, the print newspaper is heading towards extinction, with television news not far behind (by one account, today roughly half of Americans get their ‘primary news and information’ from the internet).  With this march towards extinction of traditional news media, the dollar value of internet media sites goes up and each ‘click’ you possess becomes more valuable.  As strange as it may sound, you should use your click wisely and responsibly. 

Consider regular visits to those news sites that champion what you believe (hopefully they include commendable journalism qualities such as honesty, integrity, and critical thinking) and think twice before regularly giving money, through a site visit, to media that ‘never seems to tell it like it is’ or that fails to ever be critical or take a side.  At the risk of opening a different can of worms in supporting Google, if you must soak up what the US ’mainstream’ media world has to say, try browsing some headlines on a site like Google News- looking at a screen full of headlines on the same subject/event can be a startling experience in itself.  The tone and angle of a headline can instantly attempt to arrest any reader neutrality, like say ”Chavez ready for war” or “What is Iran up to?”, before the article is ever read.  Also, just browsing headlines without visiting a site reduces the revenue generated from actual visits to a news web page.  Since news pages have to pay Google, there is no benefit for the site until you click on their headline and story. 

Yet bringing Google into the fray is, in a sense, like putting it all on Visa and thinking it’s ‘all good’.  Google’s ownership mimics that of virtually all of the world’s largest corporations, with a half dozen to dozen of the same banks owning nearly all things media, utilities and resources, weapons and military contracting, to name a few…Yet, to take it further, all corporations do their own investing and if not owned by these dozen banks, there’s a good chance that corporation has investments in these banks directly or indirectly.  Before wandering off topic further, please just strive to click more responsibly….

Exxon

Alternet posted an article by PWS fisherman John Platt, entitled Exxon’s Deadly Legacy Lives on for Fishermen, today.  Nothing new there, just a reminder to those who aren’t aware that the Exxon Valdez spill, in addition to wreaking lasting havoc on a number of ecosystems, destroyed and continues to destroy the economic well being and culture of many families and communities.  Now Exxon is only a nod (from the last line of defense (a bunch of ultra-conservative Supreme Court geriatrics)) away from walking away unscathed.  Will this decision, coming in June, when what was a strong herring run will not have happened and salmon will be starting to run, be the KO shot in the face to Alaska’s people and resources?  Will it take another spill in a few years that decimates Copper River salmon for some accountability to happen?  Alaska’s unrivaled habitats and resources will only remain so if we challenge the industry on PREVENTION so that we don’t even need to consider something as horrific as RESPONSE. 

APFC Investments revisited

ADN reported on the fund’s loss of Bear Stearns investments following the tumble of the notorious bank that destroyed countless lives giving out loans to those who they knew could never pay them back.  The ADN article is here - I don’t like to steer anyone to this corporate media source, but I do think there’s a lot of progress to be made in steering people towards the right outlook on issues through comment sections.  My ultimate goal of this web site is to steer Alaska’s ‘mainstream’ (corporate and usually biased) media readership towards this site and other sites, such as those liked here.  I occasionally comment on some of ADN’s articles, such as that one- Here’s what I wrote:

How about the real APFC story

Our 16 year old Alaskan is the only one in the state who had the common sense to question the ‘blind’ investing of the fund.
Ethics is what corporations abandon, not state governments (I won’t even start with our Feds…). While we’re pretending like we’re ‘cleaning house’ of all the state political corruption, now is the time to also rethink the indiscriminate investment of the fund. Regardless of what social or environmental injustice companies are involved in (approving of a government’s genocide practices is just ‘the ugly face tip of the iceberg’), we threw ethics out the window long ago to squeeze all we can out of the dollar. Does a 4 figure check silence any ethics outcry from our state’s people?
I’d rather have a $20 check instead of investment in twisted bullshite all over the world.
So to review, here is the APFC investment list and the top 50 list:

http://www.apfc.org/iceimages/investments/2007_12_All_Stock_Holdings.pdf

http://www.apfc.org/investments/top50.cfm

and to remind you what’s at stake and to prove a point, let me know if you have luck finding one of these companies that is not part of our blood check fund investment:

TOP 100 US Defense Contractors:
http://www.govexec.com/features/0807-15/0807-15s3s1.htm

Oh, and Bear Stearns- definitely was a frontrunner in the lucrative field of ethicless business.

Winter Soldier Testimony from Iraq and Afghanistan U.S. Veterans

Although this important 4 day event ended yesterday, I encourage those who were not able to listen to visit this site: http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier, which has links to video of some of the testimony.  The original Winter Soldier event occurred over 10 years into US involvement in the Vietnam War.  Now 5 years into the Iraq war, this event will hopefully help soon end this massacre and occupation.  When I figure out where links are to the whole 4 day event’s testimony, it will be added here.  Also check out Alternet for extensive coverage of the testimony.

Earth Hour 2008

Earth Hour is a global event planned for March 29th, 8pm local time when people all over the world will turn off their lights for an hour in order to promote sustainability and emissions reduction.  You should visit the site and sign up right now.  Since in Alaska there is a good chance lights won’t be necessary in a couple weeks at 8, how about turning off and unplugging whatever you can?  Also check out the ideas linked from the page that encourage sustainability, conservation, and reduced emissions.

Oil economics and ANWR

 A new Alternet article, Bad News at the Pump: The Dangerous Implications of $100-Plus Oil, is a reminder of the global oil economics at work and the ever increasing problems that will probably keep prices rising swiftly.  Some numbers of interest brought out in the article: the U.S. relies on petroleum for approximately 40% of its total energy supply, …nearly two-thirds of its crude oil must be imported

If oil remains at or above the $100 per barrel mark in 2008, and, as expected, the United States imports some 4.75 billion barrels of the stuff…

And some numbers and and an economist’s bottom line about ANWR (from The Oil Market and Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife-pdf):

The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Service (EIS) predicts that production from ANWR would average about 800,000 barrels per day (the EIS estimates that ANWR’s oil would increase the volume of production by about 0.7% in 2020). That production would be about 1% of the worldwide oil production, which averaged about 82 million barrels per day in 2004 (and was slightly higher in 2005 and 2006).

A report of the U.S. Department of Energy predicted that ANWR drilling could lower the price of oil by about 50¢ a barrel or 1%, given that the price of a barrel of oil was slightly above $50 at the beginning of 2007. Severin Borenstein, an economist who is the director of the U.C. Energy Institute, concluded that ANWR might reduce oil prices by up to a few percentage points so that “drilling in ANWR will never noticeably affect gasoline prices.”

 And here are some figures from a USGS ANWR oil estimate from 1998:

The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels. 

Noteworthy here is that the low end estimate of total recoverable oil from ANWR is less than how much oil we are predicted to import this year.  The bottom line:  our state and federal goverment needs to stop spending our tax money fighting to squeeze the droplets of oil left in the country and should instead be putting that and a wealth of other funds into alternative energy development, subsidization, and the shifting of infrastructures away from complete oil dependence.

New proposed ANWR drilling legislation by Murkowski and Stevens

Yep.  Once again, our trusty senators, STILL under a suspiciously stalled or ‘long term’ FBI investigation for corruption (ok, it’s the current senator Murkowski’s dad and Stevens, but are we gonna spit hairs here?), are seeking to introduce new legislation to once again try to give away a National Wildlife Refuge.  The Anchorage Daily News reported that the two senators introduced a bill that would permit drilling when the price of oil hits $125 a barrel.  Stevens, who’s wasted countless state and federal dollars trying to pry ANWR from the hands of conservation for much of his career, is pushing too hard once again to aid the oil industry.  This joke of a proposal would dare, and even hope, for the country and state to slide into further economic hard times.  Such a reckless, ill-thought out plan screams of suspicious connections to the industry and seeks to not only encourage, and probably trigger, an economic struggle, but also desperately seeks to pry state land from protection.

The public opposition, both in-state and nationally, has long been an overwhelming majority to ANWR drilling, but that seems to matter little.  Our trusty state newspapers strangely stopped covering Stevens’ FBI investigation some time ago and instead are back to printing front page headlines for any words the geriatric utters….There’s still house cleaning to be done and now it seems another Murkowski should be investigated too…