Doomsday Ball Waltz

SUBHEAD: The economy is now toxed out. Capitalism is dead, but we still dance with the corpse. Image above: Painting "Ballerina" by Mark Bryan (2002). From (http://www.artofmarkbryan.com/the_ballerina.html). By Joe Bageant on 6 July 2010 in JoeBageant.com - (http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/07/waltzing.html)

As an Anglo European white guy from a very long line of white guys, I want to thank all the brown, black, yellow and red people for a marvelous three-century joy ride. During the past 300 years of the industrial age, as Europeans, and later as Americans, we have managed to consume infinitely more than we ever produced, thanks to colonialism, crooked deals with despotic potentates and good old gunboats and grapeshot.

Yes, we have lived, and still live, extravagant lifestyles far above the rest of you. And so, my sincere thanks to all of you folks around the world working in sweatshops, or living on two bucks a day, even though you sit on vast oil deposits. And to those outside my window here in Mexico this morning, the two guys pruning the retired gringo's hedges with what look like pocket knives, I say, keep up the good work. It's the world's cheap labor guys like you -- the black, brown and yellow folks who take it up the shorts -- who make capitalism look like it actually works. So keep on humping. Remember: We've got predator drones.

After twelve generations of lavish living at the expense of the rest of the world, it is understandable that citizens of the so-called developed countries have come to consider it quite normal. In fact, Americans expect it to become plusher in the future, increasingly chocked with techno gadgetry, whiz bang processed foodstuffs, automobiles, entertainments, inordinately large living spaces -- forever.

We've had plenty of encouragement, especially in recent times. Before our hyper monetized economy metastasized, things such as housing values went through the sky, and the cost of basics, food etc. went through the basement floor, compared to the rest of the world. The game got so cheap and fast that relative fundamental value went right out the window and hasn't been seen since. For example, it would be very difficult to make Americans understand that a loaf of bread or a dozen eggs have more inherent value than an iPhone. Yet, at ground zero of human species economics, where the only currency is the calorie, that is still true.

Such is the triumph of the money economy that nothing can be valued by any other measure, despite that nobody knows what money is worth at all these days. This is due in part to the international finance jerk-off, in which the world's governments print truckloads of worthless money, so they can loan it out. The idea here is that incoming repayment in some other, more valuable, currency will cover their own bad paper. In turn, the debtor nations print their own bogus money to repay the loans. So you have institutions loaning money they do not have to institutions unable to repay the loans. All this is based on the bullshit theory that tangible wealth is being created by the world's financial institutions, through interest on the debt. Money making money.

As my friend, physicist and political activist George Salzman writes,

"Everyone in these 'professional' institutions dealing in money lives a fundamentally dishonest life. Never mind 'regulating' interest rates, we must do away with interest, with the very idea of 'money making money'. We must recognize that what is termed 'Western Civilization' is in fact an anti-civilization, a global social structure of death and destruction. However, the charade of ever-increasing debt can be kept up only as long as the public remains ignorant. Once ecological limits have been reached the capitalist political game is up."

You can see why I love this guy.

Boomers and Doomers and XXL Bloomers

Capitalism wouldn't be around today, at least not in its current pathogenic form, if it had not caught a couple of lucky breaks. The first of course, was the expansion of bloodsucking colonialism to give it transfusions of unearned wealth, enabling "investors" to profit by artificial means (death, oppression and slavery). But the biggest break was being driven to stratospheric heights by inordinate quantities of available hydrocarbon energy. Inordinate, but never the less finite. Consequently, the 100-year-long oil suckdown that put industrial countries in the tall cotton, now threatens to take back from subsequent beneficiary generation everything it gave. The Hummers, the golf courses, the big box stores, cruising at 35,000 feet over the Atlantic -- everything.

You'd never know that, to look around at Americans or Canadians, who have not the slightest qualms about living in that 3,500 square-foot vinyl-sided fuck box, if they can manage to make the mortgage nut, or unashamedly buying a quadruple X large Raiders jersey because, hey, a guy's gotta eat, right? Why don't I deserve a nice ride, a swimming pool and a flat screen? I worked for it (sure you did buddy, your $12,000 Visa/MasterCard tab is proof of that).

The Doomers and the Peak Oilers gag, and they call it American denial. Personally, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that most Americans and Canadians are in denial. They simply don't have a fucking clue about what is really happening to them and their world. Everything they have been taught about working, money and "quality of life" constitutes the planet's greatest problem -- overshoot. Understanding this trashes our most basic assumptions, and requires a complete reversal in contemporary thought and practice about how we live in the world. When was the last time you saw any individual, much less an entire nation, do that?

Compounding our ignorance and naiveté are the officials and experts, politicians, media elites, and especially economists, who interpret the world for us and govern the course of things. The go-to guys. They don't know either. But they've got the lingo down.

Somehow or other, it all has to do with the economy, which none of us understands, despite round the clock media jabbering on the subject. Somehow it has to do with this great big spring on Wall Street called "the market" that's gotta be kept wound up, and interest rates at something called The Fed, which have got to be kept smunched down. The industry of crystal gazing and hairball rubbing surrounding these entities is called economics.

In heaven, there are no jobs

The following may be old news to some who studied economics in college. However, I did not. And, for me at least, this gets at the heart of our dilemma (if dilemma is the right word for economic, environmental and species collapse). Here goes:

The human economy is made up of three parts: nature, work and money. But since nobody would pay people like Allen Greenspan or Milton Friedman millions of dollars if they talked just like the rest of us, economists and academics refer to these three parts as the primary, secondary and tertiary economies.

Of these, nature -- the world's ecosystems and natural capital -- is by far the most important. It comprises about three quarters of the total value of economic activity (Richard Costanza et al. 1997). To western world economists, nature -- when it is even give nature a thought -- is considered to be limitless.

The second part, work, is the labor required to produce goods and services from natural resources. Work creates real value through efficient use of both human and natural resource energy. A potato is just a potato until people sweating over belt lines and giant fryers turn it into Tater Tots.

The third economy, the tertiary economy, is the production and exchange of money. This includes anything that can be exchanged for money, whether it is gold, or mortgages bundled as securities, or derivatives. In short, any paperwork device that can be rigged up in such a fashion that money will stick to it. Feel free to take a wild-assed guess which of the three economies causes the most grief in this world.

To an economist, work -- the stuff that eats up at least a third of our earthly lives, is merely a "factor" called labor. Work is considered an unfortunate cost in creating added value. Added value, along with nature's resources, is the basis for all real world profits. Without labor, the money economy could not gin up on-paper wealth in its virtual economy. Somewhere, somebody's gotta do some real-world work, before bankers and investment brokers can go into their offices and pretend to work at "creating and managing wealth."

Paying the workers in society to produce real wealth costs money. Capitalists hate any sort of cost. It represents money that has somehow escaped their coffers. So when any behemoth corporation hands out thousands of pink slips on a Friday, Wall Street cheers and "the market" goes up. No ordinary mortal has ever seen "the market." But traders on the floor of 11 Wall Street, people who've deemed themselves more than mortal by virtue of their $110 Vanitas silk undershorts, assure us the market does exist. No tours of the New York Stock Exchange are permitted, so we have to take their word for it.

In any case, in the money economy, eliminating costs, even if those costs happen to be feeding human beings, citizens of the empire, is sublime. That is why economists in the tertiary economy can declare a "jobless recovery" with a straight face. By their lights, the perfect recovery would necessarily be 100% jobless. Human costs of generating profit would be entirely eliminated.

Say what you will about the tertiary "money economy," but one thing is certain. It's virulent. Right now finance makes up 42% of GDP, and is rising. Traditionally that figure has been around 9%. Fifty eight percent of the economy is "services." When it comes to the service economy, most people think of fried chicken buckets and "customer service," call centers harassing debtors or selling credit cards. However, much of the so-called service economy consists of "services" sub-corporations and entities owned and operated by monopolies in communications, electronic access and energy. They are designed for the sole purpose of robbing the people incrementally. Borrow a microscope and read the back side your cable and electric bill. Billing you is a "service" for which you pay. So is the guy who cuts off your lights if you don't.

And manufacturing? Ten percent. Mostly big ticket items such as salad shooters, as near as I can tell.

What nature?

Still though, the foundation of the world, including our entire economic structure, is nature. This is clear to anyone who has ever, planted a garden, hiked in the woods, gone fishing or been gnawed on by chiggers. In vis est exordium quod terminus.

Yet, not one in a thousand economists takes nature into account. Nature has no place in contemporary economics, or the economic policy of today's industrial nations. Again, like the general American public, these economists are not in denial. They simply don't know it's there. Historically, nature has never been considered even momentarily because economists, like the public, never figured they would run out of it. With the Gulf oil "spill" at full throttle, the terrible destruction of nature is becoming obvious. But no economist who values his or her career wants to start figuring the cost of ecocide into pricing analysis. For god sake man, it's a cost!



With industrial society chewing the ass out of Mama Nature for three centuries, something had to give, and it has. Capitalists, however, remain unimpressed by global warming, or melting polar ice caps, or Southwestern desert armadillos showing up in Canada, or hurricanes getting bigger and more numerous every year. They are impressed by the potential dough in the so-called green economy.

In fact, last night I watched an economist on CNN say that if the government had let the free market take care of the BP gulf catastrophe, it would not be the clusterfuck it is now. Now THAT might qualify as denial. In the mean time, anthropogenic ecocide and resource depletion, coupled with the pressures of six billion mouths and asses across the globe, have started to produce -- surprise surprise, Sheriff Taylor! -- very real effects on world economies. (How could they not?) So far though, in the simplistic see-spot-run American mind, it's all about dead pelicans and oiled up hotel beaches.

Monkey with the paper

When the U.S., and then the world's money economy started to crumble, the first thing capitalist economists could think of to do was to monkey with the paper. That's all they knew how to do. It was unthinkable that the tertiary virtual economy, that great backroom fraud of debt manipulation and fiat money, might have finally reached the limits of the material earth to support. That the money economy's gaming of workers and Mother Nature might itself might be the problem never occurred to the world's economic movers and shakers. It still hasn't. (Except for Chavez, Morales, Castro and Lula).

Jobs disappeared, homes went to foreclosure, and personal debt was at staggering all time highs. America's working folks were taking it square in the face. Not that economists or financial kingpins cared much one way or the other. In the capitalist financial world, everything is an opportunity. Cancer? Build cancer hospital chains. Pollution? Sell pollution credits. The country gone bankrupt?

"Nothing to do," cried the Mad Hatters of finance, "but print more money, and give gobs of cash to the banks! Yes, yes, yes! Borrow astronomical amounts of the stuff and bribe every fat cat financial corporation up and down The Street!" All of which came down to creating more debt for the common people to work off. They seem willing enough to do it too -- if only they had jobs.

Along with the EU, Japan and the rest of the industrial world, the US continues to flood the market with cheap credit. That would be hunky dory, if was actually wealth for anybody but a banker. The real problems are debt and fraud, and tripling the debt in order to cover up the fraud. And pretending there no natural costs of our actions, that we do not have to rob the natural world to crank up the money world through debt.

No matter what economists tell us abut getting the credit industry moving again, papering over debt with more debt will not pollinate our food crops when the last honeybee is dead. I suggest that we put the economists out there in the fields, hand-pollinating crops like they do in China. They seem to know all about the subject, and have placed a monetary value of $12 billion on the pollination accomplished by bees in the US. Can you imagine the fucking arrogance? All bees do is make our fruit and vegetable supply possible. Anyway, if we cannot use the economists for pollinators (odds are they are too damned whacked to do that job), we could also stuff them down the blowhole of the Deepwater Horizon spill. For the first time in history, economists would be visibly useful.

Speaking of China: Since there is no way to pick up the turd of American capitalism by the clean end, much less polish it, American economists have pointed east, and set up a yow-yow about China as "the emerging giant." The "next global industrial superpower." Many Chinese are willing to ride their bicycles 10 miles to work through poisonous yellow-green air, and others in the "emerging middle class" are willing to wade into debt up to their nipples; this is offered as evidence of the viability of industrial capitalism. All it proves is that governments and economists never learn. In the quest of getting something for nothing, China follows the previous fools right into the smog and off the cliff.

Sumthin' fer nuthin'

The main feature of capitalism is the seductive assertion that you can get something for nothing in this world. That you can manufacture wealth through money manipulation, and that it is OK to steal and hold captive the people's medium of exchange, then charge them out the ass for access. That you can do so with a clear conscience. Which you can, if you are the kind of sleazy prick who has inherited or stolen enough wealth to get into the game.

Even so, to keep a rigged game going, you must keep the suckers believing they can, and eventually will, benefit from the game. Also, that it is the only game in town. Legitimizing public theft means indoctrinating the public with all sorts of market mystique and hocus-pocus. They must be convinced there is is such a thing as an "investment" for the average schmuck drawing a paycheck (and there is, sort of, between the crashes and the bubbles). It requires a unified economic rationale for government and industry policies, and it is the economist's job to pump out this rationale. Historically, they have seldom hesitated to get down on their knees and do so.

It ain't robbery, it's a business cycle

Capitalism is about one thing: aggregating the surplus productive value of the public for private interests. As we have said, it is about creating state sanctioned "investments" for the workers who produce the real wealth. Things like home "ownership" and mortgages, or stock investments and funds to absorb their retirement savings. That crushing 30-year mortgage with two refis is an investment. So is that 401K melting like a snow cone the beach.

As the people's wealth accumulates, it is steadily siphoned off by government and elite private forces. From time to time, it is openly plundered for their benefit by way of various bubbles, depressions or recessions and other forms of theft passed off as unavoidable acts of nature/god. These periodic raids and draw downs of the people's wealth are attributed to "business cycles." Past periodic raids and thefts are heralded as being proof of the rationale. "See folks, it comes and goes, so it's a cycle!" Economic raids and busts become "market adjustments." Public blackmail and plundering through bailouts become a "necessary rescue packages." Giveaways to corporations under the guise of public works and creating employment become "stimulus." The chief responsibility of economists is to name things in accordance with government and corporate interests. The function of the public is to acquire debt and maintain "consumer confidence." When the public staggers to its feet again and manages to carry more debt, buy more poker chips on credit to play again, it's called a recovery. They are back in the game.

Dealer, hit me with two more cards,. I feel lucky.

Does it hurt yet?

To anyone who is paying attention, things look doomed. Fortunately for American capitalism, nobody is paying attention. They never have. Even given the unemployment numbers, foreclosures and bankruptcies, most Americans are still not feeling enough pain yet to demand change. Not that they will. Demand change, I mean. We haven't the slightest idea of any other options, outside those provided by the corporate managed state. So in a chorus well-schooled by the media the public demands "reform," of the present system, the systemic pathogenic system based on exploitation of the many by the few, the one presently eating our society from the inside out. How do you reform that?

We are clueless, and the state sees to it that we stay that way. Take the price of gas, about which Americans are obsessive. In one way or another, petroleum is the subject of much news coverage, nearly as much as pissing matches between egomaniacs in Hollywood or o Capitol Hill. So one might think that by now Americans would have a realistic grasp of the petroleum business and things like oil and gasoline prices.

Hah, think again! This is America, this is Strawberry Fields, where nothing is real and the skies are not cloudy all day. We're stewed in a consumer hallucination called the American Dream and riding a digital virtual money economy nobody can even prove exists.

Is there an economy out there or not?

If we decide to believe the money economy still exists, and that debt is indeed wealth, then we damned sure know where to go looking for the wealth. Globally, forty percent of it is in the paws of the wealthiest one percent. Nearly all of that one percent are connected to the largest and richest corporations. Just before the economy blew out, these elites held slightly less than $80 trillion. After the blowout/bailout, their combined investment wealth was estimated at a little over $83 trillion. To give some idea, this is four years of the gross output of all the human beings on earth. It is only logical that these elites say the only way to revive the economy, which to them consists entirely of the money economy, is to continue to borrow money from them.

However, the unasked question still hangs in the air: Does the money economy even exist anymore? Is it still there? (was it ever?) Or are we all blindly going through the motions because:

A: we do not understand that, for all practical historical purposes, it's over;

B: we do not know how to do anything else so we keep dancing with the corpse of the hyper-capitalist economy;

C: the right calamity has not come down the pike to knock us loose from the spell of the dance,

or D: we're so friggin brain dead, commodities engorged and internally colonized by capitalist industrialism that nobody cares, and therefore it no longer matters.

This is multiple choice, and it counts ten points toward survival, come the collapse.

If there is no economy left, what the hell are we all participating in? A mirage? The zombie ball? The short answer is: Because the economy is a belief system, you are participating in whatever you believe you are. Personally, I believe we are participating in a modern extension of the feudal system, with bankers as the new feudal barons and credit demographics as their turf. But then, I drink and take drugs. Whatever it is, the money economy is the only game in town until the collapse, after which chickens and firewood may become the national currency. The Masai use cattle don't they?

At the same time, even dumb people are starting to feel an undefined fear in their bones. When I was back in the States last month, an old high school chum, a sluggard who seldom has forward thought beyond the next beer and Lotto scratch ticket, confides in me:

"Joey, I can't shake the feeling that something big and awful is going to happen. And by awful I mean awful."

"Happen to what?"

"Money, work, our country. Shit, I dunno."

"Probably all three," I opined. "Plus the environment."

"Cheerful fuck, ain't ya?"

"That's what they pay me for, Bubba."

Some in the herd are starting to feel a big chill in the air, the first winds of the approaching storm. Yes, something is happening, and you don't know what it is, dooooo yew, Mistah Jones?

However, the most adept economists and other court sorcerers are going along as if nothing too unusual is happening -- calling it a recession, or more recently a double-dip recession (don't you love these turd-balls, making it sound as harmless as an ice cream cone -- gimme a double dip please!) or even a depression. But no matter what it is, they smugly assure us, there is nothing happening that the world has never seen before. Including the insider scams that ignited the catastrophe. It's just a matter of size. Extent.

OK, it's a matter of scale. Like the Gulf oil spill. We've seen spills before, just not this big. But over the next couple of years as the poison crud circulates the world's oceans, the Deep Horizon spill will prove to be a global game changer, whether economists and court wizards acknowledge it or don't. Anything of global scale, whether it is in finance, energy, foreign aid, world health or war contracting, is accompanied by unimaginable complexity. That makes it perfect cover for criminal activity. Particularly finance, where you are always close to the money.

Jim Kunstler, never at a loss to describe a ludicrous situation, sums up the paper economy's engineering of our collapse nicely:

"Wall Street -- in particular the biggest 'banks' -- packaged up and sold enough swindles to unwind 2500 years of western civilization. You simply cannot imagine the amount of bad financial paper out there right now in every vault and portfolio on the planet … the people fabricating things like synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) had no idea what the fuck they were doing -- besides deliberately creating documents that nobody would ever understand, that would never be unraveled by teams of law clerks ... and were guaranteed to place in jeopardy every operation of the world economy above the barter level."

Phew!

So, for $5,000 and an all expense paid trip to Rio: What does a good capitalist do after having stolen all there is to steal from the living, then stolen the nation's future wealth from the unborn through debt both public and private?

Tick tock, tick tock. The wheel spins.

Blaaaaaamp!

"Your answer please."

"A good capitalist would 'invest' his haul in some other racket, some other scam in the money economy."

"Vanna, a pie in the kisser for this guy, please."

The problem with the answer is that economy is now toxed out. Radioactive. Crawling with paper vermin and all manner of vermin, especially toxic derivatives -- about $1.4 quadrillion worth (even as we are still trying to get used to hearing the term trillions), according to the Bank of National Settlements. That is 1,000 trillion, or $190,000 for every human being on the planet. There is not now, and never will be, enough wealth to cover that puppy -- because there is not enough natural world under the puppy to create it. Not the way capitalism creates wealth.

Defenders of capitalism who say it can and must be saved must also admit that there is not enough money left to work with, to invest. There is only debt. Oh, yeah, we forgot; debt is wealth to a banker. Well then, all we gotta do is collect $190,000 per head from people in Sudan and Haiti and the rest of the planet.

Naw, that's too hard. Elite capital's best bet is a good old fashioned money raid on the serfs; create another bubble that will buy enough time before it pops to make the already rich a few billion richer. To that end, the G-8 is blowing one last bounder out there in the hyperspace where the economy s alleged to be surviving. Naturally, they are doing it in order to "save the world economy." The tough part is figuring out what to base the next bubble on.

May I suggest Soylent Green?

Under God, with fees and compound interest for all

From the outset, capitalism was always about the theft of the people's sustenance. It was bound to lead to the ultimate theft -- the final looting of the source of their sustenance -- nature. Now that capitalism has eaten its own seed corn, the show is just about over, with the nastiest scenes yet to play out around water, carbon energy (or anything that expends energy), soil and oxygen. For the near future however, it will continue to play out around money.

As the economy slowly implodes, money will become more volatile stuff than it already is. The value and availability of money is sure to fluctuate wildly. Most people don't have the luxury of escaping the money economy, so they will be held hostage and milked hard again by the same people who just drained them in the bailouts. As usual, the government will be right there to see that everybody plays by the rules.

Those who have always benefited by capitalism's rules will benefit more. That cadre of "money professionals" which holds captive the nation's money supply, and runs things according to the rules of money, can never lose money. It writes the rules. And rewrites them when it suits the money elite's interests. Capitalism, the Christian god, democracy, the Constitution.

It's all one ball of wax, one set of rules in the American national psyche. Thus, the money masters behind the curtain will write The New Rules, the new tablets of supreme law, and call them Reform. There will be rejoicing that "the will of the people" has once again moved upon the land, and that the democracy's scripture has once again been delivered by the unseen hand of God.

.

Whence and Whither We Go

SUBHEAD: Future people will conclude that we looked into the abyss... and decided that we liked what we saw. Image above: The ruins of the mills in Hudson's Falls, NY. From (http://www.hudsonvalleyruins.org/yasinsac/hudsonfalls/hudsonfalls.html). By James Kunstler on 12 July 2010 in Kunstler.com - (http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/07/where-have-we-been-where-are-we-going-1.html) On a hot Saturday in mid-July in my corner of the country, when everyone else is cavorting on Million Dollar Beach at Lake George, or plying the aisles of the home Depot, or riding their motorcycles in faux-outlaw hordes, I like to slip away to the neglected places where nobody goes. I seek out the places of industrial ruin - there are many around here in the upper Hudson Valley, and they are mostly right along the river itself, because there are many spots where the water tumbles and falls in a way that human beings could capture that power and direct it to useful work. I always bring my French easel, a wooden contraption ingeniously designed to fold up into a box, to which I have bolted on backpack straps. To me, these ruins of America's industrial past are as compelling as the ruins of ancient Rome were to Thomas Cole and his painter-contemporaries, who took refuge in history at the exact moment that their own new nation began racing into its industrial future. I've been haunting this particular site in Hudson Falls, New York, all summer so far. Originally called Bakers Falls, it evolved over a hundred-odd years into an extremely complex set of dams, spillways, intakes, revetments, channels, gangways, and hydroelectric bric-a-brac all worked into the crumbly shale that forms the original cliff. From a vantage on the west side of the river, you can clearly read the layered history of industry as though it was a section of sedimentary rock from the Mesozoic. One thing above all amazes me about these American industrial ruins: they're not really very old. My grandfather was already reading law and drinking beer when some of this stuff was brand-new (or not even here yet!). Unlike Rome's long, dawdling descent from greatness, America's industrial fall seems to have happened in the space of a handclap. I suppose it was in the nature of the fossil fuel fiesta that these activities could only last as long as the basic energy resource was so cheap you hardly needed to figure it into the cost of doing business. Which is not to say that the human element didn't change, too, since obviously it did - as America went from a cheap labor nation of immigrants eager to join in the security of factory regimentation, to adversarial relations between unionized workers and business owners, and finally to game over, as off-shoring and out-sourcing savaged American manufacturing. These factories at what was first called Bakers Falls began in 1858 as an iron machine works, intended to produce the frames for water wheels. Soon they quit that in favor of making replacement parts for the growing paper-making industry that made use of the pulpwood from the Adirondack Mountains. Activities related to this went on clear through the 1960s, about a century in all, until things fell apart in the upper Hudson Valley and business mysteriously went elsewhere. I'm sure it was a mystery to many of the people around here who got a living from these factories, who felt strong, willing, and able to trade their labor for a decent paycheck. How could the world not need them anymore? American political leadership explained it rather poorly to them. This was a new economy, they said. From now on making a living in America would be all about being clever at cooking up "innovations" that the rest of the people in the world could use in order to churn things out for us at twenty cents an hour. America's young people, they said, should go to college, even if it meant taking on a lifetime of loan obligations. Or enroll at the local community college to learn "computer technology," the coming thing. What really happened to places like Hudson Falls is now painfully visible on-the-ground, in the streets, and in the shopfront windows, which are either vacant or occupied by the most marginal businesses - martial arts studios (training for what? Gang war? Insurrection? Afghanistan?), second-hand shops, and the ubiquitous pizza joints for a cheese-hungry populace. The once dignified business blocks at the small center of town - itself perched on a bluff with a panoramic view west - are vacant and falling into gross disrepair. The owner class of citizen, still inveighed against in progressive radio circles, are so gone that their ghosts seem to have packed up and left, too. But then so is every other class of people above the nether-class - that is, people engaged in something other than subsidized idleness and crime, people who's only obligation in life is waking up in the morning. (No wonder the nation is obsessed with zombies these days.) I passed a wedding late in the afternoon on my way out of town. The bride had a tattoo the size of bumper-sticker on her décolletage. The groomsmen were dressed in black baby shorts and backwards hats. You want to weep for their offspring. I only saw them on the way out. All the rest of the long day, I was blessedly alone under a fierce sun on the far side of the river, in close observation of the visual details of history and the quality of the day. It is hard to imagine the determination and ingenuity (not to mention strength and sweat) it took to pile up all these buildings right next to this raging river, or to fling a concrete dam across it. I don't see how we could do that now, since we seem collectively incapable of accomplishing anything anymore - except some phony new political disposition of foot-dragging, evasion of responsibility, or refusal to confront reality. The reality I spend these days rambling the river with is the reality of a nation riding a great wave of entropy into the unknown. Only at this stage of the ride can we indulge in our Goth fantasies of the charming vampire nether-life. Believe me, when things really get dark we will all be wishing desperately for something more like lambs-in-the-meadow and the kindly touch of a loving hand and the dim memory of what it was like to care about anything or anyone. Where we are now, to me, is the real dark time, the proverbial moment before the dawn. The depravity of our culture, Disney merchandise, cool ranch Doritos, and all, is something that people of the future will marvel at for centuries to come. The purity of our surrender will fascinate them. They will conclude that we looked into the abyss... and decided that we liked what we saw in there. .

Lloyd's Peak Oil warnings

SUBHEAD: Business is underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil, says Lloyd's of London. Image above: The interior of the atrium of Lloyd's main office building in London's financial district. By Terry Macalister on 11 July 2010 in the Guardian - (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/peak-oil-energy-disruption)

One of the City's most respected institutions has warned of "catastrophic consequences" for businesses that fail to prepare for a world of increasing oil scarcity and a lower carbon economy.

The Lloyd's insurance market and the highly regarded Institute of Strategic Studies (ISS, known as Chatham House) says Britain needs to be ready for "Peak Oil" and disrupted energy supplies at a time of soaring fuel demand in China and India, constraints on production caused by the BP oil spill and political moves to cut CO2 to halt global warming.

"Companies which are able to take advantage of this new energy reality will increase both their resilience and competitiveness. Failure to do so could lead to expensive and potentially catastrophic consequences," says the Lloyd's and ISS report "Sustainable energy security: strategic risks and opportunities for business".

The insurance market has a major interest in preparedness to counter climate change because of the fear of rising insurance claims related to property damage and business disruption. The review is groundbreaking because it comes from the heart of the City and contains the kind of dire warnings that are more associated with environmental groups or others accused by critics of resorting to hype. It takes a pot shot at the International Energy Agency which has been under fire for apparently under-estimating the threats, noting: "IEA expectations [on crude output] over the last decade have generally gone unmet."

The report the world is heading for a global oil supply crunch and high prices owing to insufficient investment in oil production plus a rebound in global demand following recession. It repeats warning from Professor Paul Stevens, a former economist from Dundee University, at an earlier Chatham House conference that lack of oil by 2013 could force the price of crude above $200 (£130) a barrel.

It also quotes from a US department of energy report highlighting the economic chaos that would result from declining oil production as global demand continued to rise, recommending a crash programme to overhaul the transport system. "Even before we reach peak oil," says the Lloyd's report, "we could witness an oil supply crunch because of increased Asian demand. Major new investment in energy takes 10-15 years from the initial investment to first production, and to date we have not seen the amount of new projects that would supply the projected increase in demand."

And while the world is gradually moving to new kinds of clean energy technologies the insurance market warns that there could be shortages of earth metals and other raw materials needed to help them thrive.

Lloyd's also calls on manufacturers, retailers and the wider business community to reassess global supply chains and their just-in time models because the "current system is increasingly vulnerable to disruption."

The report says government needs to do much more to bring additional price stability and transparency if the global carbon market is to become a reality.

Richard Ward, chief executive of Lloyd's, said the failure of the Copenhagen climate change talks last December has helped lull many business leaders into a false sense of security about the challenges ahead. "We are in a period akin to a phony war. We keep hearing of difficulties to come, but with oil, gas and coal still broadly accessible – and largely capable of being distributed where they are needed – the bad times have not yet hit ... all businesses ... will be affected by energy supplies which are less reliable and more expensive."

.

Hawaii as Sustainability Test Tube

SUBHEAD: Hawaii is the ideal sustainable energy test tube. Is it only a symbolic role? Image above: Windmills on Kealaloloa Ridge on West Maui. From (http://bushnell.homeip.net/~bill/pictures/transfer_to_maui.2007.04.25/pages/page_15.html). By Patrick-Takahashi on 7 July 2010 in Wagerrun - (http://www.wagerrun.com/645/patrick-takahashi-hawaii-the-proposed-symbol-of-energy-independence) Hawaii is that proverbial canary in the coal mine regarding Peak Oil and the economy. Our only hope is a global partnership to as quickly as possible help us attain a high level of energy independence. But why should Hawaii be singled out for this privilege? The reasons are many, but the most compelling is that we are the ideal sustainability test tube: progressive leaders, abundance of renewable options, high cost of energy (an electricity bill 250% higher than the national average, so commercialization can more quickly be attained), relatively small size (less than one half of one percent the population of the Nation, so the investment will be affordable), singular political clout (the most powerful congressional member in Senator Daniel Inouye, and leader of the Free World, President Barack Obama, who was born in this state) and, soon, sheer desperation, and, therefore, motivation. Provided is a golden opportunity for the World to work together with us to create a symbol for sustainability.

Hawaii is blessed with the Sun, tradewinds, heat of the Earth, ocean resources and sufficient rain to grow biomass on irrigated lands recently vacated by the sugar industry. We pay the highest energy prices in the Nation. Ninety percent of the energy we use is petroleum, which is destined to skyrocket in price when Peak Oil occurs.

How are we doing on the development of renewable energy relative to other states? First of all, EIA 2007 data (2008 information will be released later this month) for the country shows hydroelectric power at 2.4%, wind and geothermal are both at 0.33% and solar at .04%. Wind, particularly, should be higher in 2010, but, still, none-hydro renewable energy remains at the noise level.

I selected a cross section of states (click on Planet Earth and Humanity for the full data) and found that when you deduct hydro, Hawaii is doing as well as California and Colorado, but better than all the others. Yet, we remain 94% fossil fueled.

For the future, Governor Linda Lingle proclaimed the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, touting 70% renewable energy by 2030. This certainly confused me, for also stipulated was 40% of all electricity by 2030 when aviation fuel (about 30% of energy used) might well then still be close to zero and ground transport can only be a huge guess. Conservation is part of this strategy, as it should, but I doubt if we’ll use much less energy in two decades.

Hawaii will elect a new governor this Fall, so, in advance, here are my recommendations for his (yes, all three are male) consideration:

1. Your deep sea electric cable project should include the Big Island because geothermal energy, a baseload power source, should be included in the future mix. A quarter century ago I assisted in the planning for a similar venture as there was potential for 500 MW of geothermal.

2. Be sure to determine potential ocean thermal energy conversion (also baseload) sites so the cable can be conveniently tapped at these locations.

3. This deep sea electrical cable will then cost from $2 billion to $3 billion. Can we afford this? Well, capital improvement projects get close to $2 billion annually, so spread over a decade, maybe. There, too, are bonds to float. However, the most sensible proposition is to have our congressional delegation (plus that of Texas and California) and the White House introduce the National Grid Act of 2011, using Hawaii as the first total system site, with Texas as the wind power demo and California for utility-scale solar. It is now becoming obvious that major wind/solar farms are being delayed because of the cost of an accessible smart grid system. We installed the national highway system in the ’50’s, and where would we be today without our interstate freeways? Now, a network to wheel electricity is clearly our next national need.

4. A larger problem will be ground transportation. Plug-in electric cars seem to be in vogue today, but a direct methanol fuel cell powered transport system makes more sense in the long run. Immediately delete ethanol and terrestrial biofuels (too slow growing, very inefficient and uses too much water). There, though, is something about microalgae, and research should be significantly expanded on this option.

5. Our most vulnerable lifeline is aviation. Tourism is about our only real industry, and when the price of petroleum jumps to $150/barrel, jet fuel will become so expensive that our tourism rate will drop by 50%. Our local economy will go into and stay in deep depression for many decades, for there are no substitutes on the commercial horizon. Do everything in your power to insure for both a substitute jet fuel and a next generation sustainable aircraft. The former will take more than a decade, and the latter, maybe a generation, and more. We might have time, though, as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists the price of crude oil at less than $90/barrel in December of 2018. But how often have we been surprised by sudden spikes? Very few saw $147/barrel oil coming until it happened. And, Peak Oil could well be just around the corner.

I can warn you that TIME should be your greatest concern. If Peak Oil never occurs, Hawaii and the rest of the World will only be thankful. So we guessed wrong. Yet, this embarrassment will mostly result in more locally produced clean energy, which will only help our economy in the future. What are the odds, though, for petroleum to remain under $100/barrel for the next quarter century?

.

Lihue Airport zaps Kauaians

SUBHEAD: Lihue Airport management's "Guinea Pig" experiment with Full-body Scanner may damage human DNA. Image above: Dick Cheney zapped lights up "No Fly". Illustration by David Dees. From (http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=46&contentid=6553&page=2). [Editor's Note: Why are educated Lihue Airport Administrators allowing Kauai residents and visitors to be used as "guinea pigs" for this technology?] By Mike Adams on 11 January 2010 in Natural News - (http://www.naturalnews.com/027913_full-body_scanners_DNA.html) In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA. Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology," reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/b...) In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons -- high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue. The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication." In layman's terms, any time you're talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you're essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health. Never approved as safe for humans "At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging," reports TechnologyReview.com (http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...). "But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe." And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices." (If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you'll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?) The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294 There, study authors conclude: "Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication." In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA. Could these scans cause cancer and birth defects? Could these scans cause infertility? Cancer? Shortened lifespan? We don't yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA. This technology is being recklessly rolled out without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use. How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes would fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are perfectly safe, we're told -- but then why do children who live closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer? Dentists still claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health -- a preposterous notion -- and cell phone companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn't hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they've never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA. What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage that causes infertility and cancer? What if air travelers who subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some currently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency. Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (which they do, when you're talking on them anyway). But if there's one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it's that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who's to say they're going to be safe? What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won't damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this technology becomes the next Thalidomide and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation? I'm not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn't it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout? As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...) "[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation." Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA. And here's the real kicker: These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists because they can't detect powder explosives in the first place. A determined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a sleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on luggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives that won't be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how detailed the images are. Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because these machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules will allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need then, if you're a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant who can pack explosives in his own underwear. Radiology experts claim full-body scanners are safe Radiology experts are claiming that the radiation emitted from these full-body scanners is perfectly safe for you. Then again, they also claim mammograms are safe, and recent science has now proven that mammograms cause cancer. When it comes to radiation safety, you can't trust radiologists. They say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the room when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have zero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical imaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don't have any real clue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan! As BusinessWeek reports: (http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty...) "The health effects of the more common millimeter-wave scanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted. 'I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems,' said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president." The New York Times adds: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...) "Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe." Resources: Physics Letters, January 8, 2010 http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294 Technology Review: http://www.technologyreview.com/blo... New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h... Source: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/ How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA Friday, October 30, 2009
A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done and why evidence has been so hard to gather.

Great things are expected of terahertz waves, the radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum between microwaves and the infrared. Terahertz waves pass through non-conducting materials such as clothes , paper, wood and brick and so cameras sensitive to them can peer inside envelopes, into living rooms and "frisk" people at distance.

The way terahertz waves are absorbed and emitted can also be used to determine the chemical composition of a material. And even though they don't travel far inside the body, there is great hope that the waves can be used to spot tumours near the surface of the skin.

With all that potential, it's no wonder that research on terahertz waves has exploded in the last ten years or so.

But what of the health effects of terahertz waves? At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging. Terahertz photons are not energetic enough to break chemical bonds or ionise atoms or molecules, the chief reasons why higher energy photons such as x-rays and UV rays are so bad for us. But could there be another mechanism at work?

The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. "Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion.

And it also explains why the evidence has been so hard to garner. Ordinary resonant effects are not powerful enough to do do this kind of damage but nonlinear resonances can. These nonlinear instabilities are much less likely to form which explains why the character of THz genotoxic effects are probabilistic rather than deterministic, say the team.

This should set the cat among the pigeons. Of course, terahertz waves are a natural part of environment, just like visible and infrared light. But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe.

• Reference: arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294: DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field

See also: Ea O Ka Aina: Kauai Tests for Terrorists 6/28/10

.

No Growth is Future Economy

`SUBHEAD: How we might live "lightly, carefully and gracefully" in a hotter and leaner world. Bill McKibben interviewed by Douglas Gorney in July 2010 for The Atlantic - (http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/07/interview-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth/59440) Image above: The old neighborhood general store. General merchandise and groceries within walking distance. From (http://media.photobucket.com/image/the%20old%20general%20store/VIEWLINER/SMP/MMN4.jpg). When Bill McKibben first sounded the alarm about global warming 20 years ago, he was something of a voice crying in the wilderness. Now McKibben, author of The End of Nature and Deep Economy, is issuing an even more dire warning. His new book, with the science fiction-y title Eaarth, paints a picture of a depleted, overheated planet no longer suited to its inhabitants. That planet is our own, the time is now, and the book is non-fiction. Laying the blame for climate change squarely at the feet of the growth economy, McKibben proposes a new, robust, "mature" economic model centered on localized energy, food production, and capital. McKibben, founder of the climate change action group 350.org, spoke to The Atlantic about the way our energy sources dictate our economy—and how we might yet live "lightly, carefully and gracefully" in a hotter and leaner world. You must meet with considerable opposition from policymakers, academics, and press who are invested in economic growth. Sure. It's very hard for any of us to take on the notion that the thing that's been central though the course of our whole lives, the political idea that whatever kind of ideology we've tended to embrace may no longer be serving us. It's especially hard to take on because it's an idea that, at some point, did serve us well. So yes, there's lots of resistance—an inability, almost, to hear or to understand the basic idea. It's not really all that new, you know. When Limits to Growth was published in 1972 it got a really powerful hearing; millions of people bought the book and thought about the idea, and millions of them were convinced. But in the end I think the crucial moment was the election of Ronald Reagan; that was really a kind of debate about whether we were going to entertain the idea of limits. We decided not to, and we've never looked back. Now we're reaching the point, I'm afraid, where it's no longer going to be an optional exercise. When the Arctic melts, that's a bad sign. I can see the transition to a sustainable energy infrastructure based on solar panels on rooftops, mini-wind turbines in every yard, local food plots. It's harder for me to see the transition to a non-growth-based economy. In a sense, they go hand in hand. The single most important part of that growth economy has been access to really cheap, plentiful fossil fuel. And if for a combination of the fact that we're running out of it and environmentally we can't afford to burn it anymore we switch off of that, then the fuels that replace them will come with more inherent limits and that they'll help reshape the world just in and of themselves. I don't think it's possible to have the kind of agro-industrial complex that we have at the moment without endless amounts of cheap energy. If I were an economist or finance minister reading your book, I might wonder how the economic infrastructure might make this shift. We have so much invested in the old economy. I think there are things that we're not going to need anymore. And huge Wall Street banks are fairly high on the list. So whither Wall Street? Hopefully over time, Wall Street will indeed wither. And that will be useful because we'll be moving capital back to much more localized sources. It's putting money to use in the same way that we're doing with energy and with food—much closer to home. And in a much less overheated way, too, where people aren't demanding 17 percent returns to make things happen. Where people are investing in their communities and doing fine by it. Can you give me some examples of support you've received from Wall St.? Uhhhh...no. Many of the examples you use in your book are in Vermont, where you live. Is the model of self-sufficiency of Vermont farmers, businessmen, and energy producers applicable to other parts of the country that are quite different? New York City or Los Angeles, for instance? Concentration actually makes many things easier. I describe a guy doing a compost route through rural Vermont and he can make it work and make it pay, but the distance between stops adds up the cost, you know? It's a whole different deal on the Upper West Side. Think about New York 100, even 75 years ago. Its population was roughly the same as it is now, but it supported itself largely on the agriculture of the surrounding area. That's why we call New Jersey the Garden State. Much of that land is still there and ready to go in upstate New York, for instance. And it's beginning to happen—it's a very good piece of news that for the first time in 150 years the number of farms in America is increasing rather than decreasing. And most of that increase is coming around metro areas as people begin the process of building these markets, aggregating demand for good, local food. Cities and rural areas each offer huge opportunities. The hardest place to make things happen is in the suburbs. What do you see as the future of suburbs in the next 20 years? Do you think they'll simply go away? The outer ring of suburbs is already in huge trouble. I think that many of the inner suburbs will do well because they are places that have held their value and are on rail lines and commuter lines. My guess is that we'll see a lot of experimentation with people growing something other than grass on their lawns. I was in Ann Arbor the other day, and people were completely excited about putting up front-yard, raised-bed gardens throughout one neighborhood after another. Suburbia also has a lot of rooftops. And that's one of the places where we're going to find our power. With 350.org you have done a lot of lobbying and advocacy in Washington. Do you feel there's a growing understanding of these issues in Congress? No, I don't. I feel that we are losing on the most important issues in Congress, and I think the reason is that we haven't built a big enough, powerful enough movement to demand change. We're seeing next to no coherent action on climate change. If any kind of bill emerges, it's going to be a very watered-down and tepid one. At a certain level you can blame all the senators and representatives for it, but I think it's also fair to blame those of us who care about this issue—because we haven't built the kind of political power that we should. We assumed that because scientists had said the world was coming to an end that that would be enough to motivate our political system to act. As it turns out, that's not how politics works. You need to meet power with power. We're never going to compete in terms of money; the fossil fuel industry is the most profitable enterprise humans have ever undertaken. So we're going to have to compete with bodies and with spirit and with creativity. I'd be remiss not to ask your response to the ongoing disaster in the Gulf. For us, it's a real contradiction to be talking about taking on the climate challenge at the same time as you're talking about searching out ever more hydrocarbons in ever more difficult places. We didn't anticipate the Deepwater Horizon spill, of course, but it certainly proves the point. There are two things to take away from it. Number one, how desperate we are for energy right now, drilling for oil a mile beneath the surface of the earth. It shows we have run out of the last drops of easy oil on this planet. Number two, we can directly see the damage the oil is doing to the environment now because the water is turning black. But the Gulf, and every other ocean on earth, is also already 30 percent more acidic from absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. Even if that oil had made it to shore and into the gas tanks of our cars, it still would have done huge environmental damage. In Hot, Flat and Crowded, Tom Freidman calls for a "green revolution" not just to help the environment, but the economy—with new industries, new technologies, and many new green collar jobs. What's your take on that? Some of it is real—as I say in the book I'm all for pursuing it. But it's folly to just pull the internal combustion engine out of the machine, toss in a wind turbine, and keep rolling on as before. I think there are more systemic and profound changes coming. I think it's going to be a tough stretch—for many reasons, including the fact that global warming just keeps happening faster and faster. In the last six weeks we've set new, all-time high-temperature records for seven different nations around the world. We were talking with our 350.org organizers in Pakistan on a day when the mercury hit 129ºF, an all-time Asia record. This is happening very, very quickly, and we don't have generations in which to transform the world. We need to get to work in every way that we can think of right now. Maybe I've seen too many movies set in a post-apocalyptic future where civilization has had to return to its agrarian, muscle-powered past. But isn't Eaarth's vision of where we're headed in some ways dystopian? I think it's quite possible that we could be headed for a serious collapse if we don't get to work right away. I don't think there's any reason to think that civilizations can cope with a temperature increase of 4º or 5º or 6º—the 1º we've done so far is straining us in huge ways. But I do my best to outline what kind of world might work, within limits. I think it is more agrarian than the one we have now; I don't think we're going to have 1 percent of our population producing our food—that number will go up. I also think that that world can be considerably sweeter than the one we live in. At the moment if we're both lucky and alive, as we move towards a world that values community, that values relationship ahead of consumption, we'll find some benefits to counteract the very real losses we'll encounter along the way. .

Rising Temps - Lower Rainfall

SUBHEAD: For Hawaii, global warming leads to rising temperatures in the mountains and declining rainfall. Image above: Could Kauai ever look like this? Camelback Mountain in Phoenix, Arizona. From (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7202153@N03/1481349932).

By Audrey McAvoyon 9 July 2010 in NewsTimes.com - (http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Rising-temperatures-lower-rainfall-seen-in-Hawaii-571974.php)

Global warming is already leading to rising temperatures in the mountains and declining rainfall in Hawaii, climate change experts said at a meeting Friday.

Temperatures at Hawaii's higher elevations are rising faster than the global average, said Deanna Spooner, coordinator of the Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative.

"It's getting hotter here faster than anywhere else in the world up in the upper elevations," Spooner said on the sidelines of the Honolulu meeting of the federal Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.

Rainfall levels, meanwhile, are falling. "Our freshwater resources are shrinking," she said.

The federal task force is holding five meetings around the country to hear how climate change is affecting communities and how people are coping.

It's already held meetings in Portland, Ore. and Miami. It's due to meet in Chicago on July 15 and Denver on July 19.

In October the panel is scheduled to compile the perspectives it gathers and submit recommendations to President Barack Obama on how the nation can limit the effects of climate change.

Larry Robinson, assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, said Hawaii was selected as a place to hold the meeting because officials recognized the Pacific island communities are highly vulnerable to the changes brought on by global warming.

Officials also realized it would be difficult for residents of Pacific islands to travel to the mainland to participate in meetings there, he said.

Organizers set up teleconference links between their Honolulu conference center and participants in Guam, Saipan, American Samoa as well as Hawaii neighbor islands Maui, Kauai and the Big Island.

Robyn Thorson, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional director, said some climate change is inevitable.

"We will have to adapt our lifestyles and traditions to this new climate. That task is upon us," Thorson said.

See also: Ea O Ka Aina: Climate Change in Hawaii 11/22/09 Ea O Ka Aina: Climate Change in Hawaii 12/18/09

.

Cruelty Free Chickens

SUBHEAD: Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, of California, signs landmark egg layer bill providing freedom of movement. Image above: A commercial free-range chicken operation. One step up from full confinement with full extension cages; From (http://www.fanpop.com/spots/chicken/images/1413665/title/free-range-chicken-farm). By Wayne Pacelle on 6 July 2010 in The Humane Society - (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2010/07/california-egg-bill.html) I just got the very exciting news from California that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed A.B. 1437, a bill backed by The HSUS that requires that starting in 2015 all shell (whole) eggs sold in California must come from hens who were able to stand up, lie down, turn around, and fully extend their limbs without touching one another or the sides of an enclosure. In other words: California will become a cage-free state.

Proposition 2, approved by voters in November 2008, phases out the extreme confinement of laying hens in cages by 2015. A.B. 1437 applies the standards contained within Prop 2 to the sale of shell eggs. With 40 million consumers in California, it would be hard to overestimate the potential of this bill to change the way laying hens are treated throughout the United States.

This victory comes just days after The HSUS brokered a deal with Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and the state’s largest agriculture groups to impose a moratorium on new battery cage facilities in Ohio, the nation’s second largest egg production state.

Change for animals subjected to intensive confinement is coming, and the victories this week are plain evidence of that.

On the California legislation, many thanks go to bill author Assemblyman Jared Huffman, to all of the other lawmakers who supported the legislation, to Gov. Schwarzenegger, and, most importantly, to the thousands of HSUS supporters who took action and urged elected officials to support this bill.

.

Jobless Drowning Fast

SUBHEAD: Without renewal by congress, the expiration of unemployment insurance is causing desperation and panic. Image above: None of us are that far from the edge. From (http://www.theendlessblog.com/697357985/after-the-havok-that-im-gonna-wreak).

By Laura Basset on 1 July 2010 in Huffington Post - (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/expired-unemployment-bene_n_632778.html)

Debra Rousey of Gainesville, Georgia, says that she received an unemployment check of $194 last week, half the usual amount she receives, along with a letter announcing that this check would be her last. She is now in a complete panic over what to do next.

"I'm desperate and devastated," she told HuffPost. "I didn't get any warning. I was barely making ends meet on $330 a week, trying to diaper my grandchild and put food on the table for the four people I support. What do I do now? How am I going to make rent next month? I keep thinking, 'If I end up in a cardboard box, can I find one big enough for everybody, or do I have to send my son to live with someone else?'"

Since Rousey, 45, was laid off from her job as a branch manager for Suntrust bank in November, she says she has been "frantically looking" for a job -- everything from entry-level marketing positions to a fry cook job at McDonalds -- but hasn't had an interview in months. As of tomorrow, she will be one of nearly 1.7 million people whose unemployment benefits have prematurely expired while Congress sits on legislation that would renew those benefits.

"I hate being on unemployment," Rousey said. "I haven't applied for food stamps or Medicaid for myself because I have a work ethic that says if I want to eat, I want to work to eat. I don't want a handout. But right now I'm at the breaking point. If I don't come up with cash quick, everything will be cut off within two weeks -- gas, electric, water. Five people will be displaced. How am I supposed to come up with the money?"

Rousey is currently pursuing a master's degree in adult education through an online program, and her son, 17, and her 25-year-old daughter are also full-time students. She said all three of them are desperate for work.

"I have put in at least 5 resumés a day since November," she said. "It's not like I'm not employable. I have a bachelor's degrees in business, an associate's degree in marketing, and 25 years of office management experience. But I can't even get McDonald's to call me back for an interview."

If her unemployment benefits are not renewed soon, Rousey says she will have no way to pay rent or put food on the table. The House passed a bill on Thursday that would extend unemployment benefits for those who have been unemployed longer than six months, but the bill is moving slowly in the Senate. Rousey said she she's not holding her breath for help from the government.

.

Kauai Voted #1 Island

SUBHEAD: After winning a fragile beauty contest it's important not to be loved to death. Image above: View of "Bali Hai" (Mount Makana) from website for Pricneville Kauai Vacation Rental website. From (http://www.kauaivacationrentals.com/static/374.html).
By Jeanne Cooper on 8 July 2010 in SFGate - (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/hawaii/detail?entry_id=67485) Kauai is crowing over winning the title of best island in Hawaii, and second only to the Galápagos among world islands, in the eyes of Travel + Leisure readers. But with the crown comes the responsibility of preserving that which won it for you.

It's the second year in a row (and third time in five years) that Kauai topped the Hawaiian list among the magazine's readers, who were asked to rate the islands on five qualities: natural attractions, activities and sights, restaurants and food, people and value. Maui, Hawaii, O'ahu followed close behind, with Molokai in a more distant fifth place. On T+L's global list of best islands, Maui came in eighth and the Big Island 10th.

"People are touched by the serenity of Kauai's tropical beauty and how the island allows them to escape the stress of their daily lives and be rejuvenated by nature," said Sue Kanoho, executive director of the Kauai Visitors Bureau in a press release. "This is such a thrill for Kauai to again earn this recognition from Travel + Leisure's readers because of the strong message that it sends to travelers worldwide."

In the same prelease, Kauai Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. subtly referenced the ongoing battles on Kauai to keep its small-town charm and protect Native Hawaiian sites while allowing economic development and/or infrastructure improvements: "This award is shared by all of the people of Kauai who love our island, care for our island and work hard to make it one of the most special places on earth. We are honored that the readers of Travel + Leisure magazine recognize this and we will continue to share Kauai with the world in a way that preserves the beauty and character of our island home."

The generally friendly people of Kauai indeed make it very special, but understandably they can get frustrated by unchecked growth even as they increasingly rely on tourist dollars. While reading up on the Galápagos Islands, where tourism has grown exponentially in the last two decades, I was struck by the similarity in the stresses on its fragilie ecosystem and those on Kauai, the smallest (in size and population) of the four major islands. Read the "founding principles" of the International Galápagos Tour Operators Association, and imagine applying them to the Garden Isle:

Population Pressures: People are the beneficiaries of the islands; heritage, but they also present its most serious threat. We recognize that the islands offer a limited space for residents and visitors and insist that certain limits be imposed.

Human Settlement: The steep growth in population in the islands and the spread of permanent human settlements are in conflict with long-term economic and conservation goals. It is vital that the number of people moving to and settling on the islands be limited. At the same time, tourism can and should provide tangible benefits to the local populations. There should be improved living conditions created for those who are already there, particularly in educational, sanitation, and health-related areas.

Tourist Numbers: Uncontrolled growth of tourism to the islands will threaten the quality of the visitor experience, the economic viability of the industry, and the ecological integrity of the islands themselves. A carefully-designed plan, based on sound ecological and economic principles, is needed to control the growth and diversification of tourism.

Low Impact Nature Travel: The model of tightly controlled and organized nature-oriented tourism established in the Galapagos twenty-five years ago has served the islands well. Unspoiled nature is the attraction for travelers to the Galapagos. New types of tourism, however, are threatening to change the entire character and purpose of travel to the islands. Among these:

  • There has been pressure to allow large passenger ships in excess of four hundred people, to operate in the islands.
  • There have been proposals for new hotels, casinos, and air strips.
  • Sport fishing has been introduced to the islands.
  • There has been an increase in less motivated and less environmentally sensitive tour operators and travelers.

We are completely opposed to this movement away from low-impact nature tourism.

Of course, the Hawaiian Islands have a much different human history than the long-unpopulated Galápagos, and Ecuador's policies and resources are not the same as those of the United States, so it may be a little like comparing apples and naranjas. Yet I think the following maxim applies to both: As wonderful as it is to be recognized as a place full of wonders, it's important not to be loved to death. Or perhaps put more pithily: Endangered gooses lay golden eggs, but not after they're extinct.

Mahalo to all those on Kauai who do care about conservation, smart growth and stewardship, and to fellow visitors who try to tread lightly, support local growers and vendors, and elect environmentally conscious officials at the federal level.

Image above: Detail of "Evening Blaze" by Roy Ganzales Tabora. This reproduction has been mirror images to show similarity to Mount Makena on Kauai. It is a highly romanticized and iconic vision of Kauai. Tobora is represented in galleries throughout Hawaii and sometimes paints in the lobby of the Waikiki Surfrider Hotel. From (http://www.taboragallery.com/RTeveningablaze.html).

The Long Emergency begins?

SUBHEAD: In NYC Con-Ed fights to keep lights on. Is this what the beginning of the 'Long Emergency' looks like?
Image above: Con-Ed Headquarters in NYC (center rear) with Zeckendorf residential towers in foreground seen from Union Squire. Juan Wilson worked on 3D modelling of building for Davis-Brody & Associates in the mid 1980's. From (http://newyorkdailyphoto.blogspot.com/2007/04/towers.html). By Patrick McGeehan on 7 July 2010 in New York Times - (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/nyregion/08heat.html)

From the 19th floor of Consolidated Edison’s headquarters in Manhattan, generators were dispatched to supplement a burning substation. Emergency alerts were relayed to major customers and companies. The go-ahead was given to cancel Little League night games on Staten Island to conserve the wattage used by field lights.

Con Edison, with an ability that might strike some as Big Brother-like, even exercised its ability to periodically shut off central air-conditioning units in some 20,000 homes and businesses to ease the burden on its system.

The scene inside Con Ed’s command center showed both the urgency of the utility’s efforts, and the nature of its reach — this was one of the few times it has adjusted residential thermostats from afar — as it struggled to cope with another record-setting day of heat and demand.

On one giant screen on the west wall, the number of megawatts being consumed was teetering at a dangerously high level, reflecting the unyielding heat, which again broke the daily record as it hit 100 degrees.

Another screen displayed real-time information revealing the spots — isolated, for now — where customers had lost power. And where there were problems, a Con Edison supervisor’s name would be affixed to it, for all to see at the afternoon emergency briefing.

From Con Edison’s base of operations in Rye, a plea rang out: “I would like to request another 4kv generator to support this grid because it doesn’t look like this section’s coming back any time soon.” That was Anthony Suozzo, a general manager of electric operations, asking for four kilovolts; he was dealing with a substation in Westchester County that had just caught fire, knocking out power to more than 1,700 customers.

So it went throughout the area, as accommodations were made to try to avert brownouts or blackouts. Horse racing at Belmont Park was called off. New Jersey Transit canceled some morning trains. Amtrak warned customers of delays on its Northeast Corridor service on Wednesday because trains were operating at reduced speeds.

There were reports that a woman who died in Queens on Tuesday was the first heat-related death in the city, but officials had not confirmed that. A spokeswoman for Charles S. Hirsch, the chief medical examiner, said that the woman’s autopsy would be conducted on Thursday.

As the temperature hit triple digits for the second straight day Wednesday, memories of the catastrophic failure of part of New York City’s power grid in 2006 were still vivid inside and outside Con Ed’s makeshift command center near Union Square.

In Astoria, Queens, business owners and elected officials remained wary about the utility company’s methods and its ability to keep the lights and air-conditioners running through a suffocating heat wave. Having endured the wrath of customers who suffered four years ago through that local blackout, which lasted more than a week, the dozens of Con Edison officials in the command center were intent on responding to signs of trouble as soon as they appeared on the giant charts projected on the wall.

As the number of equipment failures mounted by the hour, Con Edison turned to outside contractors for help. Unable to borrow crews from neighboring utilities that were coping with the regionwide swelter, the company brought in independent wire stringers who had been working in Massachusetts.

“No utilities are giving up their crews today,” said John Miksad, Con Edison’s senior vice president of electric operations.

Con Ed was using all available tools for suppressing demand for power throughout its service area. For a second day, it had put all of its emergency programs into effect, which combined to cut usage by about 400 megawatts, according to Mr. Miksad. With them, consumption peaked just below 13,000 megawatts on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons. Without them, it would easily have surpassed the all-time high of 13,141 megawatts, he said.

One lesser-known contributor to the savings was a program that allows Con Ed to reprogram the thermostats in about 20,000 homes and businesses. Those customers are equipped with central air-conditioning systems controlled by thermostats with small antennas.

In times of unusually high demand for electricity, Con Ed tells Carrier, the maker of heating and cooling systems, to send a radio signal that causes those thermostats to cycle on and off every 30 minutes. Doing so shaved about 25 megawatts off the peak demand this week, Con Ed officials said.

“A megawatt here, a megawatt there can make a difference on a day like today,” Mr. Miksad said.

At the 311 help-line center in downtown Manhattan, the number of calls rose with the mercury. Calls came from seniors looking for the closest cooling center, and from parents looking to have nearby fire hydrants fitted with sprinkler caps. (In the last six days, 311 received 4,226 calls related to gushing fire hydrants — the highest category by far.)

Still, considering that fewer than 4,000 customers had no power at 4 p.m., when it was 100 degrees, New Yorkers as a group had little reason to complain. But they complained anyway.

At the Igloo Café in Astoria, the owner, Harry Panagiotopoulos, said he believed that Con Edison had reduced his power a few days ago. What else, he said, would explain why his thermostat read 86 degrees at noon, when he had it set to cool the place to 69?

“A lot of people walk in, they turn around, they walk right out,” Mr. Panagiotopoulos said. He said he had tried complaining to the utility but, he added, “When you’re a monopoly, a legal monopoly, you don’t care.”

Such bitter sentiments, whether accurate or not, are rampant in northern Queens, said Michael N. Gianaris, an assemblyman who happened to be having coffee in the Igloo when Mr. Panagiotopoulos was interviewed.

“The animus toward Con Edison is as raw as it was four years ago,” said Mr. Gianaris, who has been one of the company’s most vocal and unyielding critics.

Having reacted too slowly in 2006 as one overloaded cable led to another and another, Con Edison is now straining to prove that it has learned some lessons from the disaster in Astoria. Back then, the company failed to recognize the severity of the problem it faced and vastly understated its effects.

“We’re much more proactive with communications now,” Mr. Miksad said, adding that the company has developed a strong working relationship with the Fire Department and the city’s Office of Emergency Management. He also emphasized that Con Edison has spent more money rebuilding and upgrading its network in the last five years than it had in the previous decade or two.

But Mr. Gianaris said the company had still not pumped enough money into modernizing its infrastructure. He did, however, credit Con Edison with having learned from the 2006 blackout how to react faster to small failures that could rapidly lead to widespread losses of power.

“There are plenty of places that are as vulnerable as Queens was four years ago,” Mr. Gianaris said. “If they make it through this week without any major outages, it will be more a testament to the lessons they learned four years ago than the investment in infrastructure.”

.