The Next Hurrah

Global Warming Walk: Five Qs&As with Bill McKibben

By Meteor Blades

I sure wish I were in Vermont this week. I could join writer/environmentalist/deep thinker Bill McKibben and whoever else shows up for a four-day walk seeking to kindle federal action against global warming.

Billed as "The Road Less Traveled, Vermonters Walking Toward a Clean Energy Future," the march will begin Thursday noon at Robert Frost's old writing cabin near Ripton, stop in cities along the way for Conversations on the Green, and end 43 miles up the road in Burlington. Knowing McKibben's work and the kind of people he attracts, I imagine those are going to be eye-opening conversations for participants and bystanders alike, a traveling teach-in, if you will. You can get a taste of this in my five-question interview with McKibben below.

Many, I know, downplay the value of a public demonstration, even public action of any kind outside the realm of lawsuits and legislation. Sooooo '60s, they say. Doesn't work anymore. If it ever really did. I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps the reason people say this comes from their being so comprehensively saturated with a megamedia caricature of the era. They don't believe most or any of what the megamedia tells them about the times they themselves live in, but they accept as gospel what's been told them regarding one of the periods of greatest social change since the Civil War.

The public intellectuals and other activists who spurred that change worked inside and outside the governing system, using whatever megaphone seemed proper at the moment to capture public attention and increase the pressure on public policy. What you mostly hear about that era today is the media-mediated version, a distorted fraction of the story. That's not my way of trying to sanctify the "protest" movements or say that we made no mistakes, no strategic blunders, or engaged in no counterproductive activism. Surely, we did more than enough of that and were paid for it with half-victories and outright defeats, some of them long-lasting. But, please, most of the focus, even most of the public events, had nothing to do grubby street demonstrations.

Lamont's "Single Issue" Voters

by emptywheel

The Q-Poll shows that 44% of Lamont's supporters support him mainly because of Lieberman's stance on the Iraq war. And Markos anticipates a bunch of pundits frowning on the large number of "Single Issue" voters.

For a pundit to suggest the Iraq war is a "Single Issue" simply betrays their ignorance of the impact that war has and will continue to have on this country and the rest of the world.

Some are opposed to the war because they're opposed to 2,500 Americans dead, 18,000 Americans wounded, perhaps 100,000 Iraqis dead, untold wounded. Some oppose the war simply because it uses violence to solve problems that should be solved using other means.

Some are opposed to the war because it has ruined our military. Two-thirds of our active army and three-quarters of our National Guard face readiness problems because it needs to replace equipment used in Iraq. Extended deployments and lowered recruiting standards are having bad effects on the military, their families, and our mission. The Iraq war--sold as a way to make our country safer--has only exposed it defensively.

Some are opposed to the war because it has thoroughly destabilized Iraq, and threatens to destabilize the entire region. By almost every standard, Iraqi quality of life is worse today than it was under Saddam.

Some are opposed to the war because it has created precisely the problem that it was cynically sold as a way to prevent. Iraq is creating terrorists, at a time when the threat of terrorism remains very real.

Some are opposed to the war because it has turned us into an international pariah. Some countries no longer trust us. Others want nothing to do with our aggressive ways.

Hot and Hotter

By Mimikatz

As the heatwave that killed over 130 people in California moves East, we have something else we'd like to export--leadership and innovation. I am no fan of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he does demonstrate the ability to learn and change course when warranted.

Yesterday Schwarzenegger met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and a group of CEOs. Schwarzenegger and Blair entered into an unprecedented agreement, described as "an apparent end run around a Bush administration that has stubbornly resisted addressing global warming." Under the agreement, the UK and California would "share technology and scientific research aimed at fighting the effects of worldwide climate change." In addition, Blair said that the "UK, with its strong science base and free-trade traditions, is eager to partner with California companies to do stem-cell research and develop environmentally friendly sources of energy," things President Bush and his end-times ideologues and oil company supporters refuse to consider.

The move is none too soon. It apepars that global warming will be especially hard on the West. Today a report, prepared by the California Climate Change Center, based on research primarily from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and UC Berkeley, with assistance from noted climatologists around the country, will be released, spelling out three scenarios for climate change in California by the end of this century. They might be described as the bad, the worse and the truly ugly.

If we are able to significantly reduce greenhouse gases through regulations and new technology, we can look forward to "only" a doubling in superhot days and a temperature rise of 4 degrees; a rise in sea level of 6-14 inches; a loss of 30-60% of the Sierra snowpack, which suplies the water for about 85% of California's urban and agricultural users; and a small increase in electricity demand. With serious leadership and our intellectual and financial resources, this is possible, but California cannot do it alone.

And if nothing is done? We (or those who will be here) can look forward to weather up to 10.5 degrees warmer, with 100 days of temperatures over 90 degrees in Los Angeles and 95 in Sacramento; a rise in the sea level between 22 and 35 inches, enough to expand San Francisco Bay well into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; a 90% reduction in the Sierra snowpack; over double the number of drought years and a 20% increase in electricity demand (now substantially from hydropower). This is truly a nightmare scenario, not just for those of us who call California home, but all those who enjoy our wines, our fruits and vegetables, our movies and TV shows, our technological and biotechnological advances and even our edgy craziness. Would that we had leadership at the national level able to confront this challenge.

The Most Renewable Energy Source: Republican Hot Wind

by emptypockets

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Guiliani began sounding a lot like a Republican Presidential candidate yesterday:

...[I]n a speech to conservative thinkers from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Mr. Giuliani implicitly accused the White House of doing little to expand energy sources....

"I can't imagine how you can achieve anything in government without a plan," he said in his remarks at the Princeton Club, referring to the nation's long-range energy needs. "This is an area where we haven't had a plan in a very, very long time."

In fact, he began sounding a lot like a very specific Republican Presidential candidate -- George W. Bush, ca. 2000:

I talked to [Mexican President Vicente Fox] about how best to expedite the exploration of natural gas in Mexico and transport it up to the United States so we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil. It's a major problem facing America. The [Clinton] administration did not deal with it. It's time for a new administration to deal with the energy problem.

Our own domestic production of crude oil is at lowest level in almost 50 years, since 1954. We have no comprehensive energy policy.

After his first term in office, President George Bush oversaw a drop in domestic oil production from 5.8 million barrels per day to 5.4 million barrels per day -- even lower than the benchmark of 6.3 million barrels per day set in 1954 when oil production was first nationalized.

Is this story just another failure of President Bush or is it about Republican Presidential hopefuls blowing hot air about fixing America's energy needs?

Maybe a little of both.

The Japanese Made Jet Fuel with Pine Roots

by emptywheel

In The Prize, Daniel Yergin describes how, desperate for fuel to run their military, the Japanese resorted to making jet fuel out of pine roots during WWII.

Shortages of fuel were preventing its planes from flying more than two hours a month. Was there no other way to get oil? Desperate for fuel, the Navy launched its fantastic pine root campaign. Guided by the slogan, "two hundred pine roots will keep a plane in the air for an hour," people all over the Home Islands began to dig up pine roots. Children were dispatched to the countryside to scour for the roots. The pine roots were to be heated for twelve hours, producing a crude oil substitute. Thirty-four thousand kettles, stills, and small distillation units were put in place, with the aim of producing three or four gallons of oil per day. The futility of the effort was revealed by the labor requirements. Each gallon produced required 2.5 man-days of work. To meet the official target of twelve thousand barrels per day would have required 1.25 million persons per day! (363)

Yergin's point--indeed, the point of his book--is that you can't wage modern war unless you own the oil supplies. This is a problem that is, apparently, is beginning to dawn on our own military (link via Stygius).

The Opportunity Cost of War, Part II

by emptywheel

Cass Sunstein makes a point I made months ago--though Sunstein makes it in very concrete terms. By going to war in Iraq, we've spent the money we could have--should have--spent to counteract global warming.

For the United States, the cost of the Iraq war will soon exceed the anticipated cost of the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement designed to control greenhouse gases. For both, the cost is somewhere in excess of $300 billion.

[snip]

With respect to the Iraq war, careful estimates come from Scott Wallsten, a former member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers who is now at the American Enterprise Institute. Writing at the end of 2005, Wallsten estimated the aggregate American cost at about $300 billion. With the costs incurred since then, and an anticipated appropriation soon, the total will exceed $350 billion.

With respect to the Kyoto Protocol, the most systematic estimates come from William Nordhaus and Joseph Boyer of Yale University. Writing in 2000, they offered a figure of $325 billion for the United States, designed to capture the full costs of compliance over many decades. This staggeringly large figure helped support Kyoto skeptics in the Bush administration and elsewhere, who argued that the benefits of the agreement did not justify its costs.

For the price of the Iraq War, we could have implemented the Kyoto Protocol.

Gallup's Majority Report: Future Poll

by DemFromCT

According to Tom Cruise Gallup (no longer CNN's partner - see Mystery Pollster for more on ORC), Bush's polling numbers are at risk.

George W. Bush's job approval rating is already the lowest of his administration (36% in Gallup's latest poll), and is down 13 points from last July. Several events have conspired to drag down his rating, including Hurricane Katrina, the abandoned Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, the Dubai ports controversy, and the Iraq war. Now, the prospect of gas prices averaging more than $3 per gallon nationwide this summer could cause Bush's rating to sink even further.

We, and everyone else, were aware, but it's nice to see the historical numbers laid out.

In the past, presidents have not fared well when gas prices were high. In fact, some of the lowest presidential approval ratings Gallup has ever recorded were measured at times when the nation faced a gas crisis. High gas prices hit Americans in their pocketbooks, and the tendency has been for them to take out this frustration on government leaders.

Here is a rundown of presidential approval ratings during times when high gas prices were considered to be major crises for the United States. Bear in mind that high gas prices were often accompanied by, or perhaps a cause of, economic recession, high unemployment, and high inflation at these times:

• In October 1973, OPEC imposed an embargo on oil to the United States in response to U.S. support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Richard Nixon, already seeing his ratings drop because of the Watergate scandal, saw them slip from the mid-to-low 30s in September to below 30% in October and November, immediately after the embargo led to gas shortages in the United States.

• In the spring of 1979, the world oil supply took a hit because of the political unrest in Iran. Jimmy Carter's 40% April job approval rating fell to 32% by late May, and as gas prices stayed high over the summer, his approval rating sank to as low as 28% in late June and early July.

• In September 2005, gas prices spiked to an average of more than $3 per gallon following the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. The high prices were temporary, but likely took a toll on Bush's ratings, dropping him from the mid 40% range immediately following the storm to 40% in mid-September

10 Questions for Progressives on Foreign Policy

by emptywheel

Over at Democracy Arsenal, Suzanne Nossel poses 10 questions every progressive ought to be thinking about. Here's my shot at the answers.

I think it best to start with where Nossel ends up, because this question undergirds every other question she poses:

10.  What needs to be done to shore up American superpowerdom?

Interesting phrasing, the assumption that American superpowerdom can be or ought to be shored up. My answer? C, none of the above. As I pointed out almost a year ago, the question harkens back to a time when our own hegemony might be construed as a power for good. Our exceptionalism and our power still might, but our hegemony has gotten us into the position of fighting unjustified wars in the Middle East, all so we can sustain the petroleum-based economy long enough to outlast our rivals. Our hegemony dooms the world to the hazards of global warming. Our hegemony will hasten the crisis of Peak Oil.

The Opportunity Cost of War

by emptywheel

You've no doubt heard of the Stiglitz-Bilmes study putting the real cost for the Iraq war at over one trillion dollars. The report is worth a gander (not least because the authors ask that no one to quote from it without their permission). In it, the authors consider the real cost of the deaths from the war, the cost of long-term care associated with the war (including, specifically, the long-term costs of a war that results in large numbers of brain injuries), the interest on debt associated with the war, the effect of decreased security on our economy, the increased price of oil, and the dampening effect of the war on the stock market.

I'm glad folks are talking about this report. But now that we've got a figure that accounts for these related costs, I think we ought to be talking not in terms of the cost of the war, but the opportunity cost of it.

Where would we be right now if we had invested that one trillion dollars into making the US energy independent instead of going to war in Iraq?

Apparently We Need to Drive a Wooden Stake Through His Heart

By DHinMI

The reports of his political death appear to have been greatly exaggerated:

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi has assumed direct control of the powerful oil ministry as crude exports ground to a halt due to sabotage attacks and logistics problems, officials said on Friday.

Chalabi, who has been improving his relations with Washington after falling out with the U.S. administration, was appointed acting oil minister after the incumbent Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum was given leave, the officials said.

Uloum told Reuters he was "intent on resigning". Aides to Chalabi confirmed that he had been appointed acting oil minister.

A ministry spokesman allied to Uloum said the country was facing what he called an impending oil supply crisis. "Production in the north, centre and south is about to suffocate," he said.

I don't know whether Chalabi's failure to win a parliamentary seat means he won't be able to stay in this position once the new parliament is seated.  But for a while at least, it means that Dick Cheney's favorite Iraqi is back at the nexus of official power in Iraq.  Of course this could have important implications for relations between the Iraqi government and the United States, as well as between the Iraqi government and the Western oil companies bidding on contracts to discover, extract or refine oil and repairing and protecting the country's production, storage and shipping infrastructure. 

But since Chalabi has also drawn a lot of attention for his overtures to and dalliances with the Iranians, something else popped into my mind.  This is from a recent U.S. Energy Information Administration report on oil production in Iraq:

In July 2005, Iran and Iraq signed an MOU on a swap agreement involving construction of a 24-mile, 350,000-bbl/d oil pipeline from Basra to the Abadan refinery in southwestern Iran. In exchange, Iran would ship refined products back to Iraq. In addition, Iran could allow Iraq to export crude through the Kharg Island terminal and to import refined products through the Iranian port of Bandar Mahshahr. One potential problem with this deal revolves around the ability of the Abadan refinery to process Basrah Light in significant volumes. Another is the fact that Iran already faces a severe shortfall in its own domestic gasoline supplies, making exports of gasoline problematic.

I can't read about closer integration of Iraqi and Iranian oil policy and not wonder if Ahmed Chalabi is behind it.  And I also can't help but think about the administration's rosy claims about Iraqi energy independence when I read about gas shortages in the country that supposedly has the second or third largest oil reserves in the world.