The Next Hurrah

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.

Global Warning

By Mimikatz

The fog came in on big lion's paws last evening once the sun set, bringing some respite from the worst heat wave of my 63 years in California.  Remember San Francisco is legendary for its cold summers.  June and September are sometimes hot, but not July and August. Hence Mark Twain's famous comment that the coldest winter he ever spent was a summer in San Francisco. In fact, San Francisco is the only city in the Northernm Hemisphere where the mean temperature in July is lower than the mean temperature in October, as many an unsuspecting and shivering tourist has discovered.  Usually the fog's influence extends to the East Bay and moderates temperatures in the inland valleys after a few days.  But Saturday it was 102 degrees in Oakland at a bank I drove by, and in the interior valleys it went up to a high on Sunday of 116 in Danville--hotter even than Phoenix, and a friend said it was 117 in Ukiah.  Normally hot Sacramento hit 111 on Sunday, hotter than normal.  But, as we say here, at least it was dry heat.

For the first time in 5 years we had a threat of rolling blackouts, and the heat caused scattered power outages.  At least 16 deaths were blamed on the heat, mostly among the elderly.  Air conditioned senior centers were opened to provide respite in East and South Bay areas where most people do not have air conditioning. 

The culprit was said to be a high pressure ridge over the Southwest, but some scientists were willing to discuss the impact of global warming.  The first 6 months of 2006 are the hottest on record. 

"I think there are very good reasons to believe that the current U.S. heat wave is at least partly caused by global warming," Kevin Trenberth, one of the nation's top global-warming computer modelers, wrote in an e-mail.

In recent years, studies by several scientific teams show that "the frequency of cold nights dropped everywhere, and warm nights increased everywhere" around the world, said Trenberth, a scientist for the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "Heat waves have also increased most places around the world."

A noted atmospheric scientist and climate modeler, Govindasamy Bala of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, agreed.

"It is true that the current heat wave could have occurred by chance. But I believe that the likelihood of such occurrences increases due to global warming," Bala said.

Note it was 113 degrees in Livermore on Sunday.  Other scientists such as Florida's state climatologist James O'Brien, a skeptic about the impacts of global warming,  "said the heat wave was caused by high sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific."  What caused the high sea-surface temperatures was not discussed.  As with hurricanes, most scientists seem to believe that even if global warming doesn't "cause" heat waves, it can make those that do occur worse. 

Chris Field, director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington's branch at Stanford University, said scientists can't attribute singular weather events to global warming. But many studies conclude that heat waves tend to get hotter as the planet warms.

"This week's heat wave might or might not have occurred without global warming, but it is a good bet that heat waves will be hotter and more frequent in the warmer world," Field said.

Michael Mann, a leading global warming expert at Pennsylvania State University, agreed, saying climate change is "stacking the deck" and making heat waves more likely.

"As we see more and more such record-breaking extremes," Mann said, "we can increasingly implicate climate change for the shift. This holds for heat waves, droughts and intense tropical storms."

So is global warming a hoax as Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) claims?  Or is Al Gore right?  We are a lot more likely to find out in time if this man succeeds retiring Sherwood Boehlert as Chairman of the House Science Committee rather than turncoat former Dem Ralph Hall of Texas, in case you need one more reason to work for a Democratic House.

Hot enough for you yet?

By Mimikatz

Two influential reports were released Thursday on the subject of climate change.  The first was from the National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body.  The Council Report

voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years.

A panel convened by the National Research Council reached that conclusion in a broad review of scientific studies, reporting that the evidence indicates “recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years.”

The panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree F during the 20th century.

Interestingly, it seems that this report was requested last year by (retiring) Rep Sherwood Boehlert (R NY-24), chair of the House Science Committee.

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

The Report was the result, and it's findings are unequivocal.

In their report, the panel said it had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600, but still found it “plausible” that temperatures during the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer “than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”

They also considered the data reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major greenhouse gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

The beginning of the 20th Century was when the internal combustion engine began to take off.  Whether "Smoky Joe" Barton and his ilk will learn from these scientists remains to be seen.

The second study comes from the National Council of Atmospheric Research.  On the eve of Hurricane Season, its findings are ominous:

Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor, according to a new analysis by Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study will appear in the June 27 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.

"The global warming influence provides a new background level that increases the risk of future enhancements in hurricane activity," Trenberth says. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's primary sponsor.

The study contradicts recent claims that natural cycles are responsible for the upturn in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995. It also adds support to the premise that hurricane seasons will become more active as global temperatures rise. Last year produced a record 28 tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma all reached Category 5 strength.

While the press typically portrays the climate change issue as far more controversial among scientists than it is in reality, these two studies, sponsored by the premier scientific organizations in the country, should help right the balance.  Contrary to BushCo's belief, if you want to change the world and have any chance of succeeding, you damn well better understand the problems.  Fantasy as a basis for policy just won't cut it. 

An Inconvenient Movie

By Mimikatz

Last night I saw Al Gore's movie.  What you may have heard is true.  It is very, very good and Gore is very entertaining.  As the San Francisco Chronicle's capsule review puts it,

The scariest horror movie of the year is also the year's best documentary, Davis Guggenheim's filmed version of Al Gore's multimedia slide show presentation on global warming. It's a persuasive, informative explication of the issue and a coolheaded but unmistakable warning about the consequences of continued inaction.

Gore is funny, and never talks down to the audience.  The film is pitched to the unconverted, but even someone who is well-informed about global warming cannot help but be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the evidence, as Gore leads us step by step to connecting the dots ourselves.  For my partner it was the sight of what Gore called "the park formerly known as Glacier."  For me it was the sight of South Sea Islanders who have already had to relocate to New Zealand because of rising sea levels.  For another in our group it was the melting of ice in Antarctica that perplexed the scientists with its rapidity, until they realized that water that collects in sort of potholes in the shelf does not freeze at the bottom, but melts the ice right down to the sea, making the ice shelf like swiss cheese until it begins to crack and crumble. For another it was the connection between drought and problems in Darfur.   For others it is the drowning polar bears, or the catalogue of recent natural disasters that Gore calls "a nature hike through the Book of Revelation."

But whatever it takes to shock one out of complacency, that is the end result of any open-minded  viewing of this film.  It is powerful, but also hopeful.  Gore shows us at the end that reversing some of the staggering climate rise is possible, if reasonable measures are taken.  He uses the example of the ozone hole caused by the release of chlorofluorocarbons from such things as refrigerants.  The offending chemicals were banned quickly, under US leadership, and have been declining.  The hole is now thought to be at its maximum, but is expected to decline by 2020 and disappear by 2050.  There are obvious and not so obvious technological solutions to reduce greenhouse gases as well, many of which could create new industries and help rebuild our economy on a more sustainable path. 

But global warming is far more serious than the ozone hole, what Gore calls a clash "between our civilization and the Earth's environment."  It will require a serious commitment by everyone, especially in this country, because we are the largest generators of greenhouse gases.  And this commitment cannot wait, because the problem is growing exponentially.  It is not something that can be left to our children; it is very hard to leave the film believing that this problem can be put off a few years, let alone decades.  And it has the potential to be a transformative issue, but this will require new or at least newly energized leadership.  So what are the implications of this problem for our country, our political landscape and Gore himself?

A New Treasury Secretary

The big news this morning is that President Bush has finally found someone willing to become Secretary of the Treasury to succeed John Snow.  The pick is Henry Paulson, head of the prominent brokerage firm Goldman Sachs, previous home of Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.   There is no question that Paulson is a man with considerable stature on Wall Street.  Indeed, the big question for the commentators on CNBC this morning was why such a person would take the job.

As Bush's previous secretary, Paul O'Neill, so famously remarked in his book "The Price of Loyalty", the Bush Administration is notoriously uninterested in policy as such, just politics.  Moreover, the chatter about replacing the hapless John Snow has repeatedly made it clear that the Bush Administration considers the job of Treasury Secretary to be head cheerleader for the economy, and, by reflection, Bush.   In other words, someone who could sell the public on the idea that an economy that all but the top 5% experience as unsettling at best and very difficult at worst is really the best there is. 

But Paulson is an interesting choice, and the fact that he would take the job is interesting in itself.  Paulson is not just  a very smart, savvy and successful Wall Streeter.  He is also an avid birdwatcher and Chairman of the Board of the Nature Conservancy, and someone who puts his money where his mouth is:

Paulson is chairman of the board of directors of the Nature Conservancy, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that aims to promote environmental diversity and protect natural habitats. He and his wife ``are devoted conservationists,'' according to William Burnham, president of the Boise, Idaho-based Peregrine Fund for birds of prey, which he joined in 1990.

Paulson defended his conservation work at the firm's annual meeting on March 31 after the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a pro-free-enterprise mutual fund, accused him of promoting his environmental concern ahead of Goldman's business interests. Three days later, the firm disclosed that Paulson had just made a $100 million donation to a charitable foundation he established to donate to environmental causes. He still owns stock worth more than $500 million.

In fact, because the Nature Conservancy (albeit one of the more conservative conservation groups) is known to support the Kyoto Treaty and action on global warming, Paulson's rumored accession to the post was criticized by some conservatives precisely for that reason.  Moreover, as a person with a solid Wall Street finance background, even if he is a Bush Pioneer, he has to know that the current fiscal policy (all borrow and spend, all the time) is a Recipe for Disaster. 

It has been said that Bush needed Paulson more than Paulson needed to be Treasury Secretary.  It is hard to believe that a man of his stature, wealth and, apparently, principles, would join this Administration, even in its waning days, if he thought he was going to be just  a salesman for a failed and unsustainable economic policy.  It will be interesting to see what happens in those legendary cabinet meetings, and whether Paulson is able to bring some degree of sanity to an operation in which so many with ability have failed and so many without scruples have prospered.

And it may show something else.  Maybe Karl Rove is more worried about Al Gore than about Hillary Clinton.

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.

Chernobyl, beyond the numbers

by Plutonium Page

"It was like airplane pilots experimenting with the engines in flight..."
             -- Valeri Legaslov, Soviet Chernobyl accident investigator

"Without Father"
              -- a 1986 painting about the Chernobyl disaster, by Lyudmila Koulichenko, age 12

"We did not yet possess a system of imagination, analogies, words or experiences for the catastrophe of Chernobyl."
                --  Svetlana Alexiyevich, writer from Belarus

On 26 April, 1986, the worst commercial nuclear accident in history occurred during a test at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which lies near the Belarus-Ukraine border, 100 km north of Kiev, Ukraine.  At 1:23:58 am local time, the plant's Unit 4 reactor was rocked by a steam explosion, followed by a hydrogen explosion and a fire resulting in temperatures over 2,000°C.  The 1,000 ton reactor lid was blown off the core, the nuclear fuel rods melted, and more than 100 times the radiation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was released into the atmosphere over the 10 days that the fire burned.

Many of the small towns and villages close to Chernobyl were rendered uninhabitable, and radioactive fallout from the accident was detected all over Europe.  On that day, the lives of over 130,000 people evacuees from the 30 km radius "exclusion zone" (left, click to enlarge) were changed in a way that is difficult, if not impossible, for most of us to imagine.

Most of the recent media discussion of the Chernobyl catastrophe has focused on the controversy about the number of people who have died - and will die - as a result of the accident.  In other words, the media has largely failed to see the people behind the statistics.  The purpose of this post is not to discuss the numbers, but to put a human face on the legacy of that day in April 1986.

This post is dedicated to those who died, and those who are still with us today. 

(A note to the nerds out there:  for brevity, I am not going into extreme technical detail about the disaster.  However, if you're interested, this article [pdf] is excellent.)

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.

Bigfooting Our Global Resources

by emptywheel

I'm a big fan of the ecological footprint calculator. It provides a way of calculating how much resources your lifestyle consumes, described in stark terms, the number of acres required to produce all those resources. Depending on how honest I am about my walking and meat-eating habits, my lifestyle requires between 19 and 23 acres to support. Still below our nation's average of 24 acres. But, the calculator tells me, "If everyone lived like you, we'd need 5.2 planets."

Go ahead, try it. I dare you.

The thing is, as graphic a depiction of my lifestyle's excesses as the calculator provides, it still doesn't capture it. Oh sure, some of the questions hint at the ways in which my lifestyle uses much more energy than others, even within this country. "Does your house have running water? Does your house have electricity?" Five questions on transportation, only two of them on cars.

But when I look around, at the SUVs blowing by my old Honda Civic, at the big houses they're building on the edge of town, at the piles of trash some neighbors put out, week after week, I just don't get it. I mean, I live in a modest house, 1000 square feet, loaded with energy efficiencies. Both mr. emptywheel and I drive cars that get 30 mpg ... and I just drive for errands, not to commute. We don't shop recreationally (mr. emptywheel likes adopting things from the side of the road) and half of our furniture is hand-me-down. While we eat meat, our meat and vegetables are largely locally grown and minimally processed. I get hit with my flying, 100 hours a year, the highest category (and the basic calculator doesn't even account for my true excesses there, since it assumes I'm flying those miles coach). But I look around and my lifestyle appears to be modest and energy efficient, even in the crunchy granola town I live in. (Perhaps only in crunchy granola, but affluent, town I live in.)