Eric Holder, who is Obama’s US Attorney General, testified before Congress on November 18th that is was his intent to bring the 9/11 cowards…err…terrorists to New York, where they will be tried in federal court for their murderous acts. When questioned about the apparent absurdity of his action and possibility of a “not guilty” verdict, Holder stated that “failure was not an option”. Well, you think? It may not be an option, but it is a very real possibility. What may be worse is not so much as an acquittal, but rather insufficient evidence to warrant the death penalty, which could mean life in prison—paid for by every US taxpayer. Can you imagine the irony that we would have to pay to keep these creeps alive? Frankly, these individual are in my opinion nothing more than cowards hiding behind the cloak of religious piety don’t deserve to breathe another hour in my opinion.
Some of the 9/11 family members both publicly and privately pleaded with Holder to allow these mass murderers to be tried under military law since this was a self-admitted, military-styled planned attack on America specifically and the Capitalist West in general. Holder said he acknowledged their anger, but would not change his mind. Coming to the defense of his AG, Obama told reporters that those who were “offended by the legal rights accorded Mohammed by virtue of his facing a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won’t find it offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him”. Really?
First of all, under civil procedure, to reach a conviction which would warrant the death penalty, the jury first must find the defendants quality beyond all reasonable doubt. Where in New York City are you going to find 12 unbiased possible jurists? No so in a military tribunal which has a five member panel. The rules of evidence in civil court are much stricter. For instance, information gather through intelligence agencies may or may not be allowed. Not so in military court. Under military law, rules of evidence are less strict (for instance, hearsay, video or audio tapes and similar evidence not allow in civil courts are allowed in military courts, and their methods of gathering remain secured. Confessions obtained under “torture” are not admitted but then again, what’s torture and what’s a persuasive inducement?). Because of the nature of military tribunals, the trials themselves move much quicker, which is important since each of the defendents will be tried seperately in civil court. Appeals (and there will certainly be appeals and countless delays filed) don’t last years in military court. And let’s talk about the death penalty itself. If found guilty, punishment is swift and certain under a military tribunal. Historically, the convicted prisoner is either shot or hanged (can we do both?). And just in case you’re wondering, this matter will have to be tried in federal court in order to seek the death penalty since the New York Assembly shot down the death penalty in 2004 as unconstitunional.
The anticipated defendants will by Khalid Mohammed, and co-defendants Ramzo Binalshibh, Ali Abd al-Aziz, Walid bin Attash, and Mustapha al-Hawsawi; all of whom are currently being held at the Marine base located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They are expected to be brought to New York and held in a local New York prison during the duration of their trial. There are five more defendants awaiting trial before a military court, including Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, who was the alleged mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole which claimed the lives of 17 US sailors. The 9/11 attack, masterminded by Khalid Mohammed, was responsible for the deaths of some 3000 innocent men and women, was globally acknowledged as the act of unprecedented cowardice. Mohammed also acknowledged that he personally beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl.
Reaction to Holder’s decision was swift. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the decision “a step backwards for the security of our country”. Ed Kowalski of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America thought that giving these “war criminals” protection under the US Constitution was the “wrong thing to do” and pointed out that it had never been done before. Well, its certainly true we didn’t afford the Japanese or German war criminals the opportunity to come to America and be tried under US federal law with all the protections allow a US citizen. Holder said in his statement to Congress that he will turn over the case to the prosecutors for the Southern District of New York, which incidentally is located in Lower Manhattan and just blocks away from the former site of the Twin Towers.
Mayor David Bloomberg was delighted at Holder’s decision. Stating through a spokesman that “we have the resources and logistics” and added that “security problems posed by the trial would not be an issue”. NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly agreed and thought the decision was “highly appropriate”. Needless to say, the ACLU was also delighted with the decision. I fully expect they will provide the attorneys and ample resources to needed for the defense.
My Opinion
I understand where Mr. Holder is coming from, and I think I understand what he’s trying to do. He’s trying to say to the terrorists, both here and around the world “we’re not like you. We will not simply kill for death's sake. We are a nation of laws, and those laws apply to everyone”. The idea is to show the world, especially the Islamic world that our system works without fear and without malice. In the face of such a heinous crime, it’s human nature that our first reaction is to seek revenge, but we can overcome our desire for vengence by applying the same laws to those who hate everything we stand for that we would to our own citizens. They want to destroy civilization. We want to preserve it through our laws of justice, which serve as our foundation.
As I said, I believe this is Mr. Holder’s intent, but I’m not entirely of the same opinion. I believe bring these individuals to New York for trial may be fitting, but it may also make NYC a new target, not to mention the costs to New York taxpayers. Given the clumsiness of our prosecutors of late who have either lost or nearly lost what should have been “slam dunk” cases, I’m not sure I want to give these animals any chance of getting off. Indeed, I don’t want to give them any opportunity to use our courts as a forum to spew their hatred of America and Americans. If we’re trying to send a message, I don’t think those for whom the message is intended are listening. The only message they understand is fear and power. I believe we should demonstrate to them that they inspire no fear in us, and we will stamp out their contempt with contempt. In my opinion, the terrorists should be tried by a military tribunal free of the media circus (though, perhaps at a different location than at Gitmo), and if found guilty, promptly executed by the swiftness means possible. Their bodies should be burned and their ashes scattered to the four winds. No mercy to those who have shown no mercy.
Islam is a truly beautiful religion. It has given the world much. For anyone who has studied it, Islam is a religion of peace and intellectual inquiry. Sadly, however, these murders represent the sick minds who are attempting to hijack it. We can not and should not ever attempt to impose our culture or values on the people of the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter. However, we should be willing to come to the aid of any people seeking to be freedom. Meanwhile, it’s ultimately up to Moslems around the world to stand up and send these cockroaches back into the dark where they belong.
Grim Reading, Crucial Choices on Energy
By Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson,
Authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis
You know you're in for a bout of grim reading when the international agency charged with worrying about how we power the planet starts off its fact sheet with a question like this: "Why is our current energy pathway unsustainable?"
That's the message from the International Energy Agency, which issued its World Energy Outlook report earlier this month, the organizations' annual examination of the big picture. That picture itself hasn't changed all that much. The fundamental challenge is still to meet surging worldwide demand for energy, while at the same time coming up with ways to avoid global warming and keep energy relatively affordable. Basically, the IEA says everything depends on whether or not world leaders get serious about climate change, very soon.
Chances are you've never heard of the IEA which was founded during the 1973-74 oil crisis to "coordinate measures in times of oil supply emergencies." Now IEA serves as an energy analyst, advisor, and think tank for 28 member countries -- the United States and European countries mainly, but also including countries like Japan, South Korea, and Turkey. While the agency has enormous influence among policymakers, it barely registers with the public. And despite the IEA's wonky tone and elite audience, the report has one great strength when it comes to getting the public involved: it focuses on choices and alternatives.
Here what IEA lays out in its 2009 report card:
• If we do nothing, then worldwide energy demand is projected to soar by 40 percent by 2030. The vast majority of that increase is going to come in the developing world, as people in China, India and throughout Asia see their standard of living rise. Even keeping up with that demand would require investing another $26 trillion. And unless things change, most of that energy is going to come from fossil fuels, which means "dire consequences for climate change" and air pollution, the IEA said.
• On the other hand, if world leaders committed to fighting climate change increased energy efficiency, greater use of renewable energy, and policies like cap-and-trade or carbon taxes designed to discourage use of carbon-emitting fuels, that would cost another $10.5 trillion (on top of the $26 trillion). But energy demand growth could be cut in half, and greenhouse gases would decline.
The world has decisions to make about energy, and of course, so does the United States. Everything we've learned about how people get engaged in policy decisions shows that laying out choices and being honest and clear about the pros and cons is essential -- not to mention being the right thing to do in a democratic society.
In the energy and environment arena, the choices are far from perfect, but then that's pretty typical with major public policy issues. As we've been pointing out lately, this country's choices on energy and the environment are a lot better than our choices on, for example, Afghanistan.
Changing the way we use energy will cost money and force adaptations that many of us would not choose, given our druthers. But we also have to face that sticking with the status quo will also cost money, and we could well have change forced on us by tight energy supplies and growing environmental destruction. Continuing to rely on the world's default setting on energy -- fossil fuels -- is just not going to work.
World leaders, deadlocked on many of the details, are increasingly trying to lower expectations for the big climate conference in Copenhagen next month. But delay is only valuable if it helps break the deadlock later on. The choices are ours to make, and time is running short to make them.
©2009 Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson, authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis
Author Bios
Scott Bittle, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org, where he has prepared citizen guides on more than twenty major issues including the federal budget deficit, Social Security, and the economy. He is also the website director for Planet Forward, an innovative PBS program designed to bring citizen voices to the energy debate.
Jean Johnson, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is co-founder of PublicAgenda.org, and has written articles and op-eds for USA Today, Education Week, School Board News, Educational Leadership, and the Huffington Post Website.
For additional energy resources and supplemental material, please visit www.whoturnedoutthelights.org
Poll Results
Our last poll asked you if the GOP should have done more to support their nominee, Dede Scozzafava. Ms. Scozzafava, as you’ll recall, was a moderate Republican running in a moderate district against a Democrat and very conservative third party candidate. However, conservatives, including many leading Republicans, came out in support a third party candidate rather than either support her or stay out of the fight. As a result, she quit the race and through her support behind the Democrat. The result was predictable enough---the Democrat won.
Fifty percent of you thought the GOP goofed by not backing its own nominee. The balance was split equally between those of you who thought it was ok for GOP leadership to back another party's candidate and those of you who weren’t quite sure. Personally, I’ve been position simular to Ms. Scozzafava. However, once in a fight, I never back down and I would never quit like she did, but I sure gave my local party hell and I fought on even harder.
Shopping for the Holidays?
I know if you're like me, you're so busy you don't have time to shop. May I make a suggestion that will help you and help this blog site? Check out my book recommendation to the right. You can also browse through not just the great books Amazon offers, but also the many great products offered by Amazon, and by shopping Amazon through AO, you help this blog keep going!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
New York’s 23rd Congressional Race and Future of the GOP
The race for New York’s 23rd Congressional District has got to be one of the important elections to come along since the election of Obama; perhaps even more so. However, ever since the election of Ronald Reagan, the Grand Ole Party has shifted further and further to right, especially on social issues while the majority of country has remained pretty much in the middle. Many have referred to this shift as the take over or hijacking of the Republican Party. First, a little history.
For decades, the GOP was primarily a center right political party. That is, it premise was to maintain a small Federal government; low taxes (especially for the middle class), support for small business and middle class, creating opportunities for poorer Americans to make it to the middle class, and an attitude that government in any form doesn’t belong in your life; especially your bedroom. It was this basic philosophy which made the GOP so successful in winning elections, especially the Presidency. But beginning with Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in the early 1970’s of wooing conservative, mainly White Protestant Democrats, to the GOP, the party has gradually shifted its ideology further and further to the right of the political spectrum in order to accommodate these newcomers. This strategy peaked with the election of Ronald Reagan. It was this strategy which lead to the so-called takeover the GOP by the social conservatives or religious fundamental Far Right.
Social conservatives in droves switched to the Republican Party in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, which enabled the GOP to win hereto un-winnable seats throughout the South. However, there was a high price to pay for these victories, and it appears we are j now seeing just how high a price. As the social conservatives began to exert a greater and greater influence on the GOP, they, at the same time, adopted a philosophy of ousting those within the party who didn’t agree with their definition of what it means to be a Republican, even if that meant support a Democrat against GOP nominee. Libertarian-leaning Republicans in the northeast and well as middle and upper western states were the first to find that they were no longer welcome. As a result, many either left the GOP to join the Libertarian or Democrat Party. Some just walked away from politics all together.
Next to be targeted was the Rockefeller Republicans (also called “Eisenhower Republicans”), who were predominate in the Central and Eastern portions of the US, including upper state New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. These were the moderate or centrists, who at one point, constituted the largest segment of the GOP and were responsible for much of the Republican’s electoral success throughout the decades (these are the so-called “RINOs” or “Republican In Name Only” oft referred to by the Far Right). The high water mark of these same social conservatives was the election of George W. Bush (who, later, was aggressively criticized for not being conservative enough). The end result was the election of Barak Obama. And this brings me to the 23rd Congressional race.
The GOP nominated a centrist Republican, Dede Scozzafava, to run in a special election to fill an empty seat in upper state New York, which has traditional been fairly liberal and where centrists in both parties have done well. Ms. Scozzafava is pro-choice and supports gay marriage; both of which are considered serious indictments against her qualifications as a Republican by the Far Right. Enter the very conservative Doug Hoffman. Now, as a political observer and someone who has over 30 years of political experience, comes the interesting part.
Social conservatives from across the country has swarmed in to help Mr. Hoffman, a American Conservative Party candidate, defeat Ms. Scozzafava. Media types like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh to name just two have joined in the fray to condemn Ms. Scozzafava. What’s more is the number of Republicans who turned their back on their party’s nominee and endorsed Mr. Hoffman, a member, as I said, of a competing party (even referring to him as “the real Republican”). We’re talking some of the biggest names in the Republican stable. Ms. Scozzafava has been forced to drop out of the race, and as a result of the GOP’s failure to have her back as it were, endorsed the Democrat, Bill Owens.
My concern is not whether or not members of the Far Right support, or even like Ms. Scozzafava. It’s the fact that we have members, and especially elected leaders of the Republican Party, who have taken an oath to actively and aggressively support the nominee of their party, backing a candidate in another party. That’s just so wrong on so many levels to me. First off, the 23rd District and Ms. Scozzafava’s views appear to be a good match. Secondly, she won the party’s nomination. Third, you back your party’s nominee period. The failure of Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else, to back their own speaks volumes about their character, and this election will speak volume to the American People about the character of today’s Republican Party. This race may not just decide who wins a congressional seat, but whether the GOP continues its present path to regional irrelevance or returns to become a major national player
While I can understand why Ms. Scozzafava quit the race, I am also a strong believer in never backing down from a just fight. Never. She should have stood her ground and demanded publicly that the GOP man-up. I believe there is a place; an important place for the social conservatives in the political makeup of this country. But I believe that there is an equally important place for the libertarian-leaning and moderates too. To win elections, you need candidates whose social and economic views match their future constituents. One size doesn’t fit all anymore in politics than it does life.
The Great Energy Debate Pop Quiz
by Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson,
Authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis
The energy issue is very confusing, and frankly, most of us will never catch up with the experts on all the details. Still, there are some basic facts that are good to know. Do you know them?
True or false? When it comes to global warming and air pollution, nuclear power is one of the most dangerous forms of energy.
Not true. The accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island left lots of people worried about nuclear plant safety, but if you're worried about climate change, nuclear power is one of the least dangerous forms of energy we have. Generating electricity from nuclear power releases virtually no carbon dioxide (the major green house gas) into the atmosphere, and it doesn't cause air pollution either.28 Small amounts are emitted during mining and processing the uranium (you need uranium for nuclear power) and in other related activities, but it's nearly impossible to do anything from start to finish without releasing some green house gases. Experts say the carbon dioxide released in these associated activities puts nuclear power roughly on a par with wind or hydroelectric power.29 Like every form of energy we've discovered so far, nuclear power does have drawbacks, but global warming isn't one of them. The big drawback to nuclear power is that the leftover waste, the spent fuel, has to be stored very, very carefully, and it lasts a really, really long time. Even so, nuclear power is widely used in Europe and Japan, and despite the controversies about it, it supplies 19 percent of electricity in the United States -- enough electricity to keep air conditioners, TiVos, and iPods going in California, New York, and Texas.30 Scientists are working on other ways to dispose of nuclear waste, including recycling it into the nuclear power plant itself, but the problem hasn't been solved yet.31 See Chapter 9 for a more complete discussion of the pros and cons of relying more on nuclear power, including the safety issues.
True or false? ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron control nearly half of the world's known oil reserves.
Not even close. In fact, none of the big multinational oil companies we complain about so often even makes the top ten list. So who's controlling the lion's share of the world's oil reserves?
The national oil company of Saudi Arabia (Saudi Aramco) has the most oil reserves, followed by the national companies of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, China, and Lukoil, the largest oil company in Russia. ExxonMobil comes in at number 13, BP at 15, and Chevron/Texaco at number 20.32 Congress likes to have the corporate heads of the major oil companies appear in hearings so our elected representatives can have their fifteen minutes of fame asking tough questions about gas prices, but in many ways, the big multinationals such as ExxonMobil have much less control over the country's oil situation than they once did.
Which country is guiltiest when it comes to releasing green house gases into the atmosphere, the United States or China?
It's a trick question because, frankly, the United States and China are running neck and neck for worst greenhouse gas polluter in the world.33 There are several ways to look at this, and none of them exactly puts the United States in the clear. Global warming is caused by the accumulated green house gases in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide and its brethren). Since the United States got a head start (we started using large quantities of coal about the time of the Civil War), our country alone is responsible for about 29 percent of the total accumulated gases, compared to just 8 percent for China.34 Then there's the per person measure. In 2005, each American gushed out about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide, compared to about 5 metric tons for each person in China.35 But China has a billion more people than we do, and they are building and manufacturing and transporting like crazy there now. If the average Chinese person begins emitting greenhouses gases at the same rate as the average American, it will just wallop the environment. As of now, China is producing about 21 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions.36 Bottom line? The United States and China need to stop pointing fingers at each other. Both our countries really need to get with the plan.
Who sets the price for a barrel of crude oil?
A. OPEC
B. Oil companies such as ExxonMobil and Saudi Aramco
C. The U.S. Department of Energy
D. The New York Stock Exchange
E. None of the above
The answer is none of the above. The price is actually set by bidding, buying, and selling on major commodities trading exchanges in New York, London, and Singapore.37 These are different from the stock market, but they operate in a similar way. Basically, traders buy and sell all day at the best price they can get, which is why the price for a barrel of oil goes up and down so much and generally changes daily.38 That doesn't mean that OPEC and other oil producers have no impact on prices. As OPEC itself puts it, member countries "do voluntary restrain their crude oil production in order to stabilize the oil market and avoid harmful and unnecessary price fluctuations."39 In other words, they calculate how much they're willing to pump based on the price they want to get. One of the disputes about oil that erupts from time to time is the degree to which the OPEC countries are producing as much as they can or whether they are holding back. (You can read more about what affects the price of oil in Chapter 6.) On the other hand, since the oil is theirs to extract and sell, it's also fair to ask whether, from their point of view, they should produce as much as they can as quickly as they can, or whether they want to preserve some of their countries' natural resources for the future.
What percent of the world's known oil and natural gas reserves are in the United States? A. About 20 percent B. 10 to 20 percent C. 5 to 10 percent D. Less than 5 percent
In area, the United States is the world's third-largest country; only Russia and Canada have more territory than we do.40 Unfortunately that doesn't mean we control a substantial share of the world's oil and natural gas reserves. According to 2008 estimates, the United States has about 2.4 percent of known world oil reserves and about 3.6 percent of natural gas reserves.41 These are figures for the "known" or "proved" reserves -- that is, geologists actually know the stuff is there -- so more exploration could definitely up those numbers a tad. However, as we mentioned earlier, many experts believe that the remaining U.S. supplies of both oil and natural gas are in less convenient places and less convenient forms (such as tar pits). That means they'll be costlier to extract. Just to make your day, would you like to know that Iran, which is tiny in comparison with the United States, has more than four times as much oil42 and natural gas as we have?43
True or false? As long as global warming doesn't increase world temperatures more than 5 or 10 degrees, the effects will be easily manageable.
Not according to the climatologists who worry about global warming. In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summed up the judgment of scientists worldwide predicting that average global temperatures will rise 3.5 to 8 degrees by the year 2100.44 It sounds minor. After all, most of us would be hard pressed to say whether the temperature was 70, 75, or 80 on a nice spring day. But sustained changes like this over time cause glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise. People living near water, especially poor ones in poor countries, can be displaced, and miserable, disease-carrying microbes can flourish. It changes what crops you can grow where, which can cause serious economic and social upheaval. In 2008, the U.S. government released a report summing up the scientific consensus on what climate change could mean here in the United States.45 Among the conclusions: it is "very likely" that "abnormally hot days and nights and heat waves" will be more frequent, increasing the number of people who die from heat-related causes, especially the elderly, frail, and poor. The report warned that "climate change can also make it possible for animal-, water-, and food-borne diseases to spread or emerge in areas where they had been limited or had not existed." Lyme disease and West Nile virus are two examples mentioned.46 As we said before, there are a lot of good reasons to revamp the country's energy policies, and global warming is only one of them. But if you'd like to see exactly what the scientists are worried about, you might want to check out NASA's "Eyes on the Earth" interactive global time line showing the changes in sea levels and the polar ice cap that scientists are already observing. It's at www.nasa.gov/multimedia/mmgallery/index.html.
NOTES
28 EIA Kids Page, "Nuclear Energy (Uranium), Energy from Atoms," www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/nuclear.html.
29 International Atomic Energy Agency, "Nuclear Power Worldiwde: Status and Outlook," State News Service, September11, 2008, www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2008/prn200811.html.
30 EIA Kids Page. "Nuclear Energy (Uranium), Energy from Atoms."
31 See, for example, Global Nuclear Energy partnership, www.energy.gov/media/GNEP/06-GA50035b.pdf.
32 Based on an analysis by Pricewaterhouse Coopers presented at the 2005 Global Energy, Utilities and Mining Conference, November 16-17, 2005, http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/49f2db1ed1eb0236852571c6005adc63/$file/tom-collins-noc-presentation-for-web-site.pdf. This Analysis and others are available at the Energy information Administration's Web page" Energy-in-Brief: Who Are the major Players Supplying the World Oil Market?" accessed April 2, 2009, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/world_oil_market.cfm.
33 EIA, www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls.
34 World Resources Institute, Navigating the Number: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy, http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter6.pdf.
35 EIA, "Frequently Asked Questions -- Environment: How Much co2 Does the United States Emit? Is It More Than Other Countries?" updated August 14, 2008, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/environment_faqs.asp#greenhouse_gases_definition.
36 EIA, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report: U.S. Emissions in a Global Perspective, Report #DOE/EIA-0573, December 3, 2008, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/index.html.
37 OPEC, "Frequently Asked Questions: Does OPEC Set Crude Oil Prices?" www.opec.org/library/FAQs/aboutOPEC/q20.htm.
38 www.nymex.com/CL_spec.aspx.
39 OPEC, "Frequently Asked Questions: Does OPEC Set Crude Oil Prices?"
40 CIA, The World Factbook 2008www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html.
41 BP, Statistical Review of World Energy, 2009. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2009_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2009.pdf.
42. Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 See, for example, www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/science/earth/02cnd-climate.html.
45 National Science and Technology Council. Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States, Report of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resource, May 29, 2008. www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-assessment.
46 Andrew C. Revkin, "Under Pressure, White House Issues climate Change Report," New York Times, May 30, 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/washington/30climate.html?_r=us&oref=slogin.
The above is an excerpt from the book Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis by Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson. The above excerpt is a digitally scanned reproduction of text from print. Although this excerpt has been proofread, occasional errors may appear due to the scanning process. Please refer to the finished book for accuracy.
Copyright © 2009 Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson, authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis
Author Bios
Scott Bittle, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org, where he has prepared citizen guides on more than twenty major issues including the federal budget deficit, Social Security, and the economy. He is also the website director for Planet Forward, an innovative PBS program designed to bring citizen voices to the energy debate.
Jean Johnson, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is co-founder of PublicAgenda.org, and has written articles and op-eds for USA Today, Education Week, School Board News, Educational Leadership, and the Huffington Post Website.
For additional energy resources and supplemental material, please visit www.whoturnedoutthelights.org
Quiz Results
Our last quiz asked you if Obama deserved the Noble Peace Prize. 50% of you said no. 33% of you thought he did, while the remainder was undecided. Personally, I think you actually have to do something to earn something. Based on the rules of the Noble Committee, Obama would have had to accomplish something during the previous year. Well, the previous year, Obama was giving political speeches. That’s all. Words are cheap; especially in today’s managed and packaged political campaigns. Obama did not earn and should not have accepted the award, and the Noble Committee succeeded only in cheapening the award.
For decades, the GOP was primarily a center right political party. That is, it premise was to maintain a small Federal government; low taxes (especially for the middle class), support for small business and middle class, creating opportunities for poorer Americans to make it to the middle class, and an attitude that government in any form doesn’t belong in your life; especially your bedroom. It was this basic philosophy which made the GOP so successful in winning elections, especially the Presidency. But beginning with Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in the early 1970’s of wooing conservative, mainly White Protestant Democrats, to the GOP, the party has gradually shifted its ideology further and further to the right of the political spectrum in order to accommodate these newcomers. This strategy peaked with the election of Ronald Reagan. It was this strategy which lead to the so-called takeover the GOP by the social conservatives or religious fundamental Far Right.
Social conservatives in droves switched to the Republican Party in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, which enabled the GOP to win hereto un-winnable seats throughout the South. However, there was a high price to pay for these victories, and it appears we are j now seeing just how high a price. As the social conservatives began to exert a greater and greater influence on the GOP, they, at the same time, adopted a philosophy of ousting those within the party who didn’t agree with their definition of what it means to be a Republican, even if that meant support a Democrat against GOP nominee. Libertarian-leaning Republicans in the northeast and well as middle and upper western states were the first to find that they were no longer welcome. As a result, many either left the GOP to join the Libertarian or Democrat Party. Some just walked away from politics all together.
Next to be targeted was the Rockefeller Republicans (also called “Eisenhower Republicans”), who were predominate in the Central and Eastern portions of the US, including upper state New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. These were the moderate or centrists, who at one point, constituted the largest segment of the GOP and were responsible for much of the Republican’s electoral success throughout the decades (these are the so-called “RINOs” or “Republican In Name Only” oft referred to by the Far Right). The high water mark of these same social conservatives was the election of George W. Bush (who, later, was aggressively criticized for not being conservative enough). The end result was the election of Barak Obama. And this brings me to the 23rd Congressional race.
The GOP nominated a centrist Republican, Dede Scozzafava, to run in a special election to fill an empty seat in upper state New York, which has traditional been fairly liberal and where centrists in both parties have done well. Ms. Scozzafava is pro-choice and supports gay marriage; both of which are considered serious indictments against her qualifications as a Republican by the Far Right. Enter the very conservative Doug Hoffman. Now, as a political observer and someone who has over 30 years of political experience, comes the interesting part.
Social conservatives from across the country has swarmed in to help Mr. Hoffman, a American Conservative Party candidate, defeat Ms. Scozzafava. Media types like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh to name just two have joined in the fray to condemn Ms. Scozzafava. What’s more is the number of Republicans who turned their back on their party’s nominee and endorsed Mr. Hoffman, a member, as I said, of a competing party (even referring to him as “the real Republican”). We’re talking some of the biggest names in the Republican stable. Ms. Scozzafava has been forced to drop out of the race, and as a result of the GOP’s failure to have her back as it were, endorsed the Democrat, Bill Owens.
My concern is not whether or not members of the Far Right support, or even like Ms. Scozzafava. It’s the fact that we have members, and especially elected leaders of the Republican Party, who have taken an oath to actively and aggressively support the nominee of their party, backing a candidate in another party. That’s just so wrong on so many levels to me. First off, the 23rd District and Ms. Scozzafava’s views appear to be a good match. Secondly, she won the party’s nomination. Third, you back your party’s nominee period. The failure of Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else, to back their own speaks volumes about their character, and this election will speak volume to the American People about the character of today’s Republican Party. This race may not just decide who wins a congressional seat, but whether the GOP continues its present path to regional irrelevance or returns to become a major national player
While I can understand why Ms. Scozzafava quit the race, I am also a strong believer in never backing down from a just fight. Never. She should have stood her ground and demanded publicly that the GOP man-up. I believe there is a place; an important place for the social conservatives in the political makeup of this country. But I believe that there is an equally important place for the libertarian-leaning and moderates too. To win elections, you need candidates whose social and economic views match their future constituents. One size doesn’t fit all anymore in politics than it does life.
The Great Energy Debate Pop Quiz
by Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson,
Authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis
The energy issue is very confusing, and frankly, most of us will never catch up with the experts on all the details. Still, there are some basic facts that are good to know. Do you know them?
True or false? When it comes to global warming and air pollution, nuclear power is one of the most dangerous forms of energy.
Not true. The accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island left lots of people worried about nuclear plant safety, but if you're worried about climate change, nuclear power is one of the least dangerous forms of energy we have. Generating electricity from nuclear power releases virtually no carbon dioxide (the major green house gas) into the atmosphere, and it doesn't cause air pollution either.28 Small amounts are emitted during mining and processing the uranium (you need uranium for nuclear power) and in other related activities, but it's nearly impossible to do anything from start to finish without releasing some green house gases. Experts say the carbon dioxide released in these associated activities puts nuclear power roughly on a par with wind or hydroelectric power.29 Like every form of energy we've discovered so far, nuclear power does have drawbacks, but global warming isn't one of them. The big drawback to nuclear power is that the leftover waste, the spent fuel, has to be stored very, very carefully, and it lasts a really, really long time. Even so, nuclear power is widely used in Europe and Japan, and despite the controversies about it, it supplies 19 percent of electricity in the United States -- enough electricity to keep air conditioners, TiVos, and iPods going in California, New York, and Texas.30 Scientists are working on other ways to dispose of nuclear waste, including recycling it into the nuclear power plant itself, but the problem hasn't been solved yet.31 See Chapter 9 for a more complete discussion of the pros and cons of relying more on nuclear power, including the safety issues.
True or false? ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron control nearly half of the world's known oil reserves.
Not even close. In fact, none of the big multinational oil companies we complain about so often even makes the top ten list. So who's controlling the lion's share of the world's oil reserves?
The national oil company of Saudi Arabia (Saudi Aramco) has the most oil reserves, followed by the national companies of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, China, and Lukoil, the largest oil company in Russia. ExxonMobil comes in at number 13, BP at 15, and Chevron/Texaco at number 20.32 Congress likes to have the corporate heads of the major oil companies appear in hearings so our elected representatives can have their fifteen minutes of fame asking tough questions about gas prices, but in many ways, the big multinationals such as ExxonMobil have much less control over the country's oil situation than they once did.
Which country is guiltiest when it comes to releasing green house gases into the atmosphere, the United States or China?
It's a trick question because, frankly, the United States and China are running neck and neck for worst greenhouse gas polluter in the world.33 There are several ways to look at this, and none of them exactly puts the United States in the clear. Global warming is caused by the accumulated green house gases in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide and its brethren). Since the United States got a head start (we started using large quantities of coal about the time of the Civil War), our country alone is responsible for about 29 percent of the total accumulated gases, compared to just 8 percent for China.34 Then there's the per person measure. In 2005, each American gushed out about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide, compared to about 5 metric tons for each person in China.35 But China has a billion more people than we do, and they are building and manufacturing and transporting like crazy there now. If the average Chinese person begins emitting greenhouses gases at the same rate as the average American, it will just wallop the environment. As of now, China is producing about 21 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions.36 Bottom line? The United States and China need to stop pointing fingers at each other. Both our countries really need to get with the plan.
Who sets the price for a barrel of crude oil?
A. OPEC
B. Oil companies such as ExxonMobil and Saudi Aramco
C. The U.S. Department of Energy
D. The New York Stock Exchange
E. None of the above
The answer is none of the above. The price is actually set by bidding, buying, and selling on major commodities trading exchanges in New York, London, and Singapore.37 These are different from the stock market, but they operate in a similar way. Basically, traders buy and sell all day at the best price they can get, which is why the price for a barrel of oil goes up and down so much and generally changes daily.38 That doesn't mean that OPEC and other oil producers have no impact on prices. As OPEC itself puts it, member countries "do voluntary restrain their crude oil production in order to stabilize the oil market and avoid harmful and unnecessary price fluctuations."39 In other words, they calculate how much they're willing to pump based on the price they want to get. One of the disputes about oil that erupts from time to time is the degree to which the OPEC countries are producing as much as they can or whether they are holding back. (You can read more about what affects the price of oil in Chapter 6.) On the other hand, since the oil is theirs to extract and sell, it's also fair to ask whether, from their point of view, they should produce as much as they can as quickly as they can, or whether they want to preserve some of their countries' natural resources for the future.
What percent of the world's known oil and natural gas reserves are in the United States? A. About 20 percent B. 10 to 20 percent C. 5 to 10 percent D. Less than 5 percent
In area, the United States is the world's third-largest country; only Russia and Canada have more territory than we do.40 Unfortunately that doesn't mean we control a substantial share of the world's oil and natural gas reserves. According to 2008 estimates, the United States has about 2.4 percent of known world oil reserves and about 3.6 percent of natural gas reserves.41 These are figures for the "known" or "proved" reserves -- that is, geologists actually know the stuff is there -- so more exploration could definitely up those numbers a tad. However, as we mentioned earlier, many experts believe that the remaining U.S. supplies of both oil and natural gas are in less convenient places and less convenient forms (such as tar pits). That means they'll be costlier to extract. Just to make your day, would you like to know that Iran, which is tiny in comparison with the United States, has more than four times as much oil42 and natural gas as we have?43
True or false? As long as global warming doesn't increase world temperatures more than 5 or 10 degrees, the effects will be easily manageable.
Not according to the climatologists who worry about global warming. In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summed up the judgment of scientists worldwide predicting that average global temperatures will rise 3.5 to 8 degrees by the year 2100.44 It sounds minor. After all, most of us would be hard pressed to say whether the temperature was 70, 75, or 80 on a nice spring day. But sustained changes like this over time cause glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise. People living near water, especially poor ones in poor countries, can be displaced, and miserable, disease-carrying microbes can flourish. It changes what crops you can grow where, which can cause serious economic and social upheaval. In 2008, the U.S. government released a report summing up the scientific consensus on what climate change could mean here in the United States.45 Among the conclusions: it is "very likely" that "abnormally hot days and nights and heat waves" will be more frequent, increasing the number of people who die from heat-related causes, especially the elderly, frail, and poor. The report warned that "climate change can also make it possible for animal-, water-, and food-borne diseases to spread or emerge in areas where they had been limited or had not existed." Lyme disease and West Nile virus are two examples mentioned.46 As we said before, there are a lot of good reasons to revamp the country's energy policies, and global warming is only one of them. But if you'd like to see exactly what the scientists are worried about, you might want to check out NASA's "Eyes on the Earth" interactive global time line showing the changes in sea levels and the polar ice cap that scientists are already observing. It's at www.nasa.gov/multimedia/mmgallery/index.html.
NOTES
28 EIA Kids Page, "Nuclear Energy (Uranium), Energy from Atoms," www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/nuclear.html.
29 International Atomic Energy Agency, "Nuclear Power Worldiwde: Status and Outlook," State News Service, September11, 2008, www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2008/prn200811.html.
30 EIA Kids Page. "Nuclear Energy (Uranium), Energy from Atoms."
31 See, for example, Global Nuclear Energy partnership, www.energy.gov/media/GNEP/06-GA50035b.pdf.
32 Based on an analysis by Pricewaterhouse Coopers presented at the 2005 Global Energy, Utilities and Mining Conference, November 16-17, 2005, http://www.pwc.com/extweb/industry.nsf/docid/49f2db1ed1eb0236852571c6005adc63/$file/tom-collins-noc-presentation-for-web-site.pdf. This Analysis and others are available at the Energy information Administration's Web page" Energy-in-Brief: Who Are the major Players Supplying the World Oil Market?" accessed April 2, 2009, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/world_oil_market.cfm.
33 EIA, www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls.
34 World Resources Institute, Navigating the Number: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy, http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter6.pdf.
35 EIA, "Frequently Asked Questions -- Environment: How Much co2 Does the United States Emit? Is It More Than Other Countries?" updated August 14, 2008, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/environment_faqs.asp#greenhouse_gases_definition.
36 EIA, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report: U.S. Emissions in a Global Perspective, Report #DOE/EIA-0573, December 3, 2008, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/index.html.
37 OPEC, "Frequently Asked Questions: Does OPEC Set Crude Oil Prices?" www.opec.org/library/FAQs/aboutOPEC/q20.htm.
38 www.nymex.com/CL_spec.aspx.
39 OPEC, "Frequently Asked Questions: Does OPEC Set Crude Oil Prices?"
40 CIA, The World Factbook 2008www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html.
41 BP, Statistical Review of World Energy, 2009. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2009_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2009.pdf.
42. Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 See, for example, www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/science/earth/02cnd-climate.html.
45 National Science and Technology Council. Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States, Report of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resource, May 29, 2008. www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-assessment.
46 Andrew C. Revkin, "Under Pressure, White House Issues climate Change Report," New York Times, May 30, 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/washington/30climate.html?_r=us&oref=slogin.
The above is an excerpt from the book Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis by Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson. The above excerpt is a digitally scanned reproduction of text from print. Although this excerpt has been proofread, occasional errors may appear due to the scanning process. Please refer to the finished book for accuracy.
Copyright © 2009 Scott Bittle & Jean Johnson, authors of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis
Author Bios
Scott Bittle, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is executive editor of PublicAgenda.org, where he has prepared citizen guides on more than twenty major issues including the federal budget deficit, Social Security, and the economy. He is also the website director for Planet Forward, an innovative PBS program designed to bring citizen voices to the energy debate.
Jean Johnson, co-author of Who Turned Out the Lights: Your Guided Tour to the Energy Crisis, is co-founder of PublicAgenda.org, and has written articles and op-eds for USA Today, Education Week, School Board News, Educational Leadership, and the Huffington Post Website.
For additional energy resources and supplemental material, please visit www.whoturnedoutthelights.org
Quiz Results
Our last quiz asked you if Obama deserved the Noble Peace Prize. 50% of you said no. 33% of you thought he did, while the remainder was undecided. Personally, I think you actually have to do something to earn something. Based on the rules of the Noble Committee, Obama would have had to accomplish something during the previous year. Well, the previous year, Obama was giving political speeches. That’s all. Words are cheap; especially in today’s managed and packaged political campaigns. Obama did not earn and should not have accepted the award, and the Noble Committee succeeded only in cheapening the award.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)