Thursday, October 11, 2007

John Cusack and Naomi Klein continued.


We posted a video of John Cusack's interesting interview of Naomi Klein last week, but apparently, their conversation did not end when the cameras stopped rolling.

Here is an excerpt of their continuing conversation on the rise of 'Disaster Capitalism' from the huffingtonpost. It's pact full of disturbing facts, and presents a horrific picture of the corporate capitalist take over now being seen around the world, particularly in Iraq.

Naomi Klein
: When I was in Baghdad, it was clear that this was one of the things that most enraged Iraqis -- watching the non-stop conveyor belt of corporate welfare going to western companies while having to listen to patronizing lectures about the free market. My favorite was from Michael Fleischer -- former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer's brother. In the kind of nepotism rampant in the Green Zone, Michael was put in charge of Iraq's "private sector development" during the first year of the occupation. At one point he told a group of Iraqi business leaders that they would have to lose all their subsidies and trade protections because "protected businesses never, never become competitive."

Cusack: He said this with a straight face?

Klein: Yes -- he seemed entirely unconcerned by the irony that Halliburton, Bechtel, Parsons, KPMG, Blackwater et al were in Iraq, madly gorging off this vast protectionist racket in which the U.S. government had created their markets with war, barred their competitors from even entering the race (remember, French companies weren't invited...), then paid them to do the work on "cost-plus" contracts, which guaranteed them profits -- all at taxpayer expense.

In fact, the Disaster Capitalism industry has been built almost exclusively with public resources: 90 percent of Blackwater's revenues come from state contracts and virtually its entire staff is made up of former soldiers, which means that the training also came at public expense. Yet this vast infrastructure is all privately owned and controlled. The citizens who have funded it have absolutely no claim to this shadow state or its resources.

So I've become quite cynical about the claim that the architects of this new system are free-market ideologues. They are in fact corporate supremacists. The proof is that they will betray their supposed libertarian beliefs at the slightest opportunity if that betrayal will turn a profit for a crony company. You see the hypocrisy most shamelessly in the mega-contracts handed out so private companies can help the Bush administration read our emails and data-mine our lives. It's a kind of triple whammy of hypocrisy: these are people who purportedly believe in restrained government spending, individual liberties, and getting government off our backs, yet without hesitation they will expand the reach of the state, gobble up public money, and violate individual privacy, so long as there is profit in it. Calling the Bush gang "ideologues" gives them way too much credit.

Cusack: You've said that in the future the ultimate luxury will be your own survival...do you really think this is where we're headed?

Klein: Well, the disaster bubble is going to burst, like all bubbles do. And when it does, firms like Bechtel, Fluor and Blackwater are going to lose much of their primary revenue stream. They will still have all the high-tech gear and equipment bought at taxpayer expense, but they will need to find a new business model, a new way to cover their high costs. The next phase of the disaster capitalism complex is staring us in the face: with the state in decay, the parallel corporate state will rent back its disaster infrastructure to whoever can afford it, at whatever price the market will bear.

So imagine that after the next hurricane, Blackwater might not just be working for FEMA, as it was after Katrina -- it could sell its security and evacuation capacity to other corporations, or directly to the public, the very same public that funded its entire start-up phase. Want a helicopter ride off a roof? A bed in a shelter? Bottled water? We'll bill you later. Meanwhile, everyone who can't pay will be out of luck, since evacuation is no longer a "core competency" of the state, and besides, the state shouldn't interfere with the free market. The people who can't pay will either be abandoned -- like the people left on their roofs in New Orleans -- or sucked into the privatized prison surveillance apparatus, to be profited from in another way.

Companies like Blackwater and Halliburton are already roaming the world looking for new markets in other frail states - new governments to guard, new war zones to privatize.

Cusack: Here's what I'm thinking. If these people want to create their own privatized countries, they should practice what they preach, and "take their chances on the open market." Secede from the union and stop bankrolling the whole thing with our tax dollars. I'd love to hear someone make a legal argument that the constitution allows for corporations to build private armies at taxpayer expense. I mean, publicly funded mercenaries are totally outside the boundaries of any conceivably acceptable legal version of the constitutional checks and balances we all learned in civics class. But Blackwater is a symptom of a larger problem which is also more terrifying: basically what the Bush administration has done is use its time in office to fund and create a dangerous counter-power to the very government it is leading.

To read the full text from the huffingtonpost.com, click here.
Read more!

Jimmy Carter: Do Not Attack Iran

By Ben Cohen

Former President Jimmy Carter on why the United States must not attack Iran. Bush and Cheney won't listen, but hopefully the public and Congress will.




Full text. Read more!

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

George Bush, Holocaust Denier

By Ben Cohen

The term 'Holocaust' derives
from the Greek 'holókauston' (from holos "completely" and kaustos "burnt"). It is generally used to describe the deaths of 6 million Jews at the hands of the Nazis during World War Two. Winston Churchill used the term to describe the Turkish Genocide of hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of Armenians in 1915-1917.
In response to the Turkish Governments continual denial of their genocide, a group of highly esteemed international Genocide Scholars wrote the following to Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey on June 13th 2005:

"On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years."


"We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide—how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history. "

"We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as a proud and equal participants in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust."


The Turkish Government ignored the letter, and has not reversed its stance.

It is of course, conventional in elite American political circles to strongly condemn the genocide of the Jews, but not apparently, the Armenians. Yesterday, George Bush urged Congress not to pass legislation that would label the massacre 'a genocide'. Bush said it "would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror."

Condoleeza Rice echoed his sentiments saying the legislation "at this time would be very problematic for everything we are trying to do in the Middle East".

Thankfully, a House Panel passed the legislation by 27 votes to 21.

For those who thought George Bush was a man of principle, surely the last vestiges of this notion have now been completely destroyed. It is not worth the energy to explain his disgustingly hypocritical and immoral stance on the subject, other than to label him what he is: A Holocaust denier. END
Read more!

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

When will this horrible experiment end?

By Ben Cohen

Milton Friedman (1912-2006) is the God Father of 'neo liberal economics', the modern day version of capitalism. According to The Economist, Friedman "was the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it."

Back in the 1950's, Friedman essentially spawned the concept that government intervention in an economy was a bad thing, and for an economy to function properly, the 'market' was best left to itself. "I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible," said Friedman. "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself", he would say, unwavering in his belief of the purity of capitalism.

Social spending bred dependency, Friedman argued. Social security, socialised medical care, basically anything to do with a collectivism was thrown out as immoral and 'anti freedom'.

Friedman's brand of economics was tested via the help of the CIA on several Latin American countries during the 70's and 80's, and the Chicago University professor has been credited with 'freeing' them from the ills of socialism.

An economic advisor to Richard Nixon, and an unofficial advisor to Ronald Reagan, Friedman's influence was far reaching in government circles. He inspired the radical changes in economic policy in America and Britain during the 1980's, and his philosophy is being applied in full to this day.

It is now abundantly apparent that this experiment has failed miserably.

Far from saving Latin America, Friedman's economic reforms have literally destroyed the countries where it was applied. In Brazil for example, the national debt increased 64% between the years 1980-1985. It doubled again from 1998-2000. Despite having the 9th largest economy in the world, it is amongst the leading in inequality and pervasive poverty. Around 25% of the population live under the official poverty line. In Nicaragua, another poster child for neoliberal reform, 1 out of 3 children currently suffer from chronic malnutrition, and it continues to be one of the poorest countries in the region.

According to Naomi Klein, before the neoliberal revolution in Argentina in 1976, the country had 'fewer people living in poverty than France or the U.S-just 9%- and an unemployment rate of only 4.2%'. A year after the junta seized power, 'real wages lost 40% of their value, factories closed', and 'poverty spiraled'.

The U.S and the U.K are also shining examples of the failures of Neo Liberalism. Both countries are bottom of the league when it comes to social mobility in industrialised nations. They have the highest poverty rates and least economic equality amongst societies of similar wealth. In the U.K, around 22% of the population live in poverty, twice that of Sweden's. There are also 36.5 million Americans living in poverty. The real value of wages has declined for the average American since the 60's, while the top earners have seen massive increases.

The doctrine of free market capitalism has been rammed down our throats as the solution to all our problems. When we hear politicians talk about giving business's tax breaks, it really means more money will be sucked up to the rich. When they say that raising the minimum wage will 'hurt the economy', what they mean is that it will hurt the rich. When they talk about 'flexible labour' they mean cheap, expendable wage slavery for the benefit of the rich.

Neoliberalism seeks to absolve everyone of their responsibilities to our fellow human beings. Friedman once said, “What you should do, in my opinion, is to give every person who now has a claim on Social Security bonds equal to the value of his claim, and set him free. Let him save. Let him do what he wants with it."

When asked how he would stop people making bad investment decisions, the esteemed economist replied, “I don’t! Why should I?”

And that sums up the neo conservative view of people. Why should anyone care if a family made a bad investment decision and is out on the streets? Why should anyone care whether a poor kid has a decent education? To Friedman and his mignons, that is 'real freedom'. To people of conscience, this is barbaric.

Humans are by nature a collective species, and can survive only in groups. Neoliberalism works on the principle that this is untrue. It says we can survive as autonomous consumers. It says that 'greed is good' and selfishness 'drives productivity'. A small percentage of the population has benefited from this world view, while the majority have not. Through extensive marketing and PR, we have been led to believe this is the only way. Ridiculous books like 'The End Of History' by Francis Fukayama have implanted the idea that the pure market is the goal of humanity.

It is not.

We must fight this system that impoverishes so many and separates us from our fellow citizens. It is time for this horrible experiment to finally come to an end.

Read more!

Monday, October 8, 2007

The truth about Mitt "Strength" Romney


HuffPost's Chris Kelly exposes the true "strength" of uber-Republican Mitt Romney. It's sheer genius, and pretty comedy as well.

From The Huffingtonpost:

Three Card Romney

by Chris Kelly

Mitt "Strength" Romney has been putting some really strong thinking into his position on taxes and he's decided that he's strongly against them. (You can read up on his other powerful ideas in his campaign's Strategy for a Stronger America, available through his website, the one with the banner on top that reads, "Mitt Romney True Strength for America" and the quote at the bottom that goes -- I shit you not -- "I believe the strength of America lies in the strength of her people. I am running for President because I want to help keep America strong.

Romney. Strong. Romney. Strong. HeadOn. Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn. Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn...

I mean, that's a lot of strength. Does he want to lead America or bench press it?

How strongly does Romney hate taxes? Last week, he not only signed a pledge to oppose all tax increases, he also snapped the pen in half, shattered the desk with a single blow, and made powerful animal love to Grover Norquist on the shards.

In the end, all that remained of Norquist and the desk was sawdust and an unjustified sense of entitlement.

Then the Romney Campaign recorded a radio ad and released:

STRATEGY FOR A STRONGER AMERICA: A CONSERVATIVE BLUEPRINT TO LOWER TAXES


Check it out.

BLUEPRINT #1: Making The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent.
Governor Romney believes making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent is the first step to ensuring that Americans are able to keep more of their hard-earned money. 



Fair enough. Of course, all the other Republican candidates support making the tax cuts permanent too, except for Ron Paul, who believes taxes themselves are expressly forbidden by a secret code hidden in the eye on the back of the dollar.

And I'm not that interested, here, in going over who did and who didn't benefit from the Bush tax cuts. There are lots of indisputable figures about how the rich got richer and the poor didn't, but you can look those up yourself in Janeane Garofalo's tattoos.

Okay, just one: Since 2001, the average member of a middle income American family has received a tax cut of about $300 per year, but their share of the national debt has increased to $8,936. Another way to look at that? 99% of Americans will end up owing almost four dollars for every dollar they saved.

So we're saddling our children with crushing debt. That's why it's important that we don't give them health insurance. To make sure they're too sickly to strike back.

Moving on...

BLUEPRINT #2: Rolling Back Tax Rates For All Americans: 

Governor Romney Will Roll Back Tax Rates Across The Board For All Americans. As President, Governor Romney will cut marginal tax rates across the board, allowing all Americans to save more money.

This is what economists call "a lie." Romney also promised to cut marginal tax rates when he was in Massachusetts and got exactly nowhere. Or, as he describes it in his new radio ad:

"I stood firm to roll back taxes as Governor. I'll roll back taxes as President."

I know that sounds like he's saying: "I stood firm and rolled back taxes," but it doesn't. What he means is, he firmly wanted to roll back taxes; what happened was that they stayed right where they were.

It depends on what your definition of "to" is. He means it like "as if to." It's not his fault if you heard something else.

The statement appears to be a slippery lie, but let's give him the benefit of a doubt and call it wishful thinking, micromanaged to be misunderstood.

Mitt Romney saying he's going to firmly roll back tax rates is like me saying I'm going to firmly stay in the tub until Rachel Weisz comes to my house and rinses my hair. I can be as firm as I want; that doesn't change the fact that Ms. Weisz has her own family and I have mine.
BLUEPRINT #3: Eliminating Taxes On Middle Class Savings: 
Governor Romney Will Make Middle Class Savings Tax Free. Governor Romney's plan will allow middle class Americans to save tax free by changing the tax rate on interest, capital gains and dividends to absolutely 0%.

Wow. Absolutely zero! That's negative 275 degrees Celsius! Or maybe I'm thinking of something else. Either way, it's pretty bold. Except that two-thirds of Americans already pay less than $12 a year in income tax on capital gains.

How are you going to spend your windfall? I'm going to the movies, alone.

But these $12 people are the 2/3rds of us who make less than $50,000. Romney's plan is to eliminate all Federal taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for people who make up to $200,000. And if that doesn't encourage you to finally quit your dead end "job" and go into day trading full-time, I can't imagine what will.

It means that living tax-free off hard-earned inherited wealth won't just be for the super-rich anymore. It's also for plucky second-tier heiresses whose stock dividends don't even add up to a measly four grand a week. Why should they pay taxes on that income? Just because people who perform "labor" do?

How's that fair?

BLUEPRINT #4: Eliminating The Death Tax Once And For All. The Death Tax unfairly impacts families, farmers, ranchers and small businesses. These are the engines of America's economic growth and they should not be burdened by unfair taxes.

Oh for heaven's sake. Ranchers? The engines of America's growth are its ranchers? Forget the tech sector and customer support -- that's for sissies and Indians -- we've got ranchers?

Ranchers? Like the Cartwrights? Did they create a lot of jobs? Let's see, there was Hop Sing.

½ of 1% of dead people in America leave a taxable estate. (I read it on Janeane Garofalo's back.) And for the first $2,000,000 that you can't take with you, your descendants and/or trophy wife don't even have to file a return.

Maybe taxing zombie billionaires is fair and maybe it's not, but when you start calling inherited wealth (from ranching) the engine of America's economic growth words themselves cease to have any meaning. You're just being silly.

BLUEPRINT #5: Cutting The Corporate Tax Rate: 

Governor Romney Believes Our Corporate Tax Rate Must Be Competitive With The Rest Of The World. The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. We simply cannot afford for future economic growth to have a tax rate that is out of alignment with the other major economies of the world. 



THE SECOND HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATE IN THE ENTIRE OECD!!!

OH MY GOD!!!

DID YOU HEAR THAT!!?

HOW DID WE LET THIS HAPPEN!!?

WHY DO OUR RANCHERS EVEN BOTHER!!?

WAIT... WHAT THE HELL'S THE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT!!?

That sure sounds like he's saying we pay the second highest corporate tax rates in the world, doesn't it?

Except that's not what he means at all. There are 192 member states in the United Nations. 162 aren't in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Countries like, oh, for instance China, Russia, Argentina, Brazil, Israel, Saudi Arabia and India.

So who is in the OECD? Well, it does include most of the major trading nations, but it also finds room for Luxembourg, Portugal, Belgium, and the Slovak Republic.

OUR CORPORATE TAXES ARE OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC!!!

NO WONDER IRAN'S GETTING THE BOMB AND BRITNEY SPEARS DRINKS!!!

Yes, this "second unfairest in a club you've never heard of" is basically a load. But let's play by Mitt rules, ignore the counties that contain 4/5ths of the world's population and just compare America to the counties in the OECD. (I don't know the Portuguese word for "rancher" but cavaleiro means horseman, if that helps.)

Are American companies paying higher taxes? No they're not. The OECD ranking Mitt is using doesn't refer to corporate tax brackets at all. It refers to the total amount of taxes a nation's corporations pay expressed as a fraction of GDP. And why did American companies pay more taxes last year (measured against GDP) than Belgian companies did?

Because they made higher profits.

Scads. What economists call "shitloads." ExxonMobil, for instance, is an American company. It did pretty well. Maybe you heard about it.

Unless Mitt wants to index corporate taxes, so that they go down every time profits go up, our ranking in the OECD will fluctuate.

Usually, by the way, they're insanely low. In a typical year -- like 2004, for instance - America's corporate taxes don't rank second highest in the OECD, they rank third lowest, just above Germany and Iceland.

So it's a double-talk statistic, of an atypical event, on a phony scale, to scare you into cutting Texaco's taxes. Even for a grease bucket like Mitt Romney, that's pretty good.

How does it smell? You might even say "strong."

Read the full article here
Read more!

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Kingdom of Fear

By Peter Bauer

“The Towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Times, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.
It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy.”
~Hunter S. Thompson
September 12, 2001~

In his final book 'Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century', Thompson delivers a poignant assessment of the political climate of the United States of America. His observations are cutting and confrontational, pushing past the dominant political paradigm. Thompson was painfully accurate at the turn of the century, and it would be interesting to hear his perspective of America’s current condition had he not committed suicide in 2005.

Thompson argues that although the 20th century will be remembered as the American Century, the appointment of George W. Bush as President ushered in what will fatefully be remembered as the Post-American Century. For Thompson, the Post-American Century did not begin with on 9/11, but rather on November 7th 2000 when “the generals and cops and right-wing Jesus-freaks seized control of the White house, the U.S. Treasury, and our Law Enforcement machinery.”

Kingdom of Fear chronicles Thompson’s rise in literary influence, beginning with his noted early works Hells Angels and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. These achievements afforded Thompson the fame and influence to run for Sheriff in the “Battle for Aspen” in 1970. His campaign promised the legalization of all drugs on a recreational basis, tearing up parking lots and sidewalks for more grassy areas, and shaving his head bald so he could refer to his “high and tight” ex-Military incumbent opponent as "My long-haired opponent."

Thompson challenged the Establishment head-on in his “Battle for Aspen,” and would have succeeded, and had it not been for a last minute Democrat/Republican compromise. (We’ll tell our people to vote for your guy if you tell your people to vote for our guy. I hate your guts, but I’d rather deal with you than this Counter Culture dope fiend).

In 1990 Thompson’s home was raided after he was accused of assaulting a woman in his home and allegedly using drugs. This case caused national attention as Thompson turned his legal predicament into a 4th Amendment issue (Unreasonable Search and Seizure) with the slogan “Beware- Today: the Doctor. Tomorrow: You.

Throughout his career, Thompson pursued the death of the American Dream, and Kingdom of Fear puts the realities of the Post-American Century into perspective. He forces the reader to confront the harsh realities the Bush/Cheney Regime for what it has come to represent: “A foul human monument to corruption and depravity on a scale that dwarfs any other public official in American history.”

Thompson is a literary giant who deserves to be remembered as one who captured the Death of the American Dream more candidly and profoundly than any of his peers. He embodies the true spirit of Patriotism.

To purchase a copy of the book, click below.


Read more!

Can we save the world with science?


This is an interesting piece on the role of science in saving the planet from our abuse. Can it work, or is it too little too late?

From the Guardian.co.uk

Can science really save the world?
Endless treaties to cut carbon emissions and halt global warming have failed to turn the tide of pollution. Now scientists want to intervene on a planetary scale, changing the very nature of our seas and skies. Ahead of a major report on 'geo-engineering' we reveal the six big ideas that could change the face of the Earth

Robin McKie and Juliette Jowit
Sunday October 7, 2007
The Observer

They are the ultimate technological fixes: schemes that will span our planet and involve scientists in reshaping our world to save it from global warming. Yet only a few years ago, such projects - giant space mirrors, flotillas of artificial cloud makers and ocean fertilisation programmes - were dismissed as the stuff of science fiction...

Today many engineers and researchers - fearful of the rate at which our planet is warming - say geo-engineering projects are now mankind's only hope of saving itself from the impact of climate change. A major report and a new exhibition at the Science Museum starting next week will resurrect the debate.

Article continues
Despite 10 years of international negotiations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide levels by between 60-80 per cent, global emissions are still rising. The only hope, say geo-engineers, is to change the planet, alter its oceans and reshape its cloud cover.

It is a point highlighted by Brian Launder, professor of mechanical engineering at Manchester University, who was once 'neutral' about these great geo-engineering projects but who has come to believethat current attempts to reduce CO2 emissions are doomed to failure.

'As time has gone on I have become increasingly concerned about the lack of progress on climate change and [although] they once seemed a last resort, I have to say we're going to need to do this.'

Launder is now editing a forthcoming issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society which will be devoted to the subject of geo-engineering schemes. 'We're moving, but I think we need to go a lot further.'

An exhibition - Can Algae Save The World? - opening at the Science Museum will also focus on hi-tech projects aimed at saving the planet.

The latest assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published earlier this year, considered three major techniques to reduce sunlight reaching the Earth: orbiting mirrors, sulphur particle schemes and projects for enhancing cloud cover.

The ideas 'could have beneficial consequences' by increasing agricultural productivity and forestry, the panel concluded. Carbon dioxide would be left in the atmosphere, stimulating plant growth, while reductions in sunlight would stop temperatures from rising even as CO2 levels continued to increase.

'Geo-engineering is one of the types of thing that are worth investigating,' says Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. 'If we can generate 100 ideas, and 97 are bad and we land up with three good ones, then the whole thing will have been worthwhile.'

Opponents to such schemes point out that it is technology that got mankind in its current fix. An even bigger dose of technology is therefore the last thing the planet needs. Schemes for fertilising the oceans with iron compounds pose immense risks to marine life, for example. Geo-engineers defend their schemes by pointing out that emissions of greenhouse gases are already bringing huge changes to natural ecosystems.

It is a point stressed by the distinguished ecologist James Lovelock: there are dangers in intervening but the risks posed by doing nothing are worse. 'There may be all sorts of ecological consequences,' he said. 'But then the stakes are terribly high.'

Ocean pumps

Two of Britain's leading environmental thinkers, Chris Rapley, head of the Science Museum, and James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia concept, suggest vertical pipes could pump deep cold water to the sea surface. Cold ocean water is considered to be more 'productive' than warmer water because it contains more lifeforms. And these lifeforms are vital for absorbing CO2.

Using special valves, cold water would be made to flow up floating pipes and out on to the ocean surface, bringing increased numbers of lifeforms into contact with the atmosphere and its carbon dioxide. These lifeforms would absorb CO2, die and then sink to the ocean floor, storing the carbon away for millennia.

Marine biologists point out that the scheme could pose major problems for sea life, in particular for creatures such as whales and porpoises.

Chance of success: 3/5 Impact on marine life could count against the scheme.

Sulphur blanket

During major volcanic eruptions, the Earth often undergoes significant cooling. For example, when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991 the average temperature across the Earth decreased by 0.6C. Scientists pointed the finger of blame at the 10 million tonnes of sulphur that the volcano ejected into the stratosphere. So why not copy Pinatubo? That is the suggestion of Professor Paul Crutzen who won a Nobel prize in 1995 for his work on the ozone layer.

He has proposed creating a 'blanket' of sulphur that would block the Sun's rays from reaching Earth; to do this, he envisages hundreds of rockets filled with sulphur being blasted into the stratosphere. About one million tonnes of sulphur would be enough to create his cooling blanket, he says.

The idea alarms other scientists, who fear such a massive input of sulphur into the upper atmosphere could increase acid rain or damage the ozone layer. Crutzen believes his idea may still be necessary if Earth continues to warm up at its current rate. 'I am prepared to lose some bit of ozone if we can prevent major increases of temperature, say beyond two degrees or three degrees,' he says.

Chance of success: 1/5 Risks of acid rain and ozone depletion will provoke opposition.

Mirrors

Radiation from the Sun heats our planet and sustains life here. But as Earth warms up, scientists want to cut that radiation and one of the most ambitious ideas involves firing giant mirrors into its orbit.

Physicist Lowell Wood, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, has put forward the idea of using a mesh of aluminium threads, a millionth of an inch in diameter. 'It would be like a window screen made of exceedingly fine metal wire,' he explains. The screen wouldn't completely block sunlight but would filter infra-red radiation.

However, such mirrors would be expensive to make and put into orbit. To produce a 1 per cent cut in solar radiation would require mirrors with surface areas of 600,000 square miles. But once in space such mirrors would be extremely cheap to operate.

'It's very hi-tech,' said John Shepherd, professor of marine science at the National Oceanographic Centre at Southampton University. 'Who knows whether they can really do it? And it's going to cost a lot of money to find out.'

Chance of success: 1/5 Incredibly expensive.

Cloud shield

John Latham, at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, and Stephen Salter, of Edinburgh University estimate that increasing cloud cover using a seawater spray 'seeding' process could increase cloud cover by 4 per cent - enough to counter a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by shielding Earth from solar radiation.

Their plan is one of the cheaper ideas for countering rising carbon dioxide levels and is relatively low-tech, leading to hopes that, if computer simulations give good results, a field trial could start in five years.

Latham acknowledges there are dangers in changing weather patterns. 'We certainly shouldn't implement [it] in any global sense until we've done our best to examine what implications it might have,' he says.

'But if one felt that there are unlikely to be any implications that are more severe than the damage global warming is causing, then I think we'd begin.'

Chance of success: 2/5 Will need major global commitment to succeed.

Synthetic trees

Planting trees that absorb carbon dioxide has become a major eco-industry. But now scientists are proposing a surprise technological variant: synthetic trees. These trees would not grow or flower or leaf - but they would absorb carbon dioxide.

This startling concept is the brainchild of Klaus Lackner of Columbia University who first outlined his proposal at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He describes his synthetic trees as looking like 'goal posts with Venetian blinds'.

Lackner has calculated that one of his synthetic trees could remove about 90,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in a year - the output of more than 15,000 cars and a thousandfold improvement on the natural behaviour of a real, living tree.

Lackner's concept is a variant of carbon sequestration technology which involves the seizing of carbon and storing it underground. Already schemes exist for removing carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, gas or oil at power plants before it reaches the atmosphere. Other projects are investigating ways to liquefy this carbon dioxide and store it in old mines or oilfields.

However, the process does not work for all polluters, in particular cars and lorries - hence Lackner's synthetic trees which would act like filters, removing carbon dioxide from that atmosphere. An absorbent coating, such as limewater, on slats would capture carbon dioxide so that it could be removed and then buried. However, critics say the scheme suffers from the fact that engineers could end up expending more energy in capturing carbon dioxide than they would save.

Chance of success: 4/5 Carbon sequestration is likely to play a major role in the world's battle against climate change, though perhaps not in the form of synthetic trees.

Forests of the seas

Blooms of plankton and algae are the grasslands and prairies of the oceans. They absorb carbon dioxide, die and then sink to the seabed carrying the carbon dioxide they absorbed during their lifetimes. Increase such blooms and you could take out more and more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, scientists argue - an idea that formed the core of a recent meeting of experts at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the US.

The favoured method for stimulating plankton growth is to use iron fertilisers. It is known that tiny amounts of iron are critical in stimulating phytoplankton growth in seas. However, in many parts of the world iron in seawater is virtually non-existent and plankton levels correspondingly low.

Several groups of US entrepreneurs have begun experiments aimed at correcting this problem by pumping tonnes of soluble iron compounds into sea areas. Several trial schemes are now under way. But some critics warn that very little carbon dioxide would be removed from the atmosphere this way, while there is a danger such schemes could cause dangerous pollution.

Chance of success: 2/5 Method already in trials, but faces considerable opposition over potential damage to marine life.
Read more!

Friday, October 5, 2007

Jon Stewart apologizes for Black water interview

By Ben Cohen

Never one to take himself too seriously, Jon Stewart takes himself to task for a less than prescient interview with Jeremy Scahill about the Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq a couple of months ago. "If someone is an ex soldier and is looking to make a little money, why is that a terrible thing?", Stewart asked Scahill. Whoops.



. Full text. Read more!

United Nations says Climate disaster is happening now

By Ben Cohen

For most of the people reading this post, climate change is something we hear about in the news and watch on tv. We are removed from the reality of it, because we don't really feel its effects. Asides from a bit of flooding and a hotter than average summer (or colder one for those in England), the devastating effects of global warming effect people we do not know.

Most of us also believe that climate change is something we can stop if we get our act together. But it looks like it is too late.

According to the U.N, the record number of floods, droughts and storms this year constitutes a 'Mega Disaster'.

"We are seeing the effects of climate change", said Sir John Holmes, the UN's under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs. "Any year can be a freak but the pattern looks pretty clear to be honest. That's why we're trying ... to say, of course you've got to deal with mitigation of emissions, but this is here and now, this is with us already".

Scary. It may now be time to completely rethink the way we live before we destroy our natural environment, and ourselves in the process. As environmental journalist George Monbiot said:

"We must work out how much it would cost to decarbonise its growing economy, and help to pay. We need a major diplomatic offensive - far more pressing than it has been so far - to persuade the United States to do what it did in 1941, and turn the economy around on a dime."

If we could do it then to fight the Germans, there is no reason we cannot do it now.END

Full text. Read more!

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Bill Clinton on the Daily Show: Uncut

This is Jon Stewart's full 20 minute interview of Bill Clinton. As always, though I often disagree with him, on most points one can't help but accept the logic and practicality of much of what he says. Especially about naps.

From Indecision2008.com (Comedy Central)

Read more!

RECENT POSTS