Have they all gone crazy?

I am beginning to doubt my own sanity. The more I read about the machinations of the U.S. Senate, the more I am convinced that they must still be eating Senate Bean Soup and breathing the fumes. How in the world can they come up with some of the proposals that the are airing… behind closed doors, of course. Does no one else find it strange that Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman (KGL) would come up with a plant at purports to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next four decades, including provisions to limit business costs while ramping up domestic production of oil, gas and nuclear power." How do you reduce greenhouse gas emissions while making it easier and cheaper to use up the oil and natural gas that we have as fast as we can? Don't take my word for it, this was the NY Times reporting.

The Times goes on to the good news if you are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and don't believe in climate change.

In a bow to industry demands, the senators' proposal would pre-empt U.S. EPA climate regulations under the Clean Air Act and halt dozens of state climate laws and regulations now on the books. Also, only facilities that release 25,000 tons per year of greenhouse gases must participate in the climate program.

I thought the Kerry was supposed to be a leader, someone who had a vision of where this country could go. Maybe we were lucky that he lost in 2004, because with Bush in the White House, at least we knew who the enemy of mankind was.

You may note, that I mentioned the Chamber of Commerce above. According to the Times, they were one of the enterprises in the room, having their say before the rest of us get ours. Of course, the Chamber's position on Climate Change is well known. The want a circus trial like the "Scopes Monkey Trial", and more recently they asked the EPA to consider its greenhouse gas endangerment finding. And Kerry is briefing them on how we will stop global warming?

Allow me to take this one step more. If this is what Liberal Icon Kerry is doing, then what about one time darling of the progressive netroots, Jim Webb has going. He and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have a new bill called the Clean Energy Act of 2009. It is nothing more than a big boost for nuclear industry. According to an alert today from the Nuclear Information Referral Service:

Last fall, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) introduced S. 2276, the "Clean Energy Act of 2009." But this bill is the opposite of a "clean energy act"! In fact, its primary intent is to encourage the construction of at least 100 new reactors in the U.S. by 2030, encourage reprocessing of radioactive waste, promote additional "small, modular" reactors, and build a new nuclear power infrastructure. Alexander and Webb claim they'll do all this with less than $20 billion over the next 10 years.

My goodness, you don't need Republicans to ram this through Congress, the Democrats will do it for you, and my own Senator Boxer will lead the way, ever bit a cheerleader for nuclear as is her erstwhile Republican opponent Chuck DeVore.

I am not a big fan of Michael Moore, but this is one time that I wish he had his camera in the room while Kerry and friends were making sure they didn't step on any corporate toes with their new bill. Maybe Moore could come up with KGL and me.

Mapping the future, looking at the world

below are a few topical issues that creative cartographers have developed to display proportional representations of countries around the world. Go to the links at the bottom to see the array of available maps.

This map shows those territories that use much of their internal water resources, measured with a threshold of people using more than 10% of renewable water resources. Each territory is resized based on the volume of water used beyond 10%.
75 of the 200 territories used less than 10% of their renewable internal freshwater resources. 51 territories used between 10% and 100% of water resources, 15 territories used 100% or more. 59 territories were missing data.
Egypt uses 33 times its internal water resources - the River Nile supplies Egypt with rainwater from elsewhere. Water supplies vary: 4 territories use more per person than Egypt but under 5% of their total internal resources.
Territory size shows the proportion of all water used that is more than 10% of the renewable internal freshwater resources of that territory.
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=323
In 2001 US$784 billion were spent on primary education around the world, when adjusted for purchasing power. The territory where the largest amount was spent is the United States; the spending was 28% of all spending in the world. In contrast, in Nigeria only 0.28% of all world spending was spent on primary education.
There is a distinct difference in the spending on primary education per child between regions. The average spending in Japan, North America and Western Europe is often much more than three times the spending in other regions. Central Africa has the lowest rate of primary school enrolment and also the lowest spending.
Territory size shows the proportion of all spending on primary education worldwide that is spent there, when measured in purchasing power parity US$.
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=207
Greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere, causing it to warm up. The greenhouse gases shown here are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. These gases account for 98% of the greenhouse effect. Other greenhouse gases, not shown here, are various fluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride.
The territories that emit the most greenhouse gases are the United States, China, the Russian Federation and Japan. However, the most emissions per person are in Qatar: equivalent to 86 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Qatar has significant oil and gas reserves, and in 2002 was populated by 600,000 people.
Territory size shows the proportion, by their global warming potential, of all greenhouse gas emissions that come from there.
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=299
This map shows forest depletion, measured as the financial value of the untreated wood extracted which is not replaced by natural growth. This map shows the value of wood that is not sustainably harvested at territory level.
The highest unsustainable harvesting is in India, Ethiopia, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Almost half (46%) is in India; this is the same as the combined total of the 25 territories with the next highest forest depletion. The population of India is almost as large as the combined population of those 25 other territories. Per person forest depletion in India ranks 23rd of all territories with data reported.
Territory size shows the proportion of all annual forest depletion that occurred there. Forest depletion is the loss of potential future income from roundwood at current prices due to current tree felling not offset by natural growth.
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=314
Water resources here include only freshwater, because saline (sea) water requires treatment before most uses. Only 43 600 cubic kilometres of freshwater is available as a resource each year, despite more than twice this amount falling as precipitation (rain and snow). Much is lost through evaporation. Those countries with higher rainfall often have larger water resources. Of all the water available, the regions of South America and Asia Pacific have the most.
People living in Kuwait use sea water that is processed at a desalination plant. As such Kuwait has no area on this map because there are no freshwater resources there.
Territory size shows the proportion of all worldwide freshwater resources found there.
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=102
The ecological footprint is a measure of the area needed to support a population’s lifestyle. This includes the consumption of food, fuel, wood, and fibres. Pollution, such as carbon dioxide emissions, is also counted as part of the footprint.
The United States, China and India have the largest ecological footprints. Without knowing population size we cannot understand what this means about individuals’ ecological demands. Large populations live in China and India. In both territories resource use is below the world average. The per person footprint in the United States is almost five times the world average, and almost ten times what would be sustainable.
Territory size shows the proportion of the worldwide ecological footprint which is made there.
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=322
Over half of the territories in the world are currently experiencing net emigration. More people are leaving them than are coming to them. Territories with net emigration generally are poorer than those with net immigration. Mexico is the country with the highest net emigration, with a net loss of 8.8 million people in 2000. Mexico is in North America, the region whose territories have the largest net immigration. The United State's high immigration rate is linked to Mexican emigration. Were the United States and Mexico combined to be one territory then this movement of people would not be recorded as immigration nor emigration.
Territory size shows the relative quantity of net emigration in all territories (emigration less immigration).
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=18

http://www.worldmapper.org/atozindex.html
http://www.worldmapper.org/textindex/text_index.html

Tune up the fiddles

Over the weekend, Marnie Glickman initiated a poll at Green Change, inviting a selection between several attractive alternatives for the most important action by Obama in his first 100 days. You don't have to join Green Change to register an opinion though it would be a good idea to do so.

I voted for "Support reducing greenhouse pollution by at least 30% in 2020." My rationale is simple. I asked myself what would be the consequences if any one of these were not done. In the case of ghg reduction, the consequences are so horrendous that it is difficult to contemplate. The EcoAction Committee of the national Green Party already has a First 100 Days document that we offered to all Green Party presidential candidates. You can read that here. It was not strong enough about global warming, climate change, global warming and any associated issue.

During the next month, I will produce a series of posts regarding this issue and how we must act to avoid what James Hansen calls the Venus Syndrome. Stay tuned for more to come.