What really happened at the RNC.

I really love David Roberts summary of what went on so far that the RNC. You can read the whole thing at Gristmill, or just this summary.

To be fair, the speeches by Giuliani and Palin were masterful examples of the art form. Giuliani knows how to use mockery and contempt like few other speakers, and Palin clearly relished playing the "pit bull with make-up." They got in some great lines and put the crowd in a frenzy. I bet if you polled Republicans right now more of them would support Palin than McCain.

But do they think this is going to win it for them in a year of economic downturn and Democratic ascendancy? More tax cuts and foreign policy belligerence? More oil company populism? The base rallying strategy, again? I'm not sure what else they've got in their quiver, but some part of me thought they'd try something new. Seems not. It's going to be a long, ugly 60 days.

Clean Coal is a Dirty Lie

Sarah Palin was put forward as the Republican expert on Energy. She did show a lot of energy in her speech, quick to the attack, pausing only for effect on the zingers she shot. However, when it came to the subject of energy policy, she showed a remarkable lack of knowledge when putting forward the suggestion that America should work for Clean Coal.


Let me give a good example of what clean coal really means. It begins with the removal of a mountain top and the filling of valleys to expose the coal. This is not the old time strip mining, unless that practice were on steroids. There are more photos here.

Let me remind you that the Green Party affiliate, the Mountain Party of West Virginia, is a leader in the fight against such ravages to the environment. Still, that is only the beginning.

There was a major Federal program under the administration of George "W" Bush that was intended to develop a new technology for coal fired power plants. It was called the NextGen program. There is an industry council formed by leading coal producers that is leading the way in convincing everyone that this is a real possibility sometime out in the distant future. Now, they are talking about 2015.

Of course, they have not stopped to consider that the continued expansion of conventional coal fired plants... even the continued operation of existing plants... will quite possibly push the current global warming past a tipping point. That, my friends, is a risk that the Republicans... and the Democrats... want you to take.

What none of them tell you is that the US Dept. of Energy scrapped the FutureGen clean coal project in 2008.

The DOE last year signed an agreement with the FutureGen Alliance, a coalition of coal and oil companies, to spend about $950 million on a demonstration coal-fired power plant that injects carbon dioxide emissions underground. Last December, a site for the FutureGen project in Matoon, Ill., was announced by the Alliance.

It was deemed to be too expensive for the payback.

DOE is turning to Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) as a solution to the problem of the buildup of Greenhouse Gasses, the prime cause of global warming. While some things work, others are still very, very expensive and, we don't have the time if we are going to stop the warming of this planet.

When Sarah Palin puts on her Peabody Energy hat and talks about clean coal, you know that it may lead to votes but it is ultimately only a lot more hot air that we can't afford to have around.

Obama McCain Energy Smackdown

Sheril Kirshenbaum is both a scientist and a writer with political savvy. She is an active blogger at ScienceBlogs.com, writing both on the Intersection (with Chris Mooney) and on the energy blog, NextGen, an energy blog effort funded by Shell.


In today's posts (both places) Kirshembaum writes about the McCain / Obama Energy Policies. While Obama responded to a questionnaire, McCain has failed to do so. I am not surprised.

I think you all should read the pieces, but I will take the comments that I left at NextGen and paste them here.

I don't get it. McCain says that he wants to address global warming, sets a target that is not going to really do the job, and then comes out with a list of policies that guarantees the fact that we will never achieve the target.

And not one calls him on it?

The Republicans complain about liberal bias in the press and then the press lest him get away with this. Complain about liberal bias, arrest Amy Goodman, and you can get away with saying anything as long as you sound sincere.

I am waiting for a journalist with a real understanding of the science to drill down though the muck and make both of these candidates explain the inconsistencies in their public statements.

The key point that I am getting at is that you can make lowering gas prices and feeding America's energy addiction as your main emphasis, but you will do so at the price of making global warming worse. In the long run, that is one dumb decision.

We don't know how to control nuclear waste. We have no policies at all about controlling nuclear contamination of mining, transportation and storage of uranum before it is used. But, both of these candidates would give even more of our tax dollars to the nuclear industry and McCain does not want to "interfere with the market" by subsidizing renewable systems like solar or wind. This is not the action of anyone who should board a straight talk express.

The same goes for policies regarding coal. Lots of people involved in coal mining and they all vote. Nope, we will not stop burning coal as long as their is a politicians who would rather be elected than stop slow down global warming. I hate the idea of quoting John Stossel but "Give me a break."

Obamanomics or Green Opportunity

I would like to connect three fairly recent reports that, in my opinion, define a wonderful opportunity for the Green Party to be the real truth tellers, if we really care enough to do that. If rural America sees little difference between the two major parties, if McCain is leading us to a hotter hell on earth by design and Obama is too tied to big corporate Agriculture to really care, then it is left to Cynthia and the Greens to show rural America that a better tomorrow is possible.


The opportunity is there because most of Rural America sees little difference between the two major parties. This comes from a poll authorized by the Center for Rural Affairs (CFRA), Lyons, NE and was reported in their July 2008 Newsletter.

Neither party has demonstrated real commitment to ensuring that rural people – who contribute so much to the nation’s prosperity – share in it. Neither party seems to understand that America will never be as strong as it can be until all of America has the opportunity to share in building wealth, assets, and prosperity.

This is why states like Colorado are now considered Swing States and maybe rue the decision they made in 2004 to reject proportional representation in the electoral college.

The real problem with both parties is that they have defined agriculture as Big Ag, Corporate Farming and are suckered into bad decisions by the lucrative cash contributions from the likes of Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra or Cargill. The Center of Rural Affairs concluded:

...to date in this election and every election for the last generation, neither party has demonstrated that it will fight for ordinary rural people. The party that finally does can capture the rural margin it needs to win this election and many elections to come.

With that perspective, we have to turn to Obamanomics. David Leonheardt opined in the NY Times Magazine that this is a melding of the policies of Robert Rubin and Robert Reich, two Clinton administration cabinet members. That may be true on Wall Street, but if you are on Main Street in Lyons, NE these is a different tale. Obamanomics is all about supporting the same big ag policies as did the Bush administrations (both of them) and the Clinton's in between. Nicole Colson calls him the Senator from Ethanol-Land.


The problem for all the rest of us (who don't own stock on Cargill, ADM or ConAgra) is that these policies distort that markets for everything else: the bread we eat cost more as farmers switch from wheat to corn; eggs cost more as the price of feed has gone up radically. I used to pay $6.50 for a 50 lb bag of hen scratch that was mostly corn. Now, it is $10.95 and there is very little corn in the mix. You get the picture. It is the same for almost everything we eat and drink where the labels include "high fructose corn syrup." (aside... maybe we will all lose a little weight if the stop adding that stuff to soft drinks.).

Corn producers and their marketers would love to connect corn and cheaper gas prices in the voters minds. It is good for their business, if bad for the economy as a whole. According to Colson's particle...

In April, ADM announced that its quarterly profits had risen 42 percent, largely thanks to biofuels. Unsurprisingly, ADM CEO Pat Woertz told investors, "Biofuels are a real solution to a real problem. To retreat from biofuels is wrong."

You get the picture. What is good for ADM is good for America.

The first problem with all this corn based ethanol is that it does not solve our number one environmental problem. It may be even more polluting that burning petroleum products for transportation. The second problem is that these big corporations will get bigger and more profitable while rural America continues to lose family farms and small towns wither and die in the heat of government subsidized markets.

The answers for all of these connected problems is right in the Green Party Platform, even the one from 2004. We don't need corn base ethanol. We don't need factory farms. We do need strong local, regional sources of food that does not have to be shipped half way round the world just so you can enjoy fresh peaches in January. Maybe, we need a little self restraint in our demands, but that is also a Green idea.

Green everywhere should be taking our story to the boondocks. We just might find people who understand what we are talking about and, if we stay on this message, we just might become the party that will fight for ordinary rural people. It is clear that no one else is doing that.

Carbon Cycle

The Carbon Cycle is not some new exotic mountain bike. Still, like a mountain bike in rough terrain, we are headed for a wild ride if we don't know what we are doing... and there is plenty of evidence that we don't.


Eric Roston's new book, The Carbon Age, gives a chilling story of why the carbon cycle is at the center of everything. His carefully chosen subtitle is How Life's core element has become civilization's greatest threat. I would recommend this book to everyone who is not convinced of the danger's of greenhouse gas accelerated global warming and who has an open mind.

If you can be convinced, this book will do it in such detail that you wonder what the professional deniers, especially politicians like Sen. James Inhofe (D. OK) or Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R. CA) are going. They pass themselves off as intelligent, educated people and so must really have decided that they don't really want to know anything about science and the future.

While I am disappointed in the role that politicians are playing, as they run their messages through focus groups looking for the words that will get themselves elected, as they talk about global warming and build their candidacies on policies that can only make matters worse, I am even more disappointed in the 4th Estate, a press that allows them to get away with it.

Here one good example of what I am talking about:

August 13, 2008. KGO-TV (ABC in San Francisco) based their story on a poll that examined the impact that the price of gas is having on Bay Area families. While that is news-worthy, they have obviously not gone beyond soliciting responses to this very particular question.

Responsible journalism would also give consideration to the well established fact that there is a connection between gasoline usage (as well as other combustion source) and the changes we are seeing in climate, changes that are lightning quick in terms of geological time. But that was not the story.

However, if you read the comments made by those responding to the poll you might see why the Democrats are in such a quandary over energy policy. I need only quote one.

It's time to tell the 'environmentalists' to SHUT UP and use our natural resources. As long as we're dependent on foreign oil we're going to have this problem. We have the oil; let's use it. Also- car manufacturers should make cars more efficient.

The public is obviously not getting the real message. This commenter seems to believe that the US have enough oil to solve the gasoline problem, (We don't.) or that setting up a program to drill offshore or in the Arctic will pay immediate benefits. (It won't.) Some, maybe those who would bother to read Roston's book, understand just how precarious our situation is, but only those who already understand would be likely to read The Carbon Age.

I want to see our media start connecting the dots... transportation to global warming to the question of gasoline prices and drilling for more oil. Maybe, we need our newspapers to start asserting themselves with a dose of truth. Tell it like it is, not like the public wants it to be.

I wonder how the survey results would have changed had they asked this question. If you knew that increasing the supply of petroleum now would cost America $3 Trillion to mitigate the effects of global warming that it will cause, would that change your position? Of course, with Exxon-Mobil sponsoring convention coverage we should not expect aggressive television journalism or the truth from politicians.

There are many small decisions being made every day and the tyranny of those decisions will be devastating.

Near the end of The Carbon Age, Roston asks us to imagine a not so distant future.

...forty years from now some of those Americans living a lower quality of life may wonder about the generation that knew they had it all and set decline in motion, unfazed. Ours will be a generation of narcissism. Each of us is competitive with Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned, frittering away time on bread and circuses. Each of us is Tsar Nicholas II, whose attention to traumatic personal circumstances -- am ill son -- distracted him form his empire, crumbling toward what would become the Soviet dictatorship. The climate debates stands at an analogous point. There is still hope that industrialized nations can transfer civilization on to an energy system that will not scorch the earth.

While all eyes are on the Olympics...

Georgia and Russia decided to start a war that they thought no one would notice.

The California State Legislature can't come up with a budget and it hardly makes the news. Michael Phelps is much more important. Then, when was the last time our legislature passed a budget on time.

While attention is diverted elsewhere, politicians know that they can do whatever they want and the results are not pleasant. To see the list, click read more below.


To begin with, SB 1806, Lois Wolk's proposal to protect the California Delta and it's fisheries, died in the State Senate by an 18 - 2- vote. According to a release from Dan Bacher (Ed. The FishSniffer) the failure was devastating.

The bill would have required fish rescue contingency plans in the event of future fishery disasters like the one that took place at Prospect Island in the northern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in November 2007. During last year's fish kill, thousands of striped bass, Sacramento blackfish, Sacramento splittail, black bass, bluegill, catfish, threadfin shad and other species perished after the Bureau of Reclamation drained the island during a levee repair operation.

There is much more on this at Water4Fish.org.

The Governor Ahnuld is rightfully keeping some focus on the lack of a State Budget. However, we need to watch this carefully. Real problems will arise when we begin to unravel the compromises that were reached in order to get on approved. Since Republican votes are needed, it would not be unlikely that those Republicans from the Central Valley will only vote for one if they get the new dams that they want, along with the Peripheral Canal that the Governor wants.

My problem is that we don't need new dams and the peripheral canal is the right solution to the wrong problem. If we allow the problem to be defined solely in terms of protecting our future water needs, then the battle is over, the Salmon fisheries are dead and the only thing that smells worse than a dead salmon is a back room deal in Sacramento.

Restore the Delta has a new action alert out today that lists the reasons we should reject the peripheral canal and the water bond that seems to be destined for our next election.

1. The peripheral canal will not solve the crisis in the Delta or make more water for California.
2. There are bond funds left from previous to begin doing the work needed to protect Delta levees.
3. The Department of Water Resources, while working on projects on behalf of the State Water Contractors, fails to answer for the people of the Delta "How much fresh water is required for the health of the Delta estuary?"
4. The peripheral canal will not restore fish populations.
5. Theperipheral canal will destroy the $ 2 billion Delta agricultural economy.
6. This water bond will not help to protect the lives and property of the 400,000 people living in the Delta.
7. We want a water bond that would support aggressive water conservation measures, regional ground water clean up and desalinization projects, ground water banking in historic floods plains, regional reservoirs to support ground water banking, water recycling, and projects making use of storm water runoff. Employing new technologies, rather than clinging to outdated methods, will give us more water to work with in California for people and fish.

What can this out of power Green Party do to prevent this? We can start by calling Arnold, Sen. Diane Feinstein and your own state legislators.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841

Senator Diane Feinstein:

• San Francisco One Post Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 393-0707 Fax: (415) 393-0710

• Los Angeles 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 915 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 914-7300 Fax: (310) 914-7318

• San Diego 750 B Street, Suite 1030 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-9712 Fax: (619) 231-1108

What do the Danes and the Chinese have in common?

If all you are doing is following the Olympics, you might think it is only badminton or table tennis. However, the real answer is wind. In my previous post, I cited the NY Times editorial call for a sane energy policy. I also mentioned an OpEd by Thomas Friedman. It deserves a separate reference.

Friedman is always looking at the world as though you can tell the future by watching the way international commerce work. I don't want to debated that. However, in his OpEd Sunday, he compares the very practical Danish energy policy with that of the US. There are two very clear points of difference.

First, they view high gasoline prices as a good thing...

“I have observed that in all other countries, including in America, people are complaining about how prices of [gasoline] are going up,” Denmark’s prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, told me. “The cure is not to reduce the price, but, on the contrary, to raise it even higher to break our addiction to oil. We are going to introduce a new tax reform in the direction of even higher taxation on energy and the revenue generated on that will be used to cut taxes on personal income — so we will improve incentives to work and improve incentives to save energy and develop renewable energy."

The second is that America, lacking political leadership, is asleep at the switch while other countries are making substantial progress in solving our real problems, not teasing votes from commuters with promised that won't be fulfilled. Here is how Friedman cites one interviewee.

Ditlev Engel, the president of Vestas — Denmark’s and the world’s biggest wind turbine company — told me that he simply can’t understand how the U.S. Congress could have just failed to extend the production tax credits for wind development in America.
>
> Why should you care?
>
> “We’ve had 35 new competitors coming out of China in the last 18 months,” said Engel, “and not one out of the U.S.”

Friedman does not mince word about politicianss.

Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. (And it didn’t happen by Danish politicians making their people stupid by telling them the solution was simply more offshore drilling.)

I guess I am not the only one who thinks the Republican magic formula is stupid.

Even the NY Times gets it.

There were two recent items in the NY Times Editorial pages regarding US energy policy. One was an editorial, the other a column by Thomas Friedman. I have cited Friedman before, not always in a complementary manner. However, this time they both have the correct ideas. It is too bad that our presumptive presidential candidates don't read that paper. Maybe they are both like George W. Bush in that regard.

Of course, I always have more to say.

A toxic combination of $4 gasoline, voter anxiety and presidential ambition is making it impossible for this country to have the grown-up conversation it needs about energy.

That is the manner in which the NY Times starts it's editorial. That is also the point I made in my previous post on the stupidity of the McCain / Obama campaigns.

The Times editorial concludes:

Here is the underlying reality: A nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while possessing less than 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump, much less self-sufficiency. The only plausible strategy is to cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources. This is a point the honest candidate should be making at every turn.

If there is to be an alternative, it will have to come from the honest politicians of the Green Party. I am excited that Rosa Clemente was quoted in a yet to be uploaded press release from the GP today.

Green candidates and leaders called Barack Obama's and John McCain's positions on energy policy, gas prices, and global warming a capitulation to corporate lobbies, and urged adoption of the Green Party's plan to reduce fossil fuel consumption, generate new jobs in conservation and new energy sources, and curb the advance of climate change.

We need to have all GP Candidates hammering at the energy issue and the patronizing political playacting of the major party campaign.

Everyone who reads this should be writing their local papers, supporting the Green position and pointing out the lack of respect that Obama and McCain have for voters, playing us for losers and that is what we will all be if either are elected.

Do You Follow your Budget?

One of the other writers at my home town newspaper, the Morgan Hill Times, fired a salvo at the legislature over the lack of a California State Budget. I don't always agree with Lisa Pampuch, but I do on this one. And it gave me a couple of ideas.


I would have loved to see a GP Press Release on this issue have been equally hard on the legislature as it was on Arnold. To begin with this problem has been in the making for a long time. The legislature is filled with bright people. They knew what was happening and chose to play politics rather than to take care of the people's business. Every action has been chosen in order to gain re-election (for you party if you are bing term limited out). Rather than seek any kind of compromise that will work, they choose to posture and preen and issue meaningless press releases that are aimed at getting votes, not at telling us the truth of the matter.

The second idea comes from the fact that Lisa suggested that we all take our had at trying to set up a budget for California. The basic information and a model is there to play with at the Next10 site.

We all say that the Green Party could do a better job. Well, lets prove it. Let's get our best minds to work on developing a proposed Green budget for California. Use the Next10 site. Then, defend it against any and all critics. If you think you have it down, let me know and I will give it a front page post and everyone can let you know what they think of it.

Any takers?

Campaign Stupidity

The Democratic Party has developed a terrible energy policy, and it is being pushed on the local level by Democratic Party office holders around the country. Just about the only thing that I have seen that is worse is the one being pushed by the Republicans, starting with Presidential Candidate John McCain.

It appears that neither policy was developed from an understanding of science, or of economics. Rather, using the best methods of Madison Avenue, they have taken focus group results and polls to determine what it takes to get elected. They must think that voters are stupid... and they may be right. Of course, I have more to say on the matter.

Bryan Caplan warned us about the Myth of the Rational Voter. It is subtitled Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies . According to Caplan, most voters do not truly understand the manner in which science, or economics works in the real world. As a result the policies that have the greatest immediate satisfaction will be chosen without regard for long term consequences.

When politicians use that in order to structure position and policies the result is frequently catastrophic. Basing energy policy on the need to lower gasoline prices is idiocy, but that is what both candidates appear to be doing.

For all practical purposes, the Earth on which we live is a closed material system. The rate at which we might pick up dust from the interstellar void is minuscule in relation to the rate at which civilization is using it. When the material in question is is carbon, linked with a few hydrogen and oxygen atoms, you are dealing with the very basis of life and had damned will better get it right if life as we know it is to survive.

I am just now reading The Carbon Age by Eric Roston. It is a very new book, I was the first to check it out from our public library, and is the first that I have seen to address the reasons why we need to be very, very careful. Roston subtitled this book with care: How Life's Core Element has Become Civilization's Greatest Threat.

Roston takes us through the reasons carbon has always been so essential to life and always has been. The entire history of the earth may be interpreted as a series of changes in the carbon cycle. Until recently, the important players were never mammals, but bacteria and algae, transforming the carbon cycle over billions of years to create the conditions under which life as we know it could prosper. We experiment with this mechanism at our own parallel. Unfortunately, we have been engaged in an uncontrolled experiment for the last two centuries.

The key to all energy is the sun, but Barack Obama is now telling us that we need to increase domestic production of petroleum in order to grow our economy. He gives a lot of talk about developing alternative energy source, but it never goes beyond talk. When it is necessary to put together a real plan, funded by our taxes, the results are predictably more oil, more coal and more global warming. It seem that the only change he is really trying to foster is Climate Change.

The Democrats would have us believe that we can lower gasoline prices by selling off a portion of America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The only strategy they have is to get elected. What is strategic about tapping the reserve now and replenishing it at a higher price later? What is strategic about depleting this reserve and the having a major hurricane take out substantial offshore capacity in the Gulf of Mexico or to lose the capacity of the Alaskan Pipeline? What would we do then, pray tell?

John Kerry tried this approach in 2004. The voters did not buy it then and they will see through it now. Still, that is about all that Pelosi and the House Democrats that think of, beginning with Mike Thompson (CA-1) and even including Jerry McNerney, (CA-14) who should know better. Thompson's July 14 press release states it clearly.

Allow for additional withdrawals from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to increase domestic supply. The SPR is currently at 98% capacity, and reducing it slightly to 90% would immediately increase supply, reduce prices and still maintain a substantial amount of reserve;

The Republicans would do more. Their mantra seems to be drill here, drill now. Drill in Alaska and on the storm vulnerable outer continental shelf. Again, given that petroleum is a finite resource what is the rationality in using it up as fast as we can. That is showing real faith in our future abilities to develop alternatives when we need then since we won't be working on the soon.

Again, California has two stupid approaches to this evidenced by two Republican Congressmen. First, there in Wally Herger (CA-2) who was given a Lifetime Membership in the Obscure Caucus by Roll Call Magazine. That is for politicians who make themselves invisible in Washington. With Herger's understanding of Energy Policy that may be a good thing.

The other is Dana Rohrabacher. He became famous for his use of the term dinosaur flatulence in discussing global warming. His other take is one of distraction. With global warming being called a "security threat" by none other than the US Military, Rohrabacher is would have us invest our money in sci-fi efforts to save us all from a cosmic collision. Both are catastrophic event. The difference is that one is has a low probability if we don't act and the other is a certainty.

Green party presidential candidate Kent Mesplay had the right idea when he said that he wanted public officials who treat science with respect and who actually work to make us more secure rather than catering to their favorite businesses."

Even the US Department of Energy gets it right. I suggest reading a very recent public presentation by Dr. Patricia Dehmer, Deputy Director for Science Programs, Office of Science, DOE. It is in the form of a power point formatted program review for an advisory committee. Beginning at chart 10 is a short summary of all of the energy produced and used in the US, where it comes from and where it goes. Slide 18 outlines the requirements for improvements in Energy / Environment Solutions.

• Zero-Net-Emission Electricity Generation
• Fuel Switching (to renewables)
• CCS (carbon capture and sequestration)
• Electric Energy Storage
  
• Electricity Transmission and Distribution
• Fuel Switching (from oil)
• End-use Efficiency (incandescent bulb efficiency < 2%)
  
• Conservation

I would say that voters can understand this. I wonder about our potential future presidents. They give lip service to dealing with climate change while continuing the failed energy policies of Bush and Co. This is not change I can believe in.

Red, Blue and Green

Here are a couple of things that I find amazing. To begin with, the Democrats are allowing the Republicans to define the issues regarding energy. This is not just my opinion. Dave Roberts at Gristmill is starting to take this seriously. First, he commented that the Republican are bluffing on drilling. Then, he complained, like I have just done, that the Democrats are allowing the to get away with it. According to Roberts you should "never let your enemy choose the battlefield."

I could not agree more, and forwarded that to my Congressman, Democrat Jerry McNerney... known around here as McWind for his background working as a wind energy consultant. But that is just the beginning. I have more to say.


To begin with, the most well known oilman in the country is telling everyone that this is one problem that you can't drill your way out of. I am talking about T. Boone Pickens who is buying a lot of ad time and, in effect, telling us all that Republicans like Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) are just trolling for votes with their talk of offshore drilling. At least, Pickens recognizes the scope of the problem and says that he has a plan.

At least, Pickens provides the best evidence that McCain and the rest of the Republicans have concluded that the public is a bunch of fools and easily bamboozled. They went out, took a poll and found out that people hate the high gas prices. So, they offer a 19th Century solution for a 21st Century problem. This issue by itself tells me McCain has no bleeping idea about what this country needs to do.

On the other hand, we have Obama shilling for renewable, especially corn based ethanol. This is as bad as McCain in that he seems to know there is a problem and chooses to use the problem to buy votes rather than to actually do what we need.

My bigger question is that of where is the Green Party. We need to be out telling people the true story every chance we get, but I don't see it. We have absolutely the best opportunity to hammer home that the demagogues in our major parties are all tuned in to sound bites and image projections. If there were ever a situation that makes the perfect argument for 3rd parties, this is it. Yet, as the one party that does not have to put on an act to have Green in our name, we are silent.

Cynthia, what are you going to do about this? We don't need to hear about 911 any more. There are bigger problems. It may not be the issue on which you are the most comfortable but it is one big issue on everyone's minds and both Republican and Democrats are treating us like they think we are fools.

Carol Wolmann, Barry Hermanson, Carol Brouillet, Peter Meyers, Tom Lash; are you attacking your opponents over their lame energy pollicies? Why not?

Mike Thompson (CA-1) takes the Democratic Party line on Energy. From his latest release:

• Allow for additional withdrawals from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to increase domestic supply. The SPR is currently at 98% capacity, and reducing it slightly to 90% would immediately increase supply, reduce prices and still maintain a substantial amount of reserve;
• Work with Congress to take aim at speculators who are artificially increasing the cost of oil, and;
• Require oil companies to use existing oil and gas leases, which according to the Department of Interior covers nearly 70 million acres – roughly the size of Colorado – and are estimated to have billions of barrels of recoverable oil.

If you read Dave Roberts, you know that this is a dumb strategy but it is what their playbook says to do.

Jackie Spier (CA-12) has not been around long enough to have much to say, but at least she has an idea. Change the speed limit so that we burn less gas per mile. My experience driving 101 is that we don't enforce the speed limit now. How, pray tell, is this going do anything more than than allow her to tell her constituents that she is doing something.

Anna Eshoo is so oblivious to the problem that her Congressional Web Site talks about the Caliofornia Energy Crisis on 2000, 2001. Maybe, though, of the entire list of House Candidates with Green opponents, she is might do the least harm just because she is doing nothing.

Mike Honda (CA-15) is not even there yet. Here is his plan to make it easier to find and burn more oil. Again, he is solving the Republican's problem.

1. speeding the development of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) by requiring the Secretary of Interior to offer at least one lease sale annually in the NPR-A.
2. reinstating a ban on the foreign export of Alaskan oil.
3. incorporating the ‘Use It or Lose It’ legislation, which simply requires oil producers to drill on the leases they already have or relinquish them so that another company can produce the oil there.
4. calling on the President to use the powers of his office to facilitate the completion of oil pipelines into the NPR-A and to facilitate the construction of a Alaska natural gas pipeline to the continental United States to move the product to market.
   

Now, for Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) who we know is hopeless. Again, he has a plan to burn more oil more quickly than anyone else.

...the American Energy Act. The bill – a product made possible by energy policies proposed by Members throughout the House Republican Conference – will increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote new and expanding energy technologies to help lower the price at the pump and reduce America’s increasingly costly and dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Not a single one of these Congress Critters, all with Green Party opponents, makes a modicum of sense. Since our candidates are not making this a major issue, let's do it for them.

We need to have letters goign to the editor of every newspaper in each of these districts, especially the local community weeklies. We have a much greater chance of being printed that way.

T. Boone Pickens tells the truth. This is not a problem that you can drill your way out of. Neither his problem (money spent on foreign oil) nor the greater problem of global warming can wait for a solution. Time to give 'em all a little Hell.

And to all of you who are worried about that spoiler issue, here is the perfect example of why we need to have more than two parties. At least, Greens are going to tell you the truth.

Failure of political leadership

I anyone wants to fully understand the failure of political leadership in Washington over the past 30 years, you have only to watch President Jimmy Carter's address to the nation on Energy.

If the problem that Washington is trying to solve is the high price of gasoline, then we will continue to experience the consequences of continued failure. Think of that as you listen to the rhetoric of our presidential candidates.

Yet another canal

As I noted in the previous two posts, the Public Policy Institute of California has just released a new report that is being used by everyone who has a mega-project idea for the solution to California's Water Problems. Today, it was the subject of the first hour of discussion on Forum (KQED's call in talk show). Panel consisted of:

• Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director for Restore the Delta
• Ellen Hanak, associate director and senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California
• Jeff Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
• Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute

It was a very informative hour. The biases were easy to see. I was glad that Peter Gleick made the point that the environmental view is a weak player in the game of allocating water. The PPIC Report calls for the abandonment of many acres of prime farm land.

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla did a good job of pointing out the economic issues that had not been considered in the report.

I would urge everyone to listen to the report later in the day or tomorrow. It is not yet available online, but will be.

PPIC Report on the Delta - Words Fail Me.

When words fail me, I should get professional help. In the case, the professional help is from Dan Bacher, Editor of Fishsniffer. I quote an early copy on the jump as the Fishsniffer does not have it up on the web site yet.


Stephen Bechtel Jr. Funds Peripheral Canal Report!

by Dan Bacher

The people and foundations who fund "scientific" reports and studies often reveal what is the real agenda behind the publishing of any document.

A new Public Policy Institute (PPIC) report recommending the construction of a peripheral canal on the California Delta, "Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," was released yesterday with wild acclamation by the Governor and the state's water contractors, since it "scientifically" justifies the destruction of the West Coast's largest estuary by building a canal.

Little noticed in the media reports was where the funding came from. According to the PPIC's press release: "The new report, Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, builds on the findings of a 2007 PPIC study by the same team, which concluded that the need for a new Delta strategy is urgent. The new report was funded in part by Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation."

Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. (born 1925) is, with his son Riley, co-owner of the Bechtel Corporation. He is the son of Stephen David Bechtel, Sr. and grandson of Warren A. Bechtel who founded the Bechtel Corporation, the world's largest engineering firm.

Bechtel Corporation, one of the world's largest engineering and construction firms that is instrumental in the "reconstruction" of Iraq, is a leading advocate throughout the world of the privatization of water systems. It was Bechtel that sued the country of Bolivia for canceling a contract there sponsored by the World Bank.

A CorpWatch report, "Profiting from Destruction," provides case studies from Bechtel's history of operating in the water, nuclear, energy and public works sectors. These case studies reveal a legacy of unsustainable and destructive practices that have reaped permanent human, environmental and community devastation around the globe. Letters from "Bechtel affected communities" included in the report provide first-hand descriptions of these impacts, from Bolivia to Native American lands in Nevada. The report reveals a 100-year history spent capitalizing on the most brutal technologies, reaping immense profits and ignoring the social and environmental costs. For more information, go to http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6975

Another CorpWatch report, http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6670, details "Bechtel's Water Wars" in Bolivia. Fortunately, the people of Cochabama rebelled against Bechtel's scheme to privatize their water system and won.

The role of Stephen Bechtel, Jr. in funding the PPIC report must be exposed. Are the scientists who authored this report aware of Bechtel's record of devastation across the globe? And will Bechtel profit from the destruction of the California Delta fish, farms and people if a peripheral canal is built? These are both questions that must be asked!

Central Valley chinook salmon and Delta fish populations are in a state of collapse, largely due to massive increases in water exports from the Delta in recent years. A broad coalition of recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, Delta farmers, Indian Tribes and environmentalists is opposed to the peripheral canal because it would result in the diversion of more water from the Delta and further exacerbate the current fishery collapses.

The PPIC report amounts to being an "elaborate sales brochure" for the peripheral canal, quipped Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. I completely agree, especially when you consider who is funding the report!

PPIC Report on the delta appear biased.

I had planned to write a post today about the real need to protect biodiversity. However events changed my plans. You are already seeing the spin machine going to work to sell the peripheral canal concept. The most recent action is the release of a new report by the Public Policy Institute of California, a supposedly non-partisan (but not necessarily non-biased) think tank that does what someone will pay them to do.


This PPIC report, especially with the current drought in question, is getting a lot of play on the television news. Most of it comes without any commentary from those with opposing view, of which there are many.

Restore the Delta had published their own position just prior to the PPIC report's publication. It was an update commenting on the work that had been going on in Sacrament. However, things changed rapidly. Almost as soon as the PPIC report was available, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla issued a rejoinder that has yet to receive proper media attention.
I cite this press release in it's entirety as it is not yet up on their web site.

Press Release from Restore the Delta

Stockton, California
July 17th, 2008

Restore the Delta
PO Box 691088
Stockton, CA 95269
RestoretheDelta.org

Contact: Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla
Phone: 209-479-2053

BAD ASSUMPTIONS LEAD TO FAULTY ANSWERS FOR THE DELTA: RESTORE THE DELTA QUESTIONS PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE REPORT CALLING FOR A PERIPHERAL CANAL


Stockton, California -- Restore the Delta, a Delta-based coalition including Delta farmers, environmentalists, everyday citizens, fishermen, business leaders, the faith community, and recreation enthusiasts, is calling into questions many of the findings in the Public Policy Institute's Navigating the Delta, a report calling for a peripheral canal.

First, longtime Delta advocate, Tom Zukerman, notes that the report's conclusion that Delta islands with highways were worth saving, while others are not worth maintaining, is an unrealistic conclusion. "How can one maintain any semblance of land form, so as to protect highway structures, with an ocean essentially in the middle of a few islands? For that matter, without the semblance of land forms in the Delta, how would water and gas lines, the railroad, and shipping channels remain protected?"

Central Delta Water Agency's Dante Nomellini further explains that the inter-relationship between Delta islands extends to seepage, wind-wave generation, and fishery and wildlife habitat. "One cannot simply flood islands without adversely affecting the ecosystem and infrastructure on the surrounding islands," says Nomellini.

Second, Restore the Delta Board Press President Bill Loyko questions how constructing a peripheral canal could possibly solve water needs throughout the state. "A peripheral canal, first and foremost will not make more water. The present problem with California's water system is that it is short 5 million acre-feet of water annually to meet current state needs. Rerouting water will not solve that problem." Loyko also asserts that the report's call for building a peripheral without limits in size is merely the means by which to take away the Delta's last major fresh water source, and thereby would worsen Delta water quality.

Third, Restore the Delta's Campaign Director, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, adds that the report's analysis of water quality is also faulty. "Their analysis assumes that water flowing into and out of the Delta remains unchanged when the point of diversion is changed. But everyone who lives, works, and recreates in the Delta knows that with less fresh water flowing through the Delta, more salt water will intrude into local waterways."

In fact, the report makes a highly inaccurate assumption that water quality would improve for farmers near the San Joaquin River. Barrigan-Parrilla says that the report's authors have not engaged in any conversations with local Delta experts, South Delta farmers - some of whom have lived on the land for ninety years.

Barrigan-Parrilla also adds that such changes in water quality to the Delta will result in economic chaos for the region. "Neither the PPIC Report authors nor officials with the State have done a full-scale economic analysis of how a change in water quality with the operation of a peripheral canal would impact farming, recreation, or fisheries. It is estimated that Delta farming alone contributes $2 billion per year to our local economy, and recreation like boating and fishing another $750 million. If the Delta is made into a salty inland sea the economic impacts will be devastating to those living in the surrounding five counties of the Delta."

Last, Restore the Delta Board Member, Betsy Reifsnider, notes problems with the report's conclusions regarding governance for the Delta and how these conclusions mirror problems with the Delta Vision Strategic Draft Plan. Reifsnider explains, "The PPIC Report concludes that consensus regarding Delta management cannot be reached. While that statement may be true on the surface, it unfortunately is a polite way of saying that local Delta experts should be left out of governance decisions." Reifsnider also adds that the Delta Vision process is calling for a governance council for the Delta comprised solely of governor appointees. "Where do Delta locals have the opportunity to assist with governing the Delta?" asks Reifsnider. "After all, who knows the Delta best?"

All contributors are available for interviews.

About Restore the Delta

Restore the Delta is a grassroots campaign committed to making the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta fishable, swimmable, drinkable, and farmable to benefit all of California. Restore the Delta - a coalition of Delta residents, business leaders, civic organizations, community groups, faith-based communities, union locals, farmers, fishermen, and environmentalists - seeks to strengthen the health of the estuary and the well-being of Delta communities. Restore the Delta works to improve water quality so that fisheries and farming can thrive together again in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Website: http://www.restorethedelta.org

Restore the Delta
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla
email: barbara@restorethedelta.org
phone: 209-479-2053

Barbara raises the substantive issues. We also have to look at the possible bias of the team that put this together. One of the "funders" of the study was Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. Bechtel, along with his son Riley, is Co-Owner of Bechtel Corporation. The history of Bechtel Corporation in dealing with water is one of aggressive privatization, back room deals to support no-bid contracts (just like in Iraq). They even had the audacity to start charging farmers in Ecuador and Bolivia for the water that fell on the farm because that was water that Bechtel claimed was their's by contract and which was to be resold to cities. Bechtel sued the government of Bolivia when they voided the contract.

Bechtel lost the suit. But this illustrates that manner in which they would be expected to deal with the Delta. The PPIC report un-surprisingly came to the conclusion that a peripheral canal was required and who would be in a better position to build, own and operate such a facility?

Something smells like dead fish.

This is a time when I hope that Greens all over this state will lose no time in contacting their local media and demanding that they note the potential bias in the PPIC report and that they allow Restore the Delta to offer the counter arguments.

Come to think of it, I did write a post about biodiversity. If Bechtel and the PPIC "experts" carry the day, the delta will become a very different place and we will have all lost.

Cynthia McKinney is Nominated

Saturday, July 12th

Cynthia McKinney Accepts Green Party Nomination

Cynthia McKinney won the Green Party nomination for President of the United States at the Nominating Convention in Chicago in the 1st round of voting Saturday evening.

NEWS ADVISORY: THE GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA

CHICAGO – The progressive left chose its new candidate for President Saturday when former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney – now a resident of California – was tabbed as Green Party's candidate for President at the Green Party Presidential Nominating Convention here. She won on the first ballot, garnering 313 of 532 votes cast.

"This was an amazing phenomenon. The nomination of Cynthia and her vice president running mate Rosa Clemente demonstrate the growing strength of the Green Party. Let there be no doubt now who speaks for the progressive left in this country," said David Cobb, the 2004 Green Party nominee for President, who resides in Eureka, CA.

"We are getting stronger with every election and with candidates of the caliber of Cynthia and Rosa, we have leadership from constituencies we have not had in the past," Cobb added. Clemente, a hip hop activist and journalist, accepted the vice-president nomination

There was, indeed, amazing energy and excitement in the nominating convention in Chicago Symphony Hall. We were witnessing history being made and everybody in the room knew it. 2008 has been an extraordinary election in these United States. Yes, it has been, though not necessarily as the story is told by the mainstream media (MSM). Both mainstream political parties have emphatically rejected the Bush-Clinton-Bush status quo. However, evidence is piling up in an avalanche that both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are unwilling and/or unable to turn their respective political camps from driving this nation (and the world) over a cliff. As the brilliant Green Party activist, Malik Rahim, noted in his keynote address, irregardless of how the votes fall in November, and no matter what they say about us in the clueless MSM, we have "already won" by helping to jump start the international Green Movement in the united States.

Excerpt from McKinney Acceptance Speech:

And when I got to Washington, I saw that public policy is really made in a room at a table. There were real seats at the table. Well, imagine what has happened to public policymaking now. There is a real room with a window and a door, and there’s two seats at the table. The window is for us to look through, while our representatives make policy for us, so we can see what they’re doing. At the table, one seat is for the Democrats, one seat is for the Republicans. Now, we don’t know who did it, but one of them put a lock on the door and slipped a key to the corporate lobbyists who can come and go at will and whisper what they want to Democrats and Republicans, and the result is that we the people, who pay for those seats and determine who sits in them, want one thing, but because the corporate lobbyists can come and go at will, our values get overridden and our representatives give us something else. That’s how we end up with everyone saying they’re against the war and occupation, but war and occupation still gets funding. That’s how we end up with everyone saying they’re against illegal spying on innocent people, yet end up with a telecom immunity bill being signed into law. That’s how we end up with everyone saying they’re in favor of universal access to healthcare and no one supporting what the physicians, nurses and healthcare really want, and that’s a single-payer healthcare system in this country.

The Movement is key because no president, least of all a president from the one-corporate-race-obsessed-war-party-with-two names can turn things around from the top down.

Go Green!

Great Candidates -- Mesplay, Johnson, and Swift

Friday, July 11th

Candidates Forum

There was a delicious irony to the garish, ostentatious "Red Lacquer" ballroom of Chicago's old Palmer House Hotel being the setting for the final Green Party presidential candidate forum. This hotel is a monument to the First Gilded Age of corrupt capitalist wheeling 'n dealing. Today, my Green Party is the leading edge progressive voice speaking in the Second Gilded Age.

(Left to right) Kent Mesplay of California, Jesse Johnson of West Virginia, Kat Swift of Texas

By Friday evening, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was already the presumptive nominee. Accordingly, as I watched the three "minor candidates" ably fielded tough questions, I could not help but feel a certain pride in the depth and talent within the Green Party.



Dr. Ken Mesplay, California's favorite son, was the strongest on the environmental issues which are, after, the bright green center of our philosophy. I spoke with delegates from all around the country and it seems everyone, everywhere was impressed by Kent's knowledge and commitment.

Jesse Johnson, a bona-fide mountain man from West Virginia, has a towering presence. He spoke about the devastating effects of mountaintop removal by the rapacious coal industry. One thing I learned was that the Appalachian Mountains are the watershed for the rivers that supply drinking water to many states in the Southeast. The clogging and destruction of these waterways is a factor in the drought currently plaguing the Southeast. Johnson says what we need is not "the audacity of hope," but rather, the "audacity of truth." Johnson puts the lie to the pernicious Democrat-Republican mythology that all "working class white people" are racist reactionaries who can only be moved by an appeal to their fears (by the way, this mythology may yet cost the clueless Democrats another presidential election).

Kat Swift, our braided, blonde sister from Texas, is a young, tough activist with a lot of charm. She is smart. But she is open-minded and not too proud to admit she doesn't know it all. At one point, during a response to a question about energy, she joked that her "expert" on energy policy was Dr. Kent Mesplay. One question from the floor was about the touchy question of Israeli-Palestinian relations. Kat gave one of the wisest answers. She said that conversations with people on both sides of that bloody divide has convinced her that, in order to make peace, we have to go around the "leaders" with vested interests in maintaining the conflict and that the United States, of course, cannot be a so-called broker for peace while arming one side. Since this also happens to be my personal opinion, I thought her answer was very wise.

Mayor Daley Welcomes You to Chicago

Mayor Richard M. Daley Welcomes You to Chicago
--Sign in Chicago Midway Airport

Thursday, July 10th

Between the plane and the Orange Line subway train into the city, on my way to the Green Party National Convention, I had to read "Mayor Richard M. Daley" a dozen times. Daley is Chicago. Chicago is "Duh Mayah" -- perfect symbol for the primitive "Old Politics" we are here to organize against.

Thursday night there was a reception for international Greens. A brother from Brazil explained to us the difficulty of fighting for Greens issues there, reminding us that having a strong Green Party in the U.S. is absolutely essential since the U.S. is the 800-pound gorilla in the world, especially in the Western Hemisphere.


International Greens

One of the things I like about the Green Party is that, unlike the one warmaking imperial party with two names, the Greens are international. At the reception there was a tribute to Ingrid Betancourt, the Columbian Green activist.

The Brazilians say they like President Lula's social program, but environmentally. At a discussion afterwards, a few of our folks said they could not understand this. I replied that "This is why we need Greens. We need political leadership around the world that thinks Green." Even the best of the "Old Politics" leaders are going to be interested in "development" in their countries in the conventional way. Brazil is a big, poor country with a lot of "undeveloped" resources. Lula, like evey conventional politician, Left, Right, or Center, is wants to raise the standard of living in his country by the industrial exploitation of the nation's natural resources. That's just the way these guys think -- even the best of them.

There is going to be a workshop on NAFTA and the so-called North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) facillitated by Janet Eaton of the Green Party of Canada. Ms. Eaton is a foremost expert on water issues.

California Caucus

There was a California State Caucus Thursday night. We had heard rumors of credentials challenges. The good news is, for once, internal procedural issues have nothing to do with California. Thanks to our "Super Tuesday" primary, California has ben meticulous about certifying the elected delegates. We are going to cast 60% of our votes for Ralph Nader on the first ballot because that was the way the Californians voted in the primary. I have no problem with that at all. There is this thing called "democracy" that ought to be respected. Some states, apparently, only came up with lists of delegates this week. One cheer for the Golden State.

This morning I plan to attend a meeting of the Black Caucus. I already met some interesting folks. At the reception an African-American journalist from Chicago and I had a good time swapping stories about crooked politicians in Chicago and L.A. He told me he has a higher of our Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger than the Democratic pols in Illinois. "At least Arnold will listen and sometimes change his mind. The politicians here will listen, thank you for your input... and then say 'F**k You!' That's Chicago poltiics."

Oh yeah... the "City that works."

In a fairly recent post, I mentioned the work done by climate paleontologist Dr. Jonathan Overpeck from the Univ. of Arizona Institute for the Study of Planet Earth. Overpeck was a member of the IPCC and did research on the role of climate change in causing drought in southwestern North America. It makes me think of our own future.


I wonder if our future is not being foretold by this story from the Melbourne, AU HeraldSun.

The once mighty Murray-Darling is now little more than a creek.

The Murray-Darling Basin Commission yesterday revealed that June inflows to the parched river system were the lowest on record.

Just 95 gigalitres flowed into the system last month, down from the previous low of 106 gigalitres in June 2006.

The average is 680 gigalitres.

The report backs up predictions that the Murray-Darling will be dry by the end of the century.
* In depth: The Big Dry

We have to be concerned, though I don't think that we are doing enough. Step 1. has to be based on energy use reductions. If that is not done, there is no step 2.

This 'Green Brotha' Going to Chicago

The Los Angeles Times published a timely editorial this week on the disgraceful handling of the mess at Martin Luther King/Harbor Hospital in Watts.

From the Los Angeles Times, Monday, July 7, 2008.
Editorial: Learning From a Death in Brooklyn

On June 19, surveillance cameras in a Brooklyn, N.Y., mental ward captured shocking images of a woman collapsing on the floor and lying there, untended by hospital workers, for an hour. She soon died.

The tape, released last week, touched a nerve in Los Angeles because the incident was reminiscent of the death of Edith Isabel Rodriguez at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital in May 2007. Rodriguez lay on the emergency-room floor as a janitor mopped around her. The description of her suffering, and of the indifference of hospital workers, silenced all but the most recalcitrant defenders of the mismanaged medical center...

I've made copies of the article (along with some others) to distribute when this "Green Brotha" goes to Chicago this weekend.

On Super Tuesday, when Mayor Villaraigosa, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Laura Richardson, and my Congresswoman Diane Watson were all busy campaigning for Hillary, I was elected a Cynthia McKinney delegate to the 2008 Green Party National Convention. When I get there, if anybody shoves an Obama poster in my face babbling about "change" I'll shove this in his face speaking truth about the status-quo in One-Party Democratic Los Angeles.




The Democratic Convention will have rousing speeches by hypocrites bloviating on health care. Michael Moore will be the toast of Denver for his "Sicko" documentary. But L.A. bosses (and their "Amen corner" among liberal intellectuals) won't talk about Edith Rodriguez at King-Harbor in Watts, Linda Brown at Brotman Medical Center in Culver City, or "Transplants-for-Crooks" at UCLA. They won't talk about patients dumped on skid row, or Dawnelle Keys' daughter dying while bean counters at King and Kaiser Permanente haggled over money, though those stories were featured in Moore's film.

Times investigators have discrovered that even since the sad closing of King/Harbor last summer, almost nothing has been done to discipline the perpetrators of this tragedy.

. . . It is also striking that action against employees in New York was swift. The director of psychiatry, the director of security and the doctor on duty were all fired within 24 hours of Green's death. No one was fired over the Rodriguez incident, and, in fact, a Times review of personnel data shows that hundreds of problem employees who were supposed to be swept out of the county health system remain on the job. Times staff writers Garrett Therolf and Jack Leonard reported that at least 22 workers with significant discipline histories at King still work at the clinics that remain open on the site of the hospital or at other county health facilities. County supervisors claim they had no idea. . .

Cynthia McKinney, all the other Green candidates, and Ralph Nader are speaking truth about the Democrats in Washington - and in Sacramento -- and right here in my town and yours.

Alex Walker
Los Angeles Greens
July 8, 2008

On Life in South Central Los Angeles

Think Green issues are for "elite" suburbanites? Think again. See below a brilliant statement about the quality of life in South Central Los Angeles by L.A. Green activist , Linda Piera-Avila. Ms. Piera testified before city planners in opposition to a proposed warehouse on the site of the South Central Urban Farm.

According to "No Place to Play," a report by The Trust for Public Land, two-thirds of children 18 and under in Los Angeles do not live within walking distance of a public park.

The study compared the number and percentage of children living within one-quarter mile of a park -- what's considered to be walking distance-in seven major metropolitan areas. With only one-third of children living near open space and 1.8 million children countywide lacking easy park access, Los Angeles fared worst among the areas evaluated.

According to Los Angeles City's website, www.lacity.org, there are 250 parks in the city of Los Angeles. Not one is sited in the 90058 zip code, the same zip code as the proposed warehouse project




A recent study by the California Air Resources Board found that in the South Coast air basin alone, particulate matter causes:

• 5400 premature deaths annually


• 2400 hospital admissions


• 980,000 Lost Work Days


• 140,000 cases of Asthma & Lower Respiratory

Symptoms

The estimated economic value of the health impacts of particulate and ozone pollution from these issues is $19 Billion annually statewide. The concentration of these health and economic impacts in certain communities versus others exacerbates the seriousness of this issue and also raises environmental justice concerns.

Clearly, approving a warehouse in an area already lacking in parks and open space exacerbates an already dire situation. Siting a token 2.5 acre soccer field immediately adjacent to a mega warehouse spewing copious amounts of diesel exhaust is counterproductive to children's health. A full environmental impact report (EIR) is warranted to assess the compounded impact of both the lack of parkland as well as the
potential for increased health, safety and economic risks that this project would pose on the neighboring residents. Additionally, environmental justice issues need to be acknowledged and evaluated in an EIR to ascertain whether or not residents of 90058 would shoulder an unfair burden of chemical, air and noise pollution, social effects of deprivation of open space, increased traffic congestion, and heightened
health and safety risks based on their economic status and ethnic background.

Thank you.

Linda Piera-Avila
Council Member Elect
Green Party of Los Angeles County

Fair pay for fair work.

The idea that information is free seems to be a mantra for the Internet. Some ask if that is not just a capitalist scheme to short change those who supply content... for free.

Consider Huffington Post. Paying their writers is "not our financial model" says the founder, Ken Lerer. Yet, time and again the progressives who loudly support Danny Glover and Unite Here, who march with the California Nurses Association when they strike over wages and benefits, have no qualms about using venues that do not pay the writer, or the reporter.

This argument was brought forward by Stephen Smoliar at The Rehearsal Studio. Smoliar is a scientist and writer by trade. The Rehearsal Studio is where he tries on / works out ideas that may or may not find their way into other content. His view is the progressivism has lost touch with the world of work.

Whether or not you agree with that, you have to pay attention to those who he cited in this post, especially Timothy Egan, whose NY Times blog entry, Save the Press, is quoted liberally. Egan is fighting for his job. He wants to be paid for doing what he does, as we all do. However, what he does is to write, and content is a commodity to be acquired and the lowest price and resold for what ever anyone can make out of it.

If any of those guys on the docks heard that I was now part of a profession that asked people to labor for nothing, they’d laugh in their lunch buckets — then probably shut The Huffington Post down. Doesn’t the “progressive” agenda, much touted on their pages, include a living wage?

So what is it about Huffington Post, or OpEdNews that makes them the model to be emulated? Well, it seems to be in the best tradition of the worst of Capitalism, to make money off the labor of someone else.

Is there a Green Solution? What we currently have are venues for private publishing (Green Party Watch or Green Commons if it gets revived???) and an attempt to build a social networking site for Greens. (Green Change.) Yet, I have no answer for my wife when she asks me how much I am making for all the time I spend here and would not my time be better spent completing the very long list of homeowner tasks that we have agreed must be done.

Environmental Justice

Why does it seem that every movement seems to have an ethnic / racial aspect to it? There are many who consider the environmental movement just a white person's gripe. When it comes to climate change, I don't see that as the reality. After all, the same climate will affect us all. In fact, it will affect mostly those who can not afford a shining palace on the hill.

That is the theme of a new video published by The New Republic. Go there to view it. There are some interesting non-conversations. I was surprised by several things. First, while the video and the story it tells is excellent, TNR provides the following as the front page link TNR TV: Finding Environmental Activists In the Most Unlikely Place

If the problem is going to affect the South Bronx more than it will Berkeley, then why consider that this is an "unlikely place" for environmental activists? Should not those with the problem be the ones who initiate change, who command attention, who define the solutions?

There is a role for the rest of us, to help, to join, to witness, but not to presume to know best what is good for "them." Such arrogance is what got us into most of the troubles we have. That is the arrogance of the George W. Bush who would rebuild New Orleans but not spend another dime to prevent that environmental catastrophe that will inevitably flood it again... along with a lot of the rest of the country.

Reliance on Washington and the big programs it always defines.. and then porks up... allows arrogance to continue unabated. More than anything, we need more local activism aimed at greening our own cities, our own block.

Here is a good example:

GoSolarMarin:

Early Fall of 2007 neighbors joined together to create GoSolarMarin, a program where communities and homeowners could benefit from a group purchase program to go solar.

Let's find a few more and add them to the list.

G8 must get down to our business

I need to tie a few apparently disconnected things together and hope that they make sense to someone besides myself. Please bear with me.

After my recent post on Tipping Points, Lisa commented:

"As a GP activist I try to focus on local issues where I can see some success: Ballona Wetlands, South Central Farm, getting IRV on the LA ballot, etc. too many issues, too little time!

What would you have city GP activists do about gas prices for rural folks, and everyone?"

That is a good question. I have to agree with Lisa that there are different actions for different situations and that one sized solutions will in this case fail us all.

We still have to pay a lot of attention to the fact that we just may be at a tipping point and that we here in California are going to be in need of triage before it is over. The warning could not be more clear than in this recent report from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Human activities are already changing the climate of the American West. This report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization (RMCO) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), drawn from 50 scientific studies, 125 other government and scientific sources, and our own new analyses, documents that the West is being affected more by a changed climate than any other part of the United States outside of Alaska. When compared to the 20th century average, the West has experienced an increase in average temperature during the last five years that is 70 percent greater than the world as a whole. Responding quickly at all levels of government by embracing the solutions that are available is critical to minimizing further disruption of this region's climate and economy. (emphasis mine).

The problem we have is that the general public can only solve one problem at a time and so they have decided that they one they want to solve is that of high gasoline prices. According to a Pew Research Study, even young people, women and so called liberals view the energy shortages that are driving up gasoline prices are more important than environmental considerations.

The public's changing energy priorities are most evident in the growing percentage that views increased energy exploration - including mining and drilling, as well as the construction of new power plants - as a more important priority for energy policy than increased conservation and regulation. Nearly half (47%) now rates energy exploration as the more important priority, up from 35% in February. The proportion saying it is more important to increase energy conservation and regulation has declined by 10 points (from 55% to 45%).

So, Lisa, I am not sure what you might do other than to keep spreading the word. But, if we don't fix this problem and do it quickly, there will be no more Ballona Wetlands. After all the hard work by many dedicated people, to lose it all must not be allowed.

I would ask that every political leader take the little exercise suggested by Dr. Jim Hansen (N.A.S.A.) to Prime Minister Fukuda as yet another G8 opens in Tokyo.

Finally, Prime Minister Fukuda, I would like to thank you for helping make clear to the other leaders of the eight nations the great urgency of the actions needed to address climate change. Might I make one suggestion for an approach you could use in drawing their attention? If the leaders find that the concept of phasing out all emissions from coal, and taking measures to ensure that unconventional fossil fuels are left in the ground or used only with zero-carbon emissions, is too inconvenient, then, in that case, they could instead spend a small amount of time composing a letter to be left for future generations.

This letter should explain that the leaders realized their failure to take these actions would cause our descendants to inherit a planet with a warming ocean, disintegrating ice sheets, rising sea level, increasing climate extremes, and vanishing species, but it would have been too much trouble to make changes to our energy systems and to oppose the business interests who insisted on burning every last bit of fossil fuels. By composing this letter the leaders will at least achieve an accurate view of their place in history.

There is a lot more in Dr. Hansen's letter. It summarizes just how important this is to us all. Lisa, if I have not convinced you that there is not other single issue more important than this, I have been a total failure.

Junk adrift

Thanks to the RSS feed from Aquafornia leading me to the LA Times, I finally wound my way to visit Junkcraft. While the site is mildly interesting, mostly from the sense of impending disaster that might confront the operators of Junk as they sail from Long Beach to Hawaii, or wherever the trade winds might blow them.

Take a quick look at the site and then think about this. We all know that there is a big area of the Pacific Ocean that is gathering a floating continent of plastic garbage. You know, all of those plastic duckies that some think it cute to send down our rivers as part of a good cause fund raiser, the plastic buckets left on the beach as families hurry back home, discarded water bottles that find ways down streams until they reach the ocean. At least, we should all know about it because it has been on television news.

It raises this question. Why do we need continued gimics like the voyage of the Junk to make us think, again and again, about what we are doing to this planet? Walt Kelly's Pogo said it best. "We have met the enemy, and they is us."

Remember, in the game of life, Mother Nature bats last.

When big government refuses to act.

There are several things going on regarding energy and climate change. One real question is that of what to do when big government fails to act. Architecture 2030 has the answer: local building codes.

If we have to do it ourselves, there are a number of guidelines that will get us part way there and hope to minimize the pain. However, the idea that there has to be any pain is a fabrication of those who have a vested interest in stopping change. A local architect in my home town, one who has won awards for their conversion of an old granary into a new office / commercial complex and meeting LEEDS certification in the process, told me that California Title 24 is the toughest requirement to meet. However, Architecture 2030 holds that Title 24 is still 10% below what we need to achieve for commercial buildings and 15-20% below what we need for residential.

Dr. Jim Hansen (NASA) tells us all that we don't have much time to act, 20 years after his first warning to Congress.

Tipping Points

Tipping point is an easy concept to mis-understand. The term itself is used so frequently that its real meaning is lost without some life experience to drive home the idea. Maybe this will do it.

I had a large rock in my yard. I discovered it's existence in an effort to plant a flowering, fruiting shrub called a pineapple guava or, more rightfully, feijoa. This rock weighed much more than I could lift, so I used the old Archimedian lever and finally got it up on end. Once I did, it decided to go to the other side, somewhat down a slope and there was nothing I could do to stop it. Thankfully, I was standing on the up hill side.

Now, apply this to our climate. We are approaching such a tipping point where the earth systems will go where they will go and, like the rock rolling down slope, there will be absolutely nothing we can do to stop it.

On ABC's World News last night, Charlie Gibson allowed NASA Scientist James Hansen to have the last word.

"The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation."

Even more unusual was the fact that they did not see the necessity to give any time to one of the usual list of naysayers on global warming. Yet, there is a large segment of the general public that is totally convinced that the actions of man are so puny that it can have no bearing on climate. For instance, the following posted by Jim_Dutton following this story.

This is an extreme example of totally irresponsible reporting...."Climate Change" is a natural phenomenon....has been for the entire history of the Earth. There is absolutely no credible evidence that MAN is the cause....as a matter of fact....the evidence is mounting day by day that shows this is part of a pattern that repeats itself every 30 years or so. It's called Pacific Decadal Oscillation.....the Northern Pacific Ocean has turned cold....called "La Nina"....and this winter and Spring is classic La Nina weather in the Midwest. It's also strongly affected by Solar intensity, which is decreasing. This is why for the past 10 years....the average temperature of the Earth has been DECREASING...but you won't hear that on the news, because it will make a lot of VIPs look stupid.People need to research this issue for themselves, and not believe the brainless reporting that the mainstream media regurgitates because they are too lazy to report both sides, or intentionally distort because a crisis is good for sales.If you're not a mindless drone to the media....go to www.icecap.us and read the hard evidence from the world's leading scientists who aren't corrupted by the viscous cycle of political funding.

Of course, this Jim_Dutton does not identify himself as a climatologist, or a meteorologist, or provide any other credentials. He just repeats the mantra of every petro industry sponsored pseduo-research the look for plausible theories to make themselves feel comfortable with non-action.

So, what does this have to do with the Green Party and GPCA?

For starters, we are about to go into a presidential nominating convention where the front runner, Cynthia McKinney, says little or nothing about this issue. With all of the focus on arousing righteous anger over the actions of Bush and Chaney, demanding his impeachment, a major opportunity for the Green Party to demonstrate leadership on a sinking ship will have gone by the wayside.

Here is a clue, Cynthia. The only people who will cast a vote for you on the basis of the impeachment issue are going to vote for you anyway. If you really want to grow this movement, you have to address those issues that are going to affect people and their daily lives. Impeachment does not make the list.

• The price of gasoline does.
• The disappearance of the middle class with falling home values, rising costs for necessities and stagnant wages makes the list.
• The failures our national infrastructure that puts lives at risk every day makes the list.
  
• LBJ fought two wars. A military conflict in Vietnam and the economic War on Poverty here at home. We ended up losing both.
  

In the June 13 edition of his Journal, Bill Moyers said "Truth is, there's been a class war waged in America for thirty years now from the top down, and the rich have won." One of his guests, author Holly Sklar put it in perspective.

Our wages now adjusting for inflation, average wages are lower than they were in the 1970s. Our minimum wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1950s, and why is it? One of the things going on is that income and wealth inequality have gone back to the 1920s. We are back at levels that we saw right before the Great Depression.

Now, if global warming is not enough to scare you, Sklar's comments should.

Problems with the Green Party, and especially with the GPCA, stem from the battles we seek to fight. They are battles that consume many people, much as did the trench warfare of WW I. Many died, on both sides, but the battle lines did not move very much.

Where are the leaders who are willing to tell us the truth that energy prices will never return to their past levels.? Where are the leaders who have the guts to tell us what we don't want to hear and the to convince us that we can get ourselves out of this predicament... after all we got ourselves into it, didn't we?

I read long and interesting comment from Chuck Geise today at the DissidentVoice blog. It was all about Nader and McKinney and putting the blame on Greens for the manipulation of presidential politics.

The Green Party faces a problem — democracy. More specifically, how do you treat each person’s vote equally in a country where the two parties do their best to undermine participation of new parties?

If that were the major problem that we have as Greens, then we would be so very, very lucky. It is especially true when what you are arguing for would provide no protection from Mill's tyranny of the majority. Just maybe those small states who you would relegate to a rounding error in your political calculus understand that large, urban populations (where most of our Greens live) do not understand what it is like to live in rural America.

I took a trip through SE Oregon not too many years ago. We drove from Burns, OR to Winnemucca, NV.
View Larger Map
Don't tell the people here that bicycles are the answer to transportation, where the round trip from home to high school is often 150 miles. It is the rural poor who suffer most from the rising cost of gasoline, not the city dwellers. Maybe that is why the Green Party, for all it's urban activists, are silent on this issue.

The real problem with Greens is that too many activists, like Geise, are spending too much time and energy on the wrong things, re-arranging the deck chairs while the ship is sinking.

This is not a time for anger over the past, such also is a wast of energy. This country, and therefore this party, need candidates marching forward with new ideas and a vision of the world we could build, if only we would.