Our World and Everything in It

At one hundred kilowatts per hour per for one device, Swell Fuels lever operated pivoting float is something we should be using right now. A World Wire article stated: “The patent-pending device uses a pivoting float and a lever arm that unfolds to capture the up and down motion of ocean waves, producing electricity in the process.” How ingenious.

Swell Fuels is ready to go with this product but guess what? Politics and special interest groups are blocking this and many more innovative ways of creating energy for the future. We’re being told by many different articles including one in the Detroit Free Press this weekend about wind power, that the costs and time involved in alternative energy is too much, that’s why we’re not moving forward. Baloney. Innovation is being blocked to say the least.

Read more about this curious but effective invention: http://world-wire.com/news/0808120002.html.

There was a reason Bush reluctantly put the polar bears on the endangered list but then curiously omitted protection for their habitat. Not so curious anymore. It seems in the latest round of attacks on the environment by the Bush administration and more than likely in support of oil, coal, and the natural gas industries, the president doesn’t find habitat protection necessary. To quote an article on NRDC’s website, the president will argue, “that studying and protecting the places that are essential to species survival is unnecessary. Specifically, the Department of Interior is planning to insert language into all future critical habitat designations that argues that these protections have no value in species protection.” Ah and Dirk Kempthorne, Secy. of Interior is at it again.

Protecting animals but allowing their habitat to go unprotected is so straight out of the dogma of big oil and other fossil fuel industries that we don’t even have to wonder why this underhanded push is happening. I say underhanded because the same article on Defender’s website stated that: “The first attack, contained in a rider on the House version of the Defense Department appropriations bill, would have arguably given the Secretary of the Interior sole discretion regarding where and when-and whether-to designate critical habitat for endangered species. Although the appropriations bill still contains a damaging ESA exemption for the Department of Defense, the more radical rider was defeated by the House on May 21.” Sneaky.

The Bush administration may not get their way the second time around either but there are other rotten ways of doing things.  The administration appears to be overly restricting funds for species protection by the USFWS. Bush only requested a measly $9 million dollars for it this year even though the agency knows it would take $153 million or more because there is a backlog. Congress even requested more money for the agency in the past to no avail. So no one is actually keeping track of or properly protecting our wildlife habitats because there is no money.

This is a “frightful” disregard for living things. If this administration can so ruthlessly overlook one natural resource for another, oil vs. animal habitat, than it’s not a stretch to think humanity is not being overlooked in the process either. We’re not suffering all that different a scenario from the animals on the endangered species list really. By continuing with the quest for oil and possibly more fossil fuels, our habitat won’t be around much longer either. What is it people don’t get? The earth is a closed system. If we put too much pollution into it, it will eventually break down. If we go on the way we are, we are no better than a cancer to our environment.  Yet this administration is destroying our habitat right under our noses while we go on believing someone is looking out for our best interests.

I hope that someone isn’t specifically Dick Cheney. Because when I watch what’s happening all I keep remembering is an article I read back in 2004 about Cheney. John Perry Barlow, a former Cheney supporter, said, “He has the least interest in human beings of anyone I have ever met.” That explains a lot.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030528.asp.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6450422/the_curse_of_dick_cheney/.

I just did a blog about our becoming accumstomed to violence, killing, and guns. Then I read my e-mail that STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY PERSONNEL in Alaska illegally staked out a breeding den/area for wolves, and aerial shot and killed 14 of them. The wolves were parents to 14 little pups. They shot all the pups in the head at close range.

View this video of 4 week old wolf pups and imagine plugging the cute little things in the head. It takes a heartless person to do this.

http://www.everythingwolf.com/sitewide/videolib/p1020310.wmv  

On the same website as the video, I read about people adopting wolf cubs, and even potty training wolf cubs. This is counter to the image of wolves as blood thirsty, indiscriminate killers.  

http://www.everythingwolf.com/forum/threadview.aspx?thread=1340p1.   

The big execution in Alaska was to boost caribou populations. There are approximately 950,000 caribou in Alaska. How many caribou do we need? What’s the target, a million?

 http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/caribou.php.

Alaskans are outraged over this aerial killing movement and are moving to “end the Board of Game’s barbaric aerial hunting of wolves through a ballot measure,” according to Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders website has a drive that ends today to help this ballot initiative with new ads. It also said that: “On August 26th voters can pass this ballot measure and band this awful practice before another deadly season begins.”

Defenders of Wildlife is “helping Alaskans for Wildlife, a coalition of local grassroots activists, hunters, and citizens who secured the 55,000 signatures to put this measure on the ballot. Already, they have reached thousands of voters across the state with their hard-hitting mailings.”

Collecting 55,000 signatures is a daunting task in the heart of hunting territory like Alaska, but everyone involved is close to meeting their goal of collecting $80,000 and running ads that will get voters out to vote for this ballot measure. The ads essentially say, “Real hunters don’t shoot wildlife from airplanes.”

I think aerial hunting is gutless. I also think shooting helpless pups is heartless. And I’m starting to think humans need to be kept in check more than animal populations. We’re starting to show our animalistic tendencies far too much, forgetting about empathy and compassion for all living things in our world.

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2008/07_23_2008 _statement_regarding_illegal_killing_of_14_wolf_pups_in_alaska.php

I was reading about the shooter who shot 3 teens and wounded another in a wooded area on the Wisconsin/Michigan border and all I could think about was the Bush administration/NRA push to allow loaded guns in national parks. Just what we need.

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8774082.

We should be more concerned about this issue because with the help of the NRA, the 25-year ban on loaded guns in parks might dissolve before Bush leaves office. We’re not talking big rifles or shotguns but CONCEALED HANDGUNS too.

So guns become a reality in parks and you’re walking along Sleeping Bear Dunes or a portion of the North Country National Scenic Trail and some nut shoots you. You end up buried in the sand dunes or God-knows-where along that trail, at least until a bear or vultures find your carcass. Back at the camp all anyone knows is that you went for a little hike in the morning or before dinner and never came back. The nut with a gun hasn’t a witness in site, and hearing a gunshot has become commonplace in parks.

Of course this can happen with the present ban on loaded guns in parks too. Nefarious people don’t follow rules anyway. But at least the sound of a gun would resonate to someone that something is not right, whether an animal attack or human attack. 

We already have a horrible homicide record as a free country. We’re getting a little too used to guns and killing, don’t you think? We accept guns too readily as our only means of protection. Protectionism has its place, but it appears to me that since 9/11, with the aid of the federal government, we’ve become much too fearful as a people. It encourages extremist actions like carrying concealed weapons everywhere. We’re willing to give up too many of our rights also because we’re afraid. And unfortunately, it seems that we’re unique in our fear.  When England’s subway was bombed by terrorists, I remember many Brits riding the subway again as soon as possible with the retort that, “We can’t let them have the upper hand now can we?” Ditto for other countries. Then again, they’ve weathered more wars on home turf than us. Still I feel we have been targeted for fearmongering as a way of bullying us into thinking we need a loaded gun to get through everyday life, like an outing in a park.

The gun won’t help me if a nut takes aim from somewhere. I won’t know what hit me. I don’t think if I were jogging alone through a park that I could draw my weapon if suddenly ambushed from the side either. More than likely the assailant would get the gun away from me. 

If the attack is from a mountain lion or bear, good luck getting a deadly shot on them, especially with a handgun. They’re on you before you can act. They’ll rip your arm off before the trigger is pulled or the gun even makes it out. I’d probably shoot myself in the foot in a Barney Phife move and assure my doom.

Seems like owning a dog would be as good if not safer to take along on a hike in the park, and boy are there plenty of those in the shelters looking to loyally defend an owner just for a home.

While the present administration and the NRA stoke our fears to add more places to allow more types of guns, studies show that possession of guns is only upping the homicide rate in America. We’re killing each other, not terrorists! Terrorism would have taken a bigger hit long ago by cutting off its funding from oil profits.  

Congress began viewing alternative energy sources at the end of the 90’s and we should have kept in that direction as a way to stop our oil addiction and the money flowing to the Middle East that helped fund terrorism. I’m reading that it is funded more and more by heroin now. Lately big oil profits in the Persian Gulf have produced a model city like Dubai, a huge metropolis and the Arab wish for a huge financial center. Pretty soon major corporations will fund terrorism over there. We missed our chance to nip the terrorist problem in the bud long ago by getting away from oil. It brought power to a region that basically had nothing else going for it. Who is outsmarting whom? The Middle East preys on our addictions to oil and heroin. There is no gun to combat that.

Unfortunately, since 9/11 we’ve lost more rights due to our fears, and are basically headed back to the old west, where everyone walked around with a holster or hid a pistol in their boot.

More info on guns and homicides vs. protection: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/13/93/7e.pdf

First I read one of those quick moving news feeds that the EPA warned it’s enforcement officers not to speak to Congress. That little bit of info just peaked my curiosity–speak up about what?

Now four senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee are urging Steven Johnson, the third EPA administrator under Bush, to resign as it appears he lied to a Senate committee.

Johnson claims he acted alone when he decided California should not regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, but he was originally going to issue a partial waiver to CA. Someone changed his mind. The preceding EPA administrators left just as questionably and quickly as Johnson.

Christine Todd Whitman, 2001-2003, resigned just before reports of the clean up of 9/11 came out and according to SourceWatch,  “Eric Shaeffer, the EPA’s head of regulatory enforcement under Whitman, resigned under protest. He told Flanders that Whitman is ‘a Republican first and an environmentalist way down the list.’”

Michael Leavitt was Bush’s second appointee as EPA Administrator. Twelve states and several NE cities sued the EPA to block the new Clean Air rules during his leadership. The states argued the rules would weaken both environmental and health protection for citizens. Nice real nice. Scientist’s discontent with censorship was surfacing along with altered reports about global warming too. Leavitt left the EPA to head up Health and Human Services. That’s when a memo from Leavitt’s new department suggested its employees should buy hybrid. It suggested the whole federal fleet should go hybrid. This suggestion was via e-mail to 67,000 employees! So was Leavitt environmentally minded or not, altering reports of global warming on the one hand, then telling employees to buy foreign hybrids on the other?

And now Stephen Johnson appears to have succumbed to political pressure from the White House too. Who will be the replacement this time, someone from oil, someone from the NRA and/or hunting industry, or lumber, or coal…? I mean we had Steven Griles as Deputy Secretary of the Interior that oversees the EPA, and USFWS among other things, that resigned and went to work for Conoco Phillips oil as a lobbyist. The Deputy Chief of Staff to the Dept. of Interior, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, denied living with Griles when she still worked for the EPA. And then there was Philip Cooney, former head of the White House Council for Environmental Quality. Cooney was caught editing important data from scientific reports for quite awhile as well as pressuring the EPA to go along, so much so, that in 2002 the EPA removed an entire section on global warming from its annual report about air pollution. Cooney came to his position at the council as a lawyer and former lobbyist  for the American Petroleum Institute.  He left to work for Exxon Mobil. Right now a former lobbyist for an Intl. Hunt Club heads the USFWS. Ethics abound in the Bush administration.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902020.html 

Alaska’s Ted Stevens, longest serving Republican in the senate, was indicted on seven charges for his connections with VECO, an oil services company, and the renovations done to his home.

Ted is pro-oil, and we see why. VECO CEO Bill Allen pleaded guilty to bribing Alaskan lawmakers. And Ted has been accused of influence peddling. So we have an admitted briber, and a guy who invites it. So now Ted’s been indicted for lying about his dealings with VECO.

Ted has consistently put ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) drilling language in defense bills. Remember the recent Senate hearings with oil execs about high gas prices in relation to excessively high profits? We can thank Ted, the Chairman of that committee, for preventing them from having to speak under oath.

Senator Stevens is best remembered for financing two Alaska bridges to nowhere to a tune of over $220 million. A fiasco that had Ted threatening to quit the senate if congress took money away from those bridges. The money  for them would have been redirected for repairs desperately needed in New Orleans afer Katrina. Stevens got his way, but the bridge money was given to Alaska’s transportation fund instead.

But Ted’s mid 80’s age and this haven’t stopped him. He’s put in his bid to run for senate again. This is not the way to top off a long career.

Democrats want Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, in the race. Begich is the favorite. Alaska could use someone environmentally friendly for a change. If they could just get rid of Governor Palin, Alaska might stand a chance at remaining a pristine wilderness.

After this, maybe Senator Waxman, who is investigating everyone, and doing a fine job of doing his job by the way, should direct more attention to the goings-on in Alaska and why so many are protesting.  

Read more of Stevens bio at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ted_Stevens

And the race is on. Alternatives or the same ole polluting solutions until we’re extinct. Looks like Washington isn’t waiting around for anyone’s opinion. The oil people are getting their dibs in while they can. We won’t see any of that oil for years but hey why not?

The wealthy are starting to polish their crowns in front of us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/us/17alaska.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

A short synopsis of what I gathered from a brief presentation of Al Gore’s speech in Washington today:

Gore thanked all of the congressman present and the many that he has conferred with over the years and around the world. He said he hoped to lift partisanship from global warming efforts.

He went on to say that America needs to shake off its complacency because the survival of the United States is at risk, as well as, what’s at stake for all civilization relative to global warming.

He acknowledged what many of us are currently thinking that so many things are going so wrong simultaneously. The economy is tanking. We’re losing job. The mortgage industry is in dire straights. We still have security risks, and the Iraq war. Gas prices keep rising. Food prices are rising.  And our weather is increasingly horrible, posing new threats to the economy as many homeowners lose everything they own to fires, floods, and tornadoes.

Global warming is advancing faster than originally thought in 2001, (National Geographic’s “Planet Earth” series proves this). Our own U.S. Navy subs went under the Arctic Ice Cap, and it’s now believed 75% of it will be gone in just 5 years. Greenland is disappearing with 20 million tons of ice melting into open water daily. Sea levels will rise. And based on the latest round of increased lightening strikes during storms, scientists say that a 1% increase in global warming will increase lightening strikes 10% more. The problem is bigger than we think.

So the bulk of America’s problems can be categorized as economic, environmental, and as national security issues. After speaking with leaders from around the world, scientists, engineers, CEO’s of major corporations, etc., all agree that old solutions that treat each of these categories separately is a mistake because at the core of every bad issue is our dangerous dependency on fossil fuels.

America needs to end dependency on carbon-based fuels!  (Roar from the crowd). It’s easy to see that these same measures to help the environment can:

• Ease the economy by offering thousands of new jobs in new green industry right here in America
•  Stop the energy/safety threat we suffer through control by foreign oil interests. These foreign (enemy) interests have a stranglehold on us. If we don’t need oil, we won’t need them. Oil fuels their wealth and power.  

Gore stated that the U.S. is borrowing money from China to purchase oil in the Middle East. We end up polluting while accelerating global warming. In that statement alone are the three categories of our problems economics, security, and the environment. We’re dealing with potential enemies to supplies us with our needs while they drain our bank account.

The quickest, cheapest, best answer to all three problems is the efficient production of electricity for all of our needs. Science proclaims that the sun provides enough cumulative energy every 40 minutes to provide 100% of the entire world’s needs. Now why wouldn’t we use that instead? Gore also reiterated what I’ve already learned, that there is enough wind through the U.S. corridor to provide all of America’s energy needs. Add geothermal power to the equation and we simply have enough energy to get away from fossil fuels once and for all.

Gore remembers a statement that was made long ago that if oil got to $30 per barrel then alternative energy sources would be competitive. We’re closing in on being 5 times that limit and greater demand for alternative energy by big corporate consumers is already bringing costs down.

The logic then follows that we must put an end to our old fossil fuel solutions. We need a new start. Gore presented a strategic challenge to all of America. It is the linchpin of a bold new strategy to change America’s direction. He urged Americans to strive to reach 100% reliance on clean alternative energy sources within the next 10 years! And we should never think we can’t, because we can. Gore sited the walk on the moon at this juncture. (Huge applause and ovation).

Talking about solutions 40 years away is ridiculous. We have to aim for less than 10 years and if that challenge is not politically viable, Gore said, “Then ask the people.” (Another huge ovation).

Gore stated that our country can’t afford 10 more years of a tanking economy, job outsourcing, horrible weather disasters whereby the home insurance business may bottom out, and 10 more years of troop deployments to dangerous regions who happen to have huge oil supplies. Hmmm that last statement was interesting. Did we really invade Iraq for the oil and how is that playing out, and what oil companies and people are benefiting from our grief?

That’s pretty much all CNBC and CNN allowed us to watch. CNN announced at the same time Gore was giving this speech that John McCain was in Kansas getting an ovation for his idea about offshore oil drilling. I think Gore can forget partisan unity at this point.   

I read an e-mail from Defenders of Wildlife that explained how wealthy speculators (oil) are driving up the price of oil to double or more per barrel than what it should be. It stated that, “Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management, who testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in June, ‘with greater regulation [of speculation], oil prices could drop to $65 or $70 a barrel within about 30 days.’”

Well, that’s a no-brainer. Even Bush’s Energy Information Agency estimates that oil from drilling in the Arctic wouldn’t hit the market for 4 years and would only reduce gas by a few cents. It’s more of our own oil, but it’s still going to be $4 per gallon or more? What’s wrong with this picture? This speculation business looks to be true in that case. The agency also said “offshore drilling would not significantly impact domestic production or prices before 2030.”

Just yesterday I blogged that even the most environmentally minded in congress were willing to back drilling if necessary. Necessary to lower gas prices and make them look good for re-election? Now it’s really starting to look like this speculation thing is real. Look at the facts:

• Drilling for oil both in the Arctic and offshore will not bring gas prices down quickly at all.
• Those in Washington opposed to new drilling will now consider it if necessary, even though it doesn’t change the fact that drilling will not bring prices down. 
• Necessary must mean whatever it takes to bring gas prices down for re-election.
• Speculators are the only ones that can bring gas prices down quickly and drastically.

 Conclusion:  Environmentally minded congressional leaders are willing to give in to speculators wishes to drill in the Arctic and offshore in exchange for immediate relief at the pump for consumers and ultimately their re-election. Isn’t this extortion? Isn’t this our congressional leaders complying with extortion?

Congress needs to regulate speculators and quick if we want to see a fast, drastic drop at the pump. It’s a much better solution than giving in to greed and extortion while sacrificing clean water, marine life, and wildlife habitat.

We had to know this was going to happen. The U.S. has continued to sell oil leases even though the Arctic is still protected. When these guys get a plan in their head, war and extortion are not out of their realm. This is the final push during Bush’s term and it’s going to be a very bumpy ride. It appears this speculation news is being kept to a minimum.

I caught a little bit of Anderson Cooper on CNN last night asking the same question, “Are speculators driving up the price of oil?” Of course the official reply from someone official pooh, poohed the whole idea. And I guess that is supposed to be the end of it. Much of our country’s leadership, certainly wealthy corporations no longer answer to anyone anyway. 

Most of the time, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a duck. And this is a real game plan speculators have going here. They’re no better than thugs making us suffer until we give in to their demands. Contact your congress people and soon. Regulate speculators.

President Bush lifted the ban on offshore oil drilling Monday, but it means nothing if Congress renews the ban as part of the annual spending bill for the Department of the Interior. Congress has done so since 1981 but it appears that many in congress even the most ardent environmentalists might support drilling where it makes sense. Sense?

How political can you get? Everyone including those in Bush’s administration admitted that drilling for oil will not bring immediate relief at the pump, if at all. Oilmen in this country have stated there isn’t enough to sustain us anyway. It’s been stated over and over that 2012 would be the earliest we will see any relief as far as gas prices in the U.S. from any new drilling.

But people in this country want immediate satisfaction, and become oblivious to facts in the quest for instant gratification. So now even our most enthusiastic defenders of the environment are saying they would consider it, but for what possible reason? It’s not going to bring prices down for four years, one whole presidential term. Ah but it will make our reps look like they are doing something to help a very impatient public. And for that, they just might get re-elected. To hell with the environment in an election year. Now we see true colors come out. This is a pretty late hour to succumb to the Bush oil regime. I thought we had more sense than that. Oh that’s right. Bush/Cheney wouldn’t be in office at all so there wouldn’t be a war in Iraq, our economy wouldn’t be plummeting, and we wouldn’t be trillions in debt if we had any sense.

I wrote a blog, “Polar Bears vs. Big Oil; Guess Who’s Going to Die?” I’m starting to feel like Humans vs. Big Oil…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/opinion/15tue3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin