GreenDreams's Blogtag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/greendreams//17522008-07-21T21:28:06ZMovable Type Pro 4.21-enMachiavellian Economics - the Anti-democracytag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.2049792008-07-21T21:28:06Z2008-07-21T21:28:06ZSo-called "free market" economics have been a disaster for most of the majority populations in countries that have "embraced" them. We're experiencing the same disaster.From an economic standpoint, neoconservatives, who actually favor "economic liberalization" are the followers--or perhaps supplicants is...GreenDreams From an economic standpoint, neoconservatives, who actually favor "economic liberalization" are the followers--or perhaps supplicants is more appropriate--of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics (also called globalization, Reaganomics, laissez-faire, etc). This, the dominant economic theory for the last three or four decades is summarized by adherents as "free markets, free people."
Neoconservatism is based on three pillars: privatization (turning over public resources to private control), deregulation of business (unfettered corporate capitalism), and deep cuts in social programs. The end result, universally, is an increasing wealth gap, a transfer of public wealth to private wealth, and a transfer of private debt to public debt. This is the record in every country in which "neoconservative" economic policies have been tried (usually implemented by force): Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, Iran, South Africa, China, Russia, Poland and others.
The neocons will accuse liberals of being socialists or communists, criminals, traitors, "America haters" or anything else to attempt to draw support away from them. The fact is, the neoconservative economic movement is deeply anti-democratic. Think about it. There is a much greater number of people (voters) who are below average wealth than are above it (billionaires tweak the average upward far more than poor people pull it lower). The majority's self-interest, obviously, lies in policies that provide more for them, such as a reduction in the wealth gap. It is only those very few who benefit from the wealth gap who knowingly vote for policies that reduce opportunities for everyone but the very wealthy. To retain power, they must trick, coerce or force the masses to support these policies that are against the individuals' self-interest.
So, those who support neoconservative policies are either complicit (that is, they know these anti-democratic policies are bad for most, but are good for them, and thus support them), gullible (they believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "a rising tide lifts all boats"), or distracted (those who are led by fear of Communists, drugs, street crime, "Islamo-fascists", terrorists or minorities; or those who are ignoring their own self-interest in order to confront a perceived threat from pregnant women seeking abortions, gay people seeking marriage etc.).
The impact of "free trade" policies (privatization, deregulation, cuts in social services) has not been benign in any of the countries on which these policies have been imposed, including China and Russia. Sometimes extreme force was required. Friedman, Reagan, Thatcher and Rumsfeld, among others, were very good friends with the brutal dictator Pinochet and they both encouraged and assisted him in transferring the vast publicly owned natural resource wealth of Chile to private corporations. The same program has "revolutionized" all of the countries I mention above, among others.
They have succeeded spectacularly at lining their pockets and those of their corporate sponsors at the expense of vast numbers of people in every country they have "liberated." The latest of these of course is Iraq, in which the oil wealth of that country, once publicly owned is now being transferred to the multinational oil companies. Additionally, in Iraq the "neocons" have succeeded in privatizing one of the last remaining functions of government, national defense, shifting huge amounts of tax dollars to companies including Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, McDonald's, KFC and others.
In the case of the credit crisis as well as the war, the debt is passed on to the public. These bailouts have been happening for decades. Citibank, Chase, Ford, Bear Stearns; all have been bailed out of financial crises by the tax dollars of countries all over the world. The national wealth of these countries, including our own, has been shifted into the hands of the already rich and powerful, while the private debt from bad corporate policies and outright corruption and theft, has been shifted to the public.
Our tax dollars, once pledged to creating better opportunity for many, is now pledged to paying the interest on the obscene debt created by these irresponsible policies. The ballooning of the national debt is much more of a Republican creation than most people know.
Our national ascendancy was based on a strong middle class, which we created through investment of government dollars on education, infrastructure and housing. The shift to neoconservative "trickle-down" policies has trashed the middle class and weakened our future. It is my hope and dream that we will awake from this nightmare and embark on a goal of building a just society with opportunity for all and a commitment to the public good, not just private gain. ]]>
New Technologies for Our Energy Futuretag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.2004932008-06-17T18:06:41Z2008-06-17T18:06:41ZIt's clear that we need to change our energy policy in this country. And unfortunately, it's clear that the Republicans, beholden as they are to big oil, will not make the changes needed. We need a "Manhattan Project" for energy,...GreenDreams In this post, I highlight some of the exciting advances in both research and application that have occurred recently, even in the absence of serious research funding directed toward securing a better energy future for America. American scientists and entrepreneurs are resourceful and I'm optimistic that with more direction from the top and some R&D incentives, we can innovate our way out of our current dilemma, produce sustainable long-term solutions, reduce our dependence on expensive foreign oil from unstable parts of the world, and stop giving our resources to authoritarian regimes that sponsor terrorism against us.
Our most pressing need is probably in the transportation area, and high gas prices make this a political winner too. So with what can we power our cars, trucks, trains , planes and buses? Here are two possibilities.
Hydrogen from starch. The problems with hydrogen as an auto fuel require advances in production, storage, distribution, and fuel cells. Honda just released the first production fuel cell vehicle. Advancement in the other three areas may be closer than we think.
Most industrial hydrogen currently comes from natural gas, which has become expensive. Storing and moving the gas, whatever its source, is costly and cumbersome, and even dangerous. And there is little infrastructure for refueling a vehicle.
Researchers at Virginia Tech, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the University of Georgia propose using polysaccharides, or sugary carbohydrates, from biomass to directly produce low-cost hydrogen for the new hydrogen economy.
Using a mixture of 13 enzymes not found together in nature, the researchers can produce hydrogen right in a vehicle, at ambient pressure and nearly ambient temperature (30 degrees C.).
The vision is for the ingredients to be mixed in the fuel tank of your car, for instance. A car with an approximately 12-gallon tank could hold 27 kilograms (kg) of starch, which is the equivalent of 4 kg of hydrogen. The range would be more than 300 miles, Zhang estimates. One kg of starch will produce the same energy output as 1.12 kg (0.38 gallons) of gasoline.
There would be no need to transport a flammable fuel and the starch and water slurry that would drive our fuel cell cars can be pumped with a conventional gas pump into a conventional gas tank. (and the starch need not come from corn or any other food crop.)
A similar technology developed at Oxford is now powering a digital watch. All details at the link.
Much closer to application, microalgae are set to produce 4.4 million gallons a year of biodiesel at a facility on the gulf coast of Texas. A full analysis of its potential is available in a paper at the U of NH. You can see the facility on the website of the company Petrosun. Actually, you can see it on Google maps too.
We could replace all vehicle fuel at current levels on 9.5 million
acres of desert land ! For comparison, we use 450 million acres of
prime agricultural land to produce food (most of it food for livestock)
and another 500 million acres for grazing livestock. Since the algae
can grow anywhere, we’re not talking about diverting a single plot of
prime farmland to fuel production.
Another advantage of this technology is that such algae production facilities could be placed at the mouths of big polluted rivers like the Mississippi, and could convert nutrients from agricultural runoff into fuel. Currently these nutrients create an enormous “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico (and smaller ones at the mouths of other rivers). Furthermore, the algae can be used to consume CO2 from power plants. Cleans up the river, sequesters carbon from polluting industries and turns it all into fuel. Oh, and the exhausted algae can be used as fertilizer after extracting the oil.
We have shortchanged research budgets into alternatives and still, our tenacious scientists come up with new leads all the time. Meanwhile, the GOP and some of their supporters wail that the sky will fall if we don’t start drilling in Alaska today. That’s not the solution. Let’s turn the page on that old thinking and get serious about innovating our way out of this mess.]]>
Van Hollen Blitzes Blitzertag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.2003652008-06-16T21:58:44Z2008-06-16T21:58:44ZDCCC Chairman and Congressman Chris Van Hollen showed this Sunday how futile is the GOP talking point that equates drilling for oil in Alaska with gasoline price reduction. The transcript is HERE, and I'm impressed with how nimble Van Hollen...GreenDreams
HERE, and I'm impressed with how nimble Van Hollen was in deflecting Wolf Blitzer's apparent determination to get Van Hollen with GOP talking points.
BLITZER: Why not start drilling? There are
enormous amounts of oil right here in the United States on the coast,
on the East Coast, the West Coast and Alaska. That could dramatically
increase supply and as a result reduce the price per barrel and the
price at the pump. What is wrong with that? VAN HOLLEN: Well, we are drilling. We have lots of oil companies in the United States that are
drilling. ... And in fact, there are 60 million acres of federal land
that are currently leased to the oil and gas companies that are sitting
idle. They're not drilling. They like the status quo. They like the way
things are going. We're going to have legislation that is going to be
considered shortly that is "use it or lose it". If you are going to hold
up these 68 million of federal lands, you've got to start drilling for
oil or else somebody else should have an opportunity to do it.
Blitzer tries again to make a point, playing a video clip of REP. ROY BLUNT, R-MO.:
"Who's to blame are policies that wouldn't allow
us to use our own resources. Every other country in the world looks at
their natural resources and sees them as an economic asset. Democrats
in Washington look at our natural resources and see them as an
environmental hazard. That's a mistake." BLITZER: All right. What do you say?
VAN HOLLEN:
Facts are stubborn things. Sixty-eight million acres of federal lands,
currently leased to the oil and gas industry, sitting idle. We're going
to say to them, "Use it or lose it. Get pumping."
The issue
isn't whether or not we should use our natural resources. The issue is
exactly where. And what you're saying is, when you've got 68 million
acres of federal lands already leased, you should use that before you
start looking elsewhere.
BLITZER: They say they can drill in Alaska in an environmental safe way. You just heard Congressman Boehner say that.
VAN HOLLEN: As John McCain said, there are already areas where they can drill. We shouldn't be drilling there.
And let me point out that the Department of Energy, our own department
of Energy, has said, if you drill in Alaska, first of all, you won't
see any results at the pump for 10 years. And after 20 years, you might
see a reduction of two cents per gallon.
Game, set and match to Van Hollen. Well done, and these are key talking points we should always have at hand when addressing this issue. Oil companies have been granted the right to drill in huge tracts of public land. Oil is at record prices. If they still can't turn a profit developing their existing leases, they should lose them. Giving them more leases makes no sense. They are already essentially in default regarding their agreement to develop American oil resources.
The "20 years until we see 2 cents a gallon benefit" is a great line too. ]]>
A Time For Changetag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1963862008-05-22T05:38:37Z2008-05-22T05:38:37ZIf one theme can define an election season, 2008 is about change. Of course, change is always a big theme, but this a remarkable year. Record primary turnout, profound dissatisfaction with the administration, the war, the economy, the Bush. The...GreenDreams Good government manages public resources for the public good, not for private gain.
We want honesty, accountability and transparency in our federal government, a return to the values of average Americans, a repudiation of torture and spying and black ops and “preemptive” war, of corruption, lying by public officials and selling out the public good to campaign donors.
Does Barack Obama represent a true hope of meaningful change? He has done something truly extraordinary. He has financed his campaign through over 1.5 million small donations from “ordinary” Americans who yearn to have our government work for us for a change. He doesn't owe big favors to big donors.
Since the beginning of the Reagan era, we have pursued a policy of coddling the rich at the expense of the other 90% of us, handing over the reins of power to corporate donors. We have ignored our responsibility to our children and grandchildren; To maintain and build the infrastructure of America, to protect the environment, communities and workers. To care for the health of our children, our veterans, our elders, our planet. To invest in the public good, in education, in critical infrastructure.
I will be charitable and say that most Republicans truly believe that by cutting taxes we have been “letting people keep their own money.” But the truth is, we are borrowing a half trillion dollars a year and giving that money away as “tax cuts,” as reckless spending, for a senseless war, with no intention of paying it back but rather, handing in on with interest to our children and grandchildren. We borrow $1 billion a day from China alone, and we give most of it back buying Chinese products. We have made China our banker and our manufacturing sector, and failed to run our country in a businesslike way. So much for America’s “first MBA president.”
In what I believe was a cynical attempt to create a permanent American aristocracy, the Republicans demonized the estate tax as a “death tax”, while creating a “birth tax” (the national debt) that is now over $35,000 for every infant born in America. That infant owes over $325 a month in interest alone. That's the Bush tax increase. $1,000 a month for a family of four.
Think about it: the “credit card Republicans” while talking about cutting taxes, have added $325 a month to your tax burden, every one of you, every one of us, every month, forever, because that doesn't pay down a dime of the debt. It's just the interest.
We are headed down a path of passing on to future generations, to our own children, a terrible legacy:
A mountain of debt and a degraded planet.
But imagine this country changing to a model of responsible and innovative action toward a sustainable future, a beacon of democracy and freedom. A voice of reason and decency and a model of capable leadership and ethical governance.
Let's use our resources to rebuild the American infrastructure, not the Iraqi infrastructure, and for use our resources to free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, rather than fighting wars in the Middle East at immense cost in blood and treasure in an attempt to control a resource that we should be moving away from for many good reasons.
Sure, let's try some of that change. And let's be vigilant every day and do our part to keep our representatives on the right track, on the track of working for us, for America. ]]>