For those of you who read my previous post, first some updates on the Sedona, Arizona incident: a 3rd person died; lawsuits are being pursued; and the authoritiies are investigating the case as a homicide.

On the subject of new age/cult spirituality, ABC is running an expose on the Church of Scientology on Thursday and Friday on Nightline.  Please, if you're interested, take a look at these other peddlers of pseudoscientific healing.  Among the more ridiculous of their claims: disciples can achieve perfect memory; they have methods to purge the body of radioactivity; and disciples experience significant increases in IQ.

St. Petersburg Times reporter Tom Tobin to appear Thursday in Scientology investigation by ABC's Nightline

St. Petersburg Times reporter Tom Tobin is expected to appear Thursday night in the first of two nights of reports on the Church of Scientology scheduled to air on ABC's late-night news magazine Nightline.

The show plans to explore much of the same ground the Times uncovered in its first three-part series on the Church published in June, The Truth Rundown, outlining tales of violence allegedly perpetrated against high-ranking church officials by leader David Miscavige.

According to a spokeswoman for the show, Nightline on Thursday will feature interviews with at least some of the sources featured in the Times' reporting -- former high-ranking Church officials coming forward to publicly reveal controversial stories about Scientology leadership in a way never seen before. The show also features a recently-recorded interview with church spokesman Tommy Davis.

Friday's story is expected to focus on the celebrity angle of Scientology -- the church has aggressively courted celebrities such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta for decades -- showing how famous names are treated inside the group and examining how Miscavige may be influencing Cruise's behavior, according to the spokeswoman.

Nightline airs at 11:35 p.m. weeknights on ABC .... It is likely the Scientology stories will fill 60 percent of each night's show.

Thanks for your attention.  If you'd like to know more about the abuse and the pseudoscientific quackery of the CoS, just do some browsing on your search engine for a few minutes -- obviously, you should check some independent, unbiased sources first.  Wikipedia's entry on "scientology controversies" is reliable.

Since I'm plugging ABC by necessity in this post, I may as well throw in a bonus video.

Click here to watch an Interview with the Scientology Leader.

Forgive me, it's old.  But I'm pretty sure it's the only televised interview that reclusive David Miscavige has given.  Please watch Nightline's report if you have an interest and the time.  It is extremely rare for the Church of Scientology to receive coverage on network television, in part because of their history of harassing critics.

Credit where it's due, I first saw this story yesterday on Drudge, and it appears Breitbart broke it.

From AP

PHOENIX -- A sauna-like sweat lodge at an Arizona resort meant to provide spiritual cleansing became a crime scene Friday after two people died and others became ill during a two-hour session inside the crude structure.

In all, 21 of the 64 people crowded inside the sweat lodge Thursday evening were transported to hospitals. Four remained hospitalized Friday evening -- one in critical condition and the others in fair condition...Self-help expert and author James Arthur Ray rented the facility as part of his "Spiritual Warrior" retreat that began Oct. 3

James Arthur Ray is one of the main "experts" featured in the film, The Secret.  The movie happens to be one of Oprah's favorites, and she has featured its promoters and defenders, including JAR, on her programming.

The Secret, described as a self-help film, uses a documentary format to present the Law of Attraction. As described in the film, the "Law of Attraction" principle posits that feelings and thoughts can attract events, from the workings of the cosmos to interactions among individuals in their physical, emotional, and professional affairs. The film also suggests that there has been a strong tendency by those in positions of power to keep this central principle hidden from the public.

It's just tragic that these people were taken in by the pseudoscience of James Arthur Ray.  There must be little comfort for them -- they paid thousands of dollars for a healing, spiritual experience.  However he convinced himself that it was safe to squeeze more than 5 dozen people into a sweat lodge is beyond all logic.  I think of it as a PSA to warn people not to spend money on anything associated with this negligent fraudster Twithead.

Spread the word about The Secret.  Don't buy it; borrow it from the library if you absolutely have to watch it.  Same goes for the book (author Rhonda Byrne).

Coincidentally, The Simpson's parodied The Secret in their most recent episode, on Oct. 4th, which was one day after the "Spiritual Warrior" retreat began.  OR...maybe, the show's producers were aware of the concurrence, and were making a pointed joke to the New Age community...?

If so, then they would've had no idea that, very shortly, there would be a national spotlight shining on the subject.

This started off as a comment on dickday's blog, but I realized it should probably be an entry by itself.  He included this quote:

Scientists suspect that water is created in the soil via a chemical reaction involving solar wind and oxygen atoms already in the soil.

I was interested when I read this:

Water on Mars and water on the moon!!!  If this little nook in the corner of an almost infinite universe has all this life giving liquid, imagine the amount of life out there.

It's definitely cool to find water on the moon, but I think there's a bit of a misconception that water may be rare or hard to find.

Water is way more common in the universe than many people expect.  Wherever you find oxygen, you're probably going to find water, at least in trace amounts like we have on the moon.

The elements with atomic number < 10 are the most common in the universe (descending order).  Oxygen is # 8, and hydrogen-1 makes up ~99% of the universe's matter.  Water is very stable, and its formation is chemically favorable.  Think of water at a valley bottom, while octane is on a hill.  All of these factors contribute to making water both easy to form and stable (long-lived) after it forms.

Oxygen is a major part of many minerals, including those on the moon.  The moon is constantly bathed in solar radiation, a flux of high energy rays and various radioactive nuclear particles moving at relativistic speeds.

It's a lot of energy, with bits of elementary matter mixed in; helium nuclei, electrons, neutrons, positrons.  Free neutrons will decay to form a proton and electron.  The free proton can eventually pick up an electron to form hydrogen.

That's right, there should be hydrogen atoms and molecules in solar radiation.

The moon has no magnetic field or atmosphere to protect it from solar radiation, so free hydrogen gets right down to oxygen-bearing rock, where, on occasion, an oxygen atom can be knocked free and form water.

Obviously, there will be hydrogen in all solar radiation, not just the radiation from our sun.  That means that anywhere you have solar radiation hitting oxygen-bearing rock, you could see this reaction occurring.

It's not enough to make oceans, but it is enough to coat a few layers of molecules of water on the rocks.

The quantity of water increases nearer the poles, where the Apollo missions never reached.

The same solar radiation can also vaporize water molecules that form, giving them enough kinetic energy to leave the soil substrate and be lost.  Near the poles and in areas of shadow, there is more hope that water will accumulate.

Forgive me if this has already been posted. 

Socks the cat speaking at a press conference.

On average, Pundit Kitchen nets about 50 comments per picture.  As of today, this one has over 1200.

Related: this blog by Clever Bulldog.

I know you all have bigger fish to fry right now, and I do too, so I'll be brief.

Just heard on NPR.  PBS is cancelling this great PBS show that's been on the air since 1983.  Only Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street have been on PBS longer.  I don't really have time right now to do more than inform you all and hope some of you will start posting links and ideas.  I'm interested in helping to save RR with the 5 or 10 minutes I can spare here and there, but I'm broke.  So I'm at a loss as to what to do.  PBS and CPB aren't renewing the funding for RR, due to some Bush43 shift in Edu policy toward phonics and spelling; apparently, the show's budget is a few hundred K per year, NPR didn't give an exact figure.

TPM is not my personal army, I know.  So please help this discussion if you care about this show, and if you have time.  The best idea I could come up with in five minutes is to get a few kids' book publishers to chip in a penny or two for every signature we can get on an online petition.  Setup a website with email address verification or something like that.  Then start hitting the blogs with the link.  Half of that stuff I don't know how to do, and I don't have the time to do it either.  But I could use any help or ideas you folks have.  Thanks.

I don't really blog here or anywhere, anymore; I apologize for just posting a bunch of links.  I still come here to read and lurk, though.

I4U Google, Scientology, & Adsense

Why is Google's AdSense doing the bidding of Scientology?

Scientology Ads Take Over the Web

Google, Adsense, and Scientology: An Unholy Trinity?

Basically, webmasters have found that it's impossible to filter out these ads from their websites through AdSense or whatever.  The usual avenues of complaint, which are normally quite functional, have produced no results and no responses.  Google is silent on the matter, in spite of their corporate motto, "Do no evil.."

He [Seth Weintraub, webmaster for 9to5mac] found it impossible to change his ad rotation, and emails sent to Google and Adsense asking for clarification received no response. There were no answers from their forums either, and he noted that whereas Google and Adsense are normally prompt to answer webmasters, even smaller ones, he got no answers on this issue.
Using filters, even multi-filters, doesn't stop the ads either, whereas that's what they were designed for.

Maybe some of you TPM geniuses can help me figure out if there are higher authorities than Google's corporate headquarters where complaints can be made.  I would also be delighted if someone would offer their educated opinion of whether there could be any legal ramifications resultant if these shenanigans continue or get worse.

Thanks.

[Late Edit] I'm starting to think that the reason these ads are showing up especially at computer sites, mac sites, Wired, etc., is because the Co$ is desperate to recruit internet savvy raw meat. They're targeting ads where they think they'll get computer literate young folks to bolster their ranks and give them more weapons to fight Anonymous and other critics on the internets.  It is also likely that Co$ has curried favour with another of Google's affiliates, YouTube, to attract more hip, young eyes.

Mark Bunker, a journalist who was about to post a 3 hour documentary with a movie star who fled the church, had his YouTube account suspended by Google. He'd had previous accounts banned due to copyright violations, which is how Google justified the ban. This would be perfectly acceptable, had Google not let the CoS reregister an account after their first one was banned for putting up the personal information of several members of Anonymous. Corporations holding double-standards for lucrative clients is hardly something new, but I think we all expect a little bit better from Google.

I've been rolling the ideas for this post around for a while now, and haven't had time to sit down and write it.  Forgive me if I'm rehashing anyone else's work, as some of the material I've been thinking about has become a little dated in the interim.

As the X-Files sequel creeps toward a paltry $20 million dollars in total earnings, (#12 in the link) Chris Carter should be kicking himself for making that movie about anything besides aliens.  Many of us are driven by a curiousity like Mulder's; we want to believe in more than what we can see and know and prove.  That impetus to discover the unknown and unexplained is more compatible with faith than the Evangelical Bible-thumping Creationists would have people believe.  In fact, discovery and science may very well be humanity's divine purpose in the Christian theology, and you can help whether you're a Believer or not - more on that later.

The Vatican's Astronomer recently stated that devout Catholics are free to believe in aliens.  To discount life outside this planet would be to "set limits on the creative liberty of God."  Significantly, his comments were published in the Vatican's own newspaper, lending what some would call a papal endorsement to the Astronomer's views.  The article's publication sparked frenzied discussion among scientists, theologians, geeks, and other cootie-afflicted individuals throughout the world.

There is actually a long history of Catholic theologians pondering the existence of aliens.  Unbeknownst to many, the Church has vigorously supported astronomy, especially since the vindication of Galileo, funding a number of telescopes throughout the world.  The Catholics and/or Jesuits have actually been practicing astronomy since before Galileo.  A strong endorsement for the existence of extraterrestrial life can be found as early as the 15th century, in writing from a Cardinal Nicole Cusano, 1401-1464, who wrote "there is no star from which we are authorized to exclude the existence of beings, who may even be different to us."

The most interesting article I found was written about a Monsignor Balducci, a Vatican demonologist (read 'exorcist') who believes in extraterrestrial life and is among a group actively employed by the Holy See to quietly investigate extraterrestrial encounters and other phenomena.  Apparently, the Church has been quietly gathering information about ET's for a number of years from its Nunciatures (embassies) throughout the world - it's all detailed in the link.  You can find a lot on Balducci if you search, he has been making waves in recent months in ufo-chaser communities.  Here's an interview.

Getting back to how you can do God's work, help advance science, and look for little green men, SETI is the proud new mama of Paul Allen's baby, the Allen Telescope Array (ATA).  The ATA has the potential to accelerate the rate of SETI's scanning of star systems by around two orders of magnitude.  That's a huge leap forward.

Unfortunately, SETI's computing capacity is currently sufficient to about 10% of the task.  It won't have the supercomputers it needs for five to ten years, I think.

That's right.  Ninety percent of the data that these radio telescopes capture are not analyzed.  But that's how you can help.  If you have a high-speed connection, your computer can help SETI crunch some of that otherwise unsifted data. Go to SETI@home, download and install the software, and feel free to call Berkeley using Skype if you need help getting your computer set up.  You, too, can help in the search for intelligent life, from the comfort of your very own living room.

Mankind's exploration of space has had its share of fatalities and catastrophic failures.  But there are also extraordinary successes that inspire curiousity and wonder.  Spirit and Opportunity continue to roam the surface of Mars, two years and more after their mission was scheduled to end.  Voyager I and II, with only a handful of functioning instruments remaining, continue to faithfully send data back to Earth, more than 30 years after their launch.

Consider, finally, that God's first injunction to Adam in Genesis is to go forth and name all the beasts.  This was, arguably, the only command given to Adam before the Fall
from Grace.  If everything after Genesis is about how a race of original and obdurate sinners can regain God's favour, then this one command from before the Fall may very well be Mankind's true purpose, had he remained a perfect and sinless being.

I'll leave you with some quotes about this very topic from Earth, an excellent novel by David Brin, from which I'll admit I borrowed some of the ideas for this post.  If you've got a high-speed connection and idle your computer a lot, please help SETI.

Priest 1: "I think I see what you refer to.  The paragraph in which the Lord has Adam name all the beasts.  Is that it?  But that's a minor thing.  Nobody considers it important."

Priest 2: "Not important?  The very first request by the Creator of His creation?  The only request that has nothing to do with the repair work of mortality or rescue from sin?  Would such a thing have been mentioned so prominently if the Lord were merely idly curious?  ...Our original purpose was clearly to glorify God by going forth, comprehending, and naming the Creator's works.  Therefore, aren't zoologists, crawling through the jungle, struggling to name endangered species before they go extinct, doing holy labor?  Or take even those camera-bearing probes we have sent to other planets...What is the first thing we do when awe-inspiring vistas of some faraway moon are transmitted back by our little robot envoys?  Why, we reverently name the craters, valleys, and other strange beasts out there.  So you see it's impossible for the end of days to come, as your group predicts, till we succeed in our mission or utterly fail.  Either we'll complete the preservation and description of this Earth and go forth to name everything else in God's universe, or we'll prove ourselves unworthy by spoiling what we started with - this our first garden.  Either way, the verdict's not in yet."

Priest 3 (much later in the book): "We now strongly believe the oldest heavenly commandment commissions humanity to go forth, observe God's works, and glorify Him by giving names to all things.  In that quest, no human venture has dared so much or succeeded as well as Voyager.  It has given us moons and rings and distant planets, great valleys and craters and other marvels.  It plumbed Jupiter's storms and Saturn's lightning and sent home pictures of the puzzle that is Miranda.  No other modern enterprise has so glorified the Creator, showing us as much of His grand design, as faithful Voyager, our first emissary to the stars.

Tens of millions of Americans have already fallen prey to this deceit, at inestimable cost to the nation in lost productivity and time.

We all know that Barack Obama's e-campaign has saturated the internets. But is it possible that Obama is the sinister mastermind of the greatest internet hoax in history? You donors, by your great numbers and your predilection for donation via computer, have only helped propagate the vast and innumerable appendages of Obama's electronic network. Consider the labor represented by these donations, and that it might all be funding a..well, a little while lie? The boy who cried wolf? Mass disinformation, or maybe even treason? While Barack Obama is on vacation, the documentary evidence below shows exactly what he's planning on doing with your money.

Video here

I am firmly convinced that Barack Obama is the archvillain responsible for the original, and all similar internet hoaxes; he also encouraged the copycats. He has the resources and the contacts to pull it off: the 57-state strategy, and the largest internetwork of donors ever. From his mouth to your ears.

Reported on NPR presently.

As I'm writing this, the clock is turning over on the West Coast, and it's already June 18th back East.  Summer's practically here, and no gas tax relief has arrived.  This was always a frivolous and pandering piece of legislation, and Americans' recognition of that candyman politics, along with a general knowledge of arithmetic, made most of them rightly cynical about an 18.4c tax break on a gallon of gas whose price has increased about 60c/gal since legislation was first introduced. Unfortunately, there was no tidal wave of public support to sweep this plan through Congress.

John McCain renewed his call early last week, a few times.  Sam Brownback even weighed in.  Still 7, 8, 10 days later, no tidal wave of support arose.

Now that Memorial Day is long past, and summer is only 3 or 4 days away, I think we can safely say that the clock has run out on this legislation, especially since the general public sees no end in sight to the price increases, but a definite ceiling AND sunset on the relief that the tax break can give to them.  A hundred hours or less till summer begins.  Isn't it too late for Methuselah?

Would their side like to admit defeat, please?

Disclaimer.  Not a serious post.  Read no further if you were seeking muck or political enlightenment.  Or if you hate South Park.  Should be good for a laugh if you're tired and you need one after the Democratic Primary Nomination Process That Just Wouldn't End.

If you'll take a look at this week's Muck, you might notice that a few of the stories that broke within about 24 hours resemble a muckraker pastiche of a classic South Park episode.

Phase I:  Collect Underpants
Phase II: ?
Phase III: Profit

For years, we asked, "What's Phase II?"

Now, we finally know the answer to that question.

But more importantly: Has TPMMuckraker succumbed to the foul and besotting influence of the Underpants Gnomes?  Has their vile influence affected the journalistic integrity of Josh Marshall's intrepid muckbloggers?  How else can we explain this blatant disclosure of the Gnomes' familiar and despicable plan, right there on the Muck's front page?  Is it all merely a coincidence?

Just to be careful, Tweek and I will be guarding my laundry machine this weekend.

I mentioned already in my last post how I'm tired of hearing Michigan being mentioned in the same sentence as Florida with respect to a bungled election, and sick of hearing Michigan used in political arguments as a result.  Here's a real dud I heard a couple of days ago.

I heard a Republican host on an AM conservative talk radio station giving an awful talking point, and I would like to know if anyone else has heard this one.  This rightwing radio host was heaping scorn upon the DNC RBC for its decision to only award 1/2 a vote to each delegate from the states of Michigan and Florida.  He compared it to the fundamental injustice enshrined in the original version of our Constitution, the 3/5 slave population count for purposes of Congressional representation in slave states.

He didn't mention that, intelligently and competently, the RNC did the exact same thing to its Republican delegates from the same 2 states, months ago.  Now, the DNC RBC is rightly deserving of scorn for its failure to handle this situation in the exact same way as the RNC: delegates at 1/2 strength, decided months ago, before the contests, and agreed upon by everyone prior, without controversy.

But comparing the DNC RBC to the enablers of slaveholding when the RNC had done the exact same thing with their delegations was hypocrisy and slander, and I unfortunately lost reception before I could call in and rip him one.

I was wondering if anyone else has heard similar rhetoric coming from the right (politician or pundit or whomever), or seen it in print.  And warning you all that this tripe is out there and being consumed by the less intelligent rightwingers.  So be prepared to bash some people with your smart sticks on this one.

And while I have your attention, I'd like to extend my congratulations to the Red Wings, who just won the Stanley Cup.  The 'Wings won a hotly contested game 6 in Pittsburgh by a score of 3 to 2, ending their series against the Penguins at 4 games to 2, and sending the cup back to the Joe Louis Arena yet again.  The Red Wings' last took the Stanley Cup in 2002.  Henrik Zedderberg was awarded the Conn Smythe Trophy, and this marks the first time a team with a European Captain, Niklas Lidstrom, has won the Stanley Cup.

So here's parts of the term paper I hinted at in a comment in CT's recent blog along with some of my own current thoughts scattered throughout and at the end.

I've cut half the length or more, but it's still a crazy-long post.

I think I wrote this in November or December, 2006.  Gasoline had hit all time highs of $3+ the previous summer.

This investigation considers the effect of an increasingly globalizing energy market on China's economic growth and energy demands, at present and in the near future.  China's rapid economic growth rate may be unsustainable at the current rate of increase in energy demand.  The link between globalized markets, resource depletion, and concomitant (and often steep) price increase has been widely demonstrated; the rapidly rising price of oil is just one example.  The characteristics of the current global economy, one dependent on oil for worldwide transportation, bring a complicated dilemma to China as she tries to expand her middle class.  China's major energy sources are considered as well, along with their future viability.  On the whole, this investigation examines current trends in energy use and the oil market; shows their direct relationship to globalization; and evaluates the repercussions for a rapidly growing Chinese economy.  Finally, we consider some possible alternatives to an oil crunch.

The next paragraph is basically statistics in prose, so it'd be better & space-saving to just give it as bullet points.  All statistics are for China:

-China's economic growth rate over 9%/yr for the past 25 years (Wen, 2005)
-Expected to maintain growth rates around 7-8%/yr for decades to come (Crompton & Wu, 2004; Shen et al, 2005).
-GDP expected to overtake Italy, France, Great Britain and Germany by 2010
-Japan by 2020
-the EU and US by 2050
-2nd largest energy consumer (Crompton & Wu, 2004)
-3rd largest consumer of oil (behind Japan & US) (He et al, 2005)
-total energy consumption climbed 9%/yr from 1953-96, from 54 million tons coal equivalent (MtCE) to 1377 MtCE, and rose about 3%/yr to 1678 MtCE by 2003 (Crompton & Wu, 2004)
-40% of the world's total growth in energy consumption btwn '00-'04 (Crompton & Wu, 2004)
-China's oil consumption increased 4%/yr for the last 2 decades (He et al, 2005)
-Btwn '97 & '02, the transportation system's share of national oil consumption rose from 23% to 32%; it will be the dominant share within 20 yrs (He et al, 2005).  This is a sign of the burgeoning middle class and the growing number of cars; very soon, China will have more cars than America.

Visit DOE and look at the oil statistics; then feel free to click on the links on the right side for other pretty graphs showing China's ravenous growth.

I also pulled some graphs from Oilnergy, another place that CT has pointed us before.  But the graphs in my paper are from 2006; the link is current.

...These trends will make it difficult to supply oil for the multiplying cars of the growing middle class.  An oil crunch will have a chilling effect on China's hot economy.

The link between globalization and resource depletion has been demonstrated before... A free market encourages consumption, which in turn causes depletion (Reed, 2002)... It can be presumed, under supply & demand, that the rapidly increasing rate of oil consumption will similarly cause the price of oil to spike after world peak oil production is reached (Barnett, 2006).  This could cause transportation and thus the global economy to slow to a virtual standstill, unless alternative transportation fuels are rapidly integrated:

"...the major factor that enables globalization to flourish around the world...is still cheap oil.  Cheap oil runs the ships, planes, trucks, cars, tractors...that globalization needs; cheap oil lifts the giant containers with their global cargos off the container ships...cheap oil even mines and processes the coal, grows and distills the biofuels, drills the gas wells, and builds the nuclear power plants while digging and refining the uranium ore..." (Ehrenfield, 2005)

Note especially that oil is the major fuel source for all major forms of transportation; and transport is a prerequisite for global trade.  Transportation accounts for 27% of the world's energy consumption (Gan, 2003).  The nature of the internal combustion engine..requires a volatile liquid fuel to aerosolize and mix with air in the proper ratio for efficient, explosive combustion.  Consequently, fuels that see use in combustion engines today include ethanol, C/LNG, vegetable oil, biodiesel, and of course refined petroleum gasoline and diesel.  Therefore, global economic growth must be intimately tied to the price and availability of oil...

More statistics:
-69% of China's energy is from coal (it was 65% in 2006, when I wrote the paper, an upward trend I [and many others] predicted then), about 25% from oil (DOE, ibid)
-If economic growth rates are maintained, China's energy consumption should grow anywhere from a factor of 7 to a factor of 20 by the year 2050 (Gan, 2003; Crompton & Wu, 2005)

...These calculations aren't perfect forecasts, as there is great question as to the sustainability of current growth rates.  Coal, the most prevalent fuel worldwide, will likely maintain relatively stable prices throughout this period; but considering the current unstable oil prices...it is likely that the price will become prohibitive...chilling....the global economy.  As transportation costs become an increasing fraction of total production costs, non-profitable markets will start disappearing.  Eventually, the price of oil will make its use for electricity generation prohibitive.  Except perhaps for fueling vehicles for the transport of goods and commuting, China will need to turn away from oil as an energy source.

...Coal produces most of the world's energy, because of its ubiquity and low cost.  With almost limitless, globally-distributed reserves and a price that is projected to fall for the next decade before increasing, coal will likely be the path of least resistance for developing countries seeking an alternative path as the price of oil becomes prohibitive for energy generation.  In the future, developing countries with growing GDP will most likely see their transportation shares of total oil consumption approach unity, and their coal shares of total energy production should also rise.  Preparing for these emerging trends will be valuable for developed and developing countries alike.  Important environmental considerations include air pollution, public health (especially respiratory hlth.), ecological damage, and global climate change.  The primary economic considerations are energy conservation and viable new transportation fuels.

It goes on with China's environmental problems.  You can probably find a good list somewhere if you were to look.  Acid rain, desertification, smog in major cities worse than Los Angeles' worst days, low water per capita, low average arable land per capita, net importer of food...  you get the idea.  See J. Diamond's Collapse or Lester Brown's Plan B for more on China's env'tal problems..

...The nature of coal emissions can increase the impacts of all of these problems...sulfur content...responsible for acid rain...harmful to ecologies, leaches minerals from the soil, and thereby contributes to soil erosion and desertification.  China, with only 1/3 to 1/2 of the global average arable land per capita due to its massive population, suffers tremendously when land area is lost to these processes (Wen, 2005).  In terms of global climate change, a hypothetical increase in coal consumption will increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  Already, China is the world's 2nd largest GHG emitter, and could exceed the U.S. as early as 2020 (Wen, 2005).  Chinese models predict that warming would cause less rainfall in arid northern China, and more...in "humid" southern China; [the North is subject to extended drough, and the South to flooding], so global warming is expected to exacerbate these problems [while seriously hurting grain production] (Wen, 2005).  For a nation with 1/4 the water resources of the global average, that is more heavily populated than any other, this...could mean serious environmental crises: famine, crop failure, erosion...Although coal, based on price and ubiquity, seems like an attractive alternative in an oil-starved energy market, the environmental imapcts would be too severe for a major, sustained reliance on coal.

The last concern I raise is number of vehicles; I'll hash it out quickly.
-1980, 2 million vehicles
-'90, 6.2 million
-'98, 13.2 million
-'03, 36 million
-'08, 120 million
At that rate, China will have more cars than the U.S. by 2015.

I favorably review the CAFE standards passed by China in 2002; the first set went into effect in 2005, and higher standard was/will be adopted this year.

Unfortunately, the rate of growth in car ownership has far outpaced CAFE savings; the trend in car ownership shows no sign of abating.  And so we're in the mess we are today with $4 gas and no end in sight to the rising prices.

At the time of the writing, America had not yet adopted new CAFE standards, and I advocated strongly for them (predictably).

The food security issues make biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel) a tricky question for China; at the time, I didn't really have a good answer, and I still don't.  Things like crop wastes end up being used as cooking fuels; they can't spare any food for biofuels either.  Every society produces unused biomass, but China's so strapped that the available biomass streams are probably not adequate to meet the country's liquid fuel needs.

Had the U.S. felt like being more constructive against climate change in the last 8 years, we might've had a prototype CO2-sequestration coal-fired power plant up and running by now, and several years of time to observe whether the idea even works.  I say build two, right now, in China and the U.S.  I don't care if the U.S. has to pay for it all, it should be done, and we should've gotten started a long time ago.  If the technology works, then we might see carbon emissions from coal drop significantly within a decade or two.

Fortunately, China has a more functional rail system than the U.S., so there will be a not entirely uncomfortable reversion to this old mainstay for many in the middle class.

The last suggestion I made in this paper was for the formation of an Asian Energy Union, with China, India, Russia, and maybe Indonesia as main partners.  China and India had already started collaborating on joint bids for projects at the time.  The petrodollar skews the price of a barrel of oil by as much as $2-4 for many of the world's markets, and an alternative to OPEC has long been needed. The hope was that such a union might help create more stable oil prices, and a secure regional energy market.  But the point is sort of becoming moot with the price of oil as high as it is right now.

Or is it?  I heard on NPR the other day that a quarter of a trillion dollars of speculator money is ballooning the price of oil.  The socialist in me has always thought it seemed slightly unethical to profiteer off of a resource so vital to economic development, transportation, trade, food security, etc..  But the environmentalist comes back and says that this oil price spike is putting a much-needed brake on the world economy, at a time when we all need to step back, take a deep breath, and reevaluate what is necessary to prevent or at least mitigate the collapse that CT elaborates in his other recent post.

In any case, our best minds need to be considering the China bomb.  Didn't I hear not too long ago that growth in GHG's is outpacing even the latest IPCC report's modelled worst case scenarios?  This is all the more reason for us to figure out how to build a zero emissions coal fired power plant, because as long as we intend to rely on cheap energy, the trends we've observed will continue and coal becomes the last cheap option.  The best way to fight global warming would be to develop zero emission coal technology and give it to China; and even help them retrofit and/or build their plants while we're tweaking all of our domestic ones simultaneously.  The sheer number of such power plants to retool is staggering though; perhaps even unrealistic.   Even so, the idea has been out there, untested and untried, for the last 8 years at least; I advocate strongly that we should at least try, since coal and coal-fired power plants are everywhere.  If it turns out the technology works, and it's adaptable to many of the power plant designs in wide use, then we have our work cut out for us.

Congratulations, you have reached the end.  Hit recommend if you feel enlightened as to the depth of the China/Energy problem.

Works Cited

Barnett, Courtenay.  “Oil, Conflict, and the Future of Global Energy Supplies.” 1/22/2006

Crompton, Paul and Wu, Yanrui.  “Energy Consumption in China: Past Trends and Future Directions.” Energy Economics, 27, p195-208; 2004.

Ehrenfield, David.  “The Environmental Limits to Globalization.”  Conservation Biology, 19, p318-326; 2005.

Gan, Lin.  “Globalization of the Automobile Industry in China: Dynamics and Barriers in the Greening of the Road Transportation.”  Energy Policy, 31, p537-551; 2003

He, Kebin, et al.  “Oil Consumption and CO2 Emissions in China’s Road Transport:  Current Status, Future Trends, and Policy Implications.”  Energy Policy, 33, p1499-1507; 2005

Reed, Darryl.  “Resource Extraction Industries in Developing Countries.”  Journal of Business Ethics, 39, p199-226; 2002

Wen, Dale.  “China Copes with Globalization: A Mixed Review.”  International Forum on Globalization document, published 2006

So ingrained in our electoral lexicon is this word that Genghis mentioned it first in his recent post.  Pundits too have picked up on the many conjugations &  permutations that have been utilized by one of the campaigns for the Democratic Presidential Nomination.  The word has become synonymous with passion and righteousness, as if those who invoke the mantle of "fighter" are somehow more passionate in their support of a just cause than those who do not.

It was pointed out to me by a pundit on Washington Week with Gwen Eiffel that the aforementioned campaign has used every conjugation and permutation of "fight," and I mention this again in passing because it was this observation that reminded me of a great suspense (and sci-fi) book written by Ira Levin, This Perfect Day.

For a good overview of the book, check out Wikipedia's entry.  Some background for the story: humanity has been united in a utopian, communist society under the leadership of a supercomputer named UniComp (or Uni).  Like every good Ira Levin book, the seemingly paradisical setting has clear cracks that grow as the novel proceeds; people are constantly monitored & directed by the computer, drugged to prevent them reaching their full potential, encouraged to tell on one another, and they all mysteriously die at age 62.  Children sing this nursery rhyme:
"Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei,
Led us to this perfect day.
Marx, Wood, Wei and Christ,
All but Wei were sacrificed.
Wood, Wei, Christ and Marx,
Gave us lovely schools and parks.
Wei, Christ, Marx and Wood,
Made us humble, made us good."

But I really encourage you to read the Wiki summary, as I'd like to get on with my points.  In this world, along with many other odd social developments, the word "Fight" is a cuss word as bad as the F-bomb.  In a peaceful, sanitized utopia, this word is distasteful to the extreme.

People say things like, "Can you believe people were so fighting stupid?  War is hell, I'm glad there hasn't been a war in..."

And "Fight her, she's terrible at her job."

And "Fight Uni."

I hadn't thought about this book in years, but the overuse of "fight" recently has definitely crossed the threshold into the meme category.  As I mentioned, it seems to be a way to emphasize one's passionate advocacy of a just cause. Invariably, the cause a candidate will "fight" for is something good (favorable to the audience at least), so fighting for it must be good.

Naturally, the reason I was reminded of Ira Levin's book is because of the negatively-connotated "fight" meme in this book.  The reason we recoil in confusion or perhaps amusement at the naivete of using the word "fight" as a swear word is because we know "fight" does not have a negative connotation.

Furthermore, "fight" doesn't have a positive connotation.

I always thought that the word "fight" is value neutral.  I would suggest that constantly using this word next to just causes or causes that will generate hearty applause conflates a positive connotation onto this word.  The word has been worked into the narrative again and again, as though it were a positive characteristic or habit of one of the candidates.  As if it were not value neutral.  Fighting for the right causes is great; but if you happen to pick the wrong cause, being a fighter makes it harder to concede early, harder to steer us all collectively onto the right path.

"Fight" appeals to a certain type of voter.  No warmongering is necessary to use this militant word.  One can say one will fight for healthcare or tax cuts or whatever, or describe oneself as a lifelong fighter.  It makes one appear tough, steel-spined.  You might even argue that this word is a little hawkish, and appeals to hawkish voters.

So.  My intent is not to offend anyone, or to name names - I was careful not to.  I'm just making some observations and hypotheses here about (what I've always thought was) a value neutral word whose connotation has, from what I've seen, been distorted in a definite direction over the past few months.

Of course, I also wanted to contrast this use with the silly, F-bomb-like connotation of "fight" in This Perfect Day, which is a highly recommended read.

Kudos to them for covering the story of the pre-war Pentagon psyops campaign that has been totally ignored by the MSM.  One of the guests of The News Hour called the practice completely illegal, three times.  Frankly, I agree.

These Pentagon shills were commissioned on our tax dollars to sell us a fiasco of a war.

Paul Kiel, if you're reading this, I'd like to see TPMMuckraker covering this story.