Thursday, October 28, 2004
Divided we stand - some election observations
Divided we stand - some election observations
Is this really the election of a lifetime? Is security the overarching issue?An Israeli friend who comes to T&V country every year - most recently staying at the International Seamen's Mission Hotel, 16th Street and Irving Place, where a merchant mariner's card gives you a 30% discount off the reasonable $100 a night rates - provides some insight. Seeing the security guards electronically pat down the concertgoers at the Irving Plaza rock and roll emporium, across the street from the hotel, equates, to him, the US attitudes with those of Israel, where fear of terror is a daily concern and every restaurant and coffeeshop has searchers. He sees the US airport protection measures as even more severe than those of Israel, where ElAl security people interview the people standing in line, and let the grandmothers pass without the indignities that random number-driven search systems expose them to. Druze and Bedouin guards at border crossings screen Arab day laborers, and pick up suspicious language and behavior differences. Palestinians still cross every day to work for Israelis, the tension notwithstanding. All that interaction despite the fact that the Palestinian adherence to Hamas has grown from 20 to 60% since 2000. This leftwing Meretz party adherent himself has grown to accept the idea that peace is impossible and that the famous 20-foot fence is essential to minimizing terrorism. Although he thinks Carey will reduce the tension and facilitate some form of international cooperation and order in Iraq, his is not the majority opinion in Israel, where the thought that "Bush is good for us" prevails.
In our own country, the splits within the communities are bitter, beyond anything in one's recall. In the Jewish community, Jewish Week, a middle of the line weekly, reports that of American Jews (69 to 24% for Kerry), some 60% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq while within the 20% Russian émigré substrata (54 to 14 for Bush), most approve of it, 55 to 27%. Security above all is the issue. On withdrawal from Gaza the American vs. Russian Jewish approval ratios are 65 vs. 34%, on the issue of a Palestinian state 57 vs. 24%, on compromising over the status of Jerusalem 42 to 7%, on the fence 69 vs. 88%, and on the war on terrorism 42 to 88%. The undecided factions are major. Economic factors appear to be ignored: the Russian émigrés are poor people, 53 % unemployed, 67% reporting family incomes of $30,000 a year or less. Victor Topaller, Russian talk show host, is quoted as observing that Russian Jews, unlike their American brethren, feel Jewish first and American second. Alec Brook-Krasny, executive director of the Council of Jewish Émigré Community Organizations, believes that there is some ambivalence, and the community members, heavily dependent upon social benefits and American government services, may change their allegiances if such services are threatened.
Gary Rosenblatt, the editor and publisher of Jewish Week, keeps editorializing about being torn between the positions, finally declaring that preserving Israel will be the determinant factor in his voting. While Carey has a 100% pro-Israel record, it was Nixon who sent arms to defend the new Jewish homeland in the 1972 Yom Kippur war. Rosenblatt does not believe that his 1972 candidate, George McGovern, would have responded as positively.
And so it goes. The observer begins to wonder how many among us really stand for the best interests of the United Sates of America, who wants to work for the limiting of bloodshed, for the survival of civilization? The Evangelical Christians base their voting on Bush's religious convictions. The Rev Pat Robertson, while becrying the lies about minimal bloodshed, does not disapprove of the Bush way of warring. His partner in the Christian Coalition, the racist Rev Billy McCormack, just last week, on CNN, dubbed the Constitution-minded opponents of the Coalition's political activities as Antichrists, a severe accusation. The Republican leadership in Colorado Springs plan to call the casters of absentee ballots to come and vote anyway, just to confuse the issue, with "no intention of stealing." America, what has happened to us?
In T&V country the sentiments run deep. There are people who have gone to Pennsylvania for rallies, and are going to Ohio to call on Democrats, and to Florida, to help run phone banks bringing out voters, in cooperation with local van driving volunteers. What are the concerns, since Bush and Carey both has sworn to continue the war? The hope of a fresh start in negotiations and coalition building gives the war weary the impetus to press for Kerry, and the fear of a Republican Supreme Court and destruction of American principles drives the liberal-minded. Terror, a 9/11 reality for the East Coasters, is, curiously, the overwhelming issue in middle America, in the safe harbor red states.
This terrible, nearly 50-50 dichotomy bodes ill for a just and speedy election. Challenges will occur in a lot more states than just Florida, bringing a new delay and squabble factor into the elections, along with the concern that the Supreme Court may once more cast the deciding vote in selecting our President. Let us pray for a temporary return of sanity.
Is this really the election of a lifetime? Is security the overarching issue?An Israeli friend who comes to T&V country every year - most recently staying at the International Seamen's Mission Hotel, 16th Street and Irving Place, where a merchant mariner's card gives you a 30% discount off the reasonable $100 a night rates - provides some insight. Seeing the security guards electronically pat down the concertgoers at the Irving Plaza rock and roll emporium, across the street from the hotel, equates, to him, the US attitudes with those of Israel, where fear of terror is a daily concern and every restaurant and coffeeshop has searchers. He sees the US airport protection measures as even more severe than those of Israel, where ElAl security people interview the people standing in line, and let the grandmothers pass without the indignities that random number-driven search systems expose them to. Druze and Bedouin guards at border crossings screen Arab day laborers, and pick up suspicious language and behavior differences. Palestinians still cross every day to work for Israelis, the tension notwithstanding. All that interaction despite the fact that the Palestinian adherence to Hamas has grown from 20 to 60% since 2000. This leftwing Meretz party adherent himself has grown to accept the idea that peace is impossible and that the famous 20-foot fence is essential to minimizing terrorism. Although he thinks Carey will reduce the tension and facilitate some form of international cooperation and order in Iraq, his is not the majority opinion in Israel, where the thought that "Bush is good for us" prevails.
In our own country, the splits within the communities are bitter, beyond anything in one's recall. In the Jewish community, Jewish Week, a middle of the line weekly, reports that of American Jews (69 to 24% for Kerry), some 60% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq while within the 20% Russian émigré substrata (54 to 14 for Bush), most approve of it, 55 to 27%. Security above all is the issue. On withdrawal from Gaza the American vs. Russian Jewish approval ratios are 65 vs. 34%, on the issue of a Palestinian state 57 vs. 24%, on compromising over the status of Jerusalem 42 to 7%, on the fence 69 vs. 88%, and on the war on terrorism 42 to 88%. The undecided factions are major. Economic factors appear to be ignored: the Russian émigrés are poor people, 53 % unemployed, 67% reporting family incomes of $30,000 a year or less. Victor Topaller, Russian talk show host, is quoted as observing that Russian Jews, unlike their American brethren, feel Jewish first and American second. Alec Brook-Krasny, executive director of the Council of Jewish Émigré Community Organizations, believes that there is some ambivalence, and the community members, heavily dependent upon social benefits and American government services, may change their allegiances if such services are threatened.
Gary Rosenblatt, the editor and publisher of Jewish Week, keeps editorializing about being torn between the positions, finally declaring that preserving Israel will be the determinant factor in his voting. While Carey has a 100% pro-Israel record, it was Nixon who sent arms to defend the new Jewish homeland in the 1972 Yom Kippur war. Rosenblatt does not believe that his 1972 candidate, George McGovern, would have responded as positively.
And so it goes. The observer begins to wonder how many among us really stand for the best interests of the United Sates of America, who wants to work for the limiting of bloodshed, for the survival of civilization? The Evangelical Christians base their voting on Bush's religious convictions. The Rev Pat Robertson, while becrying the lies about minimal bloodshed, does not disapprove of the Bush way of warring. His partner in the Christian Coalition, the racist Rev Billy McCormack, just last week, on CNN, dubbed the Constitution-minded opponents of the Coalition's political activities as Antichrists, a severe accusation. The Republican leadership in Colorado Springs plan to call the casters of absentee ballots to come and vote anyway, just to confuse the issue, with "no intention of stealing." America, what has happened to us?
In T&V country the sentiments run deep. There are people who have gone to Pennsylvania for rallies, and are going to Ohio to call on Democrats, and to Florida, to help run phone banks bringing out voters, in cooperation with local van driving volunteers. What are the concerns, since Bush and Carey both has sworn to continue the war? The hope of a fresh start in negotiations and coalition building gives the war weary the impetus to press for Kerry, and the fear of a Republican Supreme Court and destruction of American principles drives the liberal-minded. Terror, a 9/11 reality for the East Coasters, is, curiously, the overwhelming issue in middle America, in the safe harbor red states.
This terrible, nearly 50-50 dichotomy bodes ill for a just and speedy election. Challenges will occur in a lot more states than just Florida, bringing a new delay and squabble factor into the elections, along with the concern that the Supreme Court may once more cast the deciding vote in selecting our President. Let us pray for a temporary return of sanity.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Dr Paranoia explains presidential politics and programs
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
A message from Dr. Paranoia: “Totally befuddled by the back-and-forth in political fortunes in the Presidency race, I checked with one of your area Democratic leaders, who expressed serious concerns about whether Kerry will carry New York and New Jersey, and implored me to vote. Not knowing whether this was the party foofah to bring out the vote, or something serious, I hied to the Midtown restaurant where the Texan who knows holds court.
When I arrived, the Texan was sitting at the bar, sipping his usual Maker’s Mark bourbon. “Let me tell you why you are confused. These are both equally patriotic and militant defenders of the order of the world as we know it, but they work from two totally different premises. When 9/11 occurred, the Neocons, old Cold War warriors, could not see terrorism as a ground swell move, and first looked for a state sponsorship. They found Afghanistan and destroyed it, but did not proceed after the leadership of Al-Qaeda. Their decision was to duplicate the collapse of the Evil Empire, by finding another dictatorial sponsor and turning his kingdom into a democracy, thus giving example for the sad, poor and suppressed people of the 22 Arab League countries, all ruled by dictatorial hereditary sheiks or strongmen. This worked in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries, why not in the Middle East? Sharon's Israelis were using the same ploy, attacking the Palestinian state structure in retaliation for terrorist attacks.
“There were only a few small problems – the Iraqis were nationalist and resented the US invasion, the country chosen was torn between the Sunni, Shia and Kurd factions, the Al-Qaeda used the invasion to build their strength among the Islamist US-haters, and the liberated nationalists, when strong enough to overthrow their dictators, would produce democratic governments that would turn against us. And the liberation theory was not honest, aimed only at Lebanon and Syria, because the Arab dictator sheiks are the ones all American governments have been and will have to continue protecting, to assure the US economy of steady oil supply, until an alternative arises. Ha!.
“Thus the Bush scenario. Now the Democratic thinking, which at the Congress level agreed with Bush in April 2003, to the point of authorizing him to proceed with attacking Iraq, under the premise that showing unanimity would strengthen his hand in negotiations. But there was no subsequent unanimity among the Dems, who, on the Left, showed strong antiwar feelings, as evidenced by the massive Deaniac attack, the persistence of Kusinic and the antiwar marchers during the GOP convention in New York. That group should like to fight terrorists the way we fight drug invasion, in bits and pieces, with equal lack of success.
“Although Kerry emerged as the centrist compromise, much of America still distrusts him. His program is fuzzy, although he tries to show strength and determination and speaks of killing terrorists more than Bush does. Obviously, the war will go on. What is emerging is that he will go to the nations of the world, stating that he comes with a clean slate, willing to negotiate joint or coordinated actions in a common fight against terrorism, exchange of information and participate in deals with Russia, China, France and Germany, with concessions. His will not be a John Wayne “go it alone” war, with the allies crumbling. He sees no Samuel P. Huntington’s clash of cultures; the terrorist Islamists constitute a small fraction of the world’s Muslims, and the rest, although many detest our civilization of liberty and freedom for women, would still like to be part of our prosperity. Kerry will push Iraqi involvement in fighting and subverting members of the 20-30 groups of nationalists and Al-Qaedas, with rewards for collaboration. But Kerry cannot broadcast the details, and undermine his objectives. The withdrawal from Iraq in four years may have to be disclaimed for policy reasons, and also the “no tax increases for earners under $200,000.” The nuclear powers will be strongly motivated towards the signing of the non-proliferation treaty, starting in Pakistan, where we have some influence with Musharraf, and India, and doing individual deals with North Korea and Iran, with Israel a question.”
“This was a great analysis, but what about New York and New Jersey? East Midtown will not go with Bush, but what about the rest of the state?” Dr. Paranoia wanted to know. The Texan grumbled, got up from the barstool, curtly apologized and departed, leaving Dr. P perplexed.
“You want to know why he left?’ spoke the up to now silent bartender. “He believes that Kerry will win, but does not want to admit to it. That’s all, no animosity, just denial. I know, just call me Dr Freud.”
Flu tips from Dr.P.: Wash hands with soap, frequently. Do no social kissing. Avoid breathing on people and vice versa. In subway, use your newspaper as a barrier – and travel standing up. Take Vitamin C, Zinc or Echinacea/Goldenseal to boost your immunity. Good luck to all of us.
A message from Dr. Paranoia: “Totally befuddled by the back-and-forth in political fortunes in the Presidency race, I checked with one of your area Democratic leaders, who expressed serious concerns about whether Kerry will carry New York and New Jersey, and implored me to vote. Not knowing whether this was the party foofah to bring out the vote, or something serious, I hied to the Midtown restaurant where the Texan who knows holds court.
When I arrived, the Texan was sitting at the bar, sipping his usual Maker’s Mark bourbon. “Let me tell you why you are confused. These are both equally patriotic and militant defenders of the order of the world as we know it, but they work from two totally different premises. When 9/11 occurred, the Neocons, old Cold War warriors, could not see terrorism as a ground swell move, and first looked for a state sponsorship. They found Afghanistan and destroyed it, but did not proceed after the leadership of Al-Qaeda. Their decision was to duplicate the collapse of the Evil Empire, by finding another dictatorial sponsor and turning his kingdom into a democracy, thus giving example for the sad, poor and suppressed people of the 22 Arab League countries, all ruled by dictatorial hereditary sheiks or strongmen. This worked in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries, why not in the Middle East? Sharon's Israelis were using the same ploy, attacking the Palestinian state structure in retaliation for terrorist attacks.
“There were only a few small problems – the Iraqis were nationalist and resented the US invasion, the country chosen was torn between the Sunni, Shia and Kurd factions, the Al-Qaeda used the invasion to build their strength among the Islamist US-haters, and the liberated nationalists, when strong enough to overthrow their dictators, would produce democratic governments that would turn against us. And the liberation theory was not honest, aimed only at Lebanon and Syria, because the Arab dictator sheiks are the ones all American governments have been and will have to continue protecting, to assure the US economy of steady oil supply, until an alternative arises. Ha!.
“Thus the Bush scenario. Now the Democratic thinking, which at the Congress level agreed with Bush in April 2003, to the point of authorizing him to proceed with attacking Iraq, under the premise that showing unanimity would strengthen his hand in negotiations. But there was no subsequent unanimity among the Dems, who, on the Left, showed strong antiwar feelings, as evidenced by the massive Deaniac attack, the persistence of Kusinic and the antiwar marchers during the GOP convention in New York. That group should like to fight terrorists the way we fight drug invasion, in bits and pieces, with equal lack of success.
“Although Kerry emerged as the centrist compromise, much of America still distrusts him. His program is fuzzy, although he tries to show strength and determination and speaks of killing terrorists more than Bush does. Obviously, the war will go on. What is emerging is that he will go to the nations of the world, stating that he comes with a clean slate, willing to negotiate joint or coordinated actions in a common fight against terrorism, exchange of information and participate in deals with Russia, China, France and Germany, with concessions. His will not be a John Wayne “go it alone” war, with the allies crumbling. He sees no Samuel P. Huntington’s clash of cultures; the terrorist Islamists constitute a small fraction of the world’s Muslims, and the rest, although many detest our civilization of liberty and freedom for women, would still like to be part of our prosperity. Kerry will push Iraqi involvement in fighting and subverting members of the 20-30 groups of nationalists and Al-Qaedas, with rewards for collaboration. But Kerry cannot broadcast the details, and undermine his objectives. The withdrawal from Iraq in four years may have to be disclaimed for policy reasons, and also the “no tax increases for earners under $200,000.” The nuclear powers will be strongly motivated towards the signing of the non-proliferation treaty, starting in Pakistan, where we have some influence with Musharraf, and India, and doing individual deals with North Korea and Iran, with Israel a question.”
“This was a great analysis, but what about New York and New Jersey? East Midtown will not go with Bush, but what about the rest of the state?” Dr. Paranoia wanted to know. The Texan grumbled, got up from the barstool, curtly apologized and departed, leaving Dr. P perplexed.
“You want to know why he left?’ spoke the up to now silent bartender. “He believes that Kerry will win, but does not want to admit to it. That’s all, no animosity, just denial. I know, just call me Dr Freud.”
Flu tips from Dr.P.: Wash hands with soap, frequently. Do no social kissing. Avoid breathing on people and vice versa. In subway, use your newspaper as a barrier – and travel standing up. Take Vitamin C, Zinc or Echinacea/Goldenseal to boost your immunity. Good luck to all of us.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Blaming the bad summer on Bush -a joke or serious matter?
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
As Midtown Manhattan gets drenched in torrential rains, while Gramercy, Union Square, Stuyvesant and Madison Square parks perk up, refreshed by Mother Nature’s bounty of water, we the acute and observant cityites ask each other; “What happened to our weather? Has something changed?”
Yes, something has changed in nature, say the independent weather people, while the big-business controlled EPA types deny it. Actually, it is the US-funded National Institute on Atmospheric Research that produces the analysis of greenhouse gasses that the Bush EPA pooh-poohs. On NPR’s environmental series Living on Earth, NCAR’s Director of Climatic Research Dr.Kevin Trenberth has stated that greenhouse gases (GHG) have produced global warming responsible for 10-15% of increase in the intensity of hurricanes over the past 30 years. The gases trap Earth’s radiation in the atmosphere, not letting it dissipate into space. Polar ice caps melt. Coral reefs die, changing the food chain in the warm oceans. The warming of oceans contributes to evaporation, and water vapor itself is a powerful GHG that feeds on itself. Evaporation gives birth to thunderstorms, which collect into hurricanes, propagated by trade winds, around Cape Verde Islands west of Senegal. The hurricanes start earlier, last longer and the rainfalls are more severe, the ocean surges are larger. Their impact washes out beaches and destroys coastal areas.
This scenario has been recognized in the US Senate where the Lieberman -McCain Climate Stewardship Act, though defeated in October 2003, received an impressive 43-55 vote. Senator McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce and Science Committee, continues the effort. The bill requires the EPA to promote regulations that limit GHG emissions in industry and commerce, particularly energy and transportation, with loan incentives.
Global warming has long been recognized by the Congress, US has participated in the Montreal (1989), Rio de Janeiro (1992) and Kyoto (1997) conferences, in which the thrust has been to limit GHG emissions in the 40 industrial and the EEC countries (“Annex 1”) without hampering industrial development in the 130-plus participating developing countries. Of the six GHGs, three – carbon dioxide ((CO2, from use of fossil fuels), methane (ground and animal emissions) and hydrofluorcarbons (from refrigeration and spray can propellants) – are most damaging. The US is responsible for 22% of the world’s output of CO2.
US has long refused to sign the protocols (Kyoto, the latest, requires the Annex 1 countries to reduce emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 volume) without imposing some limits also on the developing countries, among which China is a major producer. George W. Bush, in his campaign for the Presidency, promised to control GHG emissions. In March 2001 he reversed, breaking the campaign pledge because limiting CO2 emissions from power plants would deal a severe blow to the industry and American economy. Since then, in February 2002, he decided to mend his image, and delivered a major speech, promising an 18% reduction in GHG emissions y 2012, based on a tricky linkage to GDP, produced voluntarily by the industry, and created another Committee, on Climate Change Science and Integration, chaired by the Secretaries of Commerce and Energy in rotation. How this integrates with the 1990 US Global Change Research Program Act (USGCRP), the President’s Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), and National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), only budget experts can tell. Meanwhile the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is crying for research funds, to help deal with deteriorating waters and climate.
Meanwhile the federal administrator of energy industry, a former electric industry lobbyist, is sabotaging the effort, quietly destroying President Nixon’s Clean air Act of 1970, by gradually changing the regulation that requires the energy producers to install scrubbers and such whenever they make repairs and upgrades that cost 2% a year of the total value of the plant. He raised the number to 20%, and any CEO can hold expenses in check, so as not to overstep the limit. Consequently, forget about scrubbers and clean air.
Also, the limiting mileage per gallon pollution rules governing Detroit is eroded, since they do not apply to the truck-based SUVs.
So, Midtown Manhattan people, do not complain about the deteriorating quality of your air, the rains, colds and sniffles and coughs. It is all perfectly legal, the rainfalls that bring acids from Midwest factories are also within acceptable limits. You must be dreaming, imagining things.
Meanwhile, there’s hope from an unexpected source. The Chinese, big air polluters, have set strict emission and mileage rules for their automotive industry, some 5% more stringent than those applicable to Detroit. Since GM and Ford want to build cars in that huge expanding market, they will have to develop the product. In the long run we, the people of T&V Country, may be driving in cleaner air cars thanks to China. But we all know what John Maynard Keynes said about the long run.
As Midtown Manhattan gets drenched in torrential rains, while Gramercy, Union Square, Stuyvesant and Madison Square parks perk up, refreshed by Mother Nature’s bounty of water, we the acute and observant cityites ask each other; “What happened to our weather? Has something changed?”
Yes, something has changed in nature, say the independent weather people, while the big-business controlled EPA types deny it. Actually, it is the US-funded National Institute on Atmospheric Research that produces the analysis of greenhouse gasses that the Bush EPA pooh-poohs. On NPR’s environmental series Living on Earth, NCAR’s Director of Climatic Research Dr.Kevin Trenberth has stated that greenhouse gases (GHG) have produced global warming responsible for 10-15% of increase in the intensity of hurricanes over the past 30 years. The gases trap Earth’s radiation in the atmosphere, not letting it dissipate into space. Polar ice caps melt. Coral reefs die, changing the food chain in the warm oceans. The warming of oceans contributes to evaporation, and water vapor itself is a powerful GHG that feeds on itself. Evaporation gives birth to thunderstorms, which collect into hurricanes, propagated by trade winds, around Cape Verde Islands west of Senegal. The hurricanes start earlier, last longer and the rainfalls are more severe, the ocean surges are larger. Their impact washes out beaches and destroys coastal areas.
This scenario has been recognized in the US Senate where the Lieberman -McCain Climate Stewardship Act, though defeated in October 2003, received an impressive 43-55 vote. Senator McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce and Science Committee, continues the effort. The bill requires the EPA to promote regulations that limit GHG emissions in industry and commerce, particularly energy and transportation, with loan incentives.
Global warming has long been recognized by the Congress, US has participated in the Montreal (1989), Rio de Janeiro (1992) and Kyoto (1997) conferences, in which the thrust has been to limit GHG emissions in the 40 industrial and the EEC countries (“Annex 1”) without hampering industrial development in the 130-plus participating developing countries. Of the six GHGs, three – carbon dioxide ((CO2, from use of fossil fuels), methane (ground and animal emissions) and hydrofluorcarbons (from refrigeration and spray can propellants) – are most damaging. The US is responsible for 22% of the world’s output of CO2.
US has long refused to sign the protocols (Kyoto, the latest, requires the Annex 1 countries to reduce emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 volume) without imposing some limits also on the developing countries, among which China is a major producer. George W. Bush, in his campaign for the Presidency, promised to control GHG emissions. In March 2001 he reversed, breaking the campaign pledge because limiting CO2 emissions from power plants would deal a severe blow to the industry and American economy. Since then, in February 2002, he decided to mend his image, and delivered a major speech, promising an 18% reduction in GHG emissions y 2012, based on a tricky linkage to GDP, produced voluntarily by the industry, and created another Committee, on Climate Change Science and Integration, chaired by the Secretaries of Commerce and Energy in rotation. How this integrates with the 1990 US Global Change Research Program Act (USGCRP), the President’s Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), and National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), only budget experts can tell. Meanwhile the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is crying for research funds, to help deal with deteriorating waters and climate.
Meanwhile the federal administrator of energy industry, a former electric industry lobbyist, is sabotaging the effort, quietly destroying President Nixon’s Clean air Act of 1970, by gradually changing the regulation that requires the energy producers to install scrubbers and such whenever they make repairs and upgrades that cost 2% a year of the total value of the plant. He raised the number to 20%, and any CEO can hold expenses in check, so as not to overstep the limit. Consequently, forget about scrubbers and clean air.
Also, the limiting mileage per gallon pollution rules governing Detroit is eroded, since they do not apply to the truck-based SUVs.
So, Midtown Manhattan people, do not complain about the deteriorating quality of your air, the rains, colds and sniffles and coughs. It is all perfectly legal, the rainfalls that bring acids from Midwest factories are also within acceptable limits. You must be dreaming, imagining things.
Meanwhile, there’s hope from an unexpected source. The Chinese, big air polluters, have set strict emission and mileage rules for their automotive industry, some 5% more stringent than those applicable to Detroit. Since GM and Ford want to build cars in that huge expanding market, they will have to develop the product. In the long run we, the people of T&V Country, may be driving in cleaner air cars thanks to China. But we all know what John Maynard Keynes said about the long run.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
The oil crisis affects Stuyvesant Town
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
Parking in a Stuyvesant Town garage, I am amazed at the number of SUVs my East Midtown environment-conscious neighbors have. There is even a Humwee, olive green in its military splendor. Naturally this brings up the price of petroleum, a current bugaboo, into our conversations.
Those of us who think that the evil interests of oil companies are at the bottom of US foreign policy are correct, and so are those who see that oil is the primary object of our national economic interests and provides the main thrust of our international relations, regardless of the party is in power.
In fact it was the saintly FDR, who, during WWII recognized that the oil reserves of the US, the nation that lit up the entire world, were shrinking, and in 1946 initiated a friendship with a backwater Arab ruler, Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud, that led to the Saudis, with their 25% of the world’s oil reserves, becoming an economic world power under our protection, assuring us of continuing supply of our lifeblood, petroleum, as long as that unsavory dynasty remains in power. But that family has enemies, mostly the suppressed religious young Islamists, and all that disingenuous Neocon talk of democratizing the Middle East carries a considerable danger that in democratic elections the winners would be the Islamists, enemies of the “corrupt Western culture,” destroying the balance and potentially ruining the Western industrialist nations. No wonder their operative term for us is Crusaders, bringing back Arab vision of the Caliphate of Baghdad and Suleiman the Magnificent ruling the world. You think Osama and al-Zarqavi want any less?
The Democrats do not talk much about energy policy in the 2004 elections, but they are aware. After all it was the Carter Doctrine, pronounced by the much maligned Jimmy in January 1980 after the Iran revolt and the Soviet attack on Afghanistan (“US will use whatever force it needs to ensure continued flow of oil”) that provided the basis for Bush41’s gulf war of 1990-91. By that time we had assured the Shahs of Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain and UAR of our protection, although we failed in Iran. The US Realpolitik meanwhile had set the street Arab populace against us, enhanced by our 1973 defense of Israel, turning even the Sheiks against us and leading to the OPEC petroleum embargo.
To lessen this dependence on Middle East oil, President Clinton initiated talks with the new nations of the Caspian Sea Basin, particularly Azerbaijan, holders of 17-33 Bb (Billion barrels) of actual and 233Bb of potential reserves, signing the $3B BTC pipeline treaty, to connect Baku, via Tbilisi (Georgia) to Ceyhan (Turkey) on the Black Sea. This continues, with US military forces currently helping stabilize the unsavory regimes of Georgia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan against the Islamist revolutionaries, all this to preserve the rights of Americans to drive SUVs, and to keep our homes and factories functioning at a reasonable energy cost.
US dependence on foreign oil was the subject of the secretive VP Cheney’s meetings with the private energy chiefs, resulting in the NEP (National Energy Policy) of May 17, 2001. It addressed the need to reduce the dependence, but did not suggest conservation and reduction in use (Bush et al: ”conservation threatens the American Way of Life”) It recognized that the US reserves have shrunk, that our production will drop from 8.56Mbd (million barrels/day) to 7Mbd and demand from 19.5 to 25.5Mbd by 2020, with liquid gas demands rising from 11 to 18.5Mbd, and demanded exploration in the Arctic Wild Life Reserve (good for 6mos supply).
Which brings into focus Iraq, 112 Bb reserve, 10% of the world’s and more unexplored, supplier of 5% of US daily import of 10Mb of oil, even during Saddam Hussein’s final days. Saudi and Iraqi oil can supply the US needs, if the countries remain friendly. USDE envisions Saudi (263Bb reserve, 25%of the world) oil production growing from 10Mb to 24Mb a day. But friendly? The modernist Saddam, against whom bin Laden had issued a fatwa, held the Islamists in check. Now they are loose.
What alternative sources does the US have? We have discussed the Caspian. Russia also has oil in Siberia, ogled by heavy users China and Japan powers. West Africa already produces 8.6MBd and satisfies 10% of the world’s demand; USDE expects it to grow to 25% by 2020. US supports the governments of Nigeria and recent enemy Angola, to the tune of $300M, 2002 to 2004. But Nigeria is shaky; locals want to keep the oil. And in Latin America, Venezuela, US' 3rd largest supplier after Canada and the Saudis, and Mexico the 4th, both bar links to US oil companies, and Colombia, 7th, is insurgent-ridden.
So there, fellow Stuy Town garage users, our supply of gasoline is in for some bumps, long-term. Is oil getting scarce, or is increasing demand really exceeding the refining capacity? The Bush plans do not adequately del with alternate sources of energy. Detroit is afraid of losing its competitive position if they raise car prices to pay for retooling to hybrid (petrol/electric, like Prius) energy sources. The Republicans are afraid of insulting their energy chief donors by advocating wind, wave, hydro and other alternate sources. Fuel cell is cost-ineffective; so is hydrogen, the big Bush hope. Nuclear looms. And nobody talks about developing the oil sands of Alberta, 174Bb worth, the safe country next door to us - low profits for the oil chiefs there, hmm?...
Wally thanks Prof. Michael T. Klare and USDE Energy Information Administration.
Parking in a Stuyvesant Town garage, I am amazed at the number of SUVs my East Midtown environment-conscious neighbors have. There is even a Humwee, olive green in its military splendor. Naturally this brings up the price of petroleum, a current bugaboo, into our conversations.
Those of us who think that the evil interests of oil companies are at the bottom of US foreign policy are correct, and so are those who see that oil is the primary object of our national economic interests and provides the main thrust of our international relations, regardless of the party is in power.
In fact it was the saintly FDR, who, during WWII recognized that the oil reserves of the US, the nation that lit up the entire world, were shrinking, and in 1946 initiated a friendship with a backwater Arab ruler, Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud, that led to the Saudis, with their 25% of the world’s oil reserves, becoming an economic world power under our protection, assuring us of continuing supply of our lifeblood, petroleum, as long as that unsavory dynasty remains in power. But that family has enemies, mostly the suppressed religious young Islamists, and all that disingenuous Neocon talk of democratizing the Middle East carries a considerable danger that in democratic elections the winners would be the Islamists, enemies of the “corrupt Western culture,” destroying the balance and potentially ruining the Western industrialist nations. No wonder their operative term for us is Crusaders, bringing back Arab vision of the Caliphate of Baghdad and Suleiman the Magnificent ruling the world. You think Osama and al-Zarqavi want any less?
The Democrats do not talk much about energy policy in the 2004 elections, but they are aware. After all it was the Carter Doctrine, pronounced by the much maligned Jimmy in January 1980 after the Iran revolt and the Soviet attack on Afghanistan (“US will use whatever force it needs to ensure continued flow of oil”) that provided the basis for Bush41’s gulf war of 1990-91. By that time we had assured the Shahs of Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain and UAR of our protection, although we failed in Iran. The US Realpolitik meanwhile had set the street Arab populace against us, enhanced by our 1973 defense of Israel, turning even the Sheiks against us and leading to the OPEC petroleum embargo.
To lessen this dependence on Middle East oil, President Clinton initiated talks with the new nations of the Caspian Sea Basin, particularly Azerbaijan, holders of 17-33 Bb (Billion barrels) of actual and 233Bb of potential reserves, signing the $3B BTC pipeline treaty, to connect Baku, via Tbilisi (Georgia) to Ceyhan (Turkey) on the Black Sea. This continues, with US military forces currently helping stabilize the unsavory regimes of Georgia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan against the Islamist revolutionaries, all this to preserve the rights of Americans to drive SUVs, and to keep our homes and factories functioning at a reasonable energy cost.
US dependence on foreign oil was the subject of the secretive VP Cheney’s meetings with the private energy chiefs, resulting in the NEP (National Energy Policy) of May 17, 2001. It addressed the need to reduce the dependence, but did not suggest conservation and reduction in use (Bush et al: ”conservation threatens the American Way of Life”) It recognized that the US reserves have shrunk, that our production will drop from 8.56Mbd (million barrels/day) to 7Mbd and demand from 19.5 to 25.5Mbd by 2020, with liquid gas demands rising from 11 to 18.5Mbd, and demanded exploration in the Arctic Wild Life Reserve (good for 6mos supply).
Which brings into focus Iraq, 112 Bb reserve, 10% of the world’s and more unexplored, supplier of 5% of US daily import of 10Mb of oil, even during Saddam Hussein’s final days. Saudi and Iraqi oil can supply the US needs, if the countries remain friendly. USDE envisions Saudi (263Bb reserve, 25%of the world) oil production growing from 10Mb to 24Mb a day. But friendly? The modernist Saddam, against whom bin Laden had issued a fatwa, held the Islamists in check. Now they are loose.
What alternative sources does the US have? We have discussed the Caspian. Russia also has oil in Siberia, ogled by heavy users China and Japan powers. West Africa already produces 8.6MBd and satisfies 10% of the world’s demand; USDE expects it to grow to 25% by 2020. US supports the governments of Nigeria and recent enemy Angola, to the tune of $300M, 2002 to 2004. But Nigeria is shaky; locals want to keep the oil. And in Latin America, Venezuela, US' 3rd largest supplier after Canada and the Saudis, and Mexico the 4th, both bar links to US oil companies, and Colombia, 7th, is insurgent-ridden.
So there, fellow Stuy Town garage users, our supply of gasoline is in for some bumps, long-term. Is oil getting scarce, or is increasing demand really exceeding the refining capacity? The Bush plans do not adequately del with alternate sources of energy. Detroit is afraid of losing its competitive position if they raise car prices to pay for retooling to hybrid (petrol/electric, like Prius) energy sources. The Republicans are afraid of insulting their energy chief donors by advocating wind, wave, hydro and other alternate sources. Fuel cell is cost-ineffective; so is hydrogen, the big Bush hope. Nuclear looms. And nobody talks about developing the oil sands of Alberta, 174Bb worth, the safe country next door to us - low profits for the oil chiefs there, hmm?...
Wally thanks Prof. Michael T. Klare and USDE Energy Information Administration.
