Heads up people: I remember hearing that heating would disproportionally impact the western United States. The affected region appears to be from about western Indiana across the Mississippi to the west, then fanning out across much of the south central and Great Plains regions. Of course the inter-mountain west was expected to be hit by higher heat, manifesting in more severe and frequent forest fires. Yet we see the Pacific Northwest largely immune from warming. The overabundance of rainfall is contributing to exceptional drought along the southern tier of the nation. I remember one theory from the Deepwater Horizon spill that the huge volume of dispersant and oil would dry the atmosphere along the Gulf coast, drying it out.

Petrochemicals do decrease atmospheric humidity. Little has been done in the field of microclimate to prove causes and effects like that. But put enough of any substance in the atmosphere and it’ll make an impact. And the greater the concentration and smaller the area, the more potential for catastrophic consequences.

If Global Warming theorists came up with geocentric maps to predict which locations will be most affected by warming, they seem to be striking gold. Of course this doesn’t say their theory is accurate, even if there were enough data to explain the higher propensity of some locations to warm, and warm more.

My guess is that manmade emissions are causing this phenomena. Although Global Climate Change–or what I call Radicalization–is occurring, we do need to acknowledge wide variations in atmospheric conditions during our planet’s history. That being said, I can’t see how producing vast quantities of CO2 can help things. Whether or not manmade gases are not the main cause of warming, reductions in greenhouse gases won’t bring temperatures down anytime soon. They may reduce volatility in temperature and precipitation extremes, if caps can be achieved.

As we know from the earth’s climatic history, we’re not going to maintain our current climate forever. Probably, I’d say at this point, we’ll stabilize mostly as a result of changes in solar winds and other extraterrestrial phenomena more so than cutting back on our on carbon footprint. Still, rising CO2 levels traced directly to manmade causes are going to doom us to far higher and faster rising temperatures.

As the world industrializes it’s likely emissions profile will worsen. Naturally, polluting industries like nuclear and coal and some forms of ethanol production (due to the energy inefficiency of growing corn) need to be regulated to prevent even worse outcomes.

Bottom line: this particular heating is within natural variations but due to Climate Change, high temperatures are more frequent, droughts more extreme, and monumental flooding common.

Demand sustainable, less damaging sources of power. Grid failure will also be more common, so more environmentally friendly living is vital. Local energy and food production will be the hallmarks of a more positive future, with an transportation grid dependent on cheap energy prices that won’t continue.

Fukushima update: Trouble for babies on the West Coast: death rates reportedly rise. Not easy to get the statistics, as the MSM blackout continues. My guess is that the so-called hot particles raining down are invisible killers, but disproportionally affect the young and, yes, outdoors people. An average West Coaster is rumored to get 10 hot particles a day, and someone on the East five. Joggers and those outside absorb more air and thus more particles.

I’ve tried to identify the likelihood of developing cancer from these hot particles. Apparent there’s no safe limit. One plutonium particle–which were released by the superdeadly MOX fuel–will be enough for 100% chance of developing cancer.

I guess if you’re in your 40s, you might not lose to much of your remaining life expectancy if the cancer takes 20-25 years to develop. All the more reason to cut out bad habits and reduce risk factors.

I actually know of one person who’s chosen to just live with whatever happens, and make no changes to their routine whatsoever. Survivalists are known to call these people useless eaters who will wait for government cheese to arrive. Persoanlly, there’s some wisdom in acceptance of one’s fate. With something as random as inhaling a radioactive particles, we can never be completely safe.

Rather than passively accept your roll of the dice, it’s time we held the multinational energy conglomerates polluting our skies to account. Their big money allows untold abuses of our inalienable right to breathe clean air, drink fresh water, and eat natural, chemical-free products.The dirty nuclear industry poses a global threat, in the present an overseas nuclear power plant but one that could be just upwind of people here, (like the Japanese one, albeit much farther away.) Massive, unacceptable ongoing leakage and poor design (GE) puts all of us at risk–and by all I mean the entire population of the Northern Hemisphere. A full shutdown of ALL nuclear power is the only sane and logical solution, as the Germans and Swiss have decided.

Fukushima’s radiation continues to leak and Americans seem completely disinterested. Now of course the mainstream media is an old and familiar culprit in keeping the people uninformed. Rising out of the perception management game now is also the Federal Government, which appears unwilling to test and identify the scope of the threat. The lesson appears to be that we’re on our own.

I’m beginning to think the problem isn’t with greedy corporations, or weak regulatory enforcement but rather with the American people. Most seem so passive and accepting of their fate. It really does bring up the saying that all evil needs is for people to do nothing to confront it.

Of course if no one opposes these corporate behemoths then they’ll get away with everything they can. It brings up another saying, by Benjamin Franklin, to the effect that we’ve been given a Republic, if we can keep it.

It takes an informed populace to keep its leaders under control. People need to participate in the democratic process. I’ve heard democracy described not as an end but a work in progress. If people don’t get involved, there’s no one to hold those in power accountable.

As bad as the corporations are, it’s the unwillingness of the American public to fight for itself that’s a far greater challenge.

I’ve talked to someone whose come to accept being downwind of the Fukushima disaster. They believe that the odds of being affected are something they have to live with. Get impact, well then that’s just your bad break. Price of living in a modern society. Beyond our control.

I say that’s a bunch of crap. People need to resist. We’re more than chattel. This I believe from a spiritual perspective. We need to work together to preserve our world–isn’t that the only way we’ll survive? Logically, Spock would say, there is only one direction or way to go which protects the human species from destruction and greed brought on by a debt-based, hyper-consumption economy.

[By the way, Joe Sargeant passed away in March of this year. A great essayist, one of his final essays is a favorite of mine. See it here.]

The survival of the earth requires more than a bunker mentality; we need to work together to confront the problems we face.

Not everyone is concerned. In his explicit skit Saving the Planet, George Carlin would say that the world will shake us off like fleas, insignificant and puny in earth’s ability to outlast species extinctions and things far worse than us.

“The planet is fine…the people are f*cked,” Carlin explains. “We have the conceit to believe we can put earth in jeopardy.”

Carlin is fatalistic, embracing the evolutionary process, which he believes will lead human evolution down a cul-de-sac. “The planet isn’t going anywhere–we are,” he says.

Carlin’s acceptance aside, maybe ignorance–that of sheople–is just one way of dealing with the tremendous uncertainty of living in uncertain times. Just ignore the problem and it will go away.

We have to look at the emotional ramifications of dealing with our eventual extinction. Like the grieving, people probably go through a process dealing with death of their mother earth. [Willful Ignorance>Shock>Denial> Anger>Sadness>Acceptance ] Most Americans seem stuck in the willful ignorance category, which could be categorized as a form of denial. Then again, that’s perhaps the only way to cope with a threat unseen, made more terrifying from radiation’s ability to hide and persist.

Like living in a concentration camp, the act of simply surviving can trigger a denial response, especially if day-to-day survival was questonable. It’s like the scene in Schindler’s List where a female prisoner is shot by the camp’s commandant, played by Ralph Fiennes. She’d been resting, not doing enough work to please Hauptsturmfiihrer (Captain) Goeth.

Under those conditions, camp prisoners would be aware of the threat. All the prisoners knew they were being watched. At some point they would just accept the possibility of instant death, once they’d done all they could to avoid behaviors that could result in death.

We’re not as far gone as concentration camp prisoners in accepting our death. Still, if Americans knew more about fallout from Fukushima, they’d take steps to avoid it.

With radioactive particles–albeit in small doses–randomly flying around, what can be done? Geiger counters have become scarce, and then there’s government’s weak reaction (precedent set by the BP spill) to the threat. Don’t worry about it, Obama told us. Many believed him, still stuck in the ignorance phase. Like the Gulf oil spill, the President’s credibility has been turned into a placation device, a soothing adjustment to new realities that would depress most Americans.

I’ve in the past blogged about Americans’ dreadful preoccupation with happiness and the stark terror of its opposite: depression. As in the book Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, perhaps we Americans in particular suffer from being unhappy about unhappiness, rather than accepting life whatever it brings.

The Japanese have a concept called “gaman” which is a state of acceptance for things unpleasant. Gaman in its most extreme form might by what Sergeant John Basilone (played by Joseph Mazzello in the series Pacific) tells Marine recruits that Japanese soldiers are capable of tolerating intolerable conditions..muddy, worm-ridden rice, etc..

On a more banal level, Japanese citizens in their everyday routine exercise gaman when they endure unpleasantries. Often the practice of gaman involves avoiding any public display of discontent, though they may be warranted.

Across Japanese society, people ascribe to a norm of extreme politeness; the way this state of supposed calm is achieved is by not rocking the boat. The practice of gaman de-emphasizes the individual, diminishing the individual’s response to issues. The theoretical benefit of gaman is improved homogeneity; on a society-wide basis, that comes from not expressing individual reactions, sucking it up for the group.

The time for the Japanese to remain silent has definitely passed. If any pre-conceived Japanese culture notion needs to die, it’s the idea of gaman, at least with radiation. The only victims of a nuclear bomb, the Japanese of all people know firsthand the terrible effects of radiation. While Fukushima (and other reactors which may be leaking) may not offer any singular spectacular effect–white flash, mushroom cloud, etc.–in time the doses could exceed Hiroshima’s and Nagasaki’s together.

The issue with radioactive leaks, as opposed to detonations, is that they may not be large enough to trigger alarm. I mean, yes, of course people are aware of leaking radiation, but what all does that mean? Do they not go to work? Do they decide to leave the area and if so, how far will they go? Can they afford to go? Maybe the trauma, expense, and risks of relocating don’t make sense, particularly if one is over 50 or so, and health effects may take 20-25 years to manifest.

No one can be truly safe from all hazard, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reduce our chances either. Unfortunately, the human experience is one that doesn’t fit with isolation and hunkering down. I suppose at some point, most everyone would abandon their bomb shelters, even if they had enough food, simply because human beings crave one another’s company. We need contact with others–it makes us who we are.

However passively you react to the threat, there’s the huge environmental impact to the unborn. By doing nothing to protect it, we’re setting up future generations to live in our polluted, radiated world. Clean up will be necessary.

If in a state of denial, we seed our own destruction. Corporations will come along and pollute, knowing they face weak opposition in many places. Also, corporate polluters “capture” the regulatory environment through which they can escape accountability.

Ignorance applied like a salve to our anxieties hasn’t worked, and it certainly will only get worse, to the point people will need to embrace 24/7, 360 degree denial in everything that surrounds them, in everything they eat, drink, or breath.

The passivity of so many says so much about them, and the legacy of self-centeredness which seems to have hit a high water mark. “If it doesn’t affect me, then I don’t care.” Well, eventually Fukushima will affect most everyone. One factor is the rapid rise in levels of acceptable radiation in our water and food. If reached, the higher tolerance threshold could affect as many as one in four Americans who drink tap water. That kind of number isn’t just someone else’s problem.

And then there’s the economy, the so-called invisible hand of the market. If this economic survival-of-the fittest were actually occurring–like the market fundamentalists preach about–then the BPs, Citibanks, and GMs of the world would have been driven into bankruptcy. Instead, they receive massive government bailouts. Their stock prices have barely been decreased, with the exception of Citigroup who wasn’t able to recover despite over $1 trillion in government aid and Federal Reserve interest-free loans.

Give me a trillion and I’ll make some real money! A gorilla could make money investing in US Treasuries with money borrowed for free. So I guess Citigroup’s problems, like so many other financial entities, is far deeper and impeded structurally. For instance, all those loans may not have made their way into investments but rather used to shore up existing bad loans. We saw a similar situation in Japan’s lost decade: the Japanese gov’t bought bank shares to prop them up, which simply meant the bad loans weren’t purged and other painful though necessary structural changes weren’t implemented.

It was easy for the Japanese banks then, just as it easy for the operators of the stricken Fukushima plant, to ignore the severity of their problems and simply push the consequences down the line. That passivity kills. Literally. There will be people dying from an inability to stop the radioactive leaks. All this could have been prevented with better maintenance, better design (not GE’s), and improved safety precautions. But as I’ve said, the nuclear power industry is completely unprofitable if every possible precaution were taken. SInce a company within the hyper-capitalist system can’t be unprofitability and survive, safety is sacrificed.

The price will be economic as sections of Japan become unpopulated. Already, I see that Morgan Stanley abandoned a $3billion dollar office building in Tokyo. Hard to think that all that radiation billowing in from the reactor less than 200 miles away (not to mention another reactor at Tokai, even closer to Tokyo that is also leaking) wouldn’t discourage investment.

Investor psychology no doubt plays a huge role in determining the attractiveness and risk of any particular investment. I guess one could argue playing down the radiation risk is in the best interests of stability. Then again, just how truly stable can a market be if it requires a constant dose of reality-bending denial to function? The best and strongest markets are those with the most transparency.

Not so, might investors in BP claim. From its peak a year ago, their stock price hasn’t gone down at all, although it did suffer the effects of a theoretical liability for the spill of $20 billion (although only a portion of that has been distributed through 9-11 lawyer Feinberg.)

Slap a limit on liabilities and any polluter can pollute as much as they want. Then again, a company that can get away with polluting isn’t probably much of an investment. The pollution will eventually become a liability even if its impact can be mitigated in the short-run. Politicians come and go, and popular opinions can shift against companies with a track record of pollution. It only takes one Erin Brockovich or someone with balls to shift the way the wind blows.

I believe that the victims of BP’s spill ad TEPCO’s Fukushima are owed for the injuries they’ve sustained which include: forced relocation, loss of employment, loss of recreation, toxified air, contaminated groundwater, and loss of access to natural resources. These losses can be quantified. And even if they can be limited by executive action, legislative bodies can always come in later and change the law. This is called political risk.

Unfortunately one characteristic of the Web is to inflate rumors into full-blown crises. The mass media is in part responsible for this. By not providing timely and transparent information, people are left to wonder just how bad the disaster is.

And government’s track record of outright lying fawns the rumor mill as well. This is in part a product of what I call the cry wolf effect. We can all remember–and should–all the lies about Iraq’s WMD. 4600 lives later, we’re left to wonder. So I hope the American people can be less trusting of what their government tells them: one side effect of this distrust is to believe nothing they say, for instance when President Obama tells them this radioactivity poses no danger.

I’ve heard that Iodine is an important substance) to take in being that it can stop damage to the thyroid gland, a major issue from fallout. Unfortunately, few people have on hand Potassium Iodate pills. That may not be such a bad thing as the pills should only be taken when fallout is coming down. (I’m sure not a few people have begun taking KI–the scientific name for the pills–out of panic despite the near-total absence of radioactivity in the US.)

A wiser course of action would be to take foods rich in Iodine and Potassium. While I can’t vouch for the efficacy of any supposed remedies discussed at this site, I have heard sea kelp might be viable. From this same source–nutritionist David Wolf–Vitamin C, reishi mushrooms, and possibly selenium were suggested as ways to mitigate the impact of exposure to radioactivity. (See link below)

It’s worth remembering that once some radioactive particles enter the human body, they are impossible to remove. They’ll continue to irradiate surrounding tissue, typically inside the lungs, which over time metasize into cancerous growths.

Now typically these radioactive particles are heavier and thus will be less prone to travel vast distances. I’d say the Japanese will have the most to fear. This may translate into why so many wear masks. Keep the particles outside the lung, the theory goes, and you’ll be less at risk of the effects of radioactivity.

Still, there are plenty of risks associated with radioactive particles in food and water. Already milk and spinach have been impacted in the disaster zone. And if winds carry the radiation away from the coast to Tokyo in the south, the town could become a ghost town. At the very least expect massive agricultural losses from radioactive taint.

Being unseen or unfelt, radiation inspires fear. It’s the uncertainty of not knowing if what you’re eating or drinking has been contaminated that can drive you mad. Children are also very vulnerable, so radiation is a parent’s worst nightmare.

If I were in Tokyo, particularly the eastern or northern side, I’d make sure the children were away. Not sure how much more broadly the radioactivity will spread at this point. Unfortunately there’s a possibility that another reactor, at Tokai, is leaking by virtue of a radioactivity survey map. (See link below)

I did see that the problem isn’t over. Unfortunately, the plutonium/uranium mix, called MOX–is particularly dangerous, and quite heavy. The worst case scenario is that the uranium could burn all the way through the subsurface rocks and generate a huge explosion, spewing out a mix of magma carried aloft in a massive plume of radioactive steam. The likelihood is miniscule, however.

The nearest event was Chernobyl. In that case, we’re seeing contamination to this day. They successfully stopped radioactive emissions there by entombing the reactor, a solution proposed for the Fukushima reactors by famous theoretical physicist Michio Kaku.

I just saw that the heaviest manmade structure ever made was being built to make the Chernobyl entombment more secure. Perhaps the thought of all the uranium from the reactor plunging through the earth’s substratum is enough to justify what must be massive costs for that operation.

As I’ve written about here, nuclear power is dirty from the extraction process all the way through to disposal of its byproducts. As the world is now seeing in Fukushima, the spent rods can overheat, meaning no one is safe from radioactivity even with depleted source of nuclear energy.

To make matters worse, we have over a hundred aging reactors here in the United States. Many are replicated upon the Fukushima model, which is a General Electric design plan. Many of these reactors have been discovered to lie on earthquake fault lines as well, including one along the Hudson River, Indian Point, just north of New York City, not to mention two in California.

Nuclear energy is an expensive process. Keeping it profitable requires massive subsidies–Barack Obama just approved over $50 billion in subsidies for the U.S. nuclear power industry.

Being so dirty, dangerous, and expensive, one wonders if the subsidies for more benign sources of energy deserve the criticism they receive. We know coal and petroleum are bad, but paradoxically, they’ve become more attractive in relative terms, even if coal kills 10,000 Americans prematurely each year.

Even a reactor failure on a scale like Japan’s probably won’t kill as many as coal will, or lead to as much death as the occupation of oil rich nations in the Middle East. This of course doesn’t mean the other fuel sources are good, but rather made to look more attractive.

It may be the reaction to the radioactivity creates a bigger crisis than the radioactivity itself. The following quote comes from Shane Connor, who works for a geiger county company, KI4U, recently overwhelmed by a flurry of orders:

“Unfortunately, the public is generally not well educated on nuclear threats and fallout, and stirred up by sensationalist media reports of potential food contamination, could unleash a widespread panic run on food stores and other supplies. Understanding that real potential for future panic would make it prudent for families to have calmly stocked up beforehand, as they should for any natural disaster or, failing that, promptly at the very first indication of any developing nuclear emergency while locally available inventories are still plentiful.” (Japan Radioactive Fallout Contamination Map & Radiation Protection FAQ! Iran, North Korea, too )

As bad as a panic might be, there’s still a role for premeditation; I just think the author’s point is not to have to panic-buy.

To prepare, the instinct is to horde. If you think milk, for instance, will be contaminated for 3-6 months, then the instinct is to buy powdered, condensed, and evaporate varieties.

Done in a gigantic spree of buying, hoarding encourages panic-buying like we’re seeing now in Tokyo and other places nearer the disaster zone. Panic buying leaves people with more than they could use, and makes it hard to resupply essentials. It’s also an expensive exercise.

Now as bad as hoarding might be if done at the start of a crisis, I think it’s prudent to have stocks of certain essentials before the crisis begins. This gets to the heart of “prepping” which is different from “survivalism” since the main goal of prepping is not to avoid all effects of a disaster but to mitigate as many as possible given budget and time constraints. A prepper might do well to pick up a few items every month at garage sales and on sales in local hardware stores. Cost is a priority thus prepping is best done gradually, over time to capitalize on purchasing opportunities. Another consideration: buy what you will use so that you can achieve turnover in your stock.

Prepping isn’t paranoia in an age of Fukushimas, Gulf Oil Spills, and Katrinas–it’s a necessity. People who aren’t prepared typically become victims of the tragedy who suffer far more than those who are ready, at least partially.

Most importantly people need to think, to anticipate, and to orient themselves to the possibility that they can’t rely on others in times of crisis. As much as faith and perseverance are vital to maintaining one’s spiritual health, it’s not enough to leave issues of survival and health to blind faith alone.

Links, Sources
David Wolf’s long but excellent interview: from The Best Day Ever

Troubling by virtue of the size of the doses and absence of data from the most affected provinces (“under survey”):Japan map of Japan Radiation Maximum by Prefecture by Do,Ken,To,Fu – TargetMap

Indicative of a cover-up, justified by the need to avoid panic or not: Feds hide nuclear radiation hitting US for 4 days | Alexander Higgins Blog</a<

In French, but you'll get the point (remember that this is radioactive isotopes which don't necessarily pose a major threat):Modélisation de la dispersion des rejets radioactifs dans l’atmosphère à l’échelle globale

Fascinating photo-stocked story by a daring motorcyclist venturing into Chernobyl’s dead zone 25 years later (warning: disturbing subject matter):

The title of the OEM comments was “Spill still spilling just elsewhere”. It follows:

What you mean this isn’t all over and we can’t just forget about it? The pressure in the sealed line have been dropping (or rising just barely), which likely means leaks are occurring.

Sunday night, Incident Commander Allen explained to BP that “anomalies” could present a risk that the wellhead could suffer additional damage is the cap were left sealed:
 ”…the federal government is concerned that the seal can cause problems of its own making. Specifically, if all goes well underground pipes are cracked, the seal oil can flow through them and worse to the seabed, creating a potentially unmanageable multitude of leaks.
All letter refers to a ‘discovered at a distance from the well and an unspecified anomalies at the well head oozing.’ Allen does not say what these were anomalies.
During a morning conference call with reporters Sunday, BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said that “a few bubbles” was found near the well, but she was tested and found not to consist of hydrocarbons…”
[Source]

Apparently more oil and methane are escaping the sea floor. And there’s the very nasty truth that BP doesn’t want to open the cap not because it’d be three more days of leaking but because the amount of leaking could be determined by the capacity of the surface vessels processing it at the surface. Remember BP has to pay a fine per barrel and has every reason to blame the leaks on “naturally occurring” sources, despite the fact these leaks didn’t show up on any of the pre-drilling surveys.   

This aptly title article explains why BP wants the cap to stay shut:
As Predicted, BP Tries to Pretend New Leak is a “Natural Seep”

If I were a betting man, I’d bet that the well capping is nothing more than a PR stunt, meant to lull Americans back into their slumber. The MSM seems hellbent on putting the crisis behind us, which should be a major red flag for anyone who wants the truth. Still there are limits on how much fact-bending and positive spin that can be put on this story.

See also http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0609/Gulf-oil-spill-Why-BP-s-cap-success-is-turning-sour
and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/bp-well-cap-bp-feds-clash_n_650621.html

End comment(s). Now here is my previous post from my economic and political blog, from July 16th, starting with an update from the 18th:

Keith Olbermann continues to assert threats posed to First Responder safety. See this video episode from MSNBC.

He brings up the toxicity of the dispersants and offers the link, www.BPmakesmesick.com

Olbermann’s guest, Marylee Orr of the Lousisiana Environmental Action Network, says that over 7 million gallons of dispersants have been used, a jump over the “hundreds of thousands” of gallons claimed in the intro part of the video segment.

The fact we don’t know how much has been used exposes the ulterior motive of BP to disguise the toxicity of its response. BP’s unwillingness to let clean up workers wear masks show they’re hypersensitive to bad PR which could emerge once facts about the scale of the disaster and the health dangers caused by BP’s response are exposed.

The severity and frequency of First Responder sickness should be a source of concern for regulators and government but isn’t. Halfway down this page is an older Olbermann video from June on this major health threat called T.I.L.T. Toxicant-Induced Lost Tolerance.

Can we trust BP? And Fedgov delegates oversight to the company, can we trust FedGov? If you’re a clean-up worker, I’d hire a good lawyer for the class actions that will come. I guess we could see a replay of the 9/11 First Responder tragedy, where no one is willing to help with the medical costs. Meanwhile responders must choose between wearing masks or feeding their families. Like the 9/11 First Responders, many will die–their sacrifice on our behalf remembered only by their families.

Like Nixon and Watergate, it’s the coverup and lying that provides evidence of an underlying crime.

I’m going to take a contrarian viewpoint here and predict that the well is still leaking (although perhaps not at the top). Would BP tell us that the capping process can’t seal the multiple subsurface leakS, if they’ve expanded across the sea floor? I suspect that BP will use the capping procedure as a legal defense to claim the other leaks aren’t its fault. The story about all those other capped, abandoned wells strewn about the Gulf could support that lie.

Now here is the original post from my eco-political blog on the 16th, titled “The terror down below”:
BP claims to have sealed the well, but it’s likely that the wellhead has been damaged to the point it can’t contain potential leaks. The pressure at the new well cap may fall within tolerable thresholds because it’s coming out somewhere else. The absence of information about what’s happening on or around the wellhead on the sea floor makes the extent of secondary leaks unknown by anyone outside the BP/Fedgov response team.

I’m guessing that this story is far from over. In part I do this based on the apparent ease with which this gusher has been stopped. I wish I could say I was wrong, but the evidence of a far worse and perhaps worsening problem is compelling.
BP wants to mask the worst case scenarios out of self-interest. It could be removed from the crisis response team and lose control over the PR effort that is attempting to minimize the political costs and fines associated with the spill.

Wait a second! We’ve got BP still in control of the clean-up despite the fact that they’re facing a fine per barrel of oil leaked. This means the company has every incentive to disguise the scale of the disaster. And that motive has likely guided the choice of dispersants.

An EPA study deemed that Corexit 9500 is safe based on a 96-hour testing timeframe using shrimp larvae and river fish. The tests are also conducted at temperatures far below the Gulf’s. With all that oil in the Gulf, it’s possible Corexit could have far more toxic effects. A petition to stop the use of solvents (Corexit 9500 can be classified as this) is circulating on the Web here: Stop Using Solvents In Our Oceans Petition.

As I’ve said before, the Corexit reduces the size of the oil molecules to that which can be airborne, meaning oil can be carried in the rain. See YouTube – Breaking: BP Gulf Oil Spill Toxic Rain Falls on Cars, Ground, Central Texas; I also saw some disturbing videos from the Miami area, where evidence of chemical burns appears on vegetation. It could be the oil, or the dispersant, or some chemicals emitted by ruptures on the sea floor.

Another nasty potentiality is a hurricane strengthened by the higher water temperatures created by the abundance of oil in the water. We don’t know how much warmer the Gulf is but we can be certain a hurricane would be strengthened.

There are rumors that the Coast Guard is actually spraying bleach on beaches to cover up the oil there. We do know that extensive efforts to cut off public access to beaches have been made. Reporters and media people appear to be singled out for special treatment and arrest. Just what is it that has BP and the authorities so concerned? Possibly it’s the images of stricken wildlife like these that could sufficiently enrage the population. Perhaps if enough people get angry enough, the current response would appear inadequate and new more drastic actions taken.

Now BP and the powers-that-be do have a reason to keep beach-goers away due to the toxicity of the oil. Amazing it is to me that anyone would go near the oil. This isn’t refined crude! The oil is toxic and corrosive. Additionally volatile and caustic effects on boat hulls and skin have been recorded. If the oil can eat through a boat’s hull, your accidental tourists should hardly let the kids play in it.

Then there are the toxic gases emerging alongside the oil. Industry expert Matt Simmons has been interviewed in a number of media outlets (a six-part interview on Christian radio is here; Simmons was on Dylan Ratigan show briefly yesterday (link here.) [Ratigan has a great rant against the financial industry--I'll link to it in a future post perhaps.]

Benzene is one of the major threats, alongside methane. The possibility that a giant methane gas bubble is building has many people scared. Should the methane deep under the ocean floor melt (it’s currently locked into solid form), the sea floor could rise, bulge and erupt. Methane, when brought to the surface, would make all surface ships sink due to a loss of buoyancy. It’s suspected in Bermuda Triangle disappearances.

A leak large enough could doom the whole world to a Permian-type event, at least according to one article in The Guardian. Methane is a greenhouse gas that heats the atmosphere; I read that the Gulf spill has put more methane gas in the atmosphere than any other documented event in the modern era.

Then there’s the possible tsunami created by a massive undersea displacement of seawater as the methane bursts forth. I’d consider this possibility narrow, but utterly catastrophic due to the size of the tsunami, which could be large enough to cross Florida.

A hurricane could accomplish the same type of damage, albeit on a more limited area of effect. All the toxins associated with the leaking oil could be blasted deep into the interior where they could pollute inland lakes and waterways. Not an appealing prospect.

Finally, I wanted to link to a comment I made at OpEdNews concerning the Gulf oil spill. I come down a little hard on the article author, who’s genuinely concerned about the pattern of ecological abuse inflicted on people in the Gulf region. As much as I want to be sympathetic, at this point I believe that:

the effectiveness of their message can be diluted by worthy but irrelevant social justice and green energy issues. The Gulf tragedy is best messaged as an economic event, because that’s what our capitalism-based political system recognizes and will respond to, not the plight of the “small people.” Call it realpolitick, or whatever, but the top priority needs to be getting the spill stopped.

In no way do I want to distract the public from the gravity of the threat, and as important as the longer-term trends are, the blogosphere has a much more urgent priority in watchdogging this tragedy and its response.

7-18 Addendum
Keith Olbermann continues to assert threats posed to First Responder safety. See this video episode from MSNBC.

He brings up the toxicity of the dispersants and offers the link, www.BPmakesmesick.com

Olbermann’s guest, Marylee Orr of the Lousisiana Environmental Action Network, says that over 7 million gallons of dispersants have been used, a jump over the “hundreds of thousands” of gallons claimed in the intro part of the video segment.

The fact we don’t know how much has been used exposes the ulterior motive of BP to disguise the toxicity of its response. BP’s unwillingness to let clean up workers wear masks show they’re hypersensitive to bad PR which could emerge once facts about the scale of the disaster and the health dangers caused by BP’s response are exposed.

The severity and frequency of First Responder sickness should be a source of concern for regulators and government but isn’t. Halfway down this page is an older Olbermann video from June on this major health threat called T.I.L.T. Toxicant-Induced Lost Tolerance.

Can we trust BP? And Fedgov delegates oversight to the company, can we trust FedGov? If you’re a clean-up worker, I’d hire a good lawyer for the class actions that will come. I guess we could see a replay of the 9/11 First Responder tragedy, where no one is willing to help with the medical costs. Meanwhile responders must choose between wearing masks or feeding their families. Like the 9/11 First Responders, many will die–their sacrifice on our behalf remembered only by their families.

Like Nixon and Watergate, it’s the coverup and lying that provides evidence of an underlying crime.

I’m going to take a contrarian viewpoint here and predict that the well is still leaking (although perhaps not at the top). Would BP tell us that the capping process can’t seal the multiple subsurface leakS, if they’ve expanded across the sea floor? I suspect that BP will use the capping procedure as a legal defense to claim the other leaks aren’t its fault. The story about all those other capped, abandoned wells strewn about the Gulf could support that lie.

Sources (more recent first):
1) Dispersant facts
2) ah, mephistophelis.: More Dispersant Used Than Oil Spilled In Any Previous Accident
3) Oil Spill – BP Trying To Hide Toxic Oil with Corexit Chemical Dispersant Agent?
4)BP Looks to Profit from Oil Salvaged from Gushing Well | CommonDreams.org
5) Underwater Oil Plumes In Gulf EXPOSED By ABC News (VIDEO)
6) Gulf oil spill: BP has a long record of legal, ethical violations – More News – MiamiHerald.com

Resources:
Gulf Oil Spill Tracker

END POSTS

BP has been actively trying to cover up the disaster. Obviously, they have the most to lose by admitting that the spill is out of control. For weeks, they refused to consider that the leak was anything more than 5,000 barrels. Fedgov has–and is, depending on what Obama will actually do differently–demurred control over the clean-up to BP, a questionable act considering how BP’s failure to follow safety rules and regulations led to the crisis.

We’ve only recently been able to guess at the size of the leak. BP’s damage control efforts have been more about controlling public relations and the release of negative information than stopping the leak. The FAA has obliged by preventing overflights of the spill area by media personnel. Just as perception management overshadows the political leadership, so too does BP try and obfuscate damaging press and deflect criticism to prop up its sagging public image (limiting lawsuits is another goal.)

As hard as Obama might try to sound tonight, it’s a safe bet what he does won’t be anywhere as aggressive. It’s a recurring theme: talk tough and do little to nothing. How much more bad leadership can America take? As a defender of the environment, I guess I might take some consolidation in the carbon taxes he’ll likely try to sell. In my opinion, trying to take advantage of the spill is grossly immoral, even if it points the country in a different direction.

Fact is, the buck stops at the President’s desk. If for whatever reason he can’t get BP to stop the leak(s ?), he needs to do it himself. Yet he’s said he lacks the resources to stop it. Can we honestly believe that? With all those trillions spent on our war machine, I can’t believe we can’t put anything out there on the water. During an oil spill off Saudi Arabia, huge tankers vacuumed up the oily water. Why can’t we at least try to do something like that? Deepwater will likely do more damage to the US–economically–than any terror strike could have. Yet we haven’t anticipated it, and now must depend on the polluter’s capability to respond, which so far now eight weeks later, has been…surprise…inadequate.

We could talk forever about how the spill could have been better dealt with. We could also talk in volumes about how the spill could have been avoided. I’m sure the mainstream media will cover these valuable issues, judging from the scale of the disaster. So in this respect, don’t expect me to repeat what’s regurgitated but rather spotlight the less published secrets and schemes meant to mislead the public and cover up the extensive relationship between policymakers and Washington and BP.

Now Obama might say anything tonight. And some people will believe him, no matter what he says. It’s often easier to believe that something will be done than see it done. Obama’s time in office can be characterized as lip service to the ideal, and doing the complete opposite.

I could list many examples of what Obama said on the campaign trail he didn’t do in office. The glowing one, of course, is the failure to draw down U.S. forces in Iraq according to the promised timeframe. Escalating the Afghan war is something Obama never said he would not do, however.

As a side note, I found it amusing that a report just came out indicating Afghanistan had $1 trillion in minerals and natural resources. Of course, this bounty is the reason our occupation has lasted so long–a point I made on my blog years ago. If we won, we’d get to go home. A trillion dollars is a pretty good motive to find terrorists behind every bush, and press an unworkable plan into an unwinnable occupation. And meanwhile the Military Security Complex fattens itself on the blood of innocents and young Americans caste into the fray.

* * *

According to the Los Angeles Times, Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, was staying for five years in a Washington, D.C. townhouse owned by a BP adviser. Emmanuel has been known to say that no disaster should go to waste. This fits exactly with Naomi’s Klein’s concept of disaster capitalism, where corporation profit from inadequate enforcement except, of course, instead of greedy corporations it’s crass political opportunism.

Money rules the Washington establishment, and the consensus in Washington is that corporations pay better than serving the public interest, at least as long as illusion that the public is being represented can be preserved. This is why the art form of perception management has latched onto the Washington establishment–feeding the myth that politicians are still serving their constituencies.

Maybe the unholy alliance between the corporate and political worlds has been at work for longer than we’ve realized. Wherever we now stand in the historical cycle–whether at some new low point or somewhere along a slippery, downward slope–it’s obvious deft management of the media is seen as more than valuable than actual leadership. Preserving the impression that something is being done ameliorates the public’s rightful skepticism. Meanwhile, deals in the back rooms and corridors of power allow the wealthy and corporations to avoid accountability.

Regulations are much criticized despite the fact they were greatly eviscerated prior to the financial crisis (see the testimony of Texas professor James Galbraith here.) Rather than presenting an obstacle to growth, regulations–if enforced–protect the markets. The trillions of equity (I’ve heard $10 trillion real estate and another $10 trillion in equity values) that disappeared didn’t have to vanish. Yet the companies who kept pushing risky bets in the Wall Street casino gained the most from short-sighted speculation, exactly the thing Glass-Steagal tried to prevent prior to its dismantling by Congress.

So now, with all that oil bursting from the busted, under-maintained well in the Gulf, it’s clear that a lack of enforcement is to blame. Self-regulation, a term that came into existence during the get-rich 1980s, simply doesn’t work. The forces of greed are simply too strong in the corporate enterprise. Profit-taking is simply too short-term an approach to consider longer term consequences, even if they include self-destruction. British Petroleum stands now on that precipice. And if it’d go under, many investors and stakeholders would pay the price.

Those that profit the most in the short-term aren’t likely to hang around once their mistakes impact the companies they once led. The executives who should have monitored the company’s compliance will jet away and land in exclusive retirement retreats on golden parachutes.

We could blame greed for this–or the structure of corporate governance. All too often corporate boards rubber stamp the decisions of upper management. Shareholders rarely question the ethics or morality of board decisions, especially in regard to compensation committees. All too easy it is for board members to consent to huge stock options packages for executives, based on quarterly performance, rather than measure performance against longer term objectives.

The environment is a stakeholder in all corporations. Rather than look at the earth as a passive backdrop, a source of raw materials, to be plundered ’til exhaustion, all corporations must look at sustainability. Implementing sustainable practices requires full commitment by shareholders and corporate Board members who perform the invaluable function of holding executive management to account.

Like auditors, independent outsiders need to observe corporate practices and report on them. Most importantly, regulatory lapses must be corrected. If government regulators have recurring issues with a company, or its methods, the shareholders and directors need to take action. The BP case clearly shows the consequences of non-monitoring. And preventable are the effects if the causes are obvious for all to see (except perhaps the executives who are trying to squeeze maximum profit out of their operations by undercutting safety.)

Well, if BP should go under, I think the environment will have its say. Again, BP’s misconduct wasn’t isolated or random but rather sustained and serious. The company had been put on probation–which I said in my last post is an utterly meaningless proposition that obviously did nothing to push the company in to compliance.

Another huge lesson is for government. When regulators fail their job–as Galbraith’s testimony linked above explains–everyone loses. Not only the offending company–the Enron, the Worldcomm, the BP–but so many people who had done nothing wrong. The lesson lies in government doing its job, and walls being put between the regulators and regulated.

Enough said. At this time we don’t need lessons, we need to prevent the tragedy from worsening. Now isn’t the time for opportunism, or even recriminations. It’s time to stop the spill. If Obama can’t do that, he’ll almost certainly be tossed aside in 2012.

Obama appears to be having a hard time getting BP to pay all its claims. This shouldn’t be a surprise. If you read my post on blogspot last month, you’d have been reminded of how long it took Exxon to pay the fisherman in Prince William Sound, and how inadequate their compensatory damages had been as awarded by a corporate-friendly Supreme Court some twenty years later.

Now if Obama can only spend our money–or our children’s children’s to be more accurate, as it’s all borrowed–to clean up the spill, I’d say fedgov has become utterly toothless or so wholly beholden to BP that it socializes the costs of the companies pollution. Either alternative is unacceptable. We do know the taxes on oil drilling will go up, presumably to pay for future spills. Guess who gets to pay for the taxes? You. So because fedgov (especially the notorious M.M.S.) failed to regulate, and BP didn’t self-regulate, you pay.

Unless of course you live on the Gulf, the largest impact will be higher energy costs. If Obama chooses to exploit the disaster by urging a carbon tax scheme, it’ll provide a dark motive for not handling the response, or letting BP bungle it. Another impact: shipping into and out of the Port of New Orleans will be more expensive, and delayed, resulting in higher prices for some kinds of imports throughout the country, and lower prices for exports like grains from the Midwest which go through New Orleans, typically via barge down the Mississippi.

Under-regulated, BP pollutes. The corporate state capitalizes on the failure. And we get to pay, higher prices for gas and energy, as well as some imports. The scheme encourages wrong-doing and punishes the innocent unless of course BP really does go under, or the Supreme Court reverses its corporate-friendly bias and uncaps damage limits. Neither scenario–really the same issue, liability–is likely to occur. BP will be allowed to go on, and the costs in some way limited in order to protect the corporation.

Much remains unclear as to what the final bill, still to be passed by the Senate might contain. I’ve got some initial conclusions and prediction below. I think the CBO numbers and common sense back the idea the bill will cost a lot, too much as a matter of fact.

Must we allow the private health care insurers to come between us and our health care? I mean wouldn’t the more efficient solution to be deliver health care through a single payer? More and more, it seems if the solutions gov’t provides to problems in the private sector contain massive handouts for those with the most influence with the administration and Congress. The financial industry and health care insurers profit by cronyism and influence with the White House and Congress.

Time will tell whether the bill’s an effective use of taxpayer money or, to be more accurate, borrowings based on future taxes on our children’s future labor, + interest.

I’ve posted a comment over at OpEdNews.com, where I’m active. It follows:

“I don’t know about this. This bill will grow increasingly unpopular. I think it has some good changes, but this is an inadequate fix. Better it may be to let the health care system deteriorate as soon as possible, to make clear the incompatibility of capitalist profiteering and good health care.

Where does the gov’t think it’s going to get the money for this? To make it deficit-neutral (a silly promotional play), taxes will spike and Medicare to be cut badly. In order to make that status (the bill’s much maligned CBO estimates calculate a reduction in gov’t spending), yet to cut Medicare will alienate seniors who are too rich to qualify for Medicaid and now must face higher co-pays with Medicare supplemental insurance (an indirect method of passing on the cuts.)

As I’ve written, the gov’t seems to actually being cutting its obligations under Medicare through this bill. It’s poor and eager to discharge as much of Medicare’s huge liability on taxpayers, and the elderly receiving care (and those who pay for supplemental insurance for their retirees, etc. The bill targets Medicare recipients.

Way I see it, the bill’s cost and bureaucracy, coupled with continued high health care premiums and expenses (which remain largely unchanged  under the CBO’s estimates) could cost Obama a second term. Angry seniors will vote their higher out-of-pocket health care costs.

 If the Senate loads it down with additional unrelated spending bills (which I believe student loans to be), then people could cringe what else gets into the final bill, which we don’t know will contain.”

End comment. I think this so-called health care reform package will be a massive political liability for Obama and the Democrats. Maybe it will provide enough of a patch to delay the inevitable switch to single payer.

The status quo may dominate a while but not too long, as fiscal discipline and eventually solvency appear less solid with this bill’s passage. We’re on a track to ruin financially, and our monetary system will pay the price of overspending as we monetize the debt (for lack of creditors willing to buy our debt, outside of our own banks through the Federal Reserve-with money borrowed from the Treasury no less.)

Paradoxically, financial necessity and budget priorities may force change later rather than sooner. If this bill can’t reduce overall health care costs (of which gov’t is only one actor) and Seniors vote their anger, it could cost a lot politically and deliver nothing except more of the same: higher premiums and reduced benefits for those with Medicare.

Climate change skeptics have used recently acquired e-mails as evidence man-made warming has not occurring. They accuse global warming scientists of manipulating data in order to draw research funding. One study stopped counting tree-ring data past 1980 or so. (If you care to learn more, sources providing more detail are easy enough to find…)

I think it’s undeniable the overall climate change comes from man-made causes.

By bringing up the idea man-made pollution is not causing the problem, skeptics seem to be cheapening their case. That said, I do think the e-mali scandal, now called “climategate,” presents some viable criticism of the way consensus has been reached.

Like any community, members of the scientific community are pressured to conform. Since Isaac Newton’s day, scientists who dared oppose conventional (wrong) thinking were assumed to be wrong simply because their opinions differed from the consensus.

Research grants are a plausible motive for falsifying results and stretching data. Bundles of federal cash have flowed into the top tiers of the academic and research communities for decades. The flow of money follows a political pattern of patronage–sponsoring politicians are less likely to fund that with which they disagree.

Scientists were under pressure to diagnose man-made pollutants as the cause of global warming. As the e-mails reveal, a few studies did made mistakes with their sampling techniques, putting their conclusions–that temperatures were rising–at risk. Rising temperatures indicate global warming is for real. Beyond that, I don’t see much else behind the scandal.

Of course climate change skeptics take every minor incongruity in evidence-gathering to mean a massive conspiracy has been at work: Al Gore making millions off the scam, profiteering from green energy policies, etc. have been happening.

I say the more power to Al Gore. If he’s figured out a way to make money while fighting global warming, the more power to him.

In our capitalist system, profits dictate the flow of investments. So to convert our energy to green source, private sector investment will be needed.

As with the TARP bailout, examples of inadequate regulation is rife where industries with the most power, money and influence dictate the scope of government regulation and enforcement. During the Bush years, entities like Massey and Peabody Energy used the lack of enforcement of the Clean Water Acts–combined with the influence they wielded with the Bureau of Land Management, to shape federal policies. This made mining coal cheaper for them, and correspondingly devastating to the environment in Appalachia.

So why not use the power of the federal government to achieve positive change? I mean if statism is in, and collusion between government and the private sector inescapable, why not meld the interests of the green sector with government? Instead of plowing so much into defense contractors, why not spend it on green companies, who will then gain more power and influence with successive administrations, kind of like what we saw with Big Energy during the Bush years.

It’s a dream of environmentalists to commodify their cause–to make actions like recycling profitable. To build a more sustainable economy, however, we need to make recycling more lucrative–a goal achieved in the past almost exclusively through government subsidies.

History sides with the idea of natural resource depletion, for the sake of profit. It’s simply easier and more profitable to ignore environmental consequences, or minimize impacts. For the polluter, polluting is cheaper, although longer-term results show greener companies face fewer fines and costly consequences based on environmental damage, which detract from the attractiveness of the polluter’s stock over the long haul.

Moving to an economically viable model has always been seen as a big plus, but not an essential part of crafting an economy that’s more efficient in its use of resources. We can’t rely on industries that cannibalizes the natural environment far faster than they can create it. Following the Bush-era path will find our country pockmarked with huge patches of degraded, desolate terrain–kind of what you see where Mountaintop Removal has occurred, or what the tar sands of Alberta will make. Can we afford to base our economy on that kind of plundering? Worse, the world’s populations need to be offered a better model as they strive to imitate the American style of living–messily depleting their finite resources isn’t a viable plan for development.

Is man the only cause of warming?

Not exactly on terra firma here as I admit to not knowing enough about atmospheric science. Based on a talk by Peter Taylor (hard science from 18:30), I did take notice of one issue that skeptics raise about the global warming thesis. Just because CO2 is up, does that mean CO2 causes global warming?

What if man-made causes weren’t the only reason? One potential reason for warmer temperatures could be a recent trend towards fewer clouds in the atmosphere. The more sunlight that reaches the earth, the more heat. Now if cloud cover were to increase, temperatures would decline.

From what I can decipher in Taylor’s lecture (see video at 21:00 min on), the scarcity of clouds can be explained by the solar winds phenomena. Apparently the sun produces variations in the world’s electromagnetic field (26:30). As far as I can tell, this solar plasma grows and wanes in a cyclical pattern, and were at a low point now, meaning cloud cover should be less and temperatures higher.

Man-made pollutants serve as atmospheric coolants by blocking the sun’s rays. These actually combine to cool surface temperatures. In an Atlantic magazine article by Graeme Wood, “Re-Engineering the Earth“, one theory for stopping global warming was to emit massive amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the upper atmosphere, to create a cloud. The idea of blocking the sun shares one common rationale with the chemtrails phenomena-put enough crap up there and the sun can’t get through–Bladerunner, like the Atlantic article says.

The Chinese’s unwillingness to act on emissions targets and continued reliance on coal-fired plants may indicate they intend to follow the Bladerunner approach. Maybe the Chinese know something our government won’t acknowledge: that the Global Warming is here to stay and that pollution may be the cause, but polluting can also provide a layer of sun-blockage, which keeps the heat down (unless of course the heat gets through this layer, where it could be trapped under lower-level clouds.)

Global warming critics make the point the CO2 is not the source of heating–CO2 merely shows up. Water vapor is in fact a more potent greenhouse gas, they say.
Fewer low-level clouds means heat isn’t trapped, and can escape into the outer atmosphere. Higher level clouds, on the other hand, prevent the sunlight from reaching the ground, kind of keeping the heat out as an absence of low-level clouds lets the heat escape.

I’d always thought that clouds trap water and heat, keeping temperatures higher than on colder, clear days. I guess the heat trapped by the clouds doesn’t get radiated back to space. Then again, cloud tops are predominantly white in color–at least seen from space–and white reflects heat, we know from snow. (One big concern about less snow cover in arctic oceans is that more sunlight will be trapped by the bluer, darker water, accelerated ice melt.)

I’m gradually expanding what I know, so don’t look to me as a resource on any of the science. I am however, willing to discuss theories outside the mainstream and I’m consistently surprised by how convincing some of the theories out there about the source of GW can be.

To understand the science, I’ll need to read a lot more. In the meantime, I’ll try to gather what I can.

Peddling H1N1

The mainstream media hasn’t covered the climate scandal. This contrasts wildly with the much-ballyhooed H1N1 flu epidemic we were told to expect but never arrived. My last post contained some good advice on maintaining immune system health and some other ideas on fighting the virus–including what not to do, namely try out the untested vaccine.

When the vaccine arrived, it was hard to find which may not have been so bad-for reasons other than H1N1′s failure to reach pandemic status. I know of at least one doctor who advised against taking it (while he did recommend the seasonal flu shot).

Suspiciously, the government and media factions who’d been playing up the epidemic became totally silent almost overnight. After so many months of fear peddling, the public just tuned it out. Will the public burnout on H1N1 carry forward into the next pandemic– a real one perhaps this time?

Like the boy who cried out “wolf” too often, we can’t tell when the real thing might actually hit. We can however anticipate chronic shortage and production delays in the delivery of a vaccine.

Individual egg embryos are used to cultivate the live virii for the vaccines, using, a long and laborious process. New production processes are scheduled to come on line that use newer, quicker methods, but I guess these are in the experimental phase.

Then there’s the actual distribution. One byline of the H1N1 scare was the fact that some people got their vaccines before others. As a matter of fact, Wall Street companies spent an exorbitant sum (paid by taxpayers) acquiring their lot of vaccines, which were subsequently made available to their top executives first.

Engineering a master race

One wonders if not a virus might become the perfect social engineering opportunity, in which survivors can be inoculated according to some arbitrary or secretive criterion. In an oligarchy such as ours, the rich would clearly be first recipients. Then would come their servants and families, protectors of their security, etc.. Last would be the “prols”–the Proletariat–who would suffer the most and constitute the bulk of the fatalities.

Certainly the Nazis would have loved a virus that only they had the antidote for. They could have cleansed the earth of lesser races and vaccinate only their ideal blue-eyed, blonde-haired Aryan types to repopulate the world.

The threat posed by epidemics used a means of warfare propels governments to research cures for diseases and biological threats that will hopefully never see the light of day. The government therefore creates a motive to research all manner of potential diseases, so they’ll be able to protect themselves, and maybe their citizens, too!

Of course the more research, the greater the risk of an accidental release, or let’s face it, an intentional one. I mean if our government were facing some sort of massive collapse or violent revolution, it’d certainly try and keep its opponents subdued, sick, or otherwise distracted (although kids and multiple jobs does a good enough job of that!) Maybe all the alpha waves that bombard our brains from TV won’t be enough to sedate us. Could be that an economic emergency might sufficiently enrage the populace that no amount of force could remedy the situation.

Conspiracy theories about Rex 84 and components of the Military Commissions and Patriot Acts, as well as Presidential Directives, abound. We can’t assume that none of these ideas are outright falsehoods, but we can’t exactly establish their accuracy either. One theory explains that all Americans who’d resist woud find themselves in these camps, like something out of Red Dawn.

Yes, the potential for a police state-concentration camp situation is real, and made more so by the possibility of an introduced virus. Scarily, the state of Massachusetts actually passed a law that would allow people to be quarantined if they refused to take the vaccine. This law would appear to apply not only to h1N1 but any future disease/vaccine combinations, no matter how wide the epidemic nor how proven the vaccine’s efficacy or safety. Take it or be detained.

Incarcerating anyone who resisted would simply be impractical, especially if mass resistance were to occur there’d be too many people to warden over.

These fears may have helped propel gun sales in the U.S. to historic proportions. Like the 1993 Los Angeles riots, many predominantly white Americans may be scared of becoming the victims of crime, particularly if law enforcement resources come under major pressure. To me, gun mania looks more like a psychological remedy for fear rather a practical solution for whatever we might have to face. It’s all well and fine to have a gun, but that won’t protect you from a food shortage, unless you intend to steal.

The guns may in fact be more of a potential source of problems as people try to “get theirs” and use them in an offensive capacity. Still, I’m banking on the American people and people’s innate goodness, which might shine wonderfully in times of crisis, rather than see our society degenerate into mindless, savage, gun-toting rats.

I’m not expecting anything that serious to occur, however I would take precautions against being caught without food supplies because it’s more likely movement or assembly restrictions would interfere with food supplies.

Where production is far-off and distribution centralized, food distribution could be affected, for perhaps 90 days or so.

Before you get all paranoid, remember that whatever could happen will probably not last that long, and probably be transitory or limited geographically. Many of our towns and rural areas offer plenty of agricultural produce, although variety may be scarce in the colder months. Many rural residents can and do other things to supplement their diets.

Chances are food prices would rise for city dwellers most dramatically, particularly if the crisis were tied to an economic crisis hyperinflation. Trading in kind (barter) might be a way around using money.

The easiest method around a food shortage would be to grow it yourself. For this reason, I think it’s advisable to convert a portion of usable land to a garden; I have one myself. Don’t really do my gardening on a big scale, so I’m not in a position to sell or trade that beyond which I eat, which is everything I grow. Yet I suspect I’ll try and prepare myself for some level of food self-sufficiency in the near future. The reason for that might be less preparation for crisis and more a desire to avoid pesticide- and herbicide-laced vegetables produced on factory farms far away. Not only will the costs of transportation assuredly climb, but the quality declines with distance. Try a home-grown vegetable and you’ll know what I’m talking about. The health benefits of eating vegetables are immense and less easily derived from commercial equivalents.

And don’t forget about the flue; check back at my previous article for tips on improving immune system health that will provide a safe way to respond if a pandemic strikes. That said, a healthy immune system might not be enough, but with H1N1, deaths seemed mostly, but not entirely, of those already unhealthy.

Heat causes more drying, and worsens droughts. We’ve seen these impacts in Atlanta in recent years, and south Texas today the effect of prolonged drought.

It’s not that we didn’t have droughts in the past. We did have bad ones but not as frequent or as intense. The problem with Global Warming–or global climate change, to be more exact–is that wind patterns change in one area, and have an impact on precipitation downstream. We don’t know what effect slight heating has somewhere else. This is the real crux of changes in climate–they are unpredictable.

Our atmosphere in a closed loop, and hardly a place for tampering. Yet our government is operating dozens of weather modification experiments. Typically, these projects involve trying to seed clouds to produce rain, or controlling precipitation patterns or flows.

I’m sure everyone’s seen the odd streaks of white in the sky, a phenomena called chemtrails. These streaks are very similar to contrails, the streams of vapor left behind jet exhaust.

Chemtrails are the focus of numerous conspiracy theories, which should come as no surprise considering the phenomena became the center of intense interest as a direct result of 9/11.

In the days after the destruction of three World Trade Center buildings, all commercial airline traffic throughout the U.S. was banned. The result: average temperatures throughout the country rose one degree Fahrenheit, not a large difference for any one area, but a noticeable increase whose sole cause appears to be the absence of contrails.

Once commercial air traffic returned, so too did the contrails, and temperatures reverted to their averages.

This environmental impact made it clear that skies emptied of contrails would allow more heat to get through to ground level. Now if temperatures rose without contrails, we could say that temperatures could be kept lower with contrails.

If contrails could be duplicated and expanded in their thickness and coverage, so too could ground temperatures. Artificial cloud cover could have the same impact as contrails, so a rationale for seeding the atmosphere with contrail-like clouds exists.

Since the late 90′s there’s been a lot of coverage in the media about the abundance of contrail-like vapor trails in our skies. The Web community, known for its predilection towards conspiracy, labelled the contrails chemtrails, asserting that the contents of the contrails was in fact a mix of barium (a metal known for its reflective properties), small amounts of blood, and a biological substance know as mycoplasma. (see links below)

The Internet offers a broad range of explanations for why chemtrails exist, including everything from weather modification to impregnating people with disease or resistances to disease. Like all good conspiracy theories, each theory possesses just enough fact to sustain the idea that there’s a government agenda behind chemtrails.

We may not know what the chemtrails’ purpose is, but we know there’s something out there (to borrow the X Files supposition that aliens are here.) Just look for tell-tale wispy signs of chemtrails–they are there. And look at the way they disperse, in powdery lines, without any of the billowing fullness of clouds typically prevailing at the altitude they’re found. They aren’t cirrus, though they look like they want to seem like cirrus clouds, they aren’t as high as cirrus clouds.

See a picture–many are available on the Web here–and an explanation here.

I contacted my Senator on this issue several years back and was forwarded a categorical denial from the Air Force that chemtrails exists, and that chemtrails were uniformly contrails.

Of course the abject denial opens up all kinds of fodder for conspiracy theories, some of which paint some dark purposes and malignant methodologies behind the spraying. Perhaps the Air Force might be better off saying that they’re seeding the atmosphere with barium, to reflect the sun. Then if they were planning something nasty, they’d be able to deny it. Then again, maybe a cover story would force the Air Force to cover its lies, or darker purpose. So it’s a lose-lose: admit that they were doing something would only force more transparency, which would only increase the likelihood that more would be revealed about what was happening in the skies above us.

Germany did admit that their Armed Forces had participated in chemtrails operations as part of a military exercise. They’d apparently seeded a cloud bank to provide cover from radar. The US Air Force has an operation called HAARP which attempts to effect the magnetic fields in the upper atmosphere. I guess the idea is that by altering the polarity of the ionosphere planes can be disguised, weather patterns altered, and navigation systems disrupted–or something like that.

The worst of the theories is that the Air Force is spraying some biochemical down on the population, introducing this substance called mycoplasma to the bloodstream of all the people upon whom chemtrails end up falling. Virtually all North Americans do have mycoplasma in their blood, unlike most Chinese, a nation where no chemtrails are thought to be in use.

This mycoplasma has some of the characteristics of a fungus, and of a virus, but is really more of an intermediary substance, a biological mixing material that could facilitate the delivery of viruses, or antiviruses. Mycoplasma would make a great delivery system for virii, or vaccinations, so naturally the military is looking at both the implications of biodefense and biological weapons and their delivery methodologies.

Rather than rely on my explanations of this process, best to read one of the following (as I’m not a scientist, these links in no way suggest I approved their contents, or can interpret what they’re trying to say!):

“What are Mycoplama and How Do They Work“
“Mycoplasma, The Linking Pathogen in Neurosystemic Diseases“
“Molecular Terrorism–Mycoplasma“
and the particularly blunt Amy Worthington

One article from the Idaho Observer breaks down the composition of chemtrails that fell on an Iowa family:
“…6 bacteria, including anthrax and pneumonia, 9 chemicals including acetylcholine chloride, 26 heavy metals including arsenic, gold, lead,mercury, silver, uranium and zinc, 4 molds and fungi, 7 viruses, 2 cancers, 2 vaccines, 2 sedatives.”

Nasty mix, more of a biochemical stew than a delivery system. I’ve heard the idea that chemtrails are simply a method of disposing of medical waste, an alternative to incineration, which one would think would be a lot easier method of disposal. The presence of these clearly harmful elements does jar our most primitive fears of what our government might be doing to us, especially with rumors about Nazi flu and vast clandestine operations.

Yet for our own military to spray something down on us–including even the families of the pilots–just doesn’t hold up. Whatever medical benefit there might be–like inoculating the population from a biochemical attack–might not be harmful to the recipients (unlike squalene in H1N1 vaccines or ethylmercury in vaccinations.) Mycoplasma does meet the criteria for something that would be intrinsically harmless, yet quite malignant when mixed with other biological substances. But to poison our people doesn’t make sense. Or does it, in a sick, twisted way?

Rather than go into the details of each theory about what is in the chemtrail soup, I’d rather stick to the less malignant theory that temperature modification might be the purpose. I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that a secondary purpose exists to the spraying, but I guess we’ll only realize if there’s been a ongoing experiment once it ends.

Curiously, there exists an unnoticed clause in some of the post 9/11 legislation that allows the Secretary of Defense to allow biological testing on US citizens if he feels the research is vital to national security. You may remember how the US military conducted huge covert testing by dropping radioactive particles on various US cities in the Fifties and Sixties, resulting in an untold number of cancers and birth defects.

I guess this testing was deemed necessary to analyze fallout from the use of nuclear weapons. Still, the fact the tests were highly dangerous, and secret, does point at the ruthlessness of military testing–hardly a force for good.

I guess the dropping radioactive particles on unsuspecting Americans fits the general mold of not caring what comes after, a typical behavior for a military that is the largest single consumer of fossil fuels and uses Depleted Uranium in its armaments, a radioactive weapon that cause lingering aftereffects, disrupting the gene pool not so coincidentally in regions with populations considered unfriendly to the US or its ally Israel.

So at least the precedent for harmful testing by our government on our citizens has been established in our near past. Whether or not chemtrails constitute a biological weapons testing program is hard to prove, but then again the government’s claim to not know is really tantamount to knowing something’s bad, then doing nothing to stop its release. Agent Orange is an excellent example of that. Poured out over the rice paddies and tropical forests of Viet Nam, Agent Orange cause major damage to DNA, resulting in grotesquely malformed Vietnamese children being born today (see the highly disturbing photos from Pulitzer-winning photographer David Guttenfelder.)

Then of course there are the veterans like Don Anderson of Lebanon, Portland, whom I met in 2007 at an antiwar rally in D.C. as he suffered from Agent Orange poisoning. If you have different standards for what we do to foreign peoples in their countries, think again when it’s our boys who absorb the same aftereffects. Their suffering is compounded by the persistent absence of any admission that Agent Orange caused their health issues, an issue that veterans like Don Anderson fight for every day, despite their physical handicaps. (Don handed me this article from his hometown paper.)

The presence of squalene in vaccinations for Gulf War I soldiers is another enigma. The military won’t admit that squalene-laced shots caused the elusive Gulf War syndrome that has over 1/2 of Gulf War I veterans on full medical disability. Scarily, the H1N1 vaccinations, scheduled for mass inoculations, possibly forced, contain squalene.

Our government could come clean, and admit to past injustices, but that is not its style. Only time and good forensic testing will be able to prove that chemtrails are the cause of particular ailment, and then the way mycoplasma works might make a direct causal link hard to establish. In the same way handing out blankets to Native Americans was not a crime. Surely if the government knew that blankets contained cholera, the act of giving them out would be a crime. The again ignorance is a convenient defense, one available to no citizens in their defense but commonly used by our government, including for 9/11.

I can’t definitively say what our government knows and what they won’t tell us, but it’s a safe bet that something’s up. And if what they were up to resulted in collateral damage, we’d likely be told after it’s too late to stop it.

I think maintaining a good immune system is vital in fighting off biological contaminants, whatever their source. Rather than blaming government for present day health epidemics, we need to assume full personal responsibility for our health and our diet. That said, many people are sick and can’t avoid negative health effects like those caused by genetic damage or the ravages of disease.

Still, for those who remain healthy enough, much can be done to protect the body and immune system. These include regular exercise, adequate sleep, diets high in organic or homegrown vegetables and low in growth hormones/pesticides/GMOs, copious hydration, and minimizing the use of pharmaceutical products, substituting homeopathic and all natural products instead. Do that and many of the risks–but not all–associated with health problems like flu can be prevented.

In my absence, much has happened in getting America back on course. The environmental legacy of the preceding administration has been discredited, rightly.

In matters pertaining to our bodies and the health of the planet, our new President has delivered on his campaign promises. These include the abolition of restrictions on stem cells.

Much remains to be done by the new President to change the direction of our government towards sustainability. In the field of energy, we need a great deal more emphasis put on conservation. Americans were fooled into believing we could drill our way out of our energy glutton.

While many of the attitudes in place before Obama’s historic election may not have changed, leadership at the top has. We can now count on American progress in the field of stem cell research, now that medieval-era sanctions on the use of cells harvested from non-viable embryos.

Obama has also ordered a reduction in federal interventions in medical marijuana clinics. These depositories had been raided off and on during the previous two administrations, despite the passage by over a dozen states of laws making possession of marijuana by duly qualified patients completely legal.

I don’t know how deeply I can express support for the value of medical marijuana. The list of symptoms it can reduce or offset is simply miraculous. In the past I may have brought up links concerning  first person examples of medical marijuana and its benefits.

It goes without saying that if thirteen and counting states have reviewed the evidence, that the case for medical marijuana can be made in any forum where truth and justice are welcome. Too many Americans have been punished for using a drug that isn’t backed by pharmaceutical companies, one that can be had for a fraction of the price of costlier drugs.

God-given, marijuana is also accepted in numerous mystical organizations, and other peace-loving groups like fans of the Grateful Dead. Its use is commonplace in American society. At some point, states strapped for tax revenue WILL legalize, regulate, and tax the sale of marijuana for non-medical purposes as well.

I detest any reference to the drug war, which has been a complete policy failure. Not only has drug use NOT slowed down, the ongoing prohibition has created a vibrant prison industrial complex that now houses as many as 1 in 31 Americans, a new study reported. Over 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession, a number that hasn’t declined, nor will any time soon.

States like California show high levels of tolerance for the legalization of marijuana, and not just for medical marijuana. As reality and policy goals get closer to matching, it will at some point become essential that we admit we are getting nowhere on stopping the flow of illegal drugs into this country. Perhaps we also need to look at the effectiveness of drug interdiction versus treatment of addiction, a method which has been proven to be far more cost-effective that para-militarization of an ongoing failure.

I guess trying to be hard in one of these quasi-wars, “war on _____”, means failing. We can’t make interdiction the sole operating principle. If these policies are to be judged at some point, we can only conclude they aren’t working, or at least as they are being fought.

This being said, I’m coming out in full support of medical marijuana, decriminalization of marijuana, and support for a federal mandate allowing nationwide production of industrial hemp.

The Industrial Hemp Farming Act, House Bill 1009, would allow hemp farming and I hope you’ll contact your Congressperson on its behalf. Here is a Message Composer service with pre-written letter advocating sponsorship of the bill. The link was supplied through VoteHemp.com.

I customized the letter as follows:

We need hemp now! The United States desperately needs to produce more marketable agricultural products. Hemp is wonderfully easy to grow and doesn’t require herbicides or pesticides!

For its health benefits, we’ve heard much about the benefits of medical marijuana, a plant which contains the psychoactive ingredient THC, not found in industrial hemp. What we don’t hear much about is how strong hemp fiber is, and how safe it is as a cotton substitute. Cotton is typically treated with chorine, which raises issues about how much contact we want on something we wear, as chlorine our bodies enters through our skin.

Hemp-growing is so much easier on soil. Cotton growing uses more pesticides than any other crop, which can contribute to higher body burdens of carcinogenic chemicals whose long-term effects are unknown. So if we want lower longer-term health care costs, we should grow and wear hemp. If we want cleaner water, we should grow hemp.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp. Also, during World War 2, hemp oil was used in aircraft engines as a substitute for petroleum based oils which were in short supply. Hemp is also great for rope-making, and makes a wonderful replacement for polyurethane foam, which contains  the polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), or polyester fill, which contains dioxane, a known carcinogen.

Knowing more will allow Congress to make better decisions. In this case, an existing harm needs redress, and a wrong should be undone. Repealing prohibitions on hemp at the federal level would reject the misinformed hysteria that ignores scientific facts and has no place as the basis of law.

Please let farmers decide what to grow free of government controls. In hemp’s case, it’s clear that “he who governs best, governs least.”

For more, see http://www.industrialhemp.net/

Pet-owners might like http://www.doggyarchy.com/organicdogbeds

End letter.

Unfortunately some hemp farmers have faced persecution from agencies of the federal government because no distinction is made between industrial hemp and consumer-grade marijuana, which contain THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana. The DEA has no place raiding farms that grow hemp for industrial purposes. That role exceeds the any anti-drug mandate, because industrial hemp is simply not a drug as well as violating common sense.

Protect our mountains, air, and water

In the past I’ve come out with support of specific environmental causes and included links to resources through which you can take action. Note that I do this only quite seriously, only when the cause is an important one AND a timely one. Nowhere was the urgency needed more to stop mountaintop coal mining. Since I published last, a massive coal slurry dam broke near Harlan, Tennessee, resulting in one of the worst coal-based disasters ever. We need to abandon coal as the primary source of fuel, and we need to do it NOW. These coal slurry dam breaks are just a canary in the coal mine as it pertains to the use of coal–the fossil fuel presents all kinds of problems.

All the way through coal’s production and use cycle, it causes environmental problems. In mining, mountaintops in Appalachia are literally getting blasted to bits, in a betrayal of our more fundamental principles of preserving our natural heritage for our children. Burnt, coal generates massive amounts of lead and mercury. These heavy metals are extremely dangerous to pregnant women and children, impairing brain function and fetal development.

Dust and ash from coal processing is stored in massive dams, which fill with water and need to be constantly maintained lest they break. The slurry combination which comes out hardens and must be jackhammered once it dries. The costs of the state of Tennessee for the Harlan dam break will be massive, hopefully they’ll do a better job of monitoring other coal slurry dams in the state as a preemptive cost-cutting measure. And with the new administration, now maybe the Bureau of Land Management will get off its ass and actually start to regulate and enforce laws protecting the environment. 

Under the preceding administration, the BLM (Bureau of Land Management), alongside the MMS  (Minerals Management Service) served up a bonanza of giveaways. Enforcement was lax. Many regulators were intimately connected to the companies they were overseeing. (I bet many have returned to their former employers, if they ever really left!) Unfortunately for government people like those at Interior Department, they will find free booze, drugs, and prostitutes harder to acquire, at least for free–see the NYTimes article.

The Clean Water Protection Act is pending before Congress. It would basically force the government to obey the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, which were passed long ago but forgotten under Bush. Here is the action item from the anti-MTR people. By the way, their effort to convert a mountaintop into a renewable clean wind power resource gained the attention and interest of West Virginia Gov.  Mancini, who appears sympathetic to ending mountaintop removal.

Cited in an e-mail from ilovemountains.og, here is what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had to say about the Clean Water Protection Act:

“The Clean Water Protection Act is the first broad Congressional initiative aimed at reversing the Bush Administration’s eight-year effort to savage our national waterways and the popular laws that protect them.”

The letter goes on to link to a blogpost at environmental site Grist:

“..the [CWPA] was introduced originally to challenge the outrageous executive rule change by the Bush administration to redefine “fill material” in the Clean Water Act, which has allowed coal companies to blast hundreds of mountains to bits, dump millions of tons of “excess spoil” into nearby valleys, and bury hundreds of miles of streams. An estimated 1,200 miles of waterways have been destroyed by this extreme mining process.

The end result: Toxic black waters and poisoned aquifers that have denied American citizens in the coalfields the basic right of a glass of clean water.

The timing of the bill couldn’t be more urgent: On the heels of a 4th U.S. Circuit Court decision that overturned greater environmental review of mountaintop-removal actions by coal companies, scores of mining permits are flooding through the gates of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers this month.”

Please stay informed on issues like these. And more importantly, take action. Getting involved in some small measure can be the difference between getting positive results of letting the status quo win. While your individual contribution to the cause may only require a few minutes, if enough people participate, the impact can be immense. Participation preserves the efficient functioning of our government, by holding it accountable for its policies and discouraging ongoing failure and waste.

Politics and environmentalism do mix. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I won’t say who is the threat to the environment, simply that under Obama, the United States might revert to more historical norms in terms of stewardship and protection. We certainly can’t get much worse than now.

The last days of the Bush Presidency have seen an onslaught of regulatory abandonment, a last chance giveaway from those in power to their friends in industry. National parks have become victims in a planned round-up of Yellowstone’s buffalo (Oppose it here.) The Clean Air Act is under assault–Bush wants to allow new power plants and natural gas wells to be built right at the borders of national parks. (See an AP article here.)

Lower air quality standards (or inadequate enforcement) could allow more coal burning that invariably means more mercury in our air, rivers, lakes, and streams.

Natural gas is a clean burning fossil fuel and should be preferred to coal, but exploratory drilling uses toxic chemicals and gases. (See “Unwell” in the print version of Nov.-Dec. issue of Mother Jones.) Little is known of their long-term effects. Some wellheads are also very close to human habitation, and higher incidences of sickness are associated with the drilling. Apparently many people out in the rural West live on or very near federal lands and have limited protections from exploration contracts that allow companies to drill virtually anywhere.

Little allowance appears to be made for the pollution that the extraction and use of fossil fuels generates. Nor do any improved energy consumption guidelines appear forthcoming. I’ve said for a while now that the absence of conservation is a troubling indicator that our national leadership is concerned more with stimulating a healthy market for energy use than it is in reducing demand. Improving energy efficiency is so easy, so why haven’t Bush and Cheney tried it? Perhaps because their energy policies and wars have been focused on driving energy prices up for their cronies’ benefit.

We can’t separate the political from the environmental. This is frustrating because we “environmentalists” (a loaded term in itself) tend to alienate less liberal factions because our political positions are so different. This split doesn’t have to be. Just because a few social conservatives advocate rampant environmental exploitation doesn’t mean conservatives in general are opposed in principle to preserving natural resources. It’s just that over recent years the greed-is-good complex has overtaken common sense. As the stock market crashes and the American people come to realize we can’t have it all, that there is a long-term price to be paid for short-term profit, then the environmental priorities of our nation can be put back in order.

Lower pollution makes business sense. As the cost of health care for asthmatic children rises, and is borne by the public at large in the form of higher health care insurance premiums, the price of pollution becomes more apparent and its reduction more desirable. Increased CO2 emissions can mean worse droughts and floods, more extreme storms, and rising seas–surely prevention now makes more economic sense than waiting and paying for clean-up, seawalls, etc..

As the haze of pursuing market-first principles clears, it becomes apparent that our country is about more than the pursuit of wealth. People need more time with nature and to commune with America’s natural beauty. We can’t do this if the mountaintops have been removed by coal mining. We also can’t enjoy the non-material aspects of being an American if we’re so wrapped up in the endless pursuit of wealth, texting, multi-tasking and over-working.

If the pot of gold doesn’t wait at the end of the rainbow, many of us will discover that we’ve followed the false gods of materialism and in so doing we may end up poorer both spiritually and materially.

Good Shepherd Wanted

The tragedy of the commons is a phenomena that occurs when no one is put in charge of administering public held lands. You see, early in our nation’s history, in New England, tracts of land were set aside to be available for the public’s use, in grazing, recreation, hunting, or whatever else suited their fancy.

Over time these commons were overgrazed by livestock from commercial entities. There was little to keep them from being exploited. Without anyone to administer these areas, to monitor them for overuse, the commons because unsuitable for the purpose for which they were intended.

We see abuse of our public lands in a similar way today. Changes in the rules governing the use of publicly owned areas have left them open for abuse by commercial entities.

The Bureau of Land Management has tried to kill an important stream buffer rule that prevents mine waste from being dumped within 100′ of a stream. Previously we saw mountaintop removal practices devastate over a thousand miles of streams in Appalachia. Rather than act to protect streams, the BLM has allowed coal mining companies to use them as a dumping area. This on top of numerous concessions that include lower standards for air and water pollution that result from the destructive practice of MTR.

Rather than conserve public resources, the BLM has enabled the rapid destruction of millions of acres, and not to coal mining either. See this 2004 article from MotherJones. Out west Utah’s vast Canyonlands have recently come under attack from new off road vehicle (ORV) trails. [Take action here.] Thousands of acres of publicly owned forest in Oregon have been opened to logging (Complain here.) Wyoming’s Powder River basin has also been listed for further strip mining (see some of the background here.)

If we can count on the federal government for something, it will be to act as industry lobbyists command. The leadership at federal supervisory agencies consists of former industry executives, who will likely return to their former jobs at the end of the employment (if indeed they ever left.) The most notable case of this conflict of interest was a White House “climatologist” who’d formerly worked for Exxon Mobil who rewrote scientific reports in order to downplay Global Warming risks. Days after he’d been forced to leave his job he went back to his former employer.

It’s hard to keep track of all the proposals that are essentially exploiting the commons. Part of the exploitation strategy may be to spread out opposition by attacking the environment on so many fronts. 

With the responsibilities to protect these lands either forgotten or willingly discounted, it’s no wonder that America’s public lands have been abused. The trust of people in our federal government has also been abused. Not only do they have no desire to protect and preserve, federal officials appear intent on giving away as many concessions as they can before the next administration comes in. Such a fire sale provides ample evidence that not only do the political appointees know what they are doing is wrong, they are aware that their best chance to provide giveaways to friendly industries is fading fast, which makes this period especially important.

Americans need to be hypersensitive to any last-minute changes in policy. We need to oppose vocally and vociferously any subversion of federal responsibilities over our public lands. These we own and they must be administered with the public interest in mind. Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council track the proposals and fight them. We need to remain vigilant and supportive.

The new administration will view its responsibilities in a radically different way, which should bode well for wildlife and the lands on which they depend. We humans will also benefit from a reduction in abuses of the public trust. Our public lands are our property, not those of our government. They exist at our pleasure, not that of some political appointee. The benefits of conservation include a better quality of life and we must not let private interests destroy these lands or damage our environment.

Other Sources

DemocracyNow offers a July article on the scale of oil and natural gas drilling going on out west here. David Sirota has also been researching this topic. More on the giveaway and favorable leases is available at MotherJones here.