The Lord giveth and the Corp taketh away

The New York Times had an article on Mary D. Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, the work the board does, and some of the opposition to the this work.  See “U.S. Climate Change Policy: Made in California”, Hiroko Tabuchi, 2017-09-27

It is amazing the corporate and “conservative” opposition to this work.  On the other hand, the comments were overwhelming in favor of clean air and the necessary regulation to obtain it.  And the profits to be made by leading the world in providing a clean environment instead of making matters worse.

Thus my title.  You would think that “conservatives” would be all in favor or preserving the clean air and water that “God gave us”.  Instead, they seem hell-bent on destroying them, bringing us back to days of heavy smog and burning rivers.

My own little comment was to a contributor who had been in China recently where pollution is endemic but the government is taking steps to improve the air quality.  I pointed out that “we the people” had enough of the pollution from backyard burning barrels.

What do conservatives conserve?

It seems to me that they only want to conserve two things; their view of the world and the power of large corporations.

They don’t want to conserve resources including clean air and water, the right of people to have needed information, and good, free education for all.

Once upon a time conservatives were those who carefully considered any change but didn’t stand in the way of change.  And there were many flavors of conservatism.

Now, “conservatives” must be in lock step on all issues and cannot question any of the official stances.

Ironically, these “conservatives” are liberal with funds for the military and are liberal with sending people to fight all over the world without any understanding of the countries they are sent to.  A real conservative would be cautious about military engagement and strive to know what the risks are.

The few don’t represent ‘the people’

Despite a claim to the contrary in the May 11 letter, “Flood of letters makes the answer clear on Central’s fate,” the “people” have not spoken about the fate of Duluth’s Central High property. A large number of letter writers have made their opinions known, but they are only a small minority of all the people of Duluth.

This is like saying the people have spoken because of a large turnout at a hearing on an ATV trail or on clean water.

This is worse than saying a politician won in a landslide with a turnout of less than 60 percent. Even if the vote for the politician was 60 percent, that means 64 percent of the voters either voted for someone else or didn’t make the effort to show up

At least in an election, all the people have the opportunity to show up. In a hearing or in letters to the editor, only a few [can] participate. The few, no matter the view, do not represent “the people.”

Letter to the Editor, published in the Duluth News Tribune, 2016-05-17

P. S.  I didn't think to include "the people have spoken" is about as bad as the "People's Republic of ..."

Solidarity: An Overused Word

How many times have you heard some people talk of their solidarity with some distant group?  A solidarity that they cannot act on because they really aren't in the distant group's circumstances.

The latest overuse I heard was in a speech in Pakistan by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.  He expressed his sympathy for and solidarity with the victims of the flooding.

Excuse me, how can one have solidarity with people in a disaster area when one can easily fly in and then easily fly out again?  Maybe he would be in solidarity with the victims if he waded through waist-deep water with supplies on his head.

Of course, we do need the people who can fly in and fly out so they can let the rest of us know how desperate the situation is, especially photographers.

The rest of us may not act in solidarity with the victims but we can be more than just sympathetic.  We can donate to aid agencies who are trying to bring supplies to the victims.  One agency to consider is the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.  Visit http://www.unhcr.org to learn some of the problems and to donate what you can.

Does "green energy" use too much water?

Today's Star Tribune Business section had an opinion article, "Saving droplets but losing gallons" by Samuel Lieberman.

He writes that ethanol and nuclear power consume too much water.

"[E]nergy production accounts for 39 percent of freshwater use, or 190 billion gallons per day."

and

"When it comes to thirsty energy, ethanol (2,000 gallons of water per gallon of gasoline) and nuclear power (millions of gallons of water per day) are the most prodigious users. Ethanol should be eliminated and nuclear power should be downsized, and the money and water should be reallocated to more efficient options, such as natural gas and geothermal energy."

I would assume water consumption would apply to any biomass fuel. It needs the water to grow.

But would any biofuel be that much a water consumer, whether ethanol or any other carbohydrate-based fuel. When these are burned they are converted into carbon dioxide and water. Both would be put into the atmosphere and in turn consumed by plants again. Would there be a balance point that plants would consume all the carbon dioxide that humans created and the water would turn into sufficient rain for all uses? That would make an interesting equation.

Then too the water used to cool nuclear plants would also be put back into the entire system. Would the water used in this way be hotter or cooler than the water given all in burning hydrocarbons or carbohydrates?

Possibly the problem is that the recycling is not occurring fast enough. How quickly does the water that we use get back into the watersheds that it came from? And how pure will it be?

An example of the recycling not occurring fast enough is the Himalayas. The snows of the Himalayas were once adequate to provide water to Tibet and other mountain countries as well as India and China. But no longer. Lieberman writes:
"China's recent clash with Tibet was incorrectly ascribed to human rights issues. It was about rights -- water rights. China needs access to Tibet's formerly ample surplus. Tibet's water, which comes from the Himalayas, is waning, so it is unwilling to help its thirsty neighbor."

Maybe the greatest peace activity that the U. S. can do is to have a crash project to find cheap ways to desalinate ocean water and move it far inland. If the Romans with their technology could move water from the mountains to Rome; is it such a far reach for modern technology to move water from the oceans to the mountains? I think the total human cost of not doing something like this is greater than the cost of doing it.