[Insert Descriptive Post Title Here]

A long-time blog buddy (yes, four years is a long time in blogworld!) and Facebook friend took issue with my use of the word "slavery" in yesterday's post title. This morning he wrote in a Facebook message:

Sorry, it doesn't work even as hyperbole. It's an absurd word choice, and it makes me cranky as hell when someone uses it in an anti-corporatist rant. There are many things wrong with our society and its relationship to corporations, but we are all quite free to choose to live differently.

True, it wasn't a great choice of words, particularly if you interpret it literally in the context of American history. We aren't literally owned and sold like chattel at an auction. We still have our constitutional rights, more or less. We are free to pack up and move where we want, provided we have the means, and to pursue an education and any employment for which we are qualified.

However, I was at a loss for words in attempting to convey my rage at the level of influence held by corporations, and I still struggle to find a better word. Beholden? Nah, definitely not strong enough and still conveys some of that slavery essence. And I certainly didn't want to venture into deeper waters by suggesting that we are being raped by corporations, or resorting to disturbing visuals and crass bluntness by saying corporations are fucking us up the ass. I mean, come on! This is a quality, family blog!

Yes, we are all "free to choose to live differently" which differentiates the situation from actual slavery. And therein lies the problem, and I alluded to this in yesterday's post, that "we" aren't making that choice, either due to ignorance, or indifference. A whole bunch of us seem ok with the invasive corporate cancer, preferring instead to whine about it, and blaming our political leaders while clinging to the two-party pendulum as it swings back and forth, gathering millions of corporate dollars along the way which, ironically, we are helping fund each time we choose to do a business transaction with them.

We are free to choose to take corporate power away by making a personal decision to buy local and support small businesses. Absolutely true, but not a very realistic solution on which to hang a hat. That relies on trusting our fellow Americans, at least 80% of them in order to have a loud and meaningful impact, to be astute and make major changes in their purchasing habits. At least those fortunate enough to live in an area where there are choices, and have the ways and the means to do so, have that possibility.

In the thousands of small towns which have been decimated by the presence of Wal-Mart, the choices are extremely limited.

We are also free to throw our support behind any candidate and any political party we choose. Sounds good in theory but the best possible scenario never seems to pan out. Special interest groups with corporate funding can and do toss enough money behind their preferred candidate to drown out any alternatives. And why anyone would decide to vote for candidate A vs. candidate B based on a 30-second radio or television advertisement is beyond my comprehension, but it happens.

Despite all this freedom, and the power we have to radically change our politics, it's rather hard to accomplish when we can't even manage to get 40% of registered voters to turn out in mid-term elections, and a 55% turnout in presidential elections is considered a pretty good year, not that it matters if all those extra voters will vote no differently than the ones who bother to show up routinely.

Our energy policy and dependence on oil is another good example. To say we are slaves to oil might not be true either. We are free to break away from that dependence. Some of us take steps to reduce our consumption, others are able but choose not to, and another segment of society simply cannot do it for financial reasons.

This is precisely why we need government to devise a plan which inflicts pain and cost (yes, there is going to be some of both, so get ready) as fairly as possible in reaching the desired outcome of reduced dependence in the short-term, and green replacements in the long-term. This is not something we can sit around and wait on the private sector to do, nor does it make any sense to have individual states working independently of one another in this endeavor.

Call it what you wish, but we are under an oppressive thumb with the objective being to squeeze us dry to benefit the obscenely wealthy, and some of us are, strangely enough, shaking our pom-poms in fervent support for those groups.

***

(Off-topic blog note: The Echo comment system is misbehaving badly. FYI.)
***

Ready for Alternative and Cleaner Energy Sources Yet?

Sorry, but in the 21st century this method of acquiring an energy source is absolutely barbaric.

The death toll from a blast at a West Virginia coal mine rose to 25 on Tuesday, federal safety officials said, making it the worst mining accident in the United States in 25 years.

[...]

Mine safety officials said that there were three groups of miners affected by the blast. One group consisted of nine miners who were leaving the site at the end of their shift in a vehicle known as a “mantrip.” Seven of the miners in the man trip were killed by the explosion while two others were injured and taken to the hospital by rescue workers.

A second group of 18 miners was said to be working a bit deeper in the mine, closest to the area where coal was actually being extracted. All 18 of them died.

A third group of four miners — the ones still unaccounted for — was even deeper in the mine.

The miners were all thought to be working more than 1,000 feet underground.

And the problem isn't unique to the United States.

A False Sense of Security

Left to our own devices (i.e. the free market economy) I wonder how long we'd ride the worm before implementing necessary change to break this cycle.

From the plains of North Dakota to the deep waters of Brazil, dozens of major oil and gas projects have been suspended or canceled in recent weeks as companies scramble to adjust to the collapse in energy markets.

[...]

But the project delays are likely to reduce future energy supplies — and analysts believe they may set the stage for another surge in oil prices once the global economy recovers.

Much to my dismay, this is already having an impact on cleaner and greener alternatives.

Investment in alternative energy sources like biofuels that had flourished in recent years could dry up if prices stay low for the next few years, analysts said. Banks have become reluctant lenders, especially to renewable energy projects that may prove unprofitable in an era of low oil and gas prices.

This would be an ideal time for the government to take a leading role in promoting and developing green alternatives to better prepare us for the years ahead when we will, without a doubt, be facing prices similar to, or higher than, what we saw over the summer of 2008.

I am hopeful that Barack Obama will lead the way.

Speaking of biofuels, those morning coffee grounds can do more than feed your roses.

In research that touches on two of Americans’ great obsessions — coffee and cars — scientists at the University of Nevada, Reno, have made diesel fuel from used coffee grounds.

Meanwhile, the Toyota Prius plant in Mississippi, scheduled to begin production of the car in 2010, is being put on hold. Indefinitely.

A casualty of a weak economy, not to mention average gas prices back down around $1.66 nationwide.

A Worthy Tax

You don't hear me pushing for higher taxes very often. I try to avoid paying sales taxes (even though I know they help the state and local communities) by ordering online as much as possible. And federal taxes are on a lower rung of my ladder because of how many of those tax dollars are spent.

However, I would not be against a variable gas tax, especially if the proceeds were used not just for a bailout of the auto industry, but to remove the bloat in that industry and force them to start producing high-quality, fuel-efficient vehicles which would clearly be in demand if we knew gas was never going to cost less than $3.50 a gallon.

I've been an advocate of this idea since at least 1980 when I suggested we should add a $1.00 per gallon tax on top of what was then a $1.20 gallon of fuel for two reasons: reduced consumption to wean us from imported oil, and as a source of funding for alternative transportation methods and building more efficient cars.

Twenty-eight years later, here we are. Daniel Sperling and Deborah Gordon, writing in today's New York Times, have the right idea.

The best bailout is one that weans us off oil and sets us on a path to reduced carbon emissions. Congress and President-elect Barack Obama are not qualified to protect shareholders’ interests, nor can they build a better car. But they can ensure that society benefits from our investment in the automobile industry.

One way to do that would be to establish a price floor of $3.50 per gallon on gasoline. If the price drops below that, as it recently has, the federal government would impose a variable tax to bring the price up to $3.50. If the price goes above $3.50, then the tax disappears. The money raised by the variable tax would be used, at least in the short term, to provide loan guarantees to the auto companies. (To ease the burden of higher gasoline prices on low-income taxpayers, some of the revenue would be provided to them as tax credits or vouchers.)

[...]

At current prices, a floor of $3.50 per gallon would generate more than $17 billion in one month — a big chunk of a $25 billion bailout. If, without the floor, gasoline averaged $2.50 per gallon over the next year, revenues would amount to $140 billion. That money could pay for a sound transportation policy agenda beyond the bailout.

I think we have demonstrated we can live with a $3.50 gallon as most of us were paying more than that in late summer. It's a tight fit financially for those struggling, and there are ways to provide assistance to those people truly in need.

With prices at the pump currently hovering just above $2.00 per gallon it would be an ideal time to bite the bullet and make a genuine effort to get ourselves out of this mess.

Meanwhile, Chevrolet is planning to introduce the Volt in 2010.

The Volt, which the company plans to begin selling in November 2010, should easily double the fuel economy rating of today’s mileage hero, the Toyota Prius. The Prius, which carries a 46 m.p.g. rating in combined city and highway driving, is a conventional hybrid that uses modest amounts of electricity to minimize the fuel consumed by its gasoline engine.

The Volt takes the opposite approach, relying mainly on electric power, with its gasoline engine running only when needed to stretch the driving range. The 100 m.p.g. automobile, which once seemed an impossible dream, will become an official E.P.A.-rated reality with the Volt’s arrival.

It's a shame GM didn't roll this thing out in 2007. Had they done so, maybe a bailout wouldn't have been quite so urgent.

I Have a Lot to Say

But it'll have to wait. I'm tired.

But I do find it interesting that in a moment when we could make great strides by taking advantage of hardships, we take the low road. It sorta takes all the fun out of the suffering.

Let's use 9/11/01 as an example. Name a positive we have achieved since that date. We have to go out and buy special 3 oz. plastic containers for shampoo and conditioner just to get on a fucking airplane, and we have suspended or put the Constitution through a cheap paper shredder.
We have made the lives of millions miserable.

Now fast forward to 2008. While all the aforementioned shit is still going on, now we have $130-$140 a barrel oil. We could be focusing on mass transit, alternative fuel technologies, etc. But what direction are we headed?

The low road.

Senator John McCain said Wednesday that he wanted 45 new nuclear reactors built in the United States by 2030, a course he called “as difficult as it is necessary.”

[...]

He said his ultimate goal was 100 new nuclear plants.

Idiot.

And he isn't the only idiot, I'm sorry to say. McCain's fuck buddy isn't the brightest lantern on the streets of the idiotless village.

George W. Bush has his own ideas for solving our problems.
President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to end a federal ban on offshore oil drilling and open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, asserting that those steps and others would lower gasoline prices and “strengthen our national security.”

[...]

Mr. Bush sought to take full political advantage of soaring fuel prices by portraying Republican lawmakers as imaginative and forward-looking and the Democratic majority in Congress as obstructionists on energy policy.

"Imaginative and forward-looking?"

I'm totally losing confidence in our collective intelligence.

It's quite comical watching a society collapse before my very eyes. "We" could stop this madness, but you know, there's bigger threats to our survival.

The Westboro Baptist Church and others of their ilk can keep us abreast of those threats. And we certainly trust them to do so.

Yeah, like believing "on" Jesus is going to solve our problems. It must be nice living in fantasy land. Perhaps I should give it a try.

Run along now you little brainwashed brat. We've got a country to save so you don't live a life of absolute hell before you turn 18. You might be eating poop yourself when you can't afford corn or rice. Fucking idiots.

Fuck.


Crossposted at Big Brass Blog

Tempted to Flip the Switch

With txrad being gone for five days I've been tempted to shut off all power to the house just to see what impact it will have on our electric bill for June.

The downsides I can count are:

1. No blogging.
2. All the shit in the fridge will go bad.
3. No music.

On second thought, I'll just leave it.

Gas Tax Holiday Frenzy at the State Level

It's not just Clinton and McCain on the wrong track with calls for suspending the 18.4-cent federal excise tax; governors and lawmakers in many states are calling for a similar tax holiday by suspending their own state gasoline taxes. This is probably the most foolish idea idea I've heard in eons.

Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida has been fighting to cut 10 cents from the state’s gasoline tax for two weeks in July. Lawmakers in Missouri, New York and Texas have also proposed a summer break from state gas taxes, while candidates for governor in Indiana and North Carolina are sparring over relief ideas of their own.

If experience with such gas tax “holidays” is any guide, drivers would save less than politicians suggest. But that is not necessarily the point.

“It’s about trying to serve the people and trying to understand and have caring, compassionate hearts for what they’re dealing with at the kitchen table,” said Mr. Crist, a Republican.

What's interesting is these politicians don't seem to give a damn about long-term solutions to either fuel prices, fuel economy, energy alternatives, or people living below the poverty line regardless of whether or not we have cheap fuel.

But they certainly do know how to jump on the quick-fix bandwagon to appease a public which seems to believe quick-fixes and cheap energy are an American birthright.

The response speaks not just to the reality of skyrocketing gas prices. It also highlights the political potency of anything that affects Americans’ bonds with their cars. Gas is a product that no one can ignore — and one that inspires intense emotion.

The time to bite the bullet is now. Oil futures surpassed $120 a barrel on Monday and if that isn't a wake-up call to start pouring huge resources and attention into long-term energy alternatives, then we reap what we sow. The idea that a suspension of the tax is going to help million of Americans "put food on the table" during the summer is preposterous.

Assuming prices don't continue to rise more than the amount of the suspended tax, then many American may indeed be able to buy a week's worth of groceries. Unfortunately, we can't assume fuel prices won't continue to rise during the summer months. State coffers will suffer and in the end, the lost tax revenue will need to be recouped. And in the end, if by chance fuel prices at the pump have risen another 10-cents to 20-cents a gallon by Labor Day, it's going to be a double whammy when the state and/or federal taxes on fuel are reinstated.

Changing our driving habits can do far more to put food on the table than a temporary suspension of the tax. Eliminating unnecessary trips and driving more conservatively could accomplish a lot. And we have the power to do that on our own, without the involvement of politicians.

What we should be demanding of our politicians is honesty, and a pledge to work sincerely on energy reform, without influence from big oil interests. We don't seem to be there yet.


Crossposted at Big Brass Blog

Can We Please Have An Energy Policy? Is That Asking Too Much?

As a follow-up to my last post regarding the federal gasoline tax, take a look at what Thomas Friedman had to say in his New York Times Op-Ed piece today.

It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away.

[...]

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

And then there's President Bush and his head-in-the-sand approach.

Bush declined to take a position on the concept of a gas tax holiday, saying he was "open to any ideas" to deal with rising fuel prices. But in a news conference in the Rose Garden, he focused on controversial, longer-term proposals aimed at loosening environmental or regulatory restrictions on domestic oil exploration and production, and he also advocated building additional nuclear plants.

"If there was a magic wand to wave," Bush said, "I'd be waving it, of course. . . . But there is no magic wand to wave right now. It took us a while to get to this fix."

Needless to say, the video was far more entertaining than reading an excerpt. How sad and pathetic. After more than 7 years in office, the leader of our nation is "open to any ideas" because he clearly has none of his own.

Nuclear Waste On Many Fronts

While I am on the subject of clean energy, I must share this from today's NYT. I've heard from many people that nuclear is getting better, safer and cleaner -- no wet clean-up on aisle 6 just yet. (Oops!)

And since the Europeans are embracing it, and are having few, if any, problems, why shouldn't we?

Unfortunately, the United States is not dealing with this very efficiently.

Forgotten but not gone, the waste from more than 100 nuclear reactors that the federal government was supposed to start accepting for burial 10 years ago is still at the reactor sites, at least 20 years behind schedule. But it is making itself felt in the federal budget.

Right off the bat, I have an issue. "Forgotten?" Who forgot about it? Not me, I've been ranting about this for longer than I've had a blog. I must be alone. But let's continue; it gets better. And prepare yourself; this next excerpt contains a word which may offend. That "b" word.

With court orders and settlements, the federal government has already paid the utilities $342 million, but is virtually certain to pay a total of at least $7 billion in the next few years and probably over $11 billion, government officials said. The industry said the total could reach $35 billion.

The payments come from an obscure and poorly understood government account that requires no new Congressional appropriations, and will balloon in size, experts said.

Granted, $35 billion isn't a huge sum in the grand scheme of things, since we're about to hand ourselves $152 billion to help stimulate Wal-Mart the economy and bail us out of a recession. Seriously, how many other instances are there in which a few billion here and a few billion there are tossed out like candy at a parade? It adds up.

At some point, the escalating costs slow down, because some of the expenses for dry storage are incurred only once, like the engineering work, or installation of a crane to get the cask in and out of the spent fuel pool, officials said. But costs rise again at the point where the reactor that generated the fuel becomes too old to run, and is torn down; at that point, the entire expense of the guard force and the maintenance workers are attributable to the waste.

That has already happened in California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Michigan.

Let's ditch the idea once and for all that nuclear energy is the long-term solution to our problem, and that it is clean. It is not. We may indeed need to rely on nuclear energy for a long while because we've dragged our ass on so many other fronts, but I sincerely hope we can avoid a proliferation of these beasts and begin to phase them out, and soon.

Each reactor typically creates about 20 tons of waste a year, which is approximately two new casks, at roughly $1 million each. If a repository or interim site opened, clearing the backlog would take decades, experts say. At present, waste is in temporary storage at 122 sites in 39 states.

The Energy Department has launched an initiative to gather the waste and run it through a factory to recover re-usable components, which would allow centralized storage, but that program’s prospects are highly uncertain.

The government has spent $11 billion on Yucca Mountain, Mr. Sproat said. The project has dragged on so long that some of the research data is stored on obsolete computers that must be replaced, program officials said.

Clean, cheap and efficient. Right. But a ton of lawyers must LOVE it.

Sun Worship in Silicon Valley

This is some good news, assuming Silicon Valley can stave off competition from the Chinese.

Given the valley’s tremendous success in recent years with such down-to-earth products as search engines and music players, tackling solar power might seem improbable. Yet some of the valley’s best brains are captivated by the challenge, and they hope to put the development of solar technologies onto a faster track.

[...]

“A solar cell is just a big specialized chip, so everything we’ve learned about making chips applies,” says Paul Saffo, an associate engineering professor at Stanford and a longtime observer of Silicon Valley.

For all the debates about the best options for energy independence, I have long felt solar was getting short shrift in favor of other alternatives, even those which are less clean, but more profitable for someone.

I think of our long hot & sunny Austin summers when the direct sun exposure on the west side of our house scorches the paint off the siding. It's free energy raining down upon us. And I love the term "solar evangelist." Count me in.

Optimism about creating a “Solar Valley” in the geographic shadow of computing all-stars like Intel, Apple and Google is widespread among some solar evangelists.

“The solar industry today is like the late 1970s when mainframe computers dominated, and then Steve Jobs and I.B.M. came out with personal computers,” says R. Martin Roscheisen, the chief executive of Nanosolar, a solar company in San Jose, Calif.

Nanosolar shipped its first “thin film” solar panels in December, and the company says it ultimately wants to produce panels that are both more efficient in converting sunlight into electricity and less expensive than today’s versions. Dramatic improvements in computer chips over many years turned the PC and the cellphone into powerful, inexpensive appliances — and the foundation of giant industries. Solar enterprises are hoping for the same outcome.

Solar evangelicals unite!