(photo from freegan.info, courtesy of falcophoto.com)

 They eat from dumpsters. The shun regular employment. They live in abandoned dwellings. You might think of them as “bums.” They prefer to be known as Freegans. And their ranks may well be growing.

 Dubbed “strategies for a sustainable life beyond capitalism,” the Freegans may well be on to something. In a society as wasteful as modern humanity has become, these “urban foragers” often come back from a night of “product reclamation” with some quality used items. From furniture to electronics to household cleaning products, Freegans are making the point that rampant consumerism fuels not only greed but waste too. But the fun doesn’t stop there.

Free food, even if it has spent a long hot day at the bottom of a dumpster, is the key to Freegan survival. Essentially vegetarians, Freegans relish in the waste of restaurants and retail grocers, creating feasts and sharing the goods with anyone who dares come along.

Free housing, even if it means living with the roaches and rats in an abandoned husk of a home, is a component of the Freegan lifestyle. Their solution to homelessness is to ignore the “No Trespassing” signs because shelter is a right, not a privilege.

Planned joblessness, because working to pay the man becomes less important if you don’t actually have to buy your stuff or pay your rent. And because having a steady job also means you are contributing to the over-production and over-consumption problems of the modern world.

Being Freegan means taking a stand against the environmental destruction caused by mass human consumption. It means working outside the system to bring attention to the problems of the system. It means….well to most of America, it means being a “bum.”

However…..

Our whole modern world is based on cheap oil. Once the cheap oil is gone there is a serious concern that whole economies may collapse. Certainly when the supply of easily obtainable oil reaches the point of diminishing returns, much of what we take for granted will no longer be available-from plastics to abundant crops to mass transportation. If humanity can’t create a viable substitute for a world run on oil, and soon, well then we all may become Freegans-whether we like it or not.

Dumpster diving anyone?

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

A recent AP-Yahoo poll shows that consumers don’t have a rosy outlook for their financial futures any time soon. Because of high gas prices.

From cancelled vacations to finding new jobs, people are struggling to cope with the high price of fuel. And they don’t think that current high prices are going to reverse course anytime soon.

“Do you think there’s an end in sight? I don’t,” 33-year-old Angela Crawford, a Dallas homemaker, said in an interview. “It’s depressing and it makes you nervous.”

“We just don’t do as much,” said William Fisk, 39, a former dishwasher in Freeport, Maine. “We used to go out to have dinner, but we’re cutting way back on that.”

“My parents said, ‘Come down, spend a week with us,’” said Julie Jacobs, 35. “But when you add on the expense of gas, it’s just not worth it.”

In fact, things are getting so tight, that some Nevada businesses are offering customers gas cards as incentives to keep coming in.

Oil price hikes are a direct result of the Bush policies in the Middle East. They are also a result of higher demand for oil in developing nations. They are also high as a result of financial speculators. The beating of war drums around Iran now has gas prices soaring higher.

The era of cheap transportation based on oil is coming to an end, and may be here already. The transition will cause us all to rethink many things about the way we live our lives. We are woefully unprepared as a nation.

Happy Monday.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

This week is “Green Week” on NBC, a television network owned by General Electric, maker of all those fine, sparkly things that makes America the most materialistically enjoyable place to live in the world. On one hand, I have to commend NBC and GE for bringing to light the plight of global climate change and humanity’s role in shaping our changing environment. Several of their programs are adopting a “Green” theme during this weeks broadcasts, even including tips on how individuals can aid in fighting over-consumption and assist in recycling and conservation efforts. This attention being given to environmental issues by a national television network can only help raise awareness of the problems of global climate change and ecological destruction among the general public, and that is a good thing.

On the other hand, I can only shake my head in disbelief as I ponder the seeming hypocrisy of it all. Considering that the creation and delivery of television programming requires the efforts of tens of thousands of people and consumes a great amount of energy in the process, if NBC really wanted to show its audience how best to “Go Green” they’d have pulled the plug for a week and sponsored live, local events targeted towards environmental rejuvenation or other similar projects. They could have encouraged their audience to turn off the TV altogether, thus saving untold amounts of energy that would in turn decrease all sorts of atmospheric pollutants. Now that would have been a true example of “Going Green.”

But they didn’t choose the latter option, instead opting to promote “Green-think” during their programming. And guess what? They managed to get some sponsors to get with their program too. Which brings me around to the topic of this post and a concept I’ll call environmental ludicrousness.

During one of NBC’s reality programs last night, contestants had to vie for a spectacularly shiny prize- a brand new Ford Escape SUV. My first reaction to this major prize was, “Are you freaking kidding me? They’re giving away an SUV during “Green Week?”” But then I quickly remembered where I was. As the show host described the fabulous prize and began to expound on how this was a hybrid vehicle that got up to 34 miles per gallon it was all I could do to keep from falling on the floor in laughter. This brand new 2008 SUV is the American automobile industry’s answer to energy consumption? Christ, I drive a 1995 Mazda 626 with over 240,000 miles on it and it still gets around 30 miles per gallon. When I first bought it in 1998 (with 60,000 miles on it) I was getting closer to 38 miles per gallon on the freeway and at least 35 in the city! And my car isn’t anywhere near being hybrid.

And then it struck me like a two by four in the forehead. American’s don’t really want to do anything serious to solve the problems of the environment, problems we had a big, if not the biggest, hand in exacerbating. American’s only want to pretend we’re doing something. And in that vein…voila! The Hybrid SUV! Want to look worried about the environment without sacrificing your roomy vehicle and oversized cupholders? No problem- just jump in the Hybrid SUV! Only in America, I guess…

The fact that most SUV owners have about as much need for an oversized fuel guzzler as I have for my own personal Sherman tank is very much the point, but one that is missed completely in the land of the free and the home of the brave. After all, being American by definition means having whatever the hell you want regardless of the consequences. And when the consequences add up to melting icecaps that you’ll never see anyhow, it doesn’t seem like there are consequences at all, right? So why not buy the biggest, most fuel-inefficient vehicle you can to haul your solo self around the block for another 6-pack of Diet Coke? This is America!

Other countries have different domestic travel dynamics, and as such have incorporated into their national transportation systems many forms of competent public transportation options. Many countries are small in comparison with the United States, and as such have less ‘long-distance” travel internally. Many more countries are economically poor to the point that having personal transportation is considered a high luxury. In the United States, we have a lot of territory and good incomes, so we have highways and personal vehicles. And for decades, we’ve also had cheap gasoline to power our personal vehicles. These factors have helped make us an automobile nation, and even if we had a national desire to change that fact, our infrastructure is designed on the predicate that people travel to get anywhere. So in order to make adjustments in this environmentally challenged age of ours, we’ll have to make significant changes to our personal transportation models. And the Hybrid SUV just doesn’t cut it folks. It’s not even a good effort.

If appearances were all that mattered, America would reign as king forever. But hypocrisy has a way of catching up. Fuel prices are closing in on $100 per barrel of oil, and gasoline in America is starting to approach prices that have been known in Europe and Asia for decades. And yet American consumers are being told to trade in their old gas-guzzling SUV’s for what? A smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle like the Smart Car? Nonsense! Here’s a brand new SUV model for you- a Hybrid, no less- and it gets great mileage too!

Well, actually folks, it gets mileage comparable to that of foreign cars built a dozen years ago. But don’t think about that. If you’re too busy pondering the depths of the BS you’ve been happily fed forever, you might miss your exit to the gas station. And your new Hybrid SUV is getting pretty thirsty- again.

(cross psoted at Bring It On!)

I’m nowhere near the radical religion or borrowed money chapters yet- Phillips begins by talking about the oil, or more specifically he begins by taking a short walk back in history by looking at two other global giants of their time, Holland and England. He makes note of the fact that the periods of time in which each of these nations became global powers coincided with their access and innovation with the great energy resources of their times. In Holland, it was command of wind and water. With England it was coal. And in both cases, once an energy source was depleted or replaced by another energy source, those countries fell off their perches among the world’s nations and became former superpowers. Phillips notes that the same dynamics have occurred (are occurring) in the US, and predictably, the same fall awaits us- unless we do something about it.

It is no big surprise that US dominance has mirrored the dominance of oil and petroleum as the main energy source on Earth. Our nation lives and breathes oil. It is our lifeblood. Our entire society is based on the concept of cheap and plentiful oil. As such, it should be no big surprise that American government and corporate mentality is focused on maintaining as much control as possible over all the oil it can, including sending men and women abroad to die for access to oil. But what happens when the oil is no longer cheap or plentiful, as is rapidly becoming the case? For Holland, coal surpassed wind and water and left that nation with an infrastructure not ready to move forward. The coming of coal should have been the writing on the wall, but Hollander’s couldn’t or wouldn’t read it. For England, the same happened with coal, only more so, pushing England into dire straits as oil came online and their infrastructure was too totally coal based to convert. They were forced to play catch-up and lost their edge in world status.

America has had at least 30 years or more to prepare for the end of oil as a dominant energy source, but like Holland and England, the government, corporations, and general public are doing nothing, assuming that the oil will be there for us whenever we need it despite all indications to the contrary. And for 30+ years nothing has changed in any real way. We are still beholden to oil, we’ve made scant effort to find other sources of energy, and we’ve demonized some of the best practical alternatives available to us now-nuclear, solar, and hydro power- as too expensive, impractical, or tapped out. That’s not just myopic thinking, it’s a recipe for disaster.

America may still have a chance to keep hold of some of her world power, but only if we move aggressively into new exploration and development of energy. Regardless, our entire society and infrastructure, our power dominance and our financial prowess will soon end or at the very least suffer serious degradation, due to our continued reliance on oil and oil alone. And while this book isn’t about the use of oil and it’s affects on global climate, there are several lessons to be learned in correlation there as well.

Sadly, the other aspects of the book that I’ve not read will almost certainly show how the religious factions in this country have undermined our scientific-technological capability for at least a generation, further assuring our loss of dominance. I will also read more on how our financial policies (again centered around oil) have trapped us into a spiraling whirlpool of debt that will make any real transformations that much more difficult.

The bottom line is simple- America as a superpower will one day come to an end. Of that there can be no uncertainty. What remains then is to position ourselves in such a way as to benefit most from international cooperations and new discoveries and to turn inward and prepare our society for a massive retooling based not on an oil economy.

In the business world they say to be nice to people on your way up because eventually you may see them again on your way down, and maybe as your boss. Well, our government should take that to heart- we’ll not always be on top of the heap, globally speaking, so we’d better stop pissing so many people off.

More on this book as I read it.

Economy Is Great- If You’re an Oil Company or Defense Contractor

Boy, this Bush economy is really spreading the wealth around, at least for Big Oil and the Military-Industrial complex.

Third quarter reports show ExxonMobile reaping record profit levels, raking in over $10 Billion in profit in the third quarter alone. Since the costs of extracting, refining, and delivering crude oil has not changed much, this is pure profit for the oil giant. If this were simply a matter of passing increased costs along to the consumer, the oil companies would not realize such extreme profits at all, as their costs would also be rising. It’s not about supply and demand either, despite market economy apologists. And it’s not just ExxonMobile either. Profits at Royal Dutch Shell grabbed over $7 Billion in profit in Q2 and ConocoPhillips sucked another $5 Billion out of consumers pockets.

Can anyone say price gouging? Add these obscene record earnings to the record tax breaks given these oil barons by the Bush administration and it’s clear that the Bush tax cuts are working wonders- for the uber-rich at least. Meanwhile, most of the regular joes are cutting back on summer travel, family entertainment, eating, and so on.

But if that’s not enough evidence that America is just a subsidiary of the corporate crassholes, defense companies are enjoying earning increases too, from 17 to 54 per cent as the neverending Bush war doctrine catches on around the world.

Can anyone say war profiteering? Many of these defense contracts are allotted through Homeland Security contracts, the federal governments newest money hole, where rampant fraud and waste have been documented.

You want to talk about ‘wealth redistribution?’ There it is folks. Plain and simple.

America Addicted To Oil, Bush Addicted To Bullsh*t

In his 2006 State of the Union Speech, President Bush declared that America is “addicted to oil.” He then laid out plans to fix that problem, including, among other things, a call to change how we power motor vehicles.

“We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We’ll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.”

Well that sure sounds good on paper, but the reality is that these comments were more rhetoric than reality. The reality is that no matter what technology develops, if you can’t get it into the hands of the consumer, it isn’t going to make a difference towards the goal of reducing oil use. It seems that someone in Congress figured that out too though, so a tax credit was passed for purchasers of fuel efficient hybrid vehicles. Seems the stage is set for some real progress to be made, right?

Wrong. For most people, even with the tax credit, the price of a new hybrid is still out of reach, especially with all other costs going up across the board, and with incomes growing at a snail’s pace. The tax credits were supposed to help level that playing field somewhat, but when drafting the law, Congress put a cap on the number of cars sold per manufacturer that would qualify for the credit. That magic number is 60,000. After that number of cars has been sold and given the maximum $3,500 tax credit, the next batch of cars sold only receive half that amount as a credit, and then six months later, half again of that. By October 2007, the credit will end altogether.

With over 258 million cars on the streets today, nearly 13 million cars would have to be replaced annually with hybrid vehicles just to replace the U.S. fleet in 20 years. That’s right…TWENTY YEARS. And yet the tool designed by Congress and touted by the president in his speech to the nation to help achieve the goal of ‘weaning America off foreign oil’ will barely make a dent in the effort, largely because it is too limited in scope and does not offer flexibility for those who couldn’t afford a new car ever. Even if eligible manufacturer’s pumped out and sold a half million units a year combined, it would take over 500 years to replace the cars we have now burning gas.

So much for breaking the addiction. But that’s no real surprise, is it? After all, we are being led by the biggest pusher and addict of all, our two-headed, executive branch oil monster known as Dick and Bush. Had the president been serious about his statements, he’d have pushed for a much more expansive tax credit program that would include more than just new car purchases, but for used hybrid cars, retrofitted engine replacements for older cars, credits for gas retailers who converted a portion of their businesses to flex-fuels, eliminated the cut-off threshhold for manufacturers, removed any cut-off date for the program, and established a one-per-person every five years rule that would ensure a spreading of the credits across a broader economic spectrum. Businesses with large vehicle fleets would have no such per-person rule.

But he won’t do that, because then Americans might actually make progress in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and oil in general for transportation fuel. And if that happened too quickly his buddies in Big Oil would stand to lose a big chuck of their outrageous earnings, and then where would the ‘ownership society’ be.

As with most things that come out of this president’s mouth, the claim that this administration wants to end the cycle of oil addiction is pure B.S. And that’s just the kind of thing we’d expect a failed Texas oilman to be addicted to.

Big Oil On The Right Track?

Just got the newest National Geographic magazine this weekend and noticed an advertisement (located on page 5) from our friends at Conoco Phillips.

The ad claims, in part, that our friends at Conoco Phillips aren’t willing to settle for just average when it comes to providing energy to the world. Claiming to be raiser’s of the bar and taking the lead in figuring it out, the ad goes on to say just how Conoco Phillips is moving forward to “solve the demanding increase in global energy needs.”

The solution? Finding new places to drill for natural gas and investing in Russia’s oil and natural gas reserves. WOW! These out of the box solutions will surely keep us in oil for decades to come right? Because we all know that oil is the only real source of energy worth pursuing, right?

The ad ends with this missive:

“Turning “what ifs” into “what’s next” – it’s what we do every day.”

Funny, I thought the “what’s next” might possibly include developing non-fossil fuel energy solutions, not just looking for new places to dig. Obviously, Big Oil isn’t interested in that at all.

Green Power

The ERA recently released this years list of Green Power Partnership Rankings and I’m proud to note that I Live near and work in this years list topper- The City of San Diego. By generating some of it’s own energy from renewable resources, San Diego saved many millions of taxpayer dollars and prevented as much as 91 million pounds of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere. Imagine that…saving money and fighting global warming at the same time. In all, San Diego generated over 65,000 megawatts of power derived from biogas, solar power, and hydro power. That represents nearly 25% of the city’s annual power needs. That’s enough to power 7,500 homes for an entire year.

In fact, the city is actually producing more energy than it is equipped to use, so they are selling it back to the power grid through the local utility, San Diego Gas and Electric. And this can’t be done elsewhere…why?

Sure, San Diego has the sun nearly year round, but it’s more than just a warm climate that is bringing success. By thinking out of the box with such ideas as converting falling water in its wastewater treatment plant into energy. Or by capturing the methane gas from landfills and other waste water treatment facilities. Or adding turbines to the city’s water delivery system to take advantage of wind power. And yes, lots and lots of solar panels.

The point though is that any municipality could do the same thing. All it takes is some leadership and commitment to doing the right thing. Right for the planet. Right for our own health. Right for our security. Right for our wallets. In fact, there’s nothing negative here at all, except that more cities aren’t doingthis too.

Rounding out the top five were the Austin Independent School District in Texas, the Montgomery County Wind Buyers Group in Maryland, the New York State Municipal Wind Buyers Group, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District in California. Only the city of Portland, Oregon had a more diverse mix of renewable energy sources than San Diego, as they already have a wind program in place. But Portland’s total green power generation was only 17,600 megawatts, putting that city 7th on the EPA list.

It’s obvious that alternative energy isn’t coming from the big oil companies or the federal government any time soon. But the answer can be found in our cities and towns. Contact your local officials and find out what your city is doing to help reduce fossil fuel consumption. If they are not doing anything see if you can help them develop a plan. Together we can make a difference.

(originally posted at Bring It On!)

Russert had the heads of three of the four largest oil companies (Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips) in for a chat about high prices, consumer angst, and alternative fuels. When asked by Russert whether the oil companies and the White House were engaged in talks to wean America of its “addiction to oil,” John Hofmeister, head of Shell Oil replied,

“I think energy independence is the wrong direction because the United States is not an island nation. We are interdependent on all of our global companies doing business all over the world, and I think the oil companies need to be more interdependent as well. I think it’s good for international relations. I think it’s good for the economy, actually, to have oil come from wherever it can come from. Now we can do a lot more in this country. The 102 billion barrels of known oil reserves and gas reserves that we don’t have access to in this country on federal land and the outer continental shelf…we’d like to go produce that and we know how to produce that and I think we know how to protect the natural environment in sound ways.”

What? Energy independence is NOT the course to take? And here I thought that’s what the president meant when he said we needed to cure our addiction to oil. Gosh, did I miss something?

Looking a little closer at the actual words gives me even more reason to pause. What Mr. Hofmeister is really saying is that it is large, multi-national corporations who run the show and that not only should the oil companies work together to consolidate a hold on world fossil fuels, but they should have carte blanche to get fossil fuels wherever they may be found. Sounds like someone has a Napolean complex to me.

This monologue from Hofmeister came near the end of the segment, but there was plenty more good stuff before this show capper.

When asked about the future of energy, including the importance of renewable and alternative energy, all three CEO’s asserted that regardless of the public desire for alternative, renewable fuel sources, we were going to be tied to fossil fuels for at least 30 and upwards of 100 years. Each man danced around the possibility of non-oil energy while insisting increased efforts to increase supply of fossil fuels- from various forms of oil (sand, shale, conventional), gas (including LNG), and coal- were of primary importance at this time.

All three oil barons put up the standard defense vis-à-vis profit margins. Every oil company has experienced record breaking profit margins in the last year and change. Russert wondered why they couldn’t cut prices and earn only a 30% profit instead of 50% or 60%? Why were retiring CEO’s handed $400 million retirement packages? Didn’t they care about the public perception, which shows a 71% negative approval for oil companies? Investment in oil prodiction, offsetting losses in other divisions, and even some research into future energy sources. But none conceded that profits were obscene. No one suggested that consumers will ever get a break.

In the end, what probably shocked me most was the smugness of these men, especially Hofmeister. They spoke of the consumers and the hurricane victims and the hard time high prices are causing, and kept using the term ‘we.” And it occurred to me that the ‘we’ they are speaking of is not the American people. These men try to act like they are just another great American company, but it isn’t true. These companies are multi-national octopuses with tentacles spread across the globe. They don’t care about any one country at all. They care about the money, and the power that comes from controlling the people who control the oil.

It is clear now that if America is ever going to find a solution to our energy woes, woes that compound our foreign policy aims and national viability into the future, it will have to be done in good old-fashioned American tradition. It will be up to the independent thinkers and engineers and financiers who understand the importance of energy independence. It will be up to individual consumers and forward thinking businesses. In short, it is up to us.

The oil companies don’t want us to think of energy independence because that means they lose their money and their power. They lose their ability to manipulate international politics and internal politicians. They lose their strangle hold on the economy and transportation, and everything that makes our modern world modern. Because once we have energy independence, we can really begin to stretch our wings towards freedom, prosperity, and a more peaceful existence.

To be fair, all three executives agreed that we need to take a serious look out our energy demand issues, but their answer isn’t to conserve so much as it is to increase supply. And not just any old supply, but more fossil fuels. (Damn, I was trying to show something positive.)

You can watch the entire show here. This segment is the last of the show, starting around 35 minutes or so.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

FACT: Oil is the world’s largest source of convertible energy at the present time.
FACT: Most of the world’s known oil sources lie beneath the sands of the Middle East, specifically in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran, in Russia, and in Venezuela.
FACT: Most of the oil in the world is used by the United States, China, Japan and Russia.
FACT: Current U.S. debt is around $8.5 Trillion.
FACT: Japan holds $440 Billion of that debt. China holds $122 Billion. China also holds $361 Billion in foreign currency reserves, much in U.S. dollars.
FACT: The U.S. and Russia have the largest operational nuclear stockpiles with 8,000 warheads and 8,600 warheads respectively. China has around 400 operational nuclear warheads.
FACT: Other nuclear nations include Britain, France, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, and recently, North Korea. No other nations are known to possess operational nuclear warheads, though Iran is making great efforts to produce some.
FACT: China is the most populous nation on Earth. As it continues to modernize itself, it’s need for resources and goods will result in a shifting of global resource allocation causing either greater cooperation between nations or giving rise to great enmity.
FACT: China’s major trading partners include Japan, Russia, and the United States.
FACT: Iran is governed by fundamentalist Islamic religious leaders who vilify the western world and Israel. Their interpretation of their religious texts drives their ideology towards conflict with those whom they describe as infidels.
FACT: Iran’s major trading partners include China, Japan, and Russia.
FACT: George W. Bush comes from a wealthy oil family. He has numerous ties to the oil industry, the Middle East and specifically Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Prior to entering politics and government, George W. Bush was a failed businessman, losing money in Texas oil over 10 years. George W. Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who has said that God chose him for the job of president. Among fundamentalist beliefs is the ‘end times’ scenario, a time of great upheaval, war, natural disaster and various maladies upon Earth and the human race.

When I was a young boy, growing up in eastern Washington State, I became aware of nuclear weapons. I read all about the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II and the resulting devastation that they caused. I learned that in the years following WWII, the United States and the Soviet Union (now Russia) engaged in a tremendous build-up of nuclear arms, each pointed at the others country. Many U.S. nukes were located on the Soviet doorstep, so to speak, in Western Europe and the Soviet attempt to place nuclear missiles close to America resulted in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which had the potential to escalate into a full-scale nuclear war. As history tells us, war was narrowly averted, but the arms race continued unabated through the 1970’s and 1980’s culminating in over 100,000 nuclear weapons between the two nations. With the flick of a switch, the annihilation of the human race was a distinct possibility, and tension between the two nations was high. In the early 1980’s, I lived near one of our major SAC bases where nuclear-armed B-52’s were housed. My town was listed as a primary target for Soviet nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear war. When I allowed myself to think of the possibilities, I was very much afraid.

But then the Cold War came to a screeching end with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, largely because they had spent themselves into bankruptcy trying to amass the largest nuclear arsenal. Arms reduction treaties between the U.S. and what was once again known as Russia helped decrease the likelihood of nuclear holocaust. Fears of being evaporated faded, not just for me, but for most of the world. It seemed that we had moved on, as a species, away from nuclear Armageddon. Conventional wisdom held that the United States, although the only nation to use a nuclear weapon in war, would never again use a nuclear device against another country unless first attacked by nuclear weapons itself. No U.S. President ever credibly considered nuclear warfare as a viable option, instead understanding that the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was lose-lose for everyone, including the U.S.

The last decade of the 20th century seemed to be a turning point in the nuclear gambit, as the world turned away from Cold War nuclear ambitions and turned towards creating a global economy. Advances in communications helped launch an era where national boundaries were more blurred, especially in relation to economic growth and the pursuit by corporations to extract every ounce of profit from every corner of the globe. Fueled in large part by American multi-national corporations, the control and acquisition of energy, specifically oil, became the bedrock foundation of national goals as modernization spread across the globe. Where once countries vied for political advantage, they now compete more heavily for resources and access to resources.

Enter the presidency of George W. Bush, a man who has adopted a doctrine of preemptive war and embraced the goals of multi-national corporations as his own. A man who avows a religious worldview that includes an eventual Armageddon in which only ‘true believers’ will be rewarded. A man who has recently renewed the possibility of nuclear war with a newly updated nuclear doctrine that departs from the conventional wisdom of our predecessors, stating that the U.S. objective is now “to ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.” (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations p. JP 3-12-13). As a corporatist, George W. Bush views the accumulation of wealth as a prime goal, and any means that achieves that end is considered a victory. George W. Bush is also an evangelical Christian who views the end of this world and the second coming of Christ as the ultimate goal to be eagerly anticipated. Is it time to be afraid again?

On September 11, 2001, America sustained a horrific attack that has been attributed to the fundamentalist Islamic group al-Qaeda. As rationale for this attack, al-Qaeda alternately uses their interpretation of the Quran’s dictum to attack all infidels and their underlying hatred of American governmental intrusion to the politics of the Middle East in general. In retaliation, and under the guise of defeating Islamic terrorism, the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, the host country of al-Qaeda. Much of the world supported this action by America. But then, George W. Bush turned his sights on Iraq. And now he is aiming at Iran.

Put together some of the facts that preceded this essay and see how those pieces fit together to form a very bleak picture of where things may be headed if this president continues along the present path.

Here’s one possible outcome that I can derive: Eventual war between the United States and China, and possibly Russia too, with the Middle East being the initial stomping grounds. If the U.S goes into Iran, China will have to respond because this would be a serious threat to her own ambitions. China will
likely begin with economic warfare, calling in much of their U.S. debt holdings. This will result is economic turmoil across the globe, either because the dollar will fall to disastrous levels or because the U.S. will refuse to pay and will instead ratchet up their war efforts in Iran, possibly using nuclear weapons in the process, in an effort to control more oil in the region. (We already have some marginal control over Iraq’s oil, in that U.S. troops and corporations are operating in Iraq much like early American settlers conducted themselves in the Western regions of America during the 1800’s.) U.S. control of the oil will be used against China in retaliation for calling in U.S. debt, forcing China to engage in active warfare against U.S troops to reclaim access to the oil. With the introduction of nuclear weapons by the U.S., several nations will side with China to rein in American aggression and irresponsibility.

The net result of this scenario could well be the destruction of much of this planet through nuclear warfare, giving the ‘end times’ scenario a chance to play out. In this scenario, anyone not part of the fundamentalist Christian religion loses out, because according to their doctrine, anyone not part of their group is damned to hell. Whether that hell is literal or not becomes irrelevant as the actions of Bush’s warmongering will make this planet much like depictions of hell anyhow.

Of course, all of this is simply supposition on my part, but with the trend of current events, it is hard to see where else the foreign policy aims of this administration will lead us. Is this outcome unavoidable? I would like to think it is, but with the current make-up of the U.S. government, acting largely as a rubber stamp to Bush, it is unlikely that they will stop Bush’s plans for control of the oil of the Middle East. For Bush, who really cares mostly about himself and his group of corporate benefactors, either situation is win-win. If he attacks Iran and no one stops him, he gets more oil, thus more money and economic leverage- a win in Bush’s book. If his war turns out to be a disaster and leads to nuclear warfare and widespread destruction, he’s just created the conditions for Jesus to return, according to his evangelical beliefs- a win in Bush’s other book.

But for most of the world, both scenarios are losers. We are indeed at another crossroads in world and American history. As George W. Bush says, “One of our making at a time of our choosing.” The problem is, Bush is choosing these paths and making these realities, not based on widespread support of the American people, not based on sound economic, scientific, military or foreign relations principals, but instead on his own desire to see his warped worldview come to fruition- a worldview that says he who dies with the most money and power gets to sit on Jesus’ lap for eternity.

The only chance of avoiding these scenarios is a serious cleaning of house in the U.S. Congress, the administration and it’s ministers, in favor of people who will turn towards a new course for America, followed by a revamped foreign policy that embraces cooperation, energy exploration, reparations for past U.S. aggression, and a greatly changed attitude and expectation of the future. I hope it won’t come too late.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about all of this. I hope I am. But using the facts presented at the beginning of this post, can you offer another possible outcome? Remember too that no one likes a bully, and at the very least, the actions of George W. Bush give the United States of America a big reputation as the world’s bully. As I recall, most playground bullies eventually get their comeuppance. Ours is coming too, if we don’t seriously change the path we are on.

[All the information presented as FACT at the beginning of this essay were found from various publications and websites using google search words. If you don’t believe them, look them up for yourself. I don’t intend to debate the facts, but I will debate their interpretation.]

In the 21st century, space travel and exploration is old hat. From space shuttle missions to long-range probes, our knowledge of our solar system and the universe in general has expanded exponentially. So what then is the next great challenge for us? What pressing need could benefit most from the concentration of our scientific and industrial prowess? The answer, my friends, is energy. Our modern world requires an increasing amount of energy to fuel our cars, to warm our homes, to light our nights. As we grow more and more technologically oriented, our need for reliable energy grows too. And with more developing nations striving to join the industrialized world community, the need for energy will become even more acute.

The bad news is that most of the world’s energy is derived from non-renewable fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. These resources are called non-renewable for a good reason- once they are gone they can’t be replenished, and if we are still dependent upon these resources for our energy when that day comes, you can plan on going back to the days of candlelight reading, walking to the store, and huddling around the fireplace for warmth. I’m not naturally an alarmist, and I can’t say with any certainty when that day will come, but common sense dictates that it will come eventually. Isn’t it better to be prepared before then?

There are other negative aspects to our use of fossil fuels like pollution or the environmental damage caused by the extraction of these resources from the Earth. Our national security and economy are tied to our need for these resources, leading us into areas of the world that are filled with strife and draining our taxes. And our need to compete with other nations for access to those resources is costing ordinary citizens more money to meet the needs of daily life. Yet there are other ways for us to obtain the energy we need in this modern world, if only our government and business interests would challenge themselves to develop them. Unfortunately, business looks primarily at profit, and the amount of money they have tied up in the current energy production and delivery cycle keeps them from leading the charge towards better energy options. Their financial entanglement blinds them, and they ensure the status quo by keeping pressure on the politicians, keeping our country tied to fossil fuels for most of our energy needs.

I say that the time has come to issue another challenge. Much as President Kennedy did in 1962, American leaders should issue a call for new energy development that precludes the use of fossil fuels in favor of cleaner, renewable energy sources. We should do this not only because it will one day be necessary, but because of the benefits to our air, our water, our land, and our people. Kennedy’s speech recognized that to achieve his goal, things that did not yet exist would have to be created and failures along the way would occur. He told the public that the task would be expensive, but it would be worth it. The drive for new energy has these same problems, but it too is worth it.

We already have alternate sources for energy that come from renewable resources. Hydroelectric energy, solar energy, biomass energy, wind energy, and nuclear energy all exist at some level of development, but the problem with their proliferation lies in the profit margin for business. True or not, the claim that these energy sources are too expensive to develop en masse or not sufficient to meet our needs goes unchallenged. I say that the business interests that control our fossil fuel dependency don’t want to lose their hold on our wallets. To them energy is not a public necessity, it is a cash cow. From development to distribution, their greed not only creates false energy scarcity, it hampers modernization and innovation. It is time for business to either join in the search for new energy sources or to be left behind altogether.

I see a future where energy is no longer considered a commodity to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. The fact of the matter is that reliable and cheap energy has become a necessity of daily life. When something becomes a necessity, it should not be out of reach for people, it should become available to everyone. I see a future where every home has its own energy production plant, supplied by clean, renewable sources of power. I see a future where transportation is powered not by fossil fuels, but by clean, non-polluting energy. I see a future where our cities are not rimmed with power lines and smokestacks. I see a future where countries don’t go to war over oil or make deals with treacherous regimes just to gain access to fuel.

The space race was paid for with public funds and the knowledge gained from the space missions belongs to us all. The advancements in technology derived from space exploration was paid for with public funds, and the proliferation of that technology now touches every aspect of our lives. In this vein, the development of new energy should be paid for with public funds, and the benefits of our research and development should be returned to the public through cheap, reliable energy. And our reliance on foreign nations for our energy could be reduced or eliminated entirely, saving us even more money by avoiding conflicts and expensive security measures.

We must move to elevate the types of renewable energy we now have from second-class status and begin to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. At the same time we must turn our scientists and industries towards developing new energy or increasing the viability of the renewable sources we do have like wind and solar and biomass. We should look towards the future of energy not from the prospective of profits for businesses, but from the prospective of prosperity for all. Energy supplies should not be fought over or suppressed. They should be clean, and plentiful, and cheap.

In 1962, America decided that going to the moon was worth the cost and the sacrifice and we met the challenge. Meeting this goal saved no lives, fed no hungry, cured no ills, but we did it just the same. Finding new and better energy sources is more important than going to the moon ever was. It’s time to meet this new challenge too.