Monday, February 08, 2016

The Civil Rights Movement in Detroit\,8599,1870975,00.html

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Notes on the Norfolk 17, etc.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

More Links

Environmental Issues

Are Anti-Nuke Greens Willing to Take-on 'Green-Nuker' & Top 'Climate Guru' Jim Hansen???
Jim Hansen was of-course in Paris for COP21. He called the COP21 Deal a 'fraud' [true]. But he also convened his own little 'confab' w like minded CAGW / 'climate activists' & called a press conference / issued a press release to push his/their dubiously dangerous {non}'Solution' to the problem- so-called 'Green' [NOT!] Nuke-Power- } Drs James Hansen, Tom Wigley, Ken Caldeira & Kerry Emanuel will present research showing the increasing urgency of fully decarbonizing the world economy. However, they will also show that renewables alone cannot realistically meet the goal of limiting global warming to 2*C, & that a MAJOR Expansion of NUCLEAR Power is essential to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference w the climate system this century. - The scientists will outline how only a combined strategy employing all the major 'sustainable clean' energy options — including renewables & NUCLEAR — can prevent the worst effects of climate change by 2100...
In light of the urgency of tackling climate change and nuclear power’s ‘essential role’ in limiting temp rises [IMO that’s some really ‘ironic’ wording], the 4 scientists will thus challenge environmental leaders who still hold anti-nuclear positions to instead support development & deployment of ‘safe and environmentally-friendly’ nuclear power [they’re regurgitating standard nuke-power industry dubious talking points]. For example, the Climate Action Network, representing all the major environmental groups, insists despite all evidence to the contrary that
“nuclear has no role to play in a fully decarbonized power sector.” The 4 scientists will state that the anti-nuclear position of these environmental leaders is in fact causing unnecessary & ;SEVERE HARM to the environment' & to the future of young people... { see @ http://hosted.verticalresponse... ] WOW WTF!!! I mean DAMN! It's like for Hansen & his 'green-nuke' crew- the on-going NUKE Disasters at Fukushima & Chernobyl NEVER Even Happened!!!
- Hansen's so 'dead-set' on pushing so-called 'green-nuke' power, he made a Declaration of WAR vs anti-nuke [true] 'Greens' in 2014- } ’I [Dr Hansen] also recommend that the public STOP Providing FUNDS to Anti-Nuke Environmental Groups. They are not likely to listen to anything other than financial pressure. If they are allowed to continue to spread 'misinformation' about nuclear power, it is unlikely that we can stop expanded hydro-fracking, continued destructive coal mining, and irreversible climate change...' { Thus Hansen effectively BLAMES anti-nuke greens for gas-fracking, coal-mining & CAGW / 'climate-change' as much as the fossil-fuel industry, just because these true 'Greens' refuse to buy Hansen's & his ilk's dangerously dubious hype that [fission] Nuke-Power is really 'green' [NOT!]!!!
FYI Dr Hansen: Even if [fission] Nuke Reactors did NOT go TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima every decade or 2 [which they of-course DO], they'd still be a dubious, if NOT dangerous, {non}'Solution' to the problem! The nuke-weapons proliferation, radioactive waste, security & potential 'issues' re: SFP pool [generally out of 'containment' & lightly guarded] sabotage or accidents...- ALL of These PROBLEMS would still Exist!!! Plus the main source of nuke fuel U235 is due to hit 'peak uranium depletion' by between 2050 - 2100- which will only hasten if more fission nuke power plants are brought online [So how’s that ‘sustainable’?]. Furthermore- Even If the World's current +400 nuke reactors were doubled to +800 by 2050 [means likely building +600 or more new reactors as 200 would have to replace existing reactors that should be 'retired'] - a MIGHTY Big IF- That would amount to at MOST just a mere 3% - 3.5% cut in total global GHG gas emissions [IMO likely just a 2% - 2.5% cut]!! Yet doubling the number of reactors doubles the risks of one / some going Chernobyl-Fukushima, & also could double the proliferation risks as well. IMO That's NOT a 'Good DEAL', NOR a 'Safe BET'!!!
Plus who really thinks Hansen & his 'green-nuke' ilk are willing to just hand over the keys of nuke-power plants to African & 3rd World nation-states?? PLEEEASE!!! All we've got to do is look at how the US & the EU hounded & demonized NTP member Iran re: its 'civilian' / non-Weapons nuke-prog, or how they refused to hand-over S.Africa's govt to Mandela's ANC till the Apartheid regime [w Mandela's OK] totally dismantled every TRACE of its nuke [weapons] prog!! Since most African countries do NOT have enough skilled technical people to build &/or run modern nuke plants, they would NOT be in control of them- & likely would have little say-so re them.
- Speaking of Paris France- Many folks ala Hansen, hype that France has the World's most per-capita nuke-power plants that generate about 75% - 80% of its electricity. But what they don't say is that the 'back-bone' to the French so-called 'nuke-miracle' is Niger's uranium mines. FYI: Niger has been France's main supplier of uranium for over 40+ yrs, & just like w Australia's aborigines & the US’ native peoples, uranium mining has been anything but 'green'!!! Most of Niger's people were dirt poor before the French 'nuke-miracle' & they're still dirt-poor now! But now they're faced w mounds of radioactive tailings from +4 decades of uranium mining that's also poisoned much of their scarce fresh-water supply!! The dirty fact Dr Hansen is [fission] Nuke-Power is a DIRTY BIZ from start to finish- which no-one really knows exactly how looong toxic nuke-waste will take to 'finish'!!!
Hansen's 'excuse' for hyping nuke-power as his phony 'green-nuke' {non}'Solution', is because renewables can't cut it alone. First of all Dr Hansen- Cuba proves you can give your people a hi standard living in an ecologically sustainable manner, & yet Cuba does NOT even have access to state of the art renewable energy technology, NOR nuke-power!!! Cuba did it by rolling-back from industrialized to more eco-friendly agriculture, relying on Public Transport vs private cars, & extensive recycling of items rather than just trashing them for new ones.
- Plus IMO too many greens think just wind & solar alone= renewable energy. FYI: The big ‘beefs’ re wind & solar is they’re intermittent & NOT ‘energy-dense’. But IMO most who say so seem locked into a grid & meter mentality, which IMO may NOT be even the best use for wind & solar- but rather off-grid [or semi so] re: residential areas [NOTE: in very sunny climes solar can be used to directly cook w & heat water, without converting it to electricity].
- IMO in a sense Hansen's right- wind & solar alone are NOT yet up to the task. But I know of at least 4 other KNOWN [NOT 'exotically theorized‘] renewable energy technologies- which 2 just occasionally get mentioned by ‘greens’ & the other 2 are almost NEVER do- IE: scaled-down & integrated [vs massive-scale] hydro-electric & geothermal -PLUS- tidal & Bio-Gas. All 4 of these are, unlike wind & solar, continuous & dense- but the first 3 are largely location dependent. In the US the best sites for geothermal [that I know of] are Hawaii, Yellowstone & near Hot-Springs AR. For tidal you’d likely have to be within 100 miles of the sea-coast / lake-shore BUT- the US’ top 5 most populous cites are indeed on &/or near sea-coasts / lake-shores- along w a number of other major US cities.
- But Bio-Gas [which converts organic waste to methane gas & organic fertilizer via a simple natural process] has NO such location constraints & is very scalable- from industrial & municipal, to farms & communities, to individual homes. Yet it & tidal rarely get mentioned, while small-scale hydro & geothermal only occasionally so. IMO this over-sight by 'greens' leaves the door wide-open for Hansen & his ilk to hype [fission] Nuke-Power as a necessary 'Green'{evil}!!
PS: IMO we’re likely for awhile going to have to ‘bite the bullet’ & allow some use of oil & methane- so the main focus must be phasing out coal, nuke-power, tar-sands & deep-sea oil & gas-fracking ASAP! This also means energy conservation & efficiency both for industry, power-generation, homes & bldgs, & transportation- along w cutting waste & 'Really' recycling. Energy efficiency in transport means significantly increasing fuel-efficiency standards & cutting-back driving personal cars in favor of more extensive, efficient & effective integrated public transport systems.
Plus we must look to moving away from a SAD meat-based diet to a more plant based-diet. FYI:
Raising live-stock for market accounts for as much as 20% of the World's GHG gas emissions. This means Dr Hansen- Just cutting global meat consumption in half or more would likely, in combo w phasing-out over-industrialized [= moving towards eco-friendly] agriculture & also the bio-‘fools’ scam, could/would cut several Xs MORE global GHG gas emissions than doubling or even tripling the number of nuke reactors in the World w, unlike [fission] Nuke-Power, virtually NO Risks- while yielding many other benefits!!! And guess who by far eats the most meat [w a few exceptions]- the US, EU, Australia & Canada = the same 'Usual Climate Suspects'!!!

Mr 'Green-Jeans' Al Gore climate sins: 1:} Gore got the USG's DOD exempted from even being counted as part of the US total for GHG gas emissions at/in Kyoto, even though the DOD is the World's biggest institutional emitter, uses over +80% to +90% of the USG's total fuel allotment [several times more than the 2nd largest US Govt user of fuel- the US Postal Service], & many / most of its current over-seas actions are effectively Gas & OIL WARS. FYI: The DOD uses as much oil & gasoline as Africa's most populous nation w its largest economy, Nigeria- which as an original member of OPEC is also Africa's largest oil producer [FYI: DOD total personnel both in & out of uniform: 3 Million -vs- Nigeria's population: +175 million].
2:} At the same time at Kyoto Gore hyped Wall St Banksters' favorite 'climate' scheme [scam] of a {non}'Solution- Cap & Trade w Offsets. The offsets part allow Wall St Bankster types to LAND-GRAB in Africa & the so-called 3rd World, using 'green-cover' = 'green-washing' even more massive land-theft!
3:} Gore's & Slick Willy's hyping for & then OKing that environmentally 'friendly' [NOT!] NAFTA deal.
4:} It was under the Clinton Gore regime that GMOs first got approved for use on the open market. If fact bio-tech [a euphemism for among other things GMO technology] was a corner-stone to POTUS Candidate Gore's economic platform in 2000.
5:} Gore outlined a 'climate' action plan a couple of yrs ago. IMO its a decent plan, though IMO it does have a few 'issues'. But IMO its biggest issue is that Gore failed to implement any of it, when he was in power for 2 terms as Billary's VP, when Gore was tasked w 'redefining Govt'. Hell Gore didn't even replace the solar panels on the White House that Clinton-Gore's immediate Dim predecessor Jimmy Carter put up & then Repug Ronnie Ray-Gun removed. Nor did Gore offer this climate action plan as a key policy plank during his POTUS run in 2000.
6:} Gore [& Slick Willy too] has been a total vegan for the past few yrs- Yet as far as I know, Gore has never mentioned the need to cut meat consumption as key to protecting the environment. Was COP-21 Paris 2015- 'Much Sound & Fury Signifying Nothing New' but the Same Ole 'Hot Air' [pun intended]?? First let’s note that the issue of getting a global deal to substantially cut GHG gas emissions does NOT even require most of the Global South Nations, who only account for 20% - 25% of total global GHG gas emissions [Note: the lowest 100 countries in Africa & the Global South in tandem account for a mere 3% of that total]. The G-20 countries that meet every yr & who account for 75% - 80% of total global GHG gas emissions, could effectively make such a deal between themselves- IF they were really serious about it!!! So then what is COP-21 really all about, & why did they need the Global-South’s participation? What this article did NOT say re: this so-called 'historic' deal. This is insider info re: some very troubling things that were in the draft proposals, & there's NO mention here if they re agreed to or dropped from this deal's text. Some key excerpts from TRNN coverage of COP-21 that IMO must be noted: Excerpt from TRNN interview w Ex UN ambassador for Bolivia, Pablo Solon:} TRNN Rep: There's talk of including in the current draft agreement a reference to a temp increase limit of 1.5*C... Do you think mere mention of 1.5*C in this agreement [apparently confirmed], coupled w some aspirational language, is really going to make a difference… Solon: It's not enough to have the mention, but it's good to have the mention. And there is no relation between what they are putting in the text, 1.5*C, & the fact that the intended nationally determined contributions that they have presented are far from 1.5*C. The 2nd problem that we need to highlight, that I've heard here too, is that some are saying hey let's discuss 1.5, but in order to achieve that we are going to move to geoengineering, carbon capture & storage [aka ‘clean-coal’], & bioenergy [aka bio-‘fools’]. SO WATCH OUT! There Is a THREAT! Because you can say I'm for 1.5, but not by any means. I don't want to have 1.5*C by using geoengineering, carbon capture and storage, & bioenergy. That is a ‘solution’ that’s even worse than what we already have… { See @ ] TRNN Interview w Prof Chris Williams:} There's one area that's been exempt- international shipping & airlines. If international shipping & airlines were regarded as their own country, they'd be equivalent to the emissions of Germany & Japan combined. And those emissions are set to increase by up to 350% over the next 10-20 yrs. - So if we were going to be serious about actually tackling things then we'd be looking at the shipping & airline sector, which is all based on commerce, i.e. free trade... - TRNN’s Sharmini Peries: Recent studies have shown one of the biggest [users of fossil-fuels &] emitters worldwide is the US military. This is because the Kyoto Protocol did not allow for the emissions of the military to be counted as a part of the nation-state emissions. I suppose it is the same rule in Paris, currently. I’m interested in what both of you have uncovered. - Prof Williams: There's actually a very worrying situation developing w the militarization of climate change. Barack Obama, the French president & others IE: obviously the Pentagon, have an interest in having a military response to climate change. As if everything can come under the rubric of homeland security & defense. Yet it’s the [US] defense industry which is a major contributor to the problem itself. And, as Amy was saying, the cause of the problem cannot be also the solution. We can't have environmentally friendly missiles… { See @ ] TRNN interview w Mary Lou Malig } The 'new' World Bank proposal [big red-flag] is called 'Climate Smart Agriculture', which sounds very nice. But actually it's about carbon accounting determining agricultural policy. What they want to do is to produce more food w crops that are GMOed / Genetically Modified. That will supposedly absorb carbon. But it will introduce a Market on soils, that they can then TRADE as CREDITS [a 'new' twist on Wall St's ole 'cap & trade w offsets' scam] that they have from the sinks in their soils- Which is crazy, because of the impermanence of carbon being absorbed by soil in the first place, but also because it's going to create another LAND-GRAB, like how REDD became a Forest-GRAB from [3rd World] communities, Planet Smart Agriculture will become a LAND-GRAB from [3rd World] farmers... { See @ ] FYI: It turns out that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] is all for ‘Cap & Trade’- such that its Exec-Sec Christiana Figuere came there from the EU’s carbon markets. - -

So is this really what COP-21 was really all about? Getting a global 'deal' on Cap & Trade w Offsets which would give ‘green-cover’ for still more LAND-GRABS in Africa, the Amazon & the Global South, while also pushing more GMO crops into Africa & the Global South??? And also a global deal allowing for geo-engineering, CCS Systems [aka ‘clean-coal’], still more bio-‘fools’ & lets throw in so-called ‘green’ [NOT!] nuke power for ‘bad measure’ [which CAGW guru Jim Hansen hypes]??? While at the same time exempting 2 of the World’s main institutional GHG gas emitters the USG’s [& NATO] DOD, & the airline & shipping industries? Is this why they need the Global South on-board for such a ‘deal’? To agree to even more ‘green’ LAND-GRABS, ‘green’ GMOs, geo-engineering ‘schemes’, & also unchecked AFRICOM & NATO expansion into Africa & the Global-South [which much most of these actions of notorious gas-guzzlers the USG-DOD & NATO = Gas & OIL WARS]??? Maybe in the [IMO Vain] 'Hope' that African & Global South countries will get 'climate-reparations' from the so-called 'developed'-World [IMO NOT gonna happen beyond mere tokenism & patronizing lip-service], If they just go along w these dubious phony 'green' schemes [= scams]??
So green 'climate-activists' marched on Paris demanding a 'deal', but IMO they should-a been more careful what they asked for, cause they just may have gotten way more than they bargained for!! Since this article failed to mention if any of these very dubious 'green'-schemes [= scams], were removed from this 'historic' 'climate-deal's' text, IMO most / all of them are most likely buried in the text of this deal- likely in fine-print!!!
IMO the 'greens' who're serious about this issue, need to stop looking to the UN & G-20 countries [IE: the US, EU & their allies] for real solutions. The G-7 & G-20, World Bank, IMF & even the UN [which has been an utter failure at its main mission- Prohibiting Wars] are obviously trying to 'capitalize' on the problem- w a whole set of 'market' & 'hi-techno' based PHONY {non}'Solutions'- NOT actually solve the problem- which the western military-imperialist & corp-capitalist system is at the root of!!! True 'greens' are going to have to 'Take It to the Streets' & look to the people for real grass-roots based solutions, instead. One place they should start looking is at the Cuban model, which the UN's Report for [sustainable] Human-Development, names Cuba as a / THEE model for sustainable-development.