Fragilecologies

Category: All Fragilecologies

“Global Warming ate my homework: In Defense of Legitimate Skepticism About Climate Change.” Mickey Glantz. June 30, 2010

Poor “global warming.” It seems it is getting blamed for everything under the sun! It is blamed for droughts, floods, forest and bush fires, heat waves, disease outbreaks and the spreading of desert-like conditions. It is blamed for the illegal migration of people from one country to another, and so forth.

When I was in middle school, teachers would give out homework assignments with instructions to turn in the homework the next day. One time I didn’t do it. When asked by the teacher why I didn’t give her my homework, I lied. I said, as did many other kids my age across America that “my dog Fido ate my homework.”

Like Fido, the unruly dog, global warming gets blamed these days for everything unpleasant that happens. That is a disservice to Fido and it is clearly a disservice to the global warming issue. Some people argued that Hurricane Katrina, for example, was strengthen by global warming when in fact it was just a strong hurricane not an extraordinary one.

Opinions about the possible impacts of global warming are rampant in the printed and electronic media and, in many instances, are not based on facts but on subjective opinions. Was this or that specific drought or flood or fire the result of natural variability in the climate system or was it the result of human induced warming of the global atmosphere? When will we be able to identify the actual impacts attributable to global warming: some say we can already see them while others say we’ll never be able to sort it out between what is the result of natural variability versus an actual warming of the global atmosphere.

The media does not help. They tend to seek balance of opinions, even when balance is not really warranted. So, those who believe in global warming’s influence on intensifying hurricanes and in increasing their frequency will tend to state that perspective to the press. Even if a large majority believes it is so, the media still call for an opposing statement that rejects that perspective, seeking to ‘level the playing field’ when it does not need to be leveled. Fact and fiction are presented as are subjectively based wishful thinking and guesstimates.

So, it is no wonder that the public remains confused about the science of global warming, about its real possible consequences. Global warming has become a business of sorts, an industry much like the drought industry (industria da seca) that exists to assess drought-plagued Northeast Brazil. The drought industry is made up of people who come from all social and economic sectors of society as well as from just about every academic discipline at a university. There is money to be made off of hazards. There’s money to be made: by researchers, by engineers, by technologists, by the news media, and especially by those who are savvy enough to capture the media’s attention to expose their views, opinions, whatever on climate change.

We have to become more responsible about how we talk about the global warming issue. We have to reduce the hype, encourage solutions and educate individuals and policymakers about the issue and its relative priority to other pressing issues. We should openly and aggressively challenge knowingly false claims using sound reasoning.

We quote polls and surveys which to me are interesting but relatively useless for action. I say this because accepting a poll’s findings requires trust and I for one have lost that trust for polls and interviews regarding beliefs about global warming. Though I might know better whom to believe or whose views to challenge, many people around the globe do not know how to calibrate the views of commentators about global warming

In the USA for example, a sizable portion of a survey’s respondents blamed the destruction of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina on God’s wrath because of the corrupt lifestyle of the city’s inhabitants! As another example, the UN Secretary General stated his belief that the violence in Darfur, western Sudan was the first global warming war! Comments like these must be challenged.

Scientists, media, policy makers must be more responsible about attributing various climate-related impacts to global warming (or to denying such attributions). In truth anything that society does is happening under a changing climate; the climate is always changing. The contemporary concern is about the level to which it changes and the rate of that change.

The UN has two definitions of how to look at adaptation as a response to climate change: (1) adaptation of society only to changes attributable directly to global warming and (2) any changes related to climate. The latter makes it easier to respond to climate impacts on the part of society. The former sets up an untenable situation in which human influence on climate must be unquestionably identified before action is to be taken, whereas the latter makes it easier for the researcher.

My teacher knew right away that the homework had not been done and probably knew that I did not even have a dog. She was skeptical from the outset. I think that the attributions that are made by scientists, among others, require closer scrutiny than we have tended to do to date. Global warming like Fido should not be taking the blame for all our inconveniences. As research has shown time and again, the behavior of societies has a lot to do with the impacts of even normal weather. It may take decades before some of the occurrences in Nature can accurately be blamed on global warming.

June 30, 2010
“’Robocopping’ the Planet: Geo-engineering the Planet’s Climate system,” Mickey Glantz 1 June 2010

Mickey Glantz,

1 June 2010

Almost twenty-five years ago, the Hollywood movie Robocop appeared on the silver screen. The plot summary was quite simple, according to IMDB: “In a dystopic** and crime ridden Detroit, a terminally wounded cop returns to the police force as a powerful cyborg,” part human and part machine.

It seems that the scientific community and governments around the world are following the Robocop plot, applying it, by analogy, to plant and animal species around the entire planet. For example, we continue to drive animals in the wild towards extinction but try to save a few for our zoos. Other species, known to be endangered, have continually increased in value to those who seek their products – the rhino for its horn (an alleged aphrodisiac in Asia) and the lowland gorilla for its paws (used as ash trays!) are two prominent examples. Less well known are the wetlands that are everywhere being drained and the rainforests that are worldwide being cut down for political and economic reasons. Indeed, we persistently destroy good, productive farmland and then attempt to grow the same amounts of food in less suitable soils and climates.

These are but a few apt examples around the planet of the Robocop analogy: we destroy different parts of the earth’s surface then we resort more and more to technologies to create artificial environments to replace those environments we have destroyed. This growing trend has led to a nasty cycle wherein artificially created ‘technovironments’ are becoming more valuable to people, both economically and perceptually, than those natural environments that are being replaced. In recent years, this situation has emerged in consideration of the global climate system.

A couple of thousand scientists from around the globe have published their consensus view that many human activities are now producing greenhouse gases that are intensifying the naturally occurring greenhouse effect. As a result, the atmosphere of planet earth is heating up. The concern is that this heating will increase temperatures by at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius or more by the end of the century if not sooner. The question, of course, is whether or not societies and the ecosystems on which they depend can adapt to the changes that accompany climate change, especially at the rapid rates at which those changes could realistically occur. The consensus of those couple of thousand scientists who participated in the 4th assessment report of the Nobel Prize winning IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) appears to be that societies will be unable to keep up with those changes; even so, there is as yet apparently not enough political will to stop the industrial and land-use practices that continue to produce such greenhouse gas emissions.

Enter Robocop . . . by analogy. The response of some key members of the scientific communities in both the USA and Europe has been to propose various ways (theoretical conjectures, really) to control the planet’s climate, either by ratcheting down the temperature or at least controlling it so that it does not turn into a runaway greenhouse effect. They have proposed mimicking volcanic eruptions by spewing aerosols into the stratosphere, evaporating sea water to brighten lower level clouds that prevent the sun’s rays from reaching the earth’s surface, putting millions of mirrors in space, creating artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide out of the air, and so on.

The reality is that a field of artificial carbon-sucking tree-like technological devices is not a forest. Nor will it ever be. Pumping ever-increasing amounts of societally emitted greenhouse gases into the air is converting our atmosphere into an artificial (non-natural) environment. The question is when is a cyborg no longer a cyborg? At what point does replacing yet another living part of the planet with yet another technological device, further converting the cyborg – which is, at this point, partially natural life and partially designed machine – turn the entire planet into little more than a crudely assembled technological device? When does the earth as ‘technovironment’ become a much less-than-perfect “Robocopy” of the original living system so well described by James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis?

Geoengineering schemes are being proposed because governments seem to have put on the back-burner efforts to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. They are likely to muddle along until a full-blown climate crisis occurs. They will continue to build coal-fired power plants, while trying to figure out how to suck that excess carbon dioxide out of the air. They will continue to cut down forests and try to manufacture artificial trees. They will do anything they can to continue “business as usual” and therefore they will not reduce the carbon emissions on which they now depend for economic development. In other words, their true interest lies in “Robocopping the planet’s climate.” If adaptations through such science fictions are allowed to continue, humanity is lost.

The reality is that modern humans have not been around very long. Policymakers should be reminded each day of this truism: while we need much of the natural environment kept intact, it does not need us at all.
————————————————-

** Dystopia: An imagined universe (usually the future of our own world) in which a worst-case scenario is explored; the opposite of utopia. Dystopic stories have been especially influential on postmodernism, as writers and filmmakers imagine the effects of various aspects of our current postmodern condition, for example, the world’s take-over by machines (The Matrix); the social effects of the hyper-real (Neuromancer); a society completely run by media commercialism (The Running Man); the triumph of late capitalism (Blade Runner); bureaucratic control run amok (Brazil, 1984); and so on.

June 1, 2010
“On Retiring the Concept of Retirement.” Mickey Glantz. written in Tokyo, in Starbucks while on travel (May 18, 2010)

The term retirement, despite its definition is apparently reserved for the aged not the young because the young are, expected to go on to another job. But then what is the definition of work or a job? Is tennis a job? Is writing a job? Is travel? Is writing a memoir for example, a job? Is reading all these books you bought but never had a chance to read a job? I think so.

I’m 70 now and I am thinking a lot about what it means to retire. In the old days — the 1960s when I first entered the workforce — retirement was a goal: get to 65 and stop working at whatever you had been doing for the past several decades. The idea then was to retire, sleep late, and sit on a porch somewhere watching sunrise and sunset, day after day after day. Wait a minute: Already, this is starting to sound boring.

Turning 65 meant that you had to close down your social network at the place of employment. Yet, to many, co-workers had become a surrogate family, and the workplace had become a place to go, to hang out, to share stories, to chat. Your workspace was much more than a few square yards of floor space, a desk, a phone, a fax, a bubbler; the workplace was a social happening, for good or bad. Most likely many workers are in the presence of co-workers over time spans longer than with their spouse and kids.

Societies and governments compartmentalize our lives. The education system is the best example: pre-school, kindergarten, elementary, middle, high school, college and then maybe graduate school and finally the workplace (it is age-based). Society, however, has a new concept that parallels, while at the same time challenges the traditional age-based, cohort-based, boxed-in educational framework: K to grey (Kindergarten to the elderly). Education is now recognized worldwide as a life long experience for those who wish to see it that way. However, society has not yet come up with an equivalent parallel, time-independent concept for one’s worklife.

Whatever their specific reason, people today continue to be active well after the previously established expected retirement age of 65. The word “retirement” has become at best a poor descriptor of what now happens.

First of all most people have more than one job in their lifetime and many have more than one job at the same time (not necessarily by choice!). But we don’t say s/he “retired” at 30 (to start another career). We say, instead, they took another job, quit, dropped out, moved on, etc. “Retirement”, the concept seems to be reserved for one’s post-worklife life. But in today’s financial or social environment the end of work life has become synonymous with the end of life.

Retirement as a concept has lost its original meaning. People are busy all their lives, working at something, even if that “work” is in the form of play.

It is quite clear to me that the concept of “retirement” needs to be retired, much as sports organizations retire the numbers that star players have worn on their shirts for baseball or football. We do not retire any more. We just change from one activity to another, just like the young people as they do when they go from one job to the next.

Like I said at the outset, I’m 70 now and just beginning.

May 28, 2010
“Who’s in control of our attention span”? Mickey Glantz. May 28, 2010

Who’s in control of our attention span?
Mickey Glantz
May 28, 2010
Back in the early 1960s my Political Theory professor mentioned that a study then showed that the attention span to any particular issue of a typical American was on the order of 2.3 years. In the mid-1970s Anthony Downs wrote about the American Public’s “issue-attention cycle.” These two pieces of information made sense to me; one providing a time dimension and the other providing the process.

But that was then and this in now. My observation today is in conflict with those earlier pieces of information I had learned about. The fault was mine though, as well as of the professors. Those pieces of information (unchanging facts, I thought) were era-dependent pieces of information that no longer apply to reality today.

The issue-attention cycle seems to still work. Anthony Downs (Public Interest, 28 [1972:Summer]), wrote an article entitled “Up and down with ecology: the issue-attention cycle”, and described the cycle in the following way: (1) a pre-problem phase; (2) an alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm phase; (3) realizing the cost of significant progress phase; a gradual decline of intense public interest phase; (5) the post-problem stage.

According to Downs, “A study of the way this cycle operates provides insights into how long the public attention is likely to remain sufficiently focused upon any given issue to generate enough political pressure to cause effective change.”

Today, it is not the attention span of the public that matters but the attention span of the media in heavy competition for increasing their share of the public’s attention. It’s a money thing: more viewers, readers, and listeners means more advertisers and more advertising revenue. The media are not there to educate the public. They are businesses. Bad news takes precedent over good news, because they provide for attention-grabbing headlines.

I am not sure what started the downward spiral of reduced attention span of the public but I have a sneaky suspicion it was the media. Take TV, as an example: at night turn off all lights. Turn on the TV. Put your back to the TV and watch how quickly the scenes or news items change — every few seconds. Get the USA Today and count the number of short news items, not full stories. Check news on your iPod or iPad or iPhone or antroid: they come in brief news clips. Our (the public’s) attention span has eroded tremendously in the past 40 years. It now seems that the media determines what we focus on and how long we will focus on it.

Some examples?
The health care issue: how many are still in the dark about what to expect from the health care package that was covered by the media 24 hours a day and 7 days a week over one year? I am. Then attention was diverted to our financial crisis. Some months ago media coverage of the near collapse of Wall Street brokerages and the American banking system was relentless, 24-7 coverage: we’re all going to be broke left to work till we die …most likely in poverty. The problems remain; the media coverage of them does not. Media attention shifted to the Toyota cover-up of mechanical problems with its flagship auto models: hearing in Washington, DC including testimony by Mr. Toyoda himself. The problem remains. The coverage is gone. Now there is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of a collapsed off-shore rig and media are focused there, again, 24-7.

The wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the continued financial fragility of the American economy persists teetering in unstable equilibrium at the moment, and Toyota along with other auto companies are engaged in massive recalls of their products and, oh yeah, Al-Queda continues its attempts to terrorize Americans on their own soil continue, but the media has chosen to focus on the oil spill in the Gulf 24-7. And soon the hurricane season will begin and the media will focus on that or some other quick onset event. The point is that the media are controlling the public’s attention span. We (the public) are led like cows with rings in our nose to wherever the media wants to take us.

As a result, no issue gets the attention it deserves, no, demands, in order to resolve it. The wars go on. The financial crisis continues. Wall Street brokers and our bankers likely resort to “business as usual” sleazy financial practices.

The public must first be made aware of what has happened: the media is used to telling us what to think, how to think it and why but as importantly when to think it. It is time for us to take back control of the issue-attention cycle, returning to a longer cycle so we can actually work through issues to reasonable conclusions. We likely cannot change the progression of the cycle but we can stay on topic until we understand it enough to resolve it in an intelligent way.

May 28, 2010
“Is ‘the enemy of my enemy Really my friend?’ Diplomats, corporate leaders, among others, don’t believe everything you think.”

Mickey Glantz. April 8, 2010. Written in Mexico City.

The phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” has always captured my attention for some unknown psychological reason. It has been used in military strategy, business affairs, in personal decisions and in many, many types of human interactions. It is one of those social adages that we can find in all societies like “Look before you leap,” “He who hesitates is lost,” and “Time and tide wait for no man”. Every society has such adages, stated in more form or another. To many they serve as “rule of thumb” principles that in a general way are meant to guide one’s behavior.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is just another one sounds good at first blush. It probably lends itself to being formulated mathematically as a human interactions game in game theory. Maybe that is why it captures my curiosity. I am sure I have used it as a guide in some situations at work and at play. However, I believe it is a flawed consideration or perhaps more correctly an incomplete, “un-thought-out “one.

Historical evidence does suggest that this is as useful a guide to action as it is to inaction. As a result, one must see it in a more critical light. For example, the enemy of your enemy might not really be a friend in a different situation. Governments make deals with other governments or corporations under this guiding notion, even though they find them or their policies reprehensible. So, they end up having made, as they say, “a pact with the devil.” This is similar to what was said about the British Empire: it had no permanent friends. No permanent enemies; only permanent interests.”
British trade deals during World War I

Today, the oppressive government of Kyrgyzstan fell to an uprising in the streets. A deal made with the unpopular president to allow for a US base of operation to support the war in Afghanistan is now at risk as a new president appears. The unpopular decision will likely be revoked and the US become less popular at a time it needs all the friends it can get. A similar situation occurred some years ago with our base in Uzbekistan.

Make any deal with anyone to get what you want, But think about the likely longer term consequences more seriously. What may be true in the short run may turn out to have been a terrible decision in the longer run. Britain’s Chamberlain appeasement of Hitler in the late 1930s obviously failed. US support of bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviet invaders in the late 1970s and 1980s is another example. Pakistan’s catering to the Taliban, allowing them to operate from their territory also backfired, as we now see. The Taliban, like the British Empire, has no permanent friends or allies only permanent interests.

Governments must think about this adage when they seek to make agreements with leaders of failed states, rogue nations, and other moves that they consider strategic but really turn out to be only tactical decisions with no longer term sticking power. The adage must be amended to read as follows: THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND…BUT ONLY FOR A WHILE. Diplomats, among others, beware of what you are getting into, when you make that pact with the enemy of your enemy. Your reputation as well as the stigma as a result of ‘guilt by association’ will have sticking power and you must live with the adverse consequences that often follow later on.

I am not the only one I guess who feels this way!

April 8, 2010
“The Conference Bully: Some thoughts and observations,” Mickey Glantz. April 6, 2010 (written in Africa in midst of an environment conference).

“The Conference Bully: Some thoughts and observations”

The idea for this editorial came from recent participation in an international conference that involved participants for national governments, multinational organizations and non-governmental organizations. It became apparent that there are strategic as well as tactical ways to participate depending on one’s reasons for attending in the first place. It became clear to me that there was a big difference between a diplomatic negotiator and a diplomatic bully resorting to tactics one might find being used by bigger school boys to intimidate and control behavior of the smaller kids. Before this meeting, I had never thought about the intimidating strategies and tactics in terms of those resorted to by schoolyard bullies.

The conference bully has a goal from the outset which is to intimidate as well as to influence the behavior and oral contributions by other participants who are likely to enter discussions that will take place throughout the several days of conference deliberations.

In the specific conference I attended, one national delegate (as it turned out, the bully) offered the first remarks of the first day as well as the last remarks of the same and succeeding days. His first comment was aggressive, harsh and negative toward the conference organizers (with some personal attacks as well). It seemed that his objective was to derail it by arguing (challenging, really) that the agenda items, the process and the goals were not important to the stated goals of the conference organizers. According to the bully, nothing was done right. To me it seemed that delegate was like a dog peeing on a tree trunk or hydrant in order to mark its territory.

The effect of the content and tone of his early-on interventions was to put the others on notice to be wary about challenging his (country’s?) views. In essence he was suggesting that “if you don’t do as I say, my government won’t listen to your messages” (as if that government would listen anyway; governments will be governments and they tend to have a mind of their own). Besides, in this case, the bully’s country would likely supply a large share of the writers and researchers to the project being discussed.

Not only did he put the delegates on notice about his dominance and sharp tongue at the outset and closing of the first day, he made several (the largest share of comments from the floor) throughout the meeting. His perspectives and comments were treated with care by the chair and reticence by the participants.

He is not the first conference bully I have seen. But, it is the first time I saw them as bullies like those in a schoolyard. They each have a different style designed to influence if not dominate conference behavior and outcomes. Another type I encountered is as follows: a guy would always come late to a workshop or conference, entering in a bumbling, disorganized noticeable way. Everything stops to recognize his presence; he offers an excuse, “I was rethinking what the meeting should really be doing on my way here in the taxi.” He offers to draw some chart on the board and the rest of the meeting refers to that chart. In essence he hijacked the meeting.

Back to the original bully who set off this stream of thought. His attempt was to cause the Secretariat of the conference to be deferential attention him, in away obligating it to consider his numerous explicit comments. Numerous times there were what I saw as implicit threats that the bully’s country might be less supportive morally and financially of the activity being proposed. Many of the bully’s assertions were stated as fact, though they might have been speculative.At one point, when his comment was not accepted by the chair, he re-stated it, by first saying “Apparently the chairman has not been to have his ears tested recently.” I am sure that was embarrassing to the chairman but he just smiled. As chair and as a good diplomat, he had to take it.

The reason my view about his bully nature was that when approached in one-on-one comments, he seemed either not to listen or to care what others were saying. When challenged, he responded on occasion as a pit bull; not giving up.

During breaks in the meeting, several participants from other countries commented on his “offensive behavior.” One participant went on to note that his behavior at this meeting was relatively mild to his behavior at others conferences that they both had attended.

So, while that bully’s government had an apparent hidden agenda and influenced the tone and wording of a final document of this conference, it has also fostered the negative perception of a government trying to bully others to do as it wishes. He may have won a word-smithing battle but lost the larger “war” for respect for his country! And it was MY country.

HAVE YOU WITNESSED A CONFERENCE BULLY?

April 6, 2010
“Where in the World is… Mickey? Imaginary Tourism as a New Sport, ” Mickey Glantz.18 March 2010

I thought I would blog on events on getting to and in China, Thailand and Kenya, as there is a lot going on in each of these countries. This is like an imaginary trip for those who can’t go with me to provide a feeling about what is happening on main street in other countries. Anyone can take such a trip in reality or in imagination, given the volume of timely information on the Internet, whether it is news about tourism,
Denver International Airport: First stop
economy, policy, environment or culture. So, join me this trip on the “information highway.”

Now I am going to shanghai, leaving my home at 5am.
OK. So, I am all packed and ready to take an airport shuttle. I was told I need 2 to 3 hours to get through the airport check-in, security and to the gate. that is a “crap shoot,” as all could go smoothly and I could end up twiddling thumbs at the gate. Or, there is some holdup somewhere along the way and I will get to the gate after others have boarded.

The challenge of boarding an airplane today is not a fight for a good seat but a fight for overhead luggage space: where to put that roll-on bag?

Like others, we rush to get seated on the plane early for the space but then we end up sitting there for up to an hour as others board and they get ready to take off.

I will go through San Francisco to go to China. I picked San Francisco over Los Angeles, because it is a user-friendly airport … if traveling international. The risk with flying through San francisco’s airport is … fog! if there is a tight connection, there is a risk you can miss your connection. to avoid that risk I decided it would be better to take an earlier flight.

So, on a usual trip, the shuttle van driver has trouble finding my house which is on a cul-de-sac. Many times i have had to run outside in snow to flag him down as he passes to and fro looking for my house. I’ve come to expect it.

I am always nervous about the van getting to me on time. There are few options to get to the airport here, unless you drive and park your car. van is easier and it drops you at the airline portal.

my biggest problem is not the luggage per se. it is with the carry-on bag. i have a short attention span. well, that is not really correct. i have no attention span. never did have one. never will by now. so, i stuff my carry-on with games, articles and books on an array of topics because i have no idea what will hold my attention.

I should note that i have flown a gazillion miles so far and i did most of it in the back of the plane — economy. i am used to it, but having flown so much in the past I now get a chance for an upgrade. hmmm. upgrades, yet another travel stress. did i get it? the hope for better food and more leg room is appealing but it is a bit like the lottery: lots of hope generated but if you don’t get it, lots of frustration. maybe it was better before, when you were happy to get a seat and a place to put a carry-on bag under your feet if not over your head.

Well that represents what goes on for a typical international, multi-city work-related trip on the day I take an international trip truth is iI am as tired getting off a plane to Washington Dc as I am getting off the plane at Pudong airport in Shanghai. The good news is that I do not get jet lag.

March 21, 2010
GUEST Editorial: “Brazil-Africa ‘Biofuels Diplomacy’: South-South Relations on the Rise.”

Marcelo Paiva & Tsegay Wolde-Georgis, University of Colorado’s Consortium for Capacity Building. 8 March 2010

Brazil is considered a global leader in sugarcane-based ethanol biofuel production & technology. It made strategic decisions to develop alternative forms of energy for transportation following the crisis and oil embargo in the early 1970s. In 1979, Brazil had developed the first commercial vehicle powered 100 % by ethanol.

The record oil prices of 2007-08 shocked many leaders around the world. Both fuel and then food prices went through the roof both in developed and developing countries. Many developed countries began to introduce, or accelerate approval of, polices that encouraged the development of biofuels, while Brazil found itself in a very advantageous position to export its technology to other developing countries.

While over the years the price of food has gone up, so has the price of fossil-fuels on which the farmers’ machinery relies to work the land. In addition, there is concern about greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning which contributes to the heating of global temperatures and to a constantly changing climate. What’s more, the peak oil clock ticks uninterruptedly so countries cannot expect to rely on non-renewable cheap forms of energy much longer.

The idea that biofuels can rescue us from an irreversible energy crisis is contentious, and the reactions in different parts of the world have been dubious. Some argue that biofuel investment can take away the focus on land for food production, driving food prices up, whereas others argue that marginal lands (read: “unused land”) could be used at a positive net benefit for the environment while boosting infrastructural development in that area. Regions of the world that are perceived as “land rich”, like parts of Africa, became a focus of attention for biofuels investment.

Several countries have been looking to Africa as a new frontier for cost-effective biofuel production, and the issue of peak oil makes energy security a matter of national security for countries like the US, but also for other nations around the world who see fossil-fuel dependence as an obstacle to development. Oil prices, however important, are not the only incentive for biofuel investment; “going green” can also be beneficial for rural community development and revitalization of the rural economy (there are less farmers and more “urban-ers” in the world every year), but also a long-term benefit found in the reliability on renewable-energy. Africa has land and Brazil has the technology and expertise, and the current political administration in Brazil has been championing biofuels diplomacy as an important piece of its foreign policy.

One thing is certain: however stealth to the common energy consumer, the renewable-energy market shift is imminent, and is proving lucrative. As oil giants like Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell move to partner with biofuels investors, it highlights new trends in energy development investment in the tropics. Also noteworthy is that Brazil’s biofuel diplomacy is taking place in a very competitive environment: other emerging economies like India and China are pursuing land acquisitions through the purchase and lease of land in Africa to grow biofuels feedstock and for food production geared toward their own domestic consumption. Competitiveness can provide for a very fast-growing market.

In Africa, biofuels could be viewed as the beginning of a brighter future, as a result of investing in renewable energy in countries that have been primarily exporting agricultural products with declining terms of trade. Many African leaders believe that the biofuels revolution will be a new opportunity leading to energy security and revitalization of the agricultural sector in Africa. Most energy sources of rural Africa are currently based on the direct use of biomass such as dung and wood, which are already being used as low-tech biofuel. Liquid biofuels can be a healthy transition into the future if used properly to substitute traditional biomass.

The investment in biofuels also raises questions about the carbon footprint benefit of producing and using biofuels like ethanol from corn or sugarcane, since the overall gain (with current technology and market prices) may be marginal. The diminished carbon footprint, however, is but one argument in favor of biofuel production. As mentioned by Rory Williams in A Definition of Sustainable Mobility, the investment in biofuels provides, in addition to potential for a cleaner environment, the support for other sustainable objectives like improved energy security, through the reduced reliance on fossil fuels, and local job creation.

The South-South partnership such as the one Brazil is pursuing in Africa is a way of maximizing African interests which have historically been exploited by the European neo-colonizers. Like China, Brazil is being utilized by African governments to counter the European infrastructural economic domination.

This increased interest in Africa reveals that it is possible to bring development to Africa and, while biofuels are seen as a profitable activity for investors, it also brings independence from fossil-fuels, economic stability and environmental benefits.

Countries like Angola, Mozambique and Nigeria may well see the biofuels feedstock crops filling their landscapes, but they will hopefully see infrastructural development, employment and technology transfer as well for those working with the biofuels crops in the form of more schools, hospitals, better water treatment facilities and an improved quality of life. For this to ensue in a sustainable way, it is important to pay close attention to the laws and regulations of the African countries.

The current “land grab” competition in Africa is representative of a new trend, but African policy makers must be prepared to cope with unintended consequences of the rush to embrace a new technology. To minimize those adverse side effects, biofuels strategies should incorporate adequate environmental and societal impact assessments. It should also include protection of farmers from being removed from their land (by design or accident) and the protection of ecosystems from a loss of biodiversity in the face of putting land into biofuels production. After all, development also needs to be cultivated with great care in order for it to yield its most positive results.

March 9, 2010
Solving America’s Health Care problems in one easy step! Mickey Glantz, March 1, 2010

The country is so polarized on just about every issue and health care is no exception. A year passed and Obama’s Administration devised a plan that some like and some despise. The opponents of the president’s plan call for starting the process all over; forget what’s been discussed so far. The supporters of his plan are calling for pushing through health care reform without kowtowing to the Republican opposition. There is no other solution that can overcome the political polarization that exists in the USA today.

The American Public signs a petition demanding that people in hte general population get the same health insurance coverage and premiums that the members of the US Congress presently enjoy. If it is good enough for Congress persons, it should be good enough for the people who elect them.
Access to Cheap Health Insurance and Care is a Congressional Right but not a Public Right.

Alternatively, we could also petition that Congressional representatives receive no special coverage from the US Government and have to shop for health insurance coverage like their constituents.

How about starting a national campaign to gather signatures on a petition to send to Congress, Senators and Representatives alike.

March 1, 2010
GUEST EDITORIAL: “Thoughts on the ‘Good’ Climate Skeptic.” ELIZABETH MCLEAN, February 21, 2010

I often wonder what percentage of the people foresees events in a short-term scale and how many see it in a long-term scale? I have to admit that as an islander I use to project time on a short-term scale when I was young, but I have evolved to see things differently and I too agree that the trend of human activities are increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
www.seodesignsolutions.com

I think that along the lines of the above discussed, lays the question of: ‘what is the personal value at stake?’ and why would we want to risk it? Perhaps we may have little sense of urgency as these changes are gradual and we are ephemeral, or we can be outraged and consider what mess we are generating for future generations. There is a difference in the short-term, and the long-term mentality, those that have a lot to gain today, will not be the ones paying tomorrow. Or will they?

In an earlier blog, you had elaborated on the effects of branding and the importance of the terms we use. For some reason people like to label right and left. Yet these labels can be harmful when trying to diminish the value of a consensus or a very likely and sustained finding.

Eckhart Tolle, who writes on human psychology, describes that people that have a view or an opinion — and they feel strongly about it — it is as if their opinion is tied up to their identity. Because of this, when they are opposed they feel as if their own identity is being threatened and they must defend it at all cost. So instead of having humble opinions to set forth in the middle of the table with a certain regard for possible errors, we have individuals that are too attached to their own opinions.

I believe it is natural for scientists to be skeptics, and to be ‘good’ skeptics… seeking to bring clarity and further lucidity to their hypothesis, confirming their value.

Of the images posted, the graphics of the naysayers definitely creates a polarity with no real chance of coming to a middle ground, while the graphic of the yeasayers looks more neutral and informative, placing knowledge before hand and creating a visual image.

On a different note, let me share with you a different twist on branding. In the Dominican Republic, as I am sure this holds true for other Latin American countries, children —especially girls — grow up with the complex of having ‘bad’ hair. The tight curls that are afro-like are referred to as ‘bad’, while the straight or wavy hair is ‘good’ hair. So a lot of time and effort is put into straightening and taming the ‘bad’ hair. It is only in the recent years that this misconception has been addressed and that afro-like hair is getting a ‘good’ name, becoming even fashionable. Imagine the psychology behind branding.

“Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”

~ Baha’u’llah

February 21, 2010