You know what just occured to me?

Hey... I'm on Twitter now... a new channel to communicate with me... and a public one at that...

I'm tempted to try and start up the global warming debate again I tried to start back in April, and put some of the research pressure off of me.

Delusion of grandeur, or could I actually get both sides to take part in a massive Twitter debate and make real the "mirroring effect" I envisioned for the series? YOU DECIDE!

I posted a strip I never should have, so I have two strips redundant with it.

(From Sandsday. Click for full-sized going around in circles.)

EDIT: I forgot to remove this post when I actually DID post the strip before leaving earlier today. I'm spending the weekend in the Portland area for a wedding. I may have street signs NEXT weekend. But not as many as I would have otherwise hoped, at least from this trip.

Global Warming Series Open Thread

I'm trying to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt where global warming stands scientifically, good or bad, ideally resulting in a case the most hardcore partisan couldn't ignore, and I don't want to leave any information on the table. So leave a comment here, or e-mail me at mwmailsea at yahoo dot com, if you have any counterarguments or new information in response to the arguments already presented (with an emphasis on today's strip, whatever strip that may be) that doesn't duplicate one of my existing sources, as listed below.

UPDATE 4/12/2009: I'm no longer specifically checking my e-mail for new global warming information; use this thread instead. See this post for details.

It's possible I may miss something that actually is in one of the sources, and one of the sources is so goldanged long there's no way I'd get through it all myself, so I'd also be up to being referred to any information already in the sources, and feel free to debate the other side's information and arguments as well instead of waiting for me.

Supporting the global warming theory:
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
http://www.grist.org/tags/How+to+Talk+to+a+Climate+Skeptic/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Opposing the global warming theory:
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/13/47/
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/05/19/green-myths-on-global-warming-%E2%80%94-debunked/
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
This last source is so long and thorough I don't really have time to go through it all, so you can duplicate links from there.

God must be playing an April Fool's joke.

Is it just me, or is complaining about snow in spring becoming an annual Da Blog tradition?

I'd make a global warming comment, except I just got out of a class where the teacher told an anecdote about it snowing on Tax Day (well, today's Tax Day) in his youth.

Examining the Democratic Platform Part VI: “Advancing Democracy, Development, and Respect for Human Rights”, “Protecting our Security and Saving our Planet”, and “Seizing the Opportunity”

This is continued from Parts I-V of my examination of the Democratic Platform. Today was not a good day for work on my platform examinations.


"Advancing Democracy, Development, and Respect for Human Rights":

No country in the world has benefited more from the worldwide expansion of democracy than the United States. Democracies are our best trading partners, our most valuable allies, and the nations with which we share our deepest values. The United States must join with our democratic partners around the world to meet common security challenges and uphold our shared values whenever they are threatened by autocratic practices, coups, human rights abuses, or genocide.

It sounds like the Democrats may be up for "joining with other democracies" as well – there may be some hints here that the Republican program of expanding democracy and forming a clique of democracies isn't 100% disagreed to by the Democrats. But really, this sentiment and the actual position taken with it is very reasonable.

"Build Democratic Institutions": "The Democratic Party reaffirms its longstanding commitment to support democratic institutions and practices worldwide. A more democratic world is a more peaceful and prosperous place. Yet democracy cannot be imposed by force from the outside; it must be nurtured with moderates on the inside by building democratic institutions." I may have jumped the gun on making this point during my examination of the Republican Platform. We've seen what happens when democracy is "imposed by force from the outside" in Iraq: it doesn't work and creates lingering resentment, and it doesn't help that Iraq may not have had the cultural values that nurture a democracy.

"The United States must be a relentless advocate for democracy and put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond the ballot box. We will increase our support for strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, equality for women and minorities, and the rule of law." Does that mean a "strong legislature" in the United States, where even with the opposition party in power Congress has basically rolled over for whatever the President wants? And the "rule of law" makes a comeback! And this all deserves a call back to the Republicans' statement that "[s]ocieties that enjoy political and economic freedom and the rule of law are not given to aggression or fanaticism. They become our natural allies." So the US has some interest in all of this!

These are all good goals but they touch on what I mean by being "culturally ready for democracy". In some societies, "independent judiciaries, free press," and "civil society" is unheard of; religious freedom is literally heretical; women have defined, inferior roles that are seen as the natural order of things; and minorities are naturally inferior. The cultural underpinnings of democracy, we sometimes forget, are almost all Western; trying to institute democracy on a very different culture with very different values, without understanding that culture and its differences, could be courting disaster. Democracy seems to be working well in India and Israel, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule, as they have had strong, historical Western influence.

"In new democracies, we will support the development of civil society and representative institutions that can protect fundamental human rights and improve the quality of life for all citizens, including independent and democratic unions." Gotta plug those unions! If you know what civil society is, you may be wondering how government can "promote" it, since it consists mostly of institutions outside of government. This is pretty much all an agreeable platitude. "In non-democratic countries, we pledge to work with international partners to assist the efforts of those struggling to promote peaceful political reforms." Sounds reasonable. Keep funding our pro-democracy programs as well, because that "reflects American values and serves our interests". After the Democrats put in all their social programs, will there be any money to fund those programs?

"Invest in Our Common Humanity":

To renew American leadership in the world, we will strengthen our common security by investing in our common humanity. In countries wracked by poverty and conflict, citizens long to enjoy freedom from want. Because extremely poor societies and weak states provide optimal breeding grounds for terrorism, disease, and conflict, the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need.

This all sounds reasonable and an important point. Compare the Republican statement that "Societies that enjoy political and economic freedom and the rule of law are not given to aggression or fanaticism. They become our natural allies."

It is time to make the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015, America's goals as well. We need to invest in building capable, democratic states that can establish healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth. Such states would also have greater institutional capacities to fight terrorism, halt the spread of deadly weapons, and build health-care infrastructures to prevent, detect, and treat deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and avian flu.

Sounds good and could help build our own prosperity. Certainly controlling terrorism and stopping weapons trafficking are important goals. "We will double our annual investment in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed toward worthwhile goals." Could be considered throwing money away, especially when you consider all the other ways Democrats want to spend money, but then you feel like a bastard for not caring about people in third world countries. But: "We will work with philanthropic organizations and the private sector to invest in development and poverty reduction." Sounds good – allow entities outside government to do their work – but would the government meddle in their operations? Nudging the private sector into development in third world countries is certainly good, though.

But if America is going to help others build more just and secure societies, our trade deals, debt relief, and foreign aid must not come as blank checks. We will recognize the fragility of small nations in the Caribbean, the Americas, Africa, and Asia and work with them to successfully transition to a new global economy. We will couple our support with an insistent call for reform, to combat the corruption that rots societies and governments from within.

What's the carrot on the stick that will actually make them reform? At least the Democrats recognize the Republicans' challenge when they said: "Decades of massive aid have failed to spur economic growth in the poorest countries, where it has often propped up failed policies and corrupt rulers." But they don't answer the Republicans' "call for... greater accountability by recipient countries so as to ensure against malfeasance, self-dealing, and corruption, and to ensure continued assistance is conditioned on performance." The Republicans supported democratization over token gestures of food and monetary aid, and the Democrats supported democratization in the previous section and "development" here. And education:

As part of this new funding, we will create a $2 billion Global Education Fund that will bring the world together in eliminating the global education deficit with the goal of supporting a free, quality, basic education for every child in the world. Education increases incomes, reduces poverty, strengthens communities, prevents the spread of disease, improves child and maternal health, and empowers women and girls. We cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child everywhere is taught to build and not to destroy.

More throwing money away, but "bring[ing] the world together" implies that not all the money would come from the American government. This makes education sound like the "magic bullet" that will solve all the Third World's problems. The Republicans just list education on a list of "core development programs" to give "greater attention" to, but they also listed "emphasizing literacy and learning" on a list of "high-impact goals" for aid, as part of their "no more handouts" program.

"Our policies will recognize that human rights are women's rights and that women's rights are human rights. Women make up the majority of the poor in the world. So we will expand access to women's economic development opportunities and seek to expand microcredit." The first half of the first sentence is a tautology; the second is simultaneously a tautology and bound to be controversial. Republicans also called for "microcredit funding for small enterprises" as one of the "foundations of economic development", but that's not really what the Democrats are talking about. "Women produce half of the world's food but only own one percent of the land upon which it is grown. We will work to ensure that women have equal protection under the law and are not denied rights and therefore locked into poverty." In places primed for the idea of women's equality, where trying to "make women into men" won't cause riots, that's fairly common sense. The Republicans would reject the UN convention on women's rights because it gave some sort of support to abortion, so the GOP could protect "traditional" "marriage and family". I'm still smarting from that.

"We will modernize our foreign assistance policies, tools, and operations in an elevated, empowered, consolidated, and streamlined U.S. development agency. Development and diplomacy will be reinforced as key pillars of U.S. foreign policy, and our civilian agencies will be staffed, resourced, and equipped to address effectively new global challenges." I'm sure Republicans should sound relieved that the development agency would be "consolidated and streamlined", but I don't know what needs "modernization". And there's a lot of other stuff that needs to be "staffed, resourced, and equipped" as well.

Time to take another shot at Bush: "American leadership on human rights is essential to making the world safer, more just, and more humane. Such leadership must begin with steps to undo the damage of the Bush years. But we also must go much further. We should work with others to shape human rights institutions and instruments tailored to the 21st century." What are the new challenges of the 21^st century that current human rights institutions are not prepared for? "We must make the United Nations' human rights organs more objective, energetic, and effective." You already mentioned keeping human rights violators off the Human Rights Council, but good. "The U.S. must lead global efforts to promote international humanitarian standards and to protect civilians from indiscriminate violence during warfare." Sounds good. "We will champion accountability for genocide and war crimes, ending the scourge of impunity for massive human rights abuses." Would that include joining the International Criminal Court?

"We will stand up for oppressed people from Cuba to North Korea and from Burma to Zimbabwe and Sudan. We will accord greater weight to human rights, including the rights of women and children, in our relationships with other global powers, recognizing that America's long-term strategic interests are more likely to be advanced when our partners are rights-respecting." I'm not 100% sure what the connection is between respecting human rights and advancing "America's long-term strategic interests". But as a human rights-advancing move, it certainly sounds like a good idea to restrict negotiations and/or make tougher demands unless human rights abuses are tamped down (an approach the Republicans espouse on several specific occasions). It is worth noting that you just came close to the Republican position of making our diplomats "advance[] America's values". Although if you insist on the right to an abortion I know some people who will scream bloody murder. And I notice you finally name-dropped Burma in there.

"Global Health":

Democrats will invest in improving global health. It is a human shame that many of the diseases which compound the problem of global poverty are treatable, but they are yet to be treated.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic is a massive human tragedy. It is also a security risk of the highest order that threatens to plunge nations into chaos. There are an estimated 33 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS, including more than one million people in the U.S. Nearly 8,000 people die every day of AIDS. We must do more to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as malaria, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases. We will provide $50 billion over five years to strengthen existing U.S. programs and expand them to new regions of the world, including Southeast Asia, India, and parts of Europe, where the HIV/AIDS burden is growing. We will increase U.S. contributions to the Global Fund to ensure that global efforts to fight endemic disease continue to move ahead.

More potential throwing money away, and this entire section will tie back into the Democrats' health care plan. I know I'll sound like a bastard again, but this has the added problem of being of unclear national interest, aside from the "plunge nations into chaos" line. It's also worth noting that some people, especially Republicans, will tell you that there are cultural problems that make AIDS worse in Africa, and combating it more difficult.

"We also support the adoption of humanitarian licensing policies that ensure medications developed with the U.S. taxpayer dollars are available off patent in developing countries." Not sure what the practical effect of that would be... "We will repeal the global gag rule and reinstate funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)." The "global gag rule" is the Republicans' policy of refusing to provide any support to organizations that aid abortion in any way, which I tore to shreds in Part II of my Republican examination. "We will expand access to health care and nutrition for women and reduce the burden of maternal mortality." Sounds good. A lot of good-sounding platitudes in here. "We will leverage the engagement of the private sector and private philanthropy to launch Health Infrastructure 2020–a global effort to work with developing countries to invest in the full range of infrastructure needed to improve and protect both American and global health." Obviously, very gimmicky.

"Human Trafficking":

We will address human trafficking—both labor and sex trafficking–through strong legislation and enforcement to ensure that trafficking victims are protected and traffickers are brought to justice. We will also address the root causes of human trafficking, including poverty, discrimination, and gender inequality, as well as the demand for prostitution.

The Republicans preferred to take on human trafficking by establishing the gimmicky "Inter-Agency Task Force on Human Trafficking, reporting directly to the President", prodding other governments to crack down, and extending the American policy of "publicizing the identity of known offenders" to international travel. The Democrats don't have anything as specific but they do want to focus on the "root causes" in addition to their "strong legislation and enforcement".

"Protecting our Security and Saving our Planet": Yes, it's a return to the topic of climate change, this time specifically focused on climate change and not just "energy independence"! But what does it have to do with national security and foreign affairs?

We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, conflict, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. That could also mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.

We understand that climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern–this is a national security crisis.

I almost want to say, you better touch on climate change in both of the remaining parts as well. Before we begin, I want to make some clarifying remarks about "cap-and-trade" schemes. Back in Part II, I said I was deeply suspicious of cap-and-trade schemes but gave a description of them that was not necessarily accurate. At least some cap and trade schemes involve setting a hard limit not on each individual producer's carbon emissions, but on the emissions of the whole economy. To produce any emissions at all, companies would have to purchase carbon credits from the government, and have to deal not only with other companies producing carbon but also environmentalists buying credits to lower emissions even further. It all sounds like a good way to move us towards a green future while raising money for the government and green research projects, but there are enforceability concerns and it encourages energy efficiency more than new energy sources. Anyway, enough talking; on with the show!

"Establish Energy Security": The Democrats take an oblique shot at Bush and the Iraq war, saying "achieving energy security in the 21st century requires far more than simply expending our economic and political resources to keep oil flowing steadily out of unstable and even hostile countries and regions."

Rather, energy security requires stemming the flow of money to oil rich regimes that are hostile to America and its allies; it requires combating climate change and preparing for its impacts both at home and abroad; it requires making international energy markets work for us and not against us; it requires standing up to the oil companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and political contributions; it requires addressing nuclear safety, waste, and proliferation challenges around the world; and more.

For the most part, this all sounds good, but I notice the Democrats are also standing up for nuclear (sigh) but they are calling to address its "challenges". Not sure what the problem with "international energy markets" is. "Democrats will halt this dangerous trend, and take the necessary steps to achieving energy independence. We will make it a top priority to reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or ten million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the amount of oil we are expected to import from OPEC nations in 2030." Once again, the Dems aren't being ambitious enough. 35 percent by 2030? Ideally we should be able to get rid of our oil consumption almost entirely by then, between electric cars and mass transit – and we should, especially in the likely scenario we start running out of oil.

"Lead to Combat Climate Change": This is the sort of sentiment I like to see from a major party:

We will lead to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. Without dramatic changes, rising sea levels will flood coastal regions around the world. Warmer temperatures and declining rainfall will reduce crop yields, increasing conflict, famine, disease, and poverty. By 2050, famine could displace more than 250 million people worldwide. That means increased instability in some of the most volatile parts of the world.

Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of collective action to tackle this global challenge. Getting our own house in order is only a first step. We will invest in efficient and clean technologies at home while using our assistance policies and export promotions to help developing countries preserve biodiversity, curb deforestation, and leapfrog the carbon-energy-intensive stage of development.

Not only the first sentence of the first paragraph, but most of the policy positions in the second, are "hear, hear" remarks. "[L]eapfrog[ging] the carbon-energy-intensive stage of development" almost takes the words right out of my mouth, and "developing countries" can't just include third-world countries but also nations like China. I pretty much said as much in my hysterical anti-climate-change rant.

"We will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols." Gimmicky but sounds like a good idea. "China has replaced America as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Clean energy development must be a central focus in our relationships with major countries in Europe and Asia." That's a good approach. "We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia." Another good idea, but I hope the Democrats really will be willing to limit themselves under international pressure. As should the other nations listed. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats aren't whining that we shouldn't "expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all." "This challenge is massive, but rising to it will also bring new benefits to America. By 2050, global demand for low-carbon energy could create an annual market worth $500 billion. Meeting that demand would open new frontiers for American entrepreneurs and workers." Let's try and create that demand and meet it pretty close to right now.

"Seizing the Opportunity":

It is time for a new generation to tell the next great American story. If we act with boldness and foresight, we will be able to tell our grandchildren that this was the time we confronted climate change and secured the weapons that could destroy the human race. This was the time we defeated global terrorists and brought opportunity to forgotten corners of the world. This was the time when we helped forge peace in the Middle East. This was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep.

Hyperbole much? This "section" is really a summary of the whole part. I have a feeling it'll be difficult for future generations to grasp the magnitude of the WMD threat today. Similarly, some people may not even realize that "the America that has led generations of weary travelers...to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep" even needed renewing, except from the Bush years. It sounds good that you're going to "help[] forge peace in the Middle East", but well, there's a reason that would be "the next great American story". But defeating terrorists and combating the climate crisis? That is the next great American story.


The Democrats devote another two very short paragraphs to a past when America was a beacon of hope around the world instead of a flashpoint of hatred, and call for America to return to the former, but I'm going to "seize the opportunity" to look back on the part and whether the Democrats met their goals. They said "today's threats" "come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from violent extremists who exploit alienation and perceived injustice to spread terror." So the Democrats will take steps to reduce and hopefully end any worldwide need for nuclear weapons, and secure materials that could be used to make them. They have a superior strategy to the Republicans' (provisionally) in dealing with Iran, but the Republicans are tougher on North Korea. But my biggest problem I have with the Democrats here is that I'm not sure they're willing to invest in actually preventing biological and chemical weapon attacks, only in reducing their impact. The Democrats might be soft on cyberterrorism as well. As for terror, the Democrats are superior to the head-in-the-sand Republicans on Pakistan, but their real strength lies in their quest to restore America's integrity and likability, and in their quest to aid development in countries prone to the message of extremism. The one concern I have is whether the Democrats have a system to monitor terrorists that won't impinge on America's civil liberties.


"They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy." This is a vague sentence, and sometimes the Democrats address it and sometimes they don't. "They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people." So the Democrats put a focus on development and democratization to build up third world countries – goals the Republicans espouse as well. "They come from an addiction to oil that helps fund the extremism we must fight and empowers repressive regimes. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts." And both of those are dealt with in the same way. The Democrats are far superior to the Republicans in combating the urgent matter of climate change. There is plenty of room for improvement and they take a liking to a number of alternative energies I don't like, but realistically, given the choice between the Democratic or Republican plan, I would rather take the Democrats. I'm just concerned they might not have an urgent enough stance on the problem.


Short part, isn't it? Well, the Democrats' Part III is right around the bend – we might be entering the home stretch here as well!

Examining the Republican Platform Part V: “Energy Independence and Security” and “Environmental Protection”

This is continued from Parts I-IV of my examination of the Republican Platform. I have hope the next examination will go up by the end of the night.


Considering that so far, I have by and large agreed more often with the Democrats than I have with the Republicans, and I started this project (which by the way, is dominating the run-up to the election more than I ever had in mind and proven to be a lot less fun) last Monday with the Democratic Platform before launching into the Republican plan, you may be wondering why I'm letting the Republicans take the lead and reach Part V first. The short answer is that the Republican platform has struck my fancy more.

The long answer is that Part IV, "Energy Independence and Security", touches on my single-issue topic, the one I expounded on so much at length, that of the concerns raised by global climate change. But right off the bat, Danger, Will Robinson! This part is so short that I can conceivably throw in a second part to fill out the space. The Republicans do give an entire part to the issue of energy, a bit more than the Democrats, but the Republicans also have more parts (we're only halfway through and the Republicans are already passing the number of parts the Democrats have in their entire platform). Any concerns I might have over the Republicans' commitment to climate change are seemingly validated when they devote all of two pages to the following part on the environment. On the plus side, we've only got four more parts or so to go after this (we passed the halfway mark last part), so we're fast approaching the end!

It's been a long time since I properly quoted a section introduction to see how it addresses its own goals:

All Americans are acutely aware of the energy crisis our nation faces.  Energy costs are spiraling upward, food prices continue to rise, and as a result, our entire economy suffers.  This winter, families will spend for heat what they could have saved for college, and small businesses will spend for fuel what could have covered employee health insurance.

Our current dependence on foreign fossil fuels threatens both our national security and our economy and could also force drastic changes in the way we live.  The ongoing transfer of Americans' wealth to OPEC – roughly $700 billion a year – helps underwrite terrorists' operations and creates little incentive for repressive regimes to accept democracy, whether in the Middle East or Latin America.

It didn't have to be this way, and it must not stay this way.  Our nation must have a robust energy supply because energy drives prosperity and increases opportunity for every American.  We reject the idea that America cannot overcome its energy challenges – or that high gasoline prices are okay, as long as they are phased in gradually. We reject half-measures and believe "No, we can't" is not a viable energy policy.

Together we can build a future around domestic energy sources that are diverse, reliable, and cleaner.  We can strengthen our national security, create a pathway to growing prosperity, and preserve our environment.  The American people will rise to this challenge.

Hmm, "no we can't"? I smell a not-so-subtle dig at Obama there! Who's positing the idea that "America cannot overcome its energy challenges"? What do you mean by "high gasoline prices are okay, as long as they are phased in gradually", what's that referring to? Of course I don't want to see any "half-measures" with the stakes as high as they are!

"Growing Our Energy Supply":

We must aggressively increase our nation's energy supply, in an environmentally responsible way, and do so through a comprehensive strategy that meets both short and long term needs.  No amount of wishing or hoping can suspend the laws of supply and demand.  Leading economists agree that any actions that will increase future energy supplies will lead to lower energy prices today.  Increasing our production of American made energy and reducing our excessive reliance on foreign oil will:

• Bring down the high cost of gasoline and diesel fuel.
  
• Create more jobs for American workers.
  
• Enhance our national security.
  

In the long run, American production should move to zero-emission sources, and our nation's fossil fuel resources are the bridge to that emissions-free future.

All good points. Some notes. Hand-in-hand with focusing too much on reducing our dependence on foreign oil, instead of what's best for reversing climate change, is focusing too much on gas prices. Gas prices should be made irrelevant, not necessarily lowered. From what I've heard, there isn't enough oil offshore to make much of a dent in gas prices, now or later. Agree that "American production should move to zero-emission sources" – as soon as possible. Using "our nation's fossil fuel resources" as "the bridge" is pretty much unacceptable, because it continues reliance on the major source of greenhouse gases.

"Growing American Energy Production": As Sarah Palin would say, drill, baby, drill! Drill everywhere, from the oceans to the mountains to the valleys white with foam! "To deliver that energy to American consumers, we will expand our refining capacity. Because of environmental extremism and regulatory blockades in Washington, not a single new refinery has been built in this country in 30 years.  We will encourage refinery construction and modernization and, with sensitivity to environmental concerns, an expedited permitting process." Which is a good thing if you're going to drill for all that oil, but we should be getting away from oil! And the Democrats say "we can't drill our way to energy independence". "Any legislation to increase domestic exploration, drilling and production must minimize any protracted legal challenges that could unreasonably delay or even preclude actual production.  We oppose any efforts that would permanently block access to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." As long as legitimate legal concerns aren't railroaded past and the ecological concerns with drilling in ANWR are addressed.

"Nuclear Power: the Earth's Clean Future":

Nuclear energy is the most reliable zero-carbon-emissions source of energy that we have.  Unwarranted fear mongering with no relationship to current technologies and safeguards has prevented us from starting construction of a single nuclear power plant in 31 years.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy has for decades relied upon nuclear-powered vessels, and other nations have harnessed nuclear power to provide a major portion of their energy consumption.  There is no reason why the United States cannot catch up and do the same.  Confident in the promise offered by science and technology, Republicans will pursue dramatic increases in the use of all forms of safe, affordable, reliable – and clean – nuclear power.

I try to represent a typical, uncommitted American's perspective in these examinations, and I'm not sure I've succeeded. So I'm tempted to say this is mostly bull-bleep. But instead I'll list the concerns I had earlier – waste needs to be disposed of for many thousands of years, nuclear reprocessing is currently laden with problems, you need to secure the uranium so it doesn't get into the wrong hands, it still produces at least some greenhouse gases, it's not entirely renewable, etc. That's entirely apart from the Three Mile Island-type incidents you probably have in mind. Just because "other nations" do it doesn't mean we should – right, "control-the-UN-and-go-in-unilaterally-if-everyone-thinks-we-suck" GOP? Don't just talk about "unwarranted fear mongering", to some extent it's very much warranted, address these concerns. With a substantial rollout solar power is already ready to meet most of our energy needs with few or no side effects. How is it less reliable? "The labor force will expand, with nearly 15,000 high quality jobs created for every new nuclear plant built – and those workers will lead the nation away from its dependence on foreign oil." They will need a lot of education, even the construction workers, and I see no commitment to that.

"Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Hydropower": In other words, "oh, here are these other sources of energy as well."

Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection.  Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability.  We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.

Well, you're playing my song, and you at least talk about a form of energy tangential to wave or tidal power, but you also bring up geothermal like the Democrats. The Dems don't say directly how they would support alternative energies but they seem to imply a direct giveaway. I'm thinking a modern TVA may be in order. "Republicans support measures to modernize the nation's electricity grid to provide American consumers and businesses with more affordable, reliable power" – hear hear, but I don't think you're committing to it as heavily as the Democrats. "We will work to unleash innovation so entrepreneurs can develop technologies for a more advanced and robust United States transmission system that meets our growing energy demands." Sounds like building a bigger patchwork system of different standards from different companies. But beyond that little "privatize everything" point, sounds good.

"Clean Coal":

Although alternate fuels will shape our energy future, coal – America's most affordable and abundant energy resource and the source of most of our electricity – remains a strategic national resource that must play a major role in energy independence.  We look to innovative technology to transform America's coal supplies into clean fuels capable of powering motor vehicles and aircraft.  We support coal-to-liquid and gasification initiatives, just as we support investment in the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies, which can reduce emissions.  We firmly oppose efforts by Democrats to block the construction of new coal-fired power plants. No strategy for reducing energy costs will be viable without a commitment to continued coal production and utilization.

Ah, the "clean coal" scam. I already linked to environmentalists' critiques of it. It's far safer, and possibly less expensive, to invest in technologies for which "carbon capture" isn't needed. Power our cars and airplanes with coal?!? Sequestering carbon is obviously impractical; how the hell are you ever going to clean up coal enough to serve as automobile fuel suitable for use in our cities, even with "coal-to-liquid" technology?!? You're going to need to do a lot of "carbon capture" with how much CO2 "coal-to-liquid" can produce. Of all the things you could have proposed to power our cars, you go with coal?!?

"Natural Gas": "Natural gas is plentiful in North America, but we can extract more and do a better job of distributing it nationwide to cook our food, heat our homes, and serve as a growing option as a transportation fuel.  Both independently and in cooperation with alternative fuels, natural gas will be an essential part of any long-term energy solution. We must ensure it gets to consumers safely and quickly." It's still a fossil fuel and it still pollutes, not to mention it leaks methane in transport, which is significantly more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. No direct mention of taking care of that little problem.

"Energy Cooperation": "We embrace the open energy cooperation and trading relationship with our neighbors Canada and Mexico, including proven oil reserves and vast, untapped Canadian hydroelectric generation." Certainly sounds good; the "proven oil reserves" we shouldn't be in too much of a rush to exploit, the "vast, untapped Canadian hydroelectric generation" we should, with some consciousness of the ecological impacts of dams. I don't believe this is mentioned in the Democrats' plan.

"Reducing Demand for Fossil Fuels": Now this is getting into my wheelhouse! "While we grow our supplies, we must also reduce our demand – not by changing our lifestyles but by putting the free market to work and taking advantage of technological breakthroughs." Do those "technological breakthroughs" refer to those advances in solar and wind technology? "Increase Conservation through Greater Efficiency":

Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less.   Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better.  We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases.  Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel.  The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.

Those are all important goals, some of which I mentioned in my earlier discussion. "New Technologies for Cars and Other Vehicles":

We must continue to develop alternative fuels, such as biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol, and hasten their technological advances to next-generation production.  As America develops energy technology for the 21st century, policy makers must consider the burden that rising food prices and energy costs create for the poor and developing nations around the world.  Because alternative fuels are useless if vehicles cannot use them, we must move quickly to flexible fuel vehicles; we cannot expect necessary investments in alternative fuels if this flexibility does not become standard.  We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.

More pushing "cellulosic ethanol" like the Democrats, while giving a shout-out to "rising food prices", without addressing the land use constraints of any plant-based fuel. The shout-out to electric vehicles is something I absolutely love; the shout-out to nat-gas less so, and no mention of mass transit. In retrospect, I should have been able to tell from the introductory paragraph that the Republicans would focus way too much on reducing our dependence on foreign oil, not on climate change, and "half-measures" like "clean coal" suggest a deceptive edge to those remarks.

We move on to Part V, "Environmental Protection", and see what happens when the Republicans get into the core of my wheelhouse. They start by only talking about "increasing our American energy supply and decreasing the long term demand for oil", not decreasing the short term demand for oil like might be necessary. Still, a good start.

"Addressing Climate Change Responsibly":

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.  Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy.  Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.

(Thinking about it, deciding not to say anything about the "ongoing scientific research" comment.) Everything sounds good to this point. I might say that a short-term economic hit is OK when you consider the long-term consequences, but green investment right now could actually help the economy anyway.

"The Solution: Technology and the Market": Other than "privatization", this is the Republicans' other favorite buzzword: the "free market". They believe technology and the "free market" will "decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy." Eee...eee. Not sure what to think of that line "maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy". That might indicate they secretly want to keep climate change going. It certainly suggests they don't take it very seriously. The last two points, though, are important when you combine how urgent the problem is and how little confidence world leaders have inspired in most environmentalists.

"To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources." Still pushing nuclear power as the panacea. "But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits.  Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets." Using climate change to hammer your typical drumbeat: "Don't let Washington do it." "Use the For...er...free market." I think I've grown numb to this sort of drumbeat.

"International Cooperation": "Because the issue of climate change is global, it must become a truly global concern as well. All developed and developing economies, particularly India and China, can make significant contributions in dealing with the matter.  It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all." Agreed in basics, but like I said in my earlier posts on climate change, there is no such thing as doing too much. It may be "unrealistic and counterproductive" for "the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared", but it's imperative that it carry as much burden as it can, and so must everyone else, and the developed nations should help the developing ones by providing them with the technology they need. Bickering about "who should shoulder more burden" as the Republicans hint at here misses the larger point.

"Using Cash Rewards to Encourage Innovation": "Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change.  Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon." Sounds like a great idea. Something about the title turns me off, though.

"Doing No Harm": From the very first sentence, I become very disappointed. "Republicans caution against the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government.  We can – and should– address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no-growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly." Unfortunately, those "doomsday scenarios" are rather plausible, and possibly disturbingly close. Given the other terms in the second sentence, I suspect "situations to be managed responsibly" is an euphemism for something else. I may be almost as extreme as they come about climate change but I don't consider myself a "no-growth" kind of guy; it's precisely because I think we can and should grow as we go green that I'm such a big backer of transit. I don't even have any idea where this comes from or how anything I suggested in my earlier global warming series would be "no-growth".

A robust economy will be essential to dealing with the risk of climate change, and we will insist on reasonable policies that do not force Americans to sacrifice their way of life or trim their hopes and dreams for their children.  This perspective serves not only the people of the United States but also the world's poorest peoples, who would suffer terribly if climate change is severe – just as they would if the world economy itself were to be crippled.  We must not allow either outcome.

If it were to turn out that no matter what efficiency and renewability gains we achieved, there was no way the average American's way of life could be sustained, would you be willing to sacrifice this plank, or would you rather sacrifice the Earth? I think for the most part, the suggestions I proposed largely preserve most Americans' way of life. The major two exceptions are home heating and my backing of mass transit, but in the case of the former the Republicans themselves called for building "better and smarter buildings", and for the latter I know there are some people who would think that would be an improvement in people's quality of life. (Regardless, if you're not hep to transit you still have the electric car.) I don't think that living a little cooler, or cutting back on barbeques, exactly constitute "trim[ming our] hopes and dreams for [our] children". I've elided the impact climate change would have to direct industrial applications, such as the use of gas flames as a source of heat in reactions, but I suspect we can find non-polluting (or less-polluting) ways to achieve the same goals with little negative impact to the economy. I'm not a "no-growth radical", I tried in my climate change recommendations to preserve as much of our way of life as we can while dramatically slicing emissions (I even gave up on a couple of non-fossil fuel fronts), and I encourage you to read them. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I do suspect it's an euphemism for "let's do as little as possible".

"Continuing Our Stewardship over the Environment":

The Republican perspective on the environment is in keeping with our longstanding appreciation for nature and gratitude for the bounty the Almighty has bestowed upon the American people.  It was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who said, "The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem, it will avail us little to solve all others."  We agree.  Whether through family vacations, hunting or fishing trips, backpacking excursions, or weekend hikes, Americans of all backgrounds share a commitment to protecting the environment and the opportunities it offers.  In addition, the public should have access to public lands for recreational activities such as hunting, hiking, and fishing.

Thanks for trivializing the issue. So what's your stand on motorcycles or snowmobiles in public lands? Time to beat the "privatization" drumbeat again: "In caring for the land and water, private ownership has been the best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the world's worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under governmental control.  By the same token, it is no accident that the most economically advanced countries also have the strongest environmental protections." Wait, what? Did you just undermine the point of the first sentence by implicitly backing "environmental protections"? That's like the Democrats saying "Social Security is not in crisis" where I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, except I'm not sure this is as simple as a one-word typo.

The next paragraph begins by praising "[o]ur national progress toward cleaner air and water" through "balancing environmental goals with economic growth and job creation". "State and local initiatives to clean up contaminated sites – brownfields – have exceeded efforts directed by Washington. That progress can continue if grounded in sound science, long-term planning, and a multi-use approach to resources." Sounds good.

Government at all levels should protect private property rights by cooperating with landowners' efforts and providing incentives to protect fragile environments, endangered species, and maintain the natural beauty of America.  Republican leadership has led to the rejuvenation and renewal of our National Park system.  Future expansion of that system, as well as designation of National Wilderness areas or Historic Districts, should be undertaken only with the active participation and consent of relevant state and local governments and private property owners.

First two sentences sound well and good. The last sentence also sounds reasonable but could be disagreed with; we need to make sure private property owners don't impose unreasonable demands on everyone.

But by and large, I am incredibly disappointed. Virtually everything I disagreed with in the Democratic platform, the Republicans have as well if not worse. Mixing up goals? The Republicans have that in spades. Geothermal and the "clean coal" scam? The Republicans name-dropped geothermal along with solar and wind, much like the Democrats, and devoted a whole paragraph to "clean coal"! Using cap-and-trade to fund renewable investment? The Republicans don't propose anything specific to discourage emissions. Weaning us off cars entirely? The Republicans, if anything, give even less sign they're ready to do that than Democrats do. Only a quarter of our energy from renewable sources by 2025? Republicans don't give any firm target at all and the word "renewable" only appears once in either part. Doubts about cellulosic ethanol? The Republicans are plugging it as well. The Democrats aren't even finished with dealing with energy and climate change, and I've finished covering the Republicans' entire plan in one part – in fact, had I stopped before this paragraph I would have fallen short of 4,000 words! The part specifically dealing with "Environmental Protection" is the shortest in the whole platform! I was actually considering getting a head start on the next part of the platform!

The really sad part is that the Republicans actually have some good points, though again the Dems might claim some of them later. They would use a tax credit and "Climate Prize" to encourage renewable energy development instead of growing the size of the bureaucracy and government. Democrats haven't yet mentioned cooperation with Canada and Mexico, and only obliquely referred to "plug-in hybrids" and didn't directly call for making more. No pushing India and China to fill their role and cut to renewables as fast as possible either. And there is something to be said for giving some credit to the free market. And I like to think my recommendations, by and large, meet the criteria laid out by the Republicans in the "Environmental Protection" part. But the GOP wants to use fossil fuels as a "bridge" to a renewable future and see nuclear as our chief source of electricity thereafter. I've yet to see anything that fundamentally wrong in the Democrats' approach.

I am so running back to the Democrats for my next examination.

An addendum to my previous posts on global warming

To say the least, I have not been getting in as many posts on these topics I feel so strongly about as I would have liked. I think I started falling behind when I was stricken with a cold over the weekend, and subconsciously started using that as an excuse to goof off once I started losing the momentum. It doesn't help that Blogger-in-draft is still buggy when it comes to pasting in information in IE7; I was working on a post offline, not backing up anything in any way, and found that it is still prone to coughing up on me. I've planned to put up the first part of that post on Sunday, but after starting last Sunday or Monday I haven't started again AT ALL...S Ethejw,hvwgfmjklcxvk

I HAD intended to spend enough time on global warming and mass transit that it would sort of bleed in to a return to more political posts. Given the amount of work I'm about to start on, that's looking unlikely. I'm going to start again tonight, this time using Word as the basis of the post in question, and I have no idea how that will go. Things might start looking a bit iffy on other fronts - I haven't started putting together the next College Football Schedule, and won't start until tomorrow at the soonest.

But I do want to make a clarification for anyone who's seen my rundown of global warming-fixing options and my conclusion that there's only one or two approaches that will green up our transportation paradigm other than mass transit investment. I didn't mention offshore drilling for what should be obvious reasons. Of course I have heard that it won't do a lick to lower gas prices appreciably, but also, my emphasis was on global warming. That's also why I'm skeptical of T. Boone Pickens' natural gas crusade and why I was always skeptical of the biofuels craze and why I'm still skeptical about hydrogen.

I think, when we talk about alternative fuels for our cars, we tend to mix up two different goals: solving global warming, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. With the latter, any alternative fuel will do. Any one you want. You want biofuels? No problem. You want hydrogen? No problem. It doesn't matter what we pick as long as it stops us from contributing to, as Pickens keeps ramming down our throats, "the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind". But for global warming, we can't settle for less. We need to make sure we curb emissions, not just oil use.

Repowering America? How about Refueling America?

This post is tagged "blog news" because of the new tag being introduced. To make up for a paucity of posts recently, I'm going to try to get in another post later today, following up on this one.

I teased in my post on alternative sources of energy (which need to become primary sources of energy) that I would introduce a way of getting around that would use next to no resources, take advantage of our new green electric grid, put as little strain on that grid as possible, and save money. And I'll get to that. But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and people power is the most green form of energy there is. (There's an old ESPN "This Is SportsCenter" commercial depicting the ESPN campus as powered by Lance Armstrong riding a treadmill; I wish that had even any potential basis whatsoever in reality!)

The greenest ways of getting around are also the oldest: walking, followed by bicycling. Walking gets the edge because it uses no resources other than what you'd consume anyway in the form of food. If you can walk to get to wherever you want to, you probably should, to save the energy of short car trips and get some excersize.

Some people are probably saying, "But Mr. Wick, if I could walk to get to wherever I wanted to, I would, wouldn't I? Anyone who would drive to get just three blocks away would just be stupid, global warming or no global warming!"

And maybe you do walk to get to anyplace within walking distance (which probably means you live in the city), and maybe you do have to drive to get to anyplace you would want to go to (which probably means you live in the middle of nowhere). But a great many - maybe most - Americans live in a place known as suburbia, places that look like this, California's Newbury Park community (image courtesy Google Maps):

Now, suppose you live somewhere in the area in the red circle. (Apologies if you can't see it.) And suppose you want to go to the store. Well, based on plugging in "grocery stores" into a Google Maps search, the nearest grocery store is... about a mile away, as the crow flies. That's to a place about due east of a point near the center of the circle; there's another place a bit further away and to the southwest. (There's a 7-Eleven significantly closer and to the south, but I doubt it would do for full-fledged grocery trips. I only mention it because it comes up on my search.) I could have picked a point to the northwest and gotten even longer distances. Imagine having to lug several bags of groceries, by hand, for over a mile. To put it in perspective, the average human walking speed is 2 to 3 miles per hour. Those bags are surely slowing you down, so you're looking at nearly half an hour (at best) of a grueling return trip, and about two minutes by car. And remember, this is as the crow flies, so it's probably significantly longer.

Okay, so maybe you get a bicycle - you're looking at about 10-15 miles an hour, so as the crow flies, you're looking at a trip of about four to six minutes. You can get a bike meant to handle a load like bags of groceries, so you're covered there, but the load might slow you down, and even the added load of the "trunk" will slow you down a little. Still, let's say you can go 8-12 miles an hour each way - arbitrarily chosen, but it does correspond to four-fifths speed on both numbers. You're looking at five to seven minutes each way at this point, and carrying the bags is less grueling.

In fact, let's make this easier by moving closer to one of the stores and bringing this closer to reality. One of my uncles actually lives in this area, and I've chosen a semi-random point near his house, represented by the green placemark. (Not exactly on his house. I'm not allowing a horde of people to descend on him. Of course, maybe that's better than people descending on a complete stranger.) The red placemark is near a nearby Albertsons. As the crow flies, it's about 3301 feet, or about 5/8ths of a mile.

Here's the walking route Google Maps generates between the two points - about four-fifths of a mile by its calculations. It calculates the walking time as 16 minutes, and I imagine the bicycle time is about four to six minutes.

Looks decent, right? That is, until you get to the details. Take a look at the segment of a piece of the route shown below. The sidewalk is about three and a half feet wide, wide enough for maybe one person to walk on, and about four to seven feet from the curb - maybe a car's width. Newbury Park may be lucky to have a sidewalk at all. The street is about five car widths wide with parking existing to some extent on both sides of the street, but not a lot of it. Note that the car in the picture is almost flush up against the curb. Now consider that you can't just cram in cars like mad and you're looking at two cars at most traveling on this street at a time. (A traffic lane is about ten-to-twelve feet wide.) If there's even one car on the road, especially if it's barreling down the center, there's not much room for a bike to operate, either on the sidewalk or on the road. Did I mention it's a decently hilly route, which is kind of a problem for a heavy bike?

Still, it's doable... until you get to an intersection. Do you see something missing in the image below? Aside from an oddly colored strip of concrete, there isn't really a crosswalk at this intersection. So what, you might say, people cross where there isn't a crosswalk all the time. But consider that, if you're walking, you have to step off a three-foot wide sidewalk to cross as much as 50 feet of roadway, given the curve in the curb that's intended to allow cars to make higher-speed turns - 14-17 times the distance. You might feel like a lost soul adrift at sea. If you look closely on the left side, you see the sidewalk itself actually turns here - trying to dissuade you from making the crossing.

Now, if you're riding your bicycle on the street itself, you might not think it's such a big deal, and even if you're a pedestrian or intending to bike on the sidewalk, you might think it's okay. But what happens when you get to the arterial? Two things about the below picture should stand out besides the sudden presence of crosswalks. First, when arterials are involved the curb has an even shallower curve. Secondly, if you're riding your bike on the pavement, where does it go? Every lane is the same width; maybe the outside lane is about one or two feet wider. You probably have to get your bike to fit in with the normal flow of cars. The sidewalks can be as little as a foot wider, if that, than before, and they are dwarfed by the now-mammoth roadway, which could be about 60 feet wide (with only five lanes of traffic). Oh, and if in all of this, the sidewalk is any wider than four feet, it might be because it's now completely flush up against the curb. On an arterial. Where the traffic lane is no wider than the others. Imagine walking down the street while cars whoosh past at 25-30 miles an hour just a few feet away - almost right next to you. I haven't even shown what happens when a non-arterial meets a route that's very arterial.

What happens when you finally get to the store? Theoretically, you should be in better shape because people are supposed to walk on and cross the parking lot anyway to get to the store. Did I mention the parking lot is as big as the store itself - admittedly this store is part of a larger strip mall? And if you're biking, do you know for sure if there will be a good place to leave your bike? Especially one where you can lock it up and keep people from stealing it, like you lock your car?

Theoretically, it's possible to walk or bike from my uncle's house to the store... but you can see why most people would rather drive, especially with a mostly-arterial route that's not much longer even by distance. But of course, the store isn't the only place people go to. Suppose we stopped putting our kids on school buses to send them to school. Now imagine them having to traverse about a mile of this kind of route with all its dangers, real or perceived - and with kids the perception is probably magnified several times. You can see why kids are often put on diesel-belching school buses to take them to schools that could be within half a mile of their home. When they get older, it's safer, but this is what Newbury Park High School looks like:

(UPDATE: Okay, I have been informed that the above picture was originally mis-labeled as Newbury Park High School, and its compact size should have tipped me off. Google results now suggest that it's a pre-school, which if anything just proves my point, at least about the early levels, even more: when reading the below, keep in mind we're talking about four-and-five year old kids here. And high schools are not off the hook even though they generally don't have to deal with access roads as long as I originally intimated, as suburban high schools tend to be cavernous affairs with multiple sports fields and sealike parking lots. Compare Adolfo Camarillo High School in nearby Camarillo with the school I went to in Seattle.)

Yes, that's a good 150 feet (or almost a full 3% of a mile) of 18-foot-wide access road just to get to the parking lot from the (arterial) main street, with NO separate pedestrian or bike path (that I can tell) whatsoever. It could take only eleven seconds of walking, if you're fast, but it could also take as long as almost a minute. If you live really close by, like your house is already visible on the screen, maybe you could cut across the grass if there isn't a fence, but otherwise you pretty much need a car to pass. (Oh, and the nearest other high school is more than two miles away, even with the correct location, so you could travel significantly more than a mile to get to the nearest high school. Not that I'm proposing densification.)

That is how many, many Americans live, positively needing a car to go distances for which walking should suffice, needing a car to do anything and everything. If you can't drive - if you're, say, a little kid, or an old man whose senses aren't what they used to be - you're SOL unless you can get someone to drive for you. So cutting down carbon emissions from transportation starts with rethinking how everything is organized and making sure we can walk or bike to as many destinations as possible. If we can walk to the store, walk to the pub, walk to the park, walk to school, walk to soccer practice, that's a good chunk of driving - and thus, resource use - rendered irrelevant. Ideally, we could walk everywhere.

But when we get to the most fundamental aspect of our travel, we run into a problem. Stores, pubs, parks, even schools, are all fundamentally interchangeable. If we move far enough away from one that we become closer to another, we can just transfer to that other thing without any serious impact to our lives. It is not so with workplaces. If we move, we can't easily change our place of work to correspond to that, and not everyone can live flush up next to downtown. "Office parks" have become popular near suburbs but in terms of getting their workers to live near them, the results have been mixed at best. The mobility of the automobile renders location mostly irrelevant, despite what real estate agents will tell you. Most people don't think of the cost of driving more, at least until recently - but it means more resource use and more traffic on the main arterials. (This is especially the case in cities that have built "beltway" freeways that ease travel between suburbs.)

Is there a way to travel longer distances than even bikes allow if we need to, without contributing to global warming and indeed using as few resources as possible? Well, consider that a car engine has to carry both itself and the people in it, and all things considered, the people (and the cargo) will generally weigh less than the car. If you cram as many people as possible in the car, it will cause a negligible impact on the car's resource use - but if all those people would have driven instead, each of those cars would need to carry themselves and used much more in the way of resources.

So perhaps even better than the electric car would be to move more of our people, and ideally as many as possible, using mass transit - buses, trains, and the like. And once we've taken that step, the benefits just rack up and rack up, extending so far beyond climate change it becomes worth investing in in its own right. Since buses and trains travel on fixed routes several times each day, we can connect them to electric wires and take full advantage of our green electric grid - without having to plug them in anywhere. People riding on public transit instead of driving cars take up less space in addition to less mass, and each person who takes transit gives up an entire car with next to no replacement on the roads, resulting in a true reduction in traffic congestion (even if you personally don't use it - this is especially the case if they don't use the roads at all, i.e., are trains). People aren't driving so they don't get road rage, so they can just enjoy the ride, and they can get something productive done instead of wasting time driving.

Perhaps most importantly, build it and they will come: across the nation transit projects have brought with them new development designed to take advantage of the transit and cater to transit users, building whole neighborhoods around transit stations - almost always very dense, tall buildings that work to curb sprawl (which also is tied to global warming through potential deforestation). We might even see many of America's other seemingly unrelated problems - our continuing distrust of each other, the dissolution of the community - at least be eased by a transition back to neighborhoods instead of cars.

"What!" you claim. "Mass transit? Isn't that welfare for the poor? That stinks! You're trying to impose communism and lower our quality of life! You're trying to limit our choice!" I'm sure you probably have an idea of mass transit as a bunch of grimy, noisy, diesel-spewing buses clogged in traffic with uncomfortable seats where crazy, scary black men lurk everywhere you turn. I'm sure there are some transit systems like that, but they're probably little more than sops to the idea of having transit at all in communities that otherwise worship at the altar of the automobile. Many modern buses are clean, running on compressed natural gas, biofuels, or hybrid buses; pretty much all urban trains are electric, but it's possible to run a bus on electric wires as well, if surprisingly underutilized outside here in Seattle. New York City should be our model, where there exists a rail system of the sort typical of just about all urban areas around the world of over about eight million population (except Los Angeles). There, the subway has become every bit a part of the identity of the city as the Statue of Liberty or Empire State Building, and here's an incredible stat: less than half the population of New York even owns a car, let alone drives one. Chicago, Washington DC, San Francisco, and Boston have superlative transit systems as well. The car doesn't have to be America's only transportation option.

What reason is there that that success can't be repeated all over the country? Before the Great Depression, many of America's cities had marvellous streetcar systems. During World War II, many of them were bought up and dismantled, replaced by the aforementioned terrible buses. Many transit advocates claim the oil and car companies conspired to destroy the streetcars to ensure the dominion of cars. Some experts have looked into the matter and decided the streetcars were unprofitable enough to be bought and dismantled. Robert Bruegmann, in his anti-anti-sprawl book Sprawl: A Compact History (which I will refer to again in later posts), suggests that it was as simple as buses providing flexibility to change routes with changing travel patterns that streetcars did not. But that very flexibility has since proven to be a curse: once a rail line is down, it's difficult to change, but a bus line could change at any time like that, so buses are wholly ineffective at bringing the sort of transit-oriented development I mentioned earlier, no matter how good they are. Add that to buses' tendency to get stuck in traffic I mentioned earlier, combined with trains' ability to be run above or below ground in their own right of way, and you can see that preferably trains are in our green energy future.

(I know I haven't covered every objection people may have to my mass transit strategy. I'll get to others in later posts.)

That takes care of the transportation paradigm within cities, but what about beyond it, especially with regards to suburbia? Many areas are instituting commuter rail systems along the same lines as longer-distance freight and passenger rail, to serve the suburbs otherwise underserved by urban rail systems. Their main problem is that they tend to be structured around a park-and-ride model, which begs the question "I'm already in my car, I might as well keep driving." Still, they're important to connect the suburbs to the city and urban rail system, especially with bus connections on the suburban end.

As for longer distances, between cities? This, after all, is where one would most need the gas engine of a Volt, and some way to get around the limitations of electric cars in general. Most Americans take a plane to go any distance beyond 250 miles or so, but they by necessity guzzle a lot of gas and spew a lot of greenhouse gases. Airline companies are letting the public know that they are transitioning to biofuels and potentially hydrogen, but an electric plane is probably out of the question. Fortunately, we have America's long-distance passenger rail system, and the Democratic-controlled Congress has repeatedly shown its loyalty to Amtrak in recent months. Several people have been pushing for development of a high speed rail system that could deliver people across the country at speeds comparable to air travel; these systems have been gaining popularity in Europe and Asia. For intercontinental travel, aircraft is probably still best, unless you want to spend a long time on a boat, and with biofuels and potentially hydrogen (and, dare I say, solar and wind?)-powered aircraft, even that can cut down on its global warming impact.

We can cut America's greenhouse gas emissions, even as we get around. To work best, it'll require us to rethink the way we live, but in most ways it's probably for the best anyway.

Random Internet Discovery of the Week

Is it just me, or do I tend to get a lot of cat-related RIDs?

Incidentially, Obama making energy his top priority at last night's debate - among other things - was pure music to my ears.

Come on, you know this was what you were really looking for Friday.

An addendum to my original panicking-about-climate-change post: If we really are to reduce the presence of greenhouse gases in the way we may have to, it may take turning our cities into true concrete jungles. On to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. I gave up on a couple of fronts Friday without making any real recommendations, but I'm doing no giving up today.

As in my last post, I begin with some notes from the EPA report cited in that post. First, some notes on fossil fuels in general. T. Boone Pickens is right about one thing: natural gas is less carbon-producing than oil. Natural gas has 45% less carbon than coal, compared to 25% for oil. Problem is, at every stage of natural gas' journey from the ground to the pump it leaks methane, as mentioned above, a problem that also exists to a lesser extent with oil. As we'll see, there's a good reason Pickens wants to fuel our cars with gas while proposing powering America with wind. The vast majority of fossil-fuel-burning electricity plants are coal plants, although there are a number of natural gas plants as well.

In addition to using fossil fuels, this Wikipedia article lists the following methods of generating electricity: nuclear (fission and theoretical fusion), wind, solar, wave/tidal, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower. Any or all are feasible for generating electricity to some extent or another.

Nuclear power, proponents claim, doesn't have any carbon emissions and isn't going to tie us down to countries that don't like us. Unfortunately, it is VERY controversial. The spectre of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island still hovers over many Americans, and even discounting the idea of a cataclysmic disaster, there is still the problem of waste disposal. Nuclear waste will likely remain deadly radioactive for thousands of years, and it's damn near impossible to keep people from cracking it open in the meantime. Nuclear reprocessing is an iffy technology at best. And then you have to make sure the uranium doesn't get into the wrong hands. And it's not completely non-carbon-producing either. Oh, and the uranium will eventually run out. Basically, way way way too many concerns here. But if we can get fusion going, it should be accident-free, with very little risk of weapons proliferation, any radioactive products would be radioactive for far shorter spans of time, with no global warming risk, only a need to contain tritium byproducts.

Wind power is clean and safe, will go on as long as there's wind, and the only real resources used are in construction of the turbine itself. It does need to be placed in windy environments, doesn't look like the best thing in the world, and could pose a threat to birds, but at 2006 rates would cost only a teensy bit more than coal and gas (and nuclear a bit higher than that). The downside is that the capacity of an individual wind turbine is half a megawatt or less, but they're typically combined over a wide area. You can see why T. Boone Pickens is high on wind power, and it could be a rather simple proposition.

Solar is similar to wind. There's no emissions and the only resources used are in construction of the panels themselves, and if the sun ever stopped sending energy down to us, losing our source of electricity is the least of our problems. Again, it would work best in areas that get a lot of sun year-round and not a lot of clouds, which mostly means tropical areas. The main knock on solar is its expense (far more than for anything covered to this point), but the price keeps coming down. (To a lesser extent, proper power storage for nights is a bigger problem.) Often it's possible to get solar panels for your house, which - especially if instituted in the building process - doesn't have to look unsightly, and which has been known to pump electricity back into the power grid.

What would be cheaper than standard solar panels is using an ordinary (albeit gigantic) parabolic mirror to concentrate solar energy at a focal point (or a bunch of ordinary mirrors all focused on that point) where the pure heat generated can be harnessed somehow (possibly, indeed probably, in a way that also solves the storage problem - but could require continued resource use). There are people who think a few concentrated-solar fields in the middle of the desert could solve all the world's energy needs at little cost or global warming contribution. We almost don't need to move on to the other sources!

(Although it might cost a mite too much to build and maintain a transmission grid to bring that energy to every corner of the continent... and it might make the countries that house the solar plants disproportionately powerful, bringing us "OPEC rules the world" all over again. Fortunately, one of those could be the California desert, which is already a center for the technology. And it's worth noting that standard solar panels can similarly benefit from being placed in the desert. Slap some solar panels on enough buildings in cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix and you could be powering much of the West Coast.)

Wave power is basically trying to harness the power of ocean waves, and obviously are limited in where they can be located, as they need to be placed out at sea, preferably in temperate zones. They're also currently expensive and woefully inefficient, but the only resource use is in construction. As technology progresses, wave power might be a viable option, and should remain available as long as there's wind. Tidal power is similar in many ways, and often resemble undersea wind operations. It's a very new technology that's still being worked on. (There is an older form but it's become rather controversial. I don't know, however, how the current technology might affect fish populations.)

Geothermal power looks to tap the earth's internal heat to generate power, and is perhaps third only to solar and wind in enthusiasm among renewable-energy pushers. Unfortunately, it has a number of problems, foremost among them for our purposes being that it still emits greenhouse gases, albeit fewer than fossil fuels. They can be pumped back into the earth but it still results in more emissions than the "none" from wind, solar, wave, and tidal. Also, it's by nature inefficient, it runs the risk of contaminating nearby water with dangerous substances, and it's not truly renewable, as overworking the site may require it to scale down production eventually. So that's not good enough.

Biofuels are not talked about much for electricity generation, but it's worth talking about them anyway. Biofuels still emit carbon dioxide when used as fuel, but it's carbon dioxide that would have gone into the atmosphere anyway (possibly with methane along for the ride). It's also carbon that the plant attained throughout its life, helping offset its own later release. (However, there may be concerns regarding whether it really is a net wash or gain.) For most plants, there are concerns that food prices could go up (which may already be happening), especially with how high population levels are rising, and the famed Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol program has raised concerns that rain forests could be chopped down to make room for cane fields.

The ideal solution would be to engage in a form of biofuel that wouldn't rob the food supply and possibly wouldn't require any new production at all. (If we made biofuel from a plant that wasn't fit for human consumption, do you plant the food crops or the fuel crops? This is a problem with the much-ballyhooed "cellulosic ethanol".) There's some interest in using biomass waste to produce energy (which would also stop the waste from being dumped into landfills), but is there enough of it to meet our energy needs? Harvesting algae for fuel also shouldn't rob our food supply, at least too much. So that's an idea with promise, although once again it's a ways from reaching the market, and there is some significant strain involved as demand rises.

Finally, hydropower dams don't use any resources but are location-dependent. More importantly, they can do a whole mess of harm to local ecosystems, and floods from reservoir creation can cause plants to give off methane and carbon dioxide, not to mention displace local populations. Also, dam failures can be catastrophic. If a wind or solar installation is the target of a terrorist attack, the only impact is the loss of power. If a dam is destroyed by terrorist attack, there's a bit bigger problem to deal with.

What about "clean coal"? To hear most environmentalists speak of it, it's little more than a con, woefully inefficient and vulnerable to the slightest failure.

So, solar energy alone can take care of most of our energy (here = electricity) needs with a clear conscience, with the rest to be taken care of by wave and tidal installations offshore (pending those technologies getting further developed) and wind farms in the heartland and in mountainous areas. We can get cracking on solar and wind installations right now, and we should. So we can meet our electricity needs without relying on fossil fuels or otherwise belching greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - there's a tremendous chunk of global warming emissions right there. (And if there are any criticisms I missed I welcome any challenges to my assumptions and will freely change my opinions if there is any new information.)

Can these same sources reduce our use of fossil fuels in other areas?

According to the EPA report I linked to Friday the main use of direct fossil fuel combustion in industry is to produce steam or heat that can then be channeled to other purposes. Residential and commercial uses are primarily for heating and cooking. We also still have transportation to get to.

The easiest thing to take care of could be heating homes and businesses - in addition to store-bought insulation you've probably heard of, solar energy can be channeled to warm any home, and an "earth-sheltered home" can also help protect you from the elements. Of course, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so living in naturally warm climates and designing houses to let in maximal sunlight are also desirable options. (Of course, living in places like LA, Phoenix and Las Vegas also means draining dwindling water supplies.) With our new green electricity future, it's now okay to use an electric stove and/or oven to cook, which leaves gas/propane/charcoal grills (and, if you're concerned enough about ecological impacts or the theoretically-offset carbon emissions, wood-fired stoves). Solar power can help us here as well, it turns out, at least if you're outdoors. Industry could be one of the toughest challenges - beyond electricity, fossil fuels are used in all sorts of applications - but most uses of combustion not already coming from electricity could, I imagine, be replaced by electricity, old-fashioned wind or water mills, or solar power. Or biomass if you consider that to be okay.

But transportation... how to fuel our cars and trucks... that could be a problem. It's possible to drive solar, but it's unlikely you could use it to carry any sort of load, and I don't know how possible it would be to drive at night. Basically, it's probably infeasible and looks silly. Wind cars sound nice, but because wind power works best at certain locations it would be way too unreliable. Wave, tidal, and hydroelectric power are obviously out of the question. What about previously rejected approaches? I'm not allowing millions of miniature nuclear reactors without workers ready to prevent meltdown on the roads, geothermal is obviously too tied down to a specific point, and biofuel has been covered above, with the conclusion that the only biofuel I'm not skeptical about is algae-based fuel, and even then I have some misgivings about the amount of land required to grow algae.

Hydrogen, in my view, is overhyped. It may be the most abundant element in the universe but most of the hydrogen on Earth is already in water; extracting hydrogen from water in order to turn it back into water is inherently inefficient and results in a net loss of energy, it's just simple thermodynamics. Its main competitor has long been to extract it from hydrocarbons, which requires more fossil fuel use and produces carbon monoxide, which then gets converted to carbon dioxide, which would then contribute to global warming. It may be possible to generate hydrogen from certain chemical reactions or from biological processes, though, but it may be way too far away from being market ready. After George W. Bush voiced his support for hydrogen at the 2003 State of the Union address, it's basically fallen out of favor and off the radar. And even beyond the difficulty of setting up the hydrogen economy, there's the much-ballyhooed "it only gives off water" argument that undercuts itself: It turns out that water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas that mostly isn't counted in emissions totals because it has unique properties that make it hard to accurately measure its impact on global warming.

So we can't use solar, wind, or water power, we might be able to use biofuel but only a specific kind that might be a ways away from being ready and even that's iffy, and hydrogen is for next century if ever. I give General Motors credit for putting out its plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt, which will allow us to take full advantage of the "greening" of the electrical grid to power our cars, and which won't need to use any oil within 40 miles. Only super-long commutes and long-distance trips would need to use an oil engine, and having electric-charging stations every 40 miles or so along major routes could solve that problem. But it looks to cost over $30,000 and possibly close to $40,000 (before government tax credits) - a fully-electric vehicle might be cheaper but might also substantially increase the load on our new green electric grid, requiring more solar power generators, more wind farms, more offshore wave/tidal facilities.

What if there was a form of transportation that would use almost zero resources on a per-person basis? One that would be clean for the environment and won't tie us to hostile nations, while also saving us loads of money? Sound overly optimistic? It's possible, and in some places it's already here... but it might require a substantial rethinking of the way we live and the way we perceive American cities.

I'll reveal what it is later in the week and possibly (probably?) as soon as tomorrow.