6.24.2005

Carbon Tax to Save the Environment

It is time to talk about a very scary subject for politicians. CARBON TAX! A means of controlling carbon pollution. A means of avoiding what could be an environmental catastrophe. The two words are some of the most avoided words in Washington, mostly due to the coal industry's strangle hold on energy production. This isn't a partisan issue either; current Bush, Clinton, and past Bush all avoided any form of carbon tax like the plague. The issue is not going away though, in fact it is becoming more and more important every minute coal production increases. As much as politicians would like to stick their heads in the ground like ostriches, we (the public) need to call for a reasonable solution that both heals the catastrophic effects of coal production, but doesn’t destroy an industry that provides jobs to thousands.

American production of coal is increasing, and according to the EIA, is not only projected to increase, but increase faster “Overall, our current expectation is for coal production in 2005 to grow more rapidly than it did in 2004.” Currently the U.S. is only 5% of the world’s population, but accounts for 20% of anthropogenic (human caused) emissions. The primary “greenhouse” gas is carbon dioxide, and it is easy to see the problem with coal when you realize it is made up of 60-80% carbon. Sulfur and nitrogen oxide are also produced, but big steps have been taken to reduce sulfur emissions by 33% despite growth in total production increasing 50%. Carbon dioxide has made no such progress however, mainly because the carbon in coal is the primary source of heat when burned.

The EIA in it’s annual report published this April shows that coal in America is used almost entirely for electricity at over 90%, totaling 52.5% of the American power sector. In order to reduce the emissions caused by coal, one or a combination of three things needs to happen:

A. Supplement/replace coal with renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar
B. Increase uranium based nuclear(0% carbon), natural gas (20% carbon), or oil (40-50%) energy.
C. Develop better methods of energy production from coal by investing in new technologies.

Unfortunately, renewable energy sources are just not up to the task yet. In a plain matter of speaking, it would be wonderful if we could cover the earth with solar panels and windmills, but on a cost basis the market will not support it because of the fiscal ease of coal production. Although nuclear energy doesn’t produce any greenhouse emissions, the inability to properly dispose of the nuclear waste still any left-wing liberal scream bloody murder; politically, nuclear and natural gas based energy see very little success, as Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research explains in a conversation on the future of energy:

…if you want the U.S. politics, you can just go on our walk-through--natural gas, oil, and coal--and ask yourself--I mean, this is the country that has coal in West Virginia, in many Democratic places, and we have never been willing to touch coal. We will suppress uranium, but we burn more coal. We'll flip back and forth on natural gas, but we burn more coal. You know our energy policy, the core of our energy policy since 1980, when all is said and done, has nothing to do with anything except coal. We have burned more coal and still more coal. We are burning a billion tons a year of coal, and we're not about to change that. It's politically very powerful.

So we’re left with relying on coal producing companies to develop technologies to reduce their carbon dioxide output? It doesn’t take long to figure out that that won’t happen. Currently there are no restrictions on carbon emissions in the U.S. Which leads me to the two dirty words, carbon tax.

A tax on carbon would isolate the responsibility on the market. Say a tax is implemented, the coal industry would be forced to react, investing in lower emissions plants and better burning techniques. Although environmentally sound, it does not bode well for the coal industry, and with their political clout is not very likely. To sweeten the deal, I prefer the ideas of Paul Roberts, who suggests implementing a tax 20 years down the road, and in the meantime subsidizing the coal industries in order help them develop the technology.

at some point we need to say, "Look markets, avoid carbon, but do it any way you want. If you could find a way to convert tar sands into fuel and take the carbon out and do it cost effectively, great. We don't really care. Just do it. If you can find some other way to produce energy and then lower your carbon emissions, great. We don't care."

On the plus sides, the subsidies will in the long run be paid off by future tax. Nuclear and natural gas industries will support such a tax because it has little or no effect on them. But most importantly, it will reduce our carbon emissions to a reasonable level.

If this issue continues to go unnoticed in the public eye, the consequences could be catastrophic. According to scenarios created by the U.N. Environment Programme’s Vital Change Graphics Update (PDF 5.5mb) the on average result in temperature rise for the year 2100 is 3°C (5.4F), with some scenarios reaching as high as 5.8°C (10.4F). These same projections show an average sea level rise of about .3 meters (1 foot), going as high as .8 meters (2.4 feet). In turn this can lead to a threat of coastal populaces, decrease in croplands, increase of extreme events, and an extension of areas of parasitic diseases.

It is our responsibility now to make sure that those scenarios do not come true. It is our responsibility both as a giant in production and consumption of carbon based energy sources, but also as a country with the means to mend the world-effecting wounds we have inflicted. We as a country are up to the challenge. We are the richest country in the world, but that is no excuse for being the dirtiest.

6.21.2005

Big Brother's Smoking Gun

Today, a survey came out revealing unflattering information on the justice department. The American Library Association conducted a survey of libraries across the country, and information showed over 268 different cases where the Justice Department requested data concerning citizens reading habits. This goes in the face of 48 states, which have laws against such behavior, and 2 more which frown upon it. In reply, the Justice Department claimed the information was "manufactured as a result of misinformation." They irony of the Justice Department wailing about misinformation is staggering.

Is this surprising after Bush pushed the Patriot Act, creating a grey area over a huge number of formally illegal investigative practices? I truly believe some people just assumed the government would be tactful, respectful, and use the power mindfully. Try pleading that case in Guantanamo Bay. To assume that the Justice Department has your best interests at heart is no different than assuming the same of your insurance company, or your HMO.

A perfect example is the aforementioned Guantanamo Bay. Despite worldwide requests for its shutdown, and amid a smearing, orgy of evidence pointing towards malpractice, the Justice Department has turned a blind eye to the world, again. Instead, they replied with hideously backwards logic, suggesting that if Guantanamo Bay was shut down, another prison of its likeness would have to be built elsewhere. Basically, they’re asserting the idea that this Stalin’esqe approach to justice is a necessity. The very idea that as a country America can only prosecute international criminals with torture and forced confessions can make a person sick.

So why would the Justice Department stand up pig-headedly against a worldwide assault? Look no further than Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney. Its no secret Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton up until his nomination as Vice President, however I’m sure he wishes the $500 million contract Halliburton received to build a new prison could be kept secret. This of course pales in comparison to the $7 billion no-bid RIO contract KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, was granted in Iraq (making the total Iraq-war Halliburton business $18 billion), but the feeling is that of throwing gasoline on the fire.

Conclusions can’t help be drawn that motive and precedence points towards Halliburton, and ultimately Cheney. With a track record like Halliburton’s, the company can be seen as a usual suspect for any shadowy support of business, no matter how damaging, as long as they see dollar signs:

Early 90’s - Pleaded guilty to accusations of violating trade barriers in Iraq and Libya
2001 - Acknowledged opening an office for the subsidiary HPS in Tehran, despite economic sanctions in Iran
2003 – Publicly acknowledged paying a Nigerian official $2.4 million in bribes for tax favors
2002-2004 - Forced to pay $4 billion in asbestos related legal action

Obviously, if the money is there Halliburton has no morals when it comes to opportunity. And what better opportunity then a major manufacturing contract to construct another prison. Icing on the cake is the fact that the prison is designed to imprison non-other then the grey area suspects the Justice Department can hold inevitably, all while maintaining patriotic invincibility. Is it so hard to believe then, that Cheney, who has been called the prime minister of this administration, is capable of trying to look up our library records? On a much more important note, we can now recognize the ‘prime ministers’ outlook on personal liberty as not a sacrifice for increased security, but a sacrifice for increased investment in security. It is time to close Guantanamo down, time to get FBI agents out of our libraries, but more importantly its time to realize that a guilty-for-now justice system is not a system at all. It is a business venture.

"All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field."
-Albert Einstein

-Information on Halliburton and Dick Cheney obtained from Wikipedia

6.19.2005

Yellow Elephant

Having slept 6 of the last 72 hours, I must keep this short. I recently stumbled across the hilariously satirical blog of the self-proclaimed General. The General is devoted to “helping” College Republicans improve their image, by not appearing yellow. In order to repair this reputation, he insists upon their enlistment in the Army ASAP. I whole-heartedly agree that this is a fantastic idea. While they’re at it, why not their children and siblings, too. Anything in the name of freedom and patriotism!

In aide to the General, John of Goose The Blog has designed a tag (underneath my ‘plugs’ sidebar) that can be pinned to your blog.

6.18.2005

Agreement

I agree with Mr. Bush. Amazed yet? I agree with his statement that "all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror." He's right, and here's why.

The people are terrified! I don't blame them one bit. If the largest military in the world rolls into my country, throws candy at my kids on the streets and then starts bombing my neighborhood I'd be full of terror, too. I imagine I might also be a tiny bit confused. Confused as to why the military was there in the first place. That confusion isn't just reserved for the Iraqi's either, it's felt around the world. 51% Americans are not only confused now, but disagree with the decision to go into Iraq in the first place, according to a NY Times/CBS poll. Last time I checked 51% is a majority.

Bush was also quoted as saying the war"..will not be accomplished overnight." Which brings up my next question, how many nights is it going to take? I'm waiting for him to jump into an infomercial-type pitch:

"You can have sculpted abs in just SECONDS a day! 1800 seconds a day is all you need! Call now!"

For just nights a year, you can have a war on terror. But thats ok, this won't be a presidential issue in a couple weeks anyway. Just like social security was a huge issue for a couple months, then he realized it wasn't popular and ditched it. But wait, wait a second.. oh yah this is war, shucks. I guess you can't just ditch a war. Gonna hav'ta stick her out I reckon. You have to give credit where its due in the Bush administration though. They completely intrench themselves in a war with no exit strategy, and then fly the flag of stability. Of course you're stable, you're not going anywhere. If I shot myself in the foot I don't think I'd move much either. Now if we could just get him to take his other foot and stick it in his mouth, well then we would be getting somewhere.

6.17.2005

Freedom Fries

One of the headlines on CNN.com today includes Republican Walter Jones of NC (a supporter of the tremendously successful "freedom fries) claiming that it is time to begin "debate" on the subject of bringing American troops home.

"We believe it is time to have this debate and this discussion on this resolution."

13,700 casualties later, good timing! 200 billions dollars later, good timing! Losing support in the war, even better timing! What better time for a republican to speak out against the war then when people start to realize how bad it really is. Is this how we're going to conduct war in the future? Preemptive action that leads to huge sums of money and even more importantly lives lost, all until people decide "hey this isn't as easy as we thought it would be," then just pull the plug on it? In between assassinations and suicide bombs and protests and battles... and. In between all of it, maybe people have come to the conclusion that not only is it not going well, but it was a bad idea to begin with.

I'll admit I'm biased, both of my parents, despite their divorce, are unanimously against war. Can you blame them? Do you call them unpatriotic? Are they "wimps?" and if they are, what are you? Are you a blame laying, patriotic, super-hero? I sit here, and I listen to Miles Davis on my MP3 player, while typing this article on an Apple notebook. I can't even, and won't try, to comprehend what life is outside the box of America. The box of capitalist wonder. The box that is our everyday picket fence lives. I look outside that box, and the first thing I do is inform people outside of the box that its nice and warm inside, with network TV and home shopping networks. Comfort. But the last thing I would ever do is force the idea that it is warmer and more entertaining inside. I don't need to pull people inside my box, if they want to come they're perfectly welcome. If someone has a not-so-pleasant box surrounding other people, well then its up to those people to determine whether they want in the box I'm in. My box is welcoming, but not forceful. Patriotism includes the idea that people should want to love their own country, and fix it as they see fit. Whether that fixing includes the elimination of major leaders or not is up to them. My idea of a country is representational, but not demanding. Too bad my ideals go unnoticed. Too bad for everybody but me and my conscious.

So now here we are, however many lives later, however much longer, and however many people crying for every, any, and all reasons later. People crying for lost lives, lost homes, and lost livelihoods. I don't know this from witnessing it first hand, but I know it all the same because with war it is beyond denial.

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

6.13.2005

Sifting Pans

More and more lately, I've been digging farther and farther. I'm a forty-niner in California, digging for gold. I dig and I sift and every once in awhile I'll find a nugget that I'll clean real well, polish off and take a look at, only to realize its no different then what’s sitting in my sifter. So I keep at it, I go buy better shovels and bigger sifting pans. I read books on different techniques, testimonials on the success stories. All the while, I find more nuggets and toss them back, knowing they aren't right. Oh I've found plenty of gold: basketball, the grocery business, hell even poker. They all could be gold if I wanted them to be. But I need the perfect piece. The piece I can live with the rest of my life.

My quest for a métier now personified, my latest nugget of gold is photography. A field so developed and swollen, I feel like I'm too late. I am chronically searching for the egg that hasn't been broken, some phenomenon that people haven't caught on to yet. But everywhere I look: omelets. So instead, I decided to look at the lifestyle I wanted, the kind of life I wanted to live, and then consider some nuggets of gold that can be applied to it. I want a life that has no bounds, and I don't mean wealth. Wealth is meaningless to me. I want to travel, to see, and expose what I've seen to others. Photography seemed like a logical choice, and so did writing. I've written for as long as I can remember about everything I can't remember, and I'll continue to do so. But I don't feel as though I'd like to make writing my only trade, not unless I got a taste for what that really means. I've always hated the idea of being forced to write about something I personally wasn't interested in. I don't want to force expression. Enter: photography.

It has been around me for quite some time, both my brother and I have almost always had some sort of crappy camera or another. Whether it be the huge purple colored brick with the grey strap, or our grandfathers SLR and telephoto. My mother was also quite the photographer, producing some impressive prints that should have brought more recognition. So this is not some outlandish pipe-dream I cooked up, it isn't hard to foresee me in this field. However, I wasn't quite prepared for how vast a field it can be.

Anybody can go buy a digital point and shoot, snap 150 photos of sunsets and their dog, and be a photographer. That’s all well and good, but its not for me. I am not content with being able to do something; I need to be able to do it well. I want to take pictures that tell stories, pictures that need no footnote. So now I'm doing what every fledgling photographer probably does, taking pictures of everything. The microwave, can of diet coke, the way a network cable is draped across the counter. Then I throw them into the dark room of the 21st century, Photoshop. If I was already humble, now I'm not worthy. Just the help file for the program is longer then most American classics. I have two books on the program, but they’re as arduous to read as a dictionary, constantly forcing me to see: this, and see: that. But where I was three years ago, I am not today. I no longer have to be ‘in the mood’ to do something, I can convince myself that is probably in my best interest, and to go do it. I read 150 pages of the fantastic bookBlink in one sitting today, not because I was passionately driven to, but because I knew I’d be happy when I finished it. I don’t have a false impression that I can ever be “finished” with photography, but I do know I can climb my way to the top of it’s staggering learning curve. Once I do that, I’ll be able to acclimatize and cruise freely. That is my pay dirt.

Then I'll put down my sifting pans, and write a testimonial on a success story of my own.

6.07.2005

The biggest change to the PC market.. ever

The tech world was officially surprised a couple of days ago, when it was revealed that Apple was actually going to switch to Intel processors in the next two years. Not often in this age of rumors and assuming do things actually shock tech junkies anymore, but this one most definitely did. Don't get me wrong, there have been rumors of Apple switching to an x86 platform for some time now, but none of them have ever developed into anything, not until now.

So what does this mean? Should everyone run out and sell their Apple stock? Will their PC sales will diminish over the next year? Why not AMD instead of Intel?

First, I agree with Anand of www.anandtech.com that it will not hurt their sales, because of all the companies that can make a transition as large as this one, Apple and Intel have the best chance of anyone. Apple promises a transition implementing first in 2006, and then again the following year in higher end products by 2007. They promise software support for the PowerPC processor in their current computers for "a long time," and I believe them. All this means that if you're in absolute need of an Apple computer right now, you're not going to be hurt long term if you buy one, so their sales won't be hurt too much. Plus everyone knows the real driving force behind Apple right now, and thats the Ipod.

The next big question is why not AMD over Intel. As Steve Jobs said in his keynote at the WWDC, Intel offered the best "Performance per watt," which is just weird.. Actually right now and for awhile, AMD has offered the best performance per watt, and I dare you to find a hardcore tech site that doesn't recommend AMD. But while that is true, Apple I'm sure looked at a few more things, all of them being long term. Intel has a huge market share, despite AMD climbing the ranks, Intel remains dominant. This is largely due to a huge marketing budget and the already established security in markets around the world. Next, the ability to structure a deal of this magnitude, with benefits for both sides, was probably just not in the range of AMD's pocketbook. Lastly, Apple is looking very long term here, so if in the next 6 months or even year, if AMD holds on to the performance crown, it shouldn't concern Apple. Intel will eventually probably get it back, then lose it again. Thus is competition. One thing however I think a lot of people have missed is the mobile dominance Intel has with their Centrino notebooks. Just in the last weeks it was shown for the first time that notebooks outsold desktops, and clearly right now Intel's Pentium M processors are the best solution for size and speed. Thats just icing on the cake for Apple, who thrives on sleek, small, and simple designs. -2 points for using alliteration-

My personal feel on this is mostly indifferent. I already blew my budget on this new Apple Powerbook a couple of months ago, and I'm very happy with the purchase. I will admit a twinge of resentment for having not known that I could have waited and got a Pentium M processor in a year or so, which will absolutely crush this notebook when it comes to performance. But in reality, there was nothing I could do about it, I would be absolutely lost at school next fall without a computer, and I think this choice will suit me very well in the coming years. As for Apple and Intel, I'm caught with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I am supremely confident that this will stretch Apple's share in the computer market to what it hasn't seen in over a decade, and for that I am very pleased because Microsoft is a joke, and needs a kick in the pants. Who knows, maybe they'll be able to crank out some decent software in the next few years. The mixed feelings however, come from the fact that Intel is the collaborator, instead of AMD. I don't like any monopolies, but if I had to pick my poison I'd absolutely pick Intel over Microsoft. Most of that comes from the fact that Intel actually developed and designed a lot of the technology that brought their success, whereas Microsoft used adapted ideas and bullying to create theirs.

I know for a lot of people this crap doesn't matter, "oh its not a big deal.." but this will probably be the biggest swing in modern computer technology we have ever seen. For the first time Intel will be able to develop platform specific hardware, with a thriving and adaptable Apple community. This will allow for technologies that previously might have been shoved aside due to lack of backwards compatibility, community support, or fear of market loss, to be fully developed. David and Goliath decided to partner up and fight crime.


I can't wait.

6.04.2005

Settling In

I'm just starting to settle in here, although I was comfortable I wasn't quite in the groove yet. My ass hadn't made any imprints on the couch yet, and I hadn't quite accepted my complete lack of responsibility. Now that I have, my laziness is in full swing; I save my energy for the golf course and mountain biking.

My bike was finally shipped to me, to which I owe my brother a great debt. At the very least, it was a harrowing experience. My bike is like my child, every minute that I don't know where it is, I'm on edge. And for me to accept the fact that it was going to be traveling 900 miles, all in UPS's hands, well that didn't calm me down at all. Even the guy who delivers to the house threw it on the ground while I glared at him secretly from the window. But upon inspection of the frame, handlebars and forks, it seemed to be right as rain and I threw it together. After a complete clean/lube/overhaul, I took it out and scared the hell out of myself on some dilapidated back-country roads. It handles great, this being my first real test of its off-road ability, I just wish my tires were designed for this style of terrain, not the wilderness style I'm used to.

Sorry, I know I just devoted a paragraph to my bike (I also uploaded a picture of it on my flickr account, click the link at top), but just think of me as the brutally annoying new parents that are so impressed with their new baby, you have no choice but to appease them and be impressed, too.

A couple mornings ago I had an interesting altercation with an unwanted house guest. I woke up, Jake had gone to work and left the door open for his dog, Max. Well in doing so, anyone and anything can get in, including birds. So I hear a flutter in the bathroom, and sure enough there's a bird in the house. I don't know what it is about something in close quarters that can fly, but I'll be honest and say that for a couple seconds I was truly freaked out. I've been around bears and almost trampled by Elk in Colorado, but for some reason this little bird that weighed no more then 10 oz's, set off butterflies in my stomach. It camped out on the rafters for awhile (flickr), then proceeded to head butt a few windows before I was able to shoo it out. I haven't had many other wildlife sightings, save a few 3-foot snakes and a moth half the size of a dollar bill. No cougars in the trees yet, although I'm still waiting in anticipation.

I did however just finish Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughter House Five." For those that don't know, you should. The book is a maverick, first-hand outlook on the Dresden fire bombings, which is said to have cost around 120,000 lives. The German city was completely non-military, at most producing medicines and food for soldiers, and for this reason was never a target by the American Air Force. Before its destruction it was considered one of the most beautiful cities on earth. Late in World War II however, with V1s and V2s aimed at London, and Germans fighting to the last man, we (I say we because I'm an American, as are probably most of those who read this, and am willing to take responsibility 60 years after the fact) decided to bomb it using incendiary bombs. The whole city burned to the ground, melting families taking cover in their inadequate bomb shelters. So much press was given to how deadly nuclear arms can be, killing 80,000 in Hiroshima in a single blow, but little is ever said about Dresden. In fact, most accounts of the war glanced over it, because it was not something to be running around happily bragging about. I'm not discounting the firepower of a nuclear bomb, I just think it goes back to the people kill people argument. A machine gun will kill a lot of people in a short time, but if there are enough pistols to go around, just as many people are going to fall.

Always nice to end on a happy note.

6.01.2005

Link to the past

This is an unedited little burst of writing I completely forgot I wrote while on the plane to San Francisco:

------

May 26 ‘05

6:55 AM

Cruising at.. whatever thousand feet. High enough that I won’t limp away, that much is for sure. On the leg between Portland and San Francisco; I hate flying. Its sad that over time time spent in the airport has slowly increased, like we’re regressing. Is it safe to say that we saw the prime of travel by air pass us by already? I hope not.. I plan including travel in my career, and I don’t want to have to put up with this crap endlessly.

I don’t know why I’m so sadistic right now, maybe it’s the lack of sleep, or the flying. Maybe its this new System of a Down album I’m listing to. Regardless, I feel like this is the storm before the calm. I just want to be there. Its not that any one incident today was a straw on my back, but just the continuous onslaught of inconvenience.

How far are we from wireless capabilities in jets; more importantly how much of a price premium will it be. I can’t write anymore, I can always write with every motion except this one: angst. I feel like I don’t deserve this, this inconvenience. Even though that is so supremely selfish of me, I just plain don’t care. Maybe I’ll need to just get over myself before I start stressing myself out, I can already feel it coming on.

------

I was so tired that morning from not sleeping I barely remember writing that.