MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
President Obama is receiving praise for his fine-sounding speech at the Glacier Conference in Alaska Monday on the urgency of combating global warming. If the soaring rhetoric, reminiscent of Obama circa 2008, were married to concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I'd be happy to join the acclaim.
With July 2015 in the books as the hottest month recorded since accurate record-keeping began following on the heels of the hottest June and the hottest May, it is clear we must cut back immediately on our consumption of fossil fuels or we risk apocalypse in this century. The President certainly seems to get this. Here's how he described the near future if . . . well he didn't quite specify if anything but Obama warned:
[T]here’s not going to be a nation on this Earth that’s not impacted negatively. People will suffer. Economies will suffer. Entire nations will find themselves under severe, severe problems. More drought; more floods; rising sea levels; greater migration; more refugees; more scarcity; more conflict.
The problem is Obama's deeds are antithetical to his words. He declined to thwart Shell's plan to drill for oil in the Chuckchi Sea. Audubon Alaska calls this remote corner of the Arctic:
one of the most productive ocean ecosystems in the world. Its vast, shallow sea floor and seasonal ice cover provide nutrients and pristine habitat for a multitude of organisms, ranging from walruses to ice seals to whales to millions of seabirds to the top predator mammal, the polar bear.
Bottom line, if there's a spill lots of wildlife, including endangered megafauna, will die and it will take a long time and huge expenses to attempt remediation. Of course, even if there's no spill, the petroleum dredged from under the sea will do its damage to our planet's ecosystem when it's consumed.
Approving deep drilling by Shell in a critical region for walrus and polar bears, among other endangered species, is not the President's only hypocritical act with respect to the Arctic. He has also called for the construction of more icebreakers to allow the US to compete with Russia which is expanding its influence over the top of the world.
Now this is a truly insane move if you are serious about global warming. The Arctic is melting undoubtedly. The sea ice that was once feet deep is now merely inches in summer. By 2030, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer. Ice melt exacerbates global warming as the white snow and ice that reflect solar radiation give way to dark heat absorbing water.
The Obama administration's response: Let's send some icebreakers up there to chop up the remaining floes. Of course crushed ice melts much faster than ice cubes as anybody who's worked a soda fountain knows full well. Rather than trying to preserve the ice that remains as long as possible, we're going to rip right through it.
When examined in this light, even Obama's words lose their luster. While the President painted a grim future for Alaska if steps aren't taken now to curb climate change, the following words and phrases are nowhere to be found in his speech: coal, natural gas, oil, petroleum, greenhouse, global warming, fossil fuels. Early in it though Obama promised visiting dignitaries, " I want to be very clear -- we are eager to work with your nations on the unique opportunities that the Arctic presents" (emphasis supplied).
Imagine how much powerful the President's speech would have been if, after describing the parade of horribles to come should we continue on our present energy trajectory, he said the following:
Because we still can derail the onrushing global warming freight train, I have rescinded Shell's license to drill in the Arctic and am declaring the entire region under US control off limits to commercial development. We are also initiating emergency talks with Russia and other Arctic nations to protect for this and future generations the pristine nature of the top-of-the-world. We have made clear that we will not accept promises to act in the future or slow-walks away from plans to exploit the region. We are prepared to provide economic assistance to less-developed nations to ensure that impoverished majorities are not left behind.
But Obama said nothing of the kind. For our "progressive" President, the melting Arctic presents unique opportunities for corporations like Shell . . . for polar bears and walruses and Arctic whales, it will be their watery grave.
Comments
While I certainly share many of your misgivings, Hal, and question decisions made -- especially regarding Arctic drilling -- I must challenge your somewhat simplistic mention re: icebreakers.
The administration isn't just trying to "rip right through" the melting ice. It's not simply a ploy "to allow the US to compete with Russia". Did you read the NYT article on point to which you linked? It states:
The Governor of Alaska, Bill Walker, stated: Should the US sit back and watch as Russia and China take advantage of an opening opportunity? Because that is what the Arctic is right now, and it's an area that can be easily exploited ... but not only by the United States.by barefooted on Thu, 09/03/2015 - 10:54pm
The US should not sit back. As I wrote the President should have said something like this:
The last thing we should do is to concede the Arctic to be yet another theater where we compete with Russia and other countries. Instead, we should leverage our economic and military power to close the theater to all but the unique and valuable species that evolved over eons to live and thrive in its unique environment.
by HSG on Fri, 09/04/2015 - 8:55am
I don't generally pay attention when lay people attempt presidential speech writing. Especially when their opinion is placed in blockquotes as though to lend authenticity and substance to something clearly not a quote.
Unlike me, here, quoting you:
What sort of military leverage do you have in mind regarding Russia, et al, and their Arctic agenda?by barefooted on Fri, 09/04/2015 - 9:13pm
Barefooted - The snarky tone you employ in this comment and elsewhere in response to my blogs tells me that you are not interested in a conversation about the costs of drilling and icebreaking in the Arctic and how we can avoid them or, at a minimum, reduce them. Instead, it certainly appears to me that you are looking to undermine my entire argument, and by extension me, with a "gotcha" question. If I am wrong and you are interested in a dialogue in which we agree 1) to respect each other's positions, so long as they are backed with evidence, 2) to listen to counter-arguments, and 3) to be willing to reconsider our positions if the evidence so warrants, I will be happy to respond to your question.
by HSG on Fri, 09/04/2015 - 9:44pm
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 09/04/2015 - 11:26pm
The basic premise of those defending the President's decision to authorize Shell to drill in the Chukchi Sea and to employ more icebreakers in the Arctic is that we need to respond economically and militarily to the increased Russian presence in the Arctic. It is therefore ironic in the extreme that those same Obama defenders criticize me for calling for an economic and military response to the increased Russian presence in the Arctic.
-----------
I'm moving on from this particular blog unless somebody raises a new line of inquiry or challenge. But - dear friends and foes (metaphorically only of course) - no need to worry, I'll be posting something new soon. Don't forget everything posted here and lots more besides is at www.halginsberg and enjoy your Labor Day weekend!
by HSG on Sat, 09/05/2015 - 9:31am
I don't believe that asking what you mean by military leverage over other countries constitutes a "gotcha" question. But since you do, it will just have to sit there unanswered.
The issue of the need for icebreakers in the Arctic is not only complicated, but long-term. It's the closest thing to truly unchartered territory that we've seen in decades, and it's wide open. There are eight countries in the Article Council: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the US - our voice in what happens is but one, but is among the most important for environmental standards. The scientific work alone is unimaginable, as the marine life was until fairly recently underneath layers of ice. "Recent" is relative, of course, and the US is far behind. Do you think Russia is concerned with environmental pollution or undeveloped nations? The BBC reports:
And finally, here's what the White House has to say.by barefooted on Sat, 09/05/2015 - 1:50am
(1) Your own 'thwart' link says that if Obama held up Shell it would be temporary and: whatever administration follows Obama could reopen the area to drilling, and wouldn’t necessarily be as inclined to include the limitations and regulations Obama claims his administration is requiring.
(2) 85 -90% of Alaska state revenue comes from oil, and the money and the oil is decreasing. Much of the money goes directly to all Alaskan citizens as a Permanent Fund dividend, and it is particularly important for Native Alaskans for their often poverty level family budgets. The State budget also supports rural health care and patient transportation in the huge state, expensive permafrost proof village schools, construction and upkeep of remote runways for aircraft and also mitigation of climate caused erosion in Native Alaskan villages in coastal regions.
(3) The oil comes through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline which is running at 25% capacity and decreasing. Shell would use the pipeline to get its oil to market. The pipeline needs the oil and the heat of pumped oil to extend its lifetime.
(4) On climate, Obama's designation of CO2 as a gas that can be regulated is unprecedented in the US, and could represent one of the biggest actions taken by the US government to slow climate change. link.
by NCD on Fri, 09/04/2015 - 7:44pm
Thanks NCD for your response. Here's my reply:
1) It's true the next President could reopen the Arctic but Hillary Clinton (whose poll numbers - after a welcome (to me) lull - have rebounded strongly) has said she's against drilling there. If she wins the Presidency and President Obama had rescinded Shell's permit, there probably would not be drilling in the Chukchi Sea. In any case, the possibility that his successor would do the wrong thing in the future doesn't justify Obama doing the wrong thing now. Again, he could and should educate people about why drilling in the Arctic is a terrible idea thereby pressuring the next President to perpetuate his legacy of a commercial-free Arctic.
Regarding the possibility that less protective regulations might be imposed on Shell and other future drillers, this is from the ThinkProgress article, we both cite:
"But even th[e current] regulations might not be as stringent as Obama claims. [NRDC's Niel] Lawrence called the regulations a “red herring” in an email to ThinkProgress, explaining that for 2015, there are no new safety requirements with which Shell must comply. "
2) Yes the oil money does benefit the state of Alaska and its people. But it's a devil's bargain. The federal and state governments green light short and long-term environmental devastation in order to fund essential social programs. The idea that we could fund those programs by raising taxes on the rich and bringing jobs back to America, rather than selling off the last frontier to short-timers, is (I guess) a little too commie-pinko.
3) Your point is the Trans-Alaska pipeline needs the oil or it will become moribund. But, if we don't allow Shell and other multinationals to extract the oil in the Arctic Circle then neither we nor they will need the pipeline.
4) Obama has taken some very positive environmental steps. And, he generally does say the right things, although as I point out he never mentions carbon dioxide, petroleum, natural gas, or coal in his Glacier Conference speech. He does talk about "opportunities" in the Arctic though. Much more importantly, when it comes to the Arctic he's done wrong.
by HSG on Fri, 09/04/2015 - 8:36pm
Obama has previously protected the huge Alaskan Bristol Bay watershed from oil and gas drilling, and early this year he declared the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a Wilderness Area, which precludes drilling on the eastern North Slope or in the Brooks Range with or without Congressional approval, see Republicans Declare War, WaPo.
And on the Chukchi Sea drilling a different take than yours:
by NCD on Fri, 09/04/2015 - 9:50pm
NCD - here are a few sentences from the Sierra Club's Executive Director Michael Brune's response to Obama's decision last month:
Your quote comes from the Houston Chronicle's fuelfix.com which is described by talkingbiznews.com as "an energy industry website".
I find the Sierra Club to be far more credible on this issue than an energy industry website. Do you?
by HSG on Fri, 09/04/2015 - 10:04pm
I know the site is by the energy industry. I said it was a different take. I assume the restriction to one well is correct, as is the $7 billion invested in getting to drill one exploratory well.
Obama is President of the U.S. not the Sierra Club, of which I have been a member for over 20 years. He has other constituencies to consider and we are talking about one well. There are a lot more still operating off Santa Barbara.
Oil companies and revenue are important to the state of Alaska as I pointed out, and Obama has set aside more coast from drilling there than any other President to my knowledge.
by NCD on Sat, 09/05/2015 - 12:27am
Obama is President of the U.S. which includes 350 million people and among them the owners and executives of tobacco companies and gun manufacturers. I would greatly prefer that he and Congress especially did not take their preferences into account when making decisions about regulating tobacco and guns. Likewise, decisions about how to slow global warming and preserve the Arctic are probably best made without the input of those whose actions are most responsible for the former and putting at risk the latter.
by HSG on Sat, 09/05/2015 - 9:21am
One exploratory well in the Chukchi Sea nothing to do with guns or tobacco.
We don't know what 'input' Obama had from the oil industry, we do know they, and the Alaska state gov't, 'declared war' over his decisions on ANWR wilderness/coastal plain and his restrictions in Chukchi Sea.
by NCD on Sat, 09/05/2015 - 3:44pm
Did you even read the link you POSTED: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/28/3663715/obama-twitter-chat-arctic-drilling/ you described as Obama's reluctance to "thwart" Shell's plan... You may disagree with his take on this (you obviously do), but the President has seriously addressed this issue.
You seem to be simply dissatisfied with everything, and not to have any respect for the complicated ness of it all. You don't like Obama you don't like Hillary Clinton, you don't find anything to say except whiney complaints about everyone who doesn't go along with every word that you like.
You are really more like a left-wing Tea Partier than anything else. You tire me out you are just too effing predictable
by CVille Dem on Fri, 09/04/2015 - 7:49pm
Thanks CVille Dem. I appreciate the criticism and will work to be a little less effing predictable in the future.
by HSG on Fri, 09/04/2015 - 8:37pm