Thursday, April 18, 2019

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

1) Mountains of coal have been turned into CO2
2) CO2 makes it harder for Earth to cool down
3) Are we allowed to make Earth hotter?
The people living on the margins have not agreed to have their habitat, their weather, their lives, disrupted. It is time to stop CO2 emissions, and time to start reversing the damage we have already done.

You say that you can't reverse the damage you have already done,
and you need to do more? Unfortunately, that would be wrong.

Case 1: Juliana vs the US: the kids are complaining.
Case 2: Mosquito migration sickens thousands in Bangladesh

Saturday, March 23, 2019

What?

We look at each other, embarrassed. Nobody knows what to say.
Do we need glaciers?
Do we need oceans, coral?
Yes? No?

Thursday, March 21, 2019

It's us?

How are Americans making Earth hotter?

Earth's climate is delicately balanced, for starters. It does not take much. The climate has always had changes, all by itself, and large changes. It has been, for the most part, very much hotter. Our current pleasant climate is not the norm. This may be our first "climate crisis". May our civilization please survive to have a second one.

Earth began 4500 million years ago. Forget about 90% of it, which included Hothouse Earth and Snowball Earth, and cyanobacteria. Let's just think about the most recent million, the last 2% of the last 1%. We have ice cores that go back that far, because the last million years has been a series of ice ages. Recently have we entered a stable "inter-glacial", called the Holocene, where the ice has retreated to the poles.
In that last million, the last ten thousand years, the last 1%, called the Holocene, have been wonderful. The stable climate has allowed for the growing of wheat, and the development of civilization, and the internet.

For context, Wonderful Life, the Cambrian explosion, began 0500 million years ago. There have been many extinction "events", where, due to bad weather, most life died. Might our climate become hostile? Oh yes, indeed! The sun is busy trying to fry us to a crisp, while Earth, like a blueberry pie fresh from the oven, is trying like mad to cool off. Meanwhile, we pour CO2 into the atmosphere, pushing the temperature higher and higher. Now we can see the danger of doing that, or that there is danger in doing that. We could break something.

Climatologists warn us that we humans have been messing with the climate, and we have done that because cheap power has made us richer than kings. (But we are worth it, aren't we?) Atmospheric CO2 levels, which for a million years varied between 200 and 300 ppm, are now above 400 and rising.

Two degrees, in context
For the last 2000 years, the Greenland average surface temperature, as best we can tell, has varied one degree up or down. Climate scientists are creating scenarios that include temperature increases of eight [8] degrees. Brave New World.

We are running an unplanned experiment on the only world we have, betting our only marble on a course of action that benefits some, but puts at risk everyone and everyone's kids. Plentiful cheap energy is the goose that lays a golden egg, but there is a downside. We have been slowly destabilizing the climate.

You have humans. Luckily, it doesn't last long.


What shall we do? A couple of options.
1) Business As Usual, and
2) Apollo-13.
Business as usual means the First World will off-load the damage and the risk of damage onto everybody else, and we will muddle through.
Apollo-13 means stop all emissions of CO2. Get in the Lunar Lander, and have Mission Control try to calculate a plan within the energy budget that allows us to parachute back to a safe Earth. Thoughts and prayers.


Political action, united political action, seems to be the only hope for avoiding major damage. To others, but to ourselves as well.

Here are some "actions" that are delusional.
There is talk about "clean coal" or about "carbon capture" but this is a fantasy, far from ready to be used at scale, even though all IPCC plans assume it. Just think of the numbers: to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, by just 1 ppm, you need to remove 8 billion metric tons of CO2. And stash it some place. Here are two good people, from COP21, Paris 2015, talking about that.

All the same, "What shall we do?"
1. Stop burning gasoline and natural gas (Walk. Wear a housecoat.)
2. Stop eating meat!
3. Reduce energy use. Turn of some breakers.
4. Join Extinction Rebellion.
5. Do not pollute the air, water, or soil.
6. Speak up. Tell your kids. Be an extremist.

Let's re-enact the American Revolution; live like they lived.
Low carbon.

Spoiler alert. Here is the way it ends.
It is a modern version of "How to trap a monkey".
Hint: You have to let go of the banana.
CO2 goal for 2020: 0.0 million metric tons. Let go.

Q: Why are these men smiling? A: They don't know.

Grasses v. trees for removing CO2

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Heating the ocean delays the heating of the atmosphere

The way you hold steady the energy content of any body in space is to ensure that any energy gained is matched by energy lost. In the context of Earth, and Earth's climate, it means that the sun is busy heating up Earth during the day, and at night Earth is busy getting rid of all that heat. But this interest with differences in heat is only with differences of heat at the surface of Earth; what happens in the molten core is of no interest. And, as for the surface, the interest is only with air temperature. Air temperature is what gives rise to the Global Average Surface Temperature, and that is the variable that we seem to care about, and track.

In the "climate change" scenario, when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it upsets this balance between energy gained and energy lost, by reducing Earth's ability to cool down heated air. But as Earth gets hotter, its ability to radiate heat away is increased [that's just Stephan-Boltzmann], so that a balance can again be restored, although now at a higher temperature.

But this way of looking at the mechanics of climate change seems incomplete. It is true enough that the change in heat is equal to heat gained minus heat lost, for Earth, as a unit of analysis, or for the atmosphere, as a unit of analysis. And it is true enough that when the atmosphere loses heat to outer space, heat is lost from both the atmosphere and from Earth. What is not mentioned is that when the atmosphere loses heat to the ocean, that heat is not lost to Earth. This upsets the equilibrium of Earth, even if the Global Average Surface Temperature does not reflect it.

For the atmosphere over the ocean, the problem with the equilibrium of Earth, as measured by Global Average Surface Temperature, is even clearer. Some solar radiation over the ocean is reflected and not absorbed, so that has no effect on the energy content of the ocean, or of the air, or of Earth. But solar radiation that penetrates into the ocean and is absorbed, loses heat by conduction, not by infrared radiation, so that this solar radiation tends to warm the ocean. That warming has been reported, and measured, and that warming causes expansion of water, leading to sea level rise. But that is not the point. The point is that the heat is retained, not radiated away into space. It is upsetting the equilibrium of Earth; Earth has gained heat, and this will, at some point, change the Global Average Surface Temperature.

The claim that increases in CO2 levels have a long term pressure on temperature implies that some mechanism exists to delay Earth coming to equilibrium, and this stashing of heat in the ocean, temporarily, might be that mechanism


Of course, a warmer ocean melts ice. This is another place Earth can dump heat for a while, because melting ice is a state change, not a temperature change. So the ice caps, and the melting of the ice caps, hide the full warming effect of the increase in CO2.

We have a peek into the delayed effect on air temperature that will be caused by our stashing current heat in the ocean as opposed to radiating it into space. In a la Nino event, it becomes harder to dump heat into the ocean, and in that case the Global Average Surface Temperature departs from baseline by an additional 50%. Instead of a .4 degree rise, one sees a .6 degree rise. This allows you to begin to estimate the delayed warming effect of CO2 when the entire ocean, in its normal state, is warmer.

This graphic, while specific, is incorrect. It says heat into Earth equals heat out. Don't we wish this were true. Some of that heat lost is "lost" to the ocean. Is something lost if you know where it is?.

Sunday, November 25, 2018

#cc CO2 by the numbers

THE KEELING CURVE
Can you see where renewables kicked in? No?

=
CO2 concentrations do go down. It is not always up.

=
Tons of CO2 in the atmosphere
The atmosphere "weighs" [5.2 x 1000**5] metric tons
(5.2 quadrillion metric tons)
CO2 is 410 ppm or .410/1000 molecules by count
conversion, count to weight: (.410/1000) x (44/28.8) = .627/1000
explanation of 44/28 factor: [CO2 / N2] atomic weight.
[5.2 x 1000**5] x [.627 x 1000**-1] = [3.26 x 1000**4]
410 ppm CO2 = 3.26 trillion metric tons

1 ppm of CO2 is about 8 billion metric tons
6 ppm of CO2 is about 48 billion metric tons
40 billion metric tons is 5 ppm (2019 emissions)
250 ppm of CO2 is about 2.0 trillion metric tons (pre-industrial)

Conversion from tons of Carbon to tons of CO2: (44/12) or 3.66
Conversion from tons of CO2 to tons of Carbon: (12/44) or 0.27

See James Lovelock. He is clearly unaware that man has emitted 2 trillion metric tons in the last 250 years, a blink geologically.
A billion metric tons he calls a gigaton
A trillion metric tons he calls a teraton.
=
CO2 world emissions since 1750: 2,120 billion metric tons

Not all of that ended up in the atmosphere.
It looks like 1.3 trillion metric tons, about 60%, did.
calculation: 1.3 trillion metric tons = 3.3 (410ppm) - 2.0 (250ppm)
I think the claim that CO2 never comes out of the air is too strong a claim.
Could we get the split between fossil CO2 and biologic CO2? Maybe nuclear testing in the air has made that impossible, with the creation of unnatural amounts of C14.

#cc H2O by the numbers

a Flood requires over 100 trillion metric.tons of water
1. [360 x 1000**2] sq.km is the size of Earth's ocean surface
360 million square kilometers
2. [.3 x 1000**-1] km is one foot in kilometers
3. [360 x 1000**2] sq.km x [.3 x 1000**-1] km
is the volume of a one foot rise in sea level
or [108 x 1000**1] cu.km, 108 thousand cubic kilometers, a Flood

4. [1 x 1000**1] kg
is the weight of a cubic meter of water, a metric ton
5. [1 x 1000**3] kg
is the weight of a cubic kilometer of water, a billion metric tons

6. [108 x 1000**1] cu.km x [1 x 1000**3] kg/cu.km
is the weight of a one foot rise in sea level
or [108 x 1000**4], or 100 trillion metric.tons

So a Flood is a melt, from 100 trillion metric.tons up to a quad

Article in USA TODAY, April 2019 here
says "Since 1961, the world has lost 10.6 trillion tons of ice and snow, the study reported." Ten trillion tons in 60 years means, if melt continues at that rate (it may increase) that a Flood will happen gradually in ten times that, or 600 years.

The Thwaits glacier in antarctica is currently the hot glacier, but note that the 50 billion metric tons mentioned as the loss in that year is well below the 100 trillion metric tons mark for Flood. The loss this year is reported as 250 billion metric tons, or 2.5 trillion metric tons in 10 years, or 25 trillion in 100 years, or Flood level in 400 years.
But remember that Thwaits is not the only source of melt. Pine Island is a similar glacier, also melting into the Amundsen Sea. Alpine glaciers melt as much. A warmer ocean expands 5% by volume. and there is Greenland.

7. Glacier Retreat
The glacier used to be able to push away the ocean. No longer. There is quite a bit of glacier that rests on land, but the land is below the current sea level. This will soon be "ice shelves", and then "icebergs", as the warmer water erodes the bottom level of ice.


8.Advice from Hugh, Cambridge College Lecture Series


9. Why higher global average surface temperature can be so bad

#cc Extinction Rebellion

Whatever you do, don't do nothing.

#cc Statements against doing anything.

Q1. The globe is not warming
A: Does ice melt at 32F?
Alpine glaciers have left locations that are now above 32F.

Q2. There is so little CO2. It couldn't be that.
A: Does CO2 block infrared?
What is the history of infrared radiation measurements from space?

Q3: Saturation, adding more does not matter.
A: What is the history of infrared radiation measurements from space?
Do those measurements show that it does not matter? MORE

Q4. 1934 was so warm
Warm in the USA. MORE

Q5. The climate is always changing
The last half of the holocene has been quite stable, hasn't it?
Or, do you mean the weather is always changing?

Q6. It's not mankind
Where did we lose you?
CO2 is going up. We are doing that. Correct??
CO2 prevents Earth from cooling off by blocking infrared. Correct?
If additional CO2 means that Earth cannot become cooler by infrared radiation, then the atmosphere is hotter. The next day, the Earth gets hotter again, until the atmosphere reaches a temperature, where, because of its higher temperature, it is able to radiate away as much more heat as the heat blocked by the additional CO2.
That temperature becomes the new average global temperature. Correct?

Q7. 97% of scientists agree that the climate changes. So what?
No. By 2001 the IPCC managed to establish a consensus, phrased so cautiously that none of the government representatives ventured to dissent. It was much more likely than not, the panel announced, that our civilization was headed for severe global warming. MORE

Q8. Climate change is good.
By 2010 impacts long predicted were turning up, sooner than many had expected — acidification of the oceans, unprecedented deadly heat waves, record-breaking floods and droughts, heat-related changes in the survival of sensitive species. MORE

Q9. CO2 is plant food.
It is plant food that is causing climate change.

Q10. The models are rigged.
Retreating alpine glaciers is not a model. It's opening your eyes.

Q11. I don't believe it.
But I do believe that the alpine glaciers are melting.
?And the Northwest Passage acoss the Bering Sea?
?And the Great Barrier Reef bleaching?
?And the flooding of streets in Miami Beach?
?And the wildfires in California? Earlier snowmelt has led to hot, dry conditions.

#cc Questions, good ones

1. How long does CO2 stay in the atmosphere
It makes a big difference. If it stays 100 years, then each year 1% of the 400ppm drops out, or 4ppm. If 25 years, that's 16 ppm. 400, 1ppm.
Mona Loa data shows CO2 concentration going up and down seasonally. Surely, in natural seasonal variation, down must be greater than up, since some carbon is "sequestered" in the tree rings.

2. How much of emitted CO2 goes into the Ocean?
If it goes in the ocean, it does not go into the atmosphere.

3. How much heat goes into the Ocean?
How long does it take for the ocean to get hot enough to reject all attempts to stash heat in the ocean? I suppose when the ocean reaches atmospheric temperature. But the ocean can't change temperatures as fast as the atmosphere can. The atmosphere can drop 20 degrees in the blink of an eye, as you know.
El nino, which is a larger than usual hot patch in the pacific, blocks heat from going into the ocean. If the air can't cool down, it stays hotter. The standard problem.

4. How much energy will the world need in 2030?
How many 1G nuclear plants would we need to build each year? Many.

5. Solar radiation to land seems so different from solar radiation to ocean.
Different level of re-radiation from ocean, as ocean is cooler than land. Delayed reaction.

6. They say, here, "Without this natural greenhouse effect (but assuming the same albedo, or reflectivity, as today), the average surface temperature of the Earth would be about 60°F colder."
This means, doesn't it, that 300 ppm has a 60°F temperature effect.

7. Simplest solution is to consume less. films [1]

Malenkovitch cycles

Here is a geologist talking about climate science. He explains how the Milankovitch cycles caused the ice ages. One lesson is how delicately balanced the climate system is, and is affected by what seems like a small change.

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Friday, August 03, 2018

Yanqui, Go Home


The US occupies Guantanamo without a legal basis.
The lease contract for Southern Guantanamo Bay, negotiated in 1903, after the Spanish American War, is no longer valid, if it ever was valid. When President Teddy Roosevelt signed the lease, the US and Cuba were military allies and the President was a decorated veteran of the war for Cuban Independence.

The first paragraph of the lease, labelled "AGREEMENT"[1] repeats the obligation, imposed on the United States by the Treaty of Paris, to protect the government of Cuba, and to protect the independence of Cuba from foreign domination. The United States has refused to protect Cuba, its independence, and continues to try to dominate Cuba. This is a material breach of contract, and allows Cuba to repudiate the lease, which Cuba does each year by not cashing the check that the US sends to Cuba. The fact that the US sends a check to the communist government in Cuba is a recognition that the communist government in Cuba is the government to which the obligations of the lease are due, including the obligation to protect.

For more, see this.

Tuesday, March 06, 2018

FOIA delays

How can you connect the dots, if they hide all the dots?

Thursday, February 22, 2018

The commander in chief is not in the military

By law: US code § 893
See Ridley v Warner 522 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1975)
Section 973(b) provides:

"Except as otherwise provided by law, no officer on the active list of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or Regular Coast Guard may hold a civil office by election or appointment, whether under the United States, a Territory or possession, or a State. The acceptance of such a civil office or the exercise of its functions by such an officer terminates his military appointment."

So election to the presidency, rather than change a civilian into a military man, would do the exact opposite: change a military man into a civilian.
Were the president to be in the active duty military, he could not, under DoD Directive 1344, participate in political campaigns or other activity, or comment on public policy.

Monday, February 12, 2018

Tuesday, February 06, 2018

Monday, January 29, 2018

Gisella Gonzales

CIMAVax, CUBA
Dr. Gisela Gonzalez has spent years researching the vaccine which the Cuban government approved for the use of the general public in 2008. Gonzalez and her team have worked on developing the CimaVax EGF vaccine at the Cuban Center of Molecular Immunology since the early 1990s.

Were we wrong?


Can I get a witness?

El contrato de arrendamiento nuevamente

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Blogs: Collections of thoughts



These are other blogs that I have started at one time or another.
I put them here to free up space on my bookmarks bar.

1. 2X+7
A dozen posts in 2014 on The Doctrine of Discovery, on trial defenses, on fracking, on lack of action.
http://twoxplusseven.blogspot.com/

2. TimePlaceManner
A Dicsussion of issues at the White House sidewalk
http://timeplaceandmanner.blogspot.com/

3. 6.26
An examination of one arrest at the White House
http://june26whitehousesidewalk.blogspot.com/

4. The Lakewood Harold
A list of actions at Hancock about drones, with links to other sources.
http://lakewoodharold.blogspot.com/

5. Speaking of Korean
An attempt to learn Korean writing, and what happened at the Tsunami in Japan
http://speakingkorean.blogspot.com/

6. Cancer
http://2016prostatecancer.blogspot.com//

Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Saturday, November 18, 2017

LTE Buffalo News, pub. November 10th

The U.S. has breached Guantanamo agreement The United States leased Guantanamo from Cuba after helping Cuba become independent from Spain. The 1903 lease for Guantanamo restated the understanding, first made in Article VII of the Platt Amendment, that, for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations. We explicitly undertook the responsibility to protect Cuba, which was a reaffirmation of our duty under the Treaty of Paris. The invasion in 1961 and the ongoing blockade are material breaches of that understanding. We have no legal right to occupy Cuban lands by virtue of a lease that we have unilaterally abrogated.

Buffalo News

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Monday, July 24, 2017

the spiral galaxy

Are spiral galaxies rotating?
The very center probably is, but the arms are shooting out.
probably not.

Monday, May 22, 2017

El pueblo, unido

Cuba will never be defeated

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Regarding acquiescence,
as applied to the Gunatanamo lease

The US often takes an action that is not in compliance with the lease, and later claims that Cuba acquiesced. And at the same time the US repeats that "promises must be kept", or as often repeats it in latin "pacta sunt servanda", as if to emphasize the long standing acceptance of this principle as starting in the times of Rome. Yet this principle is understood to be true in every agreement, and it is explicitly stated for this lease agreement: the contract can normally be modified only by the mutual agreement of the two parties. Action followed by acquiescence does not meet the standard set in the 1934 treaty of relations, or necessarily for any agreement. A claim of breach of contract can always be raised. Some might say that silence means acceptance, but silence clearly does not mean acceptance where one party has the nuclear bomb and has a history of meddling in the affairs of the other, has an active blockade, and there is an ex-pat community that is constantly urging invasion and recapture of the lands taken by the state via eminent domain.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Cuba - reasons that the lease is not now in force

I said "in the trial" when I meant to say "in the lease"

Cuba

Guantanamo, the Flotilla

Sign up here

Holguin ICAP

Lupe Isabel Fernandez Ramirez(L) and Yamila(R). icaphlg@icap.cu

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Appendix 10 of the Michael Strauss Book

Instruction to change the payment amount in 1973 and again in 1974
Click the image to see the full size, which is a composite of scans of the two pages.

Friday, February 03, 2017

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

CLOSE THE BASE

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Saturday, May 21, 2016

The Unknown Knowns

The things we look away from, pretend we don't know, but we know, ignore, don't act on appropriately, because ... we just can't face

Wednesday, May 04, 2016

Co Housing

The Old Urbanism: Jane Jacobs
Location location timing [ here ]
They will come, whether you build it or not.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Co Housing

1. Arboretum, Madison Wi

LIKE:
DONT: Cars at curb

2. Troy Gardens, Madison Wi

LIKE:
DONT:

3. Nomad, Boulder, Co

LIKE:
DONT: The look

4. Cambridge, Cambridge, Ma

LIKE:
DONT:

5. Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, Ma

LIKE:
DONT:

6. Elderspirit, SW Virginia

LIKE:
DONT: Outside to commons

Monday, November 30, 2015

Michael Moore goes to Havana


In SICKO.

October 14th
Rosanne dies, in Tampa.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

NFTA changes Utica bus route

La Nova Pizzeria has a pizza slice parking area. The Utica bus route normally gets from Ferry to Utica by driving through a neighborhood to pick up passengers. This requires a sharp turn onto New Hampshire from Ferry. Now they saunter down to Richmond and take the big street to get to Utica, leaving passengers waiting at the bus stops.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Why the US has no right to occupy Guantanamo

The lease has expired
The lease specifies that the coaling and naval station is “for the time required”. With the advent of a nuclear navy, a coaling station is not required. For anything.
Required, for what?
The lease, signed February 23rd 1903, says that the purpose of the lease is “To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof”. The US has failed to act to maintain the independence of Cuba and to defend the people thereof. This is a material breach of contract.
Anticipatory breach
John Kennedy’s promise to not invade Cuba was, and is, an anticipatory breach, and of the essence, because his promise falls short of the promise made in 1903 to protect the people of Cuba.
Zoning Violation
The construction of a prison, without the mutual agreement of the Cuban government, is a violation of the zoning: “and no other purpose”.
Abandonment
The lease is for Bahia Honda and Guantanamo. The US abandoned Bahia Honda. According to the lease, the US agrees to pay in gold, in exchange for access, “as long as [the United States] shall occupy and use said areas of land...”. “Areas” is plural; more than one.
Non Payment
The lease calls for payment “in gold”. Checks are not legal tender for payment of debts, and they have not been accepted by the Cuban Government in payment. Cash only.
Unconstitutional agreement
The Cuban Constitution prohibited “any treaty to permit any foreign power to obtain control over any portion of [Cuba].” And the United States knew it, at the time. Cuba was leasing to the US land at the Bay that it did not have clear title to at the time. This was "fixed" by Cuba's agreement to acquire the land, so that the US occupation could not be objected to. The problem was not that Cuba did not have title to the land. The problem was that the land was on the island of Cuba. This was a violation of Article I, added to the Cuban Constitution in 1901. Cuba should have negotiated a lease for land off the island, possibly on the Isle of Pines.

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

What causes cancer?

A wide varienty of things cause cancer: H.Pylorii, radium, smoking, benzene, chemotherapy even, soot.

This suggests that cells that are under constant attack react by turning into cancer, possibly after a long period, and as a last resort, as a kind of escape mechanism. Our cells evolved from prokaryotes, and then eukaryotes, and these cells adopted many protective mechanism to survive. Perhaps cancer is one of these protective mechanisms.

The cell says to itself "These guys are trying to kill me."

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was not intended to carve into stone for the nation the sensibilities or practices of the 1780's. If it is not meant as a clear standard, what is its purpose?

It is a warning directed to those in power against being thought to be cruel or vindictive, and a reminder that when the government is thought to be cruel, it weakens its legitimacy. Monarchs have been thought to be stern and heartless in the past, but this is not the kind of social stability that is consistent with a free and equal society. End Solitary Confinement.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Aids and depression

Glen Triesman, of Johns Hopkins
Pretty great

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Friday, February 27, 2015

The Supreme Court Plaza

Honorable Sri Srinivasan, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit

I write about a case that recently came before you, Hodge v Talkin, on appeal from the sweeping decision by Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for D.C. He ruled that Mr Hodge, who was standing alone on the Plaza in front of the Supreme Court holding a sign that said “The US Gov Allows police to illegally murder and brutalize African Americans and Hispanic People”, should not be convicted of a violation of 40 USC §6135.

http://bit.ly/1ulGuQS

Friday, February 06, 2015

RE: Revised Energy Vision for New York State

Here is a frame that I was not crazy about-

The notion that smoke comes from the transmission system is silly of course, but what is the thought behind it? Answer: That transmission is wasteful. Transmission, even long distance transmission, is not bad compared to trucking the coal to a local plant, or to get short-term access to backup power. Or, more importantly, to the 60% energy loss in generating electricity by heating water and making steam to drive a turbine.

The video has the power plant as a puffing monster, belching smoke, and it is true that co2 comes out from burning fuel as with all combustion, the other pollutants can be removed if you want to. The soot is cleaned by electrostatic precipitators, but not "too clean". No cleaner than required by the regs, since it costs money to clean out the soot.

The mercury and the radioactive stuff should also be cleaned out, and why not just require that, or say that it is too costly. Why pretend, or plant in the public imagination via cartoons, that nothing can be done to clean up the exhaust?

Monday, December 22, 2014

Sunday, December 21, 2014

More of the same

Jobless recovery is not a recovery if you are unemployed. It is more of the same.

Monday, November 24, 2014

End Solitary Confinement in New York State

1. Text of the proposed law here.
2. Summary of the provisions of that law are here.
.....This is on the website for "Think Outside the Box".

Sunday, November 02, 2014

Are GMOs safe?


Why is it that GMOs are generally regarded as safe (GRAS) but one passenger on an airplane carrying one bag that does not belong to him is generally regarded as dangerous.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

exporting democracy

The United States exports neo-colonialism.
The internet exports democracy, mostly through cell phones.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

Not in uniform

The CIA are not lawful combatants. Footnote 44

Friday, June 13, 2014

Dark Day at the Newseum.


Event took place January 2012. The film did not win an award.

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Catonsville Draft Board 1968

View of the front of the K of C building, 1050 Fredrick Rd.
The draft board was on the second floor.

Saturday, April 05, 2014

Kropotkin

You can be held up by a robber with a gun who threatens to kill you if you don't comply, or you can be held up by a system that threatens to starve you. Capitalism began with the industrial counter-revolution, an anti-democratic revolution, the replacement of men, where wage slavery replaced regular slavery. This allowed an illusory advance in social justice which did not produce a parallel economic justice, since the industrialists could write the laws and rent the police.

Why the fox should not guard the hen-house

From Enformable

From national administration to administration, corporations have run roughshod and those who are supposed to protect us from the danger and death these industries cause have regularly not done their jobs. Sometimes the situation is more pronounced as during the Reagan administration—a thoroughly obvious time of foxes guarding henhouses.

Rita LaValle, a PR person for Aerojet General Corp. involved in hazardous waste-dumping and water pollution, who became director of the “Superfund” program; John Todhunter, an opponent of restrictions on pesticides with the chemical industry-financed American Council on Science and Health, who became assistant administrator for pesticides and toxic substances at EPA; Kathleen Bennett, who as a lobbyist for the paper industry fought the Clean Air Act, named assistant EPA administrator for air pollution control programs and supervisor of the Clean Air Act; and on and on.

Throughout the many decades since, government control, regulation, has been surrendered, in part and sometimes entirely, to business interests. This includes not only the food and drug industries but the auto industry, the nuclear industry, now the gas industry for the toxic process called hydraulic fracturing or fracking, and on and on.

Saturday, March 08, 2014

US or THEM


To prevent the destruction of the entire world,
we must obliterate China now. R2P.

Friday, March 07, 2014