August 2005
_________________________________________________________________
August 30th, 2005
Leave it Behind
Its been a couple of days since Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the United States. Katrina, 
a hurricane of extraordinary strength, left a trail of death and destruction. Buildings were torn apart
by high winds. Vast areas are flooded. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. Looting is 
widespread. People are forced to go without running water or electricity. (just like Iraqis do) My heart
goes out to all of those affected by this catastrophe. Click Here to help with the relief effort. 

 In considering this great disaster I first started asking questions about why we are seeing so many 
strong hurricanes these days. I also thought about asking religious fundamentalists if they thought that "god"
used Katrina to target the oil rigs and refineries that we use to poison the planet. Instead, I have a more
basic question about the area hardest hit by the hurricane. Why did anyone live in New Orleans in first place? 

 New Orleans (which lies BELOW SEA LEVEL and is surrounded by THREE BODIES OF WATER!?!) was founded in 
1718 by the French. It initially was nothing more than a trading post. It never should have grown beyond that.
What a terrible place to build a city! Since its founding, New Orleans has been a city just waiting to be 
swallowed by the sea. It has ALWAYS been only a matter of time. Locals say they had been dreading an event like
Katrina for decades, knowing that it could spell the end of their city. Yet still, people chose to live and work
in New Orleans. Half a million people lived there before the devastation of Katrina. Half a million chose to 
build their lives in a doomed city.  

 For years, New Orleans, which lies BELOW SEA LEVEL, had been protected by a series of dams, pumps, and levees. 
Every time it rained, the water had to be pumped out of the city. The dead had to be buried above ground so 
as to prevent coffins from "popping up." When Katrina hit, one of the levees which protected the city broke, 
emptying much of Lake Pontchartrain (which lies ABOVE SEA LEVEL!?!) into the city below. As I type this, the 
water levels are still rising. What will happen if they get another storm?   

 Global warming is melting glaciers and polar ice-fields. Ocean levels are rising. Even if New Orleans is rebuilt, 
it will only be a matter of time (less than a decade or two at present melt rates) until the ocean rises to drown 
the city forever, or at least until the next ice age. It is time to face an uncomfortable truth. New Orleans should never
have been built. Its construction was a mistake at best. So why is anyone talking about rebuilding? What value
is there in rebuilding? If the waters recede, they will leave behind a toxic wasteland. If the city is rebuilt, 
this devastation will only happen again, and likely soon given the dramatic increase in the number of strong 
hurricanes. Are we arrogant enough to think that a higher sea-wall is somehow going to stave off disaster when
the next one hits? The best thing that survivors of Katrina could do would be to face the uncomfortable truth 
and flee their doomed city. The establishment of a major population centre in the Louisiana swamp, in an area 
BELOW SEA LEVEL, will be remembered as one of the greatest civic blunders in history. To anyone who has been 
lucky enough to survive this catastrophe, I advise that you listen to mother nature, run to the hills and leave
the "big easy" behind. The Tragically Hip were right all along.
 

_________________________________________________________________
August 21st, 2005
Welcome to Yukon
I live in Canada's Yukon Territory where we have recently had some high-profile visitors. We welcomed
American Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, Susan Collins, and Lindsey Graham to our land last
week. They came on a fact finding mission, to learn about how global warming is affecting the North. 
They talked with elders, who have seen the great changes during their lifetimes. They toured the land and
saw first-hand the dead forests and the melting ice. They saw with their own eyes that global warming is 
real. We who live in the North see and feel the effects of the changes every day. It only took one short
visit for the Americans to understand. Here are some quotes from the Senators from their time in Yukon.

"We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking
place and human activities play a very large role." - John McCain

 "If you can go to the Native people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that 
something's going on, I just think you're not listening," - Lindsey Graham

"I don't think anyone who has talked to these individuals as well as the scientists would have any
doubt that this is a real and growing problem." - Susan Collins

"I don't think there is any doubt left for anyone who actually looks at the science...The science
is overwhelming, but what is deeply concerning is that climate change is accelerating." - Hillary Rodham Clinton

"The sooner we get started with alternative energy sources and recognize that fossil fuels makes
us less secure as a nation, and more dangerous as a planet, the better off we'll be."  - Lindsey Graham

There you have it. American leaders are FINALLY telling their people that global warming is real. All 
it took was one visit to this part of the world. We in the North live on the front lines of climate
change. We live with this new reality every day. Soon those to the South will as well. The only people
who will deny that climate change is happening are those on the payroll of the oil industry. Pretending
that this problem does not exist will not make it go away. However, there is cause for hope. McCain and
Clinton are two of the front-runners in the 2008 presidential race. To know that they now understand what is
happening is very encouraging. Denial is not a good quality for a leader to have. They can no longer deny the truth.

_________________________________________________________________
August 13th, 2005
The Build-up
Watch the ticker. It says that Iran is enriching uranium which may or may not be intended for use in nuclear
weapons. Foreign jihadis in Iraq may or may not be coming into the country via the Iranian border. Weapons used
by Iraqi insurgents may or may not have been supplied by Iran. Newly anointed president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
may or may not have actively participated in taking Americans hostage during Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. 
(deposing the Western puppet known as "The Shah") If you pay attention to the mainstream media, you might think
that the Iranians are up to something. Somehow I am reminded of the not so distant past, the year 2002 to be exact.

Do you remember how Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Do you remember how Iraq was very close
to developing a nuclear weapon after Saddam Hussein "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"? 
Do you remember how Iraq was 45 minutes away from a missile strike on any Western city? Do you remember how 
the smoking gun would come in the form of a mushroom cloud? Haven't we seen this all before? 

In 2002 the mainstream media failed us. By not questioning the White House line on Iraq, they were complicit in
creating conditions whereby 70% of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for
the terrorist attacks of September 2001. By allowing White House claims to go unchallenged, the mainstream media
served as a vehicle for White House propaganda. They did not act like journalists. They acted like cheerleaders. 

The Neo-Conservatives who run the US government want to topple Tehran. How they plan to do it is beyond me,
given the fact that the US military is already over-extended with other imperial adventures. It should be noted
that unlike Iraq, Iran has a military. An invasion of Iran would be disastrous for the US; for both its people 
and its economy. If Hezbollah were ever mobilized, they would make Al Qaeda look like amateurs. The present day 
insurgency in Iraq would look like a tea party when compared to what the Iranians could bring, both on their own
soil and ours. Also, thirteen million barrels of oil pass through the narrow Strait of Hormuz every day. Guess where
the Iranian navy would be? The word "chokepoint" is entirely appropriate. Western economies are
completely dependent upon oil, a commodity that is currently trading at around sixty-six dollars a barrel. Take
Iranian oil off the market and that number would likely double. 

Here is some further insight into what we could expect in a war between the US and Iran. 
   
The West has wanted Iran's oil for a very long time. In 1953, democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddegh was
removed from power, with help from Western intelligence agencies. This allowed for the installation of a friendly 
(to us anyway) dictator known as "The Shah." However, the Islamic revolution in 1979 interfered with long term
plans. Since then, efforts to destabilize Iran (arming Iraq with WMD's) have failed. The eventual invasion of Iran
will not be easy. Those who seek it will somehow have to convince their citizens that a long and painful 
asymmetrical war with Iran would be worth it. So the drum-beat has started. Little by little, White House propaganda is
trying to convince us that Iran is not to be trusted and that they are a looming threat. The heat is being turned up,
little by little. When the next terrorist attack against the US takes place, look for Hezbollah to be blamed, regardless
of their actual involvement. Luckily, it is still early in the propaganda campaign. Hopefully, enough people will 
recognize what is happening, and see through the propaganda to the point where an act of aggression against Iran
becomes politically unfeasible.

 In closing, I want to make it clear that I am not a fan of the Iranian regime. Iran's government is not a democracy. 
It is guilty of many human rights abuses. The Iranian people are not free. I do not want the Mullahs to be armed with
nuclear weapons. Having said that, we must not be led into thinking that a military action against Iran is acceptable.
Action against Tehran would certainly lead to a World War, the so called "Clash of Civilizations." This would have 
catastrophic consequences for all of us. It must be avoided at all costs, no matter how scary the press makes the
Persian bogey-man out to be.
 
_________________________________________________________________
August 7th, 2005
Nuclear Terrorism
It was sixty years ago this week that the world saw the two worst terrorist acts in history. Of course I am speaking
of the American nuclear strikes on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Webster's defines terror as "violence
(as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands."
When the United States Military nuked Japanese civilians, the intention was to completely demoralize the Imperial
Army, convincing them that it was impossible for them to win the war. I suppose this is not unlike the 
US "Shock and Awe" campaign used in Baghdad in 2003. 

Many say that although the use of nuclear weapons was a horrible thing, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was
acceptable because it ended the war. A ground invasion of Japan would likely have cost hundreds of thousands of 
lives over a period of several years. The Japanese Imperial Army was not likely to surrender; they would fight to 
the last man, even against overwhelming odds. Samurai ethics state that it is glorious to die in battle, and one 
should choose death before dishonour or surrender. By vaporizing hundreds of thousands of civilians, (making their
cities uninhabitable for centuries) hundreds of thousands of soldiers were saved. Does this argument justify 
what was done? 

Certainly the nuclear attack was not only about Japan. The Americans were sending a message to Joseph Stalin.
By showing the world that they were willing to use such a devastating weapon, the US scared the hell out of a 
war-weakened, (though still tyrannical) Soviet Empire. If they were willing to nuke the Japanese, then why would
they hesitate to nuke Moscow or Leningrad as well? The nuclear attack on Japan was one of the primary causes of the
decades long arms race that became known as the Cold War. The Soviets felt that their very survival depended upon 
matching the American arsenal bomb for bomb. "Mutually Assured Destruction" was the only way that the Soviets
could stand up to the threat of American aggression. After the Americans stationed nuclear weapons in Turkey, 
the Soviets retaliated in turn by putting their own in Cuba, a move that nearly led to the end of everything
in October of 1962.

Now here we are, sixty years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and fifteen years after the end of the Cold War. Nuclear
weapons are perhaps the second biggest danger threatening human civilization. (The first of course is the dramatic
climate change that the age of the automobile has unleashed) In sixty years the nuclear club has grown substantially.
Israel has the bomb. India and Pakistan have the bomb. North Korea and China and France and Britain and Russia
have the bomb. Iran would very much like to have the bomb. Why? Why is it that these nations feel the need to arm 
themselves with such horrendous weapons? Would any of these nations ever use their nuclear weapons as part of a
military offensive? It is more likely that these weapons serve as deterrents, a means of protecting themselves 
against some nation that actually would. We have allowed fear to give us the means to destroy ourselves. 

Iran is an interesting case. Here we have a despotic, theocratic regime with questionable intentions. Iran has 
been guilty of many human rights violations. Its leaders believe that they govern on behalf of Allah. Iran is not
a free country, and not a democracy. I would not want nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian Mullahs. Having said
that, is it really more acceptable that these weapons be in the hands of a military strong-man who seized power by 
overthrowing a democratically elected regime in a coup? Is it alright that these weapons are in the hands of a 
leader of one of the planet's last personality cults, a leader who's nation's education system is devoted 
entirely to indoctrinating its citizens to love him as well as his unique brand of "Juche Socialism"? 
Is it alright that two nations with bloody imperial histories possess these weapons; nations who have nearly been
at a nearly constant state of war with each other for much of the last eight hundred years? What about a modern 
imperial power that has illegally invaded a sovereign nation, a power that actually has a history of using nuclear
weapons?   

 My contention is that NOBODY should have nuclear weapons. We ought to all agree to dismantle every last one. 
Their very existence ensures proliferation. As with most global-political issues, the most amount of 
responsibility lies with the most powerful and influential participant. Nuclear terrorism over Hiroshima and 
Nagasaki led to six decades of nuclear proliferation. The American military was both cold-hearted and crazy
enough to use nuclear weapons. This was enough to convince communists that they had best arm themselves to 
the teeth to keep the Americans at bay. So we had the cold war. More recently, the invasion of Iraq taught 
the world that even if you are a member of the ludicrously titled "Axis of Evil," nuclear weapons will keep
the Americans at bay. This is why Iran is working so hard to build them. Fear begets proliferation.   

As the most powerful and influential nation, the United States bears the greatest responsibility in 
helping to get our world out of this mess. I recall that during his presidential campaign, John Kerry 
addressed the issue of nuclear proliferation, recognizing that it is one of the greatest threats the world 
faces. However, the American people (perhaps with a big assist from Diebold) decided that he would not be 
their leader. What can be done now? One bi-lateral disarmament treaty at a time would be a good start. 
Images from the anniversary of the nuclear terror attacks on Japan remind us that we live in a world where
precious life can be blown away in an instant by those with the will to do so. Nuclear weapons are weapons 
of terror. If we are serious about fighting a "global war against terrorism" we ought to start by looking in
the mirror and figuring out how to disarm.

_________________________________________________________________
August 3rd, 2005
All About Oil
Summer is RV season. I live along the Alaska Highway, which is somewhat of a pilrgimage route for 
many who own those giant hotel rooms on wheels. They come from far away, from Texas and Florida, 
from New York and New Hampshire, from Colorado and Arizona. I think about how far they have
travelled, and then about the fuel efficiency of each of the behemoths. (many of which tow SUV's
behind them) How much energy has been used by each of these giant vehicles? How much oil is burned 
when thousands of inefficient vehicles travel thousands of kilometres? Collectively, we must be 
using an awful lot of the stuff.   

 We are. Over the last century, oil has been so abundant and so cheap, that we have built our 
economies to be entirely dependent upon keeping the taps wide open. In the 20th century, The United
States built its entire way of life around the automobile. American cities are sprawling and decentralized
places where people must drive to get access to goods and services, the culture of consumption.
"Suburbia" ensures that people spend an enormous amount of time in their cars. It is not unusual for 
people to have to drive for an hour just to get to work each morning. Often they drive gas guzzling trucks.
(aka SUV's)  

Energy is wealth. Our economies require a staggering (and ever growing) supply of energy to function.
Developing economies like those of China and India have witnessed an explosion in their own energy 
demands. Being a finite resource, (there were only so many dinosaurs) the combination of rising demand
and decreasing supply can only bring prices up. As I write this, the price of a barrel of oil is 
hovering at just above sixty two United States Dollars. The recently deceased King Fahd of Saudi 
Arabia helped to ensure that oil remained cheap and plentiful for the American marketplace. 
The new leader, King Abdullah will do the same. However, Abdullah is in his eighties. His successor, 
Crown Prince Sultan is also in his eighties. Given the social makeup of Saudi Arabia, and the potential
"revolutionary capacity" of their younger generations, I have to wonder how long the Saudi royals are capable
of maintaining the status quo. Their good friends (and indentured servants) in the Bush Crime Family
 must have wondered the same thing.    

 Of course the US invasion of Iraq was ALL ABOUT OIL. In light of waning supplies and future 
instability where the Saudi regime is concerned, continued US access to profuse quantities of oil could not 
be guaranteed. The US economy needed a new supply of cheap oil in order to maintain its dominance. The 
weakness of the regime of Saddam Hussein provided an opportunity to secure one. The coming invasion of 
Iran will also be ALL ABOUT OIL. Yet even with these new taps open, oil prices will rise and rise again. 
Demand continues to be insatiable, and again, there were only so many dinosaurs. 

 Ultimately, the rise in oil prices may be a good thing or a great thing, one of the best things
for all of us, but only in the long run. In the short term, the rise in energy prices is going to hurt, 
especially for the majority of us who live from paycheque to paycheque. The cost of everything is tied 
to the cost of oil, from obvious things like the money we spend at the pump, or on energy bills for our
homes, to less obvious things like the food that we eat. (food that was fertilized by petro-chemical by-products, 
harvested by gas guzzling tractors, processed at energy gobbling factories, and trucked up the highway to your 
local grocery store) The short term effect of such high energy costs are not going to be easy to deal with. But in 
the long term, these high prices may force us to consider new energy alternatives. This will be most welcome on 
a planet that is becoming more and more inhospitable as the climate changes, thanks to our oil burning ways. 
I have often wondered if the only way that we will clean up our act is if we are forced to. An oil crash would do it.

_________________________________________________________________
Archives
Main Page