Archive for the ‘The Perfect Storm’ Category

The Proceeds of Crime

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

– I regret to say that this sad story hasn’t run its course yet.    You’d think with all the ugly stories coming out about what happens when prisons are turned into profit making operations, that folks would realize that this definitely is not the way to go,

– But I read that my adopted country, New Zealand, apparently hasn’t been reading the reports.    Their new conservative government, like conservative governments everywhere, thinks that Capitalistic entrepreneurs can solve every problem correctly and efficiently.   it’s a great theory – but it has been shown to be resoundingly wrong in this case and yet, here they are about to embark on the same folly.

– Check out these stories as well: , , and

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 3rd March 2009

It’s a staggering case; more staggering still that it has scarcely been mentioned on this side of the ocean. Last week two judges in Pennsylvania were convicted of jailing some 2000 children in exchange for bribes from private prison companies.

Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan sent children to jail for offences so trivial that some of them weren’t even crimes. A 15 year-old called Hillary Transue got three months for creating a spoof web page ridiculing her school’s assistant principal. Mr Ciavarella sent Shane Bly, then 13, to boot camp for trespassing in a vacant building. He gave a 14 year-old, Jamie Quinn, 11 months in prison for slapping a friend during an argument, after the friend slapped her. The judges were paid $2.6 million by companies belonging to the Mid Atlantic Youth Services Corp for helping to fill its jails(1,2,3). This is what happens when public services are run for profit.

It’s an extreme example, but it hints at the wider consequences of the trade in human lives created by private prisons. In the US and the UK they have a powerful incentive to ensure that the number of prisoners keeps rising.

The United States is more corrupt than the UK, but it is also more transparent. There the lobbyists demanding and receiving changes to judicial policy might be exposed, and corrupt officials identified and prosecuted. The UK, with a strong tradition of official secrecy and a weak tradition of scrutiny and investigative journalism, has no such safeguards.

The corrupt judges were paid by the private prisons not only to increase the number of child convicts but also to shut down a competing prison run by the public sector. Taking bribes to bang up kids might be novel; shutting public facilities to help private companies happens – on both sides of the water – all the time.

The Wall Street Journal has shown how, as a result of lobbying by the operators, private jails in Mississippi and California are being paid for non-existent prisoners(4,5). The prison corporations have been guaranteed a certain number of inmates. If the courts fail to produce enough convicts, they get their money anyway. This outrages taxpayers in both states, which have cut essential public services to raise these funds. But there is a simple means of resolving this problem: you replace ghost inmates with real ones. As the Journal, seldom associated with raging anti-capitalism, observes, “prison expansion [has] spawned a new set of vested interests with stakes in keeping prisons full and in building more. … The result has been a financial and political bazaar, with convicts in stripes as the prize.”(6)

Even as crime declines, law-makers are pressed by their sponsors to increase the rate of imprisonment. The US has, by a very long way, the world’s highest proportion of people behind bars: 756 prisoners per 100,000 people(7), or just over 1% of the adult population(8). Similarly wealthy countries have around one-tenth of this rate of imprisonment.

More…

Health Sector Has Donated Millions to Lawmakers

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

– Need more reasons why serious health care reform won’t becoming to the U.S., in spite of what President Obama’s implied?    Don’t get me wrong.  I am a big Obama fan.   But, the cards are too deeply stacked against real health care reform here.   It’s just a political reality on the ground.

– See also here and here and here.

= = = = = = = = = = =

Health insurers and drug makers have showered members of the 111th Congress with millions in campaign contributions over the last four years, with a special focus on leaders who will play major roles in shaping health-care legislation, according to a study to be released tomorrow.

Health insurers and their employees contributed $2.2 million to the top 10 recipients in the House and Senate since 2005, while drug makers and their employees gave more than $3.3 million to top lawmakers during that period, according to an analysis of federal elections data by Consumer Watchdog, a California-based advocacy group.

The biggest beneficiaries in the Senate included  John McCain (R-Ariz.), with $546,000;  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), with $425,000; and  Max Baucus (D-Mont.), with $413,000, who as head of the Finance Committee will play a leading role in the debate over health-care reform.

In the House, the two groups gave $257,000 to  Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and $249,000 to Minority Whip  Eric Cantor (R-Va.). On the Democratic side,  Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) received contributions from the insurance sector ($104,000), while  Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.) took in $180,000 from drug companies.

More…

I’m a Dark Green

Saturday, March 7th, 2009

– My friend, Kael, turned me onto the idea, several months ago, that all of us with green leanings can be further subdivided according to how we think it is all going to turn out.  

– We determined that I would be a ‘Dark Green’ in this ranking system.  A Dark Green is defined as follows:

Dark greens, tend to emphasize the need to pull back from consumerism (sometimes even from industrialization itself) and emphasize local solutions, short supply chains and direct connection to the land. They strongly advocate change at the community level. In its best incarnations, dark green thinking offers a lot of insight about bioregionalism, reinhabitation, and taking direct control over one’s life and surroundings (for example through transition towns): it is a vision of collective action. In a less useful way, dark greens can tend to be doomers, warning of (sometimes even seeming to advocate) impending collapse. Some thinkers, of course, (for instance, Bill McKibben and Paul Glover) blend a belief in the rural relocalization efforts of dark greens with the more design- and technology-focused urban solutions of bright greens. (Some of my own thinking can be found in these pieces Deep Economy: Localism, Innovation and Knowing What’s What, Resilient Community and The Outquisition.)

– That’s a slightly modified excerpt from an piece I found on the Worldchanging Blog – which I link to, below.

– If you want to know where you are on the Pollyanna to Apocalypse scale, give it a read.  

– And remember, your life might depend on making the right choice here – unless you just want to pretend it is all unimportant.

= = = = =   = = = = =   = = = = =

Bright Green, Light Green, Dark Green, Gray: The New Environmental Spectrum

Alex Steffen
February 27, 2009 4:04 PM

People ask me with increasing frequency to explain what I mean by “bright green,” and what the differences are between bright green, light green, dark green and so on.

I can understand the confusion. The term is being used more and more widely, but the available explanations aren’t very helpful: the Wikipedia entry on the topic is far from clear, and with a handful of exceptions (like Ross Robertson’s excellent article), most of the media coverage so far has tended to muddy the water in one way or another.

What is bright green? In its simplest form, bright green environmentalism is a belief that sustainable innovation is the best path to lasting prosperity, and that any vision of sustainability which does not offer prosperity and well-being will not succeed. In short, it’s the belief that for the future to be green, it must also be bright. Bright green environmentalism is a call to use innovation, design, urban revitalization and entrepreneurial zeal to transform the systems that support our lives.

It’s been pretty amazing to watch “bright green” take off. Since I first coined the term, thousands of organizations — businesses, NGOs, blogs, student groups, even churches — have adopted the label. For this year’s COP-15 climate summit in Copenhagen, both the parallel expo and the lead-in youth summit are calling themselves Bright Green. I’ve even started to see the term bubbling up in pop culture, used by people who clearly get it.

Of course, not everyone talking about sustainability is bright green. I contrast bright green thinking with three other prominent schools of thought: light greens, dark greens and grays. All have some overlap, and in reality, even dedicated sustainability advocates tend to adopt different approaches on different questions. But here’s a brief run-down:

More…

Quest for food security breeds neo-colonialists

Saturday, March 7th, 2009

I’ve written about this twice before here and here.  

– It is a growing trend and it is going to get bigger in coming years.   It’s an indication (which most folks can’t see or deny) that the train is, indeed, going off the rails.  

– Food, oil, water are all going to be going into short supply and nations states everywhere are looking hard at their options – even as most of us sleep the sleep of the sheep.

– – – – – – – = = = = = = = – – – – – – –

That’s us, folks.In Venezuela, the national guard has taken over control of the country’s rice mills. Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s President, accused rice producers of evading government price controls and the President has suggested that the owners, which include the American agribusiness firm, Cargill, would be compensated with “paper”.

Agribusiness is the latest target for the Venezuelan leader’s bombast but President Chávez must be feeling a bit miffed. He has been upstaged: when banks are nationalised in the heart of the City of London and their bosses threatened with confiscation of their personal property, the seizure of a few rice mills by a South American autocrat looks feeble.

In isolation, it looks trifling but we should look again at what governments are doing in agriculture. The rice shortage in Venezuela, threats of government intervention in farms in Argentina and a land grab by sovereign wealth funds in the Gulf tells us more about the future than Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension.

The Argentine Government has been at loggerheads with its farmers over export taxes and low domestic grain prices. The Government accuses farmers of hoarding food and over the weekend, Cristina Fernandez, the Argentine President, threatened to intervene in the economy. A new state-controlled agency would intervene, buying up grain and cattle in an attempt to control prices in a country that is world No 2 in corn and No 3 in soya bean.

The black comedy of the banks has persuaded us to forget about food security. Food price inflation gripped the markets early last year and has surged again at the beginning of this year. For most of the world food continues to be a worry.

The cost of food has not returned to the low levels that preceded the doubling and tripling of wheat and rice prices over 2007 and 2008. Credit is costly for farmers and after last year’s massive harvest that brought down prices, planting has been weak. Anxiety about the future has spurred those countries with cash to make big investments in the soil.

More…

Screwing the Poor

Friday, March 6th, 2009

– I wrote, with some passion, the other day about universal health care – and why it won’t be coming to the U.S.

– Here’s another piece by Kevin Drum of Mother Jones that speaks succinctly to this point.

= = = = = = =

Karen Tumulty writes in Time this week about her brother, Pat, who was diagnosed with kidney failure and then learned that the private insurance he’d been paying for for years wouldn’t cover him.  That’s bad enough, but then there’s this:

A paradox of medical costs is that people who can least afford them — the uninsured — end up being charged the most. Insurance companies, with large numbers of customers, have the financial muscle to negotiate low rates from health-care providers; individuals do not. Whereas insured patients would have been charged about $900 by the hospital that performed Pat’s biopsy (and pay only a small fraction of that out of their own pocket), Pat’s bill was $7,756. For lab work — and there was a lot of it — he was being charged as much as six times the price an insurance company would pay.

More…

Healthcare for the Middle Class

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

– There’s been a lot of talk over the years about health care reform.  Hillary Clinton tried to implement deep health care reform and was rebuffed soundly.   Now, Obama’s said he’s going to try it.

– So, what’s going to happen?   No much is what, very likely.   Kevin Drum of Mother Jones wrote an article (the beginning of which is below) which discusses the whys and wherefores of what’s likely to happen.

– Folks like me have decried for years the fact that of all the major western democracies, the U.S. is the ONLY one without socialized medicine.  The richest country in the world and 48 million of our 300 million people do not have a health care safety net.

– Well, the corporate interests which basically own the U.S.’s health care system will resist changes tooth and nail – because profits are involved.   You can be sure that the idea that governments should exist to look after the interests of their people won’t get on the table.

– And, have you heard how very bad socialized medicine is?   No service, bad work, long lines?   Well, I’ve spent a lot of time in a country with such a system and, yes, it has some problems – but nothing like what all this disinformation and propaganda would have you believe.

– Here in the U.S., my wife and I pay $885 a month for health care insurance and each of us has a $2500 deductible on top of that.Â

– In New Zealand, which has a socialized medical system, all accidents are covered automatically by the government.  And, if it is not an accident, a doctor’s visit costs you $55 NZD maximum (about $27 US at the moment),  And no prescription costs you more than $15 NZD (or about $7-$8 US at the moment). Â

– Now, that’s what I call a government looking out for the interests of its people.

– This article makes it sound like the push-back will be coming from the 250 million of us who have health care coverage.    I don’t think so.   The 250 million will, however, be the targets for the fear-mongering campaign (by the profit oriented medical/corporate interests which have deep vested interests in the outcome) that will ensue.  That will be the real story here.  Just wait and see the ‘public spirited’ advertisements which will be out soon from the medical industry / corporate types as they compassionately share with us what’s wrong with health care reform.

– Read Kevin’s story and you’ll see why health care for everyone as a right won’t be coming here to the U.S. anytime soon.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

David Corn just got back from a breakfast meeting hosted by Nancy Pelosi, who outlined the Democratic messaging strategy on healthcare reform:

The “appeal” of this push, she said, will not be that 48 million people don’t have health care insurance. “What is important to the bigger population,” she explained, “is their own health care.”

….The bottom line: the battle cry will not be, “Health care for all!” Instead, it will be “Better health care for you — and also the rest of us.” Given how the Hillary Clinton-led crusade for health care reform flamed out terribly in the 1990s, this sort of tactical shift may be warranted. It may even be wise.

I’d go further than that.  Even as far back as 1993, Bill Clinton understood that fear of change among the already insured was the key issue in building public support for national healthcare.  Unfortunately, even though he got this, he still didn’t emphasize it enough, and that’s one of the reasons his plan failed.

Since then, however, this has become conventional wisdom.  Like it or not, universal healthcare will never get passed on the grounds that it will help the 48 million Americans who are currently uninsured.  It will only pass if the other 250 million Americans are assured over and over and over again that the new plan will be at least as good for them as what they have now.

More…

Clean Power From Deserts

Sunday, March 1st, 2009

– These technologies are out there.  We just need the political will to implement and use them.

= = = = = = =

by Dr. Gerry Wolff


Close up view of parabolic trough and heat collector.

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) is the remarkably simple technique of arranging mirrors to concentrate sunlight and using the resulting heat to raise steam to drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. CSP works best where there is direct sunshine and lots of it, as in deserts.Solar heat may be stored in melted salts (e.g. nitrates of sodium or potassium) so that electricity generation may continue at night or on cloudy days. And gas or biofuels may be used as a stop-gap source of heat when there is not enough sun. With facilities for storing solar heat and hybridisation with other sources of heat, CSP can provide any combination of base load power, intermediate load or peaking power. This is a great advantage for power engineers trying to match supplies of electricity to demands for electricity which are constantly varying.

The potential

CSP plants have been supplying electricity in California since the mid 1980s, new plants came on stream recently in Spain and Nevada, and others are now being planned or built in many places around the world.

The potential is enormous. Every year, each square kilometre of desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Multiplying by the area of deserts worldwide, this is several hundred times the entire current energy consumption of the world. It has been calculated that less than 1 per cent of the world’s deserts, if covered with CSP plants, would produce as much electricity as is now used by the whole world.

More…

Drinking bottled water is drinking oil

Sunday, March 1st, 2009

– Do you drink bottled water?   Well, if you do and you also consider yourself a green health oriented person, it is probably long past time for you to sit up and take notice of articles like this.   And believe me, if you want more information – don’t go to the companies who are selling you this 21st century snake-oil – they flat-out have no interest in telling you the sad truth on this one.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

ScienceNOW reports a new paper by Peter Gleick and Heather Cooley in Environmental Research Letters that compares the energy use of bottled and tapwater:

… From start to finish, bottled water consumes between 1100 and 2000 times more energy on average than does tap water.

Bottled water consumption has skyrocketed over the past several years. In 2007, some 200 billion liters of bottled water were sold worldwide, and Americans took the biggest gulp: 33 billion liters a year, an average of 110 liters per person. That amount has grown 70% since 2001, and bottled water has now surpassed milk and beer in sales. Many environmental groups have been concerned with this surge because they suspected that making and delivering a bottle of water used much more energy than did getting water from the tap. But until now, no one really knew bottled water’s energy price tag.

Environmental scientist Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, a nonprofit research organization in Oakland, California, and his colleague Heather Cooley have added up the energy used in each stage of bottled-water production and consumption. Their tally includes how much energy goes into making a plastic bottle; processing the water; labeling, filling, and sealing a bottle; transporting it for sale; and cooling the water prior to consumption.

more…

Hanging by an icy thread

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

Some 3000 kilometres due south of New Zealand, a giant Antarctic ice sheet is crumbling like a cheap supermarket pavlova.

The collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf has sparked fears of rising sea levels, but is it time to update the house insurance, or buy some water wings?

Scientists think the loss of Antarctic ice shelves such as Wilkins will let inland glaciers slide to the ocean faster, pumping vast quantities of ice into the sea and contributing to sea-level rises.

If it goes, the Wilkins Ice Shelf the size of Jamaica would become the 10th Antarctic ice shelf to recede or vanish into the sea since 1950.

Sea-level rises are also caused by thermal expansion of the oceans as they become warmer.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted a sea-level rise of up to 59 centimetres by the end of the century.

But it did not include the possible effects of melting ice sheets and said it could not yet predict the full extent of a future sea-level rise.

More…

Breaking news: Unprecedented global warming in past year

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

From January 2008 to January 2009, the planet warmed a remarkable 0.37°C (see data here). This is 20 times (!) the annual rate of warming in recent decades and 20 times what most climate models have projected we should be experiencing.

The N.Y. Times and WSJ have made this stunning news of accelerated human-caused global warming a lead story, and even some previously skeptical “deniers” who had been pushing the myth of global cooling have publicly wondered how they could have been so wrong…. Okay, maybe that last sentence is wishful thinking.

But I’m sure you remember how the deniers and the media spun up the global cooling meme a year ago [see “Media enable denier spin 1: A (sort of) cold January doesn’t mean climate stopped warming“]. That meme began with a misleading post by retired TV weatherman Anthony Watts, which was based in large part on the coincidence of a (relatively) cool January 2008 following on the heels of the warmest January on record (according to NASA’s dataset).

So now we have a quite warm January 2009, which ties with 1998 as the 5th warmest January in NASA’s temperature record, following on the heels of that moderately cool [OK, technically 31st warmest on record] January 2008. And that gives us the huge year-over-year warming, which should be making headlines around the online and traditional media, if they were consistent, which, of course, they are not.

More…