Something that I am often bothered by regarding economics is the obsession with a growing economy, a growing business, whatever the term can be applied to. But I always have to wonder: how much can an economy grow? Whenever something real grows, it has to do so by creating additional aspects and/or mass with available materials. Organic life uses nutritional input for chemical energy and chemical "building blocks;" a structure needs wood, steel, concrete, or some such material of choice to be built; a mess gets larger as more things are tossed into it. However, there are usually limits of some sort on growth, such as a limitation on nutritional availability, the possibility of a structure collapsing under its own weight, or a mess getting so large that the area it occupies can no longer be traversed. These limits are usually dealt with to some degree, though; an organic system will limit it's growth based on environmental factors, a building is designed to account for forces acting upon it, and even a mess can be cleaned up to at least keep a route available to pass through. There is an equilibrium level, at which a given system can balance its available resources and conditions to keep from becoming to large to function or sustain itself. But do you ever hear about such balance in the growth of economies? And perhaps more importantly, does a bigger economy necessarily mean a better economy?
I found a nice, concise definition of economic growth with a brief analysis of the concept here. There is something about the second portion that strikes me, though. They mention that "the growth of an economy is thought of not only as an increase in
productive capacity but also as an improvement in the quality of life to
the people of that economy." I can't help but think that the two are not proportionally related. Considering that various US corporations have recorded record profits for the last three years, while the unemployment rate in the US has been at its highest since 1983. However, it looks like both trends are starting to reverse, lending more to the possibility that the two are inversely related in the country in modern times. Considering that part of economic growth is increased production and provision of services, while the highest rate of production is often attained with automatic systems (which are also usually cheaper in the long run), perhaps it shouldn't be that surprising. But since economic growth partially relies on having someone to buy what gets produced, and people without jobs often can't fill that role, such trends are non-sustainable. The basic rule of having a source to continue building from is violated, and it begins to collapse.
The constant work of large corporations to expand their business and increase profits is doomed to fail at some point- perhaps especially when they seem to be "too big to fail." If they have expanded to the point where there is no one else to sell their product to, and they keep spending to try and attract new buyers, they begin suffering a net loss of capital. Instead of deciding at some point that they can work to maintain their current consumer base and smartly manage profits and development, to obtain some sort of equilibrium state, they just keep trying to expand and make more money than there may be to gain. If they took the time to try and balance things, to create that equilibrium state, they could grow at a more organic and reasonable rate, or even downsize in such a way that it doesn't ruin the lives of workers or dedicated clientele.
What expands on this even more, is how companies that have gotten too big have the capacity to directly effect politics with lobbyists and sizable political funding, another expenditure that by all means should accelerate net loss of capital. The corporations that participate in such activities tend to be protecting their own interests, in the process holding up political processing of more culturally relevant and possibly more important legislation. But sometimes, such lobbying can be genuinely destructive. Big Oil lobby members are the biggest spenders when it comes to the practice, some also helped fund the Tea Party. Considering the environmental and cultural impacts that oil drilling is known to have, I don't think that term is too strong in this context. But for something a little more horrible, there is actually a lobby against labor rights in China... I... I don't really know what to say to that, actually. I mean, I know that businesses disliked the way unions in the past made it so that they actually had to create safe working conditions and provide livable wages and the like, but this seems a bit ridiculous. I thought we were past the point of purposely making the lives of others miserable just to make a qui- okay never mind, they never did make it past that. And the fact that they have to power to actually affect this boggles me a bit. Especially since, when you think about it, the money that companies probably put into this could probably have gone toward any of the changes that would have been effected through political means, and they would have suffered minimal monetary maladies.
Besides all of this, there is just too much disconnect when a company gets as large as this. At least if there were a number of smaller businesses filling the role of such a large company, there would probably be a greater degree of concern for fellow workers, and better association with the customers that would allow them to affect things at higher levels of a company's operations by simply talking to someone working in a store they are visiting. But that isn't something that would be likely to happen too soon- "too big to fail" often entails "no room left"... going back to the mess analogy that I made earlier.
Perhaps what needs to happen is for these corporations that have a stranglehold on particular sections of the economy to collapse. There would be a long recovery, and probably some measure of fallout. But, it would hopefully allow for smaller operations to take the place of what was, probably staffed by former employees with extensive experience and skill. And hopefully, in the process, there would be a new independence of market development and political procedure, without a conglomerate dictating events and guiding them from behind the scenes.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
On Tar/Oil Sands and Political/Corporate Machinations
Oil sands, or Tar sands as they are often referred to, is a type of unconventional oil deposit. It is a conglomeration of sand, clay, and water, that is saturated with a very heavy, viscous form of petroleum. The form of petroleum that is present in oil sands is technically known as bitumen, but due to similarities in appearance, may be called tar due to similarities in appearance and other qualities. They are typically rather hard to extract and process, with only Canada having actually made a sizable commitment to refining of this particular resource. However, the Alberta Oil Sands project, has been called the "Most Destructive Project on Earth." There are a variety of factors that make it a contender, if not the recipient of this dubious title. One of the factors that I find most worrisome from the project is the over 50 square kilometers of tailing ponds that are so toxic that if ducks try to stop down for a spell, they will die before they take off again. The people who lived in the area being mined currently have a complex relationship with the issue as well, especially since unemployment is lower than just about anywhere else, about 5%. But the environmental impact is undeniable, and can only become greater while the project continues.
Canadian oil imports accounted for the largest portion of American imported oil in 2009, "about 19 percent of its total foreign supply, and around half of that [then came] from the oil sands." However, the production of petroleum products from these sources is inefficient, and requires a large quantity of other resources, including natural gas and water, the latter of which is of particular concern, since they use so much and it becomes so dangerous after usage. There are various compounds that are used in processing that accumulate in the water, but can those who work the process really be sure that it won't leak out? There have already been various reports of possible contamination outside of their supposed containment area, and the typical dam used to hold back the tailing ponds are made of sand and the particulates that come out in the expelled water from the factory... not something that I would typically regard as remarkably sturdy.
A particular move being made in regards to the Alberta Tar Sands has been going on for about three years as of this posting. Something called the Keystone XL pipeline has been a matter of rather strong contention in the last few years, though I have only heard of it while looking up information on Oil sands. A matter that has received a strong resistance in various regions of the country, as well as several protest actions, it has been brought before congress and the president more than once; Keystone has had to re-apply for a permit for the pipeline to cross the U.S./ Canada border, after being denied the permit in January of this year. Bill McKibben, one of the main organizers of protest movements regarding the pipeline, said this about Obama's denial of the permit, when put under pressure by Republican members of congress: "When Republicans in Congress forced the issue again by passing a 60-day time limit on the President’s final decision, he stood strong and denied the permit. And that was despite the most explicit threats from Big Oil: that they would exact ‘huge political consequences’ if he did the right thing on Keystone." While he didn't make mention of what kind of channels such threats were delivered through, I wouldn't doubt that they at least believe they have such power (and to some extent do), considering that they have been using the concept of "Eminent Domain" (repeatedly, it's worth noting) to begin construction of sections of pipeline, before the permit has even been passed. Also, there is this account of what happened to two protestors at the hands of local police in Texas (on a different section of the pipeline) who were preventing logging that would have made way for the pipeline. The officers involved were to some degree following requests or orders from the TransCanada employees on how to deal with the two protestors who had locked themselves to some logging equipment. This is a serious sign of a situation deteriorating, I believe, when a corporation has a police force acting almost as their own personal mercenary unit.
Oil Sands are not the answer to the energy crisis. They should be the backup backup source for when the world is hopefully on a greener supply of energy and some extra or different energy source is used. But more than this, to what extent are people willing to go to simply maintain the status quo? Things need to change, and yet still so many are trying so hard to keep things from progressing to a new era, for better or worse... though in this case, it would be rather hard for things to get worse. I'll admit that I am quite worried by how things are going with this pipeline thing, and I do hope that Obama is able to prove to the Big Oil conglomerates that they don't have the power that they think they do.
Canadian oil imports accounted for the largest portion of American imported oil in 2009, "about 19 percent of its total foreign supply, and around half of that [then came] from the oil sands." However, the production of petroleum products from these sources is inefficient, and requires a large quantity of other resources, including natural gas and water, the latter of which is of particular concern, since they use so much and it becomes so dangerous after usage. There are various compounds that are used in processing that accumulate in the water, but can those who work the process really be sure that it won't leak out? There have already been various reports of possible contamination outside of their supposed containment area, and the typical dam used to hold back the tailing ponds are made of sand and the particulates that come out in the expelled water from the factory... not something that I would typically regard as remarkably sturdy.
A particular move being made in regards to the Alberta Tar Sands has been going on for about three years as of this posting. Something called the Keystone XL pipeline has been a matter of rather strong contention in the last few years, though I have only heard of it while looking up information on Oil sands. A matter that has received a strong resistance in various regions of the country, as well as several protest actions, it has been brought before congress and the president more than once; Keystone has had to re-apply for a permit for the pipeline to cross the U.S./ Canada border, after being denied the permit in January of this year. Bill McKibben, one of the main organizers of protest movements regarding the pipeline, said this about Obama's denial of the permit, when put under pressure by Republican members of congress: "When Republicans in Congress forced the issue again by passing a 60-day time limit on the President’s final decision, he stood strong and denied the permit. And that was despite the most explicit threats from Big Oil: that they would exact ‘huge political consequences’ if he did the right thing on Keystone." While he didn't make mention of what kind of channels such threats were delivered through, I wouldn't doubt that they at least believe they have such power (and to some extent do), considering that they have been using the concept of "Eminent Domain" (repeatedly, it's worth noting) to begin construction of sections of pipeline, before the permit has even been passed. Also, there is this account of what happened to two protestors at the hands of local police in Texas (on a different section of the pipeline) who were preventing logging that would have made way for the pipeline. The officers involved were to some degree following requests or orders from the TransCanada employees on how to deal with the two protestors who had locked themselves to some logging equipment. This is a serious sign of a situation deteriorating, I believe, when a corporation has a police force acting almost as their own personal mercenary unit.
Oil Sands are not the answer to the energy crisis. They should be the backup backup source for when the world is hopefully on a greener supply of energy and some extra or different energy source is used. But more than this, to what extent are people willing to go to simply maintain the status quo? Things need to change, and yet still so many are trying so hard to keep things from progressing to a new era, for better or worse... though in this case, it would be rather hard for things to get worse. I'll admit that I am quite worried by how things are going with this pipeline thing, and I do hope that Obama is able to prove to the Big Oil conglomerates that they don't have the power that they think they do.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Their fatigues aren't the only thing green about them now.
Throughout history, armies have historically been a hugely significant expenditure of resources. Whether it be materials to produce weapons, or the food required to feed a large host of soldiers, a military is always going to be difficult to maintain. In our modern era, one of the prime examples of this is the military demand for fuel, to operate most of their machinery. Whether it simply be operating equipment around the base, or keeping a line of tanks moving toward an objective, fuel is consumed in vast quantities by the branches of the military. And while they only account for a small percentage of worldwide demand, the US military is still one of the largest consumers of petroleum in the world, consuming about 340,000 barrels per day. While there seem to be those who would claim that this isn't enough consumption to change the alternative energy market, they are basing these arguments on current status of alternative fuel production, and the fact that there isn't much research into making it cheaper or better. If a large consumer like the military were to begin putting money toward alternative energy sources, even if it is by buying it instead of funding research, I'm sure that some sort of headway would be made by the extra cash flow that companies would receive if they had a reliable customer. One could argue that they played a role in popularizing the markets for coal, gas, and nuclear power as these came into play. Besides, it can be easier to enact change through purchasing power when a select few are the ones receiving the money to produce something, and there aren't that many biofuel companies currently operating at commercial capacity.
"'You need that big anchor customer. And the Navy can afford a premium, because it knows how much petroleum really costs,' explains Brook Porter, an investment partner at the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which has put more than $1.5 billion into so-called 'clean tech' companies. For some of these firms, a big military contract could mean the difference between life and death."
While I do think that energy sources other than combustible fuels would be an optimal choice environmentally, it is hard to deny the power and usefulness of liquid combustibles. Many military vehicles get less than a mile to a gallon of fuel, but while they do need to try and improve efficiency to improve operating times and the weight of fuel needed to travel, this means they probably can't switch to most other types of alternative energy, as they wouldn't be able to provide the power needed to, say, fly a multi-ton aircraft carrying a multi-ton tank over 26,000 miles. However, there are other applications for other alternative energy sources, which the marines have been pushing research for research and development into self-sufficient power sources to keep equipment running, which besides reducing reliance on batteries from a supply train, the weight carried by a "patrol of 35 soldiers shed[s] 700 pounds." So really, this brings back a talking point that I often think needs to be addressed whenever alternative energy is discussed: There is no one solution for everything. One of the beautiful things about the alternative energy sources being developed is that there is a variety. Something that doesn't work in one place can be switched out with another type, or weaknesses in one system can be compensated with an additional system being available. For example, solar cells might not work as well in a rainforest environment, with the thick foliage and lack of constant sun. But if there were a system that could take advantage of all the water that is readily available in such an environment, such as a hydrogen fuel cell generator that could produce the hydrogen with electrolysis from a hand crank generator (may not help with battery-type needs, but just throwing something out there). So, while the military should look into improving fuel efficiency and alternative fuels for their vehicle fleet, they should look into every field to try and find ways to reduce the need for resupplies and reliance on some other producer.
Something that the military does understand is that they do have a problem with fossil fuels, though not on an environmental aspect. Relying on a foreign source for such an essential resource is a tactical vulnerability of the worst kind. But we are so deep in our reliance on fossil fuels that ways to combat said reliance are difficult, and viewed as impossible by many conservative individuals, though whether that is due to actual perceived difficulty or oil lobbyists is a different issue. In fact, there is a bill in the works to make it so that alternative fuels practically can't be bought or produced by the military, if they exceed the cost of an equivalent amount of fossil fuel. The fact that the military was testing large scale use of alternative fuels, instead of making a push to a full transition, may be an indication that this is a push by oil lobbyists. The Air Force was testing a much more expensive fuel than the "Great Green Fleet" that prompted the bill, but because they were doing it on a smaller scale it slipped under the radar. But those who participate in such testing are of the firm belief that the US needs to try and improve energy self-reliance, and are trying to take steps to make the transition easier and sooner than civilian economics can.
With the way things are going, we need to make a shift away from petroleum fuels as the primary energy source, even if we don't simply get rid of them. However, if we want to have them as an alternative in case something happens in the future, we need to start the shift now. The military taking an interest in this matter may seem like an odd place to start, given the destructive nature of such a body, but their purchasing power is unrivaled in terms of getting high tech and experimental resources. Besides, if they can manage to reduce reliance on petroleum, then it may be a pretty good indicator that anyone can.
"'You need that big anchor customer. And the Navy can afford a premium, because it knows how much petroleum really costs,' explains Brook Porter, an investment partner at the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which has put more than $1.5 billion into so-called 'clean tech' companies. For some of these firms, a big military contract could mean the difference between life and death."
While I do think that energy sources other than combustible fuels would be an optimal choice environmentally, it is hard to deny the power and usefulness of liquid combustibles. Many military vehicles get less than a mile to a gallon of fuel, but while they do need to try and improve efficiency to improve operating times and the weight of fuel needed to travel, this means they probably can't switch to most other types of alternative energy, as they wouldn't be able to provide the power needed to, say, fly a multi-ton aircraft carrying a multi-ton tank over 26,000 miles. However, there are other applications for other alternative energy sources, which the marines have been pushing research for research and development into self-sufficient power sources to keep equipment running, which besides reducing reliance on batteries from a supply train, the weight carried by a "patrol of 35 soldiers shed[s] 700 pounds." So really, this brings back a talking point that I often think needs to be addressed whenever alternative energy is discussed: There is no one solution for everything. One of the beautiful things about the alternative energy sources being developed is that there is a variety. Something that doesn't work in one place can be switched out with another type, or weaknesses in one system can be compensated with an additional system being available. For example, solar cells might not work as well in a rainforest environment, with the thick foliage and lack of constant sun. But if there were a system that could take advantage of all the water that is readily available in such an environment, such as a hydrogen fuel cell generator that could produce the hydrogen with electrolysis from a hand crank generator (may not help with battery-type needs, but just throwing something out there). So, while the military should look into improving fuel efficiency and alternative fuels for their vehicle fleet, they should look into every field to try and find ways to reduce the need for resupplies and reliance on some other producer.
Something that the military does understand is that they do have a problem with fossil fuels, though not on an environmental aspect. Relying on a foreign source for such an essential resource is a tactical vulnerability of the worst kind. But we are so deep in our reliance on fossil fuels that ways to combat said reliance are difficult, and viewed as impossible by many conservative individuals, though whether that is due to actual perceived difficulty or oil lobbyists is a different issue. In fact, there is a bill in the works to make it so that alternative fuels practically can't be bought or produced by the military, if they exceed the cost of an equivalent amount of fossil fuel. The fact that the military was testing large scale use of alternative fuels, instead of making a push to a full transition, may be an indication that this is a push by oil lobbyists. The Air Force was testing a much more expensive fuel than the "Great Green Fleet" that prompted the bill, but because they were doing it on a smaller scale it slipped under the radar. But those who participate in such testing are of the firm belief that the US needs to try and improve energy self-reliance, and are trying to take steps to make the transition easier and sooner than civilian economics can.
With the way things are going, we need to make a shift away from petroleum fuels as the primary energy source, even if we don't simply get rid of them. However, if we want to have them as an alternative in case something happens in the future, we need to start the shift now. The military taking an interest in this matter may seem like an odd place to start, given the destructive nature of such a body, but their purchasing power is unrivaled in terms of getting high tech and experimental resources. Besides, if they can manage to reduce reliance on petroleum, then it may be a pretty good indicator that anyone can.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Can Coal Be Clean?
Clean coal is kind of a pipe dream. It's pretty much a rock that can be burned, and since it can be burned without any kind of purification process (in fact, I'm not sure if you can do anything to purify a solid like that) it is bound to have all sorts of nasty things, like heavy metals, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide (which is one of the worst ingredients for acid rain) and the like. That's not even mentioning the significant quantity of CO2 that is released from burning coal. Most so-called "clean coal" tech has focused on removing the toxic compounds and dangerous particulate from emissions, and to a lesser degree reducing CO2 in emissions. In the past, coal burning plants used to respond to complaints in the local communities about their smoke and dust by making their smokestacks taller, thus making it so that the smoke and gasses would be blown further away from the local populace... thus spreading the problem into a larger area, and affecting more sensitive habitats. Nowadays, they try to improve filters and carbon capturing systems, which is only mitigating the larger problem. And while it is just about impossible to burn something that doesn't produce CO2, the sheer quantity that coal is able to produce gives it unique status as an especially dirty pollutant.
Something that may have an impact on how coal can be used is a method known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. It is a process that can be used to make liquid hydrocarbons from pretty much any combustible carbon-containing compound, such as biomass, natural gas, and coal. It does so by first generating carbon monoxide, then combining it with hydrogen. The process was first discovered by German scientists during the 1920's, and was subsequently used to convert coal to liquid fuel during WWII to power German war machines. While CO2 is still produced during the production and combustion of Fischer-Tropsch fuels, it can be captured more easily in the lab, and the other pollutants can be stripped from the gas stream during the production process as well, thus making a cleaner burning fuel. The process has been considered for mass use several times throughout US history, though economic aspects usually brought any advancement to a halt. In fact, some of these events may have been engineered to some degree: "The last time investors started lining up money for Fischer-Tropsch plants, in the 1970s, the OPEC oil cartel opened up its spigots and pushed the price of crude down to $10 a barrel, and that was that". Meanwhile, South Africa has based the majority of their fuel consumption on Fishcer-Tropsch fuels produced from local coal deposits. While it isn't the best alternative to petrol based fuels in terms of CO2 emissions, synthetic fuels are comparable in power, have fewer side products, and in some ways are easier to obtain than oil. After all, we would be able to make it from local sources, instead of having to import most of the ingredients.
Whatever the case, the one thing that is easiest to take from what I've learned is this: If there's a trick to clean coal, it is to not burn it as coal.
Extra links:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/epa_fischer.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
http://www.economist.com/node/13235041?story_id=13235041
Monday, September 17, 2012
So what is the deal with Israel?
I'll forward this post by saying that I had never really looked that much into Israel and it's history, as well as that of the rest of Palestine. I did know that it was established to some degree after one of the world wars, and that it was smack-dab in the middle of a largely Muslim region, in an area considered holy by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. After some further research that wasn't truly extensive, I now have a better idea about the inception of the country and the conflict surrounding it then and now.
I can understand some of the conflict, since the former minority of the Palestinian region moved in people from other regions of the world as they were escaping other kinds of persecution, to the point that they became the majority. I suppose being able to have their own armed forces under the control of the religiously minded may have been part of the appeal, besides living in the land of people they were related to... very distantly. But so many Jews came to live in Palestine that they displaced many of the people who originally lived there due to religious tension, instead of being able to coexist. Due to the Arab/Israeli conflict in 1948, refugees of both Jewish and Palestinian descent fled the country. After the conflict had ended, the refugees of Palestinian descent were disallowed from being able to come back and claim any of their property. However, this policy was also extended to Palestinians who had not fled, with the introduction of a citizenship status called "present absentee," basically making it so that if a Palestinian left their home, they were considered absent, and their property could be seized and reappropriated for the immigrant populations. Arabs were not barred from moving into Israel, but those returning would be unable to claim their previous holdings. However, it would seem that Jews were somehow exempted from this change in status, thus adding to the tension and feelings of mistreatment in Palestinian minds, and giving fuel to fires of war brewing in other countries.
So far, we have a colony of Jews who had decided they wanted a country for their own religion (guess they thought since there are predominantly Christian and Muslim countries, they wanted one too) and moved into the old promised land of their forefathers to set it up. They pushed out a large population with a similar claim but conflicting... ideals, customs... whatever the religiously minded like to fight over when they meet someone different. But they didn't do it themselves. A large part of the events leading up to the migration to Israel were the result of a movement known as "Zionism." To briefly describe it, it's pretty much jingoism if it had a religion instead of a nation in mind, until a nation was included for them to go on about. They did have a certain amount of vindication for the movement, considering the ethnic cleansing taking place in various countries even before WWI, but they took an angle that expelled another culture from an area with closer ancestral and definite personal ties to the land.
A large part of the issue stems from the fact that they were taking in more Jewish immigrants than they were legally supposed to shortly before the Mandate of Palestine was terminated. However, at that time, Great Britain was in control of the region, and trying to establish the grounds for the self-governance of the region after their planned termination of the mandate proved to be one of the largest problems, since the Arabs seemed adamant about not cooperating with the Jews about... well, anything. The first paragraph on page 6 (you can check via the link) has a bit about how the Arabs viewed the Jews;
"Arab leaders refused this offer [For an Arab Agency, to act along with the Jewish Agency] on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people, adding that they had never recognized the status of the Jewish Agency and had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis."
So, they rejected the offer because the Jews already had one, basically. The comparison of these two factions acting like squabbling children comes to mind again...
Shortly before the Mandate terminated, the Arab Higher Committee instigated attacks against "Jewish targets." While the Jews were initially on the defense, they were able to push back and break the coalition, which led to the first wave of Palestinian refugees. The night before the Mandate terminated, the Jewish Agency declared the establishment of the State of Israel, which at the time (and to a certain degree, now) didn't have particularly clear borders. The next day, they were attacked by a coalition of four Islamic states, to last for about a year before a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders were drawn. Since then, there have been regular covert attacks and overt raids into and from Israel, as well as ten more full-scale conflicts.These have only served to maintain hostility levels, though, as very few of the conflicts actually led to anything changing, and most of the time conquered lands were returned. A productive series of events, wouldn't you say?
So, after all of this, I do feel like I have a certain level of knowledge about the conflict surrounding Israel. While I don't have a particular feeling about who is in the right or wrong on the matter, the one thing that I do find strongly disappointing is the way that Israel is treating the Palestinian issue, especially given some ideas mentioned about possible common lineage in the link about "clear borders." Overall, I just think it's a shame that neither side is willing to relent on their dislike (or full-on hate, as the case may be) of the other, and that due to their history they are so scared of what the other side is planning to do to them. There needs to be a day when people realize if they stop caring about where someone is from, you can come to like them, or at least come to hate them for a more legitimate reason than before.
I suppose a moral can be taken from this: Take your personal meetings on a case by case basis, and you may find that denominations are less effective ways to judge a person than personal interactions. Saves a lot of time and effort that would have been spent on scheming and counter-scheming.
I can understand some of the conflict, since the former minority of the Palestinian region moved in people from other regions of the world as they were escaping other kinds of persecution, to the point that they became the majority. I suppose being able to have their own armed forces under the control of the religiously minded may have been part of the appeal, besides living in the land of people they were related to... very distantly. But so many Jews came to live in Palestine that they displaced many of the people who originally lived there due to religious tension, instead of being able to coexist. Due to the Arab/Israeli conflict in 1948, refugees of both Jewish and Palestinian descent fled the country. After the conflict had ended, the refugees of Palestinian descent were disallowed from being able to come back and claim any of their property. However, this policy was also extended to Palestinians who had not fled, with the introduction of a citizenship status called "present absentee," basically making it so that if a Palestinian left their home, they were considered absent, and their property could be seized and reappropriated for the immigrant populations. Arabs were not barred from moving into Israel, but those returning would be unable to claim their previous holdings. However, it would seem that Jews were somehow exempted from this change in status, thus adding to the tension and feelings of mistreatment in Palestinian minds, and giving fuel to fires of war brewing in other countries.
So far, we have a colony of Jews who had decided they wanted a country for their own religion (guess they thought since there are predominantly Christian and Muslim countries, they wanted one too) and moved into the old promised land of their forefathers to set it up. They pushed out a large population with a similar claim but conflicting... ideals, customs... whatever the religiously minded like to fight over when they meet someone different. But they didn't do it themselves. A large part of the events leading up to the migration to Israel were the result of a movement known as "Zionism." To briefly describe it, it's pretty much jingoism if it had a religion instead of a nation in mind, until a nation was included for them to go on about. They did have a certain amount of vindication for the movement, considering the ethnic cleansing taking place in various countries even before WWI, but they took an angle that expelled another culture from an area with closer ancestral and definite personal ties to the land.
A large part of the issue stems from the fact that they were taking in more Jewish immigrants than they were legally supposed to shortly before the Mandate of Palestine was terminated. However, at that time, Great Britain was in control of the region, and trying to establish the grounds for the self-governance of the region after their planned termination of the mandate proved to be one of the largest problems, since the Arabs seemed adamant about not cooperating with the Jews about... well, anything. The first paragraph on page 6 (you can check via the link) has a bit about how the Arabs viewed the Jews;
"Arab leaders refused this offer [For an Arab Agency, to act along with the Jewish Agency] on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people, adding that they had never recognized the status of the Jewish Agency and had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis."
So, they rejected the offer because the Jews already had one, basically. The comparison of these two factions acting like squabbling children comes to mind again...
Shortly before the Mandate terminated, the Arab Higher Committee instigated attacks against "Jewish targets." While the Jews were initially on the defense, they were able to push back and break the coalition, which led to the first wave of Palestinian refugees. The night before the Mandate terminated, the Jewish Agency declared the establishment of the State of Israel, which at the time (and to a certain degree, now) didn't have particularly clear borders. The next day, they were attacked by a coalition of four Islamic states, to last for about a year before a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders were drawn. Since then, there have been regular covert attacks and overt raids into and from Israel, as well as ten more full-scale conflicts.These have only served to maintain hostility levels, though, as very few of the conflicts actually led to anything changing, and most of the time conquered lands were returned. A productive series of events, wouldn't you say?
So, after all of this, I do feel like I have a certain level of knowledge about the conflict surrounding Israel. While I don't have a particular feeling about who is in the right or wrong on the matter, the one thing that I do find strongly disappointing is the way that Israel is treating the Palestinian issue, especially given some ideas mentioned about possible common lineage in the link about "clear borders." Overall, I just think it's a shame that neither side is willing to relent on their dislike (or full-on hate, as the case may be) of the other, and that due to their history they are so scared of what the other side is planning to do to them. There needs to be a day when people realize if they stop caring about where someone is from, you can come to like them, or at least come to hate them for a more legitimate reason than before.
I suppose a moral can be taken from this: Take your personal meetings on a case by case basis, and you may find that denominations are less effective ways to judge a person than personal interactions. Saves a lot of time and effort that would have been spent on scheming and counter-scheming.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Rainy Days... is the drizzle smoking?
To me, acid rain seems like a highly unpleasant concept. Rainwater, usually one of the most reliably clean sources of water on earth, becoming caustic enough to increase erosion rates of stone and metal. Also, changing the soil of the plants that it waters in such a way that they die off, and few things if any are capable of growing in the ground thereafter. It just seems wrong, like a perversion of nature in a way; one of the most necessary elements in biological systems, and an invaluable delivery system for cycling and delivering water to regions where it doesn't last long on the surface, becoming a vector for killing off otherwise hardy ecosystems. It's a twisted version of the cycle that is so necessary for life.
While rain itself is naturally more acidic than neutral due to naturally occurring weak acids generated from atmospheric gases, it usually falls within a certain range that organisms have evolved to operate within. If the natural acidity is pushed too far, or reduced to a basic nature, organisms typically suffer from various functions becoming inhibited as the proteins and enzymes within the cells of any organisms subjected to the changed pH become inert or inoperable, if they aren't killed outright by possible corrosive effects. Plants that don't suffer from effects such as these are often victim to either toxic compounds being solvated and absorbed, or to atrophy as vital nutrients are dissolved to the point that they flow away before they can be taken up (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html). Bodies of water are also subject to such sensitivity, with similar reasons- fish are susceptible to poisoning by aluminum and acidic conditions, while microorganisms suffer from their medium being changed (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/surface_water.html).
It's not just the environment that is degrading due to acid rain, either. Various man-made structures are subject to damage from acid rain, especially those made from rocks primarily composed of calcium carbonate, and ferric and cupric metals. "Calcium carbonate in certain stones dissolves in dilute sulphuric acid [from rain] to form calcium sulphate." (http://www.air-quality.org.uk/12.php) Calcium sulphate, often known as gypsum, is a much more brittle stone, and is subject to falling off of the afflicted stonework, leaving an exposed area that is subjected to further reaction with acid rain. Besides the effects upon statues, various buildings of note are feeling the effects, including the Taj Mahal, Notre Dame cathedral, and the roman Colosseum.
Acid rain is generated in various ways, some natural. However, natural acidity is usually caused by carbonic acid, a much weaker acid than the sulfuric and nitric acids that typically causes problems. These are often generated by the release of industrial chemicals from smokestacks, or from the exhaust of motor vehicles. Though both can occur naturally, the quantity of these compounds in the air has increased and been generated more frequently, as compared to being generated from less common events such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, which combined produce roughly 1/7th of the quantity of sulfur dioxide released from human activities per year. And while the phenomenon is typically referred to as acid "rain," it doesn't necessarily need to come down in aqueous conditions- sometimes these acids occur in gaseous or solid forms and reaches the ground long enough to either stick to something or react with something. When this happens, it's usually referred to as dry deposition. However, it's effects can be just as much, if not more noticeable in the long run, since the quantity deposited will most likely be fully unleashed when exposed to water, and when that occurs, the dry material will solvate and add up to a much higher concentration being administered all at once. When this happens, the pH drops even more dramatically, and the organisms subjected to this treatment will most likely not be able to cope. And while humans may not be susceptible to direct health effects from increased acidification of the environment, it is the gaseous and dry particulate that can cause various severe health issues, as these will dissolve in the mucous lining of the respiratory system, and cause heart and lung problems.
Unlike climate change, this matter has received political attention and study, though not without it's own share of political turmoil. In 1980, a program was put together to try and assess the extent and impact of acid deposition on the environment. This program was called the National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program(NAPAP), and was supposed to perform a long-term study into the matter of acid precipitation and it's effects on the environment, and come up with a "credible evaluation of the consequences of various policy options" While it seemed to serve it's purpose by the end of it's term, although "advocates from all sides attempted to use the program to support their own policy marketing efforts, or to disparage those of their opponents." (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/staff/lackey/pubs/ACID-RAIN-SCIENCE-POLICY-LACKEY-BLAIR-JOURNAL-REPRINT-1997.pdf). Another study, by the DENR, found in 1991 that large bodies of freshwater are becoming more acidic, enough so that some species of fish can no longer survive within them. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act was passed in 1989, which introduced the concept of "cap and trade," a system where permits are issued for how much of a pollutant gas can be released into the atmosphere by a company per year, and if they don't expect to reach that limit, they can trade those permits to another company for something. This allows for companies with the means to make the large scale changes to their operating facilities to clean their emissions can do so, trading to the companies that don't yet have the capacity to do the same until they do have the capability. It seems to have been a success for this program, and apparently at a lower cost than was initially expected. However, the success may be attributed to certain changes in the industries that were actually subject to exuding the compounds responsible for the acidity in the air. A similar system is being proposed to try and handle greenhouse gases, but part of the reason they are so hard to handle is that they aren't as reactive as sulfur dioxide, and can be harder to contain. There is also the matter of the time that such a plan needs to be effective, as gradual changes come about; climate change is already at an advanced stage of progression, and if this program even had a chance to work here as well, is it too late to help? But that is a different matter.
While sulfur dioxide emissions by human activity haven't been reduced to zero, they have been reduced significantly, perhaps even to the point where our impact on the environment through that vector is minimal. Hopefully our impact will be less than those of natural causes one day, but in the meantime, it's good to be able to celebrate our victories while we can... as long as we don't backslide in the process.
While rain itself is naturally more acidic than neutral due to naturally occurring weak acids generated from atmospheric gases, it usually falls within a certain range that organisms have evolved to operate within. If the natural acidity is pushed too far, or reduced to a basic nature, organisms typically suffer from various functions becoming inhibited as the proteins and enzymes within the cells of any organisms subjected to the changed pH become inert or inoperable, if they aren't killed outright by possible corrosive effects. Plants that don't suffer from effects such as these are often victim to either toxic compounds being solvated and absorbed, or to atrophy as vital nutrients are dissolved to the point that they flow away before they can be taken up (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/forests.html). Bodies of water are also subject to such sensitivity, with similar reasons- fish are susceptible to poisoning by aluminum and acidic conditions, while microorganisms suffer from their medium being changed (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/surface_water.html).
It's not just the environment that is degrading due to acid rain, either. Various man-made structures are subject to damage from acid rain, especially those made from rocks primarily composed of calcium carbonate, and ferric and cupric metals. "Calcium carbonate in certain stones dissolves in dilute sulphuric acid [from rain] to form calcium sulphate." (http://www.air-quality.org.uk/12.php) Calcium sulphate, often known as gypsum, is a much more brittle stone, and is subject to falling off of the afflicted stonework, leaving an exposed area that is subjected to further reaction with acid rain. Besides the effects upon statues, various buildings of note are feeling the effects, including the Taj Mahal, Notre Dame cathedral, and the roman Colosseum.
Acid rain is generated in various ways, some natural. However, natural acidity is usually caused by carbonic acid, a much weaker acid than the sulfuric and nitric acids that typically causes problems. These are often generated by the release of industrial chemicals from smokestacks, or from the exhaust of motor vehicles. Though both can occur naturally, the quantity of these compounds in the air has increased and been generated more frequently, as compared to being generated from less common events such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, which combined produce roughly 1/7th of the quantity of sulfur dioxide released from human activities per year. And while the phenomenon is typically referred to as acid "rain," it doesn't necessarily need to come down in aqueous conditions- sometimes these acids occur in gaseous or solid forms and reaches the ground long enough to either stick to something or react with something. When this happens, it's usually referred to as dry deposition. However, it's effects can be just as much, if not more noticeable in the long run, since the quantity deposited will most likely be fully unleashed when exposed to water, and when that occurs, the dry material will solvate and add up to a much higher concentration being administered all at once. When this happens, the pH drops even more dramatically, and the organisms subjected to this treatment will most likely not be able to cope. And while humans may not be susceptible to direct health effects from increased acidification of the environment, it is the gaseous and dry particulate that can cause various severe health issues, as these will dissolve in the mucous lining of the respiratory system, and cause heart and lung problems.
Unlike climate change, this matter has received political attention and study, though not without it's own share of political turmoil. In 1980, a program was put together to try and assess the extent and impact of acid deposition on the environment. This program was called the National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program(NAPAP), and was supposed to perform a long-term study into the matter of acid precipitation and it's effects on the environment, and come up with a "credible evaluation of the consequences of various policy options" While it seemed to serve it's purpose by the end of it's term, although "advocates from all sides attempted to use the program to support their own policy marketing efforts, or to disparage those of their opponents." (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/staff/lackey/pubs/ACID-RAIN-SCIENCE-POLICY-LACKEY-BLAIR-JOURNAL-REPRINT-1997.pdf). Another study, by the DENR, found in 1991 that large bodies of freshwater are becoming more acidic, enough so that some species of fish can no longer survive within them. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act was passed in 1989, which introduced the concept of "cap and trade," a system where permits are issued for how much of a pollutant gas can be released into the atmosphere by a company per year, and if they don't expect to reach that limit, they can trade those permits to another company for something. This allows for companies with the means to make the large scale changes to their operating facilities to clean their emissions can do so, trading to the companies that don't yet have the capacity to do the same until they do have the capability. It seems to have been a success for this program, and apparently at a lower cost than was initially expected. However, the success may be attributed to certain changes in the industries that were actually subject to exuding the compounds responsible for the acidity in the air. A similar system is being proposed to try and handle greenhouse gases, but part of the reason they are so hard to handle is that they aren't as reactive as sulfur dioxide, and can be harder to contain. There is also the matter of the time that such a plan needs to be effective, as gradual changes come about; climate change is already at an advanced stage of progression, and if this program even had a chance to work here as well, is it too late to help? But that is a different matter.
While sulfur dioxide emissions by human activity haven't been reduced to zero, they have been reduced significantly, perhaps even to the point where our impact on the environment through that vector is minimal. Hopefully our impact will be less than those of natural causes one day, but in the meantime, it's good to be able to celebrate our victories while we can... as long as we don't backslide in the process.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Where to begin...
Since this is my first post, I figured that a subject directly relating to the class may be an appropriate start. Why is it that oil has become such an integral part of political proceedings? I suppose I'd be inclined to say that it did during the course of WWII, when it's strategic importance was fully tested. It was a source of fuel that could drive multi-ton vehicles in just about any situation, even in colder climates where other fuel sources might have become too viscous to flow through the engine. It was easy to transport, and as long as certain basic safety measures were in place, it was relatively safe and stable. I am inclined to believe one of the major points here is the matter of how much horsepower could be produced with a good engine. Being able to keep aircraft aloft, even with heavy loads, became a major selling point for the fuel source during the cold war era, when there were 24-7 flights of bombers prepared to divert their holding pattern to hit the heart of the Soviet Union. But since then, a few alternative sources of transportable energy have been researched and produced, including better electric motors and batteries, biofuels, and to a lesser extent, hydrogen based power. While they each have their own sets of advantages and drawbacks, there has not been enough research into most of them to improve their viability and effectiveness. Is this due to oil's dominance, in minds and established infrastructure, or perhaps there are individuals who try to halt development to maintain oil's dominance? I suppose it will only be a question that can be properly answered in hindsight, when all the factors can be analyzed together. In the meantime, oil still holds the primary role as the worlds energy source, even as it is known to be running out.
A significant factor to consider in this situation is political corruption. It has long been known that various groups will somehow try to buy politicians in one way or another- whether it be with gifts, bribes, or campaign funding. While there are laws in place against such activities, they certainly occur anyway, often leading to a politician acting on their part in future lawmaking or other political maneuvers. Oil companies have the distinction of being pandered to by the government, even before they start buying individuals. Since they provide the lifeblood for the armed forces, as well as the primary convenience of the everyday individual, they are the controllers of one of the greatest strategic factors for a modern armed conflict. The government, being unable to take control of the companies, even through modern capitalistic methods, instead simply gives them what they want to make sure that they keep the oil flowing. Unfortunately, since the primary sources of oil are in foreign countries, that also means the government has to pander to them to allow American companies to drill in areas outside of their direct control. As elaborated in Blood and Oil, this means a lot of concessions and gifts to groups that are not particularly friendly or well-meaning. However, since they are limiting their options by not researching alternatives, the US government is in a way forcing itself to continue these practices.
To take a slight conspiracy take on it, perhaps one of the reasons that the government does what it can to keep up oil production is so that they can get it relatively cheap. Following with the law of supply and demand, when more people want something, the cheaper it can be to get, hence why buying in bulk is a popular economic choice. However, since the government subsidizes oil production, that take on the situation doesn't really hold water. For more on this, I would suggest looking here.
So, while it's easy to comment and complain, what is there to actually do about the situation?
Well, I'm not really sure. It's easy to say that we need to work more on alternative energy sources, it's a group decision. There are more ways to make the transition than there are ways to continue as we are, and some prefer not having to make hard decisions, much less putting work into them. I suppose the best we can do is put the best and brightest on the job, try to turnover the current political stagnancy with new members, and try to minimize our personal reliance on oil. While that last one is hardly a drop in the bucket, if enough people try to do the same, it will reduce the rate at which the bucket fills, if nothing else.
A significant factor to consider in this situation is political corruption. It has long been known that various groups will somehow try to buy politicians in one way or another- whether it be with gifts, bribes, or campaign funding. While there are laws in place against such activities, they certainly occur anyway, often leading to a politician acting on their part in future lawmaking or other political maneuvers. Oil companies have the distinction of being pandered to by the government, even before they start buying individuals. Since they provide the lifeblood for the armed forces, as well as the primary convenience of the everyday individual, they are the controllers of one of the greatest strategic factors for a modern armed conflict. The government, being unable to take control of the companies, even through modern capitalistic methods, instead simply gives them what they want to make sure that they keep the oil flowing. Unfortunately, since the primary sources of oil are in foreign countries, that also means the government has to pander to them to allow American companies to drill in areas outside of their direct control. As elaborated in Blood and Oil, this means a lot of concessions and gifts to groups that are not particularly friendly or well-meaning. However, since they are limiting their options by not researching alternatives, the US government is in a way forcing itself to continue these practices.
To take a slight conspiracy take on it, perhaps one of the reasons that the government does what it can to keep up oil production is so that they can get it relatively cheap. Following with the law of supply and demand, when more people want something, the cheaper it can be to get, hence why buying in bulk is a popular economic choice. However, since the government subsidizes oil production, that take on the situation doesn't really hold water. For more on this, I would suggest looking here.
So, while it's easy to comment and complain, what is there to actually do about the situation?
Well, I'm not really sure. It's easy to say that we need to work more on alternative energy sources, it's a group decision. There are more ways to make the transition than there are ways to continue as we are, and some prefer not having to make hard decisions, much less putting work into them. I suppose the best we can do is put the best and brightest on the job, try to turnover the current political stagnancy with new members, and try to minimize our personal reliance on oil. While that last one is hardly a drop in the bucket, if enough people try to do the same, it will reduce the rate at which the bucket fills, if nothing else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)