SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RetiredNow who wrote (291685)6/20/2006 2:01:22 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572214
 
re: As long as oil prices remain high, so will gas prices, and that will lead to a destruction of demand as people start to use alternative fuels and smaller cars. The more that happens, the less dependent we are on the oil barons.

One positive thing is that Detroit is making cars that can run on E85. Just need to start producing and selling the damn ethanol.

Imagine an E85 enabled plug in hybrid small car! Assuming a lot of local driving, the thing could use maybe 3% or less of the gasoline of an ordinary car per mile. You could put 33 of the things on the road for the same amount of gas as one "regular car".

It's not easy, but it's certainly doable.

John



To: RetiredNow who wrote (291685)6/23/2006 7:36:09 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 1572214
 
The World Is Hot
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Machu Picchu, Peru

For Peru, global warming is not just "an inconvenient truth."

It's a daily reality, particularly for the residents in the spectacular Urubamba River Valley, the birthplace of Incan civilization. Watching the sun rise from atop the Incan ruins at Machu Picchu, you can look around 360 degrees and see Andean mountains everywhere. The highest of them were always described in the guidebooks as "snow capped." Today, they're more "snow frosted."

They still have snow, but there is a lot of rock now showing through on many of them. If these trends continue, in a few years they'll just be described as "steely gray." The great Andean glaciers are melting, receding at about 100 meters a decade.

"When I first started trekking to the Andes mountains 30 years ago, many climbing expeditions would reach the top by climbing straight across the glaciers," said my traveling companion, Alfredo Ferreyros, the father of Peru's ecotourism industry, now head of Peruvian operations of Conservation International. "Now, expeditions have to negotiate crevasses and increased risk of avalanche, because of the instability of the snow pack. That's because of changes in temperature and fluctuations in precipitation."

Nearby, in the Sacred Valley of the Incas, Jose Ignacio Lambarri, who owns a 60-acre farm, is also feeling the heat. He grows giant white corn, with kernels that used to be as big as a quarter. This corn, which is exported to Spain and Japan, grows in this valley because of a unique combination of water, temperature, soil and sun. But four years ago, Mr. Lambarri told me, he started to notice something: "The water level is going down, and the temperature is going up."

As a result, the giant corn kernels are not growing quite as large as they used to, new pests have started appearing, and there is no longer enough water to plant the terraces in the valley that date from Incan times.

He also noticed that the snow line he had grown up looking at for 44 years was starting to recede, which was making relations with his fellow farmers more difficult. Every year they decide by committee how to divide up the water. Now, "every year the meetings get more heated, because there is less water to distribute and the same amount of land that needs it," he said. "I tell my wife the day that mountain loses its snow, we will have to move out of the valley."

For many Americans, combating climate change is at best a cause for green do-gooders and at worse something to be debated. But in a developing country like Peru, where many people live on the land and close to the edge, climate change is neither a hobby nor a question for debate.

Peru's water reserves are the glaciers and snowpacked areas of the Andes. Since they have started to shrink, without replenishment, "we don't know what the future holds — whether we're talking about the water we need for agriculture or for drinking or for our hydropower," Mr. Ferreyros said.

Peru's plant and animal species are also being affected. The Andes region is one of the world's most mega-diverse hot spots, home to unique plant and animal species. Its rain forests, mountains and varied terrain create microclimates that provide habitats for endemic species, which have evolved in isolation from one another. As climate change shifts the boundaries between these zones, species found nowhere else in the world are threatened and disappearing.

"Within the U.S. we worry about the impact of climate change when we suffer from coastal storms like Katrina. But we have the resources to adapt," said Glenn Prickett, a senior vice president at Conservation International. Countries like Peru not only feel the effects of climate change more, because they have many more people living precariously off the land, he added, "but they also don't have the national resources to adapt."

Worse, to take advantage of high energy prices, Peru is allowing more oil and gas exploration. In other words, lacking a diverse range of products to export, Peru has to feed the very global oil addiction that is coming back to haunt it in the form of climate change.

Sitting here, you can see the whole global vicious cycle we are in and have to break. To combat climate change, we need to break our addiction to consuming oil, while developing countries need to break their addiction to selling it. We need a different lifestyle model, and they need a different development model. Unless we work on both, the "snow-capped Andes" will exist more in history books than in guidebooks.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (291685)6/29/2006 7:07:07 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572214
 
Some people get it... but you couldn't tell from the policy.

The respondents stressed the importance of ending America's dependence on foreign oil, saying that could prove to be "the single most pressing priority in winning the war on terror." Eighty-two percent of the respondents said that ending the dependence on foreign oil should have a higher priority, and nearly two-thirds said the country's current energy policies were making matters worse, not better.

"We borrow a billion dollars every working day to import oil, an increasing share of it coming from the Middle East," said Mr. Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director.


The Wreckage in the China Shop
By BOB HERBERT
After all the sound and fury of the past few years, how is the U.S. doing in its fight against terrorism?

Not too well, according to a recent survey of more than 100 highly respected foreign policy and national security experts. The survey, dubbed the "Terrorism Index," was conducted by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine. The respondents included Republicans and Democrats, moderates, liberals and conservatives.

The survey's findings were striking. A strong, bipartisan consensus emerged on two crucial points: 84 percent of the respondents said the United States was not winning the war on terror, and 86 percent said the world was becoming more — not less — dangerous for Americans.

The sound and fury since Sept. 11, 2001 — the chest-thumping and muscle-flexing, the freedom fries, the Patriot Act, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the breathtaking expansion of presidential power, Guantánamo, rendition, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars — seems to have signified very little.

An article on the survey, in the July/August edition of Foreign Policy, said of the respondents, "They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack." More than 8 in 10 of the respondents said they believed an attack in the U.S. on the scale of Sept. 11 was likely within the next five years.

Many of the respondents played important national security roles in the government over the past few decades. They included Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as secretary of state under George H. W. Bush; Anthony Lake, a national security adviser to Bill Clinton; James Woolsey, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Richard Clarke, who served as counterterrorism czar in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and was in that post on Sept. 11th; and Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.

Noted academics and writers who specialized in foreign policy and national security matters also participated in the survey.

"Respondents," according to a report that accompanied the survey, "sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a number of key areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence and homeland security. Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible for fighting the war on terror received poor marks.

"The experts also said that recent reforms of the national security apparatus have done little to make Americans safer. Asked about recent efforts to reform America's intelligence community, for instance, more than half of the index's experts said that creating the office of the director of national intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror."

The respondents seemed, essentially, to be saying that the U.S. needs to be smarter (less like a bull in a china shop) in its efforts to combat terrorism. "Foreign policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration's performance abroad," said Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a participant in the survey. "The reason is that it's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force."

The respondents stressed the importance of ending America's dependence on foreign oil, saying that could prove to be "the single most pressing priority in winning the war on terror." Eighty-two percent of the respondents said that ending the dependence on foreign oil should have a higher priority, and nearly two-thirds said the country's current energy policies were making matters worse, not better.

"We borrow a billion dollars every working day to import oil, an increasing share of it coming from the Middle East," said Mr. Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director.


The respondents also said it was crucially important for the U.S. to engage in a battle of ideas as part of a sustained effort to bring about a rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world. That kind of battle requires more of a reliance on diplomacy and other nonmilitary tools.

If the respondents to this survey are correct, the U.S. needs to be moving in an entirely different direction. The war against terror cannot be won by bombing the enemy into submission. The bull in the china shop may be frightening at first, but after a while it's just enraging. We need a better, smarter way.