< Visual Aid: "Oil Addiction" / >

.

< Wrong Thought, Wrong Action / >

The September retail issue of Esquire will feature a battery-operated 'e-ink' animated/digitized cover flashing the words, "The 21st Century Begins Now." As the New York Times and Discovery Network's Treehugger blog have already noted, this means that 100,000 custom wafer-thin batteries will be headed for landfills as e-waste, and that the manufacturing and shipment of the digital cover involve a size-150 (tons) carbon footprint and "a 16% increase over the carbon footprint of a typical print publication."

Why? China, Mexico, and refrigerated delivery trucks, to start.

Clearly, this little cover is a big undertaking, and a pricey one. So who has driven in to underwrite the cost? None other than Ford Motor Company, which just announced an eight billion dollar loss for the second quarter 2008. Not to worry, though; Ford will "defray the outlandish expense with an advertisement on the inside of the cover showing the new Ford minivan/ sport utility vehicle, the Flex, moving across the page."

Well, great. The Flex, on dealer lots now, was first revealed to the public as the Fairlane Concept in 2005 — when oil was trading at $50 a barrel. The 2009 final version of that design rolls into showrooms with a fuel economy rating of only 16 mpg city, with oil having tripled in cost. In fairness, though, according to a team of Newsweek auto reviewers, the gas-guzzling Hummer H2 gets a meager 8 mpg city, making the Flex a clearly better investment with double the fuel savings and carbon output reduction. That is, if you happen to find anything less than 24 mpg acceptable for city errands. For its part, Ford finds it best to simply avoid the whole issue of usefulness and affordability. According to body designer J Mays, the new SUV "has the power to move people emotionally as well as physically" because it "has been created for people who know it's the journey – not the destination – that matters most."

Actually, it's life and health and survival in a sustainable future that matter most, but Ford has only begun its long and painful journey toward that realization.
.

< Detroit vs... Everyone. / >

In a rare display of visible editorial anger, the Detroit News of July 21 has not only run the same opinion twice but has also left some glaringly bad editing out on display. And why? Because John McCain "is wrong again on auto industry rules" as he "flops on emissions standards."

At issue is McCain's affirmation that states — and the state of California in particular — have a right to define and enforce their own automobile emissions standards, independent of the Federal government and its destroy-everything Environmental "Protection" Agency. The phrasing of McCain's alleged approval, "I guess, at the end of the day, I support [it]," isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, and is couched in so much speculative filler that it can easily be revised or erased at any time, but this didn't stop the Detroit News' columnist Daniel Howes from attacking the "zealots in the California Assembly" and asking McCain's campaign staff, "[W]hy waste time here [in Michigan]?"

Who does Mr. Howes turn to for a supporting quote? A nameless "executive with [an] automaker," who wonders why Senator McCain is trying to lose votes in Michigan — a point with which Howes emphatically agrees. In contrast, he writes, Barack Obama is at least "showing a little Midwestern love for the autos," but this is the Detroit News — a voice of conservatism. So you have to look carefully in order to see that when Howes writes that "rhetorical support for automakers shouldn't be limited to those the intelligentsia deems politically correct," he's talking about the very same candidate: Barack Obama.

So, Obama shows Motown some love, and Motown is a hater in return?

Obama understands that Michigan will be a pivotal electoral vote in November, Howes writes in conclusion, but McCain doesn't. Asks the columnist: "How come?"

You can almost hear him moaning: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?

Then the big Editorial Guns pick up where the mere opinion columnist leaves off. "So far, McCain hasn't got much of anything right when it comes to the auto industry," writes the News itself on the editorial page. "Allowing states to set their own emission standards would default to California the job of regulating automobiles. That won't be good for Michigan or for American auto workers."

And there it is, right there. Terminal myopia, chronic self-concern, end-stage fuckyouism. The voice of Detroit's conservatives is unwilling to see anything like a wider picture, but if it took only a little peek it would see that California isn't just California — New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, Minnesota, Maine, and Rhode Island have all subscribed to the Schwarzenegger State's strict emissions guidelines. The News might also take a look at California's sheer enormity — cut it out of a map and lay it over any area in Europe or the Middle East. Do any of those countries have a right to determine their own clean air and fuel efficiency standards?

And does Detroit have the moral and ethical right to say "fuck off and die" to every human being not living in Michigan, U.S.A., or not working for a U.S.-based car-related manufacturer? The issue, after all, isn't automobile emissions. It's planetary survival.

As Lee Iacocca, father of the Ford Mustang and former CEO of Chrysler used to say: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." But don't just stand there and block the path. We've had enough of that during eight years of Bush/Cheney-enforced environmental paralysis.

Nearly 50 years ago, California said it wanted some of the emissions from a car's tailpipe to be recirculated and diluted. Detroit screamed foul — and then invented the PCV valve, a tiny, cheap part that did exactly what California wanted. Who benefitted? Every person on the planet.

The other litanies of Detroit's painful bellowing are well known: No seat belts! No air bags! No antilock brakes! No small cars! No fuel efficiency! And then, Detroit made them happen — well, the first three, anyway — and made a profit, too. So what the hell.

"The automakers need to be left alone for a while," the Detroit News pleads, not realizing the utter irony of those words as millions of customers abandon GM, Ford, and Chrysler and chuck brand loyalty out the window. "Until they get that, neither McCain nor Obama should not (sic) be considered a friend to Michigan's most vital industry."

As if Michigan's most vital industry has itself ever been a friend to anyone.
.

< On Leadership (Again) / >

From the British Weekly Telegraph:

"The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: 'Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter.'

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Mr Bush... then left the meeting at the Windsor Hotel in Hokkaido where the leaders of the world's richest nations had been discussing new targets to cut carbon emissions."

.
Two thousand nine hundred twenty days of potential wasted. And he thinks that God is on his side. When called to account for this life, will he see the Almighty punch the air, grin, and say "Goodbye to the world's biggest offender"?
.

< Watching the "MediaWatch" Dogs / >

.
<— This is a service of the Media Research Center, run by L. Brent Bozell III, founder of the Parents Television Council, which has its finger so firmly on the pulse of kid culture that it recently recommended that children watch a Boston Pops and Rascal Flatts performance on CBS.

Newsbusters is alarmed by "environmental alarmists" and by "liberals" and "elites" and "ultra-leftists." Upon the death of former Fox anchor and White House spokesman Tony Snow, Newsbusters gleefully pointed out that the Huffington Post had been forced to close comments because of "hateful," "disgusting," and "disgraceful" comments that didn't show appropriate respect for the dead.

That, of course, was not the story. The story was that the Huffington Post, leftist liberals all, had the wisdom, grace, dignity, and decency to shut down the comment area when some vulgar buffoons couldn't muster enough social decorum to remove their hats and honor their fallen enemy.

When comments reopened, the point had been well made, and the strongest "criticism" the late Mr. Snow received was this: "You had a tough job, Tony. You had to lie for your government. No judgment now that you're with the universe. RIP, my fellow human." But more representative of the thoughtful comments was this: "I am a liberal, and just as cancer does not discriminate, neither do I. I'm sorry for his family's loss. Even if I disagreed 200% with his politics, he was tragically taken from this world too soon."

Is it possible that there might be some selective media-watching by an organization allegedly formed to combat selectivity in media coverage?

In a June poll, Newsbusters asked, "Who Cares Most About Global Warming?" As fair, full, and impartial response choices, it offered:

a. Average person
b. Bureaucrats
c. Elites

The poll received more than four thousand votes, with option C the clear winner. And comments! There were references to "power mad leftists," "extremists," and "sickening hypocrites," and one poster added the clever suggestion to "Save a seal, club a liberal." (Did I hear the adjective "hateful" applied somewhere?)

Then, discussion turned to the History Channel's Ice Road Truckers, with informed comments like these:

- "They are driving HUGE loads right over the frozen Arctic Ocean. So much for the Polar ice cap shrinking."

- "It was amusing to watch the loaded big rigs driving the Arctic Ocean ice right past the frozen in place ships. Gives whole new meaning to scam doesn't it." (sic)

"Not something I would ever do but it does make for some fascinating viewing. Oh, and obviously the ice cap is holding up very well."

A few minor problems: First, the show makes clear that the trucks are primarily driving over frozen inland lakes, not the Arctic Ocean. Second, the History Channel's own official press release for the series debut clearly states: "Last year, because of the effects of global warming, the ice road was closed early, leaving hundreds of tons of supplies stuck at the dispatch station." Third, the same network's description of a new site section devoted to environmental crisis states: "For whatever reason it's happening, slowly, but very surely. Global warming is a reality. The ultimate consequences of transformations to our world climate are unclear, but if history is any indication, they could be devastating."

Likewise, a few links further in, the environmental section explains that "[t]he Earth is heating up fast. Since the beginning of time, our planet has experienced warming and cooling cycles that happen naturally over thousands of years. What's remarkable about the current warming trend is the speed at which it's occurring. In the last 50 years, the average global temperature has risen at the fastest rate in recorded history, according to the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC)."

The NRDC? Well, that's a bunch of treehugging hippies. Just like those punks at the United Nations and their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Better we should ask the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), since they are Federal agencies sanctioned — and censored — by the take-no-action Bush administration. What's more, Newsbusters itself has been happy to cite NOAA-supplied information about a single aspect of climate behavior (hurricanes) that can be distorted to misrepresent the whole picture (global climate disruption).

As for the IPCC itself, Newsbusters will gladly depict that agency as a group of fraudulent, unscientific "alarmists," unlike NOAA, which helps to support the Newsbuster media-watching cause. But wait — what is this on the NOAA site? "Internationally, the IPCC, under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers."

Probably it's best that children not be allowed to observe Newsbusters or its parent organizations in action. The disgraceful selectivity and hypocrisy going on there don't serve as very good examples for young minds. Instead, children should be encouraged to do some reading:


.

< On Leadership: the Tragedy of the Tao / >

21 men and one woman stand around a Zen garden. They call themselves the G8 leaders; perhaps they think that the garden setting will make them seem wise. But this is the wrong setting. They should be in a Tao garden instead.

The Tao asks: If a platoon of soldiers disappears into a forest, what has happened to them?

The Tao answers: Nothing. They are not there.

The G8 "leaders" ask: If global climate crisis demands our immediate leadership and unwavering resolve, what will happen to us?

The G8 "leaders" answer: Nothing. We are incapable of leading and have no resolve.

The G8 "leaders" exit their meeting calling for a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, when they will all be dead. They do not specify what the baseline measurement for this reduction is. They make the reductions voluntary, not mandatory. They offer no guidance for how to make the reductions. They do not care if the living will all die with them.

The "leader" of the United States returns from the G8 meeting and orders his administration to freeze in a permanent state of inaction. The next president will take care of it.

The Tao asks: If a boulder falls into a stream and blocks the water's path, what happens?

The Tao answers: Nothing. Water moves around the rock. And eventually, the rock will be worn away by the water.

The G8 "leaders" think that they are the water, moving around the rock. But they are wrong. They are the rock.

And we must become the water now.

.

< Right Thought, Wrong Illustration / >

A friend traveling in Europe sent this photo of a mini-billboard on the back of an airport bench:


"The Swedish airport is green," he writes. "All non-flight vehicles use biofuel." An example of right thought and right intention, but let's think for a minute: what kind of "biofuel" is the ad referring to, exactly? Overlooking the fact that this kind of ad could never run in the United States (too many people would start drinking from fuel pumps and bursting into flames, and their families would sue), and that there is a legal disclaimer in small print (click on the photo), how are we defining "clean" here? Minimalist advertising like this has all the potential in the world to be simple greenwashing, giving the illusion of intelligent and responsible ecology where none exists.

Clever ad? Sure. But we don't need clever. We need clear.

Facts, please, min god besätta.

.