Eliminate Subsidies to the Fossil Fuel Industry for the Sake of the Polar Bear

Eliminate Subsidies to the Fossil Fuel Industry

Apparently, we still subsidize the oil industry, see Triumph of the Drill to the tune of about $5 billion per year.  Of course, the oil companies help the Republicans (mostly) with campaign contributions and so the subsidies stay in place.  It is an example of the trend we see in American politics were the rich and powerful help each other make more money at the expense of the ordinary American.  International subsidies to the fossil fuel industry run about $5 trillion a year.  

What are the effects of the subsidies to the oil industry:

1. One, of course, it helps keep the republicans in power.
2. It gives a financial advantage to the fossil fuel industries compared to green power (they get less subsidies), and
3. It leaves America less incentive to go to green power.
4. It makes global warming more profitable.

Free Trade or Power

As Americans we say we believe in free trade, capitalism, etc. but then give one of the most powerful industries in the world subsidies to make them more profitable and powerful.  Why, simple, it helps other powerful people stay in power.  

If we want to be honest Americans, we have to say that we do not really value free market capitalism.  We value power.  Sad.

Global Warming

By supporting the fossil fuel industry with subsidies we are in effect subsidizing global warming.  To make it clearer,  we are saying we want more global warming.  We say to the polar bear, screw you.

Note: This is one of the 7 Steps to Reduce Global Warming.

The Polar Beer - The Poster Child of Global Warming

The polar bear has been the poster child of global warming.  I watched a sad show last night called Ice Bear about the struggle of polar bears, and one bear in particular called Ice Bear.  It turns out that Ice Bear had a rough year because of a long summer but he survived.  In his survival he did a lot of new things like climb cliffs to get to baby birds, eat baby whales stranded on the rocks, and get beaten up by some walruses when he tried to eat their babies.  But, another polar bear learned to follow the walruses and attack them when they stopped on rocks to rest.  Another female polar bear turned to cannibalism to feed herself and her babies.  In short, the ones that survived adapted to the effects of the longer summer.

But then I did a little internet searching and discovered that 
there does not seem to be definitive studies showing if polar bear populations are growing or declining.  Surely, we before they used him as poster child of the effects of global warming, they would have converted their theories about how global warming was killing polar bears to some counting before making him the poster child.  The primary argument is that their habitat (ice over the water) is declining, so their population will decline. And apparently there is some evidence that the younger polar bear population is under stress. 

There has been a general decline in the size of the polar cap over the Arctic since about 1980.  But, in 2013 it reversed and grew by 60%.  I understand that it also grew in 2014 but I have not seen the data yet.  This does not necessarily negate the global warming theory since yearly variations may override long term trends, but then on the other hand it might.  

As a reasonably good scientist in my own area, I am annoyed when others (like my bosses) make superficial judgments based on limited observations backed by inaccurate science.  So, I realize that I am not a meteorologist or a climatologist so I tend to give the experts respect in their field.  That does not include Al Gore because he has not spent his career as a scientist and is only fame to claim in my book is always voting yes for every bill ever submitted to him. But, scientists do not usually vote as a group as they have been lately about climate change.  Scientist typically propose theories to explain the data better than their cohorts and then debate it while looking for more evidence. 

One also has to be careful when money gets involved in science.  As far as I have been able to find there has been hundreds of grants to study potential bad effects of global warming and no grants to study the potential good effects of global warming.  Does anyone know of any exceptions to this?  There are only CONS to global warming, REALLY?  Sounds like the person handing out the grants might be biased.

Sea level rise seems to present strong evidence of global warming, but it ain't as simple as it looks, see this article for an example of the complexity. It turns out forever we have been going through mini-ice ages followed by a warming period because of variations in the earth's orbit and variables in the wobble and tilt of the axis. In the warming period ice all over the planet melts and sea levels rise.  So the argument goes that this time it is rising faster than normal because of industrial activity.  Maybe so ... so does that just mean we get to the end game (when most of the ice on the planet is gone) sooner, or is the end game somehow different?  Again, I trust there are some scientists out there that could answer these questions better than me.  Trouble is, I don't hear the hard questions being asked, much less being answered. 

Does that mean I don't think we need some changes in the way we use energy.  I still think it is a finite resource that needs to be used wisely and with consideration for future generations.  As far as I know, there are not going to be another dinosaur age to make more oil, etc.  I think taxing energy uses makes a lot of sense especially compared to our present destructive income tax system.  

Here is what I believe to be true:

1. The planet is in a warming cycle.
2. Some of the warming is caused by human activity.
3. The warming would continue (possibly at a slower rate) if humans were removed from the equation. 
4. Warming of the planet will put some people and animals under stress, some will adapt, some will not. 
5.  The Arctic Ice cap seems to shrinking (last two years are an exception).
6. The Antarctic Ice Cap is not (yet) shrinking and is actually expanding slightly. (The scientists say there are good reasons for this that do not negate the theory of global warming ... I will accept that for now especially since we seem to be in a normal warming cycle.)

What I don't know to be true:

1.  What is the end-game.  What does the planet look like after it gets hotter.  For one, I assume there will be no land ice?  What else?  How does this compare to previous warming cycles? Are we just accelerating what will happen (no land ice) or will the end game be different if we get there faster? 
2.  How much faster will we get to the end game (no land ice) because of CO2?  For example, if we reduce CO2 will we get there ten years later anyway, or is it a 100 years later?
3. What are the beneficial effects of a warmer planet. Does a warmer planet mean the next ice age will be less severe?  Does a warmer planet means there will be more rain since the partial pressure of water increases with temperature.  I assume some people that now need more rain will get it?  Who?
4.  Who needs to adapt, people and animals, and how does the cost of adapting compare to the cost of slowing CO2 production?  I assume some mixed strategy will be optimum.  Has this study been done?

In conclusion, I still tend to believe the experts, but how much as the message from the experts been tainted by the political pressure of those in charge?  Who profits from global warming be real and us responding to cut CO2 emissions?  In short, I guess I want to hear a debate among scientists and hear the pros and cons and a cost benefit study of various scenarios.  Perhaps the science is not good enough to do such studies, and if so, then the call to action may have to be modified.  This is not an all or nothing issue as it has been painted.  What steps are wise to take now, what steps should be taken conditional on some key outcomes ... like the Arctic resuming its shrinkage or the Antarctic starting to shrink, etc.  

Of course, we have to realize that our dysfunctional government is not going to do anything right now, so this will give us a couple of years to continue studying global warming.  One final note, maximizing the U.S.'s GNP is not the only criteria/value to consider in this debate.  How we affect other countries and other animals on this planet should be part of the discussion. 

Remorse and Ferguson

As an individual I can look back on my life and for the most part hurt my arm patting my back on the good I have done in my life.  But, of course, there are half a dozen regrets where I have not been the person I aspire to be, a gentle, kind and open human.  I have remorse for a few of these regrets, like not working on my relationship more with my late wife or spending more time with my children when they were younger or how I told an old lover about a new one, etc. I don’t try to discard that remorse, I like to carry it with me with the hope it will shape me into a better person. 

 Hopefully, that remorse will guide me when another regret-making moment is in progress and I will subtly or dramatically change my direction for a better outcome, one that is free of future regrets.

In Ferguson, I would hope Darrel Wilson will one day have some regrets  about his part in the shooting of Mike Brown.  Perhaps, some remorse will guide him in the future that may give his voice a different tone and be better received.  

Of course, we can image if Mike had lived through it, he might have regrets about not focusing his anger on something more constructive.  The Mike we see stealing the cigars in the video did not look like someone that was about to make a positive difference in the world; sorry if that is judgmental, but it was not okay how he treated that store owner.  If Mike’s story had a happier ending, perhaps one day he would be feeling remorse about his angry days in Ferguson.

Finally, the looters who did a great disservice to their neighborhood by burning down stores and businesses in their community should one day have regrets about their actions and be filled with remorse.  The police and national guard should have remorse about protecting downtown near the police station while putting almost no resources to protect Brown’s neighborhood, perpetuating the different treatment of blacks until the bitter end.  Its not okay to loot, and it is not okay for the police to look the other way.  The police learning when to yield to a peaceful demonstration and to stand strong when a crime is in progress is still out of their grasp.  

And our country should have remorse that after nearly 40 years since Martin Luther King we still are unable to come to grips with our history of slavery and abuse of the black man and other people that are different than us.  And, it is just not us white folks, the anger of the blacks in Ferguson, the willingness to remain the victim and to not strive to overcome the injustices is another form of resignation and prejudice.  Acting out as looters is childish and hurtful.  We should be full of regret and remorse should linger in our bones that this is the best we can do.

Our people should feel remorse all those times we act out of fear and instead of love for our fellow man.  For all the times we make laws that are based in distrust for our fellow man instead of a common hope that we shall rise above our faults.  We have a nation that still has an incredible legacy and unbounded potential that is spending its time name calling and unwilling to do the hard work of compromise to move forward in the many issues facing this country, good jobs for everyone being at the top of this list.

We are at an impasse created from our fear and lack of courage to reach out and take our opponents hand, trust them and look for common ground in this new world that we find ourselves in.   Where is our commitment as Americans to help everyone find a meaningful purpose to their lives and a way to make a good living for themselves and their family.  What happened that we are not the most educated country in the world anymore?  Any regrets or remorse?  What turns in the road have we taken that leads to the destruction of our middle class and the growth of the super-rich.  Any regrets about that?  

Ferguson is not an exception, it is part of the whole.  We are not creating opportunities for our children, our minorities, the disadvantaged.  We have been systematically making a country that is very good for the very rich, not so good for the rest of us.  We should regret that we have not been able to grow our middle class and we should search for the reasons.  Not in the present hate-filled rhetoric of the day, but in a passionate search to understand our situation and make the needed changes in directions as a country.  Changes that will make Ferguson look like the day we changed course and started down a new road.

Behind the Eight Ball in Ferguson

Michael Brown was no angel.  His behavior in the convenient store is one of an angry, frustrated black man.   On the other hand the predominantly white police force would not be accused of being angels either, Are Our Sins Coming Home to Roost in Ferguson?

It's typical of many cities in the south for the majority population to be black and/or Hispanic and the power structure to still be white. This is in my opinion a strong indicator that racism is not dead in that community.

Among many other problems, we have created a welfare system (We Created the System, Chicago Gang Violence) that does not encourage growth and families, nor does it support individuals in getting education and/or job training to move out of poverty.   And we selectively enforce laws against the minorities (A War on Black People that Do Drugs) that continue to keep the brown and black man in this country behind the eight ball. And yes, the problem extends to all poor people, but here again blacks are disproportionately represented.  (Its beyond the scope of this particular blog to address all the why's.)

And actually, the problem is even broader than discrimination against minorities, there is a systematic destruction of the middle class in this country that accentuates the black man’s struggle.  If the number of chairs in the middle class are decreasing, it is much harder for those not already having a seat at the table to get representation.  

There is something called the Gini Coefficient and it rates the income equality/inequality of a country.  Small numbers say 0 to 30 represent countries where the wealth is spread around.  China for example has a Gini Coeff. of 42 to 47 depending on who is doing the rating. The U.S. gini coeff. is 45 to 48.   That’s not how you see the U.S. is it?  That our wealth inequality is about the same as China’s.  Even worse, they are getting better we are getting worse.  For comparison Denmark’s Gini is 24, Germany’s is 30.  This is just a statistically method of saying what we already know, the middle class is becoming a dinosaur in America.  It will be much worse for our children the way this is headed.  There simply are not enough jobs (If they don't work, Neither Shall They Eat) -- the results will be growing unrest and possibly violence (another time, another blog).

The problems in Ferguson are just a subset of the bigger problems in America.  There is a loss of opportunity and fairness for the little man in America.  Our country is run by the elite, for the elite (Wolf Pac: Our Democracy is at Stake).  Perhaps the only way to reclaim America for the people is what is happening in the streets of Ferguson? Do you see another way?

7 Steps to Profitably End Global Warning by Robert R. Odle, et al.

Let's consider an innovative approach to fight global warming: let's make do it in a way that does not put the U.S. industry at a handicap, but actually gives it an economic advantage over the rest of the world.

Global warming, I have a few questions, but overall I think I defer to the experts at least for awhile.  Becoming more energy efficient and using more green and nuclear energy does not seem at odds with prosperity, especially if we decide a tax system that encourages 1) energy efficiency (more good and services from a unit of energy) and 2) less taxes for a smaller CO2 foot-print compared to your neighbors and competitors.

First, I assume as a "good" country we want to stop global warming and that we are willing to lead that effort as the biggest economy in the world.  But, I am not talking about just leading by example, I am advocating leading the world through a combination of technology, good example, and our economic clot.  We led, and those that want to work with us as partners become our trading partners, those that don't will face increasingly strict import taxes on their goods based on a carbon-based import tax.  Below are the seven steps of this plan.  We will flush out each of the seven steps in a series of papers.  Your input is welcome via the working draft of this document.

1. Measure energy consumption at all levels.

2. Eliminate all subsidies to the oil, coal and fossil fuel industries.

3. Replace income taxes, company and personal, with a carbon emissions tax.

4. Tax all imports according to their carbon-energy input.

5. Encourage/subsidize modern nuclear reactors.

6. Guarantee solar, wind and all non-carbon based energies access to the grid to sell their excess electric power at fair prices.

7. Having set up a system that rewards wise energy use, sit back and let American business optimize under a new set of rules.  Do not try to over-regulate the approach business takes to be successful.

Stay tuned for details … your input welcomed.  Go the working version of this document and write on it ..

Is Ebola Winning?

Our blog a few weeks ago, How Ebola is Going to Get Your Ass, got it's share of readers, but not many comments.  The theory proposed then was that Ebola would jump from city to city in Africa (there are 50 cities with over a million people) and then spread into the middle east. 

Well, right now that assessment has only about 50% chance of being true.  Right now by looking at this data as we into half time, Ebola is up by a field goal in a very tight and aggressive game.  ONLY 1500 new cases in Sierra Leone and about a 1000 in Liberia in October.  New cases are holding around 400 to 600 per week.  So, it hasn't gone exponential yet.

And, it has not spread to nearby Lagos Nigeria with its 21 million people.  The math just doesn't work for the humans if Ebola goes exponential in such a large population. 

Did I see there is some (unrelated) Ebola in the Congo?  

Do you think homeless people are like cats - the more you feed them the more will come? So is Fort Lauderdale Justified?

Recently feeding the homeless in Fort Lauderdale made the national news because the police arrested Arnold Abbot, the ninety year old gentleman pictured below, for feeding the homeless.  He faces jail time along with two others.  He runs a nonprofit organization called "love thy neighbor" and he says he has no intention to stop feeding the homeless.

The mayor, Jack Seiler  (jack.seiler@fortlauderdale.gov.), defended the action by the city as being necessary to protect local business that depends on tourists who obviously do not like to encounter a lot of homeless people.  Fort Lauderdale is part of Broward County which has 10,000 homeless people which is probably more than their fair share of the 600,000 homeless in this country estimated by The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development .

I was surprised to find out that 50 cities ban or restrict giving homeless people food either by making it illegal or by such practices as requiring a hard to get permit, etc.  Twenty two (22) states have similar laws on the books making it illegal to feed the homeless.  In some cases charities are prohibited from making food donations because the food may not be nutritious enough.  Really?

What do you think.  What values should guide our actions?  Please give us your opinions below and share (or not if you don't think it is an important question).  If we get a decent response we will publish the results and send them Jack Seiler the mayor of Fort Lauderdale. (You have to scroll down to see all three questions, thank you, Robert).

Can Republicans Learn the "YES" word?... by Robert R. Odle, Ph.D.

The Republicans could actually set themselves up for a return to power in 2016 if they can accomplish just a few things in the next two years.  But, do they know how to stop saying "NO" to everything and actually do something and say "YES".  Three pieces of fruit are ripe for the picking:

Republicans Could Pass Immigration Reform

Assuming Republicans can learn how to say "YES" to some form of amnesty for those immigrants already in the country, they could make big points with the Hispanic population by passing Immigration Reform.  No one in their right mind believes anyone is going to go back to their home country and getting at the back of the line.  Without amnesty, everyone will simply stay here and hideout like they do now. The current system is so broke, Republicans have a golden opportunity if they can say "YES" to amnesty. 

Republicans Could Simplify the Income Tax Disaster and Eliminate the Federal Deficit

Can they take on the job of simplifying income taxes and reducing corporate taxes to make the U.S. more competitive. But, to make up the revenue lost with lower corporate taxes they will have to say "yes" to some form of carbon tax or "yes" to taxing the rich more.  
The one place that neither party can say "NO" to is the military industrial complex. However, since Republicans are so good at saying "NO" perhaps they could reduce the military budget and eliminate the deficit? Unlikely, but hope springs eternal. 

Republicans Could Shore Up Funding of SS and Medicare

To make these two systems viable for the long term Republicans are going to have to "yes" to raising the retirement age and probably "yes" to raising the cap on withholding social security from the higher paid Americans.

Can Republicans Learn to Say "YES"

The Republicans could very easily continue with the momentum of the last six years and continue attacking Obama.  That will lose them any chance at the election in 2016.  To stay a viable party, they must learn how to lead and say "YES".  Can they do it?

A good democratic country needs two good parties (at least), each doing what they are best at .. it is time for the Republicans to step up to the plate and show us what they got.