Winning Over Republican Voters

November 9, 2020

Republican States

The frenzy of election day may be behind us, but the turmoil and uncertainty continue: the calm before the storm, if you will.  The reason for that grim assessment is because the Democrats did not win the hearts of roughly half the population. In simple terms, unless they come up with a coherent plan that addresses the needs and concerns of rural Republicans, which are indeed deeply ingrained, the United States risks becoming a failed state.

On the global stage our behavior is viewed as alternating current, unpredictable and unworthy of our oft-claimed position of moral leadership. Incidentally, leadership must be earned; it cannot be imposed. If we attempt to do so we’ll follow the Roman Republic, only without Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Ogallala Depleted 2020

One good place to earn leadership attributes would be with the Ogallala Aquifer, currently being depleted at an alarming rate. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine one single issue that could surpass its importance to the eight states that depend on it for dear life. As it happens, with the exception of Colorado and New Mexico, they’re all Republican.

So here’s your chance, Democrats. Come up with a plan to replace the depleted water in the Ogallala region, reassure oil producing states like Texas and North Dakota that something is in the works to replace the revenue that they’ll inevitably lose this century as oil follows coal into oblivion, and you may earn their gratitude and recognition.

The U.S. and China at Crossroads

When it comes to Sino-American relations, few westerners have the knowledge, understanding and experience of former Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger. Speaking at the National Committee on U.S. China Relations Gala Dinner on November 14, 2019, he explained:

• The (U.S.) relationship with China started because both felt threatened by the Soviet Union.
• The U.S. and China have different and unrelated histories and cultures.
• The U.S. believes that solutions to problems bring about permanent stability; in contrast, the Chinese believe that no problem ever gets finally solved, and that every solution is an entry ticket to a new set of problems.
• They view each other as adversaries rather than potential partners.
• At the moment neither country can dominate the other, a new experience for two nations who think of themselves as exceptional.
• This is the first time in recorded history that two economic superpowers (the Soviet Union was never an economic peer of the U.S.) are competing economically, politically, culturally, technologically and militarily on a global scale, a prerequisite for a dangerous state of permanent conflict between their core interests.
• Modern economics and technology link the world into one system. Its collapse would be catastrophic for everyone.
• If both countries view their competition as a confrontation with the conviction that one side can achieve a permanent victory over the other, then the result would be catastrophic, worse than the two world wars combined.
• In addition to the Chinese challenge, the U.S. has assumed responsibilities in peacetime for many regions and problems throughout the world.
• He believes that people like him have a duty to work for a relationship in which both countries can talk frankly to the other about the dangers they see and the opportunities before them, to create centers of decision near their presidents in which a Sino-American dialogue can take place on a permanent basis; neither can afford policies of mutual, reciprocal threats. He further thinks that this endeavor will be very difficult and that there will be disagreements on many issues.

The Time Factor
Doctor Kissinger is of course correct about all of the above, particularly in that neither country can presently dominate the other. However, that equilibrium is transitory. The indisputable fact is that issues abound, among them the South China Sea, Taiwan, and North Korea, that could potentially elevate an already tense but, so far, peaceful competition to an all-out military confrontation. Under the circumstances, some American hawks might argue that the best chance to score a “permanent victory” over China is now. Conversely, keenly aware of that possibility, China’s counterparts might redouble their efforts to achieve, if they haven’t already, a state of mutually assured destruction on the extraordinary assumption that only that would effectively deter an American preemptive attack. So, unlike the Soviet Union, which never had an economy strong enough to withstand the arms race nor a population four times larger than the U.S., the stage is set for Doctor Kissinger’s dreaded and dangerous state of “permanent conflict” to set in.

Time on China’s Side
There are several reasons why China is on track to overtake the U.S. economically, and by extension, militarily. The first is that its all-powerful Communist Party can and does concentrate its resources where it sees fit; when a decision is made, it’s quickly executed. Secondly, but equally important, is that its economy does not depend on the yuan being the reserve currency of the world. Instead, it’s supported by its manufacturing prowess and the size of its growing domestic consumer base. As a result, China is now the first or second trading partner of almost every country in the world, including stalwart allies of the U.S., and its “one road one belt policy” is poised to magnify that position many fold. Thirdly, China’s sheer number of STEM graduates (4.7 million in 2016, according to the World Economic Forum) combined with America’s paltry 284,000 native-born STEM graduates means that the ratio is 16.5 to 1 in China’s favor. Inevitably then, barring necessary fundamental systemic and demographic changes in the U.S. that might allow it to remain competitive, it’s just a matter of time before China overtakes the U.S. intellectually. In fact, it’s already started. Today it has a commanding, overwhelming lead in the number of awarded bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering, and

Bachelor's Degrees By Country

in 2016 it passed the U.S. in the number of peer-reviewed science and engineering articles.

Peer-Reviewed S&E Articles 2004-2016

And China’s lead is not limited to STEM-related fields. It now makes advanced jet engines for military and civilian use, to the point that Germany, the country that first deployed jet fighters in World War II, has expressed interest in buying them. In addition, China is also at the forefront in reclaiming desert land (land restoration), cancer treatment, photovoltaic usage, and many other subjects.

Fourthly, as with everything else, the dollar’s role as the reserve currency of the world must necessarily come to an end. There are only two transitional choices: gradual and imperceptible, which might avoid economic shock, or, paralyzed by political necrosis, wait for the ax to fall.

Effect on Trade
There is no doubt that the perennial fiscal and trade deficits of the U.S., are unsustainable. But tariffs, the equivalent of palliative care, are not a cure for the underlying ailment. It is beyond the scope of these few words to analyze our trade deficit with all the countries with which we have one. With respect to China, the much-celebrated trade truce of December 2019 whereby China agreed to purchase more agricultural products, particularly soy beans, in exchange for freezing tariffs on Chinese goods, is fatally flawed. Firstly, it fails to consider that, given the scope of its success in reclaiming desert land, China may eventually grow enough soy beans to meet domestic demand, and, if trends continue, it will soon also manufacture everything we excel at, but cheaper. This projection is based on its education performance and the fact that in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) its economy already passed the U.S.:

U.S. vs China PPP

the same income buys a higher standard of living in China than in the United States. At that point, would it make sense for them to buy from us what they produce at a lower price, and conversely, won’t it make sense for our consumers to buy their (cheaper) goods?

Fatal Flaw
With bipartisan support, on December 9, 2019 the Congress’s Armed Services committees released a compromise bill that would authorize $738 billion in military spending in 2020. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the federal budget deficit will average $1.2 trillion between 2020 and 2029. In other words, the accumulated deficit (currently over $22 trillion) will become $34 trillion by 2029. Accordingly, military spending in 2020 will account for 61.5% of the deficit. No telling what it will average between 2021 and 2029.

Clearly, Congress and the Pentagon assume that the country’s ability to spend beyond its means will not be curtailed by extraneous events and circumstances. In any event, no officials are publicly dwelling on the possibility that the dollar’s role as the reserve currency of the world may end in the coming decade and how that would impact the nation’s ability to borrow without triggering hyperinflation. At any rate, the lack of public debate on the subject is reminiscent of the proverbial ostriches sticking their heads in the sand.

The writing is on the wall. Germany, the largest economy in Europe and a key NATO ally, is presently not budging, despite strenuous American pressure, on its determination to complete the Nord stream 2 pipeline. It would increase Russia’s hard currency income, bypass and deprive the Ukraine from transit revenue, and directly supply Germany with Russian gas. Turkey, another nominal NATO ally, is also adamant about buying Russian S-400s despite express American objections and threats of sanctions. China, the world’s second-largest oil consumer (behind the U.S.), and the only other country with a (budding) oil exchange (priced in yuan), has agreed to expand oil purchases from Saudi Arabia. Unknown if the latter will agree to get paid in yuan. But the elephant in the room is that many countries will be phasing out fossil fuels to power their vehicles, and that includes China, the world’s largest auto market. Inevitably then, the demand for U.S. currency will collapse and the dollar will cease to be the reserve currency of the world. However, far from making provision for this day of reckoning, we persist on pursuing a doomed policy of global domination. Indeed, since 1776 the U.S. has been at war 93% of the time, which explains to a large extent our $22 trillion (and counting) debt.

Based on the above, a responsible solution to our fast-approaching predicament will require fundamental, permanent changes in our national philosophy and attitude, as well as a corresponding shift in spending allocations and priorities. Change is coming; our choice is to adapt to it either willingly or unwillingly. Hopefully we’ll choose the former.

Possible Solutions
The first is to become the world’s largest producer of hydrogen from electrolysis of sea water using solar energy exclusively, not just to become self-sufficient but to export it to China and India to help them phase out fossil fuels, eliminate the smog choking their cities, and make enough water to conquer drought. Simultaneously, that would greatly reduce our trade deficit, to the point that it might even flip it into a surplus.

The second would be to restructure all public utilities in all hydrogen-producing states. They would be relieved of their mandate to generate electricity; instead they would only maintain and service the distribution grid.

Third, all new and existing buildings in sun-drenched states would be outfitted with solar panels and batteries for night use. The electricity they generate would be pooled to satisfy domestic demand; the rest would be used to produce hydrogen. It would be distributed to domestic and foreign users, in that order. Property owners would be credited a prorated share of net income from sale of the hydrogen which would be automatically used to amortize their mortgages. That should spur new construction of affordable housing, and stimulate the economy.

Fourth, a global treaty should be entered into to make Special Drawing Rights (SPRs) the reserve currency of the world. Individual countries would earn them based on their production (landlocked countries may invest elsewhere) or consumption of green hydrogen on a per capita basis. This mechanism would create a global incentive to produce green hydrogen, wean the world from fossil fuels and nuclear fission, and give all countries, regardless of size and population, a pathway to supportable wealth.

Fifth, based on a more tranquil global environment, the U.S. defense budget would not have to be larger than the next seven nations combined. It could be reduced and the difference invested in badly needed infrastructure to make the country competitive in the global economy.

Sixth, a complementary temporary 15% tax on individuals exceeding $10 million net worth would enacted.

A Seminal Discovery

June 9, 2019

In 2018 a research group led by Professor Dr. Marc Koper at Leiden University in the Netherlands discovered a catalyst that minimizes the production of chlorine gas during salt water electrolysis. The catalyst consists of two metal oxides: iridium oxide with a layer of manganese oxide only a dozen nanometers thick. The former exhibits high catalytic activity for the formation of both oxygen gas and chlorine gas while the latter acts as a membrane that prevents the chlorine ions and suppresses the formation of chlorine gas.

This seminal discovery, no less important than the wheel, can enable the direct production of hydrogen from seawater and its eventual byproduct –very pure fresh water- later, when the hydrogen is used as a fuel.

Likely Consequences
The discovery has profound scientific, geopolitical, economic, military and environmental implications.

Scientific
Selectivity in electrolysis is one important measuring bar on the efficiency of a catalytic converter. Therefore, the discovery that manganese oxide has the ability to selectively block the transport of chloride ions literally opens the floodgates to possible large scale production of hydrogen directly from the ocean: a free, unlimited, renewable, widely available energy carrier whose sole byproduct is pure water.

Geopolitical
Producers of fossil fuels will face terminal competition from hydrogen-exporting countries throughout the world. Examples could be Iceland, whose vast geothermal resources could be used to produce hydrogen; Hawaii and most tropical islands worldwide; Central America, Mexico, the Mediterranean countries, coastal Africa, South America, and South Asia, all with copious sunlight and unlimited seawater. Furthermore, unlike fossil fuels, no one can claim ownership of the ocean, and by extension, of the hydrogen in it.
The enmity between the U.S. and Iran will likely subside because oil, the raison d’être for the conflict, will ultimately disappear.
Israel will be directly impacted; the inevitable demise of America’s ability to spend with abandon on the military –heretofore unimaginable- will nudge it to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation with the Palestinians.

Economic
In time, the petrodollar agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia will become moot. As consumption of oil drops and eventually ends, there will be no need for dollars to buy it and the greenback will lose its status as reserve currency of the world. America will face a day of reckoning with respect to its perennial yearly deficits and accumulated debt. Russia, OPEC and other fossil fuel producers will have to figure out how to survive without that source of revenue since China, India, Japan and Europe –collectively the largest consumers of energy- will no longer need them.
A new politically-neutral medium of international exchange –not necessarily a fiat currency, since all currencies in the world are fiat- could be introduced to succeed the petrodollar. For example, Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) could be adopted as such based on a formula that, among other things, progressively rewards a country for its per capita production of hydrogen and -conversely- progressively penalizes it for possession of weapons of mass destruction, exports of heavy weapons, and interference in the internal affairs of others.

Inequality
Unlike fossil fuels, hydrogen could, in time, substantially reduce the yawning wealth inequality between rich and poor nations as well as between rich and poor people within them. Ownership of production of hydrogen and water –and therefore the rights to its profits- could be shifted from shareholders to homeowners. That could usher in a permanent self-funding system for large-scale construction of affordable housing for the working classes.

Climate Change
If and when the world embraces this discovery and hydrogen replaces fossil and fission fuels for the generation of electricity and mobile applications, the dumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will cease. That will effectively shut down the engine wreaking havoc with the planet’s climate.

Drought and Food
If hydrogen-powered plants are built on mountaintops in remote inland deserts, where desalination is impractical or impossible, vast amounts of new pure water will be manufactured as a byproduct. This will support a much-needed expansion of agriculture to feed the world’s fast-growing population and the mass planting of trees to help recycle the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.

Conclusion
Change is coming. To paraphrase former President Barack Obama, it is something you can count on.

The Green New Deal Considered

May 15, 2019

Background
Forget the Muller report. Assuming “the Russians” did in fact attempt to influence our elections, which incidentally, is entirely possible, by what right other than might do we criticize them for doing so when we ourselves ignore the Charter of the United Nations, and thus international law, to influence elections, seek regime changes, impose sanctions on friend and foe alike, and wage wars whenever and wherever we please?

The Muller saga, pounced on ad nauseam by mainstream media in their never-ending quest to attract yet more readers (and revenue), has distracted voters from demanding that our elected representatives publicly acknowledge, debate and solve the following litany of issues threatening the very existence of the nation, and the world:

• Permanent federal budget deficits –$1.09 trillion in fiscal year 2020;
• A Pentagon-requested $718 billion defense budget for fiscal year 2020 (more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom and Japan combined), and almost equal to the entire current federal deficit;
• The rapidly rising national debt, $22 trillion as of February 2019 ;
• $122 trillion in federal unfunded liabilities: Social Security, Medicare Parts A, B and D, debt held by the public, and federal employee and veteran benefits, projected to grow to $157 trillion by 2023;
• $5.96 trillion in unfunded liabilities of state-administered pension plans;
• Chronic trade deficits ($621 billion in 2018, the last surplus was in 1975);
• The extreme danger of nuclear war, whether intentional, by error or accident ;
• The already abysmal (and growing) wealth and income inequality gap, particularly in the United States;
• Anthropomorphic climate change, the cause of the ongoing Anthropocine extinction, also known as the Sixth extinction of thousands of species on which we all depend on for dear life.

A full analysis of each of the above symptoms, they’re not the disease, is well beyond the scope of these few words. Suffice it to say though, that any and all attempts to mitigate their consequences have been at best ineffective, and they’re getting worse.

Here’s our existential predicament. The infinite demand for the petrodollar insures than no country other than the U.S. has the privilege to print as much electronic or paper money as it wishes without triggering hyperinflation. Should the petrodollar lose its precious status as reserve currency of the world, our government would be forced to either balance its budget or default (as Spain did in its heyday)  and watch helplessly as our national credit rating plummets and skyrocketing interest rates plunge us into the bottomless abyss of bankruptcy and irrelevance.

Pricing oil in dollars requires three things: that the world’s major oil producers continue doing so, that the demand for oil permanently remains uniformly high and steady worldwide, the exact opposite of what’s required to fight climate change, and that oil consumers remain tethered to this dictum. As it happens, these buyers include most of Europe, China, India and Japan who, according to International Monetary Fund, together account for over 51% of the world’s nominal GDP. Should any of these three conditions suddenly disappear, the value of the dollar would collapse virtually overnight. The instantaneous loss of value of dollar-denominated assets, including the stock market, and other currencies pegged to the dollar would affect everyone, from billionaires, who have the most to lose, to the individual retirement account (IRAs) of ordinary people invested in equities.

OPEC producers are crucial to the scheme because together they account for approximately 82% of the world’s proven oil reserves. Today the longstanding petrodollar agreement with Saudi Arabia  is, to understate it, under great stress. Venezuela, with the world’s largest proven reserves (300,878 million barrels), Iran, 4th largest, (158,400 million barrels), and Russia, all heavily sanctioned by the U.S., understandably seek to free their economies from the dollar and the American-controlled financial system, (SWIFT). The U.S., with 5% of the world’s population and 11th in terms of domestic reserves (35,000 million barrels), is the second biggest consumer of oil –20.5 million barrels of oil per day (2018), or nearly 20% of the world’s total oil consumption. Clearly there’s a mismatch between our relatively small domestic reserves, how much we consume, and our existential need to perpetuate the dollar’s reserve currency status. At the same time China, currently the biggest consumer of oil, is the only other nation with a fully-functional alternate but budding oil exchange, and it’s priced in gold-backed renminbi, not dollars. Thus, China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela, in the aggregate, pose a serious and growing challenge to the dollar’s dominance. The writing is on the wall: the strong-arm policy of sanctions and wars may win short-term (Pyrrhic) victories, but in the long run, barring the existence of feasible contingent plans to cope with reality, the policy is not supportable.

Historical and Current Precursors
In 1913, Henry Ford the first hired 52,000 workers, mostly men, to keep a workforce of 14,000 that worked nine-hour shifts for $2.25 per day . For many, obviously, these grueling conditions were not worth the pay; most simply walked away from the line, and in doing so brought production to a halt. To combat the high turnover, Ford raised compensation from $2.25 to $5 per day, half wages and half bonuses. However he also introduced paternalistic conditions. The company created a committee called the Social Organization. It literally visited employees at their homes to ensure they would not drink or gamble, and force recent immigrants, which were many, to learn English. The ruse worked because the compensation was higher than what the competition paid. Turnover dropped and morale and productivity increased. These well-paying blue-collar jobs and the job security associated with them became the foundation of the once-heralded “American dream,” now a distant memory.

To be sure, this business model was always an uneasy marriage of convenience. Employers were forced to pay high labor costs; in exchange, workers could afford to consume American-made manufactured goods without incurring unsupportable debt. But as with all dreams, this one finally ended with the advent of the global economy. Multinational manufacturers realized that much higher profits were possible if they relocated production to countries with vastly lower labor and benefits costs in untapped markets such as China, and they did so in droves. Predictably, the real purchasing power of the American middle class flat lined. At the same time, the purchasing power of their Chinese peers rose at an unprecedented rate. At some point, for the multinationals, it ceased to be a case of seeking higher profits; they had to follow the trend to remain competitive in their never-ending struggle for market share. To put it in perspective, in 1955 the biggest employer in the U.S. was General Motors, a manufacturer of goods made in the U.S. by American workers; in contrast, today it’s Wal-Mart, a distributor of foreign-made goods, mainly Chinese.

For American workers, particularly non-college educated white males, it was a divorce with devastating economic, health, social, and demographic consequences. Data shows that the suicide rate in the U.S. has reached a 30-year high, and that it’s continuing to increase; in 2017 it was the 10th leading cause of death. Then there’s the opioid epidemic. In 2017 in California, 1,444 non-Hispanic whites died of opioid use, compared with 483 Hispanics and 147 Blacks. Nationwide, that same year 47,000 Americans died as a result of an opioid overdose, including prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl; and in the Midwest opioid overdoses increased 70 percent from July 2016 through September 2017. In addition, as a consequence of the aforementioned profound changes, higher divorce rates, and greater labor force participation, women now account for 54 percent of all single-person households. That too had a price. A National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief shows that more than 8 percent of adults older than 20 reported having depression during a given two-week period, and that the prevalence among women was almost double that seen in men.

Even the government has been affected. Tax revenue is much lower that it should be had the median wage kept pace with corporate profits and the income of the top 10 percent of the population, and it has had to pay more in entitlements to the 39.7 million people living below the poverty line.

Relevance of the Green New Deal
The Green New Deal, proposed by progressive lawmakers in the Democratic Party, is a comprehensive, legitimate and timely plan to address critical issues. While it does not propose to significantly reduce a military budget currently larger than the next 7 nations combined, it does seek to mitigate the consequences of climate change and to help the poor and disenfranchised. But the plan fatally fails to address a core ideological objection of middle and working class Republicans, namely that the government should not run much of the national economy. Thus, the Green New Deal, which would expand the government’s role in running the economy, will likely increase the ideological divide tearing at the fabric of our nation. Republicans and Democrats must find an ideological compromise to overcome their entrenched zero-sum attitude; otherwise, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we’ll all drown together rather than individually.

Timeframe of Climate Change
Anthropomorphic Climate Change began in 1750 with the First Industrial Revolution. It has taken us this long to realize that humanity is now in a make or break situation with respect to fossil fuels, and that even if we do stop using them abruptly today, right now, it’s going to take far longer than the lifespan of the next several human generations for the Earth to heal. Accordingly, the transition away from fossil fuels will have to occur on an “Earth” timescale, which is to say that from a human point of view it’s going to be permanent and irreversible. That implies that those who yearn to assume the role of (temporary) leaders in the next election cycle must be willing to take on the unprecedented responsibility of plotting a new course in uncharted waters with no less than the survival of the species at stake. By the same token, we the voters share that responsibility. After all, we’ll be electing them into office.

New Taxes Won’t Achieve the Desired Result
Proposals have been floated to combat inequality and/or fund the Green New Deal. One is to enact a 2% “wealth tax” on Americans with a net worth of more than $50 million and an additional 1% on net worth above $1 billion; another is to create a 70% tax bracket on income above $10 million. While both would certainly raise revenue, there are at least four important reasons why they might not trigger the permanent systemic changes that need to be made to fight climate change and reduce inequality. Firstly, any and all laws can be reversed -witness Trump’s efforts to erase Obama’s legacy and the long-ago demise of Eisenhower’s 90% top tax rate. Future administrations could and may well do the same. Secondly, some wealthy people who would be taxed might do everything in their power, and they have plenty of it, to preempt or fatally dilute any tax increases. Thirdly, the construction jobs that would be created in upgrading and modernizing our physical infrastructure, an indisputable necessity, would last only a few years and consequently not permanently reduce today’s inequality. Fourthly, it is not above politicians to divert tax revenue to fund their unrelated pet projects, even when funds have been specifically earmarked by Congress for some other purpose.

A Way Out
In sum, if voting taxpayers truly wish to fight climate change and inequality and to have a direct say in how their tax money is spent, one way to do so is to create a well-regulated, privately-funded, tax-exempt, nonprofit scheme to gradually and imperceptibly steer the country and the world away from fossil fuels to green hydrogen.

Gridlock Revisited

January 25, 2019

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The ripple effect of the government shutdown has spread far and wide, and the longer it continues the worse it will get, particularly for ordinary people. The poor and aged are at risk of losing their all-important housing benefits that keep them from becoming homeless, all because the federal agencies tasked with funding those vital programs, including Section 8, are either closed or understaffed. Federal employees currently working without pay cannot continue to do so indefinitely. At some point they’ll have to quit which will force the government, if and when it reopens, to train new employees, if there’s anyone left to do so, at great cost; not just in monetary terms but in the public’s perception of what the “full faith and credit” of the government truly means.

It’s also negatively impacting real estate -a critical part of the economy- already reeling from higher interest rates. While Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continue to operate normally, the economic uncertainty stemming from the shutdown has resulted in a reduction in loan volume. The slower pace of tax return verifications by the IRS is delaying lenders’ ability to originate loans, which in turn, is reducing the volume of mortgages to Fannie and Freddie. The Federal Housing Administration is not endorsing reverse mortgages and Title 1 loans, and it’s not making any new commitments in the Multi-family Program during the shutdown. Single family loan processing through the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service has come to a halt, and the Small Business Administration (SBA) is closed, all lending halted.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864 and by the House of Representatives on January 31, 1865, abolished involuntary servitude (and slavery) except as punishment for a crime. Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term that describes a person laboring against his/her will to benefit another under some form of coercion other than the worker’s financial needs. Accordingly, federal employees forced to work without pay indefinitely on pain of destitution looks, feels, smells, and might even be, a textbook example of involuntary servitude under coercion. If so, at a minimum, this abomination would also be blatantly unconstitutional.

This situation cries out for a (courageous) emergency ruling by the full U.S. Supreme Court, if only someone with legal standing might request it. Mere words cannot adequately convey the urgent need for its intervention to prevent current or future politicians and corporations from weaponizing the livelihood of innocent employees and their families, federal or not, to impose their will. If they’re unwilling or unable, or both, to work with each other like they’re supposed to, then perhaps they should resign –en masse if necessary. After all, no one is irreplaceable.

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change

October 8, 2018

Here’s a selected portion of the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change. The entire report can be found here.  Editor’s comment: Time to switch to hydrogen.

A. Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C4

A1. Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) {1.2, Figure SPM.1}

A1.1. Reflecting the long-term warming trend since pre-industrial times, observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the decade 2006–2015 was 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C)6 higher than the average over the 1850–1900 period (very high confidence). Estimated anthropogenic global warming matches the level of observed warming to within ±20% (likely range). Estimated anthropogenic global warming is currently increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade due to past and ongoing emissions (high confidence). {1.2.1, Table1.1, 1.2.4}

A1.2. Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}

A1.3. Trends in intensity and frequency of some climate and weather extremes have been detected over time spans during which about 0.5°C of global warming occurred (medium confidence). This assessment is based on several lines of evidence, including attribution studies for changes in extremes since 1950. {3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3}

A.2. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence) {1.2, 3.3, Figure 1.5, Figure SPM.1}

A2.1. Anthropogenic emissions (including greenhouse gases, aerosols and their precursors) up to the present are unlikely to cause further warming of more than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades (high confidence) or on a century time scale (medium confidence). {1.2.4, Figure 1.5}

A2.2. Reaching and sustaining net-zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net nonCO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal timescales (high confidence). The maximum temperature reached is then determined by cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions up to the time of net zero CO2 emissions (high confidence) and the level of non-CO2 radiative forcing in the decades prior to the time that maximum temperatures are reached (medium confidence). On longer timescales, sustained net negative global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and/or further reductions in non-CO2 radiative forcing may still be required to prevent further warming due to Earth system feedbacks and reverse ocean acidification (medium confidence) and will be required to minimize sea level rise (high confidence). {Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, Figure 1.4, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 3.4.4.8, 3.4.5.1, 3.6.3.2}

IPCC Special Report 2018

Costa Rica’s Electricity 98.53% from Renewable Sources

July 12, 2018

Unofficial Translation

CR Wind Turbines

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98.53% of electricity generated in Costa Rica since 2014 is renewable.

During this period of time there were 1,197 days of clean production.

Planning, diversity, and a complementary matrix make it possible to optimize resources despite dry years.

The addition of wind and hydro plants (the latter at the Reventazón River) reduced the use of hydrocarbons.

Currently, renewable electricity in 2018 has surpassed 97%.

According to the National Center for Control of Energy of the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE, its Spanish acronym), over the last four years Costa Rica generated 98.53% of its electricity from five renewable sources –water, geothermal, wind, biomass and solar.

Between June 1, 2014 and June 30, 2018 the National Electric System (SEN, its Spanish acronym) produced 44,300.53 gigawatt/hours. Of these, 98.53% -43,647.72 GWH- came from plants that use renewable resources of the national matrix (see tables).

Beginning with 2016, clean generation was reinforced with the coming online of the Reventazón Hydroelectric Plant, whose role as a stabilizing reservoir is to contribute to maintain the balance between the country’s electric supply and demand and to avoid consuming hydrocarbons.

During these 48 months 14 new plants were added to SEN: seven wind, six hydroelectric and one solar that yielded 1,197 days with 100% clean production. By the first quarter of 2019 ICE will add the Las Pilas II Geothermal Plant –with an installed capacity of 55 megawatts- which will be the most modern of its kind in the Central American Isthmus.

During 2018, clean electricity has reached 97.3% so it is projected that the average over the last four years will be maintained. In March this year, Costa Rica’s wind generation reached a historic peak for one month: 216.56 MWH.

Since June 2014 only 652,82 GWH came from fossil fuels, used primarily in the fourth quarter, during the dry season. Garabito, ICE’s main geothermal plant, became the first in Latin America to install a filter to capture contaminant particles.

The use of renewable resources allows the country to have one of lowest rates of emissions of greenhouse gases from the generation of electricity in the world.

Generation of Electricity in Costa Rica

June 2014 to June 2018

Source GWH Percent
Hydro 33,124.54 74.77
Geothermal 5,280.43 11.92
Wind 4,908.86 11.08
Biomass 322.24 0.73
Solar 11.54 0.03
Fossil fuels 652.82 1.47
Totals 44,300.43 100.00

 

EDITOR’S OBSERVATION: Note the low solar percentage; there’s room for exponential growth.

Thucydides & Tariffs

June 26, 2018

ThucydidesPresident Trump has decided to levy tariffs primarily on Chinese, European, Mexican, Canadian, Indian and Turkish products, and in so doing, he has alienated them all. Presumably, following the same logic –that the trade deficit is unsustainable- at some point he’ll have to do the same with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, among many others. Given the cataclysmic nature of these events, a bit of historical synopsis is in order.

The idea of outsourcing and relocating entire industries to countries with extraordinarily low labor costs relative to the United States originated with supply side-economists and the CEOs of American and European multinationals, who correctly perceived an unprecedented profit-making opportunity. Labor costs would drop dramatically, often to an infinitesimal fraction of what they had been in the States, and their profit margin would skyrocket. It worked beautifully for the executives who saw this through and the shareholders they serve –a tiny fraction of the population whose share of national wealth now matches or exceeds the Gilded Age. But for the working classes it was a disaster. The high-paying blue-collar jobs that required only a high school diploma –the backbone of America’s industrial prowess since the days of the original Henry Ford- disappeared, never to come back. As these jobs were predominantly male dominated, it is they who were disproportionately affected. This led to a profound transformation of American society –from the composition of the typical household to stratospheric real estate prices relative to the median wages of working class people, the rate of divorce, the decline of the institution of marriage, a steep decline in the birthrate, particularly of whites, an exploding opioid-related death rate, the most unaffordable health care system among western industrialized nations, and a sharp decline in the life expectancy on non-rich white people. Since neither the idea nor the implementation of globalization originated with the working class, they should not bear the burden of the cost to reverse the trade deficit.

Trade wars are inherently dangerous because they can easily escalate to embargoes, quarantines, blockades, and other forms of asymmetrical confrontations, including a shooting war. Not only that, under present circumstances, with the President threatening to expand tariffs to $450 billion worth of Chinese products should China retaliate in kind to the original $50 billion and subsequent $200 billion in tariffs, it is the American working classes who would feel the pain of the new taxes, for that is what tariffs are. $450 billion covers just about the entire inventory of Chinese products sold in America, from underwear to every imaginable consumer item. Rich people, who spend only a tiny fraction of their income on them, would not be negatively impacted at all. Obviously, since China exports far more to the U.S. than the other way around, the former would not be able to match tariffs on a one to one basis. But there are many other asymmetrical ways –which for purposes of this discussion shall remain nameless- with which they could retaliate to devastate our economy. This is not a poker bluff; it’s Russian roulette on a slippery slope shortcut to Thucydides’ trap.

There are several equitable and moral ways to reduce the trade deficit. One is to tax the profits (and the dividends they pay to their shareholders) of American-owned corporations on products they manufacture abroad and sell in the U.S. Alternatively, the ceiling on which social security taxes are collected could be raised to say, $400,000. Yet another way –sooner rather than later, before the trend is adopted worldwide- would be to actually manufacture that which the Chinese need but can neither produce nor procure from any other source in quantities large enough, and at competitive prices, to generate electricity, manufacture pure water to irrigate and develop their western deserts, and replace oil for mobile applications: hydrogen. Of course, to do that one would first have to accept and publicly admit that climate change is a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States…

Israel

June 10, 2018

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Background
Israel is one of two (the other is Saudi Arabia) top allies of the United States, and as attested by the recent disarray in Canada, higher than its G-7 partners. Among the reasons for this preference are shared concerns over the two supporting pillars of the American economy: the petrodollar –the all-important reason for its (still) privileged position as the premiere reserve currency of the world- and the international bond market that nourishes America’s deficit-based fiscal policy. Should either pillar collapse, so would the American economy and its ability to support Israel. As it now stands, the U.S. has its hands full, and there’s no relief in sight. Not only is it in the midst of a profound demographic change that may in time fundamentally alter its political orientation, it’s burdened by a $21 trillion (and counting) debt, a decades-long trade deficit (no one knows how the looming trade wars with most of the world will evolve), and an unparalleled challenge from China, a country with a population four times larger and an economy growing two to three times faster. In addition, as of this writing, serious divisions already exist between Jewish Americans, who are predominately Democrats, and Israelis. In view of all this plus the fact that no country has ever won all its wars nor remained perpetually dominant, a pragmatic reexamination of the seemingly intractable Israel-Palestinian conflict seems in order.

Choices
The first choice is simple enough: do nothing, stay the course. This presumes that the U.S. will emerge victorious from all its confrontations, that American economic, military, diplomatic and political support for Israel will continue unabated and indefinitely, that Iran’s growing military prowess will soon be demolished, and –in the least sanguine of cases- that the will of the Palestinians will be broken. The alternative of course is to seek a peaceful and equitable solution based on the fundamental premise that Israelis and Palestinians have an inalienable right to live in peace in separate sovereign states within what today is known as Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Obviously this is not new; many prominent leaders have failed. What is new is that breakthroughs in the solar/hydrogen/gravity/water nexus and desertification technologies have created a hitherto nonexistent window of opportunity to peacefully and permanently settle the problem. While there are risks and possible unintended consequences with either approach, the former is likely a direct path to war while the latter gives peace a chance.

Basic Assumptions
We begin by assuming that Israel’s non-negotiable aspirations include annexing the entire West Bank, retaining the Golan Heights (which is tangentially related but not a part of the Palestinian issue per se), permanent physical separation between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and Palestinian recognition that all of Jerusalem has been annexed and is now the capital of Israel. As for the Palestinians, we’ll assume their highest priority is to have a sovereign state immune from Israeli incursions, invasions, demolitions and blockades, the right to repatriate any and all Palestinians currently living abroad, and a desire to make East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian State.

Phases
This proposal envisions a series of time-defined phases to achieve the two-state solution. The cost of the project would require the materialization of financial donors. This is feasible.

Gaza
At best, there is considerable animosity in Gaza; at worst it is a breeding ground for hatred –on both sides of the fence. Therefore the first step should be to disengage and permanently separate Gazans and Israelis. One way to do so is to swap Gaza for an equivalent area around Eilat. Israel would acquire the entire Mediterranean coast; Gazans would get instant relief from the blockade plus a city with superior infrastructure adjacent to kindred Arabic-speaking neighbors in the Gulf of Aqaba. The new border between the Eilat region and Israel would be temporary, subject to change in conjunction with the West Bank phase.

The West Bank
The entire West Bank would be swapped for an area of equivalent size beginning at the northern boundary of the Eilat region and west of the Jordanian border north to the southwest corner of the Dead Sea. The configuration of the northern and western boundaries of the swapped area would be negotiated to take into account the security of Israel’s existing sensitive nuclear and military facilities. In the meantime, Israel would temporarily pay ground rent to the Palestinians for the former’s settlements in the West Bank, retroactively to the time they were built and ending when the West Bank swap is fully executed.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Water
As the Palestinians would be getting a parched desert, this entire plan is predicated on the creation of a new adequate source of water. A sea level canal would be dug from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Dead Sea; solar power would be used to produce hydrogen from seawater; the hydrogen would be oxidized, and in conjunction with gravity would generate surplus electricity and manufacture pure water. Fossil fuels would not be required. The newly created water would be used to support a program of desertification as outlined in this Chinese project.

Jerusalem
Palestinians would have a right of access to the Dome of the Rock, as per current regulations; however their political capital would be any city except Jerusalem.

Iran

May 22, 2018

Mike Pompeo's Ultimatum

If President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal –otherwise known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action- on May 9, 2018 appears to be misguided, arrogant, and self-destructive, rest assured, nothing is at it seems. With a stroke of his pen he managed at once to alienate and humiliate the leaders of linchpin NATO members Germany, France and Britain, and all but convince allies, quasi-adversaries and neutrals –including Russia, China, and India, who deplored and criticized the President’s decision- that America’s non-treaty international agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Twelve days later, on the 21st, Secretary of State Pompeo essentially demanded, on pain of ominous but unspecified consequences, that Iran disarm and render itself prostrate in perpetuity, something that no Iranian government would likely accept.

This brings to mind Austria-Hungary’s 1914 ultimatum to Serbia following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. On that occasion the former intended to ingest the latter just as it had done with Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1909, but it didn’t quite happen that way. Instead, after fighting the “war to end all wars,” the Austro-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist. This time it’s all about oil, pipelines, and the all-important petrodollar; and Iran is in the way.

The President’s actions are understandable only if one sees that his intent is to preserve the status quo, i.e. perpetual addiction to fossil fuels and its conjoined twin –continued denial of climate change. He is wrong, on several counts. There is no such thing as status quo; change, at varying speeds, is the law of the universe. A corollary of that of course is that nothing in this world lasts forever, and that includes America’s military hegemony. Accordingly, by attempting to preserve the indefensible, the President is pursuing a Pyrrhic victory. Instead, he should strive to prepare the nation for the massive unemployment and low wages we’ll face from the advent of artificial intelligence and robots, depleted aquifers, and unheard of diseases caused by climate change. And the way to do so is by switching from fossil fuels and nuclear fission to hydrogen and redistributing future profits from its sale in an egalitarian manner. The technology exists; all that’s required is enlightened leadership.

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15
Translate »