January 13, 2016
Total student loan debt in the United States is increasing at a rate of about $2,853.88 per second and has now passed $1.3 trillion. To access the student loan debt clock and a wealth of information click here.
Biodegradable Hydrogen Catalyst 150 Times More Efficient
January 6, 2016
Scientists at Indiana University Bloomington have created a biodegradable, easy to mass-produce catalyst called P22-Hyd consisting of a modified enzyme (hydrogenase) protected within the protein shell of a bacterial virus. The material forms a nano-reactor that catalyzes hydrogen formation 150 times more efficiently than the enzyme would in its original form. In addition, it can also combine hydrogen and oxygen to generate power.
This game-changer further supports the premise that it is economically feasible, and therefore sustainable, to mass-produce water in deserts to make them green to help sequester the excess carbon in the atmosphere.
General Guderian And The Importance Of Moscow
Background
The expansion of NATO to the Ukraine would recreate the military situation in the Eastern Front after the first Battle of Kiev in 1941, a major victory for the Wehrmacht which would subsequently lead to the unsuccessful assault on Moscow. The ensuing “Winter War” and the Soviet counterattack in December bled dry and pushed back the German Army from Moscow’s outskirts. The following year Hitler, not daring another attempt on the Soviet capital, turned south in a bid to capture the oil fields of the Caucasus. That led to the 1942-1943 Battle of Stalingrad, the encirclement and destruction of the elite Sixth Army, and eventually, Germany’s defeat. NATO’s expansion to the Ukraine would avoid that type of defeat.
The Eastern Front, Summer of 1941
On August 23, 1941, after two full months of constant action, General Heinz Guderian, commander of Second Panzer Group (later Second Panzer Army), poised to attack Moscow, was summoned to attend a conference at Army Group Center’s Headquarters with Chief of the General Staff (OKH) Colonel-General Franz Halder and Field Marshal Fedor von Bock, commander of Army Group Center. Halder had been informed that Hitler had decided to attack neither Leningrad nor Moscow but to capture Kiev, the Ukraine and the Crimea. He seemed deeply upset for he believed that would inevitably lead to a winter campaign, something for which the Wehrmacht was totally unprepared. Von Bock agreed, and the three decided that Halder and Guderian should fly to Hitler’s Headquarters in East Prussia (now part of the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad) in an attempt to change Hitler’s mind. They arrived at Lötzen airfield as it was getting dark. Guderian promptly reported to Field Marshal Walter von Brauchitsch, Commander-in-Chief of the Army, who presently forbid him to mention the question of Moscow to Hitler.
The Importance of Moscow
What follows is Guderian’s account of the meeting with Hitler and his analysis of why capturing Moscow was the key to defeating the Soviet Union, excerpted from his memoirs, Panzer Leader.
“I went in to see Hitler. There were a great many people present, including Keitel, Jodl, Schmundt and others, but neither Brauchitsch nor Halder, nor, indeed, any representative of the OKH. I described the state of my Panzer Group, its present condition and that of the terrain. When I had finished Hitler asked: ‘In view of their past performance, do you consider that your troops are capable of making another great effort?’
I replied: ‘If the troops are given a major objective, the importance of which is apparent to every soldier, yes.’
Hitler then said: ‘You mean, of course, Moscow?’
I answered: ‘Yes. Since you have broached the subject, let me give you the reasons for my opinions.’
Hitler agreed and I therefore explained basically in detail all the points that favored a continuation of the advance on Moscow and that spoke against the Kiev operation. I maintained that, from a military point of view, the only question was that of finally defeating the enemy forces which has suffered so heavily in the recent battles. I described to him the geographical significance of Moscow, which was quite different from that of, say, Paris. Moscow was the great Russian road, rail and communications center: it was the political solar plexus; it was an important industrial area; and its capture would not only have an enormous psychological effect on the Russian people but on the rest of the world…”
Global Electricity Output May Drop Due To Climate Change
January 4, 2016
Climate change impacts on rivers and streams may substantially reduce electricity production capacity around the world. Particularly vulnerable are the United States, southern South America, southern Africa, central and southern Europe, Southeast Asia and southern Australia. A new study by the International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis in Austria calls for a greater focus on adaptation efforts in order to maintain future energy security.
COP21 And Nuclear War
January 3, 2016
The Doomsday Clock
Last year, on January 22, 2015 to be precise, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists advanced the Doomsday Clock to 3 minutes before midnight, a metaphor to indicate how close our species is to extinction. Among other things, the scientists are (correctly) concerned with climate change and the budding three-way nuclear arms race involving mainly, but not exclusively, the United States, Russia and China. The reasons for this antagonistic animosity are numerous and complex regarding how these nations value their core interests, particularly oil. We have already discussed the situation in the South China Sea, pitting China against some of its surrounding neighbors supported by the U.S. Now it’s time to focus on the Eastern or Southwestern Front, depending on one’s point of view.
Historical Facts
Hitler’s failed Operation Barbarossa, the main purpose of which was to conquer living space and natural resources –particularly oil- for Germany, left the Soviet Union in ruins. At its height in November 1942, the front stretched from Leningrad on the Baltic Sea to Rostov-on-the Don, about 943 miles (1517 km) as the crow flies. The Germans occupied, exploited and leveled all of Byelorussia, most of the Ukraine, and a small portion of western Russia proper, including the Crimea, which at that time was part of Russia, not the Ukraine. As for Soviet casualties, the numbers are truly eye popping: 11 millions soldiers (killed or missing) and somewhere between 7 million and 20 million civilians dead. In comparison, the United States lost 139,380 soldiers (killed and missing) fighting Germany, and virtually no civilians. In 1941, when they went to war against Germany, the populations of Russia and the U.S. were about the same, 130 million. The difference is that for every American soldier killed, the Russians lost eighty, all with primitive weapons by today’s standards. Even General Eisenhower was appalled at what he saw when he visited Russia after the war, and wrote:
“When we flew into Russia, in 1945, I did not see a house standing between the western borders of the country and the area around Moscow. Through this overrun region, Marshal Zhukov told me, so many numbers of women, children and old men had been killed that the Russian Government would never be able to estimate the total.”
Cold War 2
Practically every Russian family lost someone during the war, so it’s not difficult to understand why so many ordinary Russians and leaders reflexively view NATO’s possible expansion to the Ukraine as an existential threat. After all, they paid for their victory over Germany’s invasion with abundant Russian blood, and they’re not about to forget or squander that legacy.
Secondly, the distance from Shostka in northeast Ukraine –about 114 miles (184 km) west-northwest of Kursk, site of the biggest tank battle in history- to Moscow is about 317 miles (511 km). This is just a few minutes flight time for any number of short-range nuclear missiles, the equivalent of putting a loaded, cocked 12-gauge shotgun on a person’s head. As to how the Russian government would react should that happen, there’s a good historical example. In 1962 President Kennedy was willing to go to war because the Soviets had deployed antique (by today’s standards) medium range missiles in Cuba, 1,134 miles (1,826 km) from Washington D.C. –almost four times the distance from Shostka to Moscow.
As if to reinforce Secretary Hagel’s statement on the subject, the U.S. will spend as much as $1 trillion (it is a mystery where the money will come from) over the next thirty years modernizing America’s nuclear weapons. Under the circumstances, President Putin, who is also renovating and expanding his country’s armed forces, including the navy, for the first time explicitly named the U.S. a threat to Russia’s national security.
These are not esoteric or classified facts, therefore the ruling civilian and military elites are well aware of the high risk these policies entail. Which begs the question: what reward could possibly be big enough to justify taking a risk of that magnitude? Perhaps some believe that Russia, coerced and paralyzed by economic/financial pressures, would capitulate without a fight. In that case, they apparently hope, the subsequent internal turmoil would cause the entire Russian Federation to collapse, just like the Soviet Union did, and the surviving remnants –along with their oil and gas- would be absorbed as de facto vassals of the west. Further extrapolating, the ripple effect would spread to China: unable to access oil not controlled or owned outright by western energy multinationals, and hemmed in by a potential naval blockade, it would capitulate and accept western dominance as well.
The problem with this line of thinking is that both Russia and China might stand and fight, a terminal event for our species. All this over oil, which along with coal and gas are the main cause of anthropogenic climate change. Ironically then, it appears that for the foreseeable future the three powers will struggle to control carbon deposits they well know must be left in the ground -if we’re to survive. There’s too much money (and power) at stake.
Stopping The Madness
Already there have been numerous close calls over the years that could have resulted in all-out nuclear war. President Eisenhower, no stranger to the horrors of war, warned us in his Farewell Speech of the urgent need to disarm; Article VI of the Treaty On The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons requires Parties to the Treaty to undertake “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control“. Instead, nuclear-armed states are moving in the opposite direction.
The best way to put an end to the ominous antagonism is to replace fossil fuels with solar, hydrogen and gravity to generate the world’s electricity. They are free, constant, abundant and cannot be hoarded by anyone. Economy of scale from competitive mass production of hydrogen would eventually lower its price for mobile applications and make oil obsolete. All that’s required is a statement from China and India, the two most populous countries, to the effect that they would be willing to gradually convert their coal-fired plants to hydrogen and the whole world would scramble to meet their needs.
President Eisenhower On Disarmament
“Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight”…
John Hylan, Mayor of New York
March 26, 1922
“The warning of Theodore Roosevelt has much timeliness today, for the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation… It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection… To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interest and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States Government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business…These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country.”
Making COP21 Work
December 15, 2015
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have made the case that developing nations account for 65% of carbon emissions, and that consequently even if industrialized countries were to stop using fossil fuels instantly, now, that would not bring global warming under control.
Statistically they are correct, but that’s not the whole story. For example, the reason that China is now the number one polluter is because the U.S. and Europe have essentially outsourced to it much of their pollution. Were they to repatriate the factories (and the well-paying middle class jobs) to their respective countries to pre-1970 levels, their pollution would likely far surpass China. Accordingly, the argument that each country must rely on its own resources to reduce emissions significantly does not recognize our complicity and responsibility, as consumers, to help those who make the products we use stop using fossil fuels.
The most effective way to reduce emissions to zero is to usher in the age of hydrogen, the only energy carrier that produces water as a byproduct. However, not all countries have the necessary natural attributes to produce a surplus, and countries with larger populations, particularly India and China, need as much hydrogen as they can get from potential natural exporters, at least for the foreseeable future. Conversely, the U.S., Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean islands, South America, all the Mediterranean countries, New Zealand, Australia, Southeast Asia, Iceland and Hawaii, to name a few, are potential natural exporters of hydrogen as outlined in Plan A. It’s not a question of lack of technology or investment capital (there are trillions of dollars searching for worthwhile investment opportunities). The real problem is fear that the switch would kill the petrodollar, with all its consequences, and that mountains of wealth that would be redistributed. But it can be done in an orderly fashion. And there’s no choice.
Paris FCCC 2015 Final Agreement
December 12, 2015
The Paris conference is over, and member nations have unanimously adopted a resolution to keep global mean temperature within 1.5°C of that which existed before the industrial era and to help needy nations cope with the effects of global warming.
Pundits are already criticizing it due to its vague clauses and lack of legally binding mechanisms forcing nations to perform in a specific manner. The criticism is a serious analytical mistake. They should keep in mind that it is primarily a political framework among sovereign nations to cooperate against a deadly common enemy. As such, each nation must contend with internal political forces that may or may not seek to derail the agreement, with potentially catastrophic ramifications. Foremost among them is the United States, the world’s 2nd. biggest polluter, where some Republican candidates and members of Congress refuse to even accept that anthropogenic global warming is indeed real. In fact the current Congress would likely not ratify a treaty, and it still may well become become a political football in the upcoming elections. Under the circumstances, given the (still) enormous American footprint in the world’s political stage, this agreement is pragmatic, defensible and achievable.
In economic terms, which will define each nation’s speed and methods to cope with its share of the burden, the treaty is actually an even bigger victory. As the only effective way to limit carbon emissions is to quit using fossil fuels, the treaty’s purposeful vagueness will encourage competition among the more enlightened to find a way to export renewable energy to the biggest consumers, China, the U.S. (and eventually) India. Enter hydrogen, the only energy carrier with a matchless ability to produce pure water as a byproduct. In addition to enormous energy needs, all three markets urgently need a new, permanent source of water. All it will take is any one nation to start producing as per Plan A; as the profits mount, and everyone else will want a piece of the pie.
Making Paris 2015 Successful
December 11, 2015
As at Copenhagen, the sticking point in Paris is money –who is going to pay how much so the entire world won’t look like Beijing during a red-alert smog storm. The real issue is not money per se but that the world’s powers are reluctant to simply walk away from oil and coal and the fabulous wealth and power they represent. If they truly are as committed as they say they are to do what it takes to save us humans from becoming extinct, all the U.S. and China have to do is switch to hydrogen as outlined in Plan A; at first for generating electricity and later for mobile applications. This is not complicated. Hydrogen is clean, renewable (and thus inexhaustible), and its precious byproduct, water, can transform the driest desert into a dense forest. No fuel can do that (hydrogen is an energy carrier, nature’s battery, not a fuel).
Everyone knows there is an intractable, stubborn Republican opposition to treaties or agreements that would threaten the wealth of their constituents, and that some among them are more than eager to ensure the President fails to achieve anything, particularly a legacy-defining project. But nothing prevents the government from partnering with other nations as a form of foreign aid, for example, to outsource the production of hydrogen. Competition is a basic, powerful element of free enterprise. Used correctly it should encourage others to do the same.