Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Good News
The earth is more resilient to climate change than people thought. As this article shows, a warmer world is a wetter world, leading to more plant growth which can serve to soak up excess greenhouse gasses. Of course, that assumes that there is enough plant life around to actually grow, but in western nations, forests have been GROWING in size (contrary to popular belief). It's in poorer nations, such as Brazil, which have seen the most reduction in forests, belieing the notion that progress equals environmental destruction. Poor nations have greater incentives to do environmentally destructive things than rich nations.
This DOES NOT MEAN, however, that the greenhouse effect is not a problem. It's just that the reality is somewhere between the environuts who think environmental holocaust will happen next week and those who think we shouldn't have to worry about the environment at all. America's reliance on gasoline, driven higher by our insane obsession with HUGE cars, needs to stop.
The earth is more resilient to climate change than people thought. As this article shows, a warmer world is a wetter world, leading to more plant growth which can serve to soak up excess greenhouse gasses. Of course, that assumes that there is enough plant life around to actually grow, but in western nations, forests have been GROWING in size (contrary to popular belief). It's in poorer nations, such as Brazil, which have seen the most reduction in forests, belieing the notion that progress equals environmental destruction. Poor nations have greater incentives to do environmentally destructive things than rich nations.
This DOES NOT MEAN, however, that the greenhouse effect is not a problem. It's just that the reality is somewhere between the environuts who think environmental holocaust will happen next week and those who think we shouldn't have to worry about the environment at all. America's reliance on gasoline, driven higher by our insane obsession with HUGE cars, needs to stop.
Monday, May 10, 2004
Some facts about guns
The assault weapons ban is about to expire, and congress will be voting on its renewal. The referenced articles makes an interesting point (in soundbite form, but useful nonetheless):
"We are working very hard in Iraq to get AK-47s off the street, to get Uzis off the streets. The president says we're fighting the war on terror by doing that," said Rep. Chris van Hollen, D-Maryland. "What about the terror right here on our streets at home."
I don't think ANYONE can argue that Iraqis are safer because the streets are awash in guns sprinkled everywhere by Iraq's ex-president. The issue is not the ability to defend yourself. The issue is the NEED to defend yourself when people who want to do bad things find it so easy to get serious firepower.
The assault weapons ban is about to expire, and congress will be voting on its renewal. The referenced articles makes an interesting point (in soundbite form, but useful nonetheless):
"We are working very hard in Iraq to get AK-47s off the street, to get Uzis off the streets. The president says we're fighting the war on terror by doing that," said Rep. Chris van Hollen, D-Maryland. "What about the terror right here on our streets at home."
I don't think ANYONE can argue that Iraqis are safer because the streets are awash in guns sprinkled everywhere by Iraq's ex-president. The issue is not the ability to defend yourself. The issue is the NEED to defend yourself when people who want to do bad things find it so easy to get serious firepower.
Some facts about SUVs
I'm no fan of the ever-so-popular SUV. Here's some of the reasons
1. SUVs and "light" trucks (including these extend-a-cab things that pass for pickup trucks) are not bound by the same fuel economy and pollution standards as regular cars, and aren't likely to in the near future so long as Republican conventional wisdom militates against boosting air quality standards and Democrats are in hock to the United Auto Worker's union. Several bills to change this status have failed over the past 15 years.
2. Partly due to item 1, SUVs and light trucks spew 4 times the smog-generating chemicals as cars.
3. SUVs average 40% lower fuel efficiency than cars, making claims that America is trying to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern sources of oil almost laughable. Then again, McCain couldn't even manage to push through a moderate increase in the gasoline tax a few weeks after September 11th, a time when the need to reduce reliance on so volatile a part of the world should have been blatantly apparent to everyone.
4. SUVs are NOT as safe as people think they are. Though they are safer in front-to-front and front-to-side collisions, the mortality rate is much higher in rollover situations, which constitute a third of all traffic-related deaths. Their poor showing in rollovers make their overall safety rating LOWER.
5. The fact that SUVs are not as safe as people think they are, however, only affects the driver. Unfortunately, the truly anti-social side to SUVs is their effect on OTHER PEOPLE in accidents. In front-to-side collisions between cars, the driver of the side-hit automobile is 6.6 as likely to die as the driver of the striking automobile. If the striking car is an SUV, the death rate ratio is 30 to 1.
I'm no fan of the ever-so-popular SUV. Here's some of the reasons
1. SUVs and "light" trucks (including these extend-a-cab things that pass for pickup trucks) are not bound by the same fuel economy and pollution standards as regular cars, and aren't likely to in the near future so long as Republican conventional wisdom militates against boosting air quality standards and Democrats are in hock to the United Auto Worker's union. Several bills to change this status have failed over the past 15 years.
2. Partly due to item 1, SUVs and light trucks spew 4 times the smog-generating chemicals as cars.
3. SUVs average 40% lower fuel efficiency than cars, making claims that America is trying to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern sources of oil almost laughable. Then again, McCain couldn't even manage to push through a moderate increase in the gasoline tax a few weeks after September 11th, a time when the need to reduce reliance on so volatile a part of the world should have been blatantly apparent to everyone.
4. SUVs are NOT as safe as people think they are. Though they are safer in front-to-front and front-to-side collisions, the mortality rate is much higher in rollover situations, which constitute a third of all traffic-related deaths. Their poor showing in rollovers make their overall safety rating LOWER.
5. The fact that SUVs are not as safe as people think they are, however, only affects the driver. Unfortunately, the truly anti-social side to SUVs is their effect on OTHER PEOPLE in accidents. In front-to-side collisions between cars, the driver of the side-hit automobile is 6.6 as likely to die as the driver of the striking automobile. If the striking car is an SUV, the death rate ratio is 30 to 1.
Sunday, May 09, 2004
More interesting articles on Iraq
This article discusses conditions at Abu Ghraib prison, and how it was severely understaffed. This article discusses growing dissension at the upper levels of the US Military, and in particular, growing anger at mistakes made by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Taken together, I think there is a strong case to be made the Donald Rumsfeld needs to go. It sounds to me like he severely understaffed the Iraq invasion. That's not a new opinion, but it certainly seems to have a lot more basis in hard evidence, albeit of the hindsight sort.
It's always perplexed me that people like Colin Powell, who HAS military experience, get overruled by people like Donald Rumsfeld, who lacks it. I would have a lot more trust in the Bush administration if he were to can Rumsfeld, though the appearance of weakness this close to an election likely makes that impossible.
This article discusses conditions at Abu Ghraib prison, and how it was severely understaffed. This article discusses growing dissension at the upper levels of the US Military, and in particular, growing anger at mistakes made by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Taken together, I think there is a strong case to be made the Donald Rumsfeld needs to go. It sounds to me like he severely understaffed the Iraq invasion. That's not a new opinion, but it certainly seems to have a lot more basis in hard evidence, albeit of the hindsight sort.
It's always perplexed me that people like Colin Powell, who HAS military experience, get overruled by people like Donald Rumsfeld, who lacks it. I would have a lot more trust in the Bush administration if he were to can Rumsfeld, though the appearance of weakness this close to an election likely makes that impossible.
Interesting Viewpoint
This article by Peter Galbraith (from the New York Review of Books, of all places) provides an interesting perspective on Iraq, and apparently was read by a number of high-level people in the US military. Essentially, it says we should use the same model applied in Afghanistan, where we rely on local militias to manage most security and concentrate on the cleanup operations which really need American firepower. It also argues that we should abandon hopes of a strong central Iraqi government capable of holding things together. At best, we will get a loose Yugoslavia. Iran, Turkey and Syria will just have to deal with the fact that the Kurds aren't going to accept being forced into control from Baghdad again, not after 11 years of autonomy and years of economic and political freedom.
The article concludes by stating that America should NEVER attempt to wage a unilateral war ever again. Our troubles in Iraq would certainly be ameliorated if we had succeeded in convincing the rest of the world of the importance of removing a dictator as odious as Saddam Hussein (Galbraith doesn't whitewash Saddam's atrocities, though thinks we should have done something about him in the 1980's, when the American government was giving him political cover).
This article by Peter Galbraith (from the New York Review of Books, of all places) provides an interesting perspective on Iraq, and apparently was read by a number of high-level people in the US military. Essentially, it says we should use the same model applied in Afghanistan, where we rely on local militias to manage most security and concentrate on the cleanup operations which really need American firepower. It also argues that we should abandon hopes of a strong central Iraqi government capable of holding things together. At best, we will get a loose Yugoslavia. Iran, Turkey and Syria will just have to deal with the fact that the Kurds aren't going to accept being forced into control from Baghdad again, not after 11 years of autonomy and years of economic and political freedom.
The article concludes by stating that America should NEVER attempt to wage a unilateral war ever again. Our troubles in Iraq would certainly be ameliorated if we had succeeded in convincing the rest of the world of the importance of removing a dictator as odious as Saddam Hussein (Galbraith doesn't whitewash Saddam's atrocities, though thinks we should have done something about him in the 1980's, when the American government was giving him political cover).
