Montgomery County, MD Green Party Blog

The latest in our series of Friedman’s editorials on energy. This one concerns how our oil policy endangers our national security.

You can read the first one here, and the second one here, and the third one here.

Driving Toward Middle East Nukes in Our S.U.V.’s
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: February 10, 2006

The world stands today at a very dangerous dividing line. It is the dividing line between the post-cold-war world, which we have known since 1989 — one of expanding democracy and free markets — and a post-post-cold-war world, which is unknown but almost certain to be a much less stable, prosperous and benign place.

I believe the questions that will determine whether we enter the post-post-cold-war world will come down to two: how India, China and Russia deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and how the West, particularly America, deals with $60-a-barrel oil.

Let me explain: if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and possibly other Sunni Arab states are bound to follow. The Sunni Arabs can overlook Israel’s bomb, but they will never stand for the Persian Shiites having a bomb and them not. That’s about brothers with a centuries-old rivalry. And if the Arab world starts to go nuclear, then you will see the crumbling of the whole global nuclear nonproliferation regime.

A world with so many nuclear powers, particularly in its primary oil-producing region, could only be a more dangerous and unstable place, compared with the post-cold-war world. Imagine Iran with $60-a-barrel oil to make all the mischief it wants, and a nuclear weapon to shield it from any retaliation. Indeed, if you want to know what the post-post-cold-war world would sound like, listen to Iran’s poisonous president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He was quoted in The Guardian of London the other day as saying: “Our enemies cannot do a damn thing. We do not need you at all. But you are in need of the Iranian nation.”

I’m convinced that the only countries capable of getting Iran to back down — through diplomacy — are China, India and Russia. Europe is too weak, and America has already used every economic sanction it can on Iran. China, India and Russia have been great beneficiaries of the post-cold-war order, and the trade, economic development and exports it has made possible. That order was largely shaped and safeguarded by the United States, with China, India and Russia often getting a free ride.

But that order will continue only if China, India and Russia get over their reluctance to get too close to America and become real stakeholders in maintaining this post-cold-war world.

I want to share power and responsibility with them — starting with the three of them, which represent half of humanity, looking Iran in the eye and telling its leadership that they will join in any and all U.N. sanctions if Iran tries to build an A-bomb. That would get Tehran’s attention.

As for America, its leadership task has shifted. If the Bush team continues to let Dick Cheney set its oil policy — one that will keep America dependent on crude oil — the post-cold-war democracy movement that was unleashed by the fall of the Berlin Wall will be either aborted, diluted or reversed. If regimes like those in Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Burma, Sudan and Nigeria have the benefit of 10 years of $60-a-barrel oil, whatever democratic tide President Bush thinks he is unleashing will be stymied. The worst regimes in the world will have the most power to support the most regressive political and religious trends.

I don’t approve of the Danish newspaper cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Yes, you can see much worse in the Arab-Muslim press on any day. But why should the West get into that gutter? What I approve of even less are the blatant efforts to intimidate the world media that have printed these cartoons — an intimidation effort cynically fueled by Iran, Syria and its theocratic allies. What do you think will happen after a few more years of $60-a-barrel oil? You will see a radical arc from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah to Hamas — all financed by Iran — intimidating every moderate in the Muslim world.

A British official recalled for me that in 1946, the British foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, remarked, “Give me 100,000 tons of coal and I will give you a foreign policy.” What he meant was, Give me the energy source to heat the homes and run the businesses of Europe, and I will give you a rebuilt Europe.

Well, I say, Give me even $30-a-barrel oil and I will give you an Iranian regime that is a lot less smug — an Iran that will need to be tied into the world much more in order to create real jobs for its exploding population.

That’s why we need an urgent national effort, starting with a gasoline tax, to move the U.S. economy onto a path of more fuel-efficient cars and renewable energy. If we do it, everyone will follow.

If we don’t, then say hello to the post-post-cold-war world and say goodbye to the post-cold-war world. It was fun while it lasted.

When the Bushes and Clintons held hands before 15,000 mourners at Coretta Scott King’s funeral on Tuesday, it looked like a prayerful moment in the life of the nation. But as almost anyone watching America’s two leading political families knew, underneath the tranquil image was a drama of ambition, rivalry, love and alliance that could shape the 2008 presidential election.

Click here for link.

This is the third one of Friedman’s editorials on energy. He takes the Bush administration to task for their failure on energy issues.

You can read the first one here, and the second one here.

No More Mr. Tough Guy
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: February 8, 2006

I’ve always thought Dick Cheney took national security seriously. I don’t anymore. It seems that Mr. Cheney is so convinced that we have no choice but to be dependent on crude oil, so convinced that conservation is just some silly liberal hobby, that he will never seriously summon the country to kick its oil habit, never summon it to do anything great.

Indeed, he seems determined to be a drag on any serious effort to make America energy-independent. He presents all this as a tough-guy “realist” view of the world. But it’s actually an ignorant and naïve view — one that underestimates what Americans can do, and totally misses how the energy question has overtaken Iraq as the most important issue in U.S. foreign policy. If he persists, Mr. Cheney is going to ensure that the Bush team squanders its last three years — and a lot more years for the country.

Listen to Mr. Cheney’s answer when the conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham asked him how he reacted to my urgings for a gasoline tax to push all Americans to drive energy-saving vehicles and make us energy-independent — now.

“Well, I don’t agree with that,” Mr. Cheney said. “I think — the president and I believe very deeply that, obviously, the government has got a role to play here in terms of supporting research into new technologies and encouraging the development of new methods of generating energy. … But we also are big believers in the market, and that we need to be careful about having government come in, for example, and tell people how to live their lives. … This notion that we have to ‘impose pain,’ some kind of government mandate, I think we would resist. The marketplace does work out there.”

What is he talking about? The global oil market is anything but free. It’s controlled by the world’s largest cartel — OPEC — which sets output, and thereby prices, according to the needs of some of the worst regimes in the world. By doing nothing, we are letting their needs determine the price and their treasuries reap all the profits.

Also, why does Mr. Cheney have no problem influencing the market by lowering taxes to get consumers to spend, but he rejects raising gasoline taxes to get consumers to save energy — a fundamental national interest.

Don’t take it from me. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, who recently retired as chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Jan. 3 about his New Year’s resolutions: “Everyone hates taxes, but the government needs to fund its operations, and some taxes can actually do some good in the process. I will tell the American people that a higher tax on gasoline is better at encouraging conservation than are heavy-handed [mileage standards]. It would not only encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, but it would encourage them to drive less.”

Mr. Cheney, we are told, is a “tough guy.” Really? Well, how tough is this: We have a small gasoline tax, but Europe and Japan tax their gasoline by $2 and $3 a gallon, or more. They use those taxes to build schools, highways and national health care for their citizens. But they spend very little on defense compared with us.

So who protects their oil supplies from the Middle East? U.S. taxpayers. We spend nearly $600 billion a year on defense, a large chunk in the Persian Gulf. But how do we pay for that without a gas tax? Income taxes and Social Security. Yes, we tax our incomes and raid our children’s Social Security fund so Europeans and Japanese can comfortably import their oil from the gulf, impose big gas taxes on it at their pumps and then use that income for their own domestic needs. And because they have high gas taxes, they also beat Detroit at making more fuel-efficient cars. Now how tough is that?

Finally, if Mr. Cheney believes so much in markets, why did the 2005 energy act contain about $2 billion in tax breaks for oil companies? Why does his administration permit a 54-cents-a-gallon tax on imported ethanol — fuel made from sugar or corn — so Brazilian sugar exports won’t compete with American sugar? Yes, we tax imported ethanol from Brazil, but we don’t tax imported oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Russia.

“Everyone says we need a new Marshall Plan,” said Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy expert and the author of “The Case for Goliath.” “We have a Marshall Plan. It’s our energy policy. It’s a Marshall plan for terrorists and dictators.”

How tough is it, Mr. Cheney, to will the ends — an end to America’s oil addiction — but not will the means: a gasoline tax? It’s not very tough, it’s not very smart, and it’s going to end badly for us.

Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.”

Among signers of the statement, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, are the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller “The Purpose-Driven Life.”

“For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority,” the statement said. “Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough.”

The statement calls for federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through “cost-effective, market-based mechanisms” — a phrase lifted from a Senate resolution last year and one that could appeal to evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business. The statement, to be announced in Washington, is only the first stage of an “Evangelical Climate Initiative” including television and radio spots in states with influential legislators, informational campaigns in churches, and educational events at Christian colleges.

Click here for link.

See http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.php?file=issues_dumping.htm on the difference between free trade and fair trade.

Everybody talks about globalization; nobody ever does anything about it. The world labor market looms over every horizon with its promise of cheaper goods and lower pay. The public is skeptical, rightly, about the benefits of globalization, but the process of harnessing it, of writing enforceable rules that would benefit not just investors but most of our citizens, is hard to even conceive. And so globalization is experienced by many Americans as a loss of control. Manufacturing moves to China, engineering to India; que sera, sera .

Click here for link.

More than half of the terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay have not been accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies, two of the detainees’ lawyers said in a report released Tuesday.

Compiled from declassified Defense Department evaluations of the more than 500 detainees at the Cuba facility, the report says just 8 percent are listed as fighters for a terrorist group, while 30 percent are considered members of a terrorist group and the remaining 60 percent were just “associated with” terrorists.

Click here for link.

Actually, the headline overstates what the Government is doing…

Amid concerns that global warming is melting away the icy habitats where polar bears live, the federal government is reviewing whether they should be considered a threatened species.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Tuesday that protection may be warranted under the Endangered Species Act, and began a review process to consider if the bears should be listed.

Click here for link.

The Democratic Party of the United States, founded in 1792 and thus the oldest continually active political party on earth, suddenly died today, apparently through the collective choice of its leadership. Though the party had been in poor health for at least the past twelve years, and had been in precipitous decline since early 2001, its death still came as a shock to many observers.

“Egad, I can’t believe it!” said Gore Vidal, safely ensconced in his castle somewhere in Europe. “Not even my bottomless reserves of cynicism can deal with such a calamity. It leaves me speechless!”

However, others were more sanguine about a development that is certain to affect the political landscape significantly, at least in the short term.

“I saw it coming and, to be honest, I’m resigned to it, just as I was resigned to having the Presidency stolen from me,” said Sen. John Kerry, the party’s nominee for president in 2004, as some readers may recall.

The final blow appears to have been the Democratic leadership’s decision not to oppose strongly, until the last minute, the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Alito ¾ whose judicial record no knowledgeable and sane person would characterize as other than incredibly reactionary ¾ was chastised by Democrats for not revealing, under interrogation by the Senate Judiciary Committee, his views on slavery and other controversial social issues. However, the party had agreed to allow onto the High Court a man who believes it’s just swell to give a right-wing tyrant the power to rule America unopposed, until voters in their states began disrupting their valuable time by tying up phone lines and email traffic in an effort to stop Alito’s appointment.

“It’s true that, to our party’s liberal base, the decision not to try to filibuster Judge Alito, at least until it was certain that no such filibuster would take place, may not appear to make much sense,” conceded Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader. “However, we know better than they, and we are convinced that the best way to oppose Bush, at a time when his public approval numbers are lower than any second-term president in modern history except Richard Nixon, is to do exactly what the White House asks us Democrats to do, 98% of the time.” Equally positive about Bush’s choice were Republicans noted for being pro-choice on the abortion issue. Sen. Arlen Spector, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, commented, “I feel that Samuel Alito is an honorable man, and the fact that the most hate-filled organizations in the country all strongly supported his nomination is surely an unfortunate coincidence.”

However, liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, also a member of the committee, opposed his party’s decision to commit seppuku.

“When the issue came up, I strongly disagreed with our leadership’s decision to choose political suicide, at least at this time. Judge Alito, though a highly intelligent and competent shyster, has been revealed to one and all as holding views significantly to the right of Rudolf Hess. And in fact, compared to those who ran our party at the time I rode my brothers’ coattails into the Senate, our current leaders are all dorks ¾ but don’t quote me on that!”

When asked if there is any future for the Democrats ¾ whether there can be, in fact, life after political death ¾ Sen. Reid was noncommittal.

“Time will tell. Frankly, the historical precedent of the Whigs in the 19th Century doesn’t give us great reason for hope. But I am optimistic. After all, our rank-and-file has put up with so much in the last four years. Perhaps the death of the organization to which they gave so much of their time and effort and money may actually come as a relief to many of them. And they’re loyal. If we’re lucky, and we play our cards right, the ghost of our once-great party may haunt both houses of Congress for at least a generation to come.”

By DAVID BALDWIN
Published January 31, 2006

A suspected carcinogen used to make Teflon was found in nearly all the umbilical cord blood samples tested by researchers at Johns Hopkins Hospital. The researchers are now trying to determine whether it has harmed the newborns.

Of the 300 newborns tested, perfluorooctanoic acid, was found in the cord blood of 298.

“It’s very clear that PFOA is being released into the environment, and it’s pretty much ubiquitous. But we don’t know if it’s toxic to people at these levels,” said Dr. Lynn Goldman, one of the Hopkins researchers.
*
*
*
How PFOA, which has been found in many places worldwide, including polar bears, gets into the bloodstream is not known.

Click here for link.

I am posting the following as a way to spread the word on MAGIC’s (The Maryland Alliance for Greenway Improvement and Conservation) work on this important area. Bob DeGroot, the group’s founder, is a tireless worker to protect Maryland’s forests.

We are all familiar with the recent national headlines concerning lobbyist influence in Congress; it is sad to see that the same game is played at the state level by the forest industries.

I’ll let Bob continue in his own words:

The Forest Bills, designed to protect the old growth forest in Crabtree and add a protected Wildland to the Green Ridge State Forest, have been withdrawn by Del. Montgomery. This occurred primarily because DNR would not agree to protecting all the old growth forest in Crabtree, and would not support any additional protections in the Green Ridge State Forest.

Although we might have been able to pass a bill protecting half of the old growth forest, many people were reluctant to accept such a compromise. Agreeing with DNR that only half of the forest was worthy of protection would likely jeopardize the remainder of the old growth forest. DNR has done studies that indicate this forest is 150-230 years old.

Passing a forest bill opposed by the administration is very difficult. Under the current administration, most advocates of forest and species protection have been fired or removed from positions of authority at DNR. Still, many legislators assume DNR is the best source of information concerning forest management.

The forest industry is very active in Maryland, and their influence goes deep into DNR. Allowing DNR to keep the money from logging state forests continues to work against forest protection. This conflict will only be resolved through legislation.

We need more people actively supporting efforts to protect state forests. Unless we act, more of the public forests will be cut down and removed. This is the direction being orchestrated by the Governor’s Sustainable Forestry Commission. Even if we assume a new Governor is elected, more people will be needed to protect the public’s interests.

If you know anyone that might be willing to help us, please talk to them and get them on our distribution list at www.Magicalliance.org. They can get more information by going to www.Magicalliance.org and looking at the Photo Gallery.