[Texgreen] What Al Gore hasn't told you about global warming

[Roger Baker]

On Jan 10, 2007, at 6:55 AM, David Pollard wrote:

> Perhaps the reason Al didn't mention voluntary austerity is that he  
> realizes that
> (in democracies at least) it's a non-starter. Large populations  
> only accept shared
> sacrifice when the alternative is dire *and* staring them in the  
> face (ie American
> civilians accepted rationing in WW2 because they feared an  
> impending Japanese
> military invasion.)
> With global warming the austerity is real and in-your-face, but the  
> payoff is
> nebulous and delayed by decades or generations. *if* indeed the  
> alleged
> "tipping point" was reached decades ago and is being delayed by the  
> heat
> resevior effects of the oceans and Antarctic ice-caps.
> Realistically, probably the best prolonged effort that can be  
> sustained by a
> democratic electorate is to push the realively "painless" methods  
> Al Gore
> advocates *and* start planning for an ocean rise of around 15m over  
> the
> next several centuries. (Moving the US capitol to a central  
> location would be
> a good start.)
>
> All the Best,
> David Pollard


This contradiction is emerging as a central political problem for the  
Green Party.

After the two major US parties have cultivated a hedonistic and  
individualist mindset for voters using marketing techniques (see way  
below), how does a third party tell voters the truth about the  
austerity they are necessarily facing?  Dare it tell the full truth  
in terms of advocating austerity before it becomes the conventional  
wisdom.

Dare it be ahead of the ruling parties in this respect?

Denial of peak oil is combining with denial of climate change and  
denial of the $2 billion a day trade deficit to lead to a crisis that  
Kunstler calls "The Long Emergency" in his recent book of that title.

One recent indicator is high fuel prices (recently reduced by climate  
change leading to the warmest year in history and thus reducing  
winter heating oil demand, leading temporarily to lower gasoline  
prices).

One interesting consequence of denial combining with rising oil  
prices is the sharp run-up in corn and wheat prices in the last six  
months, both by over 60%.
A big part of this has been agri-giant subsidies for ethanol  
production in the case of corn especially, as the Washington  
lobbyists pit bio-fuel production against food production. You see  
little discussion of this in the news, yet look at the commodity  
chart for corn:

<http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/W>

The corresponding economic prospect is for stagflation next year  
which, combined with an endless war, is likely to cause a big  
increase in frustrated voters unable to understand that a new  
austerity is being imposed by nature as much as by bad political  
leadership:

<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HL23Dj01.html>

"Global economy faces a dangerous year
By Jephraim P Gundzik

Rising inflation and falling home prices are likely to push the US
economy into recession by the second half of 2007. Gathering economic
weakness, combined with negative real yields on US Treasury
securities and growing political pressure to weaken the dollar will
lead to significant dollar depreciation against most currencies.

Economic growth in Asia, Europe and Latin America will also weaken in
2007. Slowing global economic growth will be very bad news for equity
markets around the world. Dollar depreciation and rising
international energy and grain prices will be good news for precious
metals..."

-- Roger

                 *******************************************

http://tinyurl.com/w5pmw


"...Now Labor is faced with a dilemma. A system of consumer democracy
that they have embraced has trapped them into a series of short term
and often contradictory policies. There are now growing demands that
they fulfill a grander vision. That they use the power of government
to deal with the problems of growing inequality and the decaying
social fabric of the country. But to do this they will have to
appeal to the electorate to think outside their own self interest.
And this would mean challenging the now dominant Freudian theory of
human being, of selfish, instinct-driven individuals. Which is a
concept of human beings which has been fostered and encouraged by
business because it produces ideal consumers. Although we feel we are
free, in reality, we like the politicians, have become the slaves of
our own desires. We have forgotten that we can be more than that.
That there are other sides to human nature:

ROBERT REICH: "Fundamentally here we have two different views of
human nature and of democracy. You have the view that people are
irrational. That they are bundles of unconscious emotion. That comes
directly out of Freud. And businesses are very able to respond to
that; thats what they have honed their skills doing. That what
marketing is really all about; what are the symbols, the music, the
images, the words will appeal to these unconscious feelings.

Politics must be more than that. Politics and leadership are about
engaging the public in a rational discussion and deliberation about
what is best. And treating people with respect in terms of their
rational abilities to debate what is best. If it is not that, if it
is Freudian, if it is basically a matter of appealing to the same
basic unconscious feelings that business appeals to, then why not let
business do it? Business can do it better. Business knows how to do
it. Business after all is in the business of responding to those
feelings."