The US Petroleum Industry Climate Deniers found new backing in old papers by what was the joint Russian-Ukrainian Academies of Science Institute of the Physics of the Earth – an old theory that Petroleum Is Not of Biological Fossil Origin but of Deep Abiotic Origin.
We received the following and are posting it as we are open to any exchange of ideas – specially when the subject is theories.
An introduction to the modern petroleum science, and to the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.
Russian Academy of Sciences – Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth.
Gas Resources Corporation, 11811 North Freeway, Houston, TX 77060, U.S.A.
The following articles take up, from different perspectives, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins. Because that subject is one of which most persons outside the former U.S.S.R. are not familiar, a short synopsis of it and of its provenance and history, are given now.
1. The essence of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is an extensive body of scientific knowledge which covers the subjects of the chemical genesis of the hydrocarbon molecules which comprise natural petroleum, the physical processes which occasion their terrestrial concentration, the dynamical processes of the movement of that material into geological reservoirs of petroleum, and the location and economic production of petroleum. The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. In short, and bluntly, petroleum is not a “fossil fuel” and has no intrinsic connection with dead dinosaurs (or any other biological detritus) “in the sediments” (or anywhere else).
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum is based upon rigorous scientific reasoning, consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, as well as upon extensive geological observation, and rests squarely in the mainstream of modern physics and chemistry, from which it draws its provenance. Much of the modern Russian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum genesis developed from the sciences of chemistry and thermodynamics, and accordingly the modern theory has steadfastly held as a central tenet that the generation of hydrocarbons must conform to the general laws of chemical thermodynamics, – as must likewise all matter. In such respect, modern Russian-Ukrainian petroleum science contrasts strongly to what are too often passed off as “theories” in the field of geology in Britain and the U.S.A.
As will be shown explicitly in a following articles, petroleum has no intrinsic association with biological material. The only hydrocarbon molecules which are exceptions to this point are methane, the hydrocarbon alkane specie of lowest chemical potential of all hydrocarbons, and to a lesser extent, ethene, the alkene of the lowest chemical potential of its homologous molecular series. Only methane is thermodynamically stable in the pressure and temperature regime of the near-surface crust of the Earth and accordingly can be generated there spontaneously, as is indeed observed for phenomena such as swamp gas or sewer gas. However, methane is practically the sole hydrocarbon molecule possessing such thermodynamic characteristic in that thermodynamic regime; almost all other reduced hydrocarbon molecules excepting only the lightest ones, are high pressure polymorphs of the hydrogen-carbon system. Spontaneous genesis of the heavier hydrocarbons which comprise natural petroleum occurs only in multi-kilobar regimes of high pressures, as is shown in a following article.
2. The historical beginnings of petroleum science, – with a touch of irony.
The history of petroleum science might be considered to have begun in the year 1757 when the great Russian scholar Mikhailo V. Lomonosov enunciated the hypothesis that oil might originate from biological detritus. Applying the rudimentary powers of observation and the necessarily limited analytical skills available in his time, Lomonosov hypothesized that “… ‘rock oil’ [crude oil, or petroleum] originated as the minute bodies of dead marine and other animals which were buried in the sediments and which, over the passage of a great duration of time under the influence of heat and pressure, transformed into ‘rock oil’.” Such was the descriptive science practiced in the eighteenth century by Lomonosov and Linnaeus.
The scientists who first rejected Lomonsov’s hypothesis, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, were the famous German naturalist and geologist Alexander von Humboldt and the French chemist and thermodynamicist Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac who together enunciated the proposition that oil is a primordial material erupted from great depth, and is unconnected with any biological matter near the surface of the Earth.
Thus both ideas were delivered with powerful pedigrees: the wrong biological notion having been put forward by the greatest Russian scientist of his time; and the abiotic proposition approximately a half century later by, respectively, two of the greatest German and French scientists.
Historically, the first scientific repudiation Lomonosov’s hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum came from chemists and thermodynamicists. With the nascent development of chemistry during the nineteenth century, and following particularly the enunciation of the second law of thermodynamics by Clausius in 1850, Lomonosov’s biological hypothesis came inevitably under attack.
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the great Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev also examined and rejected Lomonosov’s hypothesis of a biological origin for petroleum. In contrast to Berthelot who had made no suggestion as to where or how petroleum might have come, Mendeleev stated clearly that petroleum is a primordial material which has erupted from great depth. With extraordinary perception, Mendeleev hypothesized the existence of geological structures which he called “deep faults,” and correctly identified such as the locus of weakness in the crust of the Earth via which petroleum would travel from the depths. After he made that hypothesis, Mendeleev was abusively criticized by the geologists of his time, for the notion of deep faults was then unknown. Today, of course, an understanding of plate tectonics would be unimaginable without recognition of deep faults.
3. The enunciation and development of modern petroleum science.
The impetus for development of modern petroleum science came shortly after the end of World War II, and was impelled by recognition by the government of the (then) U.S.S.R. of the crucial necessity of petroleum in modern warfare. In 1947, the U.S.S.R. had (as its petroleum “experts” then estimated) very limited petroleum reserves, of which the largest were the oil fields in the region of the Abseron peninsula, near the Caspian city Baku in the present country of Azerbaijan. At that time, the oil fields near Baku were considered to be “depleting” and “nearing exhaustion.” During World War II, the Soviets had occupied the two northern provinces of Iran; in 1946, the British government had forced them out. By 1947, the Soviets realized that the American, British, and French were not going to allow them to operate in the middle east, nor in the petroleum producing areas of Africa, nor Indonesia, nor Burma, nor Malaysia, nor anywhere in the far east, nor in Latin America. The government of the Soviet Union recognized then that new petroleum reserves would have to be discovered and developed within the U.S.S.R.
During the first decade of its existence, the modern theory of petroleum origins was the subject of great contention and controversy. Between the years 1951 and 1965, with the leadership of Kudryavtsev and Porfir’yev, increasing numbers of geologists published articles demonstrating the failures and inconsistencies inherent in the old “biogenic origin” hypothesis. With the passing of the first decade of the modern theory, the failure of the previous, eighteenth century hypothesis of an origin of petroleum from biological detritus in the near-surface sediments had been thoroughly demonstrated, the hypothesis of Lomonosov discredited, and the modern theory firmly established.
An important point to be recognized is that the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic petroleum origins was, initially, a geologists’ theory. Kudryavtsev, Kropotkin, Dolenko, Porfir’yev and the developers of the modern theory of petroleum were all geologists. Their arguments were necessarily those of geologists, developed from many observations, and much data, organized into a pattern, and argued by persuasion.
3. The organization of these papers.
The papers collected on the following public-access pages of this web site are organized into several categories and sub-categories: The principle categories are the Scientific Publications; the Economic Publications; and the Political and Sociological Essays. The organization of the following papers does not follow the historical development of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins but instead orders them according to the different aspects of modern petroleum science. A number of these papers were delivered at the International Conference on the Production of Petroleum from the Crystalline Basement, held in Kazan, Russia, June 2001, in celebration of the half-century commemoration of the enunciation of that theory by Nikolai Kudryavtsev.
3.1. The scientific and technical papers.
The Scientific Publications are further divided into two sets of articles dealing, first, with the rigorous scientific foundations upon which rests the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, and, second, with applications of modern petroleum science to petroleum exploration and production.
In the first subsection are several published articles concerned directly with the statistical thermodynamics of the evolution of the hydrocarbon molecules and the origins of petroleum. The first paper in this section reviews the constraints of irreversibility upon the evolution of the hydrogen-carbon [H-C] system as determined by the second law of thermodynamics. In this article, the formalism of modern thermodynamics is applied freely, and the prohibition of spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons heavier than methane in the regimes of temperature and pressure of the near-surface crust of the Earth is easily noted. A following paper reviews, and refutes, the claims for “evidence”[sic] for a biological origin of petroleum (commonly asserted in typical British and American textbooks on petroleum geology), – e.g., the “biomarkers,” the observation of optical activity, the slight differences in the abundances of linear molecules with odd (or even) numbers of carbon atoms, the presence of porphyrins, etc. The claims for each (as evidence of a biotic connection for petroleum) are refuted, with unchallenged evidence published in first-rank scientific journals often as long as thirty or forty years ago. The continued, egregious claims of such as “evidence” of a biological origin of petroleum are acknowledged to be fraudulent. A recent paper describes very recent analysis of the thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen-carbon system in circumstances most favorable to the evolution of hydrocarbons, and shows that the hydrocarbons which comprise natural petroleum cannot evolve spontaneously at pressures less than approximately 30 kbar, which pressures correspond to the depths of the mantle of the Earth. In the second instance, this paper describes experimental demonstration of the foregoing theoretical predictions, whereby laboratory-pure solid marble (CaCO3), iron oxide (FeO), wet with triple-distilled water, are subjected to pressures up to 50 kbar and temperatures to 2000 C. With no contribution of either hydrocarbons or biological detritus, the CaCO3-FeO-H2O system spontaneously generates, at the high pressures predicted theoretically, the suite of hydrocarbons characteristic of natural petroleum.
3.2 The economic publications.
The second main group of papers deals with the important issues connected with the economic consequences of modern Russian petroleum science. In these papers are reviewed both some of the pseudo-economic fables (e.g., “the human race is going to run out of natural petroleum”) which have been traditionally connected with the error that petroleum is some sort of “fossil fuel,” for reason (supposedly) of having evolved from biological detritus, – albeit in violation of the laws of chemical thermodynamics.
3.3 The political and sociological essays.
The third main group of papers deals with diverse sociological and political aspects which have involved the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, and which have too often obstructed persons, and governments, in the U.S.A. from learning it. In this section, are examples of some of the published efforts to misrepresent modern Russian petroleum science.
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is extraordinary in almost every way, including the bizarre circumstance that it has been the object of probably the most daring attempt of plagiarism in modern science. The attempted plagiarism of modern Russian petroleum science is reviewed also in this section.
“We The Peoples: A UN for the 21st Century” a new book by Kofi Annan (the 7th UNSG) – collection of presentations recommended for whoever wants to understand The NEW WORLD DISORDER that was predictable and avoidable.
A while ago I received the following e-mail:
New World Disorder
Please join the Foreign Policy Association for an evening with H.E. Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations and Founder and Chair of the Kofi Annan Foundation, who will discuss “New World Disorder: Challenges for the UN in the 21st Century.”
Mr. Annan will be speaking as part of the Andrew Carnegie Distinguished Lecture on Conflict Prevention in Honor of David Hamburg.
I answered with an e-mail to the FPA addressed to Mr. McDara King, but as the place seems to be run by inexperienced interns that do not acknowledge mail and as it turned out did not list me either I got no notice about what turned out to have been a need to change the venue because so many people showed interest in the event. The event was moved to the old building of the Bernard Baruch College and nobody bothered telling this to the 6 guards at PwC.
I report this in order to say that I missed half of UNSG Kofi Annan’s presentation – but do not want to waste time in my posting about the event because I picked up there his very recently released volume:
which is a collection of material including some of his original speeches or articles and some of others he obviously considers very pertinent.
I post this as I highly recommend this volume to anyone interested in how the UN works – or does not.
I am sure I will peruse the book going to original articles that point at things happening these days that were predicted and were avoidable – but this organization of Governments, not being turned in time to be an organization of Peoples as the Charter suggested, is like a huge ship running into icebergs and hard to steer.
Kofi Annan was the seventh Secretary-General of the UN and served two terms – January 1, 1997 – December 31, 2006.
In 2001 Kofi Annan and the United Nations under his leadership were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace with the citation praising Annan’s leadership for “bringing new life to the organization.” Yes, looking at his record and his assembled material in the book it becomes obvious that even if much of what he tried he could not achieve, nevertheless, it is clear that it was not all a waste, and indeed he started to enlarge the scope of the UN by opening the door to Civil Society and by creating the Global Compact.
We believe that since the acceptance of the UN Charter in 1945, it was only the Addition of the Declaration of Human Rights, and Kofi Annan’s R2P that add up to the UN reality.
Looking at my notes from last night – I quote him “When the whole World has Changed You Can Not Have Static Institutions.”
He said that Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that you cannot have military solutions anymore.
President Eisenhower already told us not to lose sight of the UN as a means to achieve peace.
Dealing with Climate Change is absolutely essential for the future of mankind. Who could have predicted this i San Francisco in 1995, he said? No society can survive either without Sustainable Development and Human Rights. On the economy he said this is a story of subsidies – like in the case of gas (he meant gasoline and I assume diesel just the same) – these are subsidies for the middle class and the rich. This is not good for the environment, he said.
To a question about borders he answered by mentioning Syria and Somalia.
In the book, under the title NOT JUST A REGIONAL CONFLICT, I discovered that Kofi Annan’s last Address to the Security Council was about the Middle East and the Arab World and it looks like it was then a prediction of things to come.
Rick S. Piltz resigned in 2006 from the W.G. Bush White House rather then be complicit to The Republican Ressidents in what he was the first to Define as CLIMATE DENIERS. He then told PBS of their CONSPIRACY TO PLAY DOWN A 2002 REPORT WARNING OF HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.
The New York Times, Politics Column
Rick S. Piltz, Firebrand on Climate, Dies at 71
By DOUGLAS MARTIN October 23, 2014
Rick S. Piltz, a climate policy analyst who resigned from the administration of George W. Bush in 2005, accusing it of distorting scientific findings for political reasons and then releasing internal White House documents to support his contention, died on Saturday in Washington. He was 71.
When he resigned, Mr. Piltz was a senior associate in a White House group that coordinated climate research among a dozen agencies. He quit, he told PBS in 2006, because he thought he could no longer be “complicit” in what he viewed as “a conspiracy of silence.” He said his bosses had watered down language in scientific reports to play down warnings of global warming.
The essential issue in the climate change debate is whether human activities — particularly emissions of so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels — will raise temperatures over the next century. Many in the Bush administration questioned whether existing scientific evidence justified spending billions of dollars to cut emissions.
Proponents of curbing global warming say there is already a scientific consensus that the problem is real and accelerating. In June 2005, Mr. Piltz sent The New York Times a fat FedEx package of documents that had been edited by Philip A. Cooney, a lawyer who was chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality, the White House office that oversees federal environmental initiatives. Some of the dozens of editing changes in the documents were as subtle as the insertion of the phrase “significant and fundamental” before the word “uncertainties.”
Mr. Cooney crossed out a paragraph describing to what extent mountain glaciers and snowpack were projected to shrink. His note in the margins said the report was “straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings.”
Before coming to the environmental council, Mr. Cooney had been a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s main trade organization, which opposes taking what it considers precipitous action on global warming. Mr. Cooney was “climate team leader.” Less than a week after the Times article, he resigned to take a job in public affairs with Exxon Mobil in Dallas.
White House press officers voiced full support for Mr. Cooney but declined to make him available for comment.
In testimony to a House committee in 2007, Mr. Cooney, a bearish, softly spoken man, said he had been trying to “advance the administration’s stated goals and policies” in making the edits, which he said were approved by James R. Mahoney, director of the Climate Change Science Program, for which Mr. Piltz worked. He said that Mr. Piltz had not complained to him personally before going public.
Writing in National Review in 2007, Mario Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a research organization that is skeptical of global warming, pointed out that Mr. Piltz, like Mr. Cooney, was not a scientist. Mr. Lewis argued that Mr. Cooney “did not alter a single data point or bottom-line scientific finding or conclusion,” making only slight changes in inflection. He suggested that Mr. Piltz seemed most disappointed that the Bush administration had disregarded a sweeping Clinton administration assessment of global warming on which Mr. Piltz had worked.
In 2006, two liberal groups, the Fertel Foundation and the Nation Institute, which is affiliated with The Nation magazine, awarded Mr. Piltz their Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling. “Piltz was the first insider to expose how politics worked to undermine the integrity of the federal science program,” the citation said.
Frederick Steven Piltz was born on July 29, 1943, in Detroit, and earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in political science from the University of Michigan. He then moved to Austin, where he taught at the University of Texas, worked as a legislative researcher and joined the state department of agriculture when Jim Hightower, a liberal activist, was commissioner.
In Washington, Mr. Piltz worked for the Center for Clean Air Policy, a think tank; Renew America, an environmental organization; and the House Science Committee under the chairmanship of George Brown Jr., Democrat of California.
When the Republicans took over the House in 1994, Mr. Piltz moved to the Global Change Research Program in the Clinton administration. Its name was changed to the Climate Change Science Program in the Bush administration. Under President Obama, it went back to the original name.
Mr. Piltz lived in Bethesda, Md. Ms. Metchis, his wife, said he died at a hospice in Washington.
In addition to his wife, his survivors include a daughter, Shayne Piltz. A brother, James, died in 1975. A previous marriage, to Charlotte Crafton, ended in divorce.
A version of this article appears in print on October 24, 2014, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Rick S. Piltz, Firebrand on Climate, Dies at 71.
A laudable ECO-DRIVE training for petroleum fuel-saving of conventional motor-vehicles was presented at the UN in New York by the Japanese ASUA Inc., at a time the world is watching attempts at innovation that replace both – the conventional engines and the fuel.
Friday, October 17, 2014, Under the Patronage of the Mission of Romania to the UN, and organized by the WAFUNIF Presidency at the UN – that acts in the name of the World Association of Former UN Interns and Fellows, at and of, the UN – The Japanese ASUA Inc. – the sponsors of the event – had obtained the opportunity to start their new World Campaign right here at the UN Headquarters in New York City.
Mr. Hiroji Maji established the ASUA Corporation in 1994, post-Rio I, in order to help the Japanese Auto Manufacturers Association in finding ways to decrease pollution and safety effects from running the motor-vehicles that tend to “despoil the beautiful earth.”
ASUA has thus reacted with driver improvement activities whenever new questions about conventional transportation arose – cases like: The adoption of the Kyoto Protocol so corporate efforts called to address environmental issues when faced with important and challenging components of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The proposed answer being “Eco Drive” programs sponsored by the companies. It is reported that the “Eco Drive” program has not only been energy-saving but a tip of the hat to all ecology aspirations as well.
But its answer is:
The full day activity was advertised at the UN as: Special event on “The International Conference on Global Environment, Carbon Reduction, and Eco-Drive as Solution Towards Sustainability” – All are invited and further information at the Permanent Mission of Romania.
Before going further, for the sake of disclosure, I am compelled to mention:
(a) As the WAFUNIF Representative to the UN in Vienna, I take interest in all what goes on at WAFUNIF.
(b) Beginning August 2014, WAFUNIF President Dr. Hassan told me that he would like to organize a one-day UN event – GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT – WHAT HAS TO BE DONE? and link this with the WAFUNIF role as Messengers of Peace. Furthermore, he checked with the UN and reserved space for October 17th. I said I would be delighted to help, added a parenthesis (Peace is a requirement for Ecology) and said that the timing is excellent as October 17th will be well after the UN Secretary General’s Climate Summit and the UN General Assembly debates, so we could analyze what was achieved at the 2014 meetings and come up with what has yet to be done, while including as markers cases that show progress is possible.
Dr. Hassan agreed to my Concept note and on August 14th I took Dr. Hassan to the UNEP and Global Compact offices at the UN, and we discussed this proposal. We encountered a very positive reaction in both offices and only when Mr. Georg Kell, Executive Director of the Global Compact appointed one of his people to work with us, and I suggested that this person ought to be the moderator of an afternoon session that will include some of the best examples of Corporate Responsibility, I heard for the first time from Dr. Hassan that he already had a relationship with Japanese interests that will sponsor the event and provide speakers.
At that stage I was clearly upset of not having been told all facts, but did not pull out yet; this happened only when in parallel, in order to register WAFUNIF with the UNFCCC in order to secure our attendance at the 2015 Paris Summit, we were asked to submit a financial statement of our Not-For-Profit NGO, and it turned out I could not get one. I informed the Global Compact of my decision as well.
It was obvious and no effort to hide it – this was a meeting of the Automobile Manufacturers – Japan and US.
With Dr. Prado as Rapporteur, THE FIRST PANEL included the Vice President for Environment at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (US)- Ms. Julie Becker; the Director of the Canadian Automobile Association – Ian Jack, and the Climate Change person from the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association – Mr. Hirotsugu Mauyama.
THE SECOND PANEL – “Global Environment: Energy and Transportation” – had an excellent Moderator – Samuel Lee Hancock, President and Executive Director of Emerald-Planet, a worldwide environmental and economic development movement with headquarters and television production studios in Washington, D.C., but a burdened panel that included Dr. Timothy Weiskel – trained as an historian and social anthropologist he joined the Cambridge Climate Research Associates (CCRA) and consults schools, universities, corporations, municipalities, and national governments to create on-site and online training programs to help them envision the necessary transformations we must all now undertake to enable the human community to move to a post carbon-fueled world – he teaches Climate Change at Harvard Extension School; Dr. George A. Garland – an Independent Consultant who is treasurer of the UN Association of the USA and was involved in US missions to rural areas in developing countries; and a lady that replaced the Transportation Committee Chair of the New York City Council.
Samuel Lee Hancock was in our evaluation the high point of the event – he remarked from the floor in one of the discussions that when he was invited for an activity to the State of Carinthia in Austria he learned that 1,000 old unused telephone booths were turned into electricity outlets on Carinthian roads – this so that electric vehicles can be recharged. Then in clear drama – he said that he remarked – “but there are no electric cars in Austria?” and he was rebuked by the Carinthian – yes, but we have tourists coming from Germany that use electric cars and would not come to us if we had no outlets for recharging their batteries!
Timothy C. Weiksel was in our evaluation the low point of the event – he remarked from the floor the oil-industry dictum that there is more oil being used in the production of biofuels then it is being said they are capable of replacing. At the meeting nobody contradicted him, but I made it my business to talk to him at tea-time and tried to explain to him that it is only an issue if you insist on approaching it the wrong way. I tried to explain to him the case of using ethanol not as a fuel – but in small quantities as needed – as an octane boosting additive to gasoline. This resulting in displacement of extra-crude – both in the motor vehicle and at the refinery that can be allowed to market a first cut of gasoline of lower octane – to be corrected with the addition of the ethanol from biomass. He wanted to have no part of this – like a bad oil-man would have done 30 years ago.
Honestly, I honor a good car salesman that wants to sell his product, but cringe when an academic tries to bamboozle an audience with his position like shining medals. Many years ago I testified in a US Congressional hearing that the honorable gentleman, who was a professor emeritus at MIT that taught thermodynamics, who just testified that the lower BTU content of ethanol will cause us to use more gallons of ethanol then gasoline, ought to note that if he wants to fry an egg on his motor-vehicle engine he is right to measure this by calorimetry (BTUs), but if his intent is to run on that engine – he better measure the output in miles/gallon and will see that the difference in octane values will give better results then expected from BTU measurements.
Chaired by distinguished professor Yasuhiro Daisho, Dean Graduate School of of Environment and Energy Engineering, Director of Environmental Research Institute, Waseda University located in Shinjuku, Tokyo – introduced at the meeting as the School of Creative Engineering – it included – Keiji Endo, Director of Environment, Tokyo Trucking Association (TTA) and his American counterpart Glen P. Kedzie, Vice President for Energy and Environment, American Trucking Association (ATA).
Also on the panel: Mr. Brandon Schoettle, Project Manager, Sustainable Worldwide Transportation, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, and Yoshimori Suzuki, President Yamagata Branch of the Japan Automobile Dealers Association.
Professor Daisho covers: Various types of engines’ performance, combustion, clarification of toxic exhaust element, energy saving, new combustion system, hybrid system, fuel battery system and new fuel. Experimental manufacturing and performance assessment of various types of new clean-energy cars. Suggestion for local traffic mobility system.
As the second private university to be founded in Japan, Waseda University is considered to be one of Japan’s most prestigious universities. The university holds a memorandum of agreement with Cambridge University, the University of Hong Kong, and Yale University among its 432 partnership institutions in 79 countries .
Japan is the fifth largest CO2 emitter in the world and the Tokyo area 80,000 trucks are part of the story.
Mr. Schoettle told us that ExxonMobil and ARAMCO are members of his institute but we wonder if they pursue any interest in fuel saving? On the other hand we learned from the Yamagata source that the prefecture has no subways and that the population is the most aging in Japan – living in single homes and thus with highest number of cars/household in Japan, and highest CO2 footprint/person in Japan. Yamagata Prefecture is located in the southwest corner of T?hoku, on Honshu island facing the Sea of Japan.
A question from the floor was if there is any incentive from the government for more fuel efficient trucks and there was a positive answer from Japan only – not from the US. In the case of the US, because of a shortage of good young drivers, there is even no supervision of performance related to fuel saving. The average age for truckers is 53 and companies will not fire young drivers. So how can this training for better driving even make a dent in US trucks fuel consumption? According to ATA – thus clearly – there is really no eco-driving push in the US. ATA said that as an organization they are fuel neutral – diesel packs most energy. He sees no chance for electric trucks because of range. Bio-diesel is currently 3% of the fuel – this because of local laws. A hydrogen fueled truck costs $100,000 more – so no chance either. With all this – the conclusion is still that the only way to save fuel is eco-driving that could reduce consumption by 10%.
THE FOURTH PANEL was about ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY and was chaired by Kunihiko Shimada, President KS International Strategies Inc. (KSIS). KS stands for Kunihiko Shimada and they “provide strategic consulting and advisory services to corporations, other entities and individuals on environment strategies as well as environmentally-friendly management.” KS is involved in climate negotiations since 1997 (we assume since the Kyoto meeting) and since 2010 advised the Japan Ministry of Environment. He worked also for the UN and seemingly was instrumental in organizing the present event as he gave an end – summary before the Concluding Remarks from Mr. Hiroshi Maji – the President of ASUA Inc. – the sponsor.
Liliana Bucur was the Rapporteur for both these last two panels.
Van Honacker, from Germany, is part of the EU Directorate in charge of fuel alternatives and the needed infrastructure.
The oil bill for the EU is $1 billion/day – this is 94% for transportation. Air quality in cities is also a problem
Natural Gas, biofuels, Biogas, CNG, electricity, H2 – all are considered. Biofuels fit best for airplanes. Some, like Germany and Austria already have CNG sysyems.
Professor Milczarski presented slides from a paper he co-authored with Peter Tuckel and asked if a Sustainable Transportation system can be of help at a local level, and came to the very logical conclusion that the problem is one of LAND USE POLICY.
HIS PRESENTATION WAS NOT ABOUT DRIVING DIFFERENTLY – BUT ABOUT DRIVING LESS.
His concept tackles city sprawl and he talks of households defined as a unit with 1-4 people living in a building and talks of walking and biking but wants stores and outlets to mingle with residence areas.
Ryutaro Yatso enlarged on the EcoDrive idea by talking Asia-Pacific regional conferences and the yearly event at Nagoya.
It is at this panel, that from the audience Mr. Hancock made his comment about the Carinthian electricity refueling booths.
Following this fourth panel and an awards presentation interlude, our generous Japanese hosts treated us to music – a great instrumental trio from Japan led by Jiro Yoshida, a singer known in all of the Far East, and a surprise – a singing Romanian Ambassador H.E. Simona Mirela Miculescu – the UN host of the event. Then the Japanese made it possible for the participants to mingle in a nice environment across the street from the UN. The Japanese participants – and the audience was highly Japanese, were
Conference material is already available in part at ecodrive-conference.com/login/in…
Sponsor Company Profile
Establishment Date July 15, 1994
By JIM RUTENBERG OCT. 17, 2014 – The New York Times Weekend Magazine
In August, Tom Steyer and seven campaign advisers sat in a small conference room in Coral Gables, Fla., trying to figure out how to save the world. Steyer, who is 57, has a fortune of roughly $1.5 billion, and his advisers were among the most talented political operatives in the United States. Steyer is especially concerned about climate change, and his immediate goal, the object of discussion that day, was to replace the sitting governor of Florida, Rick Scott, a Republican who has questioned the very existence of anthropogenic climate change, with Charlie Crist, the previous governor, whose environmental views hew more closely to Steyer’s.
The lead Florida strategist, Nick Baldick, was running through the campaign numbers. “There’s a problem here,” he said, brandishing a printout. Two bars, blue and red, were labeled “Total Raised,” and the red Republican bar was notably longer. “It’s just ugly,” Baldick said, with a shake of his head: “$74 million to Crist’s $24 million. And they have $38 million cash on hand to his $15 million.”
In the spring, when Crist was riding a double-digit lead, Florida looked like a safe bet, but then Scott unleashed an $18 million ad campaign against Crist, painting him as a hack careerist who loves Obamacare and lays off teachers. Not only had Crist’s lead vanished, now he was losing in the key swing district of Tampa, winning by too little in Democrat-friendly West Palm and losing by too much in Republican-leaning Fort Myers. And as Baldick’s numbers showed, neither the state Democratic Party nor Crist could match the barrage.
Baldick is stocky and bald in the way that suggests he should always have a cigar jutting from his mouth. He is known in Democratic politics for his irascibility. It’s part act — political consultants make their trade in bad news — but he was truly annoyed this morning, he told me, largely because I was present at the meeting. Steyer and his communications team had invited me into their inner sanctum partly to make a point, namely that Steyer was more transparent than his rival powers, the conservative billionaire Koch brothers. Baldick saw it as a needless risk. In his decades of experience (in the Clinton, Gore and Edwards presidential campaigns, to name a few), reporters were not invited into sensitive strategy sessions like this one. It wasn’t done and shouldn’t be done, he told me.
Steyer, though, saw visibility as part of the job. He made his money as the founder of a successful hedge fund called Farallon Capital Management and so had spent most of his adult life wading through prospectuses and annual reports. He seemed enthralled and energized by his new course of study in domestic politics, with its incongruent mix of idealism and cynicism. This was democracy in action, real people making real change, not just mysterious figures behind closed doors. Tall, with grayish blond hair and shaggy sideburns, Steyer was in constant motion: his arms waving, his hands slicing the air, his tie — always the same stiff, scotch plaid — swaying to and fro as he spoke. In talking about the political offshoots of his money, he sometimes had the air of a new father.
Crist had been a Republican for most of his long career in Florida politics — as a state senator in 1992, as an education commissioner, as an attorney general — but after a single term as governor, during which he later claimed to have become increasingly alienated from a party that he described as “anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-education, anti-environment,” he sought an independent U.S. Senate seat instead. He lost that bid to Marco Rubio, and in 2012 he announced (via Twitter) that he had registered as a Democrat. In November 2013 after an encouraging meeting with Steyer, he announced that he would seek the governor’s seat again. In his last turn as governor, Crist took climate change seriously; he pushed through a law that authorized the state’s Department of Environmental Protection to develop a cap-and-trade system. Scott and the Legislature dismantled the law, and Scott redirected the agency instead to “ensure that Florida leads the nation in new partnerships between government and industry.”
At the cramped conference table, Baldick rattled off more news, both good and bad. A series of recent polls found that both candidates were extremely unlikable. (“Crist and Scott Could Make History by Being So Unpopular in Florida” was the headline of one recent report at FiveThirtyEight.com.) Baldick said this could actually be a positive development. “Both of them are not liked,” he explained, but “if you think people are going to show up because they hate, not love — I do — there’s more people who hate Scott.”
Steyer leaned back in contemplation.
“You think that’s what gets people to vote?” he asked.
“Oh yeah, hate, fear —”
One company to which Vinyard granted a permit was Georgia-Pacific — the permit it had been seeking for many years under the Crist administration. The Department of Environmental Protection under Scott required some containment and monitoring measures that environmentalists had sought — officials of the department say it was among the strictest permits they had ever issued — but not the extra dioxin test. The Legislature also passed a provision banning the state from requiring any environmental test that was not on its officially recognized list. In Rinaman’s view, this language seemed suspiciously designed to exclude the test that the Crist administration had been pushing on Georgia-Pacific. Scott signed the provision into law; he also instituted a freeze on any new regulations, and then shed existing regulations by the hundreds.
Scott’s deregulatory efforts did not go unnoticed. Americans for Prosperity invited Scott to speak at the group’s Defending the Dream summit in 2013. “Here we are, two and a half years into his term, and he’s created more than 370,000 jobs in the state of Florida,” Slade O’Brien, the Florida director of the group at the time, said by way of introduction. “And one of the ways he did that was by eliminating over 1,000 burdensome regulations.” When Scott spoke, he noted that the number had grown to 2,600.
Near the end of September, as the race was entering its final phase, Steyer met once again with his team, this time in a borrowed conference room on the campus of the University of South Florida in Tampa. NextGen data showed that in total, Crist and the local Democrats had raised $44.4 million; that was roughly half what Scott and the Republicans had raised, but still good news, considering how far down Crist had been just a few months before. The money was flowing. The Florida Democratic Party, still the big player, had spent $16.8 million thus far, and the Crist campaign was just behind, with $16.4 million. NextGen was in for $7 million so far, and about to commit to $5 million more.
Steyer got good value for his money. Crist now held a three-point lead in a head-to-head race; he and Scott were tied at 41 percent when the Libertarian candidate, Alfred Adrian Wyllie, was included. In the three markets where NextGen was advertising in August — Tampa, Fort Myers and West Palm Beach — Crist had moved into a lead of 2 percentage points from what two months earlier had been a deficit of 8. The Duke Energy ad, in particular, had been effective in dampening Scott’s support in Tampa. Scott had just $4 million more in his cash reserves than Crist, and Baldick predicted that Scott, who had a large personal fortune, might eventually be forced to cut himself a check.
“I mean, the bottom line is that what we did worked and worked in a fairly significant way,” his pollster, Geoff Garin, said.
“Yeah,” Steyer said, “it feels good.”
In fact, though, Steyer seemed tired. He had been traveling across the country, visiting his battleground states. He was also, as he would learn the following day, suffering from a kidney stone.
In Tampa, Steyer and his team were tending to some details about their last-minute commercial blitz. The Crist campaign, Baldick said, had asked if they would extend their advertising in Fort Myers and Tampa; he suggested Steyer do Tampa, but skip Fort Myers. The additional $2 million for new television and online ads would come out of Steyer’s own pocket. The big-money donors that he had hoped would join him had not yet materialized, at least as of mid-September, when federal and Florida election filings showed that Steyer had provided $31.6 million of the $35 million NextGen raised nationwide.
After the meeting, Steyer sat down with 10 student volunteers in the University of South Florida alumni hall. They told him about their interest in solar power and restoring sea grass, their hopes to reduce emissions in India and oil dependence in Trinidad. Steyer could not have been happier. “The younger you are, the more you agree, the more urgent you think it is,” he told them.
By the time he stood up and took a few of them to a NextGen call center near campus, the exhaustion I’d seen in him earlier that day had dissipated. The swing was back in his arms, in his gait. He took his place beside the students to hit the phones. This was democracy at work. “I know you’re in the checkout line, but. . . .” he said to one contact who picked up. Then, to another he said, “If you can believe it, I’m the person who started NextGen Climate Action.”
The Demise of Democracy in Texas and several other Republican Dominated States of the USA as supported by Voter Registration Discriminatory Laws, Point in Our Opinion Also to the Reason Why the Newcomer From Liberia, Who Came to a Dallas Hospital With Fever, Was Not Treated and Sent Away – THUS UNLEASHING THE ONGOING EBOLA SCARE IN THE US.
AS PER NEWS FROM THE WASHINGTON POST – October 18, 2014 -
“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections . . . is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters,” Ginsburg wrote.
U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who had challenged the law, called the order a “major step backward.”
“It is true we are close to an election, but the outcome here that would be least confusing to voters is the one that allowed the most people to vote lawfully,” Holder said in a statement.
Officials in Texas said they were pleased by the court’s decision.
“The state will continue to defend the voter ID law and remains confident that the district court’s misguided ruling will be overturned on the merits,” said a statement from Lauren Bean, deputy communications director for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is also the Republican candidate for governor. “The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that voter ID laws are a legal and sensible way to protect the integrity of elections.”
The state says the law will guard against voter fraud and protect public confidence in elections. But civil rights groups and the Justice Department said the state’s decisions about what kinds of identification will suffice — permits to carry concealed handguns qualify, for instance, while college IDs do not — are meant to suppress certain types of voters.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order did not address the merits of the law, nor did it supply reasoning for the decision to allow it to be enforced.
In the Texas case, it was impossible to discern how each justice voted, although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a stern dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The Supreme Court’s order that Texas can proceed with its strict voter-ID law in next month’s election ended what is likely to be just the first round in a legal battle over election-law changes made by Republican-led legislatures around the country.
In an order released just after 5 a.m. Saturday, the court said Texas could use a photo-ID law that has been described as the toughest in the nation. A district judge had declared after hearing testimony about the law that it was unconstitutional, and would keep hundreds of thousands of voters from casting ballots and disproportionately harm African Americans and Hispanics.
OUR OPINION: We link the above to the information that the prospective new immigrant from Liberia who came to Texas on a tourist visa with the intent to marry the mother of his son – legal residents in Texas and US citizens – was not treated when he came with fever to the hospital emergency room.
We feel – admittedly without evidence in hand – that his rejection was part of the attitude in Texas towards the Mex-Tex (Texans of Mexican origin) and the people of color in general – the categories that the Texas State Government is trying to disenfranchise. NOW WE HAVE THE EBOLA SCARE AFTER HE SPENT DAYS UNSUPERVISED AND ALL PEOPLE OF TEXAS AND THE NATION WERE PUT IN CLEAR DANGER.
In the late 1970s, U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher often repeated the phrase “There is no alternative” — meaning that deregulated capitalism was the only possible way of doing things.
It’s an idea that still carries a lot of weight today, stifling the popular imagination. The feeling that we’re stuck with the system is so embedded in the dominant narrative that when the economy collapsed in 2007 we couldn’t imagine an alternative to bailing out the banks and hitting restart on Wall Street.
Except that’s not entirely true. Communities and social movements have been imagining alternatives to capitalism — many alternatives — for centuries.
A major challenge for our movements is creating space in the popular imagination for these ideas to flourish so that when the next crisis happens the solutions on the table move us closer to the world we need.
This raises the question we’re wrestling with on day two of #NewEconomyWeek:
How can we catalyze public conversation about the need for systemic change and the viability of economic alternatives that put people and the planet first?
Today, and each day this week, we will be featuring written responses by NEC coalition members and allies. We are also thrilled to be partnering with Yes! Magazine to broadcast some of this week’s content on their website. Check out their #NewEconomyWeek page here.
The New Economy Coalition team
#NewEconomyWeek Day Two Responses
We Can’t Talk About A New Economy Without Talking About Race by Anand Jahi
The Finite Planet Frame by Eric Zencey, Gund Institute For Ecological Economics
In the New Economy, Caring Counts by Riane Eisler, Indradeep Ghosh, and Natalie Cox, Caring Economy Campaign
Co-Creating a New Vision by Jonathan Cohn, Christi Electris, and Paul Raskin, Tellus Institute
A Mantra For The Movement: “More of What Matters” by Sarah Baird, Center for a New American Dream
Five Metaphors for New Economies by Vanessa Timmer, One Earth
#NewEconomyWeek Day Two Featured Events
Public Banking For Vermont
Winning Hearts and Minds: Anti-Racism, Feminism and the New Economy
Limits to Growth: Where We Are and What to Do About It
Visit www.neweconomyweek.org for the full list of over 90 events planned by NEC’s friends and allies!
#NewEconomyWeek Online Panel Series
Starting Wednesday, we will be hosting online discussions with new economy leaders from across the US and Canada. After checking out the line-up below, register today to access all of this week’s panels.
There Are Many Alternatives: System Change Not Climate Change
Scaling Power for a Just Transition: Strategies to Catalyze the New Economy
Honoring our Histories, Fighting for our Future: Learning From Communities on the Frontlines of a Just Transition
Displacing Injustice, Embracing Community: Lessons from Local and Regional New Economy Organizing
A singular American – Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont – A self proclaimed Socialist unlike any other. Actually what he would like best is to reprogram the Democratic Party. He sees no hope in the present Republcans.
By Andrew Prokop, Vox also on Readers Supported News
14 October 2014
On a recent Sunday morning in Waterloo, Iowa, about 150 people filed into the local arts center to hear a speech by the United States’ only socialist senator. Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, white-haired and 73 years old, spoke for about an hour in his gravel-voiced, thick Brooklyn accent. His views are, he said, “a little different than most views.” Sanders denounced the power of the wealthy, advocated for single-payer health care and the public funding of elections — and called for a “political revolution” in America.
The crowd of mostly-elderly, liberal Iowans seemed to like the senator’s pitch. When Sanders said the top 25 hedge fund managers last year made more money than 425,000 public school teachers, many gasped. When he said Wall Street bankers were “too big to jail,” many clapped. And when he opened the floor for questions, one from a younger audience member, Rachel Antonuccio, led to particularly loud cheers. “I have a very simple question,” she said to Sanders. “Will you please run for president?”
Once Sanders quieted the applause, he didn’t give the standard politician’s coy non-response. He admitted that he’s “given thought to” running, saying he was motivated by the “enormous problems” the US faces — but he then quickly veered into his misgivings.
“I’m not much into hero-worship and all this stuff,” he said. “If somebody like me — or me — became president, there is no chance in the world that anything significant could be accomplished without the active, unprecedented support of millions of people, who would be prepared to make a commitment — the likes of which we have not made!”
The question, he said, was whether those average Americans would join the political process — because, if they didn’t, the power of billionaires and corporate interests would never be checked. He asked, “Will those people stand up and fight?” When someone in the audience yelled out, “Yes,” Sanders cut him off. “It’s easy to say that they will!” He raised his voice further: “But I know that I don’t wanna be in the White House taking on the Koch brothers, who’ll be running ads 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, trying to destroy me and my family and everything else that we believe in, and not have people getting involved. And I don’t know whether that can happen.” He wound down: “That’s what I’m trying to figure out.”
Bernie Sanders offers a very different approach. Though he’s never been a member of the Democratic Party, he’s considering challenging Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. He believes the central issue in America today is that the nation is drifting toward oligarchy. To stop this, he hopes to mobilize the American public — including traditionally Republican constituencies like elderly, rural, and white voters — to back an explicit, full-on challenge to the power of billionaires and corporate interests. With Thomas Piketty’s book becoming a bestseller, and politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio winning enthusiastic support for campaigning on inequality, could the Democratic electorate be ready for Bernie Sanders’ pitch?
The socialist senator
The word “socialist” is generally considered an epithet in the US, suggesting support for excessive government power or even Communist-style dictatorial abuse. But it’s a term Sanders embraces. A portrait of Eugene Debs, labor organizer and five-time Socialist Party candidate for president, hangs on a wall of Sanders’ Senate office in Washington, DC. Back in the late 1970s, Sanders created educational filmstrips for schools, and wrote and narrated one about Debs, in which he called him “a socialist, a revolutionary, and probably the most effective and popular leader that the American working class has ever had.” Sanders told C-SPAN in 2011 that Debs pioneered ideas like retirement benefits and a right to health care. When ABC’s Jeff Zeleny quizzed him about the socialist label in August, Sanders responded, “Do you hear me cringing? Do you hear me running under the table?”
Debs’ portrait is a reminder that, over Sanders’ four decades in politics — as a perennial third-party candidate, mayor of Burlington, Congressman, and then senator — he’s been laser-focused on checking the power of the wealthy above all else. Even as a student at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, influenced by the hours he spent in the library stacks reading famous philosophers, he became frustrated with his fellow student activists, who were more interested in race or imperialism than the class struggle. They couldn’t see that everything they protested, he later said, was rooted in “an economic system in which the rich controls, to a large degree, the political and economic life of the country.”
Richard Sugarman, an old friend who worked closely with Sanders during his early political career, concurs. “We spent much less time on social issues and much more time on economic issues,” he told me. “Bernard always began with the question of, ‘What is the economic fairness of the situation?’”
Sanders’ parents were Jewish immigrants from Poland, and his father couldn’t speak English. They lived in a small apartment in Brooklyn. “My mother’s dream was to own her own home, and she never achieved that,” he told me. “We were never hungry by any means. But money was always a major issue within our family. It caused a lot of tension between my mother and my dad.”
After college and a few aimless post-graduation years, Sanders moved up to Vermont permanently in 1968, and has lived there ever since. At the time, Vermont was viewed a rural refuge from New York, and a wave of migrants was reshaping the conservative state. Only a few years later, Sanders walked into a meeting of a local third party, the Liberty Union Party, and walked out its candidate for United States Senate. It would be the first of 20 third-party or independent bids for office — 14 of which he’d win.
Sanders’ first such victory — his election as mayor of Vermont’s largest city, Burlington, in 1981 — made national news. Dissatisfied with the rising cost of living, he had come out of nowhere to challenge an entrenched five-term Democratic incumbent, who basically ignored him. But Sanders had a keen political eye for finding defining issues. He opposed a plan to build high-end condos on the Burlington waterfront as a sop to the wealthy, criticized proposed property tax increases as too regressive, and won a crucial endorsement from the city’s police union. After a bitter recount battle, he ended up with 4,030 votes to the incumbent’s 4,020. Stories across the nation announced that a socialist would become the mayor of Vermont’s largest city. One report ran with the headline: “Everyone’s scared.”
The Sanders agenda
While Sanders is clearly to the left of today’s Democratic Party, the platform he laid out in Waterloo, Iowa, was not as extreme as the word “socialist” might lead people to think. “He’s a ‘small s’ socialist,” says Nelson. “He’s not, ‘Let’s totally revamp the government, break up the corporations, create five-year plans.’ He doesn’t get out too far on an ideological limb.”
On other issues, Sanders is more like a traditional populist Democrat, willing to disregard the concerns of business and the wealthy in order to try and help the less fortunate. “I voted against all the trade agreements,” he told me. “Unfettered free trade has been a disaster for the American people.” He has no time for deficit hawks, and instead mocks “entitlement reform” as a “code word” meaning “cutting Social Security and Medicare.” Rather than cut Social Security, he says, we should expand it, after raising payroll taxes on the wealthy. On education, he says “it’s time we thought about” making college free for everyone. He’s argued that the government should spend billions more on infrastructure, to create jobs. And he supports amending the Constitution to allow for greater Congressional regulation of campaign finance, like the rest of his party.
Elsewhere, he is more cautious. He has not voiced support for increasing taxes on the middle class, arguing instead that they’re already getting squeezed. On social issues, like abortion, gun rights, and gay rights, he is squarely within the mainstream of the Democratic party — not to its left. And on foreign policy, while he opposed the war in Iraq, he voices sympathy with Israel’s security concerns and warns of the dangers of ISIS — positions that have sometimes led to awkward confrontations with a few more radical constituents.
“He knows the game,” Nelson says. “Most radicals don’t know the game and they don’t want to learn the game because it would compromise their purity. But he likes to win elections, and he has got a very good sense of what will work and what won’t.” In Waterloo, Sanders voiced confidence that the views he’s pushing were broadly popular. “What I believe is, on all these issues, we have the vast majority of people on our side.”
Mayor of Burlington
Half an hour before the Waterloo event, I met up with Sanders at a cafe downtown. It was a chilly, windy Sunday morning, and few places nearby were open. We sat at a table outside, Sanders ordered tea, and I asked him why Obama’s presidency fell short of progressives’ expectations. “I like Barack Obama. I think he is a very, very smart guy,” he said. “His views, his heart, while not terribly progressive, are more progressive than I think some of his actions have shown.” But his “major flaw,” Sanders said, was his “post-partisan” approach to Washington politics. “He believed that people could sit down in Congress and have serious discussions about serious issues and move forward. Well, he was wrong.”
If Sanders believes Obama should have been prepared for an immediate, tooth-and-nail fight, perhaps that’s because he himself faced one right after being sworn in as mayor of Burlington in 1981. His “most bitter enemies,” he told a reporter at the time, were the local Democrats, who controlled the city’s 13-member board of aldermen. Board members viewed Sanders’ victory as a ludicrous affront, and felt a Democrat was certain to retake the mayoralty two years later. So when the new mayor tried to replace city officials held over from the previous administration with his own appointees, the Democrats blocked nearly all of them, refusing even to hold hearings considering their appointments. Forget socialist reforms — Sanders couldn’t even get a staff. “He was operating without any kind of administration,” his first mayoral campaign manager, Linda Niedweske, said.
The atmosphere was tense. Early on, his political inexperience was mocked. In one embarrassing case, he nominated a man for a city position without realizing the man had died a month earlier. A Democratic alderman told a reporter that Sanders was “quite crude.” A leaflet dubbed the “Burlington Flea Press,” written anonymously by an apparent City Hall insider, spread rumors that Sanders was truly a Communist, not a socialist. He even got a ticket for parking his car in the mayor’s parking spot. “I guess now what I expect is that the Democrats on the board are going to attempt to make every day of my life as difficult as possible,” Sanders said at the time. “That’s fine. We will reciprocate in kind.”
Rather than sway his opponents by reason, or through compromise, he campaigned to get them kicked out of office — recruiting challengers, organizing volunteers, and working himself to exhaustion. Beyond that, he zeroed in on the tedious, day-to-day details of ensuring services were provided. “He understood that if you were going to be mayor of a city with a very cold climate and a lot of snow, that snow removal rather than ideology would most often prevail,” says Sugarman. He started to ride around on snow trucks to supervise the plowing, and even started a volunteer program called Operation Snow Shovel to help senior citizens.
While some of his most bitter enemies would never fully be won over, tensions with business interests began to cool when they realized Sanders wanted to bring jobs to the city, not confiscate their wealth. “Taxes went up and the government charged new fees for all kinds of things that kind of aggravated them,” Nelson said. “But the smarter businesses learned to live with Bernie.” The proposal for making high-rises on the waterfront was killed, but the developer behind it started to work closely with Sanders on other issues, and they became good friends. Sanders’ radicalism was mainly limited to foreign policy — yes, Burlington had one, including resolutions supporting the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. (The mayor’s supporters were nicknamed the “Sanders-istas.”)
Throughout his two and a half decades in Congress, Sanders has often worked with Republicans on individual issues. In 2005, Matt Taibbi dubbed him the House’s “amendment king” because, since the GOP takeover of 1994, Sanders had more amendments approved by floor vote than any other lawmaker. “He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions,” Taibbi wrote. Sanders looked for issues that would appeal to most Americans and be broadly popular, even if — especially if — the corporate-influenced leadership of both parties would prefer to avoid them.
How would defeat be possible? Democrats already have some advantages among the presidential electorate, with large leads among racial minorities, women, and young voters. But in midterms, the electorate tends to be older and whiter. In 2010, Democratic Congressional candidates got their lowest percentage of the white vote ever, and in 2012, Obama lost whites and white seniors by the most of any Democratic presidential candidate since the 1980s. Plus, the GOP has a built-in edge in both chambers of Congress — from the gerrymandered map and natural geography for House districts, plus the overrepresentation of rural white states in the Senate.
Yet Sanders himself has repeatedly won double-digit statewide victories in Vermont — the second-whitest, second-oldest, and second-most-rural state in the nation. Accordingly, he believes that the only way to break the GOP’s power is to turn many of their own core voters — white voters, rural voters, and seniors — against them, and against the power of the wealthy.
That explanation has recently been the main theme of Sanders’ political project. In Waterloo, Sanders listed a blizzard of statistics about growing inequality — diagnosing the problem. Then, he identified the culprit — billionaires, corporations, and specifically the Koch brothers, whose names he mentioned 18 times. He spent several minutes reading and criticizing the Libertarian Party’s political platform from 1980, when David Koch was its vice presidential nominee. He quoted sections supporting “the repeal of federal campaign finance laws,” “the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs,” “the repeal of the fraudulent, bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system,” and the repeal of minimum wage laws and personal and corporate income taxes.
“The agenda of the Koch brothers,” Sanders said, “is to repeal virtually every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country.”
Essentially, Sanders is calling for the Democratic Party to wage a rhetorical war on the billionaire class, to better mobilize the general public against them, and break their power. He believes the power of the rich is the defining issue of our politics, and wants to elevate it accordingly. The specifics of how this mobilization happens, and what the public does once it’s mobilized (beyond voting out Republicans), are less clear. Sanders’ generic suggestion tends to be for a march on Washington. “You wanna lower the cost of college? Then you’re gonna have to show up in Washington with a few million of your friends!” he told an audience member in Waterloo. “You wanna raise the minimum wage? Bring two million workers to Washington,” he continued.
But Hillary Clinton is extremely unlikely to take up the banner of class warfare in her presidential campaign. According to a report by Amy Chozick of the New York Times, she is currently exploring, through discussions with donors and friends in business, how her campaign can address inequality “without alienating businesses or castigating the wealthy.” Beyond Clinton’s desire to raise campaign cash, there’s a long-held belief among many Democratic political consultants that messaging critical of the rich simply isn’t effective in US politics. Instead, they argue, much of the American public actually rather admires successful businessmen, and aspires to be like them. And lack of trust in government is a real and consistent force in American politics and public opinion.
Sanders acknowledges all this, but wants to persuade people that they should blame the billionaires and corporations pulling the government’s strings and gumming up its gears. The problem, he believes, is that many Americans don’t believe the Democratic Party will fight for them — because, he says, “corporate influence makes the party more conservative, which raises doubts among people.” A campaign focused on issues of inequality and the power of the wealthy, he argued, can convince people Democrats will fight for them again. “You win because you are there fighting for working families all across the board, for seniors, for the children,” he says. “That’s how you win.” Beyond Vermont, though, it’s a theory that remains unproven.
A presidential run?
After Sanders laid out his misgivings about running for president in Waterloo, an audience member broached the question of whether he might run as an independent or a Democrat. “That’s a great question!” Sanders said, animated. “I’d love to get your opinions on it.” He laid out his thinking to the crowd. An independent candidacy could be appealing because of “huge frustration at both parties,” but it’s very difficult to get on the ballot in 50 states. And he emphasized that he would never run as a spoiler if it could lead to the election of a Republican president — “we’ve made that mistake in the past.” On the other hand, if he ran as a Democrat, “It’s easier to get on the ballot, you can get into the debates, and the media will take you more seriously.” The disadvantage? “People are not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the Democratic Party.”
Sanders asked the crowd which sounded better, and about 80 percent of them raised their hands in favor of a primary contest. “I think you run as a Democrat, because you want to push the debate, with Hillary or whoever it is, in the direction you want to see it go,” an audience member said. “We need to hear the establishment challenged.” Sanders then asked the crowd another question. “I know Iowa does politics differently than other states,” he said, to knowing chuckles. “How many of you would be prepared to work hard if I ran?” A sizable majority raised their hands again.
If Sanders runs, his ideas could have their highest-profile spotlight in decades. In 2007 and 2008, the candidates in the Democratic presidential primary debated 26 times, though that number will surely be much lower next time around. Sanders’ best hope is that few other candidates besides Clinton, or none, enter the race. If there are 8 challengers on stage, he could easily be dismissed by the media as a kook, like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. If it’s just him and Clinton debating, that’s exactly the contrast he hopes for. “I think there’s a hunger for somebody who will take on banks and the corporations and the wealthy,” said Huck Gutman, Sanders’ former chief of staff.
It’s quite plausible that we’ll see a moment in 2015 when Sanders benefits from such a surge of attention, however brief it may be. “I have nightmares that someone like a Bernie Sanders will catch fire and cause trouble for Hillary Clinton,” a pro-Clinton Democratic operative told MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald recently. But little-known challengers who go up in the polls are then likely to go down. In the GOP race in 2012, dissatisfaction with front-runner Mitt Romney led to a surge of attention and poll performance for several other challengers — Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum — who soon flamed out. Political scientists John Sides and Lynn Vavreck characterized this pattern as “discovery, scrutiny, and decline.” The GOP electorate learned more about an interesting new challenger, but eventually realized he or she wasn’t the right choice — perhaps due to concerns over electability.
Still, Iowa and New Hampshire could be two advantageous states for Sanders. Rural and white, they resemble Vermont demographically, and are filled with exactly the sort of voters he wants for his revolution. “A misconception about Vermont is that it’s a bunch of Volvo-driving liberals,” said Gutman. “A lot more people there drive patched up old cars than Volvos, and they’re the heart of Bernie’s constituency. Bernie appeals to working families, seniors, veterans — to people who say ‘I’m being pushed and shoved.’” But though outsider Republicans like Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum have edged out victories in either Iowa or New Hampshire, true outsider Democrats have had less luck there in recent years. And afterward, the road will only get tougher.
Ideals are nice, but pragmatists deal with the world as it is. Bernie Sanders knows that very well — and so does Hillary Clinton. Even if the political revolution doesn’t quite materialize, Sanders, in positioning himself for a run, is reshaping the world Clinton will have to deal with by presenting a threat to her left. How she responds will have implications for her own candidacy, the Democratic party’s platform, and potentially even the presidency. “I like Hillary. I respect Hillary,” Sanders told me. “But it is important that we discuss issues. Which is what the future of America will be about.”
Erdogan’s Turkey wil not fly to Europe. In Austria only 8% of the people – perhaps just the Muslim immigrants to Austria – back association with Turkey; if Kobani falls to ISIS while closed up by the Turks – this will be the time to give the clear NO to the Turks.
Jenan Moussa is a reporter for the Arabic language TV network Akhbar AlAan out of Dubai.
For the past 48 hours she has been witnessing the battle raging in the Kurdish town of Kobane, just south of Turkey’s border with Syria.
At 07:00 EST she tweeted, “ISIS did not manage to enter Kobane yet, Kurdish activist Mustafa Bali just told me over phone.
An hour later, she was the first to report: “I can confirm. I just saw an ISIS flag. It is flying on eastern edge of Kobane. Will try to tweet a pic in a sec.”
As fighting raged, news came of the desperate situation of the Kurds.
One female fighter reportedly charged the advancing ISIS jihadists, hurling grenades at them and then blew herself up in their midst. Another reportedly shot herself rather than be captured by ISIS when she ran out of ammunition.
Moussa’s tweets from one of her Kurdish contacts from inside Kobane conveyed the sense of betrayal the Kurds felt because of the lack of American help. She tweeted: “Kurdish guy from#Kobane tells me: We hoped American planes will help us. Instead American tanks in hands of ISIS are killing us.”
THE NEW YORK TIMES – The Opinion Pages | Editorial
Mr. Erdogan’s Dangerous Game: Turkey’s Refusal to Fight ISIS Hurts the Kurds.
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD October 8, 2014
Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, once aspired to lead the Muslim world. At this time of regional crisis, he has been anything but a leader. Turkish troops and tanks have been standing passively behind a chicken-wire border fence while a mile away in Syria, Islamic extremists are besieging the town of Kobani and its Kurdish population.
This is an indictment of Mr. Erdogan and his cynical political calculations. By keeping his forces on the sidelines and refusing to help in other ways — like allowing Kurdish fighters to pass through Turkey — he seeks not only to weaken the Kurds, but also, in a test of will with President Obama, to force the United States to help him oust President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, whom he detests.
It is also evidence of the confusion and internal tensions that affect Mr. Obama’s work-in-progress strategy to degrade and defeat the Islamic State, the Sunni Muslim extremist group also called ISIS or ISIL. Kurdish fighters in Kobani have been struggling for weeks to repel the Islamic State. To help, the Americans stepped up airstrikes that began to push the ISIS fighters back, although gun battles and explosions continued on Wednesday.
But all sides — the Americans, Mr. Erdogan and the Kurds — agree that ground forces are necessary to capitalize on the air power. No dice, says Mr. Erdogan, unless the United States provides more support to rebels trying to overthrow Mr. Assad and creates a no-fly zone to deter the Syrian Air Force as well as a buffer zone along the Turkish border to shelter thousands of Syrian refugees who have fled the fighting.
No one can deny Mr. Assad’s brutality in the civil war, but Mr. Obama has rightly resisted involvement in that war and has insisted that the focus should be on degrading ISIS, not going after the Syrian leader. The biggest risk in his decision to attack ISIS in Syria from the air is that it could put America on a slippery slope to a war that he has otherwise sought to avoid.
He has also complicated his standing at home. His hesitation in helping the Syrian Kurds has enraged Turkey’s Kurdish minority, which staged protests against the Turkish government on Wednesday that reportedly led to the deaths of 21 people. Mr. Erdogan fears that defending Kobani would strengthen the Syrian Kurds, who have won de facto control of many border areas as they seek autonomy much like their Kurdish brethren in Iraq. But if Kobani falls, Kurdish fury will undoubtedly grow.
The Americans have been trying hard to resolve differences with Mr. Erdogan in recent days, but these large gaps are deeply threatening to the 50-plus-nation coalition that the United States has assembled. One has to wonder why such a profound dispute was not worked out before Mr. Obama took action in Syria.
Organizing for Action – OFA
Google just did something pretty cool: Along with other tech companies like Facebook, last week, they decided to drop their support of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate-backed group that promotes right-wing legislation at the state and national level. That’s because, as one executive put it, “they’re just literally lying” about the realities of climate change.
This is the type of change that happens when ordinary Americans raise their voices. It’s why OFA is collecting signatures to submit to the EPA in support of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
More than 250,000 people have added their names — join in and tell the EPA where you stand.
Climate change deniers like ALEC are exactly the reason why this EPA comment collection period is so important.
The polluters and special interest groups have an outsized voice in shaping public policy. And you can believe they’re doing all they can right now to fight back against the President’s plan, which The New York Times called the “strongest action ever taken by an American president to tackle climate change.”
You haven’t added your name yet — will you take a quick minute to fix that right now?
that Climate deniers John Boehner (R-OH), Joe Barton (R-TX), and Steve Stockman (R-TX)
Energy is now a topic of Interdependence we learned from Professor Ernest Moniz, US Secretary of Energy: Nomore does Washington talk of Energy Independence. But he also said that US gas or Eastern Mediterranean gas are no answer to the present needs of Europe. Supplies from the Arctic might also not be in the cards.
Dr.Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist, Founding Director of the MIT Energy Initiative and Director of the MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, a former Undersecretary of DOE in charge of disposing of nuclear materials including those of Russia, he came to Head DOE in May 2013 after Nobel Laureate Steven Chu decided to return to academia.
Prof. Steven Chu was a vocal advocate for more research into renewable energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combating climate change. For example, he has conceived of a global “glucose economy”, a form of a low-carbon economy, in which glucose from tropical plants is shipped around like oil is today. On February 1, 2013, he announced he would not serve for the President’s second term and resigned on April 22, 2013. The position then fell to Prof. Moniz who seems to be more in tune with the President’s “All of the above” energy concept.
Secretary Moniz appeared today, October 6, 2014, before the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in a conversation with Matthew A. Winkler, Editor in Chief, Bloomberg News. This was a very active day that started at NYU - energy.gov/epsa/agenda-energy-inf… -
Agenda: Energy Infrastructure Finance. A Public Meeting on the Quadrennial Energy Review, Hosted by the United States Department of Energy and with Opening Remarks by
The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy and
The event dealt with: ATTRACTING AND MAINTAINING CAPITAL FOR ENERGY TRANSMISSION, STORAGE, AND DISTRIBUTION (TS&D); BANKABILITY OF ELECTRICITY TS&D INFRASTRUCTURE; OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR NATURAL GAS AND LIQUID FUELS TS&D INFRASTRUCTURE.
The CFR meeting was titled “A Conversation With Ernest Moniz” and after a short lunch was followed at CFR by a Panel “The Battle of Interests Over the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” where Ms. Gail Fosler, formerly President of the Conference Board and now provider of advisory service for global business leaders and public policymakers, presided over discussants: Carol Adelman, Director, Center for Global Prosperity, Hudson Institute; Laurie Garrett, Senior Fellow for Global Health, Council on Foreign Relations; and Fred Krupp. President, Environmental Defense Fund.
CFR showed interest also in the Arctic region emergence as a source of oil and gas as per: www.cfr.org/polar-regions/emergin…
In our posting we cover only the Ernest Moniz presentation before the CFR, as we feel this presentation introduced the Administration’s thinking without distraction from the conflicting interests of the 2014 various protagonists.
Asked what are the three main tasks of his Department, Professor Moniz opened by saying that a main task of his work is Energy Security, and going back to Jim Schlesinger who when the Department was established said this has to be considered in a collective context with the US allies, Moniz now mentioned the EU and specifically also the G7 and the immediacy of the need to assure heating gas for this winter for the Ukraine. In parallel he said he must devise a long-term plan on which he works with Canadian and UK experts even if the Russians do supply for now gas to Ukraine – the problem of energy security remains.
A second Question was if “All of the Above” is capable of handling the CO2 issue? The answer was that everything they do is geared to carbon reduction. Carbon sequestration is pushed with projects in this area involving enhanced oil recovery and oil production. Then there is the increased energy use efficiency in vehicles. Reduced dependence on oil is promoted and a new large bio-refinery will soon be opened in Kansas. So – it is nuclear, renewables, efficiency for the long-term and the use of gas in the mid-term. In the electricity production, wind use was increased by 45% and solar by 6%. LED is a great economic success. The stress is on aiming in 2015 to set goals of reduction in CO2 emissions by 17% in general with a reduction of 30% in the electricity sector. Most of this via sector by sector energy efficiency.
From here the discussion moved to the UN and the obvious that global challenges cannot be met without the Chinese and the European’s cooperation. “we saw at the UN strong statements by China, India, and he expects from these introductory statements a Paris outcome that has in it declarations of goals that are different by the different States. Asked directly if the target of 2 degrees Centigrade is realistic – the answer came in one word – “Challenging.” Then he enlarged by saying – “I would focus first on coal.” He feels bullish on solar – costs are coming down. 2000-2009 the US had no photovoltaic production now we have 9 plants and 12 under construction. He expects Europe to show leadership in the run-up to the 2015 meeting in Paris. “We will continue to encourage China, India, Brazil. and we will be a lot on airplanes.”
So far there was nothing new in what we heard except the emphasis on interdependence. Then came questions about exports from the US and about natural gas. His answers started by saying that the international market looks very different from 1975 when the laws forbidding exports of oil and gas from the US were passed. That is when we established DOE and the Petroleum Reserve etc. Ultimately exports are an issue for the Department of Commerce and not for DOE. There are also changes in production methods and at the petroleum refinery to be considered. He also pointed out that crude oil changed into products was not under those laws.
On the Keystone Pipeline he said that it was under the Secretary of State responsibility. On gas he predicted that exports cannot start before the end of 2015 – “so it is not an answer to Ukraine.”
An added topic I was able to talk about with the Secretary after his presentation relates to the US position on supplies of oil and gas from the Arctic. He remarked that at the end of 2015 the Arctic Circle Council moves to the US for two years and he sees rather the subject from an environmental angle. To my great satisfaction I heard from him the old Sheik Yammani adage that the Age of Oil will end not because of a lack of oil. He also pointed at Shell Oil’s problems with their attempt at drilling for Arctic oil. With this attitude by the US I am now even more curious then ever of what will be the underlying spirit at the end of this moth’s meeting in Reykjavik of the 2014 Arctic Circle Assembly.