countering climate insurgency

Okay. I have a lot to answer for. For starters, I cry out when I am terrified by the careening industrial machine and what it is doing to this planet. Gotta fix that.

Anyway, I shot one up on the Current blog today, bringing my teaming tribe of indifferent grazers up to date on my latest rants.

That would include, not only the recent Dear John’s, but a short nuke post at (where else?) the Chron.com site, where the columnist complains we’re not doing enough plotting and planning for next generation (appropriated from the last generation) of nukes. Um, yes. Yawn.

I hit him on security. Folks in the movement are pretty down on waste and mining. Well, generally more up on waste than down on mining. But new resistancia has bloomed in Victoria that could raise the region’s uranium vocabulary. They formed to take on a proposed Excelon nuclear polluter setting up there. They are called the Texans for a Sound Energy Policy Alliance, not to be confused with the Excelon-backed Nuclear Energy for Texans.

To my knowledge no news outlet has yet run NET’s survey of South Texas attutudes on nuclear power. I, for sure, have still not received the copy that I requested weeks ago.

So, anyway, here’s a nugget from my Chron post on nukes:

If nukes are embraced as a solution to climate change, you can bet we will see many, many more North Koreas and Irans. Already, many Middle Eastern countries are considering nuclear plants of their own, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, and Jordan. How safe does that feel?

I suspect a handful of these sovereign nations will not be willing to allow countries like Russia, France, or the U.S. to control their fuel supply. That is, they will ultimately be after their own enrichment plants. It is for that reason that a recent report to the U.S. State Department (headed by none other than Mr. Wolfowitz) recommends the U.S. enter deeper into nuclear, to, get this, better police the world’s enriched uranium supply!

Now, we’ve been policing the world’s oil supply in the Middle East since the close of World War II, mainly for countries like Japan. I can’t see how playing uranium cop for the rest of this century is in our fiscal or security interest …

And should any maniac choose to fly a jetliner into our windfarms, big freakin’ deal. We throw up a few more. Can’t say the same about nukes

It seems so strange to still get spanked when I cry out for action on climate issues, now that the science is so damn clear. Perhaps these disgruntled folks should be taking on the “fearmongering” U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. intelligence community instead.

Fresh from Yale Forum:

The U.S. national security community made its first high-profile foray, publicly discussing a report, called a National Intelligence Assessment (NIA), before Congress on the many emerging dangers over the next two-dozen years.

The report (pdf), summarized in testimony by Deputy Director of National Intelligence Thomas Fingar, used data available from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and also from other public, open-source science. Sullivan pointedly said that “we did not evaluate the science of climate change, per se.”

Projecting forward to 2030, the climate NIA speculates on everything from conflicts over scarce water and food to huge refugee problems that might require U.S. forces to intervene in “extensive and novel” ways.

Fingar also cited the potential for “domestic instability in a number of key states, the opening of new sea lanes and access to raw materials,” in addition to “increases of storms in the Gulf … disruptions in U.S. and Arctic infrastructure, and increases in immigration from resource-scarce regions of the world.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management, declared during the June 25 testimony, “From this day forward, the words ‘climate change’ and ‘national security’ will be forever linked.”

And here’s the latest straight outta Austin on the potential expansion of wind and solar potential in Texas:

With the PUC preparing to discuss the CREZ decision tomorrow, Rep. Villarreal just delivered to the Commissioners 81 pages of names of supporters of his online petition, which urges the PUC to choose the largest package of renewable energy transmission lines under consideration. Combined with the names he delivered to the PUC several days ago, the total now stands at 5, 471. In addition, he has delivered a letter from 15 state legislators with the same message.

[Cartoon is by my pal Mr. Gary Oliver. Still working on gittin’ him connected and interstitched online.]

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: post to facebook

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s