Today is a red-letter day in Tod Brilliant land. The world may be rushing madly toward oblivion, but my first political piece has been posted on eleven-time Webby-winning, Nobel-nominated, New York Times-featured, Brad Pitt-supported, Cesar Chavez-founded website BACK ALLEY TABERNACLE.

Here’s a teaser of “How Charlton Heston Snapped Me Back into Circle Jerk ‘08″:

This past weekend, my honeybaby lovedoodle and I were poking around in a junk shop on the NorCal coast when I stumbled across something of a holy relic: A VHS copy of “Planet of the Apes.” No, not the recent retread by the overrated (it kills me to say that, but I have to finally admit the truth) Tim Burton. No, the real movie; the 1968 classic starring the Omega man himself, Charlton Heston. At the time of purchase, I had no idea the cinematic powerhouse was to shortly shatter a vow of willful ignorance I had maintained with great diligence for much of the year.

Let me explain. About eight months ago, I swore off all media. This is a big deal for me, as I’ve been known to those who can stand my presence as “Mr. Read Everything in the World about Current Events and Politics” for the better part of two decades. Yet, I realized that with an election cycle upon us, there’s no better time to shut it down. Eighteen months of empty promises and bullshit campaigning I thought I could do without. Until, that is, Heston the lost and ever virile astronaut (as Heston plays only Heston, character names are trivial formality) reminded me of my duties as an American citizen. By the time Chuck planted Old Glory in the soil of the alien world, I was itching to get my hands on a Gallup poll, any Gallup poll.

I never knew that Planet of the Apes was a prophetic film, but behold (READ THE STUNNING CONCLUSION AT B.A.T.)

++

See this? Do you really? It’s called a big smile on my face. I’ve finally arrived!

To celebrate, the Police have offered up this obvious gem: “Omega Man.” [audio:omega man.mp3]

HEALDSBURG, CA — Eco-advisor Tod Brilliant gave his endorsement to North Carolina Senator John Edwards in his run to be the Democratic presidential nominee in next year’s elections.The internationally-recognized Brilliant said Edwards is the only candidate who has offered real plans to combat the effects of climate change and make ready not only the U.S. citizenry, but peoples of all nations, for a world that will change rapidly in the coming decades due to resource deterioration.

“John Edwards has the courage to tackle problems that other politicians simply ignore, like reducing our national carbon footprint by 80% in the near future.” Brilliant parroted. “Obama is in love with coal, while Clinton simply ignores the issue, focused as she is on becoming the nation’s next warmonger.”

Edwards has proposed capping greenhouse gases beginning in 2010 with a cap-and-trade system. While Brilliant personally derides the cap-and-trade system as “smoke and mirrors” he is confident that Edwards is merely trying to appease big industry until he takes office. Edwards also has pledged to work for a new climate treaty that includes developing countries, and opposes subsidies for new nuclear power plants in the United States.

“There are times when the right message appears at the right time. I can only urge people around the world to read Lester Brown’s “Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet in Stress & a Civilization in Trouble”. Nothing summarizes our current predicament more concisely, nor offers a more cogent plan of attack,” intoned the Count of Montezuma.
Edwards said he was honored to have the support of Brilliant, who he considers to be one of the few voices in the sustainability movement who is truly nonpartisan.

“We must work together to halt global warming and protect our natural resources to ensure our children inherit a healthy planet. Brilliant understands that partisanship on this most vital issue only dooms us to rapid failure,” Edwards might have said had he any notion of Brilliant’s existence.

This marks the second recent endorsement for Edwards from a leading ‘green’ advocate. Friends of the Earth gave their support to Edwards on October 14, noting that no other viable candidate proposes a solid environmental action plan.

It’s fascinating to watch the way the numbers jump up and down. For example, last week the Bush administration’s ‘analysts’ announced that the U.S. had unexpectedly large oil reserves. Accordingly, oil prices droppe d. Not 48 hours later, it comes out that, in reality, the U.S. reserves are smaller than expected. Oil prices went back up, but not quite as much. What’s more, the initial news helped steady the stock market while the ‘revision’ had little impact. Here’s the detailed rundown on that bit of slipperiness: LINK

TODAY, we don’t have to wait 48 hours to watch the numbers dance. Today, we can watch the fun in real time! Below are three links. I’ll intro each one. For kicks, you should open each one in a different browser tab so you can switch back and forth.

1. ONE BBC NEWS October 25 Here we have a BBC News report from 25. October which cites the U.S. Comerce Department as stating that new home sales are down 23% in September vs. one year ago and 8% vs. the prior month’s. Of course, this is great news for the environment as newly built homes are unnecessary in a nation with more than sufficient existing housing. Unless, of course, all new home construction followed George Monbiot’s absolutely achievable carbon-reduction plan. But I digress. The article is brief, mentioning that this drastic downturn could, of course, fuel a big fat recession in the U.S..

2. Bloomberg Article #1 October 25 This one went up about 8:00AM PST, I believe. Bloomberg’s writer reports that sales of new U.S. homes are probably down to the lowest level in a decade. Probably. First time I’ve ever seen that word used in a Bloomberg headline. Leaves a little room for restatement, right?

3. Bloomberg Article #2 October 25 Two hours later, the ‘real’ numbers are out, and guess what? The U.S. Commerce Department NOW says new home sales went UP in September by almost 5%!!! Hoorah! BOOM BAM! No recession! No worries! What the fuck do those Brits know, anyway? Sales down 23%??? No sir. That was a computer glitch. No, they’re actually up. Oh, and by the way, we’ve revised the sales data for the August DOWNWARD, but who cares about August, baby? It’s September we’re talking about and September was nothing but roses!Go figure. The Dow is still off on rising oil prices, but just imagine if the Commerce Department had BAD news. We’d be in for a rough day on Wall Street. I’m going to state, very clearly and right now, that at some point in the coming months, September 2007 new home sales numbers will be revised and will show a less rosy outlook. However, at that point, nobody will care. Our government is fudging numbers left and right and up and down. It’s called delaying the inevitable meltdown. Until after we hit Iran. Until after October 2008, if possible (unlikely). Before you come to the conclusion that I’m bashing Republicans only, I’m fully aware that Democrats can call bullshit on this at any time. But they’re keeping their mouths zipped, for a whole lot of what should be obvious reasons.

In other news, it’s my son Justice’s birthday! He’s FIVE! Hoorah!! I love, love, love that boy.

Al Gore picks up a Nobel prize for providing commentary in a movie that wasn’t his idea. Why not give the Nobel to the person who created the film–activist Laurie David?

The Norwegians who awarded this prize were simply trying to make a political statement aimed at Bush, nothing more. And in doing so, they’ve created a global climate change leader who alienates 50% of the U.S. population. This isn’t Gore’s fault (yes, I’d vote for him), it’s just how it is. What we desperately need is climate change leadership who can bring into the fold 100% of the population.

Mind you, I’m not bashing Gore. But, as a leader of the global environmental movement, he’s absolutely ill-suited to reach everyone. He will never be viewed by half the U.S. population with anything less than distrust. The platforms he espouses will be ignored, brushed aside. Worse, when these same ideas are proposed by nonpartisan leaders, Gore will have polluted the waters. Not Gore’s fault, inherently, mind you. That’s just how things work when you once held the office of Vice President of the U.S.A..

This was a PERFECT time to elevate another great leader. The Nobel Committee did the planet a great disservice by missing the moment. Gore is already the global ‘green’ leader. This prize does little to make him more effective. What he needs is progressive peers to help him reach a greater audience. Not supporters, but bonafide peers. Let’s pull David, Brown, Lovins and others into the spotlight. The world needs all the help it can get.
Here’s a little Rogue Wave for you (once again): [audio:rogue.mp3]

+
al gore, climate change, laurie david, lester brown, rogue wave

(I posted this originally back in March. I’m posting it again because neither Obama nor Clinton are worthy of your vote, if you consider climate change a critical issue. Edwards may be viable, but I don’t see him doing much to get the nomination from the Dems . . . mostly because the Dems are increasingly out of touch)

Yes, I know it is crazy to think of Al Gore as a third party candidate. Yet, just for fun, why not suspend your initial dismissal of this idea for a moment and walk through this thought-exercise with me? I’m betting the Republicans of 1912 would have dismissed the notion of a third party Theodore Roosevelt, but look what happened when they took Teddy’s supporters for granted - it cost them the White House.

I’ve polled sixteen friends and acquaintances with the question, “If Al Gore were to run as a third party candidate, would you still vote for him?” Of these sixteen, eleven said YES. The others were on the fence. Not one responded with an outright NO. My friend David responded, “I love the idea of him running so that he would get his ideas out there and so that the platform for his ideas would be made even greater. To have his notions raised and covered by the greater media channels is what we need.”

Take a look at the current situation: ‘Democrat’ Joe Lieberman is threatening to hand control of the Senate to the Republicans by switching parties if any legit anti-Iraq war resolution is passed. Party front-runners Clinton and Obama are both on record saying that they refuse to take the threat of NUCLEAR attack on Iran off the table. Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been unable to muster much of her promised ‘revolution.’ The Democrats, in a few short months, are coming apart at the seams. Has there been a better time for a liberal third party? Has there been a bigger name on the sidelines with more critical experience than Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.?

Briefly then, as I’m really only out to foster debate and get this idea rolling, are some reasons that Gore would do well by running as an outsider:

1. Again, has there been a bigger name on the sidelines with more experience?
Flash back to 1992. Ross Perot leads the vote over Clinton and Bush with only a few months to go. The victory was his to give away and he did, by dropping out of the race. Why did Perot get so close to taking The Prize? Because he was the man the public believed had the most experience with the most pressing topic - the economy. Gore, too, has a grasp on the issue of the time - the environment. It’s a cakewalk for the right team (something Gore has never had) to tie environmental considerations into any arena - from resource scarcity (war) to agriculture (food) to economic stability (energy), and so on - making the environment the true focal point of the 2008 election.
2. A Gore run would give automatic credibility to third parties.
This would be very, very good for U.S. politics for so many, many reasons. As with Perot, the corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates would be forced to allow Gore into the televised debates, meaning the debates may turn into something worth watching for a change (as they would have been in ‘00 and ‘04 had Nader been invited). Hearing more than two voices on a topic is critical to developing an exchange that represents the full spectrum of the thoughts and ideals of the U.S. citizenry.

3. There is no strong candidate currently running.
Sure, Clinton may be the first electable woman to run and Obama the first electable (how I despise this term as it neuters the spirit of the left) citizen of African origins (the newest PC term), but a minority status has zero to do with whether or not one is fit for the Presidency. McCain, well, he’s a faux-maverick, back-peddling, pro-war candidate. Edwards is a bright spot, but Clinton and the Carlyle Group have squashed his chances. In a Clinton-McCain election, voters would be given (key word) the delightful choice between Warmonger A and Warmonger B. Throw Al Gore into the mix and these two will eat each other alive, leaving Gore a clear path to victory. Advantage, Gore, by a whopping margin.

4. Environmentalism finally gets a real platform. To date, neither major party has announced ANY plans for a truly ambitious program to combat climate change. Pelosi and company have done better than the Republicans, but they’ve still yet to put forth anything that moves anywhere near the accelerated timetable required (for more information, read ‘Plan B 2.0′ by Lester Brown). The Green Party in the U.S. is still far from the militant, hyper-organized machine that it needs to become to be taken seriously. It has some great people at the top, but it’s local chapters are rag-tag and riddled with tired ex-hippies who are more concerned with repeating the tired chants of the 1960s than embracing real change. No, Al Gore could single-handedly create a Party that is strengthened by its commitment to the ethical stewardship of the planet.

5. Gore needs separation from the Democrats. (I know, he’s not enough of his own man to leave his father’s party behind, but . . .) For so many reasons. For starters, he has been working feverishly to craft bipartisan support of his mission. Signing on to the home team will only ruin the advances he has made. If he is brave enough to show the citizenry and the world that he actually walks the walk, then his tarnished history will be burnished like never before. Remember, he more or less sat on his hands for eight years as a dem V.P., apparently waiting for ‘his turn’. This time he can put his passions ahead of career advancement, spurning the safe road of partisan politics while distancing himself from the cigar-sucking conservative Clinton administration that usurped his soul.

6. He could avoid partisan politics. Related to #5. Gore has spent so much time coming off as nonpartisan that it would be a real shame to see him throw this away by running as a Democrat. Aligning himself with a party that has a poor track record where his expertise is concerned is a questionable tactic. As an independent, Gore would be able to play the role of a true bipartisan peacemaker, a real man-in-the-middle. This would also free him from toeing a party line on numerous divisive issues. Now more than ever, the American citizens are starving for a President who will make decisions based on the good of the people, not the party.

7. This would allow him more time to weigh his options. As a third party candidate, Gore can afford to let his rivals smash each other publicly, exposing one another’s weak points in the process. He would also be able to see what develops in domestic and international politics. For example, if we nuke Iran, environmental considerations are off the table for the rest of the decade, if not longer as the world as we know it devolves into infinite chaos. In which case, Gore’s candidacy bid suffers immensely. It’s strange to me that, with two years+ to go, some are already saying that it’s “late” to get into the campaign. Pffft. That’s nonsense. Give me a candidate, a bunch of money (Warren? Bill?) and six months and I can promise you that s/he will be elected.

8. He has the organization and grass roots campaign in place. With Gore’s network of organizations, friends and supporters, he could get on ballots in 50 states in three days flat, without a doubt. What’s more, he can tap into people he needs with very little effort. I’m betting that the past few years have taught him that relying on D.C. advisers is a bad idea and this time around, he’d be more than willing to work with image makers and publicists who are actually a part of his constituency. Given this, he’d have another big advantage over Clinton/Obama/McCain/Giuliani who will all turn to the same out-of-touch strategists who so badly play each and every hand.That’s all for now. There are a number of other reasons but I’m going to table them until I hear back from you, dearest friends and readers on just the inanity/genius of mulling this option. What do you think?

Oh, the daily song! Almost forgot: I hereby decree ‘Revolution’ by The Cult as Al Gore’s official theme song. [audio:cult.mp3]

Photography credit goes to the hyper-talented James Rexroad, whose permission I did not seek but whose forgiveness I very much do. Click the link and hire James for something, already - if only to help assuage my guilt.

[tags]gore, clinton, obama, climate change[/tags]

Earth Policy Institute
Plan B 2.0 Book Byte
For Immediate Release
July 24, 2007

WATER TABLES FALLING AND RIVERS RUNNING DRY

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Seg/PB2ch03_ss2.htm

Lester R. Brown

As the world’s demand for water has tripled over the last half-century and as the demand for hydroelectric power has grown even faster, dams and diversions of river water have drained many rivers dry. As water tables fall, the springs that feed rivers go dry, reducing river flows.

Scores of countries are overpumping aquifers as they struggle to satisfy their growing water needs, including each of the big three grain producers–China, India, and the United States. More than half the world’s people live in countries where water tables are falling.

There are two types of aquifers: replenishable and nonreplenishable (or fossil) aquifers. Most of the aquifers in India and the shallow aquifer under the North China Plain are replenishable. When these are depleted, the maximum rate of pumping is automatically reduced to the rate of recharge.

For fossil aquifers, such as the vast U.S. Ogallala aquifer, the deep aquifer under the North China Plain, or the Saudi aquifer, depletion brings pumping to an end. Farmers who lose their irrigation water have the option of returning to lower-yield dryland farming if rainfall permits. In more arid regions, however, such as in the southwestern United States or the Middle East, the loss of irrigation water means the end of agriculture.

The U.S. embassy in Beijing reports that Chinese wheat farmers in some areas are now pumping from a depth of 300 meters, or nearly 1,000 feet. Pumping water from this far down raises pumping costs so high that farmers are often forced to abandon irrigation and return to less productive dryland farming. A World Bank study indicates that China is overpumping Read the rest of this entry »

From George Monbiot’s well-researched and rather articulate new book, “HEAT: How to Stop the Planet Burning”. (you can grab a copy HERE - directly from the publisher, thus reducing the accumulated ‘carbon value’ of the book as it won’t have to travel to other warehouses):

(the bold sections and typos are my own)

“I have sought to demonstarte that the necessary reduction (90% by 2030) in carbon emissions is — if difficult — technically and economically possible. I have not demonstrated that it is politically possible. There is a reason for this. It is not up to me to do so. It is up to you.

Those of us who are already campaigning to reduce the impact of climate change cannot do it by ourselves. Given that this is the greatest danger the world now faces, we are astonishingly few. It appears to be easier to persuade people to protest against . . . speed cameras and high fuel prices, than to confront a threat to our existence. There is an obvious reason for this: in those cases something is being done to us. In this case we are doing it to ourselves. In fighting climate change, we must fight not only the oil companies, the airlines and the governments of the rich world; we must also fight ourselves.

The problem is that no meaningful progress has been made at the international climate talks. The problem is that we have not wanted it to happen. It is true that governments of the United States and Australia have done everything in their power to prevent the talks from succeeding or even from taking place. It is true that the defining feature of these negotiations is that someone else is always to blame. The governments of the rich nations complain that there is no point in cutting their own emissions if emissions are to continue to grow in China and India. The governments of China and India complain that limiting their pollution is a waste of time if the richer countries — whose output per head is still far greater than their — are not prepared to make the necessary reductions. It is also true that the fossil fuel companies use their tremendous wealth to buy everything they need, including a politician’s suit with the politician still inside it.

But if those governments that have expressed a commitment to stopping climate change have found their efforts frustrated, it is partly because they wanted them to be frustrated. They know that inside their electors there is a small but insistent voice asking them both to try and to fail. They know that if they had the misfortune to succeed, our lives would have to change. They know that we can contemplate a transformation of anyone’s existence but our own.  

So they play to the script which we have all ghost-written. They will make frowning speeches about the threat to the planet and the need for action. They will announce that this issue is of such importance that it transcends the usual political differences and requires a cross-party consensus. They will urge everyone to pull together and confront the enormity of the threat. Then they will discover, to their great disappointment, that progress has not been made, that it is in fact very difficult to make, and the decision about what should be done will yet again have to be deferred.

In the U.K., as my researcher Matthew Prescott pointed out to me, government policy is not contained within the reports and reviews it commissions; government policy IS the reports and reviews. By commissioning endless inquiries into the problem and the means by which it might be tackled, the government creates the impression that something is being done, while simultaneously preventing anything from happening until the next review (required to respond to the findings of the last review) has been published. I have an image in my mind of the British prime minister up to his neck in water on the floor of the House of Commons, explaining that ‘in the forthcoming White Paper on energy efficiency . . .’.

Governments will pursue this course of inaction — irrespective of the human impacts — while it remains politically less costly than the alternative. The task of climate-change campaigners is to make it as expensive as possible. This means abandoning the habit of mind into which almost all of us have somehow slumped over the past ten years or so: the belief that someone else will do it for us. . .

. . . This is partly, I think, because of the sustained global economic growth between then (1990’s) and now. We are simply too comfortable, and we have too much to lose. It is partly also because, accompanying this growth (indeed to some extent driving it) has been a surge in indebtedness, especially among the young, who used to be on the front line. Debt induces a bright panic, which ensures that those burdened with it can sledom see byond the next few weeks.

But I also blame that tool of empowerment, the internet. Of course it is marvellously useful, allows us to exchange information, find the facts we need, alert each other to coming dangers and all the rest of it. But it also creates a false impression of action. It allows us to believe that we can change the world without leaving our chairs. We are being heard! Our voices resonate around the world, provoking commentary and debate, inspiring some, enraging others. Something is happening! A movement is building! But by itself, as I know to my cost, writing, reading, debate and dissent change nothing. They are of value only if they inspire action. Action means moving your legs. Indeed, if this book has not encouraged you to want to DO something, then I urge you to return it to the shop and demand your money back, for it has proven useless.
[tags]china, climate change, heat, monbiot[/tags]

!CALENTAMIENTO GLOBAL!

Most of you know that it’s 2007. A great portion of you know that we need to reduce global greenhouse emissions 90% by 2030 if we’ve any hope of stabilizing runaway global temperatures. Here in the United States, instead of working together to achieve these goals, we politicize the subject (thanks, Al! thanks, George!), meaning we make it a whole lot harder to achieve a national consensus on what steps we need to take. This is a problem that is close to insurmountable, but I’m a closet optimist, so I think that, with the help of a new political party and a series of crippling general strikes, we’ll get there! Is Eugene Debs running in ‘08? (Perhaps three of you got a chuckle out of this.)

But even this problem of politicization of a fundamentally nonpartisan issue is, I think, secondary to a massive and largely ignored language and cultural barrier. Specifically, while the U.S. “CAUTION: GLOBAL WARMING” chorus continues to swell in number and volume, it delivers its message almost exclusively in English. Given that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (LINK), the Hispanic population is going to be responsible for nearly 50% of the U.S. population growth between now and 2030, this is something we need to fix immediately. Some forward thinkers, like the Earth Policy Institute (LINK), responsible for the publication of Lester Brown’s seminal “Plan B 2.0″ (think “Inconvenient Truth” but with ANSWERS: LINK) are publishing their output in dozens of languages, but a direct targeting of the U.S. hispanic population by everyone (including yours truly) is required.
As of 2007, the eco-community is overwhelmingly white-midde/upper class. By 2030, over half the Western United States will be non-white. We won’t achieve our reduction goals unless we expand our ranks to include a representative slice of the population and citizenry.

If the eco-community doesn’t start making websites (Grist, Treehugger, Worldchanging, etc), and if Hollywood doesn’t start making films that at least partially cater to the surging populace of Hispanics in the United States, their critical messages will not reach the population that is making itself, each day, more and more of a powerful consumer and voter force. As a result, we’ll all be poached (LINK).

Song o’ the Day = Baja La Luna Mexicana by Concrete Blonde. Do you remember it? I have a real soft spot for this one . . . [audio:luna.mp3]

[tags]earth policy institute, eugene debs, greenhouse emissions, hollywood, lester brown, treehugger[/tags]

Bill Maher puts it pretty straight: The Democrats are a bunch of pussies and they will NEVER fix the environment. (don’t get upset that I said ‘pussies’, okay mom? I didn’t say ‘cunts’ and you know how I like to use the c-word because polls show that most people HATE that word. If I said ‘cunt’ on this website, I’d lose all the pussy p.c. Democrats who read my blog and I wouldn’t risk that, mom!)

Salon pretty much sucks, but THIS MAHER PIECE (link) is dead on. On Jimmy Carter: “If a Democrat who’s out of office and 100 years old can’t speak out, what chance do we have for the ones who are in office?”

Now where did I put that ‘Nader 2008′ t-shirt? (Zoinks! Now I’ve said “cunt” and “Nader” in the same post! Now those pussy Democrats are going to start planning to talk about hiring people to shoot spitballs at me!!!

[tags]bill-maher, climate-change, democrats-are-a-bunch-of-pussies[/tags]

This is choice news! Straight out of the 12. May NY Times:

The U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell has announced that it is ” ‘entirely appropriate’ that the intelligence community prepare an assessment of the ‘geopolitical and security implications of global climate change.’ ”

And to prepare this assessment? Well, the House passed a bill Friday morning authorizing $48 BILLION to make it happen. This provision will be the largest intelligence authorization EVER considered by Congress. Understandably, a few Republicans are a bit upset. From the article:

“Let other federal agencies, as more than a dozen already do, cover the ‘bugs and bunnies.’ But let our spies be spies,” Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, wrote Thursday in a Wall Street Journal op-ed article.

Now, the real beauty - the thing that really makes me sit up and guffaw - is that the U.S. intelligence community is being asked to do ANYTHING AT ALL. Why, just last week it came out that the U.S. intelligence officials were convinced that the new Canadian quarter is actually a nanotech spy device intended to track the movements of unsuspecting U.S. Army contractors. Did you read that last sentence? U.S. intelligence believed the CANADIAN QUARTER to be a nanotech spy device! I shit you not! Read about it here! Here’s a tease:

. . . mysterious coins with radio frequency transmitters were found planted on U.S. contractors with classified security clearances on at least three separate occasions between October 2005 and January 2006 as the contractors travelled through Canada.

I don’t know about you, but I think that just maybe that $48 BILLION would be better spent on, oh, solar/wind power infrastructure? How many millions do you think they spent studying that quarter?

[tags]climate-change, tod-brilliant, canadian-quarter[/tags]