Year 2, Month 3, Day 27: You Call THAT a Disaster? Hah! I’ll Show YOU a Disaster!

John Sanbonmatsu has a piece in the Christian Science Monitor that pulls no punches in its headline: “Japan’s nuclear crisis pales in comparison to destruction from global climate change.” It’s well worth a read.

Sent March 18:

The Fukushima disaster is sure to have extensive generational repercussions, although it’s essentially a short-lived phenomenon; an isolated failure of technology in response to an extreme seismic event. As John Sanbonmatsu makes clear, the ongoing crisis of climate change is a slow-motion catastrophe of much greater magnitude and significance. Japan’s agony provides an opportunity to realize how inadequately we’ve prepared for worst-case events, combining a touching faith in technological solutions with a blinkered inability to address problems before they become emergencies. We need increased investment in renewable energy; we need a “smart grid”; we need updated infrastructure. But more importantly, the national philosophy underlying our approach to energy must be completely transformed. American energy policy must be based first and foremost on principles of efficiency and reduced consumption; the petrocentric Cheneyism that snidely decreed conservation merely a “sign of personal virtue” is in its essence both anti-American and anti-human.

Warren Senders

Month 6, Day 1: A Sign Of Personal Virtue.

I am a great fan of appropriate technology, and as such I don’t respond in a reflexively negative way to people like Nathan Myhrvold — even when he comes off as dismissive of environmental concerns, as in his interview with Fareed Zakaria in this week’s Newsweek:

Zakaria: Why do you think that people in the environmental community dismiss geoengineering?

Myhrvold: They have this attitude for two reasons. One is that much of the environmental movement is anti-technology. They’ll say, “Isn’t there going to be an unintended consequence?” And I say, yes there is! When a heart surgeon does bypass surgery on you, you’re left with a big scar—but it saves your damn life. I think another reason is more political. A lot of environmentalists feel that if everyone believes there’s a simple fix, they’ll demand that. And then they’re never going to get rid of their SUVs and they’re never going to tax carbon.

The interview reads like the transcription of a television appearance, further illustrating the inability of our media (even with someone as perspicacious as Zakaria involved) to handle intellectual complexity. But to me, what was significant was a word that never appeared. This is the first time to my knowledge that I have used the phrase “vocabula non grata” in my discourse. I am pleased.

Nathan Myhrvold is correct in stating that America’s energy needs can never be met completely through the use of renewable sources, but his interview with Fareed Zakaria is notable for a significant omission: neither man ever mentions energy efficiency and waste reduction. Ever since Ronald Reagan took the solar panels off the White House roof, discussion of conservation has been ridiculed by politicians and the media, and the word is now vocabula non grata in “serious” discussion. Which is, to put it bluntly, stupid. In every single area of our national patterns of energy usage there are opportunities for significant reduction in demand, most of which would actually improve our quality of life. If Americans decided to make carpooling into the rule rather than the exception, petroleum use would diminish drastically and traffic congestion would ease. The fact that these measures are not now the norm in our country shows how the disdain for conservation has crippled our ability to respond to circumstances like B.P.’s destruction of the Gulf of Mexico. When Dick Cheney sneered, “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy,” he illuminated the mindset that has brought us to this pass. The likelihood of catastrophic climate change may not be a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive conservation policy, but it should be.

Warren Senders

Month 5, Day 8: You Can’t Use Murdoch Papers for Fishwrap, Now That All The Fish Are Dead

This one went off to the Boston Herald, which ran a McClatchy piece about (mostly Republican) attempts to politicize the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

The attempt by Republican political operatives and their media to blame the Obama administration for a slow response to the Deepwater Horizon spill is absurd. The oil rig explosion and all that followed it is a direct consequence of a culture of corruption in the Minerals Management Service (the government agency charged with overseeing the oil industry) — corruption fostered by the Bush Administration. Members of the Executive Branch (including Vice President Cheney) encouraged MMS staff to weaken safeguards and regulations, directly contributing to the gulf catastrophe.

After secret talks with oil corporations, the Bush/Cheney administration dropped a requirement that offshore platforms be equipped with an acoustic switch, a remotely triggered mechanism that could have closed off the gushing pipe at the wellhead if the manual switch failed. Why? The switches, at $500,000 each, were “too expensive.” It’s safe to say that the damage done by the Deepwater Horizon spill is going to cost a lot more than a half-million dollars — a costly lesson for British Petroleum, and for us all.

Warren Senders

Month 5, Day 1: Writing to Lord Voldemort

The Deepwater Horizon would never have happened, if there had been an “acoustic switch” installed. Why wasn’t there such a switch? Because federal laws requiring them were nullified early in the Bush/Cheney administration. By guess who?

I have never been more frightened to write a letter than I am at this moment.

UPDATE: There is NO CONTACT INFORMATION AVAILABLE for Dick Cheney. Try googling “Dick Cheney Contact” and see for yourself. So I sent it to his wife, who is a “Senior Fellow” at the American Enterprise Institute (a wingnut welfare center).

Dear Mr. Cheney,

I imagine that as a big fan of environmental destruction, you’re probably relishing the news of the expanding disaster of the Deepwater Horizon platform. I assume also that you are savoring the knowledge that you played an integral part in laying the groundwork for the catastrophe.

Remember the secret meetings you had with the oil industry at the beginning of your first term as Secret President? Of course you do. And you probably remember the deregulation you devised that did away with the requirement for an acoustic switch to cut the flow of oil off at the source. A half-million dollars was surely too expensive, and nothing was going to happen anyway, so why worry?

That switch you decided your buddies didn’t need? It would have prevented this nightmare. Acoustic switches are required in off-shore drilling platforms in most of the world, except, of course, for the United States.

Mr. Cheney, the environmental and economic disaster our nation is now facing is one that can be laid at your feet. If you had a moral bone in your body, you’d be out there on the coastline right now, helping with the cleanup.

I remember way back when you said that “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.” A genuinely “sound and comprehensive” energy policy would include projected cleanup costs for oil disasters like the Deepwater Horizon — costs that would explode forever the myth that fossil fuels are “cheap.”

The damage you have done, sir, is incalculable. Because you wanted to spare your Big Oil buddies from having to buy a few switches, we are now facing what’s likely to be the worst oil spill in history, with costs estimated in the hundreds of millions.

This must be a very special and proud moment for you. Savor it.

Yours Sincerely,

Warren Senders