Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage.
America’s dish detergent wars
Amanda Marcotte, Guardian
The fuss over phosphate bans provides an object lesson in the paranoid politics of the Tea Party’s anti-liberal backlash
—
… as a long-time conservative-watcher, I think the best way to understand where reactionaries are coming from is to look at some of the smaller issues that get them all riled up. Take, for instance, the long-standing fight over phosphates in dish detergent. The parameters of this debate provide an excellent insight into the Tea Partiers, what motivates them, and why they’re so paranoid
Many dishwashing detergents use phosphates as water-softeners, but the problem with phosphates is that when they run off into the local water supply, they upset the balance of oxygen in the rivers and lakes and have the potential to kill off fish. The simple solution to this problem is simply to ban phosphates in dish soap, something numerous states have done.
It shouldn’t be too controversial; the non-phosphate soaps do just as good a job at cleaning dishes, but they may not leave glasses as spot-free, which should be a small price to pay for a healthy environment. This isn’t just conjecture. When I had a (relatively cheap) dishwasher in Texas, I bought non-phosphate soap and noticed no real difference. Then again, I’m not one who believes my friends investigate their wine glasses to make sure they have no water stains on them.
But for many, any price paid to keep the environment clean is too high. As soon as Spokane County in Washington banned phosphate dish detergent in response to oxygen depletion in its rivers and lakes, many residents rebelled by actually driving to Idaho to purchase the same kinds of dish detergent they’d been using before.
On its surface, this seems like illogical behaviour. Surely, getting in a car and driving across state lines just to buy dish detergent costs more time and effort than just rinsing your dishes before you put them in the dishwasher, right?
But if you see the phosphate ban as an arbitrary act of liberal tyranny imposed for the sheer joy of making Real Americans have to wash their dishes by hand, then getting into the car and driving for a few hours to buy dish detergent can become an easy, risk-free way to feel like a warrior fighting for freedom.
(14 October 2010)
Can the Right Spin the Chilean Miners Story?
Bob Katz, CommonDreams.org
It will be fascinating to see how Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham struggle to spin the heroic Chilean miner rescue to their political ends.
It’s not going to be easy.
It’s not going to be easy to characterize the collectivist group dynamics at the heart of the miners’ survival as damaging to those essential core values of personal freedom and unfettered pursuit of liberty that have made our nation, or any nation, great.
It’s not going to be easy to recast the consensus decision-making and egalitarian group dynamics that allowed these 33 men to harmoniously ration an impossibly meager two-day food supply over their first harrowing 17 days underground as a desecration of the rugged individualism that fuels the crowing achievements of mankind.
It’s not going to be easy to rail against the counseling and soothing advice the miners received from professional psychologists while buried half a mile underground for more than two months as further proof of how the namby-pamby welfare state with its self-serving, expansionist appetite undermines the old-fashioned self-reliance so integral to a thriving and healthy society.
And it most certainly will not be easy to frame the insistent cry now coming from the miners and their families for better, safer working conditions as the typical liberal whining for needless government hand-outs and protections against the invigorating challenges of the global marketplace.
Can they pull it off? Can Rush and Glenn and Laura and their fellow travelers on the bullhorn right turn this limelight event to their advantage?
They will certainly try. They almost have to.
For they must be aware that the Chilean miner rescue has captured the world’s attention and has people in all corners of the earth, not just talk radio listeners, reflecting on its implications. They must be aware that such attention could, if left unattended, tilt in a very wrong direction.
That the bedraggled miners have emerged from unfathomable depths as living, breathing symbols of something poignant and large is beyond dispute. But symbols of what?
The early returns indicate the miners are widely admired for sticking together, for bolstering each other’s spirits, for practicing the Golden Rule in all its glorious ramifications, for sharing food and water and psychological sustenance in the most difficult of situations. Moreover, we are in awe of their display, without any advance preparation or training, of the kind of uncommon strength and fortitude that, to whatever degree it may exist in a single person, is always magnified and improved when practiced as a community.
(16 October 2010)
A Peak Oil Lament
Rich Turcotte, Peak Oil Matters
In conjunction with the recent ASPO annual conference in Washington, two articles (here and here) were offered on the subject of getting the Peak Oil message out, and what some of the strategies might be, given that, as the article by Molly Davis suggested: “… almost all of the messaging experts say the movement’s narrative has failed to influence policymakers — or even the major environmental groups.”
Certainly the level of bipartisan political hostility—as we were reminded of in that piece—contributes to the messaging problems. Others advised that finding an “enemy” might be the most effective strategy. The accepted target was the fossil fuel industry. One rationale offered is that facts alone are not enough (true, sad to say), and by demonizing an easily-demonized entity, the peak oil movement may find more sympathetic listeners. I can’t argue with the rationale, but I wonder if the convenience and expediency of targeting the usual bad-guy is the best choice.
I’d like to offer a different enemy—one also easy enough to aim at for a variety of reasons, but critical to those of us who carry legitimate concerns about what life will be like in the years to come as declining oil production becomes apparent. Explaining that we may not really start to feel the pinch of declining oil production for a few—or more—years down the road is a message that needs to be brought home more vividly and urgently. “Peak Oil” won’t show up in the headlines next week, but that provides us with all the motivation we need to help others understand why now it must become a cause célèbre long before its impact begins.
The extremist right-wing is an easy target for those of us who value things like integrity and facts and reality.
(15 October 2010)
About the Author
I’m a former attorney and financial advisor, living in Massachusetts with my wonderful wife and our 3 children (two of whom are now in college). Having given up on corporate America, I’m now making my way through the world as a writer and a fledgling advocate of Peak Oil {and related subjects such as Smart Growth, infrastructure revitalization, and public transportation}. I also currently serve as a member of my town’s Transportation Advisory Committee.”
