WASHINGTON - In the spring of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry made overtures to Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, to be his running mate.

A Kerry-McCain ticket had a compelling logic: it would have given Kerry a chance to outflank President Bush, to win some Republican voters, and to carry McCain’s state of Arizona and its ten electoral votes.

Will McCain, now a leading contender for the 2008 GOP nomination, borrow Kerry’s idea and offer the vice presidency to Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut’s self-styled “independent Democrat”?

The McCain-Lieberman duo showed a warm camaraderie Friday during their joint appearance at the American Enterprise Institute, an event where they both called for a substantial increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq in order to impose order, stop ethnic cleansing, and give the Maliki government a chance to succeed.

Praise for McCain's 'gutsy position'
Lieberman lavished praise on his Arizona ally. Alluding to his own re-election victory in Connecticut over anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, Lieberman said, “I just finished an election campaign. If rumors are correct, he may be starting one. And he’s not taking the easy way out here.”

McCain, he said, “is doing what he sincerely believes is best for the national security and safety of our country… John’s taking a gutsy position.”

There’s an affinity of personnel, as well as of ideology, between the Arizona Republican and the Connecticut Democrat: McCain’s spokesman in 2004, Marshall Wittmann, now works as Lieberman’s spokesman.

The McCain-Lieberman duo has worked closely in the past on several issues:

“Joe Lieberman and John McCain's moral leadership in Congress helped make it possible for Wesley Clark to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo,” said Jano Cabrera in January of 2004, when he was Lieberman’s’ campaign spokesman.

So what would Cabrera think now of a McCain-Lieberman ticket in 2008?

Would voters back a hawkish ticket?
"With the caveat that it's far too early for this type of speculation, birds of a feather do flock together,” Cabrera said. “And in a nation as politically polarized as ours, a bi-partisan maverick ticket could be incredibly formidable. But before we all start counting our independent chickens, there would also be a significant downside: a pro-war, pro-surge ticket. Barring a radical turn of events in Iraq, I can't imagine 'Vote Hawk' serving as an effective rallying cry in ‘08.”

He added wryly, “Before the imaginary general election comes the real primary. Since Sen. Lieberman hasn't declared he's running, talk of him picking McCain as his running mate is premature.”

One prominent Democrat, Maryland Democratic Party chairman Terry Lierman, had a joking response to the notion of a McCain-Lieberman ticket: “Does McCain need Lieberman to attract Republican votes?”

In a serious vein, he said, "The American people will be looking for a ticket that brings positive change…A damaged senator — as much as I like him — and an Iraq War hawk — as popular as he might be otherwise — might not be the change we’re looking for."

Dante Scala, who teaches political science at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, said a McCain-Lieberman pairing “would most likely not pan out for three reasons.”

The first, he said is that Lieberman is a Democrat and “it would anger a good part of the Republican Party faithful” if McCain passed over a qualified Republican in order to pick Lieberman as his running mate.

The age liability

The second problem as Scala sees it, is Lieberman’s age (he’ll be 65 next month) which combined with McCain’s age (70) would create an Older Guys ticket.

“Then they’ve got a problem if there’s a clear generational choice” if the Democrats were to nominate a relative youngster such as Sen. Barack Obama, the 45-year old junior senator from Illinois.

Third, Scala said, “I don’t know if this ticket would attract many committed Democrats to vote for McCain.”

But if McCain were to roll the dice, Lieberman would give him a better chance to win Connecticut, with its seven electoral votes.

And Lieberman’s appeal to Jewish voters could make a difference in states with significant Jewish populations such as Florida.

Brandeis University historian Jonathan Sarna, who has studied voting history of Jewish voters, said, “The 2006 election in Connecticut demonstrated that Lieberman still commands a significant Jewish following, but not as strong a following as he enjoyed in 2000. Lieberman's support of the Iraq war, his views on religion in public life, and his endorsement of Republican efforts to prevent the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube distanced him from some Jewish voters.”

TV network exit polls Lieberman got 65 percent of self-identified Jewish voters in Connecticut last November.

“My guess is that the Connecticut results anticipate how a McCain-Lieberman ticket would be viewed by the Jewish community,” Sarna said. “At least at third of Jewish voters would find the ticket insufficiently liberal and would vote against it. Whether the ticket could command two-thirds of the Jewish vote depends on who the other candidates are.”

Links:

• Turncoat Definition
• McCain on Lieberman - Rolling Stone Magazine
• Summary of The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act - "Kyoto Lite"
• New Study Shows Hefty Price Tag for McCain-Lieberman Bill
• 'McCain-Lieberman Party' still emerging -August, 2006

From the David Suzuki website, the blog entry for today from one of the people at the conference from the David Suzuki Foundation, http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Bali_Blog/ :

BALI BLOG

A place for all things related to the UN climate change conference in Bali, Dec. 3-14.

December 15, 2007

Breakthrough in Bali
After long delays and all-night negotiations, political leaders at the UN climate conference in Bali finally hammered out a deal that will launch negotiations to put the world on a path towards deeper emission cuts after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

It was a long, exhausting process that went 24 hours into overtime. But in the end, Canada and the U.S. bowed to pressure and agreed to stop blocking progress.

The two-week conference produced a "Bali road map," which could put the world on a path to deeper emissions cuts after 2012. The road map includes a range of emission reductions for developed countries of 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

The final hours of the negotiations were extremely dramatic and often emotional. During one stalemate, a clearly frustrated and disappointed Yvo de Boer, the UN's climate chief, broke down in tears and left the stage.

Talks were on the brink of falling apart after the U.S. stood firm in its position that a Bali road map must include a special exemption for weaker U.S. targets.

But a few hours later, after intense international pressure, the U.S. caved and agreed to move forward with the rest of the world.

Later in the afternoon, Canada stood alone with Russia in supporting an option for the Bali road map that ignored strong science. Country after country spoke out in favour of including the strong scientific language in the deal. Canada eventually backed down and changed its position so as not to block the overwhelming consensus.

Canadian environmental groups gave the deal a qualified welcome (read our news release here).

It's great that political leaders in Bali were able to come to an agreement on the need for deeper targets beyond 2012. Now it's time to start turning talk into action.

Posted by Sarah Marchildon at December 15, 2007

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.

Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life's work, unfairly labeling him "The Merchant of Death" because of his invention - dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken - if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, "We must act."

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures - a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: "Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live."

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency - a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst - though not all - of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world's leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler's threat: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction. The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.

We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.

Even in Nobel's time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, "We are evaporating our coal mines into the air." After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth's average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.

But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless -- which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented - and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.

We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: "Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.

Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth's climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured destruction."

More than two decades ago, scientists calculated that nuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a "nuclear winter." Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world's resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.

Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent "carbon summer."

As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, "Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice." Either, he notes, "would suffice."

But neither need be our fate. It is time to make peace with the planet.

We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.

These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.

No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.

Now comes the threat of climate crisis - a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?

Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve with what he called "Satyagraha" - or "truth force."

Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In every land, the truth - once known - has the power to set us free.

Truth also has the power to unite us and bridge the distance between "me" and "we," creating the basis for common effort and shared responsibility.

There is an African proverb that says, "If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." We need to go far, quickly.

We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer. They can and do help. But they will not take us far enough without collective action. At the same time, we must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not invite the establishment of ideological conformity and a new lock-step "ism."

That means adopting principles, values, laws, and treaties that release creativity and initiative at every level of society in multifold responses originating concurrently and spontaneously.

This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun's energy for pennies or invent an engine that's carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.

When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, "It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship."

In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000 people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was described by Franklin Roosevelt as the "Father of the United Nations." He was an inspiration and hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his commitment to world peace and global cooperation.

My parents spoke often of Hull, always in tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my hometown paper that simply noted I had won the same prize that Cordell Hull had won. In that moment, I knew what my father and mother would have felt were they alive.

Just as Hull's generation found moral authority in rising to solve the world crisis caused by fascism, so too can we find our greatest opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, "crisis" is written with two symbols, the first meaning "danger," the second "opportunity." By facing and removing the danger of the climate crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our own capacity to solve other crises that have been too long ignored.

We must understand the connections between the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty, hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these problems are linked, so too must be their solutions. We must begin by making the common rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle of the world community.

Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions.

This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 - two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.

Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon -- with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance - especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they've taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters - most of all, my own country -- that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other's behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must. No one should believe a solution will be found without effort, without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge that if we wish to redeem squandered time and speak again with moral authority, then these are the hard truths:

The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do. Moreover, between here and there, across the unknown, falls the shadow.

That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, "Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk."

We are standing at the most fateful fork in that path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of two futures - each a palpable possibility - and with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the necessity of choosing between those two futures, and the urgency of making the right choice now.

The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, "One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door."

The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: "What were you thinking; why didn't you act?"

Or they will ask instead: "How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?"

We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.

So let us renew it, and say together: "We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act."

© The Nobel Foundation, Stockholm, 2006.

Will China and the US listen?

It’s a tough battle defending this issue for me, knowing that we failed to sign the Kyoto Agreement years back and also being aware this same agreement will soon expire within the next four years; and the US, to date as not produced an alternative plan to replace the Kyoto agreement. For that fact, I haven’t even heard our present administration evening beginning a plan in earnest to address Global Warming.

What I have learned, we have a number of technology companies in the US diligently working on ways to develop Renewable Energy, such as wind power and spent nuclear fuels, but their progress has been limited by funding. It’s my feeling these companies, along with new start-up companies, should be encouraged with greater tax incentives, and equally investors in these companies should also receive tax incentives for their investments.

I also believe, we as Americans, in our homes and workplace’s can be creative and come up with ways to “re-use” what we discard or replace energy consuming devices with more efficient methods. Presently with oil nearing $100 a barrel we’re almost forced to converse energy, but I’m not talking about “conservation”; I’m referring to with “new concepts” and “alternative methods”, in our everyday lives to implement “renewable energy”.

I’m a Democrat, and my candidate for president is Governor Bill Richardson, for two reasons; first his policy on ending the war in Iraq, and second, I firmly believe he has the needed experience in the field on Energy, since in a past administration he held the position of Secretary of Energy, under the Clinton Administration. I’ve listened to the televised debates and read his plans on both of these aforementioned concerns and feel his plans offer the optimum solutions.

Please listen to what Governor Richardson has to say about Renewable Energy.

"The future is renewable energy"

Former Energy Secretary Gov. Bill Richardson discusses solutions to the energy challenges facing the United States at the CNN Debate in Las Vegas, Nevada.
November 16, 2007

Related:
U.N. Chief Seeks More Climate Change Leadership
NYT & Washingtonby ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
UN Panel Gives Dire Warming Forecast
ABC News: Intl
U.N. Global Warming Report Sternly Warns Against Inaction
Wash Post - Politics by Doug Struck
Court’s Fuel-Economy Ruling May Prod Congress to Set Even Higher Requirements
NYT & Washington by MICHELINE MAYNARD
Midwest governors take up climate change
UPI - Top News
Video: Strong warming warning
MSNBC.com: Video

The Governor’s Presidential Campaign’s web site is here.

Here's what I'm following

Please Note:
This URL Address of http://tdadigital.wordpress.com/ is the Official and only address of Tom Awtry’s Blog. Those copying this Blog should read this article here, closely.

They hope to have the power plant working within a decade. The world is preparing for the Kyoto environment summit in December. Fusion, if it works, promises to solve many of the world's energy problems. Toby Murcott of BBC Science reports. At present virtually all electricity generation consumes limited resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium, and produces noxious effluent such as smoke, carbon dioxide and radioactive waste. The emission of such gases may be causing global warming and will be on the agenda at the Kyoto summit to discuss ways of tackling climate change. Meanwhile, hopes of unlimited, pollution-free energy rest at the moment with nuclear fusion, the process that powers the Sun and all stars. But this has proved extremely difficult to harness. Current nuclear fusion reactors depend on the fusion of hydrogen isotopes, including radioactive tritium, but controlling the extreme conditions for this reaction to proceed is technologically very difficult. A commercial nuclear fusion reactor is still many years away. Now a group of physicists in the United States have proposed a fusion reactor that works on a different principle, does not produce radioactive waste and is based largely on established technology.

COLLIDING BEAM

The starting point is the fuel, which, as Hendrik Monkhorst of the University of Florida, United States, explains, is very different to that in conventional nuclear reactors.

"The ingredients are hydrogen and boron, a particular isotope of boron called BORON 11.
BORON 11 is very abundant in nature, hydrogen is very abundant as well. The hydrogen and BORON will be put in accelerators and these accelerators will bring the hydrogen atoms - actually nuclei - to a very high velocity inside this cylindrically shaped device called the colliding beam fusion reactor." It is the accelerators in this reactor that are the key to the new idea. Fusion occurs when two atomic nuclei are squeezed together. They combine to form new nuclei, releasing energy in the process. But atomic nuclei repel each other and need to be smashed together at very high speed to overcome the repulsion. Conventional nuclear fusion reactors do this by heating the nuclei to very high temperatures. The new device uses particle accelerators. The hydrogen and boron nuclei are accelerated towards each other at very high speeds and when they collide, they fuse, producing fast moving helium nuclei.

"When the fusion reaction has taken place you get out three helium nuclei and they scatter out of [leave] the reaction chamber into two devices at the end of this reaction chamber called direct energy converters," said Mr Monkhorst.

LOW-COST POWER...

"The virtue of that device is that you can turn the kinetic energy, that is the motional energy of the helium nuclei, directly into electricity. The final result is helium gas and a lot of electricity that you can pump into the electric net. The helium gas is just helium as we know it to fill party balloons." The system is relatively simple compared to current nuclear fusion reactors and calculations suggest that it could produce electricity more cheaply than fossil fuel powered generators.

There are other advantages too...

"Our reactor for say one hundred megawatts, which would be able to power a small sized city, would be about the size of three or four big city buses standing next to each other. The other advantages are that we have no radioactivity to speak of," said Mr Monkhorst.
The colliding beam fusion reactor sounds too good to be true. It uses cheap, abundant, non-radioactive fuel and produces nothing but a harmless gas. A feasibility study is about to start and it could be in commercial service within 10 years.

But will it work? Other nuclear physicists are happy that the science behind the design is correct, but are skeptical whether it can ever be commercially exploited to produce electricity.

This article was submitted by the BBC Science. Here is another point of reference:

Fusion Focus

You know, in a way we're lucky it was benzene. Sure, benzene is a carcinogenic neurotoxin, but it's not, y'know, acutely poisonous—it's not like it was arsenic or cyanide or chlordane, not a Bhopal-type incident that's going to kill thousands of people outright. It's just going to create a leukemia spike, which, when you consider all the other toxins that are getting turned loose in China, will hardly be noticed. Really.

If the Chinese government has its way, that leukemia spike won't be noticed at all, because they'll hide or manipulate the statistics to keep it from showing up. The latest news reports from China indicate that the officials responsible for the spill are paying for it with their jobs, but the ones responsible for hiding it from the public are not.

This spill is just the most noticeable event of its kind, so far. A recent visitor to rural China wrote of villages where the only available household water was purple from industrial pollution, and noted how widespread industrial pollution is throughout the countryside. I suppose this is one way to deal with the problem of overpopulation.

Sometimes it seems to me the Chinese just don't get it, even when they try to be ecological. A story recently came out of China, via the Associated Press, about the largest government slaughter of Chinese civilians since Tienamen Square. Troops shot ten people dead out of a demonstration of thousands who were protesting that they were being insufficiently compensated for seizure of their land. Why was the government confiscating their land? Why, to build a wind farm, a tidal generating plant—and a coal-fired power plant. For this they were displacing thousands of relatively self-sufficient, if financially impoverished, peasants. How ecological! Then I read something that really made my jaw drop—the government of China admits that 70,000 similar protests occurred just last year. Seventy thousand protests in ONE YEAR.

The thing is, the Chinese are not doing this for themselves or by themselves. They are doing it for us, with our money. The widespread pollution of China is a direct effect of a massive transfer of wealth from the United States and Western Europe to China. We, with our royal lifestyles, are responsible for those 100 tons of benzene washing down the Amur River, for the fact that five of the world's ten most polluted cities are in China. They are dying for our sins of gluttony and overconsumption.

When the first Westerners approached China about commercial trade, they were rebuffed, because the Chinese felt they had everything they needed already, and it was true. There is a remarkable book, “Farmers of Forty Centuries,“written nearly a hundred years ago, that details how the Chinese farmed the same land for four thousand years--sustainably, intensively, and organically feeding the longest-lasting, most sophisticated urban civilization that has ever existed on this planet. Sure, our civilization is a lot more sophisticated, but we have a few thousand years to go to match the Chinese record for sustainability. What they did was not easy, and for most of the people on the bottom it was not terribly gracious, but it by God worked for four thousand years.

But all that is being swept away. The Chinese have sold their inheritance for a pot of Walmart contracts and a dream of upward mobility for everyone. When I was a kid I read in Ripley's Believe it or Not that if everyone in China stood on a chair and they all jumped off their chairs at the same time (a feat of synchronization that might not be past them), they would change the orbit and rotation of the earth, and that was several hundred million Chinese ago. What the Chinese are doing now is every bit as upsetting to global stability as jumping off of chairs en masse. and it really is happening.

As a “developing nation,” China is not bound by the Kyoto Agreement, although they have agreed to work on cutting their greenhouse gas emissions—if the European nations will subsidize that process. That's not fair to the Europeans—China's pollution problems have mushroomed much more at the behest of American demand than demand from Europe. And most climate scientists agree that the Kyoto Protocols are a drop in the bucket compared to what really needs to happen to keep from going into out-of control global warming—if we can still stop it at all. What profit is it to gain a world of money and lose the soul of soil and air?

musical segue: "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place," as played by Richard Thompson from the live 1988 album, "More Guitar"