Seumas Milne writes at The Guardian:
... Despite claims that Latin America's progressive tide is exhausted, leftwing and centre-left governments continue to be re-elected – from Ecuador to Brazil and Bolivia to Argentina – because they have reduced poverty and inequality and taken control of energy resources to benefit the excluded majority.
That is what Chávez has been able to do on a grander scale, using Venezuela's oil income and publicly owned enterprises to slash poverty by half and extreme poverty by 70%, massively expanding access to health and education, sharply boosting the minimum wage and pension provision, halving unemployment, and giving slum communities direct control over social programmes.
To visit any rally or polling station during the election campaign was to be left in no doubt as to who Chávez represents: the poor, the non-white, the young, the disabled – in other words, the dispossessed majority who have again returned him to power. Euphoria at the result among the poor was palpable: in the foothills of the Andes on Monday groups of red-shirted hillside farmers chanted and waved flags at any passerby.
Of course there is also no shortage of government failures and weaknesses which the opposition was able to target: from runaway violent crime to corruption, lack of delivery and economic diversification, and over-dependence on one man's charismatic leadership. And the US-financed opposition campaign was a much more sophisticated affair than in the past. Capriles presented himself as "centre-left", despite his hard right background, and promised to maintain some Chavista social programmes. ...
Venezuela's revolution doesn't offer a political model that can be directly transplanted elsewhere, not least because oil revenues [which have quadrupled under Chavez] allow it to target resources on the poor without seriously attacking the interests of the wealthy. But its innovative social programmes, experiments in direct democracy and success in bringing resources under public control offer lessons to anyone interested in social justice and new forms of socialist politics in the rest of the world.
For all their problems and weaknesses, Venezuela and its Latin American allies have demonstrated that it's no longer necessary to accept a failed economic model, as many social democrats in Europe still do. They have shown it's possible to be both genuinely progressive and popular. Cynicism and media-fuelled ignorance have prevented many who would naturally identify with Latin America's transformation from recognising its significance. But Chávez's re-election has now ensured that the process will continue – and that the space for 21st-century alternatives will grow.
human rights
October 10, 2012
October 8, 2012
Why Obama can't debate
Obama was always a poor debater, so the only surprise in last week's match-up was Romney's gusto.
Obama is a poor debater because he does not stand for anything. He is essentially a servant of Wall Street hiding in cliché liberal rhetoric. He is moderator-in-chief.
He can not respond to critics from the left, because he wants to believe he is on their side but would have to admit they are right, that he is not at all on their side.
And he can not respond to critics from the right, because he would have to show that they are wrong, which he can not do, because he needs his liberal supporters to believe he is on their side.
Poor man: how to reassure the fascists as well as the vestigial liberals.
And any challenger can easily upset his delicate balancing act by upping the ante, forcing him to defend one or the other, to take on the role of conservative or liberal in the charade of U.S. elections. The incumbent wants to remain neither, throwing rhetorical and occasional executive sops to one constituency or another, and the challenger, if victorious, will become neither in the same way (and in turn challenged in the same way). Thus we are asked to choose between Coke and Pepsi, and those that would choose neither (thinking a cup of tea, perhaps, or glass of seltzer would better serve) are ostracized, clearing the field for this mock politics.
Update, Oct. 18: When Romney tells you that Obama's responses to the Bush recession didn't help middle class families, he should be asked how his family fared. But that would reveal that Obama has done very well by Romney, which neither of them want to publicize.
anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
Obama is a poor debater because he does not stand for anything. He is essentially a servant of Wall Street hiding in cliché liberal rhetoric. He is moderator-in-chief.
He can not respond to critics from the left, because he wants to believe he is on their side but would have to admit they are right, that he is not at all on their side.
And he can not respond to critics from the right, because he would have to show that they are wrong, which he can not do, because he needs his liberal supporters to believe he is on their side.
Poor man: how to reassure the fascists as well as the vestigial liberals.
And any challenger can easily upset his delicate balancing act by upping the ante, forcing him to defend one or the other, to take on the role of conservative or liberal in the charade of U.S. elections. The incumbent wants to remain neither, throwing rhetorical and occasional executive sops to one constituency or another, and the challenger, if victorious, will become neither in the same way (and in turn challenged in the same way). Thus we are asked to choose between Coke and Pepsi, and those that would choose neither (thinking a cup of tea, perhaps, or glass of seltzer would better serve) are ostracized, clearing the field for this mock politics.
Update, Oct. 18: When Romney tells you that Obama's responses to the Bush recession didn't help middle class families, he should be asked how his family fared. But that would reveal that Obama has done very well by Romney, which neither of them want to publicize.
anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
October 7, 2012
Billionaires versus society
Michael Hiltzik wrote in the Los Angeles Times:
human rights, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
Walker's own initiative, like others carrying the Peterson imprimatur, properly acknowledges that fiscal responsibility requires tax increases as well as spending cuts, though people can argue in good faith about how to balance the two. But the hallmark of [billionaire Peter] Peterson's worldview is to view social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare strictly as fiscal expense items, ignoring their roots as moral commitments to American citizens that cross generations and unite economic classes.That's an important characterization: Social Security and Medicare — and their future expansion — are not “safety nets” but rather the very fabric of a vital society.
These programs form the warp and woof of the American fabric. Portraying them, as Peterson does, as "safety net" initiatives that have outlived their relevance for all but the most destitute Americans is an artful way of destroying their universal appeal.
The danger in the economic debate in Washington comes from treating our fiscal problems as if they spring from the structure of our emblematic public social insurance programs, when the truth is that ill-advised tax cuts and unrestrained military spending have played a more important role.
The shame of Washington, on the other hand, comes from the fact that almost every organization promoting the grand fiscal bargain in which those programs will be on the table has accepted, somewhere and somehow, money from Pete Peterson.
human rights, anarchism, anarchosyndicalism
October 6, 2012
Four (4) candidates for President debate the economy
Click here for the transcript.
Click here for the entire 3-hour broadcast.
You have 100 people in a room and 100 loaves of bread: One person gets 35 loaves, four people get seven loaves each, 45 people each get four-fifths of a loaf, and fifty people (the baker among them) get to share one loaf. That's how our economy is working right now. And that's not a society worth the name. (adapted from Jill Stein, Green Party)
October 1, 2012
NIMBY: Correction
In this month's Windtech International column by Tiff Thompson, important information was inadvertently deleted and due to an editing error, Thompson's column was printed in a way that made it appear illogical in some places. We apologize for these errors, and provide corrections below.
A sentence acknowledging that fossil fuel subsidies include heating, transportation, and "clean" coal research as well as traditional electricity, and that renewables subsidies have included ethanol research and production, was also mistakenly deleted, as was another acknowledging that the figures for the renewables industry do not include the cost of the double-declining accelerated depreciation that is made available to it.
Thompson should also have noted that many states further subsidize the renewables industry by requiring utilities to buy a certain percentage of their energy from it. Furthermore, as this journal is particularly concerned with the wind industry, the particular costs to taxpayers of wind, not of all renewables together, should have been more carefully indicated.
Thompson should also have emphasized that subsidies should be viewed in terms of not just gross numbers, but the recipients' actual contributions to the country's energy mix.
Finally, Thompson's article cited federal subsidy figures for the years 2002-2007 of $13.8 billion for fossil fuels and $2.7 billion for the renewable energy industry, but the figures for more recent years were accidentally deleted.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Information Administration, for electricity in 2007, traditional coal received $854 million, "clean" coal received $2,156 million, and natural gas and petroleum received $227 million. Renewables received $1,008 million, with wind receiving $724 million of that. For every megawatt-hour of electricity generated, coal received $0.44, "clean" coal $29.81, natural gas and petroleum $0.25, all renewables $2.80, and wind $23.37.
In 2010, the direct subsidies for wind had increased to $4,986 million, a 10.5-fold (inflation-adjusted) increase from 3 years before. Subsidies for electricity from traditional coal rose slightly to $1,189 million and natural gas and petroleum to $654 million, while the subsidies for "clean" coal were cut to 0.
Per megawatt-hour of electricity generated in 2010, coal received $0.64, natural gas and petroleum $0.63, and wind $52.48.
The editors also regret any implication that the U.S. government's own spending on renewable energy (eg, for army bases) and opening 16 million acres of public land to renewable energy developers is an argument in support of more spending on renewables or indeed of any development of open and wild spaces. One need only look at the military budget to see that expanded activity and spending do not equal wisdom.
ADDENDUM: Several readers have asked us about Ms Thompson's comparison of Obama and Romney concerning renewable energy. Again, it appears that some sentences were deleted from the printed column showing that, except for Obama's stated support of and Romney's stated opposition to renewing the Production Tax Credit (which reduces a developer's taxes for 10 years by $22 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated and is scheduled to expire at the end of this year), there is in fact no substantial difference in energy policies between the two.
wind power, wind energy
A sentence acknowledging that fossil fuel subsidies include heating, transportation, and "clean" coal research as well as traditional electricity, and that renewables subsidies have included ethanol research and production, was also mistakenly deleted, as was another acknowledging that the figures for the renewables industry do not include the cost of the double-declining accelerated depreciation that is made available to it.
Thompson should also have noted that many states further subsidize the renewables industry by requiring utilities to buy a certain percentage of their energy from it. Furthermore, as this journal is particularly concerned with the wind industry, the particular costs to taxpayers of wind, not of all renewables together, should have been more carefully indicated.
Thompson should also have emphasized that subsidies should be viewed in terms of not just gross numbers, but the recipients' actual contributions to the country's energy mix.
Finally, Thompson's article cited federal subsidy figures for the years 2002-2007 of $13.8 billion for fossil fuels and $2.7 billion for the renewable energy industry, but the figures for more recent years were accidentally deleted.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Information Administration, for electricity in 2007, traditional coal received $854 million, "clean" coal received $2,156 million, and natural gas and petroleum received $227 million. Renewables received $1,008 million, with wind receiving $724 million of that. For every megawatt-hour of electricity generated, coal received $0.44, "clean" coal $29.81, natural gas and petroleum $0.25, all renewables $2.80, and wind $23.37.
In 2010, the direct subsidies for wind had increased to $4,986 million, a 10.5-fold (inflation-adjusted) increase from 3 years before. Subsidies for electricity from traditional coal rose slightly to $1,189 million and natural gas and petroleum to $654 million, while the subsidies for "clean" coal were cut to 0.
Per megawatt-hour of electricity generated in 2010, coal received $0.64, natural gas and petroleum $0.63, and wind $52.48.
The editors also regret any implication that the U.S. government's own spending on renewable energy (eg, for army bases) and opening 16 million acres of public land to renewable energy developers is an argument in support of more spending on renewables or indeed of any development of open and wild spaces. One need only look at the military budget to see that expanded activity and spending do not equal wisdom.
ADDENDUM: Several readers have asked us about Ms Thompson's comparison of Obama and Romney concerning renewable energy. Again, it appears that some sentences were deleted from the printed column showing that, except for Obama's stated support of and Romney's stated opposition to renewing the Production Tax Credit (which reduces a developer's taxes for 10 years by $22 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated and is scheduled to expire at the end of this year), there is in fact no substantial difference in energy policies between the two.
wind power, wind energy
September 29, 2012
Wind and U.S. Electricity Data, 2000-2011
Columns:
wind power capacity at end of year (MW) :
capacity added from previous year (MW) :
average capacity for year (MW) :
net generation (GW) :
capacity factor :
net generation from fossil fuels (GW)
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1_a
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01]
Note that fossil use has not decreased in relation to the increase of wind energy. Also note that if two-thirds of the cost of erecting wind turbines is covered by federal tax breaks and other subsidies (North American Windpower, June 2009; Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.), then at $1.5 million per megawatt, taxpayers cover $1 million of that. At the end of 2011, then, federal taxpayers had paid and were committed to paying $47 billion to wind developers. For no measurable benefit and a great deal of environmental and social harm.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
wind power capacity at end of year (MW) :
capacity added from previous year (MW) :
average capacity for year (MW) :
net generation (GW) :
capacity factor :
net generation from fossil fuels (GW)
2011 : 46,919 : 6,652 : 43,593 : 119,747 : .31 : 2,790,291 2010 : 40,267 : 5,404 : 37,565 : 94,652 : .29 : 2,883,361 2009 : 34,863 : 9,453 : 30,136.5 : 73,886 : .28 : 2,726,451 2008 : 25,410 : 8,503 : 21,158.5 : 55,363 : .30 : 2,926,731 2007 : 16,907 : 5,332 : 14,241 : 34,450 : .28 : 2,992,238 2006 : 11,575 : 2,428 : 10,361 : 26,589 : .29 : 2,885,295 2005 : 9,147 : 2,424 : 7,935 : 17,811 : .26 : 2,909,522 2004 : 6,723 : 373 : 6,536.5 : 14,144 : .25 : 2,824,798 2003 : 6,350 : 1,663 : 5,518.5 : 11,187 : .23 : 2,758,651 2002 : 4,687 : 455 : 4,459.5 : 10,354 : .27 : 2,730,167 2001 : 4,232 : 1,693 : 3,385.5 : 6,737 : .23 : 2,677,004 2000 : 2,539 : 65 : 2,505.5 : 5,593 : .25 : 2,692,479 1999 : 2,472Sources:
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1_a
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01]
Note that fossil use has not decreased in relation to the increase of wind energy. Also note that if two-thirds of the cost of erecting wind turbines is covered by federal tax breaks and other subsidies (North American Windpower, June 2009; Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, Financing Wind Power conference, Dec. 3-5, 2003, New York, N.Y.), then at $1.5 million per megawatt, taxpayers cover $1 million of that. At the end of 2011, then, federal taxpayers had paid and were committed to paying $47 billion to wind developers. For no measurable benefit and a great deal of environmental and social harm.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
September 27, 2012
There they go again
Benjamin Netanyahu used a cartoon at the U.N. General Assembly today to demonstrate the extent of Iran's nuclear program, a frightening parody of Colin Powell's cartoon presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, demonstrating Iraq's chemical weapons program.
[photo of Netanyahu by Chang W. Lee, The New York Times]
[photo of Netanyahu by Chang W. Lee, The New York Times]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)