Global Warming & Population

What a coup your article on global warming was. ("Greening The White House," OPEN EXCHANGE, January-March 2008.) No other media in the world has put together such a perfect article, just in time for the election.

The major cause of global warming [is] too many people being born. Only one candidate for President openly says that. Why? Because to say that implies support for abortion.

China is the only country in the world that has free legal, safe abortions, 100% available to any woman. In fact, they forbid women from having more than one child every 10 years. I support that law and think it should be the law in every country.
Your great article exposed Barak Obama as wanting to burn more coal and more nukes. Does anyone even notice his insane position? None of the Democrats, not Clinton nor Kucinich, openly supports real changes necessary to stop global warming. Same goes for the Republicans. Why? Because they are afraid of the "A" word. The Scarlet Letter strikes again.

Even in the Green Party, not one of the candidates ever says the "A" word in any speech. I was taken off the Green Party ballot for writing an article supporting a women's demonstration for abortion in Mexico. Why? Because, the Green Party said, "I was being racist for supporting the right to abortion in Mexico, because I am a white, male, American." I am sorry, but that logic escapes me.

If you want to protest this hiding from reality, write-in Paul Kangas for President. Better voting for a lesser evil: red, blue or Green.

To our knowledge Paul Kangas is the only presidential candidate who has linked global warming directly with overpopulation and abortion, two "third rail" issues in the environmental movement. Paul, your courage in speaking out widens the debate, which is precisely why third party candidates deserve better coverage than they typically receive in corporate-dominated media.

Peace & Freedom Coverage

Where's your coverage of socialist candidates?

While we didn't have space to cover every platform, we did devote about a fourth of our article to third parties, including the Libertarian Party and the Socialist Party (Imagine that debate on CBS!) Norma, when we visited your very informative Peace And Freedom website we found no mention of global warming, the specific focus of our editorial.

Norma Harrison Replies:

Thanks very much for your response. We need to do something about [the website], yesterday! You know, you can't have care of Earth or labor in capitalism, and the main thrust of our work [is] to end capitalism. Here are excerpts from our platform:

• International trade agreements must guarantee the protection of workers and the environment in all participating countries; abolish NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
• Promote conservation and develop solar and other renewables to replace nuclear power and fossil fuels.
• Massive development of public transportation available free or at nominal fares.
• Outlaw clear cutting and protect old-growth forests.
• Promote an environmentally sound agricultural system which meets human needs and protects farm workers' labor rights and standard of living.

Thanks for your timely follow-up, Norma. It should be clear by now that we are highly critical of corporate media for failing to give due coverage to third party candidates in the run-up to elections. But like it or not, the final choice—the pragmaticchoice—is usually between the two major parties. Is a third party "protest vote" wasted? Not necessarily. In the upcoming 2008 presidential election, however, Democrats and Republicans offer clear contrasts on the issues of war, healthcare, women's rights, and the environment. In a close race, how many of us want to risk playing "spoiler"?

What The Candidates Read

I'm a new candidate for the presidency. Thank you so much for your publication—I've been enjoying it for years.

Counting Chris, we know of at least three presidential candidates who read OPEN EXCHANGE regularly. We'd like the eventual winner to consider us for a new cabinet post, "Secretary of Transformation."

Solar Is Here Today!

Great article about the candidates' views on global warming. It's useful to see where they all stand. [However], you said that solar energy was not ready to replace fossil fuel power plants. I don't think this is true.

There are about seven companies that are involved with the design and building solar thermal power plants. They are operating in California, where we already have nine small plants running in the Mojave Desert. These were pilot projects built in the 80s and 90s. They put out 355 megawatts. A new 175 megawatt plant is to be built near San Luis Obispo. Two more are to be built in the Mojave Desert, at 400 and 500 megawatts. Others are under proposal and study by the utilities in California. Two of them are 800 and 900 megawatts at full approval.

1000 megawatts = 1 gigawatt. One gigawatt will power San Francisco. Hoover Dam puts out about two gigawatts. A medium size nuke puts out about two gigawatts. I'm pretty sure the solar is cheaper than building and dismantling nuclear plants. Totally safe, 100% clean energy with absolutely no fuel, ever. No fuel to transport, either.

One company, Ausra, is building a factory in Nevada to mass produce the components for these plants. From their website:

"Solar is one the most land-efficient sources of clean power we have, using a fraction of the area needed by hydro or wind projects of comparable output. All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."

And here is a proposal to convert the U.S. electric grid to 65% solar by 2050 and nearly 100% by 2100. From the January 2008 Scientific American, "Scientific America Solar Grand Plan,"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

This plan calls for spending about $400 billion total in public money over about 20 to 25 years. That's about 1/4 what we now give oil companies in subsidies or tax credits.

Estimates of the hidden costs of oil, including subsidies, is over $800 billion annually. Military cost to protect oil shipping is about $120 billion. Health costs, environmental costs, damage from pollution to buildings, etc., about $300 of our trade imbalance. And the war in Iraq.... When you add it all up, solar sounds cheap. Oil and gas companies now get over $80 billion a year in tax credits and subsidies. Exxon just reported $40 billion in 2007 profits. Once we have a clean electric grid, we can have all electric cars.

Bravo, Richard! We recommend you for Energy Secretary! The Scientific American article, which hit the stands after ours, convinced us of solar's feasibity with its ingenius solution for storing energy overnight and on cloudy days. We've summarized it for readers in this issue's Healthy Living News.

Fred Alan Wolf's Meta-Physics

"There seems to be the presence of something called Mind, or something outside of the physical world, which seems to be needed [to explain] reality...."

I find it amazing that scientists using all their methods of enquiry and observation and mathematical equations have come to the point Wolf mentions in the excerpt above, that a "Mind" or "non-material presence" is inescapable.

I am reminded of Einstein's famous quote that man trying to understand the universe is like an ant trying to understand the mind of God, or something to that effect.

Yes, we can be expert on dealing with tiny pieces of the whole, but just look at the world and see how we fail in having any conception of the inter-connectedness, how each of these pieces influences the others.