Sunday, February 21, 2010

Musings: True Costs

The day dawned dry, again, and when Koko and I, out for our morning walk, ran into my neighbor Andy, he said, “If this is the start of global warming, we’re in trouble here in Hawaii.”

That reminded me of an article sent around by Light Line News that noted, in reporting on the prospects of algae as a jet fuel source, that the U.S. military is the nation's single largest consumer of energy.

And that got me wondering, pond scum aside, could the solution to global warming be peace? If so, then we’re sunk, because that’s an even tougher sell than giving up your car for the bus.

As we watched, Waialeale started flushing lavender in the light of the rising sun, giving meaning to the lyrics “for purple mountains majesty,” which is not to imply that I accept Hawaii as a rightful part of America, and Andy pointed out the place where a tunnel, which we both had been through, connects the Wailua and Hanalei valleys.

Since it was built in 1924, it might have been constructed by the Japanese, or even the Filipinos, Andy said, because the Chinese had pretty much moved off the plantations by then and Hawaiians didn’t like to do that kind of work.

“Have you ever run across anything in your historical readings to indicate that perhaps Hawaiians were opposed to such work because they believed the mountains were sacred and shouldn’t have holes drilled in them?” I asked.

“Oh, Joan, where do you come up with these things?” he asked, and that led to a discussion about the deification of animate and inanimate objects, the ways in which the ancient Hawaiians altered their environment — and the rituals, prayers and chants that accompanied their interaction with it — pre-overthrow land redistribution, sovereignty vs. independence and the prominent role that venereal disease played in decimating the Hawaiian population by inhibiting births.

“Of course, if they hadn’t been so promiscuous, none of that would have happened,” said Andy, tongue planted in cheek.

“And since women contracted it from Cook’s crew and spread it to the rest of the population, we can once again blame women for all the ills of the world,” I added, as we parted company.

It was far too fine a day to go inside, so Koko and I headed down to the beach, where we were the first to walk upon fresh sand. The surf was high, but the tide was low, guaranteeing that I’d be able to take a swim.

As I sat facing the sea, to my left was a mosaic of white foam and green water and the reddish-brown of reef, while to my right, it was all blue shimmer and sparkle, as far as the eye could see, with spray blowing off the tops of silver-backed waves. Ahhhh. And not a person in sight.

Btw, did you know the name of the Iraq war has been officially changed from “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to “Operation New Dawn?” In a memo to Gen. David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote:

“Aligning the name change with the change of mission sends a strong signal that Operation Iraqi Freedom has ended and our forces are operating under a new mission.”

But as Democracy Now! observed:

Operation New Dawn shares the same name as the November 2004 US attack on Fallujah that killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians and displaced thousands more.

Do ya spose that duplication of names was just an oversight?

Call it what you will, it’s an occupation, and a dirty, deadly, debilitating one at that. As Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz noted in a Democracy Now! interview:

The fraction of those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that are coming back disabled is enormous. It’s now almost one out of two.

Wow, that's a lot of maimed young women and men. Wonder why we don’t hear much about those guys….

Just like you don’t hear much about how the world’s largest companies cause an estimated $2.2 trillion in environmental damage and would lose, poor tings, one third of their profits if they were held financially accountable, according to an unpublished study for the U.N. As the Guardian reports:

The report comes amid growing concern that no one is made to pay for most of the use, loss and damage of the environment, which is reaching crisis proportions in the form of pollution and the rapid loss of freshwater, fisheries and fertile soils.

Can it be that the world is finally waking up to how capitalism and the free enterprise system, as practiced in today’s world, works? You give billions of dollars in subsidies to the big polluters and allow them to ignore large portions of the true cost of the goods and services they provide so they can reap large profits.

The Guardian went on to report:

The true figure is likely to be even higher because the $2.2tn does not include damage caused by household and government consumption of goods and services, such as energy used to power appliances or waste; the "social impacts" such as the migration of people driven out of affected areas, or the long-term effects of any damage other than that from climate change. The final report will also include a higher total estimate which includes those long-term effects of problems such as toxic waste.

So what, then, do you suppose is the true cost of producing nuclear energy and making nuclear weapons, especially when you consider that, according to anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman, it’s been confirmed that 27 of the nation’s 104 nuclear plants are leaking tritium, which is another name for radioactive hydrogen, H3, which is also a very important accelerant in global thermonuclear weapons, which have been detonated throughout the world, and being hydrogen, it mixes easily with water, and we are 70 percent water and fully 80 percent of the molecular bonds in our bodies are hydrogen bonds….

As a friend noted: "Soooooo, we are kinda the Target of interest here."

But hey, what’s a little radiation/mutation among shareholders, I mean, friends?

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz noted in a Democracy Now! interview:

The fraction of those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that are coming back disabled is enormous. It’s now almost one out of two."

-- funny, when my brother was doing some contract work for these generals to get similar numbers and metrics on "clinical" casualties (ie, PTSD, psychological stuff) the number was about 10%, and 12% when measured 6 months out of rotation. i actually called and asked him about that ~ 50% number, and got a "no way." would be interesting to see where this stiglitz fellow got his info from, and how he is counting. he is saying 20 or 30% of soldiers coming back are "disabled" via physical wounds / ailments? mmmk

hope the nuk info theyre offering is more accurate


dwps

Anonymous said...

anonymous's anonymous brother on contact with pentagon for sure a more reliable source than nobel laureate.

Anonymous said...

The fraction of those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that are coming back disabled is enormous. It’s now almost one out of two.

Makes you wonder what definition of "disabled" their operating under.

Anonymous said...

http://www.defense.gov/NEWS/casualty.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

Dawson said...

While I have no source to confirm Stiglitz, the last source one should consider reliable for military casualties is the military.

Anonymous said...

Did you see the news that climate scientists have withdrawn their claims of rising sea levels? Amusingly, the authors aren't disclosing whether they overestimated or underestimated the rise of seas. They'd said 0.75 to 1.9 meters by 2100. The IPCC had said 18 to 59 centimeters. So, let's stay terrified.

Anonymous said...

"anonymous's anonymous brother on contact with pentagon for sure a more reliable source than nobel laureate."

- i'll put it differently: 1) my brother was doing this per an internal pentagon inquiry (they did not know these numbers, and wanted to get a handle on them for planning purposes)..the goal was to get as good a data set as was humanly possible; 2) i dont know what fields of data the noble guy was culling to get his numbers (heck, maybe the nobel guy had a better methodology, possible...but how would that be done better when on the "outside" and without all that "access"), and; 3) if i had to guess, the discrepancy is per a very wide nobel definition of "disability" and use of commonly accepted (?) statical thingys to bump up the numbers?

what also seems relevant (as i learned from him), and somewhat related, is that the casualty/KIA numbers are misleading....see, on the plus side - just "recently," modern field triage is SOOO good, that stuff that would have killed a guy a short while ago (say in Gulf 1) can be survived now, which is a very big part of why we dont have very many dead soldiers. however, this results in a much greater percentage of soldiers coming back and in need of serious medical treatment and other assistance...often for much of the rest of their life...and (a) military is scrambling to set this up (b) it represents huge sums of money and (c) this very well known future expense almost never is cited in the ~ "cost of war" estimates (the "final bill" aint all bullets and gas)

add the above to predator drone usage and our other machinery being so much better than what the soviets had, and the american KIA rate is a pretty crappy metric to measure to scope and intensity of the undertaking, or the "final bill" (assuming vets with hard-to-treat brain injury get the care they need over their lifetime, families cared for, etc)


dwps

Anonymous said...

The anarchists and their retarded hillbilly cousins, the neo-Luddites, both fail to understand a basic human truth:

People prefer MTV to leprosy.

Anonymous said...

From the Guardian:

Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehaviour. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.

Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.

Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.

What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don't want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.

The cite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science

Anonymous said...

dwps - "on the plus side - just "recently," modern field triage is SOOO good, that stuff that would have killed a guy a short while ago.

My that is a plus! Never before have we had so many young folks with brains turned to mush that will need lifelong care. Well done! Johnny got his gun and now his brains well done.

Anonymous said...

"Never before have we had so many young folks with brains turned to mush that will need lifelong care."

-- that is roughly my understanding yes, percentage-wise there are more lives being saved but more physical and mental trauma to the head, which is more expensive to care for than traditional injuries

otherwise, my impression was if DoD was just starting to get a handle on these numbers (this is about 1.5 yrs ago), then also the ~ "total financial cost of war" numbers dont properly account for the long term cost of care (which i assume will be offered, to some extent)


dwps

Anonymous said...

dwps diddles while Rome burns -

"otherwise, my impression was if DoD was just starting to get a handle on these numbers (this is about 1.5 yrs ago), then also the ~ "total financial cost of war" numbers dont properly account for the long term cost of care (which i assume will be offered, to some extent)"

My how reasonable (sounding) but tell me again why are we turning our children brains to mush in the first place? Let me guess! They volunteered?

Anonymous said...

My how reasonable (sounding) but tell me again why are we turning our children brains to mush in the first place? Let me guess! They volunteered?

how the young people got there? was a good option for them, in their view, i guess. would be interesting to know what percentage of them are west point etc, vs 19 yr old with little education / opportunities / money. id be all for a draft though; war would be differently managed if more rich kids are in there (?)

tho it seems you want a war justification, which i can make, but dont really feel like doing here/now, thanks

dwps

Anonymous said...

dwps - tho it seems you want a war justification, which i can make, but dont really feel like doing here/now, thanks

Thanks for your assurances that you CAN justify the war, but decline to do so here and now.

Please feel free to prattle on and slosh around in a sea of minutia in lieu of addressing any meta-questions obviously way above your pay-grade.