> too engrossed in watching the election returns!
As we probably all were.
Republicans did real well.
I am not surprised. Saddened. But not surprised.
It isn't magic nor is even that Bush was that charming.
Rather, the low density base grows.
In 1960, 60 percent of the population lived in small towns and
cities. That was your DFL base. The Republicans lived in the emerging
Now, 60% live in the burbs. And that number grows.
But it has its limits. That is why the economy fritters with
stagnation, as the intense, 10 trillion dollar subsidies of free
roads continuely looks for economic opportunity. Even now, people
don't drive not because of cost but wait. Gridlock is the price of
this transport--much like the lines for bread in the former Soviet
Union. Politicians are for sale, as certainly they were in this
election--because there is something basic to sell . . . like a war
for oil. A billion dollars spent in places like South Dakota . . .
But this shift in population is also why this Republican political
expansion is as short sighted as their energy and envioronmental
policy--and specific to my concern, to a living earth. And that is
why at the end of the day I would rather be right and teaching it
then wrong and belonging. My cup runneth over no matter how a long
commuter in South Dakota votes.
I have been posting on climate here and elsewhere for about 5 years
and as the politics change my message really has not yet it has
stayed on the cutting edge. And I am also convinced it will be there
for decades. Truth has a way. Already Texico has run ads about
a 'new' fuel that is not gas/oil in the Gulf of Mexico. What is this
fuel? Methane from hydrates, of course. The climate implications of
harvesting them will be enormous there. My view is what we are
discussing, debating, about the sun and the biosphere's role in
modulation, and to what degree and to what degree human activity
interacts with this dynamic is SO far ahead of the curve that it
isn't even in the scientific periodicals--but it will be. CO2 as a
GHG is a loser, but Gaia in the context of cloud behavior, EMFs, is
not, because it gets to the causal aspects of climate. It suffers
from complexity, is about all. That is where education comes in.
By 2009 Three Gorge will be filling and the climate implications of
that are going to be impossible to ignore. By then we will have a
visit to Hubbert's Peak, and I think the science of clouds will grow
to the point that when we as a general public look back at this
election, we will be very saddened collectively.