|
Bonus Joules and the Knowledge Economy
|
||||||
|
|
Renewable
Energy Mayhem
Click on any cartoon Chapter Five - Land of the Other- The Dangers of Renewable Energy.
Bonus Joules and the Knowledge Economy: All content on this site is copyright 2001 and you are free to use it with care.
Blog by Dave McArthur 10 Sept 2008 Add a new word to
the list to express being shafted, Rogered*, screwed, ripped off,
cheated, done over, extorted etc. People could well soon be complaining
about being ETSed. And watch our carbon emissions rise in the process. *Note: Overseas
readers should know that to be Rogered has an extra meaning in New
Zealand. The Right Honourable Sir Roger Douglas, our Finance Minister in
the 1980s, without pre-consultation with the New Zealand people,
instituted radical economic reforms with great zeal. Other nations
experienced similar reforms as Reagonomics
and Thatcherism. Here the reforms included the transfer of ownership of
hundreds of billions of dollars of national assets to a few merchant
bankers and overseas corporations in exchange for a few token payments.
To be Rogered is a polite term for the deep sense of betrayal and loss
that many New Zealanders experienced. In New Zealand
last week the Green Party here endorsed the ETSing of our nation and
humanity in general. In other words they agreed to commit the nation to
the Emissions Trading Strategy and effectively further impose
Rogernomics on us. The spin
merchants would have us believe that the ETS is about stewardship of our
climate. It is nothing of the sort and never has been since its genesis
in the murky psychopathology that is the likes of Enron,
Arthur Andersen and Co and those who would commodify anything, including
their parents and children, to make a quick buck. They did this to all
New Zealanders in 1998. Enron Online was
the actual mechanism they designed to enable mass trades of anything –
and that includes every use of carbon. Its essence is non-stewardship.
It is about maximising trades in carbon and this inevitably promotes the
inefficient uses of our carbon potential generally –as we have seen
with the “market driven” trading systems of both mineral oil and
Bulk-generated electricity. I have attempted
to point out to the leaders of NZ’s Green Party (and Greenpeace, the
NZAEE, Climate Defence Coalitions, Consumer groups et al) the folly of
their ways for several years now. In brief and most fundamentally I
pointed out the lack of science underpinning their policies. In general,
it is fair to say their responses lacked science and that their
endorsement of the ETS is an accurate reflection of the lack of science
in their lifestyles – lifestyles in which their walk is in great
dissonance with their talk. In particular if every person in the world
adopted the model provided by our Parliamentarian’s life style then
all the systems supporting our global civilisation would collapse in
that instant. The Green Party
decision means our education system is ETSed now too. It will be
impossible to communicate concepts of personal stewardship to our young
people now without having to mount a comprehensive attack on our
National policy. Judging from their uncritical acceptance of the closely
related ethos, the NZ
Electricity Reforms, very few teachers will question the ETS. I summed
up the situation for Environmental Educators this week on their national
forum EElist thus: “The reason I thought Environmental Educators would be at the forefront of the debate is that the ETS decision goes to the heart of Environmental Education, which supposedly is about promoting civics and stewardship. In this particular case we have a clear choice of decision as Carbon Beings:
We accept our roles as stewards. We say, “ I am responsible for
how I use carbon in all its forms. It is my civic duty to use carbon in
ways that sustain the balances and flows of carbon transformation that
enable my life and the lives of our children’s children. Hence I value
carbon forms and will promote national taxes so market prices reflect
those values.” We deny/reject our roles as stewards. We say, “I am not responsible for how I use carbon in all
its forms. I believe The (Carbon) Market determines the ways I use
carbon and I believe that it will sustain the balances and flows of
carbon transformation that enable my life and the lives of our children.
Hence I hereby cede my civic rights and my nation’s sovereignty to the
entity, which is the global Carbon Market. It will value carbon forms
and I and my fellow human beings will live by the prices it decides.” I suspect this
statement was not really welcome because it makes educators, especially
Environmental Educators, confront the unsustainable elements of their
own lifestyle. In the event there was not a single response. Lest they
were opting for the Green Movements general excuse “ oh well, any
legislation is better than no legislation” I reminded people: “The
argument that the ETS is better than nothing is plain arrogant. It
ignores the fact that many humble folk are already living lives that
reflect their relatively high valuation of carbon resources and the ETS
actively punishes them for not using cars, jets, McMansions etc. It is
also flawed because the ETS diminishes stewardship and disempowers
people, which is a loss situation, a less than zero situation. And
serious evidence is accumulating now that the ETS increases
carbon emissions.” My
popularity among NZ Environmental Educators was probably further
diminished when I pointed out that Enviroschools, the dominant
national Environmental Education resource, had its genesis in the murky
world of Enron too. In the past I have attempted the thankless and
daunting task of explaining how this education resource is superbly
designed to serve the interests of the Ken Lays of this world and works
directly against the objectives of the very well-meaning but perhaps
naive educators who designed the resource. They have been exploited just
as surely as Ken Lay et al exploited Greenpeace, the Environmental
Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, James
Hanson (one of Enron’s “consultants”) and other such groups. Now I have been
aware of the unsavoury history of carbon trading for a decade now. In my
blogs I have detailed my experiences working in the Enronian environment
created here in New Zealand by the Electricity Reforms of the 1990s. The
NZ media is a sick parody of journalism and it was not until the advent
of SCOOP News this century that people like myself have had a voice at
all. In general journalists dished, distorted and mostly dismissed our
accounts. When the US books and movies came out exposing the profound
corruption at the heart of the Enron ethos it was such a blessed relief.
I, for one, had been thoroughly trashed and even had my sanity
questioned for trying to tell the NZ Enron story in the 1990s. I grabbed
every American book and movie on the Enron subject I could find and
clung to it like a lifeline amidst the ocean of derision and dismissal
that I experienced. I knew all about the origins of carbon trading but
poverty meant I could only borrow the exposes of its history. So I had
no handy references. This week I did a Google search on Enron and was delighted to find some of the references I needed on line. Top of the search list was Investigate Magazine, a New Zealand magazine I don’t normally read. The article is fundamentally flawed in that it confuses the issue of Enron’s abuse, manipulation and callous levering off of those with a reputation as “environmental carers” with the issue of science (or lack of) underpinning our use of our carbon potential. The fact that psychopaths are able to exploit the naïve does not alter the reality of the impacts of human activities on vital climate balances. It simply means this reality is further obscured and our ignorance puts us at greater risk. Thus the Investigate article is unhelpful. With this caveat in mind the Investigate article is valuable because it provides links to online accounts that reveal the vicious politics underpinning the carbon-trading ethos. One of the more helpful links is the Colombia Tribune link, which details detailing a few of the relationships that Enron established with “environmental” groups so it could better exploit them. The accounts are consistent with the deep research I have read of Enron practices. It is also consistent with my experience of the New Zealand version of Enron – TransAlta/OnEnergy. As I have
explained else where it is no mistake this structure, the largest
“energy trader” in New Zealand collapsed within weeks of the
collapse of the Enron in 2001. It had the same architects (Arthur
Andersen and Co) and I witnessed how it manipulated our media, city
councils, community trusts (e.g. the Hutt Mana Energy Trust and the
Karori Wildlife Reserve) while systematically destroying a range of
education programmes that promoted wise uses of our electrical and
carbon potential. If people wish to
see carbon trading in action then watch the traders gaming California
negawatts trading scheme in the documentary movie “Enron – the
Smartest Guys in the Room.” Watch
as they threaten the lives of millions of people and know this is how
much they care about our vital carbon balances. The endorsement
of the Emissions Trading Scheme by the New Zealand Green Party last week
is another step in this Enronian process. It sustains New Zealand’s
role as the nation that is the world’s most influential agent
promoting carbon trading. My analysis of NZ Green Party speeches and
media statements over the last few years had led me to the conclusion
that its leaders would end up for opting for Carbon Trading rather than
Carbon Taxes – and they have. As I wrote in
a forum posting last week: “The Green Party plays a critical role because it is highly
influential among the 15% or so of the population who are mainly middle
class, who destroy about 60 barrels of mineral oil each day per 1000
people and who are looking for guidance on how to live sustainably. This
group is often identified as the “change leaders” that enable the
50-60% who are “change passive” to alter their behaviour and thus
societies adapt (or fail to adapt). This drags the “change
resistant” minority along. The Green Party caucus has signalled very clearly to the “change
leaders”– Its OK folks – Carry on as Usual – the Market will
provide for your children. I did hear the co-leader of the NZ Green
Party, Jeanette Fitszimons, attempting to say otherwise but it is clear
she is unaware of the fact that we are Mirror Beings – our brains are
wired with networks of mirror neurons that cause us to respond to what
is, not what is said. What matters is the walk, not the talk.
Our neural networks now register the reality that the Green Party
formally dances to the ETS tune now. And we can be sure the media will
amplify this reality in the popular mind. The Green Party has supported the ETS informally for quite a period
now, even when Party leaders were saying they opposed it. Jeanette
reacted quite sharply and objected to Mary Wilson’s suggestion on
Checkpoint NZ Radio National on ETS DAY (Tuesday) that “We always all
knew that the Green Party was going to support the Emissions Trading
Scheme…” Mary reflected the insights of many. I knew it was almost a certainty after the 2006 budget in which the
Green Party caucus negotiated tens of millions of dollars towards the
entrenchment of the Enviroschools ethos into our education
system. Longer-term SEF members will recall how I have provided the
forum with a detailed exposition of how Enviroschools had its
genesis in the psychopathic world of Arthur Andersen and Co and the
Enronian trading ethos. That is why it was designed without substantive
reference to the role carbon plays in our lives and fails to provide a
coherent vision of our roles as stewards of carbon flows and balances.
This means it accurately reflects Parliament’s fundamental ethos and
funding for it occurs. I am aware the resource is being reviewed. However to my knowledge
it still is unable to communicate a comprehensive vision of humans as
Carbon Beings and at this point in time a recent survey I did of NZ’s
leading Environmental Educators has provided no evidence of such a
vision. I have very good reason to believe the Green Party caucus believes
that Carbon Tax ethos is the way to go but their lifestyles as
Parliamentarians are very much in dissonance with the concepts of
stewardship implicit in the ethos. This dissonance has consistently been
reflected in the symbols used in their media statements and the vote
reflects the Parliamentarian walk. The ETS ethos was very apparent in an address Jeanette gave to the
Methodist national conference at the Wesley Church in Wellington a year
or so back. What was interesting is that the congregation was in
sympathy with her for most of her sermon but belief systems diverged
sharply at the point at which she started talking about carbon trading
mechanisms as a solution. The audience turned off in a most palpable
way. One of the first questions afterwards asked her if the concept of
“carbon offsetting” is just a way of our justifying our continuance
with unsustainable uses of carbon and I sensed the congregation felt
that Jeanette was unable to provide a convincing case that this is not
so.” Always I have
continued to hope against hope that the Green Party membership might
somehow dissuade its caucus from this disastrous course. It is
disastrous as it represents another major step towards a catastrophic
world war and because it means we now have no political party that
espouses the values of stewardship, sovereignty and equity any more in
New Zealand. All promote the psychology of denial inherent in the ethos
that says, “The Market will provide our solutions”. Which I am
annoyed about as it has been very convenient for me to give the Green
Party my vote these last several elections. I now have to work at the
best way of voting so as to ensure the elimination of dangerous
warmongering policies such as the ETS and KiwiSaver. I far prefer to
vote for positive sustaining options. It will be interesting to see how
fast the implications of the Green Party’s action sinks in and where
homeless votes like mine will go. The country has
been eerily quiet about the Green Party decision to endorse the
Emissions Trading Strategy. This has been little celebration of the act,
or even any real debate or reflection in the media considering the
momentous implications of the commitment to carbon trading. The media
has allowed itself to be distracted into a vast hypocritical hyperstate
of indignation about the NZ First Party funding and is blinded to the
critical issues
by the froth whipped up by its own feeding frenzy. I have
experienced this sensation before over the decades, usually after
elections. It is the silence of a nation that cannot look itself in the
mirror for it knows in its heart that the decision that has just been
made is an ugly one in which self interest and confusion prevailed over
truth and love. It is the silence of the young child that has crapped in
their pants and hopes that by keeping quiet no one will notice what has
happened. It is the silence of the parent who has come home to a hungry
family, having just blown the weeks income gambling or at the pub. It is
the silence of the sensitive person who has just killed another creature
and is disorientated and vaguely sick in the stomach at the decision. It
is not healthy silence. Already the
excuses are starting to flow and I hope to find time to post a web page
providing people with the truth. It will go something like this: Excuse
“We had to do it because the concept of political carbon taxes was
politically dead”. Truth:
We voted for what we really believed in and what we actually do. Reality: Millions of people acting as individuals, communities and states are instituting a wide range of carbon taxes. ************** Excuse
“It was a caucus decision and does not necessarily reflect the party
position”. Truth:
The Green Party voted to commit New Zealand to the Carbon Trading ethos. Reality: The Green Party has been incapable of debating the fuller issues of the impacts of the ETS on education, sovereignty and social equity and currently lacks science. In that it is no different to any other NZ parliamentary party. ************** Excuse
“There is no alternative”. Truth:
Remember Roger's TINA? The same was said of the sale of New Zealand’s national assets at
fire-sale rates and those who declare war on other peoples almost always say
it. Reality: There is always an alternative as long as compassion prevails. Enabling the alternative often involves much pain, including loneliness, social rejection and conflict with peers. ************** Excuse
“We had to do it so that if National gets in the legislation will
pre-empt their attempts to undermine attempts to reduce our stewardship
of carbon emissions.” Truth:
We voted for the ETS because deep down we approve of the strategy and
wanted to enshrine it in legislation. In practice National’s decisions
pre-empts our decisions and we are just reacting to the Fart Tax
campaign etc. Reality: The ETS works to destroy stewardship at every level. The Green Party’s endorsement of this unsustainable framework actually enhances the ability of future Government’s to reduce our national sovereignty, equity and general stewardship still further. ************** Excuse
“The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment endorses carbon
trading and the ETS.” Truth:
I ‘d really rather someone else make this decision for me. I’d
rather outsource or offset responsibility to some authority.” Reality: The
appointments of staff to this office tend to reflect the beliefs of the
Government of the day. All the Governments since the inception of the
PCE office have strongly endorsed “market driven” solutions and
policies and have favoured large multinational corporations. At the same
time they have actively suppressed the potential for community-driven
solutions and policies and have disenfranchised individuals. ************** Excuse:
“Anything is better than nothing”. Truth:
Personal stewardship of carbon use reflected in civic carbon tax
structures amounts to nothing. Reality:
The statement reflects great ignorance/arrogance. Many individuals place
a far higher value on carbon forms than the market price and work hard
to conserve valuable carbon forms. Without their presence Homo sapiens
would experience instant and catastrophic warfare. ************** I hope you get
the picture and it helps you see through all the sophisticated
rationales people will use to justify their failure to act as stewards.
I described the decision as disastrous. That understates the grave
consequences of the decision. It compounds our parlous position now in
which global warfare is imminent because of our abuse of our carbon
potential. Deep in the
mists of my early blogs are predictions that the US economy would
implode because of its wasteful use of mineral oil and gas. In brief, I
pointed out that a people that say mineral oil is energy and create
credit system based on this belief, valuing its energy capacity at the
equivalent of 0.04 cents per man-hour of labour is doomed to know
immense misery. As I write this sentence the credit systems have just lurched and
crumpled on a seismic scale yet again. In this moment as I write the radio news is
stating that the US Government is to bail out Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae
to the tune of $US5.3 trillion dollars. The headline should really be
that the money traders have just received guarantee of a subsidy of five
trillion dollars so they can maintain their jetsetting lifestyle at the
expense of public services like hospitals, schools, mass transit systems
etc. The bailout of
the money traders is also effectively a subsidy for the military
industrial sector for it diverts vital funds into unsustainable uses of
mineral oil, thereby hastening the conflict over and the destruction of
this wonderfully valuable resource. This in turn increases the risk of a
catastrophic collapse of our world food, health and transport systems.
It will also result in increased carbon emissions. Within days of
the NZ Green Party decision to endorse the Carbon Trading ethos I
experienced more examples of the derelict nature of our New Zealand
ethos. I presented a
personal submission to hearings being held by Wellington region councils
on our transport system. Initially I was told there was no record of a
submission from me and I had missed the hearings. However I had taken a
copy of my submission on their website and suggested that as it was
their mistake then a special hearing should be held for me. To my
surprise this occurred and I went through the formality of making a
personal submission in which I spelled out why any further investment in
motorways is a declaration of war on our children and the focus must now
be on creating a smart light rail system if Wellington city is to remain
competitive. At one point I
looked up to find some members of the panel enjoying some joke among
themselves and I refrained from walking out. At the end neither the two
councillors nor Mayors Kerry Prendergast and Jenny Brash nor the Chair
of the Regional Council, Fran Wilde, had a question to ask. Indeed the
only member who asked a question was Wayne McDonald of the NZ Transport
Agency, which was to the effect: “Could you make your submission
pertinent to the corridor proposal.” I doubt I could
have spelled out my case more clearly without splicing it with strings
of vivid and violent expletives. Others who have read my
transport submission have commented that “it goes directly to the heart of the
matter.” I could only assume he had been too busy enjoying the joke to
hear my message. The lack of
substantive questions confirmed my feeling I was operating in a vacuum
of knowledge. Panel members clearly think it is our God-given right to
destroy remaining easily accessed mineral oil reserves in the next
decade and I came away sure in the knowledge they would recommend
building more motorways. I did elicit indications of agreement when I
said there is no way the proposed motorway flyover, for instance, would
built if we were at war. However I don’t think members really accepted
the thought that conserving vital resources as we do in times of major
warfare can
also prevent war. All in all I
walked out feeling a bit hollow and dispirited. Its funny though how
small things matter longer term. I find myself remaining mindful and
grateful that the Chair, Fran Wilde was kind and accorded me respect.
It was an equally
hollow experience giving a
submission
to the hearings being held by our regional councils on the
application of one of New Zealand’s Bulk-gen electricity companies.
Meridian Energy plans to construct a conglomerate of very large wind
turbines near Wellington city. Again I spelled out how and why humanity
is close to experiencing a catastrophic world war in which billions
perish. I explained why and how New Zealand can provide the world with a
model of sustainable uses of our electrical potential, how the wise of
use of our electrical and solar potentials are the main means of
averting this horrific event. I spelled out why
the recent confluence of electrical technologies had such potency for
peace and argued that we should implement a moratorium on proposals such
as Meridian Energy project until the current serious obstacles
preventing communities from making intelligent use of their electrical
potential are removed. I also pointed out that the current lack of
national planning meant our landscape could become one large military
industrial complex of giant wind turbines. I was being mindful of how
already New Zealanders are paying dearly to subsidise Comalco’s large
aluminium smelter, most of whose product goes to make polluting
combustion machines such as cars and other devices of war. This time not one
member of the panel had a question to ask though the Chair did comment
that I had kept my promise to provide them with the big picture. Again it was easy
to experience that hollow feeling of operating in a spiritual vacuum. It
would be a very brave act for the panel to call for a moratorium and
admit they are impotent in the current framework. I hope against hope
they enjoy such courage. After the hearing
I had an hour to fill before a lecture and thought I would go to the
Rita Angus exhibition at the nearby Te Papa. The unquestioning commissioners
had left me hanging in a vacuum. Also I am not used to talking into a
microphone and hearing my voice booming back at me through amplifier
systems. It creates a sense of a strange artificial loop in my head and
it is hard to feel I am part of a real conversation. I needed
grounding, spiritual sustenance after experiencing two weeks of mean,
miserable visions of the nature of energy and I knew Rita Angus enjoyed
a potent and vibrant vision of its nature. Well, I walked
into yet another squalid vision of the nature of energy. I discovered Te Papa is featuring an exhibition of art works
framed as “ Moving towards a Balanced Earth -Kick the Carbon Habit”.
I watched families reading the propaganda detailing how the exhibit is
Government and MfE sponsored and how it is “carbon neutral” and how
“
120 trees will be planted to offset the carbon emissions for the
New Zealand venue, through carbon-offset credits from the CarbonFund…”
As I observed the visitors to Te Papa soaking up this ethos I realised
just how insidious the Spin promoting the denial of stewardship in us is
and how morally bankrupt our Government structures are now. Rita revitalised me but the lecture afterwards worked to devitalise me. A range of Government Departments including the NZ Treasury had sponsored the destruction of yet more barrels of mineral oil bringing Dr Roberto Roson from Italy to tell us here in about using economic modelling to examine the consequences of climate change. In brief, the modelling was based on
2001 data –including, I established afterwards, International Energy
Agency data. It is helpful to be aware that IEA projections have
traditionally been based on mere wish fulfilment and are no reflection
of the limited nature of mineral oil/gas reserves. IEA projections have been
based on faith in the market to supply solutions - supply will somehow
miraculously expand to match market demand. Roberto’s modelling
suggests climate change could reduce the global Real GDP by up to 0.10%
by 2050 and “one would be better off living in Holland than in
Bangladesh”. Perhaps I did not ask my question clearly enough when I
asked if it would be more useful to focus on the impact of mineral oil
use on GDP. Roberto answered they could alter the oil or “energy”
factors in their model but his response did not satisfy me. This is because
the reality is that the immediate feedback between mineral oil prices
and our use of biomass is so very rapid and enormous, as we have seen with
the move to bio-fuels for cars. It has promoted the use of massive
mono-cultural farming techniques that destroy vital forests and soil
balances. Poorer countries are reverting to wood-based cooking as
mineral oil prices become prohibitive. There was not time to point out
to Roberto that the above-mentioned Bangladesh is now suddenly close to
famine as the global food growing potential is increasingly used to fuel
cars. Roberto’s
research is displayed on a graph that was required to show maximal
variations of O.1% with US-EU-EEFSU variation under 0.02% of GDP. I suspect it will
require a very deep graph to illustrate the drop in global GDP if we
attempt to persist with current mineral oil/gas policies till 2050. I
left the lecture wondering if anyone is modeling how much negative
impact the Climate Change industry is having on vital carbon balances. The insanity in
New Zealand is being mirrored in the US election campaign. No one in the
media seems to be looking at the central issue. I have considerable respect for the
work of the prominent cognitive linguist, George Lakoff. However I found his
commentary his commentary on the US elections, like all our media,
missed the point. So last week I posted the following thought on the
Sustainable Energy Forum in New Zealand:
Hi SEF This week George Lakoff, renowned cognitive linguist, published this
article:
The
initial Democratic response to Palin indicates that many Democrats have
not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years. “This election matters because of realities -- the realities of global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on and on. Such realities are what make this election so very crucial, and how to deal with them is the substance of the Democratic platform. Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview…” http://www.alternet.org/elecon08/97193/?page=entire George then goes on to define that view as reflecting the world view
of “the conservatives”, as summed up in his statement- “ she
(Sarah Palin) is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue” i.e. is
anti-abortion, denies the scientific truths of global warming and
evolution etc. His use of the conservative symbol is probably very
unhelpful for reasons I wont venture into now Now I largely agree with George’s statement in another
article last month: “Approximately
2 percent of the millions of pieces of information the brain absorbs
every minute are processed consciously. The remaining 98 percent are
handled by the unconscious brain. The mind, in other words, is like a
tiny island of conscious reasoning afloat in a vast sea of automatic
processes. In that sea, which Lakoff calls "the cognitive
unconscious," most people's ideas about morality and politics are
formed. We are all, in many respects, strangers to ourselves.” http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i49/49b00601.htm However I go further and suggest the conscious element of
information processing is a trace element of our being of the order of
0.0001% or less. And this is what gives the Sustainability Principle of
Energy its potency as a guide to our behavioural drivers. So I applied
it to the US elections. The principle resource enabling the economics of constant expansion
of population, consumption and credit this last century in the US has
been the people’s access to extremely cheap mineral oil/gas. Almost
all its institutions and infrastructure are founded in the symbol or
equation “ Energy =Mineral oil/gas”. This, of course, is a complete
denial of the Conservation Principle of Energy and the denial of reality
is the hallmark of addictive behaviour. Below is the brief summary of the insights the Sustainability
Principle affords us of the potential impacts of the selection of Sarah
Palin for potential vice presidency of the US. All the best Dave The
Sustainability Principle of
Energy “When a
symbol use works to deny change it will materially alter the potential
of the universe (energy) in a way that results in a reduction in the
capacity of the symbol user to mirror reality. When a symbol use works
for the acceptance of change it will increase the capacity of the symbol
user to mirror reality.”
3 Sept Hi George and all You wrote “ But the Palin nomination is… about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind -- the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes.” Correct but your article fails to provide insight. It is our walk, not our talk that matters. The US destroys about 68 barrels of mineral oil a day/1000 people. (My country, New Zealand destroys 38 barrels; most nations destroy 3-4 barrels or less per 1000 people.) Like New Zealand, the US culture and credit system is shaped by our addictive uses of this precious and very finite resource. We fail to conserve it.
In this context we are non-conservatives and we live in fear that the object of our addiction will be taken from us. This fear dominates our responses, in the USA case, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian and Constitutional non-conservative alike. So as mineral oil prices rose and credit systems collapsed this year people responded with unease and Barack Obama’s call for change (any change) resonated. Now mineral oil prices are dropping, credit systems have been temporarily propped up and the addictive behaviour again feels sustainable.
All non-conservatives of mineral oil are relieved to have the status quo and we see this in the swings towards John McCain – and Sarah Palin, for she symbolises the “great untapped mineral oil resource of Alaska” in the minds of non-conservatives. She reflects the reality of even those that profess to oppose mining Alaska for she reflects the reality of their addictive use of mineral oil. In this context the McCain-Palin ticket cannot fail because it shapes the reality of whoever becomes president. The majority voted for it at the “gas pump”. Footnote: Your association of the “global warming” and “conservative” symbols with malevolence suggests it is probable that you too are a non-conservative of mineral oil, George. Your uses of the symbols suggest a considerable denial of change/stewardship. More at http://tinyurl.com/6xqwww In kindness Dave
McArthur www.bonusjoules.co.nz The cartoon that accompanies this blog was first published in 2001 and it is sheer coincidence that it accompanies this 2008 blog. It is the epitome of the insanity I have written of in this blog. Genesis Energy, a Bulk-gen electricity company in New Zealand created an Internet education resource for our children, which includes an interactive model of a water-driven turbine. No matter how fast you drained the lake its level never changed, yet no cloud ever passed by to refill the lake. It is incomplete breach of the Conservation Principle of Energy and it a classic example of human’s capacity to deny change/stewardship. The cartoon strip was part of my campaign to expose this Greenwash and Spin. Eventually the resource was removed from the web because, to quote a Genesis Energy manager “ It was not working”.
|
|
||||
