Ethanol: A Sustainable Solution?

The debate between Big Oil and environmentalists has finally begun to push the pendulum in the other direction… or has it? Looking back at our dependence on foreign oil, it’s interesting that we, yes we, are currently making the oil companies record profits while simultaneously paying record prices for fuel. After OPEC decided it was going to have more of a say in pricing of oil being sold overseas there was practically a rationing of gasoline in the west. Long lines of cars waited, hoping to make it before the stations ran empty. One of the prevailing themes of this scene was the size of the vehicles at that time. They were huge! Take a look at a ’78 Oldsmobile or GMC truck. It’s no wonder they were referred to as “boats.”

All of that began to change in 1978 under the Carter administration. While American manufactures continued rolling out gas guzzlers the Japanese introduced the Honda Civic, at that time, quite a small automobile. They weren’t even taken seriously at first. Some of the Europeans began exporting diesel engines a less than great solution at the time. Originally an environmentally sound concept, diesel had changed from its original purpose of being a safer alternative to carbon fuels.

By 1985, Americans had decreased their imports of foreign oil by 87 percent. Some argue that had we remained in that direction, we would have fully shed our addiction to foreign oil. The following year, fuel standards began diminishing and within five years, we engaged in our first major oil war in the Gulf under the auspice of “protecting Kuwait from Saddam Hussein”, our former ally, or in the words of the CIA, “our kind of guy.” A few years earlier, we had given him stockpiles of biological weapons to use at his disposal against his opposition− a crime that would later bring about his demise.

Since that time, even Bush has admitted our “addiction to oil” is a problem, although it’s obvious he doesn’t fully comprehend the extent of the quandary we’ve allowed ourselves to get into. The fact that America is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world and still relies on fossil fuel to power its energy supply boarders on criminal, not only because we continue to use fuels that are slowly killing the very environment that we depend on, but that we still oppose measures designed to increase our energy sustainability.

For a while, the talk of using hydrogen cells to power our vehicles was something the Bush administration blabbed about. The problem, of course, is converting fuel stations that can actually provide the necessary equipment needed to refuel. It was a safe option as it would not effect the petroleum industry for many years. If that was not the intent the let’s be honest: to leave this out of the equation is something that would require a level of stupidity beyond even our leadership. Yet, most people failed to question it and applauded Bush’s lip service to the semi-concerned but uninformed populace.

Next came the obvious: using our already abundant renewable energy sources to power our industries. Scientists basically struck out on their own and developed wind power− not exactly a new strategy rather, a reevaluation of past wisdom, as can been seen throughout the old, abandoned farms which dot the northwest. In an effort to put the American farmer back in business, the use of corn in the form of ethanol has increased by triple digits in just a couple of years. The Europeans are using methane from waste plants− perhaps not quite profitable enough for American industries at this point, despite the fact that we produce more of it than any other country. Biodiesel, is a similar proposition and is gaining a larger following all the time. I read that Seattle actually has biodiesel co-ops.

Many of the same idiots in Congress continuing their call for oil companies to begin drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the wildlife refuge in northeast Alaska. The proponents of this action claim that it would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What they fail to unveil is the fact that the oil currently being pumped out of the ground in Alaska is primarily sold not to the lower 48 but to Asia. Not only that, the oil is not ours as they’d like us to believe, no more than the lumber sold by Weyerhaeuser is ours, despite the fact that these operations are take place on public lands. They, the oil companies, sell it to us− the same oil companies who sell us oil from Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. The oil belongs to them. If they’re allowed to drill in ANWR, they will continue selling it on the Asian market while shipping us oil imported from the middle east. To do otherwise would reduce profits, something the likes of Exxon and British Petroleum are not interested in.

When I was watching some of the debate on this, Sen. Ted Stevens held up a blank-white presentation board and said “this is what ANWR looks like nine months out of the year.” If that were the case, the tribes that live in the area who depend on the caribou for their sustenance would have settled elsewhere as they have indeed disputed, though rarely reported on. The 1600 mile trek made by the carabou is actually the longest of its kind and ends in the very spot where the Stevens Gang wants to drill. The fact is, not only is there an abundance of wildlife, unseen in the continental United States since the dawn of industrialization, it’s also on the coastline making obvious the threat it would impose on the fish habitat and the people who depend on it. What’s interesting is that Bush, Sr. pushed for overturning it protected status from drilling into ANWR in 1988. Case in point: just prior to the Exxon Valdese spill occurred, something fisherman were promised would never happen. It has had irreversible effects on Prince William Sound; 19 years later, oil residue can still be found a few inches below the surface of the beaches and the herring have failed to be revived along with the animals higher up on the food chain that relied on them. Furthermore, 90 percent of the area boarding ANWR has already been exposed to drilling; to consider a small operation going up next door is absurd.

So, while government and oil companies continue to place profit over people, pushing to open up ANWR to drilling, the debate has still failed to seriously address increasing fuel efficiency issue. Clinton and Bush both refused the Kyoto Protocol. Former House Speaker, Trent Lott stood up in front of the chamber and said he opposed the government limiting choice, forcing people to drive the “Purple-People-Eater.” Holding up a picture of a purple Smart Car, he even said he saw people pick them up and move them into parking spots. Well, first off, they’re not something a person could pick up, so that was an outright lie. Secondly, government regulations on fuel efficiency would not equate to being forced into driving Smart Cars. In fact, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, and even Ford, have introduced cars that would make the efficiency cut. People say they’re worried about jobs. Fine. Start offering tax incentives to alternative, sustainable fuel industries and train people to be employed in them.

Both the Japanese and Europeans, who pay twice as much for petrol than Americans, are driving BMWs and minivans that require half the fuel as those in the States. In fact, I first saw a Smart Car when I came to Japan, three years ago. What I also found is an incredible public transportation system. There’s no reason to drive from Kobe to Osaka when taking the train is cheaper and twice as fast. There’s also a prevailing misconception that in Japan, cars have to be scrapped at 30k miles. The truth of the matter is that not many Japanese want to be seen driving cars more than a few years old− it’s about status. It’s also about economics. Acquiring a driver’s license costs an average of 300,000¥ ($3000) and annual vehicle inspections can cost more than the value of the car after a while. Further, the cost of storing an automobile, be it in a garage or private lot (street parking is extremely rare) may run hundreds of dollars per month; if a person has a driveway or garage, chances are, they’re loaded to begin with. So cars being limited to 30k is a myth. There are plenty of other disincentives to drive, however.

There has also been growing murmurs about the amount of energy necessary to produce ethanol and about it’s effect on the price of corn. One of the less than optimistic developments is the players entering the alternative fuel industry, such as British Petroleum and the big agro companies that have established records of apathy toward the environment and the independent farmer. There are also ethanol operations run by these same players which are contributing to the devastation of the ever disappearing rainforests.

Will we find a means by which governments will support a sustainable solution to our current energy/environmental crisis? It’s a serious question in light of the number idiots still denying the fact that global warming is being accelerated by our presence, a claim that has not held water in a single peer reviewed scientific journal to date. Now that private interests have finally managed to slither into the alternative fuel market, companies and their pawns in Congress are talking about our addiction to oil. Missing from the conversation, however, remains an abjection to fuel efficiency. Why? It goes back to the bottom line: profit.

Again and again, government and industry have demonstrated their primary concern revolves around money. Destroying the creation of Allah, the very entity humankind has been made not an owner but vicegerent of, responsible for its preservation, is not a concern. Public health is not a concern. Even the fact that environmentally sound options exist does not concern them. They are completely apathetic, unless they can turn a profit. If alternative fuel is deemed a competitor, they will not relent until either they eliminate the competition or control it and until our representatives acknowledge this fact, the incentive for sustainability will continue to lay at the mercy of short term gains.

To answer the question: “Is ethanol enough?” I, for one have to respond in the negative. Unless we combine alternative fuels with improved efficiency standards, we will not be in the much needed position to reverse the effects of our own negligence. If we’re using rainforest derived ethanol and increasing our pesticide usage for greater yields of corn without considering the natural impact of these practices, we will continue toward a short term solution, not a sustainable one.

FEAR + IGNORANCE = HATE

The following is a response to an entry that I regretfully stumbled upon in the blogmosphere sometime last year. The author was spewing her frustration over a hospital that officially recognized Islamic dietary prescriptions within its kitchen facility. In addition to criticizing the hospital administration policy, she took the opportunity to write some very hateful comments regarding Islam in general based on her own misunderstandings. What follows is my reply...
Have any of you actually known, personally, a single Muslim? Before passing judgment on anyone, you ought to at least know and understand them. This cannot be done through he said/she said channels but only through actual experience.

As to the issue of halal meat being the exclusive choice at hospitals, I don't see a problem with that. Are you familiar with what halal meat is? I'll assume you do not. Halal is a method of slaughtering an animal wherein it is recognized that the life being taken belongs to God and thereby an acknowledgement of thanks must be demonstrated. It's not akin to kosher standards as practiced by Orthodox Jews and by Jesus himself, peace be upon him.

Regarding the sale of pork and other things prohibited for Muslims, it should be noted that under Islamic/Shari’a law, these things apply to Muslims only. This is due to the fact that Islam tolerates other faiths. If Christians are not forbidden alcohol within the constructs of their own faith, an Islamic state must allow them their right to produce and sell alcohol amongst themselves; the same is true of the consumption of pork.

As for implying that all Muslims are terrorists, again, I ask, have you ever sat down and talked with one? You seem to espouse the same baseless hatred toward Muslims that those shouting “death to America!” have for you. Neither of you know one another, yet both of you hate. How can this be? Sheer ignorance.

As for Muslims who seem to lock themselves into their own shells, consider for a moment what happens when they try integrating. When a Muslim woman, for example, goes out in public, she knows she's being judged without cause. People are standoffish and often times rude out of their own prejudice. I'm sure you can relate. When Muslims read things like the current entry, of course they're standoffish. If you found yourself in a place where people displayed open distain for westerners you'd probably not feel very comfortable yourself.

The commentator who referenced the Qur'an, did so inaccurately. First, one has to take the entire chapter into consideration when quoting a verse. In this case, it begins with condemning those who have killed previous prophets of God. It goes onto to warn Muslims to be mindful when befriending non-believers- this does not refer to Christians and Jews but to non believers in God and in some cases excludes Hindus and Buddhists− it basically refers to the non-religious or those who are hostile to believers in God. Further, “befriending” in this case also relates to having authority over the individual. It goes onto state "Indeed he who acts likewise [as non believers in God, acting carelessly], he has nothing to do with God." It is in no way a prohibition from befriending non-Muslims.

As for Muslim countries, most were created by the west at the close of WWII. Corrupt? Without question. But let's not throw stones. Not only are own countries likewise not on the straight and narrow, who props their dictators up? Who trained bin Laden? Who gave Saddam bio weapons? Why is Egypt the second largest recipient of US financial support, followed by Israel? Even the Taliban was taking handouts by the US a few months prior to 911.

Extremist groups can be found within any group of people; let us not forget Hitler, the abortion clinic bombers, Milosevic, or the people in our own countries who murder, rape, and rob their own neighbors. There is no doubt that Islam has its share. But why is it that there has become such anti-western sentiment in recent years?

Rather than become the very thing that you distain, why not actually try to solve the problem by understanding the vicious cycle that you are currently contributing to? Until real dialogue can take place, there will be no end to the madness that is plaguing us all. Throwing more punches will not solve anything.

Somalia: Unnecessary Tragedy

Not a day goes by that I am not repulsed by US military actions around the world. It’s so overwhelming that to take the time to select and zero in on one specific event becomes a bit of a slippery slope. It’s almost as if by addressing one war crime, one is guilty of neglecting another. This is in part why I have not spoke on current events for some time- the atrocities carried out by my government are simply too frequent and obscene to stay abreast of.

While the task of selection is a daunting one, with the world’s eyes half open to what’s continuing in Iraq, there is another blip that has probably attracted five minute’s worth of coverage on the six o’clock news in the United States: Somalia.

Like most places that the American government sees through its crosshairs, and whose flag-waving patriots couldn’t locate on a map if their troops occupied it for ten years, Somalia is once again the target of US aggression. The average Jack may be able to reach back far enough to the gruesome images of the bodies of the American soldiers that were drug through the streets of Mogadishu in October of 1993− a display of hatred that is difficult to imagine− a hatred that mirrors the lynchings of African Americans from the not-too-distant past. Of course, in war, that fearsome detestation for the other is what soldiers are ingrained with during basic training (after all, it's a far greater challenge to get people to kill those they see as equals).

Although a brief summary of modern Somali history is fragrantly unjust, considering the immense human suffering that has over swept its population over recent decades, it remains necessary if one is going to attempt to address the current tragedies of its people, especially in regard to US and Ethiopian involvement.

The history of clashes between Somalia and Ethiopia are not unlike similar conflicts resulting from post-colonial circumstance that have occurred throughout the world. Such is the legacy in light of the post imperial powers in charge of redrawing the world map, following WWII, albeit to the detriment of those living within the new boundaries. In 1949, Ogaden, a region that now comprises roughly 25% of Ethiopia’s territory along the western boarder of Somalia and encompassing the impetus horn of Africa, became part of Ethiopia, as decided by the Allied powers of the UN- powers that, based on their history within the continent, lacked any genuine concern for the inhabitants of the land− a fact that remains unchanged to this day.

The ignition for war between the two countries was henceforth sparked by the fact that the population of Ogaden consisted of predominantly ethnic Muslim Somalis. Following the independence of Somalia from fascist Italy in 1960, Somali militias made several incursions into Ethiopia until 1964, when the two signed a peace agreement. Like many post colonial countries, animosity was furthered by interference from the Soviet Union and the US− the later supporting Ethiopia. This tug-of-war continued until the Ogaden War of 1977-78. In typical Orwellian fashion, the US and USSR switched sides, but not before the USSR betrayed Somalia by simultaneously supporting Ethiopia− reminiscent of US support of Iran and Iraq during their bloody conflict a decade later. Following the official withdrawal in 1978, Somalia became a client state of the US in exchange for air bases until they were no longer useful with the ending of the Cold War in 1988. It should not be neglected to mention that during this time, the US propped up Siad Barre, a brutal dictator who, according to Africa Watch, was responsible for between 50-60,000 killings.

Support for Barre’s rising totalitarianism and Ethiopian interference would lead to the outbreak of civil war 1991, an event which the US had hoped would showcase its “humanitarian intervention” impulse, thereby legitimizing the inflated pentagon budget. Had the US been sincere, they would have supported the ousting of Barre rather than supporting his reign of terror in the years prior. Coupled with the trademark of American arrogance and their support for Barre, the PR campaign ended in disaster, leading ultimately to the US withdrawal.

After a decade and a half of horrific conditions brought on by the civil war, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) wrestled power out of the hands of the warlords who’ve made the country a living hell since 1991. After a bitter struggle to restore order back to Somalia, the ICU finally prevailed over Mogadishu and for the first time in nearly twenty years, stability began returning to the war ravaged region. Although after their retreat, the warlords claimed they would be able to establish a dialogue with the ICU, in reality, they intended to do nothing of the sort.

More than 500 power hungry warlords-turned-ministers are to thank for the sustained chaos that enveloped Somalia and who supported the opposition to the ICU. The motive for the chaos was, of course, financial. When the warlords are in control, all commerce must first be routed through them, which in turn line their pockets. It should be no surprise then that the so-called president of Somalia, Abdullahi Yusif, is himself a warlord, nor should it be a shock to anyone that the United States government backed the alliance of warlords against the ICU, along with Ethiopia and Italy. Not that it matters much to the US, but their support for the warlords is a direct violation of the UN arms embargo, a charge which the Bush administration initially denied and later had the audacity to apply against supporters of the ICU. While it is a fact that to arm either side of the confrontation violates the embargo, not only does the US cry foul when its interests are at stake, they go further by alleging false claims about those fighting on behalf of the ICU. None of this is new to their bag of tricks, however.

Interim President Yusif has spoken out against US support for competing warlords, claiming that they ought to cooperate with the government. What he left out was the fact that most of these warlords are MPs of the government and are the same people who elected him to rule the country in 2004 during a meeting in Kenya- how’s that for legitimate? The MPs (warlords) have learned a lot from US policy by giving their militia another Orwellian title “The Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism.” Fighting terrorism had nothing to do with the warlords joining forces; rather, it was set up an offensive to maintain their hegemony over the region. The ICU, on the hand, was established to regain peace and security in Mogadishu, a struggle which they achieved.

By the 2nd of June 2006, thousands rallied in the streets to protest against the US support for the warlords who have ruled the streets for so many years. Three days later, the warlords retreated. Stability for Somalia was gradually settling in as warlord-operated checkpoints used to extort money from motorists came down, prices dropped in the marketplace that was no longer ruled by thugs, and robbery and kidnapping was quickly becoming a thing of the past. Then came reports of (US-trained) Ethiopian troops crossing the boarder in support of the interim government. To assure the interim administration, Sheik Sherif Ahmed, one of the leaders of the ICU stated that they were “making it clear that we are not planning to attack Baidoa, Kismayo or any other third region in the country. We want to work with whoever who wants to return peace to Somalia.” Meanwhile, the US accused the ICU of harboring foreign terrorists, a charge they denied.

By August, a formal system Shari’a or Islamic Law, had been devised and implemented to govern Mogadishu. Those of us who have been moved to tears at the horrific suffering Somalis have endured for so long breathed a sigh of relief and held a glimmer of hope that life in Mogadishu might finally return to normal. Markets opened, bribery ceased, women could freely walk the streets again. Criminals were tried and sentences were employed under the eye of the public. When concerns about a Taliban-style regime being formed, ICU chairman Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, assured them that no such intentions existed within the ICU leadership. In September, the ICU did move into to Kismayo as support for their leadership began increasing. As an indicator of the support they were earning, this move occurred without a single casualty. Moreover, by this time, they were able to bring stability to all ports in the southern region of the country. By November, khat, a highly addictive drug, commonly used stimulant, known to cause aggression and health ailments, was banned. (This is the same drug that was so often used to numb the emotions of child fighters, known for random murders throughout the country during and after the civil war.)

Also in November, murmurs of concern began to be heard within the UN Headquarters in New York. A report issued by the UN Security Council stated that the ICU had received military support Iran, Syria, and a host of others. The report also alleged that ICU fighters assisted Hezbollah against the Israelis and labeled the growing influence of the ICU as “instabile.” Instable to whom? Are we supposed to believe that the American government has the interests of the Somali people on its agenda? How can anyone who has stirred up the biggest hornet’s nest in modern times claim concern over instability? Stability is the one thing that the ICU has proven it is capable of implementing. Could it be relied on to support this new change in the country? The answer has long been understood. So what if the ICU is getting support from its allies? If it is against international law to receive support from one’s allies when in dire need and to return the favor when called upon, how exactly would the Bush administration classify its own illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? Furthermore, how would it categorize its “Coalition of the Willing”?  Further still, is lending military support to Ethiopia immune to the embargo that those providing aid for the ICU are charged with violating? At least in Somalia, the takeover brought stability and had been welcomed by the people. “For, Of and By the People,” isn’t that the idea behind Democracy? The vast majority of Iraqis want the US out− and yet the claim remains to be voiced by the administration that the US military has brought democracy to the people. Apparently, President Bush equates bombing civilians as democracy in action.

By the end of December, Ethiopian troops moved in and attacked areas under the governance of the ICU, despite calls for immediate withdrawal by the African Union. The advance was basically tantamount to ensuring a return to instability and humanitarian crisis. To avert another catastrophe, the ICU Mogadishu abandoned without a fight. Immediately, looters robbed the new market places and the people went into hiding again. Anyone paying any attention whatever to the events unfolding would have to cover their mouths to prevent from vomiting at what has unfolded since.

In January, Ethiopia, against the wishes of the AU, have vowed to remain in the country to maintain “stability.” Then, on January 10th, on my way home from school, I was listening to the radio when I learned that the US had finally carried out the unthinkable− it unleashed its bombs on yet another civilian target, killing hundreds of people who an interim government official said "may have involved very senior Islamist court leaders." May have? Like who? Sharif Ahmed, a moderate, trusted by the people? Before launching a fatal attack, should not the attackers be certain that the action being carried out will be limited to the people they're going after? By the way, who gave them this free writ of assasination? Of course the US takes its warn-out excuse to terms once again, saying it was an attack against a member of al-Qaeda. Somehow that absolves them of any wrong doing in regards to the civilian deaths, or as they’re fond of deeming it: “collateral damage.”

Again, one has to question how American aggression against a Muslim population will bring about stability. How long will it take before the Pentagon understands that such attacks only incite more al-Qaeda violence? It is the equivalent of an open invitation to terror. It plants the seeds of more discontent against victims who see groups like these as the only way to assert themselves. Just as the likelihood of revenge violence increases when someone murders another’s family in America, the same is true of others half a world away. Give a gun to a teenager who’s mother was killed by a lunatic and see what happens− especially when the killer goes unpunished. Case-in-point: the ten fold instances of suicide bombing since the invasion of Iraq. The same will happen again and again in any Muslim country the US assaults. It’s been well established that such responses have soared once the US has become involved in military offensives. The continued aggression against the people of Somalia will only continue worsening the situation. What the West fails to comprehend is the fact that the Somali people overwhelmingly respect Islamic Law. That’s not to say that they desire a Taliban-style dictatorship (in fact, the Taliban was about as unislamic of any such state ever to exist). It is to say that secular law is not held in nearly the same regard as Shari’a. As one Somali elder told me, “the people respect the book [the Qur’an], take it away and we see the situation that results.” Add to the fact that outside forces deemed hostile to Islam are responsible for the worst carnage in fifteen years, after a short-lived peace brought about by the leadership of the Islamic Courts Union. The only way to restore peace and stability is to allow Somalis to return to self-rule without interference from those who do not belong there to begin with. Until then, offer your prayers for the people of that tortured land that they will again live in peace.