A very Merry Xmas
And a happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear
War is over, if you want it
War is over now
- lennon

Funny isn’t it?  Here we are today listening to Bing Crosby singing “I’ll be home for Christmas” and it’s just as appropriate for some as it was all those years ago.  John & Yoko’s white billboards could be again plastered across NYC and be as appropriate today as they ever were.  War is Over (if you want it).  I always thought those simple statements were actually quite valuable.   People will argue that the world is not that simple.  They’re right of course.  But the goal is, and that’s a good place to start.  

Here in the states we are fighting many wars, both militarily and culturally. It seems it’s becoming very hard to get much of anything accomplished. We’ve become a polarized group.  According to an article I read recently, only about 50% of Americans will actually vote in the next election.  Those that do are the ones who are most polarized and pretty much split down the middle.  The Reds vrs the Blues.  Of course the people they put in charge are representative of their inflexibility.  Thus the problems.  I spent all morning trying to find the article but lost it.  However, what was interesting to me was its examination of the media’s responsibility in all this.  20 years ago we all got our news and formed our world view from 3 major network outlets.  Because each one of them was somewhat beholden to the government for their FCC licenses it was always in their best interest to be somewhat moderate in their reporting of politics.  Of course they were not always successful, but compared to today they were pretty even handed.  These days of course due to cable TV and the internet we are fed "right" or "left" leaning content like heroin in its purest and most biased form. Readers tend then to go only to the outlets that speak to their views. Just reinforcing their opinions and their sense of right.  The voice of compromise is then forced aside, leaving more and more moderate voices feeling disaffected and dropping out of the system. Simple math then suggests that In the end elected officials  will only represent about 25% of American views, and then only the hardliners of one stripe or the other.  This is not a very positive path to success.  People standing nose to nose and screaming at each other seldom get much accomplished.  This lack of open-mindedness and compromise is going to get us in the end.   Just take Climate Change as an example.

The majority have come to believe that the science is in and that we have to do something about Climate Change.  (not everyone of course) Yet odds are we will do very little.  Each action has to be filtered through the stubborn stances of those people meant to negotiate.  It just won’t happen.  At most we will do much too little much too late.  The scary part to me is that the science may be worse than what we are actually being told.  Why?  Well, because it’s too complicated. When you start really digging into the complexity of the issue it’s no wonder it’s hard to get an agreement.   To make it all understood researchers are dumbing it all down.  Yet by doing that they make their position seem arbitrary.  That over simplification while making things easier to understand, also make it easier to argue.   In addition climate models are not nearly as accurate as we’d like them to be, something naysayers use to support their point. However it’s very possible that what those models can’t account for may make their results much more rosy than reality.  One example is this; climate models are not very good at accounting for “positive feedback”.  One simple example that most of us know is how the loss of ice causes less energy to be reflected, thus causing more warming, thus causing more loss of ice.  As I said, that’s a simple example.  It gets much more complex when you start looking at air & water temperatures, currents, solar output, cloud cover, and a myriad other factors that all work together. Recently I’ve been looking at the work of Dr. Jim Hansen with Columbia University.  He’s not making much headway with either side of the debate.  He originally wrote an  article called “Climate Catastrophe” for New Scientist”. Thing is, that was the oversimplified version.  Easily attacked because as he says, it can seem more “arbitrary”.  (as I mentioned above) The detailed version called “Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise” is the stronger paper yet is not great reading.  However if his analysis is even close to correct things may get much worse, much faster than we are being told.  Could he be wrong? Yeah certainly.  But that does not mean he IS wrong either.  It’s up to us to have the patience and understanding to examine these issues.  I just don’t think the powers that be have these qualities.

Then even if we do accept these findings our actions would have to go way past “efficient light bulbs” and 30mg cars by 2020. (China is 30 now, Europe averages 40) Something even the Terminator understands! Hell, a Vauxhall Astra TwinTop gets 37.2 mpg city & 55.4 highway now!!  With a top speed of 132mph and going 0-62 in 9.5 seconds it’s no slouch either.  Obviously we can do better than 30mph by 2020. Change is necessary, however every change will have to filter through the same unbendable lot leading to many more ineffectual laws. 

So why the Christmas eve rant?  Well as we gather our families together and look over our pasts and contemplate our possible futures I’m reminded that holidays are also times when we gather to share not only our news but our ideas. Much like those communal gatherings around fires in many years past. From these gatherings we share and learn with each other. The good ideas we take back with us. Nothing really new under the sun.  It seems to me that openmindedness and compromise are more important than ever.  Peace on earth, and of course a healthy earth are as always possible.  Like the sign said, “If you want it.”  But  yeah, to tell you the truth. I don’t think it will happen.