Toban Black

Steven Freeland (in this article) -

“[Throughout human history there have been] many deliberate acts to destroy or exploit the natural environment to achieve military goals. In the 5th century BC the retreating Scythians poisoned the water wells in an effort to slow the advancing Persian army. Roman troops razed the city of Carthage in 146 BC and poisoned the surrounding soil with salt to prevent its future cultivation. The American Civil War saw the widespread implementation of ’scorched earth’ policies.

In August 1945 the United States detonated atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in massive loss of life and environmental destruction. During the Vietnam War, the US implemented Operation Ranch Hand, to devastating effect, to destroy vegetation used by its enemy for cover and sustenance, using chemicals such as Agent Orange.

More recently still, who can forget the haunting images of more than 700 burning Kuwaiti oil well-heads which had been deliberately ignited by retreating Iraqi forces during the Gulf War in 1991 a scene that was likened to Dante’s Inferno. Over the following 10 years the Saddam regime built barriers and levees to drain the al-Hawizeh and al-Hammar marshes in southern Iraq.” “This effectively destroyed the livelihood of the 500,000 Marsh Arabs who had inhabited this unique ecosystem.

Acts of significant and deliberate environmental destruction, exploitation and contamination during armed conflict have continued in more recent times, including the use of cluster bombs and weapons containing depleted uranium by US and British forces in Iraq.

[Read more →]

The David Suzuki Foundation (on this page) -

“Although aviation is a relatively small industry, it has a disproportionately large impact on the climate system. It presently accounts for [approximately] 4-9% of the total climate change impact of human activity.”

“A special characteristic of aircraft emissions is that most of them are produced at cruising altitudes high in the atmosphere. Scientific studies have shown that these high-altitude emissions have a more harmful climate impact.”

Contrails, “the long plumes of exhaust that can be seen in the sky behind airplanes,” “trap heat that would otherwise escape from the earth, which contributes to global warming.”

“Right now there is no climate-friendly alternative to the kerosene fuel burned by airplanes, and there is no indication that solar or hydrogen-powered aircraft can be expected anytime soon. In terms of efficiency, it appears that improvements in current aircraft technology have nearly reached their limit.”

(There is additional information about these global warming impacts on that page.)

—

Richard Heinberg on societal changes that he foresees in upcoming decades -

“Today businesspeople and middle-class vacationers regard air travel as a normal and affordable, if increasingly tedious, option for getting from anywhere to anywhere else in a few hours. But as fuel becomes scarce and costly, airlines will go bankrupt and consolidate; most planes will be grounded and mothballed; routes will be cut. Small cities will lose commercial service altogether. Whole terminals at larger airports will be closed permanently.

Air service will continue to connect large cities, but flights will be fewer and slower (speed reduces fuel efficiency), with every seat filled. And those flights will be much more expensive.

In short, we will be returning to the days of the Jet Set, when only the wealthy flew. People were simply less mobile in the 1950s than they are today. And the future will likewise be characterized by declining mobility. The implications are far-reaching and take a while to appreciate. Think of the impacts to tourism, (including all its subsidiary components such as the hotel industry and the car rental companies), universities, far-flung families, the entertainment industry, scientific research. . . . ”

(Those remarks are linked to the more in-depth energy analysis in Mr. Heinberg’s books.)

[Read more →]

(Photo by Amanda Graham)

—

Jeremy Seabrook (in Victims of Development - p. 166) –

“We are … subject to multiple dispossessions, precisely in the private lives to which we believe we have retreated, the shelter from a public realm which becomes increasingly incomprehensible and threatening beyond our control.”

“Individuals are supposed to take responsibility, not only for their own actions, but also for socially induced evils, like poverty and unemployment, and even for all the tribulations that life itself brings: it is now regarded as the duty of the individual to take care of sickness, loss, old age and infirmity, which have become other people’s business opportunities.”

“Individuals, especially women, have absorbed, secretly, privately, unspeakable burdens of social shame, disgrace and sorrow.”

(The photo is by “Tomms” — who has a blog here.)

—

By Andy Singer

—

“Set your watch to ‘me’ time”

[Read more →]

That also applies to electric cars and air cars.

—

—

By Andy Singer

David Orchard in Counterpunch - “The New Conquistadors: Canada in Afghanistan” (February 26th)

Exerpts -

“The terms used to describe [this] occupation and ongoing war are remarkably similar to those used over a century ago by colonial powers to justify their ruthless wars of colonization. Then, it was the white man’s burden to ‘civilize’ the non-whites of the Americas, Africa and Asia. As cub scouts we were taught Kipling’s unforgettable prose about the ‘lesser breeds,’ but nothing about the real people who paid horrendous costs in death, suffering, destruction and theft of their land and resources.

Today, [Canada is] involved in a ‘mission’ in Afghanistan to ‘improve’ the lives of women and children, to install ‘democracy,’ to root out corruption and the drug trade.

Waging war with bombs and guns is not helping women or installing democracy. It is, however, strengthening the Afghan resistance - hence our increasingly shrill cries for more help from NATO.

[Read more →]

Katrina vanden Heuvel in The Nation - “Stopping the New Arms Race” (February 26th)

Exerpts (written for an American audience) -

“The White House will do everything it can to push its reckless, European-based missile defense plan forward. Not only is there growing citizen opposition in the host countries to the proposed ten interceptor missiles in Poland and radar military base in the Czech Republic, but the system fuels a new arms race and militarism that is a far greater threat to our national security than any nuclear missile from Iran it would purportedly defend against.

As Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons told me …, ‘[The US government] is rushing to deploy a technology that does not work against a threat that does not exist.’

[Read more →]

Frida Berrigan in The Capital Times - “Surge in Spending on Nukes a Grave Error”

Exerpts -

“The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration is pushing for an estimated $150 billion to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons and a more ‘responsive’ production network.”

“Adjusting for inflation, U.S. spending on nuclear weapons has increased by over 13 percent since 2001. More importantly, the U.S. is still spending one-third more than the Cold War average on nuclear weapons.”

“Is [the recent DoE spending proposal] provocative? Yes. An expanded U.S. nuclear arsenal tells the world that U.S. national security remains dependent on these devastating weapons. At the same time, Washington seeks to convince nations like Iran and North Korea not to produce them. This ‘do as we say, not as we do’ approach encourages nuclear proliferation. If trends continue, nuclear expert Hans Blix forecasts at least a dozen new nuclear powers within 10 years.”

From StudioBendib

——

A previous blog post about depleted uranium weapons:
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?p=52

According to Paul -
“An official NATO panel consisting of highest-level representatives from [Canada's] nuclear-equipped allies (representatives including Britain’s former Chief of Staff Field Marshal the Lord Inge and the United States’ former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili) have just released a NATO policy document advocating a more aggressive, bellicose and offensive nuclear weapons stances for NATO. This policy document includes reversing long-standing NATO policy and advocating in favour of first-strike, pre-emptive nuclear strategies for NATO. The dossier also advocates ‘the use of force without UN security council authorisation’ under some circumstances (source, source, source).”

Bruce Gagnon also has posted about these NATO nuclear weapon strategies.

Bob Barry in The Guardian - “A World Without Nuclear Weapons”
“Many who once advocated the weapons now oppose them. But how can they convince the world it’s not all pacifist pie-in-the-sky?”

Exerpts -

“As a US diplomat who has worked for every president from John F Kennedy to Bill Clinton, I did not believe that nuclear disarmament was practical or necessary. I have changed my mind, because like other cold war veterans, I believe nuclear weapons will be used in my children’s lifetime, and nuclear deterrence will not prevent this. It is fear, not hope, that motivates me.”

“There have been parallel debates going on in the US and the UK concerning the future role of nuclear weapons.” “In the US, cold war veterans George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry and Sam Nunn published an article in the Wall Street Journal calling for steps toward a nuclear-free world. The new programme outlined in the Wall Street Journal reflects work done at the Hoover Institution at Stanford since January 2007.” “In both the UK and the US, the issue is whether the concept of nuclear deterrence is still relevant and whether the political will exists to move towards the goal of nuclear disarmament set forth in the non-proliferation treaty of 1968 (NPT).”

“The call in the US for abolition involves 17 of the surviving 24 former secretaries of state, defence and national security advisors from both parties - people devoted to and personally involved in the deployment of nuclear weapons when in office.”

[Read more →]