Romney and Kennedy, NO MORE EXCUSES!

I expect MUCH better from my Senator (0.00 / 0)

and he's taking his licks for this, but Romney's anti-renewable energy activity doesn't seem to have entered the national conversation. 

Wish you were here!

---

by: lori @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:15:12 AM CDT

Please (0.00 / 0)

Let us not forget the esteemed William Delahunt.

The Kennedy/Delahunt team. Their mantra. "No problem here on the Cape, we have all the power we need."

Frauds and charlatans----Both require a long needed rest in the closest retirement home---in perpetuity.

---

by: MCRD @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:40:52 AM CDT

Sine Qua Non (0.00 / 0)

Agreed.

Eight years to go in Hansen's window of opportunity to avoid catastrophic climate change and the old boys are haggling about how necessary wind turbines might affect their view.

Dang.

---

by: Nick T @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:03:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

An excerpt from Ted Kennedy's Senate statement on Cape Wind (6.00 / 1)

Full text at http://kennedy.senat...

That's why Congress decided in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that offshore wind farms should be developed in the right way. The Act establishes a process that makes sense for the environment, for the affected communities, and for the public interest.

That process will include a comprehensive mapping of the outer continental shelf through which the Department of the Interior will identify the sites where development makes sense.

But the bill does have one flagrant loophole. One private project -- the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts -- won key exemptions from this sensible national policy. Thanks to that sweetheart deal, the Cape Wind project will not be evaluated in the same way as every other offshore wind energy project. And that's the wrong way for a project to be built.

Here's how the special exemption was created. Under Subsection 388(d)(1), some of the polices and procedures that will apply to every single offshore wind energy project in the future will not apply to a project where:

"an offshore test facility has been constructed"

And there is exactly one project in the entire country to which that language applies: the Cape Wind development. So this is special interest legislation, designed to benefit one developer at the cost of the public interest.

But the sweetheart deal gets much worse. Under Subsection 388(a)(3), a competitive bidding process will be established for every other offshore project except Cape Wind.

That exemption raises the possibility that the Cape Wind developer will pay below-market rates -- or nothing at all -- for the right to erect a massive development in federal waters.

In this way, a few words -- which never even identify Cape Wind by name -- allow a private developer to lay claim to 24 square miles of the waters off the coast of Massachusetts. The people didn't choose the site. The Department of Interior didn't choose it. The developer -- Energy Management Incorporated, or EMI -- chose this site.

EMI chose a site in the middle of a major local fishery, in the middle of navigation routes are essential to the economy of the entire Cape and Islands. But that didn't matter to EMI, and there was no government policy in place to protect the public interest.

 

---

by: JimC @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:04:23 AM CDT

Oh Please! (6.00 / 5)

First of all, Kennedy was opposed Cape Wind before this "loophole" he's complaining about, so at best its a justification, not an explanation of his opposition.

Second, Kennedy grossly mis-characterizes what he's writing about.  The Energy Bill wanted to promote offshore renewables and didn't want to therefore punish the 2 companies that had spent a lot of money by forcing them to start over, which re-filing of forms or a competitive bid for the site would effectively have done.  The Bill did ensure compensation to the public by calling for lease payments from Cape Wind and other projects. 

Also, unlike the Young / Stevens amendment to a Coast Guard Conference Committee last year that Kennedy backed on a matter that was not in the House OR Senate Bill, the Senate Energy Bill with the provision Kennedy is complaining about saw the full light of day during televised hearings for months - without a peep of complaint at the time from any Senator, Kennedy included.

---

by: Benny @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:48:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wish he felt differently (0.00 / 0)

... but given Kennedy's record, I thought his defense of his position was needed here.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:53:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

You did the right thing and I'm glad you posted it.  My "Oh Please" was directed at Senator Kennedy, not at you...

---

by: Benny @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:57:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't think it was (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: JimC @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:00:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jim - it's a fine line between 'defense' and 'exposure' of his position in this instance. (5.00 / 1)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:00:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes but the accused (5.00 / 1)

... has the right to appear in "court."

---

by: JimC @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:19:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kennedy's statement is a red herring (4.00 / 1)

and absolute BS. The man has probably five years left on this planet and he wants to screw everyone else he leaves behond. This m,ans true colors are coming out. He's been nothing but a selfish greedy SOB his entire miserable life. Look at what he has done to his kids and former wife.

Me---me---me, and F-you!

---

by: MCRD @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 17:07:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lori - about China... (6.00 / 3)

....at the time of the Sago collapse, I did a post called Hatfield and McCloy in which I mention my good cyber-friend, Dr. Lonnie, of OneManBandwidth.  We stay in pretty good touch when China hasn't decided to block my blog, or he can get off-shore Internet.  BMG would like him - he's a former Berkley professor, and liberal as the day is long.

Dr. Lonnie told me in 2006 there are 6,000 mine fatalities PER YEAR.  That 127 is probably a bad weekend there.

We need to ditch coal entirely, and use more wind.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:33:35 AM CDT

Good goal (5.00 / 2)

It's going to be tough, though; roughly half our electricity comes from burning coal.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 09:51:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You would be amazed (0.00 / 0)

I flew down the Misissippi this spring from the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi. There seems to be a coal fired generating plant about every fifty miles. All you see is coal barges up and down the river(amongst other barges)Huge piles of coal that you can see from miles off. The stacks have a long yellow plume that trails off whichever way the wind is blowing. The plume seems to be stuck at around eight hundred feet above ground level. How would you like to have a home under that sulphurous cloud?

The nuke nuts were clamoring twenty or thirty years ago about nuclear generation. France and many other countries don't seem to have a problem. Considering that drunk drivers allegedly kill 14 thousand people a year I would suggest that we have bigger fish to fry.

---

by: MCRD @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 17:16:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Those of us who aren't terminally stupid know what's going on... (6.00 / 1)

The stacks have a long yellow plume that trails off whichever way the wind is blowing.

...what is going on is that the coal-fired power plants have increased the height of their smokestacks so that the pollution measured in their region is reduced, but they send the pollution downstream.  If you have ever paid attention to weather patterns, you would know what "downstream" means in the northern hemisphere: it means toward the east, in other words from the midwest toward NY and NE.

And, given the fact that the EPA regulates pollutant levels on a local basis, not on effluent levels on a source basis, the EPA regulations would allow the midwest coal-powered plants to continue to emit pollutant levels, even though they are contaminating NY and NE. 

Note to Lori: the Chinese mine deaths have had more that a bit of play here in Germany on CNN International.  There is more behind it than has been reported, including a breaking of a dike not unlike New Orleans. 

Apparently, there have been more than a few mining accidents in China in recent years--actually, months, which the Chinese government has covered up.  I'll leave it to your imagination what is going on, because I don't have the citations from the Sueddeutsche Zeitung from several months ago..

---

by: raj @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 06:11:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Raj. n/t (0.00 / 0)

Wish you were here!

---

by: lori @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 06:27:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And you know what, Peter? (6.00 / 1)

Ditching coal is a non-political goal.  I intentionally mixed politics and policy in the title of this post and what follows could just have easily come from anyone with any array of political ideology.  There's no political comebacks to this concept.  Only those who have entrenched corporate interests see more sense in killing all of those people, heating up the planet, and filling our lungs with crud, than having some windmills spinning miles out to sea.

I'm surprised the Chinese mine deaths haven't had more play in the news with Barbie dolls being so toxic and all.  China, Columbia, Venezuela, Utah, KY, or wherever, the mining disasters occur, we can't close our eyes to the lifecycle of coal.  We can do better.

Wish you were here!

---

by: lori @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:10:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I want to run an ad in the Cape Cod Times... (0.00 / 0)

Picture this full page ad in the Sunday paper:

Two photos are presented side-by-side - on the left is an artist's rendition of Nantucket Sound with the windmills off in the distance, and on the right are flag-draped coffins coming home on a C-130.  The caption reads:

Which view do you prefer?

Would you rather have energy independence, or endless, generational war and conflict over the last remaining hydrocarbons we can squeeze out of the ground?  Not to mention the fact that continued burning of hydrocarbons puts our very existence at risk...

Please consider joining Energize America:

http://www.ea2020.or...

We are attempting to create people-powered public policy, and it's working - we have legislation slated to appear in the house later this year, the Energy Smart Communities Act of 2007 is described in detail at our web site.

Small dollar year round fundraising: PeanutButterPAC.org

---

by: JohnT001 @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:23:14 AM CDT

Thank you so much... (0.00 / 0)

...for attempting to re-politicize an issue that we had just agreed we could all work on together.

Do you WANT to lose 50% of your support?  >:~(

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:22:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Could you explain your response? (0.00 / 0)

How did I "re-politicize" ths issue?  By pointing out that endless, generational warfare results in flag-draped coffins?

Small dollar year round fundraising: PeanutButterPAC.org

---

by: JohnT001 @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:24:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your premise is only valid if you think the war is about oil. (5.00 / 1)

For those of us who think it is about Islamic Jihad, your politicization is insulting to both our troops and energy policy.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:30:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If the Iraq war was about fighting Islamic Jihad... (4.00 / 1)

...then it would not have taken place - to fight the Islamic jihadists, we should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job there before moving on to anything else.  Not much oil in Afghanistan though, is there?

If this war is not about oil, then why are they pushing the Iraqis to pass the "hydrocarbon law", which basically gives their oil reserves to our oil companies for the next 20 years at bargain basement prices?  That's a milestone they keep harping on - but providing clean water or electricity to Iraqis?  Not so much...

If it's not about oil, then why are they rattling their sabers at Iran?  The US has a military presence sitting on top of Iraq's 115 billion barrels of oil - what's that worth at $75 per barrel?  The US attacks Iran - Iran sinks a tanker or two in the Straits of Hormuz, causing oil prices to spike to $200 per barrel - who's getting really, really rich when/if that happens?  Anyone who's already got 115 billion barrels of oil, that's who - if the Iraqis pass that hydrocarbon law, Iranians better start duck and cover drills!

I hate to tell you PP, but you've been snookered by masters of the craft if you believe that the troops in Iraq are serving some patriotic mission - they're pawns in Bush's world game, and that game has always been about oil.  These are people who would have cheered for the mailman in "Three Days of the Condor", they don't deserve your support...

Small dollar year round fundraising: PeanutButterPAC.org

---

by: JohnT001 @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 13:22:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have a problem with this... (5.00 / 1)

Oil is not a dominant energy source for electricity. Coal, nukes, and natural gas are.  Building Cape Wind, or even many Cape Winds, will have many wonderful benefits, but having a material impact on our foreign policy viz a viz oil is not one of them.

You can argue that energy is ultimately fungible, but that's a stretch.  If and when plug-in hybrids are available in volume, then there will be potential to swap electricity for oil.

---

by: syphax @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:37:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know that... (0.00 / 0)

...but still, I think that the availability of cheap, renewable elctricity will spur the development of plug-in hybrid commuter cars.  Besides, oil is running out - it's time to do something...

Small dollar year round fundraising: PeanutButterPAC.org

---

by: JohnT001 @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 13:25:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree that it's time to do something... (5.00 / 1)

...but my specific argument was that linking Cape Wind to war in the Middle East is a little specious.

Looking at the other comments, I'll reverse my position slightly; it looks like Cape Wind could indeed have an impact on the consumption of oil due to oil's role as a marginal fuel in NE electricity generation (BTW the EIA says 15% of MA's electricity was generated by oil in 2005, down from ~38% in 1990): Here's the data

I still think that while there is a stark contrast between windmills and war, I think it's a reach and a false choice.  While building wind capacity may reduce the likelihood of future oil wars slightly, it's not truly either/or.  We could be building windmills like crazy (actually, we are in e.g. Texas etc.) and still behave like belligerent asses, or we could build no more wind capacity and yet not pursue an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East (and hedge on oil supply via nukes, tar sands, making nice with Hugo, etc.).  Of course, I prefer building windmills and avoiding foolish wars.

I'd make a similar argument about linking hurricanes with global warming.  There is legitimate scientific debate (by real scientists, not the usual skeptics) about the impact of warming on hurricanes; there are reasons why warming should enhance hurricane intensity, and reasons why it shouldn't (decreased wind shear etc.).  And the observational record does not appear to offer a smoking gun.  That's not to say the risk isn't there, and that we shouldn't work to mitigate it, but linking warming and hurricanes too strongly in order to catch peoples' attention is intellectually dishonest and could backfire (witness the bandwagon that points to the mild 2006 hurricane season as reason to disbelieve global warming science).

---

by: syphax @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 10:15:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with the general tenor of your comment (0.00 / 0)

linking Cape Wind to war in the Middle East is a little specious

but regarding

I'd make a similar argument about linking hurricanes with global warming

I'm not quite so sure.  There are two aspects regarding hurricanes.  One, hurricane formation.  Two, hurricane intensity.  It appears that hurricane formation, especially in the Atlantic north of the equator is a complicated process.  But, once a hurricane has been formed, its intensity is fairly related to sea surface temperatures, which have been rising.  And that is particularly true in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, which is not only relatively shallow, but also whose sea surface temperature has been rising.

I am not a climatologist, but it strikes me that, when a low-pressure area (storm) moves from east to west and then from west to northeast, what it is doing is redistributing thermal energy from the lower latitudes of the northern hemisphere to the upper latitudes.  The more thermal energy at the lower latitudes, the more has to be re-distributed.

I could go into a discussion of why low and high pressure zones and the Coriolis pseudo-force effects that engender them, but I'll refrain.

---

by: raj @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:53:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are correct, but... (0.00 / 0)

... the devil is in the details. 

Here's a book review of Storm World, a book on this very topic.

Here's the summary:

In the end he gives us a clear picture of what the hurricane?climate change debate is about and where it might go next (sensitivity). As there are no answers, Mooney provides none.

That is, it certainly may be the case that warming does and will make hurricanes worse, but it's not a done deal.  However, the plausibility of a connection (and thus risk) is another good reason to cut down on the GHGs.

I follow climate science fairly closely, though I too am not a climatologist.  I am rather concerned about GHGs and global warming but cringe at the "We're all gonna DIE DIE DIE" rhetoric.

---

by: syphax @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 14:45:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oil does generate sizable electricity, here anyway... (0.00 / 0)

Oil generates 22% of New England's electricity according to ISO NE the grid manager, I'd say that's a sizable chunk - in southeast MA more electricity is generated from oil than any other source.  Its the other regions of the country that don't really use oil for electricity, where it happens is New England, Alaska and Hawaii.

---

by: Benny @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 18:08:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oil is on the margin (6.00 / 2)

There's actually a fair amount of oil-fired capacity in NEPOOL. But that doesn't matter, because the question is what plants would be turned off and perhaps decommissioned because of new capacity or energy efficiency.

Natural gas is still pretty cheap. The nukes have been subsidized up the wazoo, so their operating costs are low. There's not much coal capacity left in New England (and that's mostly dual capacity, e.g. it can burn oil or coal).

So what is on the margin includes lots of oil, particularly the older dirtier plants like Canal in Sandwich. It doesn't matter if oil is not "dominant," what matters is which plants are most costly to operate.

---

by: Trickle up @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 20:08:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A quick add... (6.00 / 1)

while it is included in cost to operate, its worth noting that oil and nat gas plants can change output much more quickly than coal, which helps keep them slightly cheaper, relatively speaking.  A mix of power types is often necessary to match supply to demand instantly without wasting power due to overproduction.

---

by: stomv @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:31:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not much oil? (6.00 / 1)

It doesn't dominate in MA, sure.  It's just barely third in Massachusetts: 23% of electricity generated in Massachusetts comes from oil.

It's true that only a handful of states get more than 2% or 3%  from oil... based on 1999 data [the only data I have on this in a convenient format, you can verify by using the link above and switching to those states], only HI, ME, MD, MA, NH, NY, RI, and VA topped 5%.  It made up about 2.5% nationwide.

However, since lots of electricity on the New England grid comes from oil, and since future technological advances suggest that plug in automobiles will be available at reasonable prices within the next five years, there's no question that electricity generation and use within New England and the use of foreign oil are related, and will continue to be so to some extent for the foreseeable future.  Cape Wind would help reduce the amount of oil used for electricity generation as well as coal and natural gas [each make up about 27% of MA's generation, the rest come from nuclear and renewable sources].

So, for other grids, you're right.  For the New England grid, more wind power does indeed mean a reduction of consumed oil.

---

by: stomv @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:21:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think a better view (6.00 / 1)

versus the wind turbines, would be of the 2003 oil spill in Buzzards Bay.

The oil that spilled that day was headed for the Canal Power Plant in Sandwich, one of the state's dirtiest.

---

by: Trickle up @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 19:57:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, that may work better... (0.00 / 0)

...since it could be equally effective and avoid the politicization objected to by Peter.

Small dollar year round fundraising: PeanutButterPAC.org

---

by: JohnT001 @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 20:29:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I concur (0.00 / 0)

The oil spill is very relevant to the issue of environmental impacts of energy in New England.  Vivid, too.

---

by: syphax @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 14:49:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a side note (0.00 / 0)

don't mean to derail this excellent diary, but since you mentioned Dean, i have a rant.

in the run-up to landfall, i've noticed that both NPR and print news have focused on 2 things. 1) Mexican oil rigs, and 2) tourists scrambling to get away.  now, both things are important, but i posit that they are not more important than, oh, i don't know, actual Mexicans living in the storm's path.  register me disgusted.  here is a current example

FELIPE CARRILLO PUERTO, Mexico - Hurricane Dean slammed into the Caribbean coast of Mexico on Tuesday as a roaring Category 5 hurricane, the most intense Atlantic storm to make landfall in two decades. It lashed ancient Mayan ruins and headed for the modern oil installations of the Yucatan Peninsula.

Dean's path was a stroke of luck for Mexico: It made landfall in a sparsely populated coastline that had already been evacuated, skirting most of the major tourist resorts. It weakened within hours to a Category 3 storm, with maximum sustained winds of 125 mph.

is this anti-mexican bias in the press, or merely run of the mill americo-centrism?  or both?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:24:38 AM CDT

I would say the latter, Laurel... (5.50 / 2)

...as the people drowning last week (?) in the Pacific tsunami and those killed in the Peruvian earthquake received equally scant mention.

To be fair, American news corporations are naturally primarily interesed in (North) American news.

That's why God made the BBC.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:48:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

and Al Jazeera (0.00 / 0)

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:14:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pete (3.00 / 1)

A catastrophic interruption in our oil and natural gas has far more consequence to N. America than the victims of a Peruvian earthquake or an Indonesian tsunami.

If the BBC or Al Jazeera chooses to report on that, that's fine. What do BBC, Al Jazeera, and NPR have in common? Hint: It's not unbiased reporting.

MSM per se has no interest in reporting any longer. They all have an axe to grind.

What morbid interest is it to witness the results of witnessing poor people overwhelmed by 165 MPH winds? Do some folks get off watching it and engage in self flagallation. I have an idea. How about some of the folks here that are real worried, go down to the impoverished areas of Mexico as Peace Corps workers for three to five years. No takers? I thought not. Does anyone ever do anything other than talk and wring their hands?

---

by: MCRD @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 17:38:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"ever do anything other than talk...?" (5.00 / 1)

the likelihood of people doing something increases with their knowledge of the need for their services.  we rely to a huge extent on the media to let us know in a timely fashion what is happening and whether and where our help is needed.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 18:28:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My twenty-something son helped rebuild houses in Tortola one summer. (6.00 / 1)

I's sorry, it WAS with a church group, but still the people with the houses didn't care.

People do things like this all the time.  It's just not 'newsworthy'.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 23:41:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We agree yet again... (6.00 / 1)

That's why God made the BBC

Actually, that's why God made not only the BBC, but also the AFP (sorry, I don't do French, but it's the French press agency), the DPA (Deutsche Presse Agentur), Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle and any of a number of other press agencies.  Yes, also the AP, which isn't half bad, after you wait half a day for their reporting to finalize itself (a useful thing to do; their initial reports are usually quite off the mark, but their follow-ups are not).

The BBC is probably the best news organization in the world, but, it should be noted, they are supported by taxpayer monies.  Which, of course, is anathema to many in the US.  In Britain, owners of radios and televisions are charged an annual tax that is used to fund the BBC.  Actually, we here in Germany are taxed, too, and we are quite happy to pay it.  The amounts aren't high, and the ability to receive programming commercial free and with high-quality news reports is quite wonderful.

---

by: raj @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:20:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seemed pretty matter-of-fact to me (0.00 / 0)

How do those two short paragraphs exhibit anti-Mexican bias?

Was it not a stroke of luck that the storm made landfall in a sparsely populated area?

Was it not a stroke of luck that the storm skirted the heavily populated resorts, sparing lives, businesses and infrastructure? Lessening the potentially devastating economic impact such destruction would have on Mexico's tourist economy?

And what about THIS paragraph? Does it not describe actual Mexicans living in the storm's path?

On Tuesday, Dean threatened the Yucatan's most vulnerable population _ the Mayan people _ many of whom have seen little of the riches from oil or tourism, and still live in traditional wooden slat huts in small settlements all over this low-lying area.

Y'know, most folks (especially those of us who are 3000 miles removed from the story) want to know the overall impact that the storm had on the region as a whole.

If 3/4 of every story was devoted to how Carlos, the shopkeeper lost his home and business, well, no offense to Carlos, but that's micro, and I come away from the story not much more informed than before I started.

I found the article overall to be dry, somewhat informative, and without agenda.

---

by: geo999 @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:30:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Geo - so have we heard yet how those threatened Mayans made out? (0.00 / 0)

Alive?  Dead?  Drowned?  Spared?

Why - let's check the BBC!

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 13:41:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

better examples (0.00 / 0)

i see your point.  i was too groggy to dig up better examples, but the NPR radio spots from yesterday were just as i characterized.  zero talk of carlos or the mayans, unless they were somehow attached to the tourist trade.  and that local commentary came rather late.  initially, pre-landfall stories were only about items 1 and 2.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 15:09:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

#1---who cares (0.00 / 0)

That is the problem of the Mexican government---not ours.

#2 Some folks are professional victims. They project their perceived victimization onto everything that goes on around them. i'm surprised that someone hasn't posited that hurricane Dean is not some Machiavelian plot of Karl Rove to punish Mexico.

Hydrocarbons and petrochemicals  is what allows USA to function. I really wish that for six months that we could have a return to the good old days of James Earl Carter.
Then you'd really hear some whining.

---

by: MCRD @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 17:45:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

James Earl Carter (0.00 / 0)

Are you referring to the conservation measures and long lines at the gas pumps that happened around the oil crisis?  I wish we would return to that too.  It might shake some people into the reality that oil isn't limitless, and that we need to rethink our suv-suburban sprawal culture.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 18:32:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Earth to Laurel... (0.00 / 0)

Dean's path was a stroke of luck for Mexico: It made landfall in a sparsely populated coastline that had already been evacuated, skirting most of the major tourist resorts.   (your bolded piece).

Continuing

is this anti-mexican bias in the press, or merely run of the mill americo-centrism?  or both?

WTF?  According to your press report, the coastline had been evacuated, presumably also of Mexican residents so they would be safe and secure--unlike the residents of New Orleans or the miners in the flooded coal mine in China.

The resorts, which presumably would provide at least a little employment to the indigenous peoples, were spared major destruction, so they could get back to work as early as possible.  (I'll spare you the link to pictures about what Hurricane Camille (1969) did to Mississippi.  Entire resort areas were literally washed away, and she spawned tornatoes at least as far north as Ohio.)  I find that report a good revelation.  Why?  A report like that will lessen the potential dellatory effect on the tourism industry in the area.

Critical thinking now, and I know that you are capable of it, what more do you believe that the Mexican government could have done?  And how should the American press (which, of course, is Americo-centric) have reported it?  We were here in Germany on 26 Dec 2004 when the Tsunami hit everywhere in the Indian Ocean.  The reports in the German media were all over the media.  Many, but far, far from all of them, mostly about German tourists in the affected regions.  CNN International (out of Britain), a bit different.  Der Spiegel online, different, too.  The sad fact that you have is that the American press will cater to its audience: Americans.  You have to go to the foreign press to get the rest of the story.

The sad fact that you also have is that they will ignore problems, such as the fact that Dean is severely impacting the delivery of natural gas to the US from Campeche Bay.

BTW, going downstream, the Peruvian Erdbebel has received more than a bit of coverage here in the German media.  It is quite frankly an interesting phenomenon, but it is hardly unique.  There was a relatively similar earthquake in Chile in 1950, which unleashed a Tsunami that eventually led to the Pacific Tsunami detection system.  It is the movements of the tectonic plates that resulted in the formation of the Andes that causes these earthquakes.

---

by: raj @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:52:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]