Unbundling Water Rights = Unrestrained Exploitation

When the appointments to the Nevada Drought Forum did not include anyone from Rural Nevada areas at risk of having our water taken, we in Rural Nevada were suspicious. Now we know why. The Nevada Drought Forum has recommended that we cast aside Nevada water law (that has served us for over a century) and start over with a new set of rules – which they call the “unbundling of water rights.”

Again and again we have seen in America that when the law doesn't allow the greedy to take what they want, the greedy try to change the law. They usually try to do this behind the scenes – with the least amount of democratic process. And they try to convince us this is all for our own good – by wrapping themselves in the “freedom” flag of “free” trade. But for decades now, we have seen that “free” trade has nothing to do with “fair” trade. Follow the money. The filthy rich are getting richer, and the rest of us are not.

Over a decade ago, we saw the world reject water privatization as an instrument for price gouging, anti-competitive behavior, corrupt practice, and fraud. But being discredited doesn't stop the greedy. They just repackage the scam, come up with new terms, and try to change the laws again.

It's blatantly obvious that “unbundling” of water rights is an intentionally obscure term for the commodification of water. And commodification is the key to unrestrained exploitation. With commodification there can be speculation. With speculation, expect high prices. But that's just the tip of the exploitation tsunami.

The Michael Young – Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions/Duke University report Unbundling Water Rights: A Blueprint for Development of Robust Water Allocation Systems in the Western United States proclaims that “the key difference between the current and proposed governance systems is the appointment of boards that take over many of the responsibilities currently undertaken by the courts.” Now think about that… an appointed board (The Nevada Drought Forum) recommends that appointed boards take over the duties of the courts. This “take over” implies that the greedy have been losing in the courts.

Repeatedly, the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) has been losing in the courts in their attempts to take water from Rural Nevada with their Groundwater Development Project (The SNWA Watergrab). One of the primary reasons Nevada Courts have ruled against SNWA has been the potential detrimental effects on senior water rights holders. So; now we have an appointed board (The Nevada Drought Forum), essentially headed by SNWA General Manager John Entsminger, recommending that we effectively get rid of senior water rights and the courts. The implications are obvious.

But we don't have to speculate. Unbundling has been practiced elsewhere. There are examples worldwide. The Michael Young/Nicholas Institute/Duke University Unbundling Water Rights report cites Australia as a successful example. But not everyone considers the “unbundling” of water in Australia to be such a success. In fact, ABC Australia reported that “The water market conspicuously failed to live up to the expectations of the National Water Initiative, driving down water storages in the Murray-Darling Basin to critically low levels at a time when conservation should have been paramount. The dire consequences for the environment, communities and economy of the Basin were clear for all to see… For eight long years the nation's most vital river was not allowed to flow into the sea.”

Now wait a minute. The Michael Young report repeatedly uses the word “robust” to define unbundling. They even define “robust” to mean; “that the resultant water rights, allocation, and governance systems are designed to work well during times of extreme stress.” Of course, they didn't define what “work well” means. Allow me to help. It appears “work well” in Australia's case means outside investors made lots of money.

A large number of offshore players have been quite active in Australia's water market. But the greedy have been keen on covering their tracks. Australian water law prohibits public access to details on water rights holders.

Back in the days of water privatization; foreign companies came in and bought up water companies and did a poor job of delivering water to consumers at hyper-inflated prices. Now, with unbundled water rights, foreign companies can simply buy up water rights and sell them back to consumers at hyper-inflated prices. The big difference is that now those companies don't have to deliver any water. All they have to do is speculate. In other words, unbundling is actually easier to exploit than privatization.

And what about the Michael Young/Nicholas Institute/Duke University Unbundling Water Rights report that claims that unbundling will “improve environmental outcomes”? The claim sounds impressive, but there wasn't any explanation of how this would inevitably happen because of unbundling. Moreover, Adrian Walsh of the University of New England, in The Commodification of the Public Service of Water: A Normative Perspective, states: “Commodification will, in most cases, be at odds with commonly endorsed environmental values and will limit any government's ability to act in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner.” Admittedly, the Unbundling Water Rights report did mention that the environment could be protected if Nevada writes separate “plans” (laws) to protect the environment. But don't expect any significant environmental protections in a State with a Republican Governor, Senate, and House. (Of course, we didn't expect the Democrats to protect us either. The last Democratic candidate for Governor was a former head of SNWA.)

So, after Australia's environmental misery with unbundling, commodification's bad reputation, and no foreseeable responsible environmental legislation in Nevada; could Michael Young be whitewashing the potential environmental risks? It certainly looks like it. And if so, this casts doubt on the whole Unbundling Water Rights report to Nevada.

Michael Young recommends in the Unbundling Water Rights report that these new policies be “rolled out quickly” in Nevada. And why? So that we can be “leaders”. He also recommends that; “Rather than preparing a single integrated water resource bill for consideration by the Nevada's Legislature, it may be more appropriate to prepare separate bills”. And why? No reason given. These look like “Shock Doctrine” tactics – which are to wait for a crisis to ram through exploitative laws that benefit only the greedy. And if they separate these bills, it will be even more difficult for Nevadans to fight them.

Astonishingly, Nevada's State Engineers haven't simply waited for this “Shock Doctrine” water crisis. Actually, they have historically enabled it by over-allocating water rights in Nevada. In defense on the Nevada State Engineers, they haven't really had the political power to say no. But in places like Diamond Valley, where the USGS claims that sustainable use is about 35,000 acre feet per year, State Engineers have allocated 70,000 acre feet per year, and actual use may be as high as 100,000 acre feet per year! Disastrously, this water crisis was enabled by those who were supposed to protect us from this very thing.

It appears that Nevada bureaucrats have created a water crisis which our politicians are now being enticed to make worse by passing bills to further enable unrestrained exploitation.

...But it's even less democratic than that. The Michael Young Unbundling Water Rights report states: “Under existing legislation… the state engineer could declare a groundwater resource to be a critical management area and could require preparation of and implement a water resource sharing plan… the state engineer would appear to have sufficient authority to pilot test the proposed right system in the Diamond Valley and the Humboldt Basin.”

In other words, initially, we the people don't have any say in this comprehensive change in Nevada water law. Of course, the Michael Young/Nicholas Institute/Duke University Unbundling Water Rights report explains that an election could be held after five years – where a majority of water rights holders could change things back to senior/junior water rights. But there isn't even a mention of any options for those with minority opinion. It's like the lamb and the pack of wolves voting on what to have for dinner. If senior water rights holders realize they've been taken advantage of; they likely won't be able to go to court, they will likely be in the minority in the valley, and if foreign speculators buy up junior water rights in their basin, senior water rights holders could eventually be in the minority to foreign water investors, hedge funds, or even big cities.

But the water users most likely to suffer from unbundling are the small family farms. Anthony S. Kiem's article Drought and Water Policy in Australia concludes; “there are also some significant limitations and the people and industries that are negatively impacted by water trading are hit hard.” And; “However, these benefits are limited to the larger, well-informed irrigators at the expense of the smaller “family farm” organizations”... I wouldn't vote for that. But nobody gets to.

In the Humboldt Basin, the Michael Young Unbundling Water Rights report recommends; “the existing authority (the 15-person Humboldt River Basin Water Authority) be disbanded and replaced.” Now I'm pretty sure no one on that existing authority voted to be reduced to an advisory position on a “community reference panel.” This takeover is unnecessary. It is effectively a coup d'état that seizes power away from local control and puts it in the hands of the State politicians and bureaucrats that got us into this crisis!

...But at least the former board of the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority will still have some input – unlike environmentalists and Native Americans – that didn't even get mentioned.

Of course, the Michael Young/Nicholas Institute/Duke University Unbundling Water Rights report did include some good ideas. Nevada's water resource plan should:

• “Allow water account holders to carry forward as many unused water allocations as desired from one season to the next.”
• “Require all significant water use to be metered and recorded in a robust accounting system.”
• “Discourage intentional overuse by setting the penalty for a water account deficit of more than 21 continuous days at three times the cost of restoring the account to a zero balance.”

These are good ideas. But we don't have to unbundle water rights to accomplish them.

Nevada has been offered three spoons of sugar to go with our tainted Kool Aid.

We need to realize the obvious: The long-term answers to our water issues do not include selling it off to anyone who wants to buy it.

Allow me to speculate for a moment:

What if this “unbundling” process is really a surreptitious effort by the big cities to buy up Rural water rights for cheap? What if the big cities and the speculators have devised a way to copy the Los Angeles buy up of Owens Valley water by purchasing those water rights on the open market? What if this whole unbundling scheme is all a scam to force the hyper-exploitation of Rural Nevada?

For some unexplained reason, the Michael Young/Nicholas Institute/Duke University Unbundling Water Rights report states; “Well written plans give priority to the water needed for conveyance.” And they define conveyance as; “water delivered to other systems or states”. This one statement reveals the blatant bias of this report. They want us to accept that water to be shipped out of a basin should have priority over water that stays in the basin. A basic understanding of sustainability dictates that exported water should have the lowest priority. One can't sustain an environment, or an economy, when the highest priority is shipping out the deserts' most valuable resource – water. So, why would Michael Young want to give priority to the water “needed” for conveyance? He didn't say. But maybe it has something to do with the financial support he received.

The Michael Young/Nicholas Institute/Duke University Unbundling Water Rights report was funded by:

• Bechtel Foundation – founded and funded by Stephen D. Bechtel Jr., co-owner of Bechtel Corporation. That's right, the company known for big engineering projects, including water pipelines. And most telling; the same Bechtel that was thrown out of Bolivia by rioting citizens for their privatized water company that was accused of price gouging and deficient water deliveries. 
  
  
  
• Pisces Foundation – works closely with Bechtel Foundation
• Walton Foundation – known to support ALEC (a corporate bill mill)
• Rockefeller Foundation – known for supporting big agricultural interests

These foundations have done many good deeds. Their general intentions are good. But there is no guarantee that these foundations are above reproach on every issue. These are not grass roots organizations. And it only makes sense that the best place to hide bad intentions is in an organization delivering on good intentions. Considered separately, these financial supporters (excluding the Bechtel Foundation) don't arouse many suspicions. However, when considered together (along with the unrestrained exploitation recommendations of the report), one might feel compelled to question the integrity of those who donated money to support this report – and of course, the integrity of those who wrote this report.

There is potentially big money in water – the 21^st century's oil.

Yet water is life.

We had better be very careful who's advice we take.

Our Post-Modern Parallel Universe

• Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
• Almost every civilization that has ever existed has collapsed.
• Some civilizations did not collapse because they adapted.
• The Internet is a tool capable of stimulating massive, rapid adaptation.
• If monopolies control the Internet, our civilization will be less capable of adapting – which could be disastrous on a scale we have yet to imagine.

Have you ever noticed how economists never seem to talk about science? Sure, economists have all kinds of technical looking charts and graphs. And they have a whole language of scientific sounding terms. But rarely do you hear them mention the pure sciences. It's as if economics is a separate study unaffected by the rest of the world. It's as if economics is a parallel universe – where only money matters.

And politicians aren't much better. They pretty much defer to the economists. 

On the other hand; real scientists (such as conservation biologist and Professor Emeritus of University of Arizona, Guy R. McPherson) have published books that warn of dire consequences of continuing on our path of environmental exploitation. Guy R. McPherson's book, Going Dark, even warns of a possibility of humanity's extinction by 2040!

There are conspicuous signs we are already straining the Earth's capacity to support us. We have already witnessed recent mass unrest worldwide due, at least in part, to lack of food – due, at least in part, to Global warming – due, at least in part, to human activities.

...And recently on The Cobert Report, Edward O. Wilson (one of the smartest scientists I know of) reminded us that humanity isn't just experiencing the Earth's sixth extinction event on Earth – we are the extinction event.

When legitimate scientists warn us that we could drive ourselves to extinction in the near term, we need to pay attention. But even though scientists have been warning us since the 1960's, humanity has not acted with real commitment.

Evidently, our money obsessed culture has tried to create a “parallel universe” society that doesn't reflect the actual world we live in – so that we won't have to face our planet's limitations. However, of course; pretending there is no precipice does not take it away.

In our dysfunctional society; it's not about the balance of life on the planet, it's about the balance sheets that tell us our profits and losses. We have become disconnected with our world, and yet we've somehow convinced ourselves we see a clearer view (on television, of course).

Far too many people have been convinced that our fossil fuel dependent economy matters more than our environment. But it is so blatantly obvious that every economy on Earth combined are just a subset of our planet's Environment.

Example: Our present economy relies heavily on fossil fuels. Through the main stream media, those who sell and use fossil fuels have conned us into believing our economy would collapse without them. So, we continue to burn fossil fuels. Now, scientists have found that we have consequently pushed the West Antarctica ice sheet past its tipping point – which guarantees a 10 foot sea level rise... NASA scientist Thomas P. Wagner has said; “This is really happening.”... “There's nothing to stop it now.” And NASA glaciologist Eric Rignot has said; “The system is in sort of a chain reaction that is unstoppable.” … And a 10 foot sea level rise pretty much guarantees a collapse of everyone's economies.

Nonetheless; one in four Americans take no stock in Global Warming. That's right, one in four Americans get their science education from advertiser supported main stream media “news.” What's astounding about this is that they have to wait for that “education” while watching countless advertisements from fossil fuel companies. Haven't they ever heard the term; “follow the money”? Though this is the epitome of gullibility, one in four Americans would rather believe that Global Warming is some sort of scientists' conspiracy than seriously concern themselves with cutting back on fossil fuel consumption.

Obviously, far too many of us simply don't want to know the truth.

The truth is just too depressing... and horrifically scary.

In the real world; every technological innovation humanity has ever invented has had (sometimes far reaching) consequences.

In the parallel universe; it's OK to build nuclear power plants, because somebody will soon invent a way to deal with all the nuclear waste.

In the real world; our planet has only a limited number of resources.

In the parallel universe; we can make out like bandits selling scarce resources.

In the real world; climate change is beginning to disastrously effect every place on the planet.

In the parallel universe; we won't have to wear jackets in the Winter.

In the real world; almost every civilization that has existed has collapsed.

In the parallel universe; our super-superior civilization cannot fail – no matter how hard we push it to the brink.

In the real world; the Earth is now in it's sixth great extinction event – and most of this extinction is human caused.

In the parallel universe; we can't know this – or we don't care to remember it.

In the real world; when you die, you rot.

In the parallel universe; if you pray to the right God, he will rescue you from the predicament humanity has created.

(Now wait a minute... God is going to save us from killing off all of his creations? If you believe that after destroying life on Earth – all of God's creations, we will be welcome in Heaven; then you really are thinking in a parallel universe.)

So...

What if the “sky is falling” scientists are right?

What if we are on the short road to extinction by going the direction we are headed?

Then we obviously need to change that direction.

We need to start thinking in the real world.

It has basically come down to; adapt or die.

(I'm reminded of the scene in the movie Blade Runner, where Eldon Tyrell, the insanely-rich oligarch, says to the engineered human; “The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very, very brightly....”)

Blade Runner depiction of Los Angeles in the future

It may be that, in order to get where we are today, our civilization had to “break some eggs”. (In case you're not familiar with the quote; “If you want an omelet, you have to break some eggs.”)

Maybe we had to create an unstable society to nurture the innovations we have seen. Maybe our fatal weaknesses are unavoidable hidden consequences of our greatest strengths. Maybe intelligent life is its own greatest enemy. But then again maybe, if we accepted our predicament; we might change our behavior – and fix our problems.

Money is just a tool. All tools can be misused. But we have the capacity to learn how not to misuse our tools.

Humanity's extinction by 2040?

...We can do better than that.

But how?

...Not by thinking in an imaginary parallel universe – by honestly assessing our real world situation and creatively devising better ways to deal with it.

We need to work together. We need to notice everyone's ideas. We need to fix our systems and to develop new ones that work even better.

That's why the Internet is so important.

That's why the monopolization of the Internet might just be the hindrance that blocks us from fixing critical things – which could lead to humanity's extinction. 

So, why wouldn't everyone want net neutrality? Because if they can control the flow of information, they can make money for doing nothing.  

In the real world; life is full of predators, parasites, and swindlers. There are people who want us to think in their parallel universe. That's how they control us. That's how they enslave us. That's how they keep up their outdated multi-billion dollar income streams. That's how they crush better ideas. That's how they ruin our future.

Throughout history, there have always been scheming demons who have wanted to control others, to manipulate them, and to dominate their minds. These lying thieves want your wealth. They want you to be their part-time slave. They want you to fight and die for their exploits of greed. And they want you to think that they are your “friend.”

...But first of all, they want to control what you know.

They have controlled mass media ever since they monopolized print media over a century ago. But they don't have control over the Internet – yet.

 

Net Neutrality assures that the scheming demons can't buy their way into your mind.

Which is why the ISPs want to get rid of net neutrality – there's really big money in accessing your mind.

They tried to buy off Congress. But killing net neutrality was far too unpopular. So they tried taking their corrupt case to the corrupt Supreme Court. They won. But only if the FCC allowed them to sell access. They had that covered too. They had convinced President Obama to appoint an industry mole, Tom Wheeler, to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

President Obama's FCC chief is lying to us about his position on net neutrality. He is on the fast track to ignore the people, enrich the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and destroy the free flow of information humanity so desperately needs. 

Now would be a good time to urge President Obama to fire Tom Wheeler from the FCC. But we can only assume Obama, the first President elected by the Internet, wants this. He hired him. 

The good news is that individuals are not the only ones fighting this. Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Twitter, and Yahoo are on our side. We can win this... again. (And of course, they will try again... eternal vigilance...)

You only have a few more days to make a comment to the FCC.

To make a comment to the FCC: click here

...And if the FCC fails to act in the best interests of America and the world?

Then we need to build our own Internet. This isn't as hard as it sounds. We could connect in an open mesh network. Essentially, we could eliminate the need for ISPs. This is already being done in other parts of the world – for far less money, much better connection speeds, and better privacy from the NSA.

The ISPs have been overcharging us for connection to the Internet for too damn long. And now they're using our money to steal control over the Internet to ultimately charge us even more. What's worse, they may make it very difficult for small websites to be accessed. Essentially, the ISPs want to make the Internet like cable TV – devoid of fresh ideas.

We don't need the ISPs. They charge far too much. And we certainly don't want them to control what we know.

The information we share on the “neutral” Internet may include the tools to save our civilization – maybe even our species.

It's that important.

The Astroturf Sagebrush Rebellion

This “standoff” wasn't about cattle.

It's about fracking wells. 
It's about neutering the BLM.  

Deadbeat rancher Cliven Bundy wasn't some kind of hero.

He was a tool.

He was a propaganda tool.

How do you think some guy who doesn't pay his fees to the people of America (it's our land), can recruit hordes of armed militants to chide BLM officers to commit some violent act?

In contrast, think about all those people who lost their homes, sometimes illegally, during the financial crisis – who never got militia protection.

What is this? If you don't pay the banksters; you're a bum. But if you don't pay the government, you're a hero? This doesn't add up. It's as if the militia showed up to protect a tax evader. This “confrontation” screams astroturf theater.

No... There's a bigger story here.

And it appears that ALEC is behind it.

ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is not just your typical lobbying organization. ALEC is also a corporate bill mill. This is where the dirty work gets done. This is where the laws that were written to protect Americans get watered down. This is the primary organization behind corporate anarchy in America. And ALEC has a long record of pushing legislation for States to seize control of Federal Lands. The reason why is simple; because it's easier to push around State legislatures.

As far back as 1978, members of ALEC were bragging that they helped spur the initial “Sagebrush Rebellion” in Northern Nevada.

And why?

ALEC doesn't care about ranchers who don't pay their grazing fees. They care about how powerful the BLM is. They want to push around, or in this case; eliminate the BLM.

Follow the money. The Koch brothers, Peabody Energy, Duke Energy, and American Electric Power are examples of big contributors to ALEC. And they want to mine any where they please:

BLM lands – drill baby drill!

Forest Service lands – dig'em up!

Wilderness Areas – frack till the water turns black!

National Parks – you can have 'em back when we're through...

Arizona Representative Raul M. Grijalva (D) has asked the Department of Interior to investigate ALEC's “aggressive effort” to change State laws relating to land use. He claims this amounts to unregistered lobbying.

Imagine that; militias doing unregistered lobbying. It sounds crazy. But think about it. They, and the mainstream media get the public all riled up about how oppressive the “government” is. ALEC steps in with a corporate written bill at the Nevada legislature. And the next thing you know, the public gets played – and most likely; they will never know what happened – until the frackers show up in their back yard.

• Contrast this Astroturf Rebellion with real, grass-roots organizations; like “Occupy.” The FBI, Homeland Security, and numerous local police organizations coordinated a sophisticated violent crackdown that crushed the Occupy movement.
• Contrast this gun toting standoff (in which the government backed down to avoid violence) with the treatment of environmentalists – of which 900 have been killed in the past ten years.
• Oh, and remember; in the past 100 years, American taxpayers have had to pick up the bill for 470 billion dollars in tax subsidies to the oil and gas industries. Moreover, the mining industry is still paying taxes designed to subsidize miners with picks and shovels.

You think they don't have the power to play us in the mainstream media? 
That's how they get away with it. 

 

...And the additional goal; to make Senator Harry Reid look like the face of tyranny. (While in reality, Senator Reid has been one of the few members of Congress to stand up to big oil, coal, and the military/industrial complex.) Gee, could the Koch brothers could have had something to do with that? After he legitimately called the Koch brothers “unAmerican,” wouldn't we expect something.

(This is what they want you to believe.)

I don't agree with Senator Harry Reid's claim that these armed protestors are “terrorists.” They're more like “operatives.” You know, like the CIA operatives who overthrew President Mosaddegh in Iran (likely for the oil companies). Most of these militia members didn't know that. I'm sure they believe the hype. But I wouldn't be surprised if some of their (secret, private intelligence) handlers knew exactly what they were up to: conning gullible Americans into fighting for their own oppression. 

Groupthink and the Koch Brothers

Wikipedia defines groupthink as; “a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome.”

Of course, it makes evolutionary sense that members of a group would want to work together. Consequently, it makes sense that a beneficial form of assimilation might evolve. However, there is a potential for a catastrophically fatal flaw – groupthink. If the group is wrong; everybody in the group is wrong. The best the group can hope for to avert eventual catastrophe is that independent outliers might notice the fatal flaw.

I would like to cover two forms of groupthink in this post; political and economic.

Political Groupthink:

In a recent post of mine (Deny/Disrupt/Degrade/Deceive), I ended the article with a compliment to Senator Harry Reid.

...And as I expected, say anything nice about Senator Harry Reid, and I was bound to get trolled.

It's not very often you hear someone in political office speak the truth about corruption in Washington – not and name names too. What Senator Harry Reid said about the Koch brothers was not only true, but really needed to be said. Senator Harry Reid, in spite of all his faults; should be supported when he does the right thing. This should be true for everyone.

But a groupthink has developed that believes that Harry Reid can do no right. And if you know anything about politics, you know things like this don't just happen.

I live in Nevada. And I (vaguely) remember most of Harry Reid's career. But most importantly, I remember Nevadans' changing attitude about Harry Reid.

Years ago, there was no radical group of (Koch brothers financed / Fox “News” educated) haters who believed Harry Reid was the cause of everything evil. In fact, we all pretty much liked Harry Reid. That's why he got re-elected over and over again so many times I've lost count.

But now, those of us who still think Senator Harry Reid is a “keeper” (and the last election proves that it is most of us voters) don't often speak up in public. We know someone will attack us with a round of “how evil Harry Reid is for doing what almost all American politicians are doing.”

I'm not here to give a rousing praise of Senator Harry Reid's career. I'm here to point out the real reason the Koch brothers have already spent $14,500,000 on Senate races to oust anyone even like Senator Harry Reid.

...It's about money...

...It's about oil money...

But that's not what a recent Washington Post article said. The article; “Harry Reid really hates the Koch brothers. Here's why.” didn't even touch on why Harry Reid hates the Koch brothers. It just proclaimed essentially that this is all just politics and Harry Reid is just trying to counter all that money the Koch brothers are spending to influence American politics. They've trivialized what Reid said. They've trivialized what the Koch brothers have done. I think somebody put the wrong title on this article. It should have read; “Harry Reid really hates the Koch brothers. This is what we want you to think.”

Senator Harry Reid is the last of the old school politicians in power, and a lot of people want to take his power. And what do they want to replace it with? The Kochs want to replace it with “gas” power.

Nevada is a big state with lots of open range. California is right next to Nevada. There is a huge potential for solar power generation in Nevada, and obviously; the Koch brothers want to kill it. Apparently, they feel too many people will want to drive electric cars.

Harry Reid wants to support his home State, and obviously; the Koch brothers only want Nevadan's money (when we buy their gas). But somehow; the mass media (outside of Nevada) never mentions this. Could it be that it's because only the Koch brothers advertise with them?

In his last re-election, Reid ran against Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle. Though I don't know how much money they spent, the Koch brothers tried to oust Harry Reid by supporting a pathetically mediocre candidate. It appears that the Koch brothers didn't care at all about Nevada. They just wanted to kick Harry Reid out of office. (But there may be another reason they were willing to support such a mediocre candidate. She would have owed them big time.)

The Koch brothers wanted Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid's power.

And why? For the money, of course!

The Koch brothers want to force us to continue to buy their oil.

And with control of Congress, they could do it.

Examples of the oil industry's power in Congress:

Scotland already generates 40% of its power using renewables – and plans to have 100% by 2020. The United States, on the other hand only generates 9% of its power using renewables – and has no realistic plans for 100%. The difference; politics. Those with fossil fuel riches have manipulated our government to make it difficult for renewable energy to compete. “Our” government has given billions and billions in subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuels – while ramping up and down subsides for renewables (which has repeatedly driven many renewable companies out of business.) In January of 2014, Congress did it again, when subsides for wind energy were not renewed. (Nonetheless, subsides for fossil fuel companies keep right on filling the bank accounts of the likes of the Koch brothers.) “Our” government allowed Texaco to purchase of the patent for the battery for the General Motors electric car, the EV1, and shut down all production of those batteries – setting back electric vehicles at least a decade. And “our” government has given the biggest polluters, the fossil fuel companies, exemptions to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act (in the 2005 Energy bill).

This list could go on for pages.

And the Koch brothers want more.

On the other hand; Senator Harry Reid has represented Nevada in Washington since 1983. That means he still remembers when America was more like an actual democracy. Harry Reid remembers what Washington was like before the “Patriot” Act. Harry Reid remembers what Washington was like before the “Supreme” Court decision on Citizens United. Harry Reid remembers what Washington was like before so much of the Government was privatized. Harry Reid even remembers what Washington was like back when America wasn't in a perpetual state of war. What this means is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has seen a better Washington and a better America. But apparently; many within the Deep State don't want us, or our elected representatives, to remember.

The Deep State wants us to believe that America is just fine with them running it. In fact, the very basis of conservatism is; don't change a thing. This isn't a coincidence. Conservatism is Deep State groupthink. And deep pockets keep it relevant.

The Koch brothers have discovered something about the vulnerability of the American psyche. In American elections; the candidate who collects the most money usually wins.

Political groupthink.

Want to know who's pulling the strings? Follow the money.

And why?

I suspect they just consider it an investment...

If you can't beat them in the marketplace, cheat. Buy some politicians to give you an unfair advantage. And if the present politicians say no, then bring in some new ones.

For example; the Tea Party started out with legitimate concerns. But it wasn't long before the Koch brothers essentially bought it. And a few years later, the Tea Party has the power to literally shut down the Federal Government. Talk about power. The Koch brothers have the power to tell America to do things their way or they will literally shut us down. 

No wonder Senator Harry Reid is so upset.

And the Koch brothers never could have done it without political groupthink.

Economic Groupthink:

Once one has enough money to pay for basic needs, money ceases to be a necessity.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the groupthink.

We all started to believe that we had to have as much money as we could get.

We hoard money. We waste money.

Some people steal money. Others pay people to steal it for them.

Our economy has devolved into a massive game of collecting money – with no real insight of the consequences.

Pillaging is definitely not the highest form of human activity.

And when humanity destroys, displaces, poisons, and ignores the fate of whole ecosystems, the consequences are ultimately disastrous beyond our comprehension.

To feel that money is more important than life on Earth?

That's not just insane... it's collectively suicidal groupthink.

But if you're old, like the Koch brothers, you just might be able to get away with environmental murder and die before you have to pay the price. But their children won't get away with it. Is it that the Koch brothers don't even care about their own children? No amount of money will protect their children from a total Environmental collapse.

Scientists have already informed us that we are well under way into the Earth's sixth great extinction event. Our climate is already changing. Our air, soil, and water are loaded with toxins, carcinogens, and endocrine disrupters. And the Koch brothers' strategy is to stay the course? Obviously, they've spent too much time isolated on their expensive estates – and they simply don't understand the real world.

The Koch brothers are zealous believers of oligarchy economic groupthink – you know, “free trade” (for everyone else). But that may not work out well for the Koch brothers for much longer. Everyone else is starting to catch on.

The prevailing economic groupthink is; more money, more status. But that hasn't worked out for the Koch brothers either. A significant portion of the population see the Koch brothers as the lowest, sleaziest, most despicable form of human life – with enough money to force their sick concepts on the world.

The Koch brothers have taken the money that was given them (they inherited it) and used it to make the world a more miserable place. For brevity, I'll only focus on their (and other oil companies') oil interests. The oil industry has a long cutthroat history of not giving a damn about anything but money. Examples:

• Lead in gasoline – the gasoline industry has known since the 1920's that lead in gasoline would drive people crazy and kill them. But the industry callously put lead in American gasoline until the 1970's, when they were forced, by law, to stop. By the 1990's, violent crime in America had dropped precipitously. And as other nations banned the use of lead in gasoline, their violent crime statistics repeated those of America – and dropped precipitously within 20 years. Lead also lowers IQ scores and can kill from lead induced heart disease.
• Other toxins in gasoline – Air pollution is now on the top 10 list of disease risk factors. And particulate matter from auto emissions is the root cause.
• Oil spills everywhere – Just in the year 2012, the sum of American oil spills exceeded the volume of the Exxon Valdez spill.

• Toxins in fracking fluids – as a consequence of some bizarre legal precedent, oil company “trade secrets” have priority over public health... They can put anything they want in fracking fluid, and don't have to tell us. What that means is they can literally get away with putting toxic waste in fracking fluids. And guess what? Water samples taken near fracking sites have found elevated levels of endocrine disrupting chemicals – which have been known to cause infertility, birth defects, and cancer.
• Climate change – even the biblically bad weather we have been experiencing lately hasn't been enough to convince the mass media that the oil company financed climate deniers are lying to us. The world's economy has already been effected, and it is only going to get worse if we burn more gas. Nonetheless, that's precisely what the oil industry wants.
• Endocrine disrupting chemicals in plastics – that's right, even petroleum plastics aren't actually safe. And what has the plastics industry done about this? They've hired exactly the same firms that the tobacco industry used to cover up the risks of second-hand smoke.

Scores of people have been (and will be) driven to illness and death because of burning of fossil fuels. Nonetheless, the fossil fuel industries continue to use their considerable political clout to hold back clean energy. Why?

Let's see... Koch Industries and affiliates stand to make as much as $100 billion on the Keystone XL pipeline. So it's no surprise the Koch brothers are so willing to spend millions on corrupting U.S. Politics.

The irony of all this is that if the Keystone XL pipeline can get Canadian oil to a world markets, they can charge higher world prices. In other words, the oil industry wants Americans to support the Keystone XL pipeline, so they can raise oil prices on us. (No wonder Senator Harry Reid called them unAmerican.)

The Koch brothers are worth billions. So why would they sully their reputations on such devious methods to make even more money? Economic groupthink? Rich American exceptionalism? A misplaced desire to keep their oil company afloat? Or just plain straight-up greed? My guess is that it is some combination of all of the above mixed with the unwillingness to accept the reality that they have done more harm in their lives than good. Like the oil they they want to force us to buy, the consequences of their existence are far worse than they would like to admit.

They'd rather run this horse till it dies than change directions.

If you were out on a horse in the desert, would you sell your water? Would you let somebody poison the water hole? Of course not. It's simply a matter of survival. It would be unthinkable.

Fracking in Nevada is essentially trading our scarce water for someone else's profits. It should be unthinkable.

Please sign this Petition telling our representatives how we feel about fracking in Nevada:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/nevadas-scarce-water

The locations where fracking is being considered here in Nevada are areas of extremely high water stress.

Fracking consumes huge amounts of water.

Chemicals found in water near fracking sites has been found to be toxic, carcinogenic, and endocrine disruptors.

Livestock is being harmed by fracking.

And when one considers methane releases at fracking sites, “natural” gas is no better than coal in causing climate change.

Face it; frackers are after the money, and they don't care about anything or anyone else. And they can get away with it because they are scheming demons and Americans haven't been willing to stop buying gas.

Our systems are broken.

What we have left are systems that are totally out of control and self destructive. And because a few politically powerful people are extending their income streams and a lot of people have “jobs” (essentially extending their income streams too), they don't want things to change. For the money, they don't care how much damage they inflict. Essentially, they'd rather run this horse till it dies than change directions.

That is the future they have chosen for us – a future in the middle of nowhere with a dead horse and no water.

It isn't going to be communism or socialism or terrorism that's going to take us out. It's going to be ignorance. It's going to be complacency. It's going to be the lack of will to change when our situation has critically changed.

We don't have the luxury of time to believe the lies anymore.

Elysium Movie Review and Predictions of the Future

 

Someone once said that science fiction is never really about the future – because we can never really place ourselves in the mindset of the future. That's OK with me. The best science fiction, in my opinion; pictures a future that relates to issues of the present – extrapolating issues of today into a credible vision of the future – however unexpected.

The movie Elysium has created a very credible story line by focusing on present issues such as resource depletion, wealth concentration, technological attempts to avoid fixing social issues, a culture of corruption, and the continued oppression of indigenous peoples.

I recommend the movie – just for the conversations it will start.

Unfortunately, the Hollywood feel-good ending didn't feel all that plausible. (Long ago, Hollywood realized that sad endings don't sell tickets.) So, I guess it's the responsibility of us bloggers to consider more plausible endings.

...But first; the Elysium satellite concept seems like a great idea! If I were a billionaire, I would want them to start working on this right away. In fact, I would buy a few congressmen to pass bills authorizing NASA and various private contractors to start working on a “space colonization” project – at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. (Hey, I'd rather see NASA get the money than Homeland Security.)

Just check out this link to the (fictional) Elysium satellite. It's the ultimate gated community! It's the green zone in the heavens! But more importantly; it's an opportunity for humanity to keep our eggs in more than one basket. Space colonization is human species life insurance.

Even if only the super-rich get to live there, at least someone has a chance at life if all of the rest of us face extinction.

But wouldn't something like this be grossly unfair? Aren't many among these super-rich the very people responsible for exploiting the planet to the point of mass extinctions? Well, yes...

Which leads me to my point. There may be some very rich people right now who think they can be insulated from the consequences of a total Environmental collapse. Apparently, they must believe this – because their actions imply they don't care whether or not they cause an Environmental collapse. Of course, most likely they've deluded themselves (as most of us have) into believing their actions don't matter enough to see a need to change.

Humanity's callus and selfish actions have led us to the brink of our own extinction. The combined threats of nuclear war, chemical war, biological war, massive polluting, climate change, resource depletion, and overpopulation have pushed life on Earth to an extinction event as big as that which saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. We know this. It is already happening. And yet, like obsessively continuing to pull on a thread of a sweater, we continue to risk the total oblivion of the unraveling of nature. And why? To satisfy our man-made goals.

For example; the fossil fuel industries keep on selling poisons so that they can keep their stock prices up. Now after peak oil, they've figured out more dangerous ways to keep their cash flow in the billions. No one can deny that fracking is essentially poisoning our water in order to poison our air. But somehow, this makes sense in their (all that matters is cash flow) minds. For the past thirty years, the fossil fuel industry has done everything they can (including corrupt our democracy) to hold back renewable industries. Why? Because they perceive renewables as competition. The fossil fuel industries could have just bought into renewables – but no... the profits weren't as high. And why weren't the profits as high? Because they had corrupted our regulation systems to allow them to get away with polluting (poisoning) everything with impunity.

...And these are the people who could afford to buy a spot on the Elysium satellite.

Which brings up a point brought forth in the Elysium movie; one can never create a utopia if we fill it with evil people.

Of course, we don't actually have to build an Elysium satellite. We could try to create a utopia right here on Earth. Well... at least we could try. But I guess that's what those fossil fuel millionaires and billionaires must think they are trying to do for themselves. They've created gated community green zones that look idyllic from a distance, but don't really make the inhabitants that much happier. And to finance their gated communities, they've poisoned the air, the water, everyone's food, and each other. Oops...

On the other hand; even if we all were to switch to renewable energy, organic farming, clean industries, and all the sustainable habits – it may not be enough. There are seven billion of us on the planet, and our population continues to rise.

Ask any biologist; is this normal? NO! Every natural population finds an equilibrium in nature at which its population fluctuates sustainably. I'll use the hare and the lynx as an example: 

 

As you can see in the chart, natural populations fluctuate about a steady state. This makes sense, because our environment only has so many limited resources.

Now look at human population: 

 

This graph shows what is known as exponential growth – which is blatantly unsustainable. Note that wars, birth control, and AIDS have all barely made a dent in this exponential growth.

Evolution has given us a gift – which can also be a curse. Our population can rise precipitously to fill a void (such as when entering a new environment or after a major disease). But this propensity to grow has serious drawbacks humanity has yet to deal with.

Many scientists have predicted that eventually this exponential growth will level off – and that humanity will find a new steady-state population:

This, of course, is the best-case scenario. But unfortunately, it doesn't take into account human resourcefulness. People don't just stop having babies. People don't just give up on growing more food. People don't just stop eating when their traditional foods are gone. Humans survive because we have found ways to alter our habits and our environment. Which means that, for a while, we have figured out how to live beyond our natural carrying capacity. That's good news for us now, but terrifying news for us in the long run:

The reason we have so much to fear is we don't know what our carrying capacity actually is (or could be). In our natural state, humanity's carrying capacity was significantly less than a billion people. Which means we can't go back to our natural state. We have to rely on technology. But much of that technology is now polluting and using up resources. One would have to be brain-dead not to see that humanity has been systematically borrowing from the future to sustain our unsustainable lifestyle. One could even argue that humanity's whole exploitative economic system is a huge Ponzi scheme – on the verge of collapse.

In the last graph, consumption overshoot left the population with less in the long run. Which leads to the question: What if we overshoot our environmental carrying capacity so much that we drain our degraded carrying capacity to zero?

The concept is simple; a species grows exponentially in a finite environment until it eats all the food or somehow changes the environment to the point that the species can no longer survive in it.

Convincing examples of population collapses do exist:

• Yeast in a wine container
• a reindeer population collapse on a remote island
• Easter Island and its human population collapse
• The Most Important Video You Will Ever See

Without some new technological fix to increase the world's carrying capacity, it would mean humanity's extinction.

...which is why scientists are trying to develop poo burgers.

In the not too distant future, that may be all that's left to eat.

Moreover, the sad truth is that because of humanity's consumption overshoot, we may not have time to build an Elysium satellite.

Recent news includes:

• Asia has had to endure record heat, flooding, and a super typhoon.
• Water leaks at Fukushima could contaminate the entire Pacific Ocean.
• Wild bees are in even worse shape than domesticated bees.
• A major permafrost methane release is almost inevitable.
• Namibia is in the middle of the worst drought in 30 years.
• Ocean acidity has been so effected by carbon dioxide that the oceans may be near a tipping point in which calcium in shells etc. may disintegrate and thus upset entire ocean ecosystems.
• Africa's Black Rhino is now officially extinct.
• Scientists estimate that 27,000 species are going extinct every year (vs. 100 in the average fossil record).

All I can say about this is; get used to it.

Humanity has already set in motion all of the events just mentioned – and much more.

If you're not scared, you don't have a clue.

Which is why I expected a different ending to the Elysium movie.

There may come a day when someone has the biological expertise to develop a disease that could kill 90% of us.

You may remember the movie 12 Monkeys. In this film, one person, that's right, one person sets in motion a disease that kills most human life on the planet. By the time we have the technology to put rich people in communities in space, the technology to create mass killing diseases will likely also exist. Which means that if the residents of an Elysium satellite ever feel threatened, someone might launch a pandemic.

Of course, if the technology to kill off all of their human competition were to be developed before an Elysium satellite; there wouldn't really be a need for an Elysium satellite.

What if some evil drug company invented both a humanity killing disease and a vaccination to prevent it? They could launch the disease and sell the vaccination. They could rid the world of all those poor people (in their way) and get rich doing it. Consider this; if they had a billion vaccines and they sold them for $10,000 a dose, that would make them ten trillion dollars! The temptation is frightening. Moreover, the results are arguably better than letting nature take its course (with a starving humanity bush-meating the planet). After a disease purge; the world would no longer be overpopulated with people, the drug company would be the richest people on the planet, and they could essentially create an Elysium right here on Earth. If there is a Dr. Evil, this would be at the top of his to-do list. But on the other hand, it still beats humanity's extinction (along with most of the higher forms of life on the planet).

So, there we have it.

Our choices are to:

1. continue on the course we have set for ourselves and virtually guarantee our extinction (along with most higher forms of life on Earth).
2. get our act together and develop a sustainable world economy, a fair worldwide democracy, a responsible research and development system, a stable population, and still risk extinction.
3. try to build a space colony away from all the strife – knowing that there is no way we can keep up with humanity's exponential population growth and these space colonies will end up even more cutthroat than now (because of who will man it).
4. create a disease that will sterilize us all – even though we suspect that the present population is already well over our planet's carrying capacity.
5. create a bio-weapon that would kill off 90% of the human population without damaging the environment – knowing that the biggest exploiters, polluters, etc. will be those still alive.
6. strive for technological “miracles” to save us for a while longer – knowing that the more our population rises, the worse the fall will ultimately be.

My point: in creating our present world, we have made our future options quite ugly. The movie Elysium, when considering these options, seems rather like a best case scenario – even for the poor stuck on Earth without jobs or health care. At least the rich hadn't killed them off.