I don't think we have the minerals to effect our glorious transition to renewables. The will of the people only matters when it goes the way of activists. Tell Me a Story by Robert Penn Warren.
I don't think we have the minerals to effect our glorious transition to renewables.
If Sarah Montalbano, a policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment interviewed in the Power Gab episode below is right--worth a watch, we don't even have enough to meet the needs of the world right now.
You see, while we're all busying ourselves here in (some parts of) the US with greenhouse gases, the developing world is simply trying to transition to having electricity.
While we're busy in Colorado trying to ruin our economy and make things more expensive as a sacrifice we can lay at the altar of climate change, there are places in the world that are trying to get electricity to remote parts so that motors could replace human and animal power.
These goals are going to butt heads with each other when we realize that the same copper needed to make a wind turbine, the same rare earths to make batteries, solar panels, and motors, are all the same chemicals needed for wiring to remote villages, and motor controls.
It will be interesting to see how this conflict gets settled, because, no matter the rhetoric the decision of where these finite and scarce resources go will tell us all about the real values at play. Will it be to help people in the here and now? To alleviate suffering and save carbon and lives "over there"?
Or will it be used to assuage the guilt of some "over here" without likely saving any lives?
One last thing before I leave you to the video. Another big theme in the discussion in the video is just how little domestic, US, production of necessary minerals is happening. Thank you to the environmentalists, thank you to the Biden administration policies, for that. Just when we need them, we are choking off our own supply.
It's not copper per se, but if you want a related example of what I mean, check the second link below. On his way out the door Biden is continuing his administration's policy of being hostile to trying to get domestic supplies of oil, gas, etc.
Related:
It isn't just low-electrical-resistance metals that we're having trouble getting enough of. If we (or others) are going to start generating electricity from nuclear reactors we're going to have to get more uranium.
Seems already this is becoming a challenge. Another overlap to the video in the post? Because environmental regulation and environmentalists have stilted domestic exploration and production, lots of mining has gone out of the US. Then we have global conflict and supply problems.
No choice is made without a consequence. More in the article.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/uranium-crisis-threatens-global-nuclear-power-industry/article_0385b29d-9b68-5b9a-839e-708667971539.html
The will of the people only matters when it goes the way of activists. Hear hear!
The line above is the headline of Rachel Gabel's recent op ed, linked at the bottom. I find it apt. I find it apt not just for CPW meetings and policy (the subject of Gabel's op ed), but also applicable to much we've seen the last four or so years in this state.
How many times has the express will of the people in this state been thrown over to satisfy the desires of those in power or the groups whose desires trump yours?
Coming back to CPW and Gabel's op ed, there are some important threads that Gabel takes up.
Going back to prior to the election, there were at least a couple op eds I can think of written by CPW Commissioners. In each case, the authors were careful to note that they spoke only for themselves and not the board. That's appropriate for them to note, but at best it leaves the people of Colorado with questions.
Will this sort of feeling bleed over into CPW's policy decisions going forward on wildlife management? Will these commissioners let their feelings (and those of the people they obviously align themselves with) carry more weight than those of Coloradans who made their feelings quite clearly known at the ballot box? That is, how well can the people of Colorado expect their wishes to be respected by this unelected board?
Compounding this is the way that these commissioners followed up on their op ed at the first meeting post-election on 11/15. Quoting Gabel's op ed:
"[CPW Commissioner] Jessica Beaulieu told the Commission she read the public comments submitted prior to last Thursday’s meeting and wanted to clarify she and Commissioner Jack Murphy did not communicate about writing the op-ed that appeared in papers across the state in support of a measure to ban mountain lion hunting. She said she did not email, call or participate in virtual meetings with Commissioner Murphy concerning the development of the oped and apologized for breaking the rules of communication set forth for the commission. Commissioner Murphy echoed Beaulieu and said, 'we simply signed off on a letter' and 'not one single word was written by either of us.'”
In case you missed the context here there has been a flap about these commissioners violating open meetings law by having a secret meeting to work on this op ed without prior announcement/etc. per the Colorado Open Meetings Law.
Perhaps more to the point here is the questions that I have and that Gabel voices. Again, quoting:
"This begs the question of who the hell penned the piece and who asserts so much control over these two commissioners that they would merely sign off on a piece for wide publication."
I would add my questions as to whether or not this is a repeated pattern, the writing of op-eds by interest groups or interested advocates which they then fobbed off as their own.
I would love to say no, but if you look at links two and three below, you'll see both our own beloved Secretary of State Griswold and Pueblo's Mayor Graham indulging in the practice (with Planned Parenthood and Evraz respectively).
This should not be how things run. Of course, our elected and unelected officials are welcome to have opinions and, within the scope of the law and the Constitution, should be free to express them.
They should also make sure those opinions are their own and stand behind them. This didn't happen with Griswold, it didn't happen with Graham, and by their words at the 11/15 meeting, it didn't happen with Beaulieu and Murphy (that is, if you take them at their word which I struggle to).
They should also make sure that, if they are an unelected board and thus have more insulation against the will of the people (and less accountability to them) that they take care to respect the wide range of opinions in this state. That they take care to say, in essence, "here's what I believe, but I will respect the will of the people".
Time will tell about whether or not Beaulieu and Murphy act in accord with that.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/will-of-the-people-only-matters-when-it-goes-the-way-of-activists-gabel/article_a54edf0c-a3e0-11ef-bbb8-5f521dc9870d.html#google_vignette
https://www.9news.com/article/news/hold-for-marshall-sos-story/73-ed6a8cfc-8da1-480e-ac7c-7a661bbbd91e
https://www.chieftain.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/16/pueblo-mayor-heather-graham-allowed-evraz-lobbyist-to-write-her-opinion/73656360007/
Tell Me a Story by Robert Penn Warren
That time of the week again. The last post on a Friday, the last post til Sunday, and so it's time for something fun that's not related to politics.
In anticipation of Season 4 hitting libraries, I re-ran the entirety of the True Detective series watching seasons 1 to 3. Good show, I recommend it. The
The poem linked below figures largely in season 3 (linked first below is the Season 3 Wikipedia page for the show, and second is the poem). I thought I would share it with you.
The poem itself is decent. I'll be honest, there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't find it especially moving or compelling. Sometimes that happens without saying anything bad about the poem or the reader.
What made it noteworthy was how the theme of the poem is reflected in this season of the show. It won't give anything about the plot away, but the story is told across time and in a non-linear fashion. It is the intertwining of the story of a crime and the story of a marriage between two human beings that sometimes approached each other and sometimes diverged. Layered in on top of this is the fact that the narrator's memory is failing.
The poem about time's passages fits perfectly in a quite skillfully-told story. I enjoyed this installment a lot, but perhaps my enjoyment has as much to do with the fact that I'm a sucker for a nonlinear storyline.
Anyway, if you are interested in a good detective story, check it out.
That's it for today. Back at it on Sunday!
Reading about Michigan Repubs flipping the state house reminds me to have hope. We can do it here