I hearted fries.

I don't know if it's all the pro-organic, pro-vegetarian, sustainability books I've been reading recently ("The Food Revolution" by John Robbins and "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan), but it may be affecting the way I taste (food, not me personally).

For the past year, I've generally tried to avoid fast food as much as possible. No temptatious nuggets, no pungent hamburgers, well, the occasional grilled chicken sandwich because it must be healthier than the other stuff on the combo menu! But there's no way around the fries. I crave fries every day. I love Burger King fries, they always seem to be fresh.

But today, I got Wendy's. It honestly tasted like there was a slimy coating of melted plastic wrapped around each fry. The more I chewed, the more it "crunched" between my teeth, but not in a good way. No fry has ever tasted like this to me before. . . . I imagined my stomach being assaulted by carcinogenic seasoning and butane-laced grease. In disgust, I slowly and regretfully stopped eating, and ended up throwing the majority of it out. And I had made it a medium! $1.55.

I hope this change is for the good cause I thought fries and I had a beautiful relationship. . . .

Gonna go watch Fast Food Nation now. What a coincidence it came in the mail.

Why not. So I did it.

You know how you have unresolved questions after you've finished reading a newspaper or magazine article? You know I did when I read this article on WaPo today. It talks about how ExxonMobil has turned a new leaf with regards to the way it's handling its response to global warming, including having cut funding to an unnamed Washington think tank, which the reporter seemingly implied to be the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), but we can't be sure:

Exxon Mobil Warming Up To Global Climate Issue
by Steven Mufson, February 10, 2007

So I did the previously unthinkable and actually posted a comment to the article. Now I know that usually, posts border along the side of "rant," so I'm proud to say that mine was fairly civil, and I hope that someone responds equally as civil.

If ExxonMobil claims that they cut funding for "a Washington think tank critical of climate change actions" in 2005, then why is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) still at it with their $10,000-for-IPCC-critique solicitations in 2007?

Unless the AEI isn't the Washington think tank that had its funding cut, or the percentage cut was insignificant.

I really do want to give ExxonMobil the benefit of the doubt, but it's difficult to believe their dedication when the pro-emissions trend of prominent think tanks have not changed despite the supposed absence of the largest oil company's influence.

Can someone clarify?

--By lisalin55 | Feb 10, 2007 11:45:55 AM

That's it. Don't be surprised when I've disappeared in a week; my darkest fear of the consequences of vocalizing rational opinion, you know! ;)

Seriously, I don't particularly like it when the article writer neglects to bring relevant questions to light such as the claim of certain policymakers/corporation conglomerates as compared to the actual trend of performance and results. It's been two years since the claimed funding cut, and still no observable change? And what does "funding cut" actually mean? ($1)? A cut is a cut, no matter how you slice it. And who exactly is this Washington think tank? God forbid it's just a little league tyke.

Of course I hear and feel ongoing hatred, apathy and disbelief towards the possibility of ExxonMobil, and other related companies, starting to cater to the ever-dominating anti-emissions crowd; and that they could possibly mean well. Yes, I said that I want to give ExxonMobil the benefit of the doubt, because I really do. Me being the shiny-eyed princess that I am (that was sort of a joke), it's hard to tell what is a real effort to be genuine and what is most likely a fertilizer-coated PR campaign to rejuvenate their grease-tainted image.

It's been two years, where are the results?? Perhaps the reporter should have found this out, as a journalist.

RANT: Jumping the climate gun

Global warming is a fact. That's good to know. Now the question is, what's the cause?

Something bugging me today. The Washington Post (and many other news groups) are still using the word "probability" to suggest the "possibility" that global warming and climate change "may" be caused by human activities.

Alright already! Despite the IPCC's report that gives us the supporting evidence we need, the public world, for some reason, is still in wishy-washy mode. Granted, the actual report came out only yesterday, but I'm on the edge! And I have a feeling that many journalists are too. Reading the WaPo article, it seems to me that this writer uses numerous "maybe"-type words painstakingly, as if each was a deliberate term that was inserted over much unwillingness and fretting against the writer's conscience; terms such as "overwhelming probability" and "90 percent certain."

I'm excited and frustrated at the same time. How much longer do we have to wait until the media start treating our contribution to the Earth's pollution as fact, not theory? Let's face it, nd humans have caused significant increases in global warming, and that is a fact, whether we contributed to it 60% or 90%, it still dictates that we need to change our way of "doing business around here." If it is indeed on the lower percentage side, all the better for us to start "early" and avoid sea level increases of 23 feet over the next 100 years, wouldn't you say?

And of course, we haven't been let down by the critics of the IPCC report, may I mention, with obvious conflicts of interest:

... the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank that receives funding from Exxon Mobil, ... issued a statement urging "great caution in reading too much" into the report until the panel releases its detailed scientific documentation a few months from now.

... adding that "the underlying state of knowledge does not justify scare tactics or provide sufficient support for proposals . . . to suppress energy use and impose large economic burdens on the U.S. economy."
(from WaPo article)

So, the U.S. economy should be held above the well-being of all living things on Earth. I expect that they would be all in favor of Bush's request for an additional three-quarters of a trillion dollars (yes, you read that right) for the purpose of defense and war spending. That does a great thing for the U.S. economy, yes it does!

To explain Bush's superb request, I go to U.C. Berkeley professor, George Lakoff, who explains that neoconservative thought promotes the idea that creating a national deficit is good because it prevents the development of democratic social reform groups, for example: government assistance for health care, education, social security, well, basically the managed well-being of its citizens. In other words, neoconservative rationale is that all deserving citizens should be able to fend for themselves. And the government should be able to take the strict-father position of sitting in a recliner with a belt. "Be home by 11! ... and bring me back a paper!"

The world is driving me slowly insane...

I'm proud to announce that I have officially entered into the realm of the small-time activist. This morning, I followed an "action" link from an e-mail sent by StopGlobalWarming.org and chose to send a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to "help save polar bears from global warming" as described by the promotional e-mail:

The Bush Administration is beginning the review process to decide whether to protect the polar bear, threatened with extinction due to global warming, under the Endangered Species Act. But we must speak up before February 23, 2007, or they will not hold public hearings on this critical matter.

Please help by sending a message directly to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, letting them know you want public hearings on polar bear protection. They are not required by law to hold such hearings, but they can be swayed if we all speak up.

While polar bears may not be my main concern, the reason I did take action this time may be three-fold:

1. The really cute, poor little animated polar bear who couldn't find a resting spot on any solid floating ice-patch while swimming in the ocean (which, yes, was shown in An Inconvenient Truth, where else?), causing him to eventually drown, but they don't show that.
   
2. The "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" in Anchorage, Alaska seemed like a fairly benevolent organization that would most likely not, in my unfounded opinion, arrange for vengeful retaliation against citizens of the world, unlike my feelings for the EPA or FCC, who seem to be more closely connected to the executive branch of our government, to whom I strongly desire to send action/opposition letters, but am too scared that something similar to 1984 will happen to me and my loved ones... eeeekk.
3. I just couldn't stand by and watch our mathematics and science curriculum degenerate into writing classes, oil companies dictate international politics, media skewing/hiding world events relevant to the general public, public officials involved in a leak conspiracy trying to do a cover-up on what should be an exposure, and remain complacent. I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it anymore! *makes another desperate passing swipe at apathy*
   

If, upon the occurrence of the unlikely, and my identity is suddenly put out of existence, at least you'll have a sneaking suspicion of why!

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty...

How many of you haven't watched An Inconvenient Truth, yet? Just so you know, it's one of the few things that has been able to light a fire under me, just enough to get me involved to this extent (i.e. doing online research and actually caring about political decisions). I've recently also been considering submitting letters to the EPA via the Union of Concerned Scientists webpage... Dang, I'm losing it! *makes passing grab at apathy*

But s-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y now, I'm really excited about the report coming out next Friday (Feb. 2nd) by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For a little background, the IPCC is a scientific review panel consisting of more than 2,500 researchers from over 130 nations, with the mission as stated on its website:

"to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature." [italics mine]

After 6 years of work, they are ready to release a report to policymakers, and the world, that assesses:

1. what progress has been made in understanding and attributing human-induced vs. natural climate change.
2. the implications based on observations made of the atmosphere, oceans, sea level, and snow.
3. how the climate been behaving for the last hundreds of thousands of years.
4. the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change.
5. the projections of future changes: negative and positive consequences of climate change.
6. the options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change, and options for adapting to it.

I'm sure it will be a rather unnerving learning experience for all of us who are willing to listen with an open mind, and who are willing to hear the real and immediate consequences of inaction. With the larger significant changes to our globe in recent years and, especially, with international involvement, I desperately hope that these current efforts will not yield the same results as the report by U.S.' National Assessment on Climate Change in 2000:

"The National Assessment was attacked upon publication by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an industry-funded think tank with an anti-regulatory free-market philosophy and a longstanding history of opposing efforts to address global warming. CEI filed lawsuits seeking to have the NACC report declared unlawful and to suppress its dissemination. These suits were dismissed "with prejudice," which means they had so little merit that they could not be refiled. In an interview, James R. Mahoney, admitted that the Climate Change Science Program has been constrained in its ability to use information in the National Assessment." (on Wikipedia)

Bush has recently defended the current unprecedented release of carbon emissions based on the one-sided belief that lowering carbon emissions standards in automobiles and industrial factories would be a devastating blow to the American economy, and would therefore be out of the question.

Let me ask you this. Would losing our freedom in 50 years due to climate terrorism also be considered a devastating blow to the American economy? What then?