Every once in a while there’s good news for those of us concerned that our liberties are being subjugated, and our democracy eroded away from under our feet.

As I had written previously:

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides broad authority for the federal government to use the military in domestic operations in order to detain Americans indefinitely and without trial. This nullifies the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the natural rights of Americans.

We’ve taken our system of law and government and regressed 800 years, to the days before the Magna Carta. Now, publicly criticizing the federal government (which is what I’m doing this very minute) can meet the vague definition of a “belligerent act,” and result in my arrest and indefinite detainment — without access to a lawyer.

This isn’t liberty, folks. This is not what our brave soldiers have fought and died to defend through the last 236 years.

So here’s the good news: U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, in a 68-page opinion, ruled Wednesday that Section 1021 of the NDAA was unconstitutional.

Journalist Chris Hedges writes:

It was a stunning and monumental victory. With her ruling she returned us to a country where—as it was before Obama signed this act into law Dec. 31—the government cannot strip a U.S. citizen of due process or use the military to arrest him or her and then hold him or her in military prison indefinitely. She categorically rejected the government’s claims that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to bring the case to trial because none of us had been indefinitely detained, that lack of imminent enforcement against us meant there was no need for an injunction and that the NDAA simply codified what had previously been set down in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act. The ruling was a huge victory for the protection of free speech. Judge Forrest struck down language in the law that she said gave the government the ability to incarcerate people based on what they said or wrote.

Maybe the ruling won’t last. Maybe it will be overturned. But we and other Americans are freer today than we were a week ago. And there is something in this.

Indeed, there IS something in this, for you, for me, and for all of us.

My mother wrote me this morning, suggesting that I “Check out the N.Y. Times article by David Brooks: ‘How Change Happens.’”

Thanks, Mom. David Brooks is an articulate advocate for free-market economics, and this is a perfect example. No surprise here. He’s a very bright guy.  

In terms of the content of this particular piece, is it possible that the Obama ad is grossly unfair? Of course! That’s what most political ads do: deliberately misrepresent stories so as to mislead voters by inspiring  wrong-placed hatred. No surprise here either.

In the US, we’ve elevated this type of garbage to an artform. How? With staggeringly large sums of money. The total spending on the 2012 election will top $9.8 billion, a figure about which I’d like to make two comments:

1) To a large degree, this is money that comes from corporations that now, under the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision “Citizens United,” can spend as much as they want to influence our elections in any direction they choose. Until the movement to overturn this decision with a constitutional amendment succeeds, this will only get worse, until what’s left of our democracy is gone completely and forever.

2) Let’s put this in perspective. We’re gutting our educational programs, while we’re spending $10 billion (about $3000 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.) on demagoguery. I’m sure you agree: that’s pretty shameful.

My thanks to everyone who has participated in the recent 2GreenEnergy survey.  I note that Dr. David Doty, one of the greatest intellects I’ve ever run across, boldly predicted the following for the coming five years:

Oil, coal, and gas will steadily become more expensive at a mean rate of ~20%/year. EVs will have negligible impact on oil usage – for decades.

Global economic growth will still continue at a rate of ~2%/yr, and inflation in the U.S. will remain low.

The gap between the rich and the poor will continue to widen. It will take 10-12 more years of this before something close to revolution (major rioting) comes to the U.S. We will not see another period of sustained strong growth in the U.S. until several years after that happens.

We will not see serious and effective commitment to reduced CO2 emissions until after we’ve seen several years of strong economic growth.

Much of what you’ve written here is so counter to most people’s thinking — not to say that this means it’s wrong.  20% CAGR? That’s doubling every 3.5 years. By “mean rate,” I presume you suggest an average across the three fuels, as well as their price points across the next five years. 

Personally, I don’t see anything right now that would tend to make natural gas or coal climb in price.  The anti-fracking sentiment here doesn’t seem to be gaining too much momentum, and you can still walk through Wyoming and trip over lumps of coal.  I agree about oil, though I believe the oil companies will manipulate the price, and the American sheep-consumer, as long as that’s what’s required to keep us from looking elsewhere for transportation.

I’m even more interested in what you wrote about social chaos. As I’m sure you know, you’re not alone in predicting this.   But you must be aware of our fastest growing industry: criminal justice.  While even college graduates are having the devil’s own time finding work, one segment’s booming – it’s spending a mint in advertising, and creating a whole new subject in which college students can major, like you and I majored in physics, English, history, or whatever.  That’s law enforcement.   Enjoy a rewarding career putting those lawless protesters where they belong: behind bars! 

Sorry to joke about such a lethally serious subject, but I’m not too bullish on the efficacy of civil disobedience here in the US. 

But I do agree with what you write at the end: as long as Americans feel a pinch in their wallets, there will be precious little interest in CO2 emissions.  It’s far too easy for the demagogues to convince voters that environmental responsibility means a sluggish economy and that the adoption of an energy policy that embraces renewables will result in job loss.

Again, my thanks to Dr. Doty and to all the others who have responded so far.  ”Tell your friends,” as they say.

I’d like to ask a favor, if I may. We have a quick survey up on the 2GreenEnergy website – one that, interestingly enough,  calls for you to predict the future. Given our current energy policies and the rate at which they’re changing, what do you think the world will be like five years from now? What events do you believe are likely to occur between now and the year 2017? Which do you think are improbable?

As usual, we’ll tabulate the results and offer you a free copy of the report that comes as a result.

And as always, we appreciate your help.

Here’s the link:

http://2greenenergy.com/survey-what-will-happen-in-the-next-five-years/

A reader from the San Francisco Bay Area sent me this article, which he said, “was buried within an article on other SF subjects. Thought you might be interested.”

Green vs. green: San Franciscans’ enthusiasm for going green with “clean energy” in their own homes appears to be about as flat as the economy.

A recent poll of 3,500 residents by the city’s Public Utilities Commission found that 52 percent would probably stay with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. That’s just 3 percentage points more than in a similar poll taken last year.

Those willing to pay “a little bit more” for clean wind and solar power declined to 37 percent, from 45 percent the year before.

And that’s after the estimated increase was dropped by more than half – from $14 more a month to just $6.

“There is a certain group of people who will buy organic or buy green, and others that don’t have an interest,” said PUC chief Ed Harrington. “We never thought it would be overwhelming, but there is a market.”

The poll was conducted to test the market for the city’s program. The Board of Supervisors is considering spending $19.5 million in startup funds on the project.

The plan calls for the city to contract with Shell Energy to buy the power, then deliver it through regular utility lines.

Yes, that is interesting. Thanks. I suppose it’s to be expected, though, as:

1) When people – any people – feel themselves to be under financial pressure, they can be counted on to be less generous, and

2) Americans put an extremely low importance on environmental issues. When we go to the polls this November, our concerns for the environment will be #16 in our priorities. As I wrote last week, Americans’ apathy towards the environment stands in stark contrast to the Europeans, who place this topic at the top of their lists.

Frequent commenter Duke Brooks writes in:

Americans who rail against U.S. polluters should probably spend a few days in the world’s most polluted city, Beijing. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. But the lack of outrage from the American left over China’s mass particulate output would tend to expose them for what they are: A political, not ecological, movement.

I don’t think anyone argues that China’s building coal-fired power plants at the rate of one a week is anything other than an abomination; there isn’t too much controversy there — regardless of where one stands politically.  Yet China is the world’s leading investor in renewable energy, and they face a far larger challenge than we do in terms of supplying energy to a skyrocketing number of energy-hungry consumers; it’s one that dwarfs ours here in the U.S.

I don’t know whether you saw this report I wrote a few months back in an attempt to make sense of this paradox: China Is Investing in Renewable Energy — But Why?  

If you were tasked with crafting the worst possible energy policy, what would you do? Well, you’d say, “OK, I’m going to reward bad behavior, and penalize good behavior,” right?  Then you’d send enormous sums of tax-payers’ money to the most egregious polluters you could find, while making sure that any potential competitors were ground into the pavement.  

That’s exactly what we do here in the United States. We subsidize the oil and coal companies, and we make it tough for alternative energy sources by scaring off investors with our constantly changing swings from one piece of politically motivated grandstanding after another. Honestly, you could not write a more destructive energy policy if you were paid to do so.

But this sad chapter in American history may be coming to a close.

We’ve updated the “Advocate!” page to focus on the “End Polluter Welfare Act” — a bill in Congress that deserves your support. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) have introduced legislation that would end these subsidies, eliminating tax breaks, financial assistance, royalty relief, direct federal research and development and many loopholes that benefit the fossil fuel industry.

The bill has the backing of numerous groups, including Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense and 350.org, which has vowed to campaign on Capitol Hill in support of the legislation. We hope you’ll support it as well, and write your elected leaders urging them to pass the measure.

Here’s the link to the Advocacy page: http://2greenenergy.com/express-yourself/

As a younger man, I had a business partner with whom I ran a marketing consultancy that was 200 employees strong, with clients on four continents — during which time I logged a great number of air miles.  I used to joke that my seniority on American Airlines was sufficient that, not only would I be instantly upgraded to first class upon booking my ticket, but I could, had I wanted, bring a baby elephant on board with me, prompting the flight attendants to remark, “What a lovely animal, Mr. Shields. I assure you that we’ll make him quite comfortable.”

Of course when one no longer spends that type of loot, one’s status descends from a “somebody” to a “nobody” in a heck of a hurry; I went from platinum to gold to silver to bronze in the blink of an eye; I’m probably nickel or zinc at this point. The really sad part of this, of course, is not that I don’t get big seats next to the present-day jet-setting “somebodies,” but rather that I don’t get to see the rest of the world as I did back then.

But maybe that’s not such a bad thing.  The end of my super-frequent travel happened to coincide with a fairly abrupt change in the  respect accorded to the Americans abroad.  Of course, since in the early part of the 20th Century there were jokes that our ways as Philistines made us unwelcome in the more sophisticated parts of the world, but I believe our more recent misdeeds have made matters worse.

Obvious examples include the squandering of the world’s respect and sympathy after the 9/11 attacks with the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, but more recently, I understand that many people in the rest of the world resent our over-consumption of resources, our over-production of pollution, and our failure to do anything more than argue about climate change.

Europeans in particular object to our selfish and shortsighted hedonism in the face of a world on the brink of ecological collapse.  Looking around here, I notice that Google returned 117 million web pages when I provided the search terms “Europeans Resent American Environmental Policy.”  I also came across the book Green Giants which explores this dichotomy.  Its author summarizes:

The United States in recent years has been abandoning its historical role as a leader in environmental regulation. At the same time, the European Union, spurred by political integration, has enacted many new environmental laws and assumed a leadership role in promoting global environmental sustainability. Green Giants, one of the most detailed comparisons of the environmental policies of America and Europe yet undertaken, looks at current policy trends in the United States and the European Union–the two largest economic actors in the world–and the implications they have for future transatlantic and global cooperation.

It’s time for the United States to begin acting responsibly again vis-a-vis the  environment.  Here’s another solid reason to go to our advocacy page, and tell your elected leaders to take a good first step in this direction.

Oh my God. Please tell me this isn’t true – that it’s a bad dream. I don’t live on the same planet with people who would run an ad like this one from the Heartland Institute, do I?

For those who may not know, Heartland (an appealing name for “real Americans,” isn’t it?) is an elite group of the wealthiest, most powerful and most ruthless people on Earth.  And this ad is the level of abuse they’re willing to perpetrate on “commoners” — people who lack the luxury of an education that would be necessary to recognize it for the pure garbage it is.  

I’ve seen a lot of disgraceful behavior in my 56 years crawling around this sad planet, but I honestly cannot recall anything more shameful.   

morality was irrelevant when it came to running a state, and that leaders should be willing to perform evil acts when it became necessary to hold onto their power.

Wow. Good thing we don’t have any of that garbage in our present day affairs, isn’t it? Wink, wink.