I just spoke with a fantastic young man by the name of Jake Stewart. Not to devaluate anyone’s commitment and importance in the movement, but no credentials are required to be an advocate of renewable energy. By contrast, Jake brings a level of sophistication that really makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

Stewart currently directs the ground-breaking Austin Climate Protection Program at Austin Energy, where he is active in integrated distributed generation innovation, smart grid deployment and carbon reduction strategy development. He has been involved with the renewable energy and renewable fuels industries for almost a decade and was formerly an international renewable energy consultant and Executive Vice President at Organic Fuels International, Inc. He has received international recognition for his contributions to the broader renewable energy industry. Stewart is widely known for his development of world’s first renewably powered biofuel production facility—the first time a municipality had embarked on such an effort to produce its own fuel from waste and has garnered international attention as a decentralized renewable energy model.

With his dizzying array of patents, awards, degrees and his advanced background in R.E. technologies including bioenergy, distributed solar, biogas, 2nd generation biofuels, fuel cells, micro-wind, algae oil development and renewable hydrogen production, Stewart is a real joy to talk with.

Perhaps Stewart’s area of deepest passion at this point is the PR that entrenched interests are bringing to bear to create doubt about the reality of global warming. Here’s an except from the conversation:

Craig Shields: I know you’re aware of my position on renewable energy, i.e., that the gating factors are more political than they are technologicial. Do you agree?

Jake Stewart: 100%. I particularly liked your recent post on ‘RE versus its powerful competitors.’ Do you know, they say sunshine is the best disinfectant and fossilized carbon interests are putting out a very steady flow of shady but effective propaganda. The junk must be constantly illuminated. Kudos for you for opening such a streamlined and informed forum for that.

CS: Thanks for the kind words. But please tell me specifically where and how you see this so-called ‘junk.’

JS: We are dealing with a lot of this in the climate change arena where the ‘climate skeptic’ campaign has managed to garner a remarkable (and sad) amount of public penetration — predominately on AM radio and the likes, of course. In any case, I’m hopeful that science and truth will ultimately come out on top thanks to efforts like yours focused on getting accurate and palatable information out through the smoke.

CS: To be sure. And I’ll try to make sure this blog is a never-ending source of truth in this space. But can you recommend other good sources?

JS: Some of your readers may not have come across something that came out a couple years ago; the CBC did a fantastic piece on the inner-workings of this effort. It’s very worth watching. It’s a brilliant piece that pulls back the curtain on the makings of the ‘counter climate’ campaign, which, of course, was funded by our friends in the oil and coal industries, a sample of which includes:

‘ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.’

CS: Yes, good point. Coinicidentally, I’ve mentioned that exact piece in a recent article I’m publishing on cold fusion as part of me “Three Brass Tacks of Renewable Energy” series.

JS: Great. On the topic of simplifying the complexity of climate change and bringing it to the masses, another piece that your readers will want to watch is one that ABC did a couple months ago called ‘Earth 2100.’ They interviewed the world’s top climate/energy minds and generated an artist’s rendition of what it might be like for a child born today based on the latest modeling. They follow the fictional character through her life in dealing with the effects that are now underway. It’s in two parts — and fairly heavy at times — but it’s based in the latest projections/trajectory and leaves the viewer with a sense of empowerment to make a better future. I was impressed by what they produced; your readers might also find it interesting.

CS: Thanks so much, Jake. You’re one of the good guys.

JS: I was glad to.

PS: Here’s an infographic that depicts the history of renewable energy at a glance.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

green-energy-moneyI do not claim to be an expert in the process of petitioning the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy for grant money in renewable energy. However, I very much realize that this is important to a great many readers. For that reason, I will post links to important sites on this subject. This article called “Show Me the Money — And How To Get It” from Renewable Energy World.com is a fabulous piece that I came across this morning.

The article begins, “The U.S. departments of Energy and Treasury announced on July 9 that guidelines would be available for companies wishing to apply for $3 billion in stimulus payments” — a considerable chunk of change.

PS: Here’s an infographic that depicts the history of renewable energy at a glance.

Tagged with: , , ,

turimiquire-logoSadly, only a few of us who grow up in our western civilization really consider an alternative to becoming a part of the traditional economic machine. While we try to choose a career path about which we feel a certain spark—a spark that may come from helping others—only a few of us make enormous sacrifices and take on lives of pure compassion.

For a moment, I’d like you to reflect on the story of Steven Bloomstein and his friend Bob Albert who met as classmates at Harvard in the late 1960s. Like all products of top universities, the boys realized they had been groomed to become legislators, doctors, captains of industry, etc.—but when they recognized that none of these pursuits held any real attraction, they decided to go in another direction altogether.

After graduation they bought an abandoned hacienda in a remote part of Sucre, a state in the eastern part of Venezuela—a 3½-hour hike from the nearest road. They built an organic farm, and hired on the local campesinos (rural slash-and-burn subsistence farmers) who were uniformly illiterate, unspeakably poor, and previously unaware of sustainable agriculture practices.

In 1995, Steven and Bob registered a Massachusetts-based non-profit organization that they named The Turimiquire Foundation, after the nearby mountain range, and began to formalize the delivery of a variety of services in education, medical care, and reproductive counseling. Along with dozens of devoted volunteers, including Steven’s younger brother Willie, who runs the administrative operations in the U.S., they’ve dedicated themselves to helping tens of thousands of poorest of the poor to lead healthier, happier lives.

From the standpoint of renewable energy and environmental stewardship, the relevance is obvious: slash and burn, as the name implies, is horribly debilitating to the environment. Not only does it reduce the amount of vegetation that consumes CO2 and produces oxygen, but it pumps CO2 and other far more noxious chemicals into the atmosphere. Thus the presence of Turimiquire has been a considerable boon to the world in which we live in a great number of ways.

To me, the story of Turimiquire serves as a reminder that there are hundreds of different equally valid ways of life. We’re not here forever, and we shouldn’t waste our time foolishly conforming to other people’s ideas of success and meaning.

Please visit http://www.turimiquire.org/. I know you’ll be as impressed as I am by this story of passion and beauty. Unfortunately, the meager donations that my wife and I have been able to make over the past six or so years haven’t been terribly meaningful, but we’re proud to be supporters nonetheless.

PS: Here’s an infographic that depicts the history of renewable energy at a glance.

Tagged with: , , , , ,

As I’ve suggested, we’ve long since passed the point at which we had the technology to harvest sufficient renewable energy from the sun to provide power to all the people of Earth. At this point, the political and financial issues are the gating factors, not our ability to make it happen technologically. This article is just one example of how the coal industry has presented a totally false picture of its value. Until we can get our leaders to see past this garbage and embark upon a full and fair discussion of the true costs and benefits of each technology, renewable energy will remain a pipedream.

PS: Here’s an infographic that depicts the history of renewable energy at a glance.

Tagged with: , ,

Over time, guest bloggers and I will post articles that will enable readers to learn about the various forms of renewable energy that are feasible at various places around the world. We will also encourage you to question our leaders as to why the transition to renewable energy sources is occurring at such a ridiculously slow pace.

I happen to favor solar thermal — concentrated solar power — for North America. In brief, the Earth receives 6000 times more energy from the sun each day than we humans use. A solar thermal farm in the shape of a square 105 miles on a side in the southwest US desert would provide sufficient power for the entire continent, using extremely common and inexpensive materials, principally concrete, aluminum, glass, and salt (to store the heat energy so that power can be generated at night).

Of course, solar thermal is valuable only in places that have deserts; if you’re in Iceland, for instance, you’ll need to look to tidal, geothermal, etc.

As I’ve written extensively, there is no reason (beside the enormous money/power behind coal, nuclear, and petroleum) that we can’t develop solar thermal quickly and easily.

PS: Here’s an infographic that depicts the history of renewable energy at a glance.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

I just interviewed my friend Bruce Severance, who has been an outspoken advocate of renewable energy for several decades. “SURE I’ll talk to you,” he said when I called just now. “Did I tell you that I wrote my first report on solar energy when I was 11, and took a whole bunch of classes in environmental and architectural design in college? It’s been a passion of mine for a long time,” he explained. I was already aware of this — in a big way.

In the course of the conversation, he told me a few stories that I thought readers would find interesting. Here’s one:

“Corporate America has clearly been schizophrenic when it comes to the development of electric vehicles. We see evidence of this all the time. The GM story as told in ‘Who Killed The Electric Car’ is obviously one in which a certain group within GM really wanted the EV-1 to sell, where others didn’t want that at all, and worked hard to get it killed.

“Sometimes we’re suspicious that political lobbying is influential in the way these things get played out. But I was right there is the room one day and saw it happen right in front of me. My press pass had gotten me access to an interview that Martha Cone of the Los Angeles Times was doing with the head of CARB in 1992. She asked a direct question: ‘Was your decision to rescind the ZEV mandate in any way related to pressure you received from (then governor) Pete Wilson, the State Assembly, or any other governmental body?’

“We all watched in complete awe as he answered a totally different question. Fortunately, Cone persisted: ‘Perhaps I wasn’t clear,’ she said. I have a very specific question that I’d like you to answer.’ Which she then repeated verbatim. Again, his answer did not even touch about the focus of the question. You could have heard a pin drop in the room. He was blatantly refusing to answer the question. That was all the proof anyone could have needed.”

PS: Here’s an infographic that depicts the history of renewable energy at a glance.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

Reuters reported that “U.S. green jobs seen taking years of planning” (see link below). The report centers on what US Governors conveyed to a Senate Committee today.

It’s no secret that climate legislation is one of President Barack Obama’s important goals. Although there is some controversy about how stimulus money for green energy will impact jobs (Sen John Barrasso of Wyoming, expressed concern that climate legislation could push jobs overseas), there does seem to be some consensus that renewable energy jobs will not happen overnight.

When considered in light of our country’s unemployment rate hitting a 26-year high of 9.5 percent in June, the urgency for moving things in this direction is also at a commensurate high.

What that means for 2GreenEnergy readers is that more opportunities, than ever before, for renewable energy businesses and investments are headed our way.

Read the full article: U.S. green jobs seen taking years of planning

PS: Here’s an infographic that depicts the history of renewable energy at a glance.

Tagged with: , ,

Green (aka “clean,” or “renewable”) energy is the term used to describe sources of energy that do not cause pollution or other damage to the environment. Examples include tidal, wave, geothermal, wind, solar, and hydro. The term renewable comes from the fact that the source of the energy is, for all intents and purposes, never-ending, e.g., the heat from the sun or the kinetic energy of the earth’s and moon’s revolutions.

PS: Here’s an infographic that depicts the history of renewable energy at a glance.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

If kind and sensible people could have their way, there would be many immediate and sweeping changes that would create extraordinary benefits for the vast majority of the people on Earth. Here are a few basic improvements that I believe any truly decent person would want right now. Most readers may find themselves mumbling to themselves, “Well of course…” as they examine the list. But most of these may be doomed to remain “’opeless fancies” to use Orwell’s worlds – never to become realities. Why? The most important reason they haven’t happened – and, in truth, may never happen – is that each one represents a diminution of power and wealth for a small group of the super-powerful elite who can be counted upon to block such reforms now and forever, to the extent of their abilities.

Having said this, here are a few ideas for your consideration:

1. Abolish corporate lobbying. Lobbying is the practice by which wealthy people, and the organizations they control, exert disproportionate influence on lawmakers; the word is nothing more than a euphemism for “corruption.” The most basic tenets upon which our nation was founded demand a lawmaking apparatus that operates with equal concern and attention to the needs of every citizen, independent of biases in favor of the interests of a small minority.

Our constitution provides the right to petition the government, but we can offer citizens ways to exercise that right without this horribly corrupt practice. In fact, the most common vehicle for corporate lobbying is the unwritten quid-pro-quo of significant campaign contributions – another euphemism—this one for “bribery” – in exchange for corrupted legislation.

2. Adopt dramatic campaign reform. Are we a better, stronger nation because only people who have, or can raise, hundreds of millions of dollars can effectively run for public office? Are Americans really better informed about the candidates because of the deliberately misleading tactics of their parties’ political campaigns? Should corporations – entities that are legally defined as “fictitious persons,” who transform themselves so easily into heartless greed machines – be granted influence equivalent to—of even greater than—the citizenry of “natural persons” in our nation’s discourse on vital issues? Of course not. The best solution is two-fold:

a) Eliminate this corporate bribery by outlawing donations from organizations, and then restrict all campaign fundraising to a maximum of $200 per individual per election – with strong legal measures to prevent corporate and political ‘bosses’ from ‘donating’ through large groups of individuals by way of collective coercion.

b) Limit campaign spending by requiring the media to perform the vital public service of allowing considerable free airtime (without any attendant commentary) to all candidates on the ballot.

3. Use anti-trust legislation to break up media monopolies. “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public,” H. L. Mencken famously said. Yet Americans are quite correct in their distrust of the media. Just six for-profit corporations own over 90% of the television networks, radio stations and print media. As a result, corporate agendas drive the process by which “news” stories are selected and covered, and thus how we Americans come to regard the issues of the day.

While ‘public television’ has consistently garnered the title of ‘most trustworthy’ in the eyes of the people, the corporate networks have simultaneously enforced a boardroom bias and subtly declared excess influence on the part of ‘liberal’ interests in ‘mainstream media.’ In fact, studies the media corporations themselves commissioned have revealed the opposing reality – that within privately owned media outlets, politically conservative and corporate interests dominate utterly. Progressive voices are consistently minimized and shunted into broadcast oblivion, while political divisions among the population are often played to and played up at every turn.

When we see what appears to be an open and lively debate on a certain subject, we need to bear in mind that we’re actually seeing a very narrow range of purified and sanitized ideas and information. If you think this assertion seems unfair, consider this question: How much airtime did Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich get in the 2008 presidential campaign? When it became clear that both of these candidates were successfully showing the world exactly how the administration in power at the time had made a mockery of our constitution, they were immediately whisked off the stage.

The media want controversy, up to a point – something along the lines of Britney Spears’ remarkable comeback. But the idea that credible people were clearly explaining exactly how our national birthright had been systematically shredded by the most corrupt administration in its 235-year history was simply not going to happen.

Over one-third of the American people believe that the 9/11-commission report is essentially fraudulent – a cover-up for some sinister unrevealed reality. But has there been any active investigation by the media on the subject? Are there any mainstream “Woodwards and Bernsteins” on the case?

4. Reform states rights. As we might remember from our now-disappearing civics courses and history courses, the story of the United States through the 18th and 19th Centuries was fundamentally one of the struggle to create the delicate balance of power at the state versus federal level. The debates on the subject that were at the forefront of the early days of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution became even fiercer during the years leading to the US Civil War and the Reconstruction.

Unfortunately, this left us going into the 20th Century with a huge, unfair, wasteful mess that has only gotten worse over the last 100 years as bureaucracies have expanded and been exploited by the ruling class. At incredible expense, we have 50 different sets of criminal codes, civil statutes, state tax regulations, transportation standards, criminal sentencing guidelines—even driving laws. And why? Does anyone think drivers in Mississippi need to follow a different set of regulations than the people in Alabama? Perhaps that’s a somewhat trivial example, but does it seem right that second-degree murder in one state is treated in a completely different way than it is in another?

Additionally, this concept of state vs. federal power has too often been used as a stalking horse by recent administrations in order to manipulate public opinion in favor of pet projects and prejudices. Perhaps most notably, administrations have invoked states rights to defend “Right to Life” attempts to re-establish and expand state government authority over a woman’s reproductive liberty. At the same time, these same administrations have ignored states rights when states like California (and the ten other states who followed) moved to enact more stringent air quality regulations and higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.

Perhaps worst of all, each senator and representative in Washington stands for the interests of the people in his home state, and these interests are normally very parochial and narrow, and often completely opposed to the welfare of the average US citizen.

5. Abolish the Electoral College. The president of the US is elected by an Electoral College; this means that the people in a few “swing states” have thousands of times more influence per capita on the outcome of a national election than people in the rest of the country. The Electoral College was originally conceived as a method to balance the weights of states with large and small populations, and not least to provide a measure of safety against populist dictatorship by a skilled manipulator of an ignorant public mind – as its members could, if so

me hidden wisdom prevailed, vote differently from the populations within their states. The Electoral College is a fossil from a bygone political era, and it has far outlived its utility.

6. Set a one-term limit for all elected officials at the national level. As suggested above, we currently have huge incentives for our elected representatives to push for pork-barrel bills that favor the wealthy people of a certain state, at the expense of the taxpayers in the other 49 states. Every year this results in trillions of dollars of wasteful – and in some cases actually destructive – projects. In the field of energy and transportation alone, our heavily lobbied Congress supports coal, oil, nuclear, and biofuels. At the same time, these interests are busily deploying disinformation campaigns to convince us that clean energy, e.g., solar thermal and electric vehicles are not ready for large-scale deployment.

For a textbook example of this, look at corn ethanol – probably the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American taxpayer. As anyone could have seen going into this, the cost of re-purposing the land, planting, irrigating, fertilizing, harvesting, and processing the corn, shipping and dispensing the fuel, and then cleaning up the rivers from the damage this has all created, far outweighs the benefit of corn ethanol vis-à-vis oil – and burning the ethanol stillproduces carbon dioxide. Also, the inflationary effects on food prices across the American menu were, at best, ill considered. The whole project is completely destructive to everyone living on this Earth except the few people who grow corn and are elected by the money from the corn industry. Does anyone believe for a minute that we would have huge federal incentives for corn ethanol if it weren’t for the corrupt power wielded by corporations like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill over our representatives throughout the corn-belt?

Also consider the unwarranted weight that nuclear energy now possesses in our political sphere. There is an extraordinarily helpful body of reasoning behind the private sector’s persistent refusal to invest in (or even to insure) nuclear power. Nuclear reactors are spectacularly expensive to build – in fact, cost overruns of 200% to 500% are virtually universal by the time such projects are finally completed. This method of power generation is especially pricey when a genuine accounting is taken of the total costs – both in energy and in money – of mining and refining the fuel, and of then recycling and storing the toxic waste for thousands of years. Even then, the useful lifespan of these reactors is prohibitively short. Nuclear energy is neither cheap, nor clean, and yet financially interested parties are fiercely lobbying our representatives in the national government to subsidize and deregulate this failed industry.

By eliminating the incentive for re-election fundraising, we can at least hope that some of the people representing us will vote for the things they believe to be good and right, rather than the things that enrich the powerful people in their home districts.

7. Enact tort reform. Six-figure medical malpractice insurance premiums represent a cost that is passed on to you and me in the form of skyrocketing healthcare costs. Juries hear cases of failed surgeries, or product failures, or traffic accidents, and hand out damage awards that are sometimes measured in the tens of millions of dollars. Of course, our nation’s 1.1 million lawyers are having a terrific time exploiting this terrible defect in our society – often walking away multi-millionaires from the proceeds of a single case.

Not surprisingly, tort attorneys are not at all appalled by the fact that we are the most litigious civilization on Earth. They oppose capping damage awards and defend this practice and as necessary to keeping companies from passing along risks to their customers. Unfortunately, as in most of these cases, we have the proverbial fox guarding the hen house, as attorneys—both in the public and private sectors—make the very rules that will govern their activities.

At the same time, however, the right of redress must not be eliminated – and more particularly, the level of damages awarded must remain sufficiently punitive to create pause in the minds of corporations when the temptation arises to make a quick fortune by defrauding and endangering the public. A delicate balance must be found between redress and abuse – perhaps a significant share of a larger settlement could be given to appropriate charities or research programs that are related to the cause of the case in question.

8. Reform the agenda of the FDA and greatly limit its power. Some people believe the government has the imperative to tell them what substances they can and cannot ingest. Some people believe that government agencies function primarily to protect the health and safety of the citizens. I happen not to be a member of either group. But even if I were, I’d stillhave difficulty accepting the way the FDA works with the pharmaceutical industry to approve certain drugs despite clear clinical evidence against a risk/benefit-based endorsement, while making it illegal for purveyors of herbal remedies, minerals, vitamins, etc. to promote the internationally recognized curative powers of their products. No one can reasonably object to the FDA coming out with statements based on peer-reviewed clinical studies, and enabling manufacturers to quote those statements in their product packaging, at their option. But it is a grievous disservice to the public to build a system that fosters the myth that only drugs, as prescribed by medical doctors, are effective in healing.

9. Eliminate direct-to-consumer drug advertising. The United States is one of only two counties on Earth that permits this incredibly expensive assault on its citizens. As has been amply documented elsewhere, the pharmaceutical industry systematically convinces Americans that they have some unwanted condition: excessive perspiration, erectile dysfunction, unnecessarily frequent urination, restless legs, etc.—then promotes fantastically profitable drugs to cure these conditions. This is just plain wrong. Let’s join with the other 99% of the countries on the planet and get rid of this revolting display of greed, corruption, and the manipulation of our people.

10. Adopt universal health care. Quite understandably, our insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and health care establishments are fighting hard against this idea. We need to ignore them and do the right thing. Get rid of the forms, the bureaucracy, the middlemen, and the insurance companies. With the stroke of a pen, create a system in which when a citizen becomes sick or injured, he goes go to a doctor who tries his best to make him well again. Contrary to the propaganda purveyed by the health insurance and pharmaceutical interests, the private sector has clearly demonstrated that it is far less efficient at providing healthcare than nationalized systems that dominate the developed world.

In fact, a brief unvarnished history of our country’s transition from what was once known as the ‘field of medicine’ to the ‘healthcare industry’ will show that we now pay double the cost for a fraction of the access as compared to other advanced nations. Our population sacrifices greatly to support the massive overhead of bloated executive compensation and shareholder dividends. Combine that with the merciless gouging tactics of drug companies that take research from the taxpayer-subsidized public sector and then charge usurious multiples of a reasonable profit at the pharmacy counter.

Another considerable advantage to single-payer national healthcare is the demise of the competitive edge that Japanese and German and Swiss companies hold over American firms by virtue of their nations’ wisdom. While the cost of employee compensation amounts to only 10

% of the selling price of an automobile in the US, the biggest single cost that Detroit pays – more even than steel – is for health insurance. It’s a common but grim jest that GM is more a health insurance company than a builder of personal transportation. Our economy would get a considerable shot in the arm if this healthcare burden were lifted from the backs of entrepreneurs and spread evenly across the whole US population.

11. Repeal all laws against victimless crimes, created solely by greed and corruption. As one of hundreds of examples, we should legalize marijuana, a relatively innocuous drug whose effects on society and individuals are far more benign than those of alcohol. Alcohol is physically addictive and horribly debilitating, and holds its monopoly status as the only legal recreational drug merely because of its powerful lobby, and the fact that marijuana is harder for the government to tax because it is so easily grown for personal use.

Our nation would do well to observe and emulate the success of the many drug decriminalization and treatment programs worldwide. The nation’s courts should apologize to the millions of non-violent drug users who are in prisons around the country, and release them immediately into treatment programs that address their addictive behavior. The ‘war on drugs’ can only be won by addressing the demand.

12. Invest in programs that keep people out of prison, and prevent the private ownership of prison systems. The US incarcerates more than 1% of its adult population, about 2.3 million people—far more than any other country on Earth. Even ignoring the enormity of the human misery of the inmates and the families from which they come, the process of incarceration itself is fantastically expensive, and its continuing failure is illustrated by the overwhelming rate of repeat offenses. In addition to the incarceration of non-violent drug users, the misguided practice of “third strike” laws that blindly mandates a life sentence without parole, for stealing a slice of pizza or a DVD, has only contributed to this meteoric rise in prison populations.

Yet in the face of these realities, we as a nation nevertheless seem willing to expand the prison population without limit. Apprehending, prosecuting and locking up criminals for increasing lengthy terms has become a burgeoning and profitable industry; current trends include the privatization of prisons and private colleges offering courses of study for those wishing to prepare for a “career in criminal justice.”

As a culture of tough-minded individualists, we don’t seem to have a problem with this direction. Yet we are reluctant to pay our children’s teachers more, and to invest more in programs that promote compassionate morals, hard and smart work, sexual responsibility, family unity, honesty, genuine drug awareness, etc.

Meanwhile, private prison companies are more and more swaying the policy decisions and the budgets of states and municipalities to prefer back-end band-aids for a hemorrhaging criminal housing problem over wiser and less taxing front-end education, counseling and prevention strategies. In short, it’s much less expensive to provide opportunity for the future than to maintain dead-end cages.

At the same time, the enactment and enforcement of legislation designed to prevent and punish corruption at the highest pinnacles of our society must be equally fortified, lest we find our Justice system all too aptly described by the 18th century observation, “The law, in its infamous equality, forbids both the rich and the poor man to beg in the streets, to sleep beneath bridges, and to steal bread.”

13. Abolish capital punishment. The US is one of a handful of countries that still executes people. For some reason, we haven’t yet realized that state-sponsored killing is simply not a part of a civilized society.

Also worthy of consideration is the growing discovery of wrongful convictions as a result of mishandled evidence, incompetent defense, corruption in law enforcement personnel, and just plain honest mistakes, during capital murder trials. Of secondary importance but worth notice is the fact that, while keeping people in prison is expensive, executing them is far more expensive when one considers the average total cost of an execution.

14. Act decently outside our borders. If we really want to stop terrorism, we need to stop doing things that many people deem to be terrorist acts themselves. Stop attacking nations that have not attacked us. Our trigger-happiness abroad has (by our own generals’ admissions) served merely to multiply the threats against our interests.

Withdraw support of repressive regimes around the globe, and of all governments that favor violence over diplomacy. Don’t stand idle while genocide is taking place, simply because the combatants happen not to have a direct effect on “US interests.” Stop US-based corporations from building products in other countries with child labor, and with processes that rape the local environments. If we do these things, we’ll see an immediate improvement in the way in which the US is regarded abroad, as well as in the success of our diplomatic efforts around the world.

The suspicion that good ideas may never see the light of day may seem sullen and pessimistic. Perhaps we simply find ourselves standing in the place that hundreds of generations have stood before ours—one that can be summed up with the famous quote of 18th Century British statesman Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

So let’s do something. Please comment on this, bookmark it, and link to it. Let’s talk. If you think I’m guilty of oversimplification, or that some of these ideas are just plain wrong, I can handle that. I urge you to do anything but remain silent.

 

Tagged with:

My wife and I have been involved in the Thoroughbred breeding industry for almost 20 years. I thought readers would be interested in some of my observations. 

Shrinking Base of Racing Fans and the Erosion of Purse Money

The fan base for racing is shrinking, as gamblers generally are being lured into other forms of gaming that promote themselves more effectively. Although this is a clear trend overall, there is an interesting set of sub-dynamics at work. Racing continues to attract a subset of gamblers that feel they can use their handicapping skills to beat the odds, and thus racing will likely maintain some base of loyal fans as long as there are races on which to bet. One notes that poker (another form of gambling based at least partially on skill) enjoyed a meteoric rise in popularity recently, and one hopes that something similar could happen for horse racing, though it’s hard to envision anything like this.

My personal theory here is that there is nothing that can be done to re-establish the level of enthusiasm for horseracing that existed in the 20th century. An obvious part of the modern cultural zeitgeist is the demand for instant gratification; people can no longer be expected to pore over past performance charts and pedigrees in order to make educated bets on 60 second-long races that occur with 30-minute breaks between the action.

The issue for owners, of course, is that this erosion of handle will eventually cause a reduction in the total amount of purse money, unless the industry is effective in developing creative ways to inject additional funds into the system. The best candidate for such an injection is the broadening of the racing experience to include other forms of gaming as well, e.g., slot machines, and, most notably, video racing machines. Such devices instantly reversed the sinking fortunes of tracks in Delaware, West Virginia, and Louisiana.

Extending this to other states where racing is declining, however, seems unlikely, since Thoroughbred owners are not well represented in state legislatures. Generally, owners are an almost completely powerless group that seems to make its situation even worse by failing to organize properly, and by splintering off into factions that fight among themselves, rather than unifying themselves against the challenges they face.

Disappearance of the Race Tracks Themselves

Exacerbating the effects of the eroding fan base is off-track betting and online gambling that has further reduced revenues for tracks in terms of admissions, parking, and food/ beverage. Racetracks are gradually disappearing as real estate management companies see less restrictive and risky uses for their assets and better overall ROI elsewhere.

Dishonest Trainers

Probably the most powerful force working against owners today is the rampant criminality among trainers. I happen to know a few old-time trainers personally who, under the condition of anonymity, have told me dozens of stories, each of which points to one conclusion: the illegal drugging of race horses is the rule, not the exception. The process of testing for illegal drugs is very easy to beat, and is becoming more so each year, as the number of drugs proliferates and new substances are developed that mask the traces of drugs in horses’ systems.

In addition, the penalties for those trainers and track veterinarians who are stupid or clumsy enough to get caught administering the drugs are so minor that they present essentially no deterrent. Put another say, this climate provides huge incentive to cheat, as it’s extremely difficult to win without doing so. As a result, honest trainers are rare, and, because of the huge disadvantage they face, generally have dismal winning percentages.

Understandably, the industry wishes to avoid bad press, and so, even when it finds abuses, tends to keep them quiet. Consequently, I don’t think you should expect to see too much media coverage of this phenomenon.

Those who acknowledge that illegal drugs are ubiquitous in the racing industry normally say that the betting public is the victim, and I suppose it’s hard to dispute that. But clearly the owners lose even more, as their equine assets are systematically broken down, by being forced to run at top speed even when they are severely injured or badly sore. This, of course, makes it less likely than ever that the owners will recoup their costs with purse money.

Breeding for Speed

A few decades ago, it was not uncommon for horses to have 50-or even 75 starts in their careers. Today, a horse with 10 starts is rare. What changed? Yes, illegal drugs have harmed the breed greatly, but drugs have been with us at some level for a long while. However, there have been two major changes that have occurred very recently.

First is the demand for precocity, intended to produce short-term financial returns for owners and trainers. Currently, industry norms dictate that almost every horse entering its racing life is put under intense pressure to run at blistering rates of speed very early in its two year-old year. One-furlong racing previews at the March two year-old in training sales are impressive only if they are accomplished in close to 10 seconds-and often under that mark. Two-furlong previews need to be in the range of 21 seconds.

Many people believe that this super-tough training of young horses is simple abuse, and you won’t find me arguing against that opinion. What isn’t an opinion at all, however, is this: placing two year-olds under this incredible pressure represents an enormous change from the industry norms of a few decades ago. It was only a short while ago that we gave most young horses time to grow up, and allowed their anatomy to form fully before subjecting them to this level of stress.

This demand for speed has broken down a great number of excellent horses who otherwise would likely have gone on to fine careers. But worse yet is the breeding for speed. Until recently, precocity was a lucky accident. Man o’War had 10 starts as a two year-old (in 1919), but this was an extreme rarity. Now precocity is the order of the day. There is no market for horses that are bred for stamina, or for long careers that span four or five years. Today’s market-where it exists at all-is for horses that are bred to run a few lightening-fast races-and then disintegrate. We’ve deliberately-and quite effectively-bred soundness out of the Thoroughbred.

Inbreeding

The other major change also relates to breeding. Over the last decade or so, broodmare owners have focused on a very limited range of fashionable sires. As a result, a huge percentage of the horses racing today are inbred to a very few stallions-almost exclusively from the Northern Dancer and Mr. Prospector lines. The DNA in the breed today is far narrower than it has ever been in history. Anyone with even a basic understanding of high-school biology can see that this fanatical level of inbreeding has resulted in catastrophic damage to the Thoroughbred gene pool.

The Basic Economics of the Industry

Increased costs of labor and materials for breeders, coupled with falling sales prices for mares and babies have results in fewer horses being bred and thus shorter fields (which serves to drive even more racing fans away). I.e., we currently have fewer horses that are competing for purses that, to date, have remained fairly constant. Normally, of course, market conditions like these would produce a demand for more horses to replace those that are breaking down or were not bred in the first place. After all, someone wins the purse of every race that is run.

But the industry is crashing. The Barrett’s January mixed sales and the March two year-old sale were down dramatically from past years. Onlookers stood in shock as many horses whose owners had invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars did not get a single starting bid of $900. We’ve build a breeding industry in which a purebred Siamese cat is worth more than many of these two year-old horses that blaze a furlong in 10 seconds flat.

So let us ask ourselves this: Why are sale prices plummeting in a market that is experiencing a diminishing supply in the face of constant demand? The answer, I believe, is contained in the analysis above. The failings of the industry overall have resulted in a hugely negative average return on investment at the typical auction over the last few years. Most of these horses entered to be sold as weanlings, yearling, and two year-olds in training do not survive the brutal training and the abuse of drugs that are injected into them-and only a very small minority generates a substantially positive return for their owners.

Interestingly, the sales companies don’t even try to argue this point. The Barrett’s March sale offered a few hundred two year-olds, and its catalog advertised four or five horses from its previous sales that succeeded on the track. This forces the reader to wonder: Gosh, what happened to the other 99%? The answer, of course, is that they’re standing around somewhere trying to recover from cracked sesamoids, bowed tendons, ruined suspensories-or worse.

Even if owners can somehow avoid being outright cheated, they still have experienced a sharp increase in the costs of training. Together, these issues have formed a market condition that can be summed up as follows: Thoroughbreds are truly terrible investments. Only hobbyists spend money they know they’ll never get back, and, as the economy has tightened, fewer people can afford to participate in this expensive hobby. One can only look at the dismal sales results, the closing of breeding farms, and people leaving the business to acknowledge that the “chickens have come home to roost.”

What We Must Do

Only a complete change in industry practices—whether they come from within or they are forced upon the industry by legislative bodies—can prevent Thoroughbred racing as we know it from becoming a thing of the past. Here are five quick suggestions to consider:

1) Create a Strong National Organization. Form a strong, unified, national organization that works hard with legislators to level the playing field of gambling. Horseracing faces costs that state lotteries and owners of slot machines do not, and legislators need to enact laws that result in the fair and equal treatment of all forms of gambling.

If such an organization were to exist, it would also have the size and scale to perform national advertising campaigns aimed at stemming the erosion of the fan base. In fact, it would be a fairly straightforward task to make “racinos,” if they could be legislated into existence, into extremely popular as nightspots for huge numbers of people.

The NTRA was an attempt to create such an organization. However, it is roundly jeered as a complete catastrophe and rip-off, run by ineffectual fat-cats in posh mahogany offices who have done very little to fight for the rightful position of horse racing. I have no doubt that many people still are feeling the sting of disappointment as the NTRA failed to deliver on even the most basic promises it made when it was established, and I would be understand if these people were skeptical of a new attempt to create an ethical, effective organization. Yet without an organization that is national in scope, it seems impossible for the racing industry to create the level of focused energy and clout necessary to make any real changes in the destiny of Thoroughbred racing.

2) Make a Real Effort to Clean Up the Industry. Enact zero tolerance and hand down tough penalties for trainers and vets who break the very clear rules surrounding fraud and the illicit use of drugs. If you suspend lawbreakers for a few years (rather than a few days) you’ll soon have a climate where trainers think hard before cheating.

3) Don’t Train Babies. Simply do not write races for horses before October 1st of their two year-old seasons. Such a prohibition is the only way to prevent the wanton abuse of young horses that has resulted in the incredible carnage the industry has seen in recent years, and the deterioration in the soundness of the entire breed.

4) Get Our Act Together with Respect to Synthetic Surfaces. It seems that a new report is published every week that goes against the prevailing belief on the efficacy of synthetic surfaces. Clearly, mistakes have been made, and we can’t change the past. But we can simply stop rushing to a quick fix based on a few people’s opinions, in the absence of true science.

In any case, we can certainly stop looking for a one-size-fits-all solution. There are hundreds of different combinations of possible surfaces, average rainfalls, drainage systems, and high and low temperature ranges that exist at the tracks around the country. Somewhere, there must be an optimum choice for each individual track. Perhaps we need a moratorium on change while we study these issues and derive some real science to guide our future decision-making.

As suggested above, however, my personal theory is that, given all the damage we’ve done to the breed, a new surface will not represent a meaningful remedy to issue of soundness.

5) Create Sales Events for “Horses of Racing Age.” Again, we need to acknowledge and deal effectively with the inexorable cultural trend towards instant gratification. The public wants horses ready to go to the track right now. Why not give them what they want? We need to organize yearly sales of horses that have raced, or that are race-ready right now.

Keeping it Real

I’m not cynical by nature, but I do try to be realistic. I know that, for change to occur, there needs to be incentive on the part of those making the change; the sad truth is that things generally do not happen just because they’re “right” or “fair.” Here, we have an entrenched system built around a combination of apathy, ignorance, greed, dishonesty, and special interests. Does the horse racing industry have the guts required to enforce honest, decent behavior? Will it generate the political muscle to deal effectively with the interests that work hard to promote Indian gaming, state lotteries, and other forms of gambling? Again, I don’t wish to appear cynical, but I would say that both are heavy long shots.

Thoroughbred Racing’s Likely Destiny

There will likely always be a top echelon in racing for those who legitimately aspire to win graded stakes races. There is no pressure whatsoever on the sheiks of the UAE and the old money in Kentucky to give up their quests for the Triple Crown, the Breeders Cup Classic and the Dubai Cup. But currently, there is no incentive for anyone to play at any other level—except the desperately poor or self-delusional, hoping for a lucky break, or the few people who do not see these trends and get out while they still can.

Of course, even the big, moneyed players want venues to race their less talented stock. But I’m afraid the days are numbered for full cards at dozens of tracks open simultaneously around the country. If I were to guess, I would say that the ultimate destiny of racing is fewer tracks, a handful of jet-setter owner-hobbyists, with horses that train for a few top events.

Tagged with: