A New Level of Energy

Okay, now we're talking.

There are millions like me who believe in the development and use of clean energy, but there are very few who combine a can-do attitude with the necessary resources for immediate action like T. Boone Pickens. The multi-billionaire and former oil magnate is pushing the Pickens Plan, a "blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives" including a proposal for the world's largest wind farm. The Midwest, he says, is to wind what Saudi Arabia is to oil - and he has the maps to prove it. According to the Plan, the electricity produced through increased wind energy would free up natural gas for powering compressed natural gas vehicles (CNG), which are already available at competitive prices. The gas itself costs considerably less than gasoline. The ultimate goal: less dependence on foreign oil. Pickens presented his plan to Congress last week, and hopes to build popular support through town hall-style meetings and media appearances. It seems to be working. Even the Sierra Club's Carl Pope, who is far from Pickens on the political spectrum, has advocated the Pickens Plan. Regardless of the success of this specific strategy, Pickens has managed to infuse a new level of energy into the movement, not only for energy independence, but also for environmental stewardship. Not bad for an 80-year old oil tycoon.

Is This Really News?

Shame on CNN, Reuters, Yahoo, ABC News and any other media outlets that made the decision to tell us that John McCain's New York Times opinion article was "rejected." This is not only not news, it is irresponsible journalism. First, the primary source, The New York Times itself, has avoided making it a big deal. No where on its opening web page does it mention the "story." Furthermore, the paper has made it clear that it is "standard procedure... to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission." How does CNN see "standard procedure" as news? Worse yet, CNN claims in its headline that McCain's article was "rejected." This is misleading. One of the verb's meanings denotes "refuse to accept," which is technically correct. The paper did refuse to accept that particular version of McCain's article. But the word "reject" connotes something much more final. Upon scanning the headline, the reader will conclude that the essay submission process is finished and that McCain's opinion will not be published. This is simply not true. The Times will likely publish McCain's article (as it has with seven of his previous Op-Ed pieces) only when the process has been completed. CNN has failed in this case to convey news that is true - especially with its exaggerated headline choice. Unfortunately, shallow stories and misleading titles at CNN are all too common. So, is it time to "reject" CNN?

...And One to Go

After eluding capture for more than ten years, Bosnian Serb war criminal Radovan Karadžić is finally in custody. He is at least partly responsible for one of the most horrifying events of the 1992-1995 Bosnian War when he organized the massacre of nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica, then designated a UN safe area. Now in custody, Karadžić has already gone before the Belgrade War Crimes Court and will soon be extradicted to the ad-hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague where he will face charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. While this is clearly big news for families of the victims, it also helps Serbia's chances of admittance to the European Union. More broadly, as ICTY prosecutor Serge Brammertz said, Karadžić's arrest "demonstrates that nobody is beyond the reach of the law and that sooner or later all fugitives will be brought to justice." The next fugitive in line: Ratko Mladić, also indicted by the ICTY for genocide.

Ready for Departure?

A few weeks ago, a friend forwarded me an article about a $300 million passenger rail project underway that is designed to relieve traffic congestion, ease the impact of high oil prices and provide thousands of jobs. Guess where. If you said China or India, no cigarro. (If you said the United States, minus five cigarros.) Nope, it's Jamaica, a country with a per capita GDP (PPP) of just $7,700. The government is set to build new tracks, along with 18 new train stations across the country over the course of three years (with help from China, btw). Though the end product in Jamaica will not approach the size or efficiency of the high-speed rail systems of Europe or Japan, the project demonstrates a degree of foresight and initiative regarding modern transportation that has been discouragingly absent in the United States. Our current answer to the French TGV is Amtrak's Acela Express from D.C. to Boston, which completes the 700-kilometer trip in over 6.5 hours. Yawn. The TGV can go over 1,000 kilometers in just 3.5 hours. Not only is rail speed much faster in Europe, but prices and availability are better as well. Only by traveling by rail in Europe can one truly understand what we are missing out on here. Eisenhower set up the interstate highway system over 50 years ago, so we know a large-scale transportation overhaul is possible. A U.S. rail upgrade is long overdue. Fortunately, the government is showing some interest. The House recently passed HR6003, which would allocate nearly $15 billion for "Amtrak capital and operating grants, state intercity passenger grants, and high-speed rail over the next five years." This is a positive step, but its implementation is still a long way even from the Jamaican project, which is set to begin construction by the end of the year. And it is light years from the European high-speed standard, which has been operating for decades. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the U.S. high-speed train to leave the station.

What China and Russia Were Thinking

China and Russia vetoed a proposal in the UN Security Council today that would have imposed long-overdue sanctions against Zimbabwe's corrupt government. It seems absurd: denying justice to a well-deserving tyrant. Yet go beyond the headline, and the whole picture begins to emerge.

China's foreign policy fundamentally differs from the Western approach in that it generally does not believe in meddling in the domestic affairs of other countries. This Confucian-based philosophy is as deeply ingrained in the Chinese as the Western evangelistic nature of spreading ideals like democracy. For example, China sees its struggle with Taiwan as internal, and therefore off limits to others. Likewise, its economic ties with Sudan, however controversial, are no one's business but theirs. In the case of Zimbabwe, Chinese UN Ambassador Wang Guangya defended China's veto by saying that the situation "has not exceeded the context of domestic affairs."

Similarly, Russia's decision to veto sanctions hinges on the fact that the crisis in Zimbabwe has (arguably) not spread throughout the region. It is not an international threat, say the Russians. Sure enough, Article 39 of the UN Charter says "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace... and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken... to maintain or restore international peace and security."

While some are sure to interpret the actions of Russia and China as condoning Mugabe, the reality is different. China's is mostly a veto based on principle and Russia's is based on interpretation. Want to place blame? Try the UN's outdated Security Council with absolute veto power granted to the four post-World War II powers (Russia, France, Great Britain and the U.S.) plus China - hardly representative of today's global dynamic. Or the UN's Charter, which apparently could use some clarification.