dgraywatson

Policy goals such as "carbon zero" or "net zero" strike me as being very purist, excessive and an extreme goal. In fact, the first time I ever heard he phrase "zero" in policy was at the end of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in 1979. After the war in Indochina ended in 1975, they embarked on a policy of forcibly removing the population from the cities and towns and creating an agrarian existence. It was titled "The Year Zero" and it was a revolution that started with the execution of lawyers, teachers and all of academia (which was probably the only part of this policy that was good). Seriously, this horror lasted about five years and resulted in the death of half it's population though starvation, malnutrition, lack of medical attention and murder at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. So the policy goal of many western countries of "Net Zero" is an unfortunate and chilling slogan.

The trouble talking about the environment, green politics, energy, climate change is that, as soon as analyze one area you veer into another aspect of the discussion and so on and thus you go everywhere and get nowhere. So, I'll start here, it has to be said that many people think that the anti-nuclear lobby was spearheaded by Green Peace or lobbyists like the Sera Club, in fact it was heavily financed and supported by the fossil fuel industry who saw nuclear power as a threat to their monopoly. Nuclear power first came to prominence was the plutonium and uranium bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. One bomb killed 40,000 people instantaneously and another 30,000 days weeks and months after the attacks. The city was destroyed and radiation was an issue for decades to come. So it's hardly surprising that the green movement would be hostile to nuclear power as a source of energy whose misuse could lead to devastating consequences. The south coast of Britain gets a lot of it's energy from nuclear power but it's not produced in the UK but by French nuclear power stations where it's transported across the English Channel via cables on the sea bed . If you asked residents on the south coast of Britain would they want a nuclear power station to be built near them they would be uneasy to such a project. Whether it's a catastrophic disaster, a terrorist attack or an increase in cancer cases due to elevated levels of radiation at the location of the power station, nuclear power is feared. That being said the safety record of nuclear energy is actually quite good, Three Mile Island was ruptured steam pipe that was no danger to anyone but it was unfortunate to happen as a Hollywood disaster movie about a meltdown of a nuclear reactor (The China Syndrome) was being released.

Chernobyl in the former USSR was major disaster and Fukushima in Japan in 2011 caused by and earthquake and tsunami are two incidences of how nuclear power can be problematic. In the later case Germany made a pledge to power down their reactors and to phase out nuclear power all together with only three currently still operational. Finland and Sweden by contrast have reversed earlier decisions to move away from nuclear power and in fact have made major commitments to expand. Both countries have 6 modern reactors each. They are both countries with smaller populations and will probably be in a position to export energy to other countries. France has over 50 reactors and shows no sign of pulling back from nuclear and as was mentioned earlier are in a position to export electricity to other countries. Germany by contrast is in a difficult position, because the war in Ukraine and the destruction of the Nordstrom pipeline they are suffering a serious power shortage and is forced to import electricity from France and Switzerland as well as going back to coal.

When the UK, Australia and USA jointly announced the AKUS nuclear submarine joint security deal there were already signs that this could be a major political problem in Australia. The prospect of having nuclear powered submarines let alone ones containing nuclear weapons docking in Australia is not popular with many. Straight away New Zealand announced that they would not participate in this deal nor would they allow the submarines to dock in New Zealand. This of course was a bit disingenuous, New Zealand would still be an indirect benefactor of the security agreement because of it's geographical position. So there you have it, some countries have decided that Nuclear power is worth the risk because the burning of fossil fuels is a greater danger yet others still feel that at this juncture it is still too controversial and politically sensitive and want to press on with solar and wind alternatives. The dilemma is caused by the increased demand and necessity for energy in a world requiring technology which needs to be power and a growing world population. Consider this 40 years ago nobody in the advanced countries had a computer, a smart phone access to the internet and Wi Fi.

What's the future of fossil fuels?? Despite many of the developed countries making commitments to abandoning fossil fuels the outlook for the foreseeable future is that the demand for them will grow for many decades to come. China and India the two most populated counties are increasing there use of coal, oil and natural gas which is in direct contrast to many of the advanced countries who are pledged to phase out fossil fuels. The worlds reserves for natural gas and oil and coal are growing as new fields are being discoverd and expanded in the Caucuses and in Eurasia. That is known reserves , what has been undiscovered is not known and off shore exploration has only scratched the surface of potential fields and resorces.

Coal which was gradually phased out in developed countries from a peak in the 1970's and 1980's is growing in countries such as India and China.. If it's not home exhumed coal it's exported from countries such as Germany and as far away as Australia, which is there largest export. Many of the the developed countries who have done away with coal are seeing the potential to return to digging it but exporting it as a source of revenue.

What about the outlook for renewable energy ie solar and wind ?? To start with the long term outlook for both are very positive. There are a number of reasons first and foremost is that both wind farms and solar farms are not renewible as the cliche' implies. Depending on what location or where you live solar panels don't really last the 25 years they claim that they do and wind farms need consistant maintenence and eventually wear out after a number of years.. Solar panels start to lose their efficany after 8 years and will probably need replacing after 10- 12 years to get up to full capacity again. The other problem with solar is that they don't perform well in poor visability and of course at night don't produce any power. For example in Alaska during peak summer months solar panels can be productive up to 23 hours of day... but in the winter they are virtually useless.

With wind farms they can be productive during windy times but with no wind, again they fail to provide energy. With todays political backdrop the it's either renewibles or fossil fuels, one or the other. The reality is there is a growing global demand for energy and power and neither the fossil fuel industry is going anywhere yet neither is green energy alone going to replace them.

This NBC series ran a respectable three seasons from late 1988 to mid 1991 and was able to fill the void left after Hill Street blues and Fame were cancelled by the same network the previous year. The BBC broadcast Midnight Caller on Saturday nights at after 9pm the prestigious time slot which Dallas held from 1979-1985. The first two seasons were strong but tapered off in the third season prior to being cancelled.

It's important to note that in 1988 the USA abandoned what was known as the fairness doctrine for radio broadcasting and consequently opinionated shock-jocks ruled the airways not just by insulting and mocking its listeners but also promoting a political ideology, the most well-known being nationally syndicated host the self-proclaimed conservative Rush Limbaugh. Also, in 1988 the movie "Talk Radio" was released with the hostile and sarcastic Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian) doing a late-night talk show. Midnight Caller was no doubt was put forward as an idea for a tv series based on the success of Oliver Stone's film.

Jack Killian was a seasoned San Francisco cop who decided to leave the department after he accidentally fatally shot his partner and close friend during a pursuit of a felon. Because of his experience on the streets, he was snapped up as radio talk show host by station owner Devon King (played by the smart looking Wendy Kilbourne) and broadcast from midnight till 3am as the "Nighthawk". This was Gary Cole's first long term role and was well cast as he effortlessly played Jack Killian a decent and moral person with had a streak of cynicism but delivered with humor. Support in the series included radio station engineer and call screener Billy Po, outside was former college on the force captain Carl Zymack and the annoying and self-righteous local journalist Deacon Bridges. On the third season after Devin King sold the station the attractive Nicky Malloy took over as Jack's boss.

The stories varied from week to week, some involving former friends, people in trouble, former colleagues, but some also centered around Jack Killain himself. A lot of the scenes were set at night, and the mood of the show was set by the shows impressive jazzy introductory theme song and seedy nighttime visuals and was appropriately broadcast later at night from the fall through to the early spring months.

In the USA the series went into syndication in the 1990's and it was broadcast on the Lifetime channel, unsurprisingly at midnight. As I understand it's not currently shown on cable or broadcast on TV in the US, or available on the major streaming networks and was never released on DVD - it can only be found intermittingly on You tube.

The climax of most of the episodes was at the end with Jack Killian's powerful monologue at the end of the show. It wasn't finger wagging or preachy but were very moving with themes of compassion and kindness that as designed to touch the human soul and make people think and reflect. In a way because of the popularity of radio in the US as the 1990's into the 2000's, I was surprised the show was never revived. However, after Gary Cole success in stepping into the lead role in the highly rated NCIS, if he left the series or it was cancelled, he could easily reprise his role as Jack Killian. I'd highly recommend this series.

The rise of the USA from independence in 1776 and the original 13 colonies to the most powerful country in the world is remarkable. It was the expression "American exceptionalism" that was first coined by a French diplomat at the end of the 19th century. However, what he wouldn't have known was from that point to first 1945 to then to 1991 the USA would be the worlds most powerful country in modern times with no peer competitor.

American exceptionalism however is a slogan in recent years that has been embraced by the broadcasters and punditry class from the conservative movement who lay great emphasis on the role of capitalism. However the Democrats don't like to say it because of the issues over slavery and racial discrimination that is part of the USA's past. President Obama was asked about this from a journalist and replied that many countries regard themselves as exceptional. This reply is a clear example of how uncomfortable the Democrats are with it and only opened him up to the charge from conservative critics that he doesn't think that the phrase was worthy for the United States at any time. It's probably not a good idea to pump your own tires, it's more appropriate to leave that to the admirers to sing the praises. What it really means is simply an observation that from 13 states on the eastern seaboard in 1783, the USA has emerged as the most powerful country in the world a position that it's held for decades and reached ascendancy at the end of the cold war.

By the end of the 19thC there was a remarkable 45 states in the Union. The USA was becoming stronger just as the European powers were becoming weaker distracted by overseas wars and then eventually conflicts between each other in the first part of the 20thC. The USA came out of WW2 wealthy and powerful and were able to embark on the reconstruction efforts of Europe and Japan.

The USA was in the driver's seat as the only global challenger being former ally the Soviet Union. The USA was the force behind global economic growth which the USSR could not match, it was only political ideology and military power that the Soviet Union could challenge the USA.

Despite continued racial tensions, the Vietnam war protests, and the counterculture movements during the late 1960's, after initially being left behind in the space race the USA passed the USSR bye with six successful landings on the moon between 1969-1972.

Even after the loss of the war in Vietnam and economic malaise at the end of the 1970's, by the mid 1980's the economy was roaring and it was "Morning in America". By the late 1980's it seemed that the USA was on course to win the cold war as the USSR embarked on Glasnost and Perestroika and tensions between both countries eased up. So what went wrong? Where did it all get unraveled?

In the USA in the 1960's 1970's and 1980's there had always been an undercurrent of radicalism in the Universities and colleges of the USA. Indeed, in in some local municipalities there were new ideas about social and economic organization being floated about in certain quarters. By the 1990's under President Bill Clinton his administration cozied up to wall street and the large banks who wanted a continuation of the Reagan administrations overhauling of the banking system which included increased deregulation and a more relaxed approach to immigration. The Democrats encouraged the radicalization of human reaorse departments throughout corporate America and enforced it in government run departments at a local and national level.

The "education industrial complex" proliferated in the US to such an extent that qualifications and degrees were now required, or at a least a prerequisite for even applying for a position that never required one before. There is a general belief by academia that qualifications are an indication of intelligence. What's overlooked is creativity, thinking from a different perspective, being competent and wise, academia certainly can't stake a claim for being a monopoly on that. The choice of taking an academic route or deciding to by-pass further education is being taken away from the individual who are often forced to embark on a route they are unsuited to, or are unwilling to do and consequently they are finding that previous opportunities are now out of their reach. Another off shoot to this is now that education even at community colleges is leaving students with massive student loans that takes years to pay off. That's not to mention that universities and colleges are cash cows for the administrators and many top faculty members that leave students in many cases with worthless degrees as well as being chased by debt collectors.

It's not all the left that created the problems that stalled the American dream. In the mid 1990's the Republican party fell back to it's default position of deregulation, tax cut's, free trade and dealing with the federal governments ballooning budget defect. They wanted to scale back the role of the state and make cuts to the "entitlements" which includes social security, Medicare, Medicare and welfare benefits, which at first glance isn't an inspiring manifesto. The first fault lines in the political system was actually in 1992 when third party upstart Ross Perot won 18% of the popular vote in the presidential election. Athough in 1996 this dropped to 9% it still helped incumbent Bill Clinton win reelection (still below 50% of the vote) against the decent but hapless Republican challenger Bob Dole, whose main talking point in his campaign was character.

In 2000 George W Bush and his administration embarked on a platform of more tax cuts, more financial deregulation, free trade, and tax breaks for corporations that went overseas and an overhaul of the bankruptcy laws. The United States business and banking sectors was taking full advantage of globalism.

After the 9/11 attacks the USA declared a "war on terror" which gave the defense industry a massive financial windfall and Americas military empire was off to the races.

Also in 2001, China was invited into the WTO and what followed was that China becoming the fastest growing economy over the next 20 years. Policy makers in Washington bet that opening up China to global markets would eventually lead them to become a liberal democracy with a political party system and free elections. This hasn't worked out and Hong Kong was the first to fall as the 1984 agreement of "one country two systems" was abandoned by China and have now set their sights on Taiwan. But even if it had, they also assumed that the nationalistic aspirations of China wouldn't take hold, and they would ease into the world created by the USA. This also hasn't sufficed either, not only has China become a major regional competitor, but has global ambitions too and wants to do things their way. China's influence on the major U. S. political parties hindered Americas response to their rise through the financing of Americas security think tanks which they knew would favor a bias towards Beijing. Business interests and financiers promoted the conceit of globalization and in essence, the U. S. willingly and enthusiastically taught, trained, and even equipped China as they indefatigably sought economic gain from cooperation with Beijing. This has to be the biggest strategic blunder in the history of the United States .

However, by 2008 it was things on the home front where things were about to become unglued with the biggest bank collapse since the 1930's. This led to years of falling house prices and foreclosures due to people owing more than the property was worth. This was all compounded by a 2004 change to the bankruptcy laws that previously allowed people to declare themselves bankrupt but in most circumstances keep thier homes afterwards. The new rules did away with this, so there was no incentive for people to financially restructure a loan but it made more sense to just walk away. The banks which had lobbied for the 2004 change never took that into consideration. (note: that the Democrats under Obama and then Biden never reversed this 2004 legislation). This had global financial repercussions which affected all the worlds major economies. Neo Conservative and internationalist Robert Kagan's 2011 book "The World That America made" seemed ill timed, hollow and laughable as many of the major banks had to be bailed out by the government money.

With the exception of Pat Buchannan a traditional conservative who left the party in the late 1990's the Republicans weren't interested in confronting the ideology of "political correctness" that has taken hold of the USA. Republicans like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney and the establishment in general were oblivious or unconcerned. Romney himself who in 2020 went on a BLM march during the George Floyd demonstrations is the epitome of the problem. A well healed country club Republican who adopted the neo conservative internationalist view was a member of a church that at one time banned blacks from becoming members. Was this atonement? A dig at incumbent President Donald Trump who he disliked, or was it more wanting to get on board a new fad or fashion. BLM's membership would be hostile to the type of economic system that Romney supported and benefited from, therefore it takes some kind of brass neck for him take part in such a march. This type of virtual signaling and cynicism has become endemic to the modern political class in the developed world.

Diversity, equity and inclusion which has spread not only t USA but has gone beyond its shores and spread throughout the anglosphere. DEI is a pathway to the end of western liberalism by the enlightenment in late 19thC Europe, headed by the likes of Scottish economist Adam Smith and English philosopher John Lock.