CONGRESS

It has been too long since I have prepared a post for this page. When I decided to remedy that and began to search for a topic I found the number of possibilities staggering; there have been far too many issues raised and far too few reasonable responses to those issues since I last wrote here. I could not address them all.

But then I realized that my distress over these issues had a common denominator: Congress.

Where to begin? Perhaps with the essential philosophy of this particular Congress, which seems to be "All is fair in Political Warfare, no matter who gets hurt." To hold the American people hostage in order to make a partisan point? To refuse to govern, to pout and posture if they don't get their way? What have we become? I find it particularly insulting that members of this Congress continually represent themselves as acting at the will of the American people. Which people, exactly, are they talking about?

I'll say a quick word about guns and then move quickly to another topic. I've written much on this topic; its all been said. But in deference to those American people who have been devastated by guns that we put in the hands of criminals, I'll say another word. The arrogance of Congress to defeat a reasonable Arms bill in the shadow of the execution of schoolchildren, in order not to incur the wrath of the NRA, astounds and saddens me. Nor does the increase in similar shootings since that time seem to concern these lawmakers. The message from Congress is clear: feel free to go ahead and shoot people when you are in distress; we'll never take your guns away.

And ObamaCare? (The President did a great disservice to his own initiative when he allowed the Affordable Care Act to be so named during the debates).
We fail to remember that prior to the introduction of this bill universal health care did not exist for all Americans, and that the health and welfare of the American people was not assured during economic downturns accompanied by job loss and home loss. The state of health care in America was a disgrace and compared poorly to even some third world countries. Those that could afford it, had it, and those that couldn't didn't. It needed fixing.

And so doing is an enormous task, a great political sacrifice for any politician or governing official who undertakes it. But the first step has to be taken, however imperfect it might be. When the President presented this windmill to tilt against during his campaign and the American people voted him in for a second term, that was their affirmation. And once the bill was passed, it was time for Congress to support it. There would be ample time in the future to remedy the predictable problems with such a huge undertaking.

But this Congress has no interest in being constructive; this Congress is about tearing down, regardless of the fallout. This Congress purports to support American rights. And so they do: the right to die in a fusillade of bullets, and the right to be poor and sick without the benefit of a doctor's care.

Shall I even begin to speak of the environment and global warming and Big Oil? Congress fiddles while Rome burns. There is so much that could be done, that must be done to foster clean energy and minimize the release of greenhouse gases and preserve our natural resources, and here again Congress would rather in-fight and play partisan politics rather than act.

America needs strong leaders; we need Congressmen and Congresswomen who will not only represent their constituencies, but will also govern. The people we elect to represent us in Congress have been given a trust and have been provided a unique, global perspective with which to help guide the ship of state, the entire ship, not just the upper class berths, toward safe waters.

We currently lack these leaders.

Of Paint And Pastures

What do Art and Ranching have in common? Apparently a lot. Creative people seem drawn to the land. This is particularly true of the Santa Ynez Valley, home to ranches of actors, writers, musicians and artists.

In celebration of that fact, my wife and I were privileged to participate in a joint outing of the Wildling Museum and the Santa Ynez Valley Historical Museum to explore this partnership of art and ranching as embodied in the life work of Channing Peake, painter and Buellton rancher.

A privilege indeed, for our destination was the UCSB Art, Design & Architecture Museum and the Peake/Picasso Exhibit. Few are immune to the romantic perception of the American Cowboy, and apparently Pablo Picasso was no exception. "There was an instant attraction" between the men, AD&A Curator of Exhibitions Elyse Gonzales explained, standing before a wall sized photo in which the two men stand side by side, Peake wearing a mischievous grin and Picasso wearing Peake's cowboy hat.

And so began a unique tour of the exhibit led by Ms. Gonzales, a transplanted Philadelphian in her fifth year as Curator at AD&A, and Channing Peake's widow, Cheri Peak who offered insights possible only from one who has lived intimately with the artist. The exhibit occupies two rooms and is designed to compare and contrast the work of both men and their influence upon one another. In many instances it is difficult to distinguish between the work of the two artists. The second room is devoted entirely to Channing Peake with photos, paintings, news clippings, letters and film exploring his work and life while in Oaxaca, Mexico, at Jabali Rancho in Buellton, in Paris and in Los Angeles. In this exhibit Curator Gonzales has fully captured the dichotomy presented by Peake's love for painting and for ranching, most fully epitomized by Channing's paintings of farm implements on his ranch rendered in modern style. No faux cowboy he, Peake rode and bred top quarter horses and Jabali Rancho was a plain, working cattle ranch like any other along Santa Rosa Road.

Our tour of the exhibit was accompanied by an intimidating array of curators and directors representing the three museums whose comments, questions and reminders sparked dialogue that few museum visitors encounter. No question went unanswered.

The net result? A thoroughly enjoyable afternoon.

It's Time To Choose

Today, right now, California is facing a decision, possibly the most consequential decision in the history of the state. It is simply, oil or water? Now is the time; this decision cannot be postponed. Once the leash restraining the oil companies has been released there is no going back.

California has outpaced other states regulating fracking. Santa Barbara County, and now Sacramento are taking the issue seriously. The oil companies recognize that Frack is a four letter word and are avoiding it, if not in practice, very definitely in vocabulary.

But some California agencies, as if driven by feelings of guilt for a regulatory hard line on fracking, are now quite willing to accept cyclic steam injection and other methods oil drillers propose. And California legislators and administrators are being successfully wooed by the economic promise oil companies like to make. Let us in, they say, and there will be jobs, jobs, jobs. Maybe. But for whom?

The Monterey and Sisquoc shale oil play is located in a region roughly from Monterey County south into Ventura County, and in some locations west almost to the Sierras. These counties are on the front lines in the war between oil and water. And more specifically, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission is currently under the gun. They have postponed a proposal by Santa Maria Energy to drill 110 wells using cyclic steam injection in the Careaga Oil Field in Orcutt. Their concern is emissions. But should it also be water?

That four letter word, Frack, has not been mentioned. The proposal is for cyclic steam injection. We know that fracking requires a tremendous amount of water. But what is known about the amounts of water used in cyclic steam injection?

In his article 'Water Use Concerns Flood Frac Meetings and DOGGR Workshops Statewide' (Apr 6th, 2013) Tomas DiFiore* suggests that the cyclic steam injection method might actually use more water than fracking. The problem is, the former method has drawn far less attention than fracking, and has, after all, been in use in California since the 1950's. Numbers of wells and data regarding water use have not been tracked.

But we do know this: one small company, in one oil field converts 60 Million Gallons of water per day into steam and injects it into wells to make heavy oil flow.

Viewed another way, says DiFiore, "In one week, in one oil field, the yearly water usage of between 3,500 – 7,000 California families is pumped down into the ground, as steam. It comes back out with the oil, as product water, to evaporate in unlined pits, and toxic ponds." That's a lot of water. But agricultural use of water is generally 36 times that of oil drilling! How can our aquifers sustain all of that?

The increased emissions hazard potential from heating water into steam is a concern, no doubt. But in a world where the effects of global warming have already begun, and with increased dryness and diminishing water resources in the West, my most immediate concern is to have enough water to drink and to grow my food.

California, like most of the Southwest, is currently experiencing drought. The Los Alamos aquifers are in overdraft. In the Cuyama Valley water has become a serious concern. That region will not be alone in this danger for very long. In the face of general global warming, it is unlikely that this drought is a one and done situation. Something's got to give - and you can't drink oil.

Another Glance at Global Warming

The recent publishing of Barbara Kingsolver's latest novel, Flight Behavior (a drama created around the topic of climate change) inspired me to check in on what's going on, or up, with the climate.

On November 16, 2011 I published a post reviewing the increment of change in global warming based upon the predictions of Mark Lynas' 2008 book, Six Degrees. My post, titled At .188 Degrees Centigrade Warmer: All Is Well? is available for review in the archives of this blog.

I think it's time to take another look, but perhaps in a less detailed way, at Mr. Lynas' projections. To catch us up, Tuvalu (that group of islands in the Pacific) is still with us, although island overlapping is projected to occur mid to late this century. The rate of sea rise in that part of the Pacific Ocean is measured at 5.1 mm per year. That may seem slow - unless you live there.

Since 2011 the sea and & air surface temperature anomaly average was approximately .05 Degrees C of increase (over 2 years), slightly more comforting than the 2011 measurement of .188 degrees C of warming at that time (over four years). But before we grow ecstatic, remember that there have been flat periods before, yet the steady rise continued after them. In fact, every NOAA or NCDC or NESDIS graph related to global warming tends to look like a series of North Korean rocket launches: severe ups and immediate downs. But the average of the anomalies is steadily upward. With climate change, it is important to look at the big picture.

Lynas' prediction of increasingly arid conditions in the southwest United States is bang on. The drought we are currently experiencing began in 2012, the hottest year on record in the U.S., with several weeks in a row of 100-plus degree days in various regions. The result was drought conditions for a full two-thirds of the country.

His prediction of monsoonal rainfall in the eastern United States continues to be accurate. December 2012 ranked among the top 20 wettest in ten states. Again extremes, as predicted: the wet get wetter, the hot get hotter. There have been larger and more intense storms (the Oklahoma tornadoes, as just one example). Drier windy conditions are causing greater fire danger. Elsewhere there have been deep, debilitating snows, even in places unaccustomed to them…all as predicted.

In regard to Polar ice melt predictions, a clear trend has emerged over the space of a decade or more, showing a decrease of about 5% of average sea-ice cover per decade. While sea ice extent recovered slightly during the Arctic winters of 2008-09, the full extent of annual ice reduction or gain is seen in September of each year, at the end of the Arctic summer. That measure suggests the volume of multi-year ice has not recovered at all, and is in fact showing a steeply negative trend. (Polar Science Center, U of Washington)

It might be relevant to take a peek at the extinctions of species since 2008. In that year the Liverpool Pigeon was thought to be extinct. In 2010 we lost the Alaotra Grebe. In 2011 the Eastern Cougar and the Western Black Rhinoceros were declared extinct. The Japanese River Otter became extinct in 2012. That same year we lost "Lonesome George", the only remaining Pinta Island Tortoise. This year the Formosan Clouded Leopard disappeared from the earth. I do not claim that the sole cause of these extinctions was global warming. Yet we know that animal habitats are changing extremely rapidly, and some species simply lack the flexibility to adapt.

It appears that the warming of our globe is marching inexorably on. This march seems ponderous and slow. But we must reckon with momentum. Like a snowball rolling down hill, climate change gathers speed as it occurs, accelerated by more exposed seas, more gases released by melting perms-frost, and a host of other small but cumulatively important factors that will cause every symptom to grow in size and intensity. Yes, the march of global warming seems slow - unless you live there.

You may have noticed a hiatus from this column for several months, that due to publishing and re-publishing my new novel, final edits on my second (due September 1), and the development of a new website for my fiction and music. From this point onward I will post a column every fourth Wednesday of the month.   

It's Time To Bite The Bullets

It came right from the mouth of a fictional character, in an episode of West Wing when Josh responded to a question about his candidate's position.

"How will you control arms?" was the question. "We won't," was his response. "We won't control arms at all," he said. "The guns are already out there. There's no way to get them all back. But - we can control the bullets."

And instantly I saw that he was right.

It would be virtually impossible to reclaim all of the countless guns already distributed among the population. And all the large bullet magazines as well. Trying to limit guns is akin to closing the barn door after the horse has left the barn.

But control bullets? How absurdly simply. An assassin can't do much with his AK-47 without bullets other than use it as a clumsy club. Bullets run out and must be replenished. Bullets can be monitored. They can be distributed under the auspices of rifle ranges, hunting clubs, farmers organizations, even survival groups, if need be. Each organization would bear responsibility for its members. The officials of each organization would need to explain the distribution of bullets within it. And although ballistic fingerprinting isn't as infallible as human fingerprinting, it is sufficient enough that most bullets can be traced.

A fallacy with many gun control proposals is the assumption that the people we are today are the people we will be tomorrow. But people change throughout their lives. We experience emotional and physical trauma, bitter disappointments, self-esteem and social issues, and body chemistry changes. Any of these can alter our personalities, sometimes to a serious degree. Good gun legislation must be elastic; it must have the capability to tighten when necessary and ease up when not. This can be done with the flow of bullets.

If an individual should enter into a concerning state, whether it be mental health, drug use, or legal difficulties, the supply of bullets to that individual could be interrupted for a period of time. This will require good communication, of course (not a small issue, I know). The responsibility for this communication should be given to doctors and other care takers who are immediately concerned with the individual in question, as well as to members and leaders of the communities where alarming changes might be noticed soonest, and even to families. Loyalty considered, it's still better to stop the flow of bullets than to lose a loved one.

But those who are not dealing with such issues can carry on as if nothing has changed, purchasing and using bullets for their guns and their legitimate purposes uninterrupted.  Those who wish to have and to hold a collection of weapons may do so. But a stockpile of bullets and bullet cartridges for those weapons would be prevented.

Is bullet control an absolute answer? Of course not. Any comprehensive gun control plan must have many facets, ranging from education to re-registering (as you do for your drivers license.) But bullet control is a strong response to the huge number of guns already in (and out of) private hands.

It's sad, but our world today is just too crowded and too vulnerable not to put some limitations upon the use of arms, just as we put regulatory limitations upon other potentially dangerous items.

Note: My focus has been elsewhere lately, a result of writing deadlines in other areas. My intention is to return to this blog with more consistency. My plan is to post at least once month and, if issues prompt me to do so, I will post more often.

Fear of Fracking

The news is crude. The oil industry eye is on California and the gas rich Monterey Shale. Advertisements on local TV channels here on the Central Coast extol the benefits of embracing oil exploration in the state. Stay independent of foreign oil, they say. Bring jobs to the area.
And with no clear alternative energy plan at any administrative level there is little to say in opposition. Yes, we all want to continue to drive our cars without restriction. Yes, we all want to enjoy the many products that oil makes possible. And no, we don't want to be slave to prices set by foreign nations that don't particularly like us.
We are uneasy with the oil industry. We are concerned about the environment. We are worried about climate change. We are keeping a skeptical eye on things.
But the Monterrey Shale draws derricks like a magnet. Not more than five years ago the Cat Canyon Oil Field to the east of Los Alamos was for all intents and purposes dormant. A few pumping wells, an oil rig leasing company, that was about it. No longer. The area at the intersection of Palmer Road and Cat Canyon road has the appearance of a small industrial city. Pumping wells are everywhere, drilling rigs poke their heads up over the hills, trucks roll in and out constantly.  Are they fracking?
Oil drilling is an expensive proposition. And a huge gamble. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent in the hope that a well will meet production expectations. If it doesn't, that money is often lost. And so it comes down to efficiency. And that is where fracking shines.
A study led by Dr. Brian Lutz, an assistant professor of biogeochemistry at Kent State university, concluded that one horizontal shale well produces the same amount of gas as 30 conventional wells. Now that's efficiency. If you owned an oil exploration company, would you be content to drill conventionally, knowing this?
I'm certain that the greatest concern about fracking in the Los Alamos Valley, particularly among the growers, is water. Without water, specifically non-contaminated water with which to irrigate crops, there would be no agriculture. End of story.
And fracking is not as efficient with water. A shale well produces 10 times as much waste water as a conventional well. That's bad news for the growers. But not the concern of oilmen. Their concern is the gas to waste water ratio. And here again, fracking shines.
In the Marcellus Shale area that Dr. Lutz studied, the overall increase of waste water from conventional drilling to fracking was phenomenal - a whopping 570%. The overdrawn aquifers of Los Alamos Valley would be hard pressed to sustain such an increase for very long.
And so the line in the shale has been drawn. Some eight bills are moving toward the floor for California legislators concerning regulating fracking. There is awareness; there is concern. But is there transparency?
To the south of Los Alamos in Drum canyon a solitary well is being vigorously resuscitated. They've been drilling there for more than three weeks now. Truckload after truckload of equipment and materials have rumbled past me on my runs up the canyon. Large tanker trucks have squeezed past me going to and fro. Baker Hughes, the fracking giant, is involved. (Baker Hughes produces the fracking fluid used by Venoco in earlier fracking in the valley.)
But Doug Anthony, the county deputy director who handles energy issues in Santa Barbara county "did confirm that since the [December 2011] regulations were adopted not a single application for fracking has come across his desk"*. Does this mean all of the companies currently drilling in Cat Canyon and Drum Canyon are content to drill old fashion inefficient wells?
There are new break-throughs in fracking technology almost daily, with Halliburton and Baker Hughes leading the way. Using fiber to keep frack cracks open longer, disintegrating "frack balls" to drop down the well, "super cracks" to frack deeper into dense rock formations.
But on the horizon, something new. Might water actually be eliminated from future fracking? Halliburton's new "fastfrac" idea would use half the water.  A new, if controversial technique using LPG with a bit of butane mixed in has been used successfully.
That's not to say these new techniques will protect against earthquake or spillage or any of the other environmental problems. They only reduce water use. But that may well end up becoming the compromise of the future.

*Wine Spectator; January 7, 2013.

The Importance of Re-Inventing Ourselves

It was with curiosity and a certain amount of anticipatory excitement that my companions and I headed for Bell Street, Los Alamos, last Saturday evening to experience Los Alamos Third Saturday. Who doesn't enjoy participating in a "first", particularly a first of "thirds"? The event was scheduled from 4 to 8 PM and we arrived California Stylishly late by a bit over an hour. But already, the main drag in Los Alamos was thronged and parked in with cars.

Los Alamos is a quiet town by anyone's standard, even on weekends. To us, this is one of its charms. But for the local retailers quiet can be too quiet, uncrowded can be unprofitable, unsung can mean unvisited. Certainly no one has reason to think of Los Alamos as a night-spot destination.

And so Los Alamos set out to do what it needed to do: re-invent itself.

How do you get folks to come out and hang around town for a few hours on a weekend evening? The answer; a little bit at a time. Start small, with enticements offered on a consistent but infrequent basis; say, one weekend each month. Then stand back and watch it grow.

And so on the third Saturday of every month merchants in Los Alamos will remain open for business until 8 pm. The businesses will join in a central theme which will change each month. Each business will decide how to go about incorporating that theme.

St. Valentines Day had just passed and so the first Third Saturday theme was, naturally enough, "Lovefest". We saw the theme applied in many inventive ways. We stopped at the C Gallery where we could view a special "I Love Los Alamos" display of photographs of local people and places. At Casa Dumetz we were plied with wine and then encouraged to tell stories of our first or lost loves. At the Station we enjoyed a hearty beef stew from Charlie's and a beer.

And then we ran out of time. We were sorry to miss the Bee Happy Honey Tasting at Bedford Winery and the other compelling offerings at other stores.

This is not the first time I have watched a town re-invent itself. Ann and I lived in Newport, Rhode island in the early seventies right after the Navy had pulled out. The entire economy of that town had revolved around the Navy. There were dire predictions. But the citizens of Newport went to work to tap into the tourist trade. The rest, of course, is history and Newport is now one of the greatest tourist destinations in the world. We were lucky to be part of it in a small way.

In a changing world, we will need to know how to re-invent ourselves. It is increasingly likely that our environment could change abruptly and that all the old familiar paradigms could disappear almost overnight. Flexibility, autonomy and courage are the traits we need to move forward. The future of our families, our neighborhoods, and our communities may well depend upon our ability to creatively re-invent ourselves.

This blog article was republished in the Santa Ynez Valley News recently.

Taking My Stand On Gun Control

It seems as if everything that can be said has been said about gun control. Regardless, it is important for all Americans to weigh in on this issue. It requires careful consideration of every view, every need, all beliefs and every fact; all must be put on the table.
And so I write this not to uncover new ground but to express my position and take my stand.  I am opposed to the unobstructed proliferation of guns of all description in the United States. I am a proponent of a common sense approach to the problem unfettered by emotions such as anger or fear or greed.
In all that has been written on the subject I have found but one article with which I entirely agree. It is written with common sense, without emotion, and from a base of knowledge and experience.  It is written by a man who has used many of these weapons, including the AR-15 used frequently in mass shootings, knows them intimately and is trained in their use. The author has served in the U.S. Marine Corp, the Secret Service, as a State Trooper and on a SWAT team. He has been a firearms instructor for the New Jersey State Police. But he has also administrated teacher preparation programs in two universities and has spent substantial time in schools, both urban and suburban, privileged as well as  poor and unsafe. He has a Ph.D. in political science and he knows the constitution.  The man is Scott Fina.
His points have been heard before but seldom heard based in the experience and understanding of an individual so eminently qualified to comment on every important aspect of the issue.

He says the following:
The Second Amendment of the Constitution was written for conditions in 1791, not 2013.
Those advocating the arming of citizens such as teachers misunderstand the realities of gun shootings.
Those suggesting that effective screening of gun purchasers will make ownership of semi-automatic and other firearms safe in our country vastly overstate the administrative capabilities of government.
Those advocating such screening understate the potential actions of normally behaved citizens during conditions of prolonged stress or emotional duress.
That gun proliferation has required law enforcement to escalate its own training and weaponry.
That the presence of a gun always brings a certain degree of danger to every situation.

Every one of these points resonates with me. But I have never experienced any of it. He has.
Finally, he has this to say: "Numerous studies indicate an unquestionable, positive correlation between the prevalence of guns in a society and its death rate. Of course this would be the case; diseases spread when their causes (germs or guns) are present in greater numbers."

Scott Fina's article Say No To Guns appeared in the Santa Maria Sun and can be found here.

Frack is Back

I found Kathy Johnston's short article in the SUN, "State issues first fracking rules", compelling. And concerning. At first I was prepared to be pleased as I read in the opening sentence that "long awaited draft regulations on fracking were recently issued…". DOGGR calls the draft of these regulations a "starting place for discussion".
The first regulation I read required oil companies to "pressure test cement linings in oil wells before fracking".  Does that mean they don't currently? Considering that the well linings are critical for prevention of contamination, that comes as an unwelcome surprise.  Then I read that "producers would have to continue monitoring oil wells once fracking is complete". I had assumed that this too was already happening as a matter of course.
The next regulation I read called for oil companies to give 10 days notice to DOGGR before fracking. But not to adjacent property owners. But DOGGR will post that information on their website three days before fracking. I have two questions about that. First, why the delay? Second, is that the only action DOGGR proposes to take? No questions? No inspections? Nada? I read on.
The next item seemed a bit more constructive, at first. Oil producers will be compelled to disclose the chemicals they will use in the fracking operation. It will appear on the website FracFocus.* But only "within two months from the time the fracking ends." Isn't that a bit late if we are concerned about what chemicals are being injected into the earth? And then…"oil companies may claim that some chemicals are trade secrets" and not reveal them. What is DOGGR regulating, then?
Naturally, environmental groups in California are concerned. DOGGR appears to be toothless. Perhaps the group is powerless in the face of strong lobbyists and political opposition. My brief look into the background of a few members in Santa Barbara County reveals concerned scientists and environmentally aware citizens. True, some have oil company ties, if only from past employment. But how else does one gain enough experience with oil production to understand how to regulate it?
But the lingering question for me is why bother to spend time drafting regulations that have no real impact on the true concerns around fracking? Am I missing something?
I am reminded that the regulations are a draft, that DOGGR plans to hold "workshops" before formally processing them. Ms. Johnston has supplied the e-mail address for comment (comments@conservation.ca.gov) for those who wish to do so. I am grateful to Ms. Johnston for her report but I can't help wonder if others out there are concerned, or is the current focus on becoming oil independent as a nation too all encompassing?

*The site FracFocus does not have tools for aggregating, hence data sifting/comparisons/graphics  across the data reports is nearly impossible. Many states, now including California if these regulations are processed,  are allowing drillers to satisfy disclosure requirements through the site rather than through a state website or a multi-state website. FracFocus developer, Ground Water Protection Council, did not develop the site with that intention (the way states are using it) and has no intention of changing. A Bloomberg analysis found that two of every five wells drilled since the site's inception have not had data disclosed.  Congresswoman Diana DeGette stated: "FracFocus is just a fig leaf for the industry to be able to say they’re doing something in terms of disclosure.".

Stateimpact.npr.org
eenews.net
switchboard.nrdc.org