ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

Damned If You Dem, Damned If You Don't

I just finished reading "Educating Senator Cantwell" by Jeff Stevens and must say I am left to wonder if Jeff isn't a plant for the Washington State Democrats. While I was prepared for the amount of ink devoted to Aaron Dixon and Maria Cantwell, I was totally mystified by the complete absence of reference to Mark Wilson (Cantwell's Democratic challenger in the primary), especially when you consider the two or three lines allotted to Mike McGavick, the Republican in the race.

As one of the "Washington state liberals frustrated with Cantwell's performance..." I have been equally disappointed in the open efforts by the state party to cast aside any challenge to "our incumbent" from within our own party. Imagine how frustrating it is to see a supposedly liberal publication such as Eat the State! join the cause with this obvious snub of Mark Wilson. I am already gearing up for the reply of, "Well he's not a viable candidate anyway."

Considering that Dixon himself has stated that he is running because there is no antiwar candidate coming from either the Democratic or Republican side, wouldn't it be just a bit more than a tad ironic if Wilson were to win the Democratic nomination and steal Aaron's platform? You know, with just the slightest help from the liberal press in this state, it could happen.

Peace,

--Chad Shue, Vice-Chair 38th LD Democrats, PCO Everett 28, General Secretary, Progressive Caucus, Sno-Co Democrats, Communications Director, DFSC

Cantwell's "Pro-Environmental" Record

I would like to offer a nit-picking correction to Jeff Stevens' article about Senator Maria Cantwell, in which he suggests that her pro-environmental record is one of her few redeeming qualities.

For sure, Cantwell has grabbed headlines for opposing drilling in the Arctic, protecting Puget Sound against increased tanker traffic, and supporting bio-diesel fuels, as well as protecting the Wild Sky Wilderness, but all of these issues are such no-brainers that no politician would dare to oppose them in Western Washington. Cantwell is a dot-com millionaire who supports the War on Iraq, and what is she going to do other than posture as an environmentalist if she wants to be re-elected? Fix income stratification so that dot-com millionaires pay more taxes?

Cantwell was elected in 2000 running against Slade Gorton, who was a legendary enemy of the environment, and at that point I believed Sierra Club propaganda enough that I believed Cantwell was pro-environment. When the Sierra Club (or maybe the Washington Wilderness Coalition) had a campaign to phone Cantwell's office in Washington to oppose the appointment of Gail Norton as Secretary of the Interior, I did so. I talked to some smarmy administrative assistant who asked me if I would also like to be counted as objecting to the appointment of Ashcroft, and I replied that it was okay to count me as objecting to Ashcroft (and whoever the Bushies might ever want to appoint to the Supreme Court), but I was calling to object to Gail Norton, with her professional history of working for the bad guys. Cantwell voted to approve Norton, who went on to be a whore for the anti-environmental interests that fund the Bush Regime.

Norton's finally gone, and now the Bush Regime wants to appoint Governor Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho as Norton's replacement. The Seattle Times coverage of this issue included a quote from Senator Maria Cantwell who allegedly "welcomed" the appointment. "He understands the Northwest and a lot of Interior issues," she said. Damn right Kempthorne is familiar with environmental issues in the Northwest. It's because he has persistently opposed environmentalists for years!

Cantwell's allegedly "pro-environmental" record should be qualified with her willingness to go along with the Bush Regime on appointments to head the Department of the Interior that are as thoroughly obnoxious as her support for the War on Iraq.

--Tony Formo, Seattle

Wright Replies to Mazza

Climate Solutions' Patrick Mazza (BackTalk, March 16) and I share a deep concern for the integrity of life of the planet. Patrick has devoted his career to environmentalism. I've heard him speak eloquently many times on KEXP's excellent Mind Over Matters. But for the life of me, I still cannot see how 300 million (or nine billion?) "clean cars" represent anything other than a panacea for global warming.

James Hansen, arguably the world's leading climate change researcher, now says we have ten years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches a tipping point and becomes unstoppable (www.energybulletin.net/14083.html). James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia Hypotheses, now says we are too late--industrial civilization is going to collapse and our best bet now is to ameliorate climate change as much as possible for the hunter-gatherer existence that awaits us.

Meanwhile, Patrick tells us that by 2015 new cars here will generate 30 percent less greenhouse gases. Great. But what about the old cars? Most people I know can't afford new cars. But they could afford a bus pass and might be willing to pay the taxes for an expanded transit system such as Bus Rapid Transit. (Of course, persuading them won't be easy.)

I am certainly not opposed to clean cars or plug-in hybrids. I just don't think we can continue with business-as-usual and pretend we are doing something meaningful about saving the planet by promoting false promises to people.

On the other hand, I do share with Patrick a belief that ramping up production of biofuels as quickly as possible in this state is a wise move. For those efforts, I applaud the work of Climate Solutions and the Washington Environmental Council in getting the legislation passed. However, in my view, all of that biofuel should go to our transit systems, our emergency services and our agricultural sector. Anyone who saw the recent CNN documentary, "We Were Warned: Tomorrow's Oil Crisis," will know why.

In that documentary, a hypothetical situation is presented whereby a hurricane strikes the oil refineries of Houston. Meanwhile, smelling blood, al-Qaeda successfully attack the oil facilities of Saudi Arabia. The world oil markets go into chaos and within a few months the US is brought to its knees. The phenomenon of gas hoarding and $200 barrels of oil lead to supply disruptions and empty shelves in the supermarkets: Petrocollapse, to use the term coined by Jan Lundberg of culturechange.org. (Lundberg successfully predicted the second Oil Shock of the Seventies.) A hypothetical scenario, to be sure. But not something I would bet against.

By converting our public services to biofuels, we safeguard our most vulnerable citizens and insulate ourselves against our dependence on foreign oil. At the same time, we could keep the food coming, perhaps preventing the culling of the population that Lundberg foresees.

However, we cannot in good conscience convert our entire car fleet to biofuel, Bush's techno-fix for our oil addiction. As Lester Brown of earthpolicy.org and author of Plan B 2.0 notes, the world's grains are maxed out just feeding the world. "As more and more ethanol distilleries and biodiesel refineries are built, the world's affluent automobile owners will be competing with the world's poor for the same commodities."

Does this spell the end for the car? Well, I agree with Patrick that electric cars powered by wind farms do represent a partial sustainable solution to transportation in a world of diminishing oil and gas availability. We could bring the cars online just as soon as we built the wind farms. That will take time. But I would argue that those electric cars should serve communities and not commuters. Expand the car-sharing concept to put an electric car on every city block, just as soon as they become available.

Gut-wrenching changes await us in the years ahead as global oil depletion spells the end of the Age of Oil (see www.peakoil.net). A series of oil shocks will disrupt our society. The only sensible solution, in my view and others, will be to form an ecological society based on decentralization and mutual aid. The car-based, business-as-usual model will come crashing down all by itself. We are a New Orleans waiting to happen. It's up to us to have solutions to offer people. In fact, the best solutions will come from people themselves if we democratize our communities.

Finally, a note about decorum. It does not bother me that Patrick got my name wrong in his letter. But I could do without the Marxist slurs (e.g., "utopian") and simplifications of my views. Most reasonable people can distinguish the difference between "phasing out private cars" and "banning them," as Patrick attributes to me. I do not favor banning cars (or killing babies). I'll leave those scare tactics to the right-wing. Nevertheless, I do think there will come a time when we will have to make hard choices. Do we use our dwindling resources to work for the common good, or do we leave them to the market and the wealthy?

--Colin Wright, Seattle