Saturday, July 04, 2009

Sarah Palin’s environmental record is frightening. She is criticized even by Alaskans for damaging the environment to make a quick buck at every turn. Yes, Alaska is different from the rest of the United States. It is more rugged and sparsely populated. Palin would have you believe if you are not from Alaska, you just wouldn’t understand her environmental policy. But other Alaskan’s do and the rest of us do as well. If she tries to impose her oil-dominated slash and burn mentality on the rest of the country and the world, it will be an environmental catastrophe.

I have been fortunate enough to visit the great state of Alaska. It is beautiful, wilderness-filled and largely unregulated. I can understand how someone who was raised there would think that humans cannot possibly make a dent in the world, that its just too big, too wild. Oil, mining and natural resources provide jobs in Alaska, but they have left their mark. I have seen the rows and rows of gravel near Fairbanks, where entire mountainsides were ground up searching for gold, and left in untreated piles stretching for miles. I have seen it first hand. Palin’s view of the environment may work for Alaska, but she doesn’t understand the rest of the nation and the rest of the world.

Palin wants to drill in the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge, which most Americans rightly oppose. It is a temporary fix to a permanent problem. Its like burning the furniture in your own home when you are running low on firewood instead of finding another way to heat it. It may help a little right now, but soon enough, not only will you be cold, you’ll have no place to sit.

Palin doesn’t think people can cause global warming. Most Americans realize that the 6.7 Billion people in the world, who work, live and consume have an impact on this world. We may not know the extent, but to think there is no impact is more than embarrassing, its dangerous. (For more examples of Palin’s environmental policy see here and here.)

A huge thunderstorm rolled through Chicago on August 4, 2008. Here are some photos of the aftermath. The crushed car was just south of Webster and west of Lincoln Avenue. Many people lost power and crews worked through the night and for several days to clear the trees and restore service.

This is one of many uprooted trees in Lincoln Park along the Chicago lakefront. Thousands of years ago, the shore of Lake Michigan stood where Lincoln Park is today. The sandbar, left stranded by the receding lakefront, now stands covered with grass and massive trees. The loose sand provides poor support for tree roots in the face of such strong winds.

T. Boone Pickens, Jr., the famed Texas oil barron has been swamping the media with his plan to drastically expand wind power and convert America’s vehicle fleet to cleaner-burning natural gas. Given recent spiking energy prices and the progression of environmentalism, this may come as a surprise. Its not everyday that an oil tycoon trades in the industry that has made him a multi-billionaire for the fledgling alternative energy industry.

T. Boone Pickens may be a relatively new face to alternative energy, but he has been around the boardrooms of oil companies for years. Environmentalism is often seen as a movement of the young, which raises the question of why a man who has amassed a fortune through the acquisition of oil interests is turning over a new leaf at the age of 80? My first instinct was “legacy”. Perhaps realizing that his finances cannot purchase immortality, he wants to be viewed as someone who transformed the way America uses energy. As one of the few people with enough clout to leverage such a change, he has a history of putting his money where is mouth is on issues important to him, donating an estimated $700 Million to charity.

Pickens may be a generous individual, and may have the best interests of all Americans at heart, but one can’t help but be skeptical of a lifelong oil man who never seemed to be overly concerned about his industry’s environmental impacts. He has consistently provided financial backings for anti-environmental candidates, including George W. Bush (in the form of $3 Million to the Swift-Boat campaign against John Kerry) The ulterior motives for Pickens are obvious: he can potentially cash in on the burgeoning wind energy industry and make money off of the shift in the use of natural gas through his vast network of natural gas providers as well. With up to 2,700 wind turbines on up to 200,000 acres planned for the Texas panhandle, he is capitalizing on land that he already has acquired either for its oil production or groundwater resources. The fact that the land also lies in one of the windiest areas of the country makes it ideal for capitalizing on its potential for generating power from the wind. His plan is being endorsed by some Sierra Club officials, but it’s more than just green, it’s good business.

Republicans have long been demonized for pillaging the environment just to make a buck. From mining federal reserves to fighting stricter pollution standards, they have earned a reputation for selecting policies at odds with good stewardship of the environment. Democrats have historically adopted green policies not just for practical reasons, but because they are idealists. They think its the right thing to do.

The Pickens Plan vividly illustrates the evolving position of many Republicans to greener policies. Democrats used to the partisan divide may find it hard to believe that Republicans have really changed their ideals to become more green. The apprehension is understandable, but unfounded because Republican ideals have not changed at all. Even though profits still rank above the environment for many Republicans, the changing world market for energy has changed the game. Profits and alternative energy are no longer mutually exclusive, and for the first time in decades, the goals of both parties are aligned. This is an unprecedented opportunity to forge innovative new legislation that boosts the economy and cleans up the environment simultaneously. The only question remaining is if the deep wounds of partisanship can be set aside to create real solutions benefiting all Americans.

Democrats are currently being put to test like never before. If they truely believe in their environmental ideals and are not simply following the party line, they will embrace green projects proposed by Republicans. Unlikely as it may seem, the path to a greener way of life may be blazed by the likes of a Texas oil man.

As Reported by Newsweek, the National Institute of Mental Health is considering an Autism Study that would attempt to idenify the effects of chelation on children with autism. The theory behind it is that mercury levels, which may have been increased through preservatives included in vaccinations administered before 2001, are a trigger for autism. Chelation is an experimental treatment, in which drugs are used to remove heavy metals (including mercury) from the body. Its side effects are largely unknown, but they may include redistribution of heavy metals within the body and low blood cell counts. A scientific, double-blind study appears to be an excellent way to determine if this treatment is actually effective, and if so what the side effects are. Unfortunately the study is currently on hold pending a review of its safety.

Autism is a very difficult condition to treat and can be psychologically and emotionally draining for both parents and children alike. Intensive therapy and early intervention are often recommended, but require a lot of resources and often have limited success. It is obvious why parents are searching for a miracle cure, but when the only evidence is antedotal, parents may unintentionally be putting their child in harm’s way.

A parent may try the treatment without knowing the risks involved, in large part because the doctors do not know the risks either. It is an ethical question as to what the odds are for recovery, how significant that improvement may be and what the odds and severity of side effects might be. Many parents are going to try chelation therepy, either because of antedotal evidence, rumor or hope. While concerns over the safety of trial candidates are well-founded, the fact that parents and doctors are already using this treatment must be taken into account so this valuable study can move forward. Even the link between mercury and autism has not been conclusively established, so a treatment that seeks to remove mercury is a tenuous treatment without more test results. The best we can do is provide parents with better information in an area that is already filled with so much uncertainty.

More Information on Autism Spectrum Research