What to do?

I was reading Ian Bell's piece in The Herald on t'internet this morning and found that he neatly encompassed my own views on renewables and, in particular, wind-farms. I love the sight of them just after Stirling when I find myself on my way to Perth from Glasgow. I remember driving, or rather being driven, up the Pacific Coast Highway between San Diego and LA and seeing a wind-farm out in the desert and being struck by how much more attractive they were than the unsightly concrete warts on the landscape that was San Onofre nuclear power station. The reason why I couch the discussion in terms of aesthetics is due to it being the over-riding concern of many who object to wind-farm construction. Of course, there is good reason for this - in the Highlands in particular amenity is the lifeblood of many communities, being as it were the primary reason for tourists to visit the place. Consequently this has to be taken into consideration when plans for wind-farms are being discussed. But, given the choice between wind-farms which are easily removed and a nuclear/coal/oil-fired/biomass power station which is not, it seems to be the rational choice (along with wave and solar, in time). Of course, there are problems with wind-farms but their environmental footprint is far less intrusive than the alternatives. Indeed, their environmental impact in terms of pollution is also far far less offensive as well. Perhaps localised energy production is the answer? Rooftop solar and wind generators? The money we've spent chasing foreign misadventures could easily have been channelled into this with far far more pleasant results for everybody.

But in saying all that, I do disagree with Bell on one thing: I actually love the sight of Grangemouth. It looks like a vision of Dante's inferno located right by Falkirk. I also have a passing fascination with power stations and appreciate their own unique brand of brutalism. Huge cooling towers are a favourite - massive hulking constructions that look like quite unpleasant bouncers on the door of a club. Wind-farms are positively birdlike in comparison. Then you have our other form of energy production and consumption, oil. Offshore oil platforms, in the UK built and repaired in Nigg Bay north of Inverness, are massive constructions that float out in the middle of nowhere pumping the lifeblood of the British economy and society into the mainland. They're hardly attractive, and even less so when you consider the pollution they bring to country, albeit necessarily so. Remember the brouhaha over the Brent Spar platform when Shell wanted to junk it and scuttle it? Few people complain about their lacking aesthetic qualities or ruining of amenity when they are being tugged along Nigg Bay to be fixed up or sent back to sea. In saying that, we could have ended up with something like Oil Rocks in the Caspian Sea:




Yes, a veritable city built in the middle of the sea about 40km offshore from Baku. There's a library and a hospital as well as anywhere between 2000-5000 people living there making their way around 200km of roads built on stilts in the middle of the sea. Many of the roads are completely submerged having sunk into the seabed and the water levels reach up to the second-floor windows in some buildings. So I suppose Grangemouth isn't quite as bad in comparison.

Of course this is a simplistic analysis of the pros and cons of power generation, but not completely without merit. The strike at Grangemouth (which I personally have absolutely no problem with - the company are at it)(an oil company? at it? qualle surprise!), as Bell states, shows the fragility of the carbon economy that we have. Any attempts at moving that towards a more renewable-based model of production is fine by me. Preferably with the areas of amenity firmly intact of course. Easier said than done maybe.

It's been a while.

I've not blogged for a wee while now, not because I didn't have anything to say you understand, just because I've been busy. I inadvertently wiped all my work from the PRO off my computer by overwriting it with data from my old computer so I had to go redo all the work again. Bah. Oh well, that learned me good.

But on to a different subject. If I was a betting man, and I'm not, I think I'd wait for whoever it is that gets elected as the Democrat nomination for the US presidency and with the resulting bounce for them, then put my money on John McCain when his odds get lengthened for a short while. I just can't see the US electing either a black man or a woman to the highest office in the land against a Vietnam veteran and former POW. Don't get me wrong, nothing would please me more (in respect of US politics) to see a Democrat elected, irrespective of their gender or race, but I can't see it. I guess the beauty in US politics is that you always get suckered into hoping that something good will happen. Like last time round, there was what was reported as a groundswell of opinion against GWB that people, at least over here in the UK, thought Kerry had a genuine chance of getting in. We all know what happened there, albeit Kerry didn't help himself by not choosing Wes Clark as his running mate which gave the Republicans the chance to pin their 'war credentials' of being an administration that was in the middle of a war (of their own making of course) firmly to the ballot sheets.

The point of all this in relation to my thoughts on Obama and Clinton? As always, it is the older white guys running the show. Say what you like about Michael Moore, and let's face it we all have, but he had a point. Clinton and Obama are on a hiding to nothing unless one of them can pull something big out of the bag. Even then, they have it all to do. I just can't see either of them getting elected. McCain will get one term (due to his age), probably get through an amended immigration bill that he has supported, giving something like 12m immigrants votes in the US (primarily Latin Americans), before getting footed out the door by a few more NeoCons. They will by that point have convinced Jeb Bush that being president isn't such a bad job and that a family dynasty might be the way to go after all. A large number of those extra Latin American votes will likely go to a fluent Spanish speaking, newly devout Roman Catholic Jeb. I can see it all now!

But where will the Democrat nominee come from in the next election? That I don't see. John Edwards has failed twice in a row, first as Kerry's running mate and second in trying to get the latest nomination, so he's likely out. Hilary to run again? I'd be surprised at that, especially if she loses badly to Obama this time round. Obama? Maybe. A little more experience and exposure could do him well in the interim years. Al Gore? If he wants it then I suppose he'd at least be in a position to stand for it. The Clintons would likely be out of the way and he's already being touted as the power broker between Obama and Hilary. In saying that, he does appear to be enjoying his new found eco-warrior status so who knows?

Either way, McCain will win the next election. He's a more moderate Republican and will appeal to a wider audience with his 'bipartisan' approach. Oops, nearly forgot, there is always Nader! Now, where's my cheque book?

Brrrrrr!

Mitch has just told me that it is -11F in Utah. That's -24C in our decimalised understanding of cold. If you don't hear from me in 2 weeks send out the St Bernards. Man that is gonna be CAULD!