Miscellaneous News Gleanings: Green Elitism, Lithium Mining, EVs, and the War on Lawns

Items of note from various sources the past couple days.

The first is from Michael Shellenberger:

Green Elitism Behind Farmer Crackdowns
What role is the World Economic Forum playing?
 

Farmers in the Netherlands reduced nitrogen pollution by nearly 70% through a voluntary system. But the government says that is not enough and is demanding that they cut pollution by another 50% by 2030.
By the Dutch government’s own estimates, 11,200 farms out of the roughly 35,000 dedicated to dairy and livestock would have to close under its policies; 17,600 farmers would have to reduce livestock; and total livestock would need to be reduced by one-half to one-third. The Dutch government has demanded that animal farming stop entirely in many places.

EdNote: Is there not a global food shortage in the making already? What's the deal here? Is this the beginning of a more widespread trend? How will this impact the price of steak?

Item Two: Lithium shortages coming

Satellite view of salt flats in Bolivia and Argentina
that are rich in Lithium.

Another article I read was about the Lithium shortages that are coming... EVs are dependent on batteries, but Lithium Inflation is up 750%. More than half the world's Lithium comes from So
uth America, but those countries have two things going against Lithium. (1) Leaders who want more of the profits from mining in their countries. (I can't entirely blame them) and (2) indigenous people who are protesting mining altogether, like they do in the U.S. ... "Protect our water" groups. What we have is competing Green objectives colliding.

Here's the story from the Wall Street Journal:

South American setbacks for lithium, a key battery component, worry the electric-vehicle industry.

Lithium is an essential element in EV batteries. Less than 2% of the world's lithium comes from the U.S., though actually 4% is available but we have designated it as off limits. 

* * * 

Item Three: The War on Lawns.

Thursday's NYTimes eNews daily had a story on the war on lawns.

Early in the piece the authors write, "But while the lawn may be a powerful symbol of American postwar prosperity, it’s also an ecological dead zone that’s sucking the nation’s aquifers dry."

OK, so my initial reactions to the story ran like this. First, it seems to me that there's an inherent hatred of suburbia that I've never fully understood. People in Manhattan don't have lawns. So why this assault on yet another aspect of the suburban lifestyle?

It brings to mind the assault on SUVs twenty years ago. Well guess what? SUVs are useful for taking eight kids to a soccer game. They save gas because you don't have to take three vehicles. And when you have a hobby farm, pickups and SUVs are quite useful for conveying hay or feed.

Until I read this NYTimes piece (it looks like an opinion presented as news) I never knew lawns were a "powerful symbol" of anything. Then again, when things get cast in a political light, everything tends to be turned into symbols of one kind or another.

And when you look at a map of the U.S. from above, what percentage of the U.S. is covered with lawns? It has to be less than 5%. Most of the country is mountains, forests, plains and lakes. Can this small slice of American landscape really suck the entire North American aquifers into an ecological dead zone? 

I'm skeptical. 

* * * 

Expelled

Last night we went to see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Going into it I was unaware of all the controversy about this film because evidently I either (a) travel through a different orbit, or (b) live under a rock. Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel gave it a one star (*) in our local paper here in Duluth. A quick jump to RottenTomatoes.com shows that the critics in general are in agreement that this is a bad film. Reviewer Ken Hanke’s remarks reflect the majority view: “Junk science meets even junkier filmmaking in Expelled -- a no more shameless, stupid and loathsome piece of propaganda has ever skulked its way into the theater.”

At the end of the day it is criticized for being biased, one sided, and manipulative with a 9% favorable rating by the critics. But these same critics loved Michael Moore’s biased, one-sided Fahrenheit 9/11, which they described as “Extremely one-sided in its indictment of the Bush administration, but worth watching for the humor and the debates it'll stir.” And this one from Bill Clark of TheBalcony, “Moore's best and most mature effort to date.

Reviews at the IMDB site are no kinder. One reviewer calls Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed “pure unadulterated crap” and others label it “useless propaganda.” Another quoted the New York Times reviewer who calls it a “conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.” Another declares the film to be “willfully ignorant and intentionally deceptive.”

Yet the Expelled raises a number of good questions. Like, are scientists permitted to pursue honest doubts about Darwin’s opus? Is there true freedom of inquiry in academia? Are some questions off limits because they violate the Sacred Edicts of Political Correctness?

But wait, why is it that Michael Moore can raise questions in an entertaining way, and Ben Stein cannot? Michael Moore can manipulate and Expelled cannot? Who’s kidding whom?

When Bernard Goldberg blew the whistle on bias within the network news, he was immediately persona non grata at CBS. Admitting the truth that everyone on the inside already knew… well, this is an unpardonable sin. Despite three decades of outstanding work, Goldberg was immediately marginalized and put out to pasture.

As you read the reviews by movie critics (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/) on these two films (Fahrenheit 9/11 and Expelled) it is apparent that the critics are merciless toward one of these films and falling all over themselves to praise the other. I find it pretty revealing.

As for me, I would strongly recommend seeing this film. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is well done, entertaining and thought provoking. The defenders of Darwin were not pretending to believers here. Their words (men like Dawkins, for example) were not twisted to produce different meanings from what they declare here. The film is not dishonest, and the concerns of those who created this film are not fabricated from tissues of fantasy. In point of fact, the amusing thing is how fantastically bizarre the purportedly scientific explanations can become once you wipe out the possibility of God as part of the equation in life’s origins.

Definiteness of Purpose

Napolean Hill calls Definiteness of Purpose a critical key to success in life. Watched Chariots of Fire last night. Definiteness of Purpose is once again illustrated. Gold medal winners have a clarity of aim that enables them to surpass their peers. ~May 25, 1998

A prerequisite to achieving "great things" (it would seem) is a conviction that one is able to achieve or accomplish great things. This notion is accompanied by a desire to do great things, which flies in the face of current cultural beliefs that it is wrong, even elitist, to suppose oneself different from the herd. But it is not elitism that propels us to strive to do more and be more. It is not a belief that we're better... rather, it is a concern that we each, should strive to fulfill our full capacity. ~ May 30, 1998

These journal notes should not be taken to suggest that everyone should make their aim to be president of the U.S. or a world famous musician. There are actually two important matters outined here. The first is that without a definitie purpose or aim, our lives will drift, and that people who accomplish great things or even lesser things (providing for one's family, sending a child to college) do so by eliminating distractions and doing whatever it takes to accomplish the goal.

An example: Albert J. Amatuzio, the founder of AMSOIL, spent more than a decade learning all he could about lubrication before finally achieving his lifelong dream of producing a new product for the auto industry. This man's determination and definiteness of purpose was directly responsible for the synthetic motor oil market.

There is a flip side to this matter, however. Be sure your aim corresponds to who you are. That is, if you are middle aged and not particularly athletic, don't imagine that you will set a new world record for the hundred yard dash. Or if you have shaky hands and poor eye-hand coordination, it is not the time to pursue a career as a brain surgeon. The point being that self awareness is also useful.

I am reminded of the Aesop's Fable about the Monkey and the Camel.

THE BEASTS of the forest gave a splendid entertainment at which the Monkey stood up and danced. Having vastly delighted the assembly, he sat down amidst universal applause. The Camel, envious of the praises bestowed on the Monkey and desiring to divert to himself the favor of the guests, proposed to stand up in his turn and dance for their amusement. He moved about in so utterly ridiculous a manner that the Beasts, in a fit of indignation, set upon him with clubs and drove him out of the assembly.

It is absurd to ape our betters.

This in no way implies that camels are inferior to monkeys. Quite the contrary. There are many things monkeys can not do that camels are utterly equipped for.

So it is that our dreams should correspond with who we are. Though I'll add yet one more caveat. When we're young, we really don't know very well who we are. We can be so influenced by a bad experience or peers that we have a misguided picture of ourselves in our heads. Or, we see a barrier to achievement that is really no barrier at all. So perhaps our first definite purpose should be to find out who we are. From this starting point, we really can make a difference.