Author: admin

I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky’s positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy.

I had never paid much attention to Chomsky’s writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.

I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear–fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress–at least when I served there–have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public.

Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.

Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.

I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist’s articles. It’s a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper.

With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel’s military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel’s involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.

So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I’m not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can’t think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.

I suppose one could argue that Bush’s encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby’s continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year.

I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby’s pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they’ve been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn’t been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.

So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel’s giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders’ minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby’s principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That’s where the money is."

On the other hand, in some parts of the world we are now starting to see renewable energy contribute very high proportions of electricity generated, and with some careful planning of the electricity network, the problems that some feared might come to pass are being avoided. In Australia on a micro level the communities of Denham and King Island are generating 50 to 60% of their electricity from wind power alone, while South Australia sources 11% of its power from wind turbines and Tasmania gets 81% of its electricity from renewable energy (mainly hydro, but also significant wind power).

Internationally, Sweden sources over 50% of its electricity from renewable energy, and has a target to increase this to 60% by 2010, while major energy economies like California plan to fast track renewables to provide 20% of electricity by 2010 and 33% by 2020. In parts of Germany and Denmark wind power is providing over 100% of the region’s power needs for months of the year, as well as exporting electricity to other parts of Europe.

5. But can we really rely on renewable energy? Aren’t renewable energy technologies intermittent, only providing power some of the time? What happens when the sun stops shining or the wind stops blowing?

Renewable energy sources are many and varied. Some, like solar thermal, geothermal, wave, tidal, and bioenergy are no more intermittent than coal, gas or nuclear power. Others, like wind power and rooftop solar panels, are intermittent at a local level, but when they are spread over a sufficiently large area, where different climatic conditions prevail, are barely more intermittent than coal.

Some renewable energy technologies like hydro power and bioenergy (burning crop waste) are also highly controllable. They can be deployed when it is most useful, providing either baseload or peak power, and they clearly demonstrate that the argument often pushed by the nuclear and coal industries, that renewables cannot deliver baseload power, is flawed. While Australia has seen its last large-scale hydro power stations, there is still plenty of scope for smaller projects like the Bogong 140 MW hydro power station commencing construction in Victoria.

Emerging renewable energy technologies like geothermal and solar thermal will be providing large quantities of baseload power in Australia long before either a single nuclear reactor could be built or a commercially feasible carbon capture and storage coal-fired power station could be developed. A solar thermal power plant at Liddell power station in New South Wales is already substituting for coal-fired power and it has been estimated that the technology could provide all of Australia’s electricity needs if deployed over an area as small as 35km². Tidal power is in earlier stages of development but some exciting pilot projects are under way in Port Kembla, NSW, and Fremantle, WA.

Wind and solar power are subject to the weather. However, forecasting for both wind and solar power is very reliable. In most cases any lack of sun or wind can be predicted and compensated for (for instance by cranking up hydro and biomass generation). In Germany wind forecasters can tell 48 hours in advance how much electricity will be generated from the country’s 18,000 MW of installed wind capacity with just a 5% margin of error. This contrasts for instance with coal-fired generation where outages and breakdowns are unpredictable and much more likely to plunge the electricity grid into crisis.

By deploying wind and solar en masse across the landscape we can also reduce any intermittency of wind and solar generators as it is unlikely that there will be no sun or wind anywhere across the electricity network. In addition, there are a number of exciting new developments in energy storage technologies which will help to smooth any issues – when wind and sun are providing more energy than we need, it can be stored for use later when demand is higher than supply.

Solar power can be particularly useful for delivering power at times of peak demand. Hot sunny days when air-conditioners are turned on will generally be days when there is a good solar resource. Rooftop solar has the added advantage of producing electricity where it is used, thereby minimising transmission losses. It is a little know fact that about 11% of the electricity produced at a big coal-fired power station is lost while being transported to the end user.

Solar water heating is hugely under-utilised in sunburnt Australia, with less than 5% of houses having an installed solar water heater. By contrast countries like Israel, Spain and Ireland are mandating solar water heating, while China has over 60% of the world’s installed solar water heating capacity.

6. If this is all true, why are so many people saying that renewable energy can only deliver at the margins?

Renewable energy is big business. The solar and wind industries are amongst the fastest-growing businesses in the world. Renewable energy is threatening the market share of the coal and nuclear industries globally. An estimated $38 billion US was invested in renewable energy plant in 2005 alone- up from $30 billion the previous year³.

It’s because renewable energy can and is replacing fossil fuels that the fossil fuel based industries are fighting back to protect their market share. Their primary line of attack is to belittle renewable energy technologies and attempt to prevent progressive policy which fast-tracks renewable energy. By casting doubts in the public mind about whether renewable energy can deliver, the coal industry buys further delays in climate change action, while the nuclear industry attempts to recast itself as a climate change solution. In Australia the coal industry and the nuclear lobby have been very effective in controlling Federal energy policy, although some states are starting to support renewables. While Prime Minister Howard clearly continues to toe the coal industry line, he’s even being left behind by President Bush who recently declared that wind power alone could meet 20% of the US’s massive energy needs.⁴

Renewable energy and energy savings programs can replace coal-fired generation in Australia. What’s lacking is not the technology – it’s the political will to make it happen.