From Scientific American, Aug. 4:

In the spring of 2002, a large chunk of the Larsen B ice shelf (LIS-B) on the Antarctic Peninsula broke off and tumbled into the Weddell Sea. A new analysis published today in the journal Nature suggests that the more than 3,200 square kilometer area that collapsed signifies an unprecedented loss in the past 10,000 years and can be attributed to accelerated climate warming in the region.

Daniel Yergin, author of the Pulitzer-winning history of the petroleum industry, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power, was recently invoked by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert to drive home the point that the Persian Gulf oil reserves are "the greatest single prize in all history"—and at the root of George Bush's Iraq adventure. On July 31, Yergin had an op-ed in the Washington Post (online at the website of Yergin's own group, Cambridge Energy Research Associates or CERA) raining on the morbid parade of the "peak oil" apocalyptoids. Yergin argues that the current price spike is due to "above ground" factors like political instability, not the "below ground" factor of dwindling reserves. But he fails to consider that the driving forces behind this instability—the US military grab for the Gulf reserves, and the jihadi imperative to resist it—may, at least, be driven by the perception that reserves are running on empty. And even Yergin admits that that world energy consumption will explode over the next several years if current trends continue, providing what he perhaps somewhat understatedly calls "a very big challenge." WW4 REPORT has always argued that the price spike could be an intentional creation of a White House strategy to boost global production—which is exactly what Yergin argues it will do. It should also be kept in mind that from the standpoint of the health and stability of the biosphere, continued high oil production is probably the worst thing imaginable, as signals mount of global ecological collapse.

No, we aren't being sarcastic.

The Space Shuttle "Discovery"—the first sent into flight since the Shuttle fleet was grounded following the mid-flight destruction of the "Columbia" in 2003—succeeded in docking at the International Space Station this week, but only after performing an unprecedented back-flip so astronauts on board could photograph the craft's underbelly for signs of damage. NASA managers discovered the "Discovery" was still shedding big pieces of foam insulation on launch, and have again suspended future flights. One chunk captured on camera was almost as big as the one that banged into the heat shield of Columbia's wing, dooming the craft and its seven astronauts. NASA has already poured $1.4 billion into trying to make the shuttle fleet safer since the Columbia disaster, and frustrations are mounting. "Maybe the money would be better spent on replacing the shuttle, rather than flying it," suggested John Pike, who directs the web site Globalsecurity.org. (AP, July 28)

A very interesting story today cites poll results on American versus Japanese attitudes about the likelihood of a new world war, even if random guy-on-the-street quotes are by definition never presented objectively. It is certainly very telling that Americans are more afraid of North Korean aggression than the Japanese, who are far more likely to be its targets. Also telling that these results come on the heels of a wave of anti-Japan protests in China. Japan is an island nation with a limited armed forces, no nuclear weapons and a constitutional prohibition on war; it faces at least two hostile powers—one by actual policy; the other by tradition—to its immediate east, the latter of which is the most populous nation on earth by far, with a vast territory, a nuclear arsenal and an armed forces of over 2 million active trooops. The US is a continent-spanning super-power (generally held to be the only remaining super-power), isolated by vast oceans from any hostile powers, real or potential; its far-flung military bases and control of the seas and global airspace have no remote parallel in all world history, and it has the planet's biggest and most state-of-the-art nuclear arsenal by far. Yet Americans are more afraid of a new world war. Maybe this is because Americans realize that this new world war is likely to be "asymmetrical," and the United States is likely to be its target precisely because it is the global superpower—and, in fact, this war has already been underway since (at least) Sept. 11, 2001. This, however, raises a question (which this blog/zine has always been obsessed with): if this is a new world war, which number will historians assign it? We, of course, argue Four.

Shades of Soylent Green. "The plankton is dying!" From AP July 14, via TruthOut:

Scientists Raise Alarm about Ocean Health
SEATTLE - With a record number of dead seabirds washing up on West Coast beaches from Central California to British Columbia, marine biologists are raising the alarm about rising ocean temperatures and dwindling plankton populations.

A friend writes on the Car Free Cities list:

Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety: Evaluating The Risks

In 2002 according to statistics 1,000,000 people were killed by cars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_accident

News reports of the Deep Impact space probe's explosive Independence Day rendezvous with a comet could not have made clearer that the whole affair was barely-disguised patriotic propaganda, very convenient at a time when the Iraq war is turning into a deepening quagmire. Reads a July 5 AP account:

NASA's Deep Impact Web site registered nearly 1 billion hits when the space probe collided with comet Tempel 1 early Monday -- about twice as many hits as the twin Mars rovers got when they parachuted to the Red Planet last year.

The cosmic fireworks from the collision were not red, white and blue and were visible only through telescopes. But the sharp flash of light gave scientists "something to be proud of on America's birthday," said Rick Grammier, the mission's project manager at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

As we noted yesterday, reportage on the oil market jittters sparked by the Iran elections included a quote from one analyst predicting an imminent rise to $100 a barrel. This ominous figure is being heard more and more. The Wall Street Journal on June 22 ran an overview of predictions concerning the oil market and its impact on the world economy that quoted Tom Petrie, an "oil bull" who runs his own energy investment bank and research operation out of Denver. Petrie puts the chances that oil will rise to $80 to $100 a barrel in the next couple of years at greater than 50 percent.