Has Salazar Seen Sense?

Wind power has long been a viable, if controversial, source of renewable energy. The facts that have come to light recently, regarding the state of the US approach to generating energy from its vast “wind reserves” along its two coastlines, are astonishing. Ken Salazar’s revelatory announcement that the winds along these coastlines could more than provide for the whole of the “lower 48 states”, coupled with the fact that most of the United States' data on oil and gas reserves in the Atlantic are 25 years out of date are both unsettling and encouraging. It suggests that new research may be funded, and that possibly this research will be focused in a greener direction.

There has been much talk in recent years of harnessing the geothermal power harbored under Alaska. However, this plan is fraught with other environmental implications, mainly disruption of wilderness and habitats. More palatable is the use of the winds of the mid-West and Western states. 21 million acres of public land in the 11 western states are earmarked for wind power. Solar power also featured in Salazar’s announcements. He pointed out the solar potential of almost 30 million acres in the southwest. These huge numbers, as incomprehensible as those bandied about regarding the current recession, seem encouraging. It remains to be seen how seriously Salazar is taken and how "practical" the Department of the Interior's plans are deemed.

This talk is very positive and encouraging. The realization and announcement that the United States’ energy demands could be met by her coastal wind power "reserves", thus removing the dependency on the world’s oil, the US currently consumes 25% of the world’s oil. This represents what Salazar established as a threefold threat to US security. “Our dependence on foreign oil is a national security problem, an environmental security problem, and an economic security problem.” (DOI statement) To remove itself from this position, a position of dependence on nations with whom it has complex political relationships, would be advantageous on two levels. It will allow greater objectivity in her dealings with other nations, as well as cutting the economic dependency ties.

Of course these positive noises about renewable energy could have an impact on other members of the G8 and G20 groups. If the US could become an entirely “sustainable” nation, it would set an incredible precedent for other of the world’s richest nations, so far reticent to develop green energy, to move more of their thinking to sustainability.

It is not the obligation of the US to lead the way. There are countries who could set a standard. But to see this from the world’s greatest economy, and especially such an apparent sea-change from the Bush Administration's isolationist, anti-Kyoto thinking, should serve to encourage other nations to follow suit.

In Britain, there is a movement to harness her vast wind “reserves”. There are plans for 11,000 megawatts of wind turbines to be constructed off the British coast currently under planning consideration that are being hindered by problems of connecting these generators to the grid.

Salazar’s announcements are very encouraging. Cynicism has no place in the resolution of the energy crisis and the environmental pressures of fossil fuels and atomic energy. If what Ken Salazar is suggesting is put into action, big things could happen in the world. The US could remove itself as a customer of the Middle East and perhaps deal more objectively with the complex political situations which reside there.

He made some brave and sweeping statements and we must wait and see, unfortunately, as with so much, these things will take time. But it is possible that the “moon-shot on [American] energy independence” is finally in its nascent stages. There are very positive noises emanating from the department of the interior.

That’s not to suggest that green energy will save the world, but perhaps it’s a step in the right direction.

Here’s hoping!

Review: Bat For Lashes | Two Suns

Bat For Lashes | Two Suns

Released: 2009-04-07
Label: Astralwerks
Two Suns

The second offering from Bat For Lashes (A.K.A. Natasha Khan) is as ethereal as its title might suggest. But approaching without prejudice, it is beautiful. The album opens with the haunting vocal melodies of "The Big Sleep", it moves through the powerful electronic drum loops and echo-laden vocals of "Two Planets". The dreamscape of "Good Love" contains lyrics which seem like they wouldn't scan on paper, but somehow, they work. "Good Love"'s dreamscape is, in fact the requiem to "Pearl's Dream". Its disco drum and bass loops are softened my oscillating synths. Indeed, "Siren Song" is Pearl's desperate cry for meaning out of the world. Some kind of bargaining plea with the spirits.

The concept album feel of the work is solidified in "Peace of Mind". A great story of desperation and a quest for meaning. The relatively stripped back arrangement bolsters the bleak lyrics. By track eight, we are introduced to the object of Pearl's obsession. Daniel is the man of her dreams. The object of her desire.

There is one word to sum up "Moon and Moon". That word is beautiful. It must be heard to be believed! I remember seeing it on the Culture Show something like 2 years ago, and being astonished.

That Pearl and Daniel are finally together is obvious from everything about "Sleep Alone". Everything about it is upbeat! The final harmony, the final intertwining of the beautiful characters in this story is depicted in "Glass". Its mutual death-wish sentiment is as touching as that in "There Is A Light".

Bat For Lashes' second studio is a stunning concept album (and you thought they died out with Pink Floyd!) A beautiful tale of star-cross'd lovers who get to spend eternity together.

Wonderful.

Track Listing:

1. The Big Sleep - 2:54
2. Travelling Woman - 3:48
3. Two Planets - 4:48
4. Good Love - 4:30
5. Pearl's Dream - 4:45
6. Siren Song - 4:58
7. Peace of Mind - 3:29
8. Daniel - 4:11
9. Moon And Moon - 3:09
10. Sleep Alone - 4:04
11. Glass - 4:32
    

Origins of World War One

I intend to post, on occasion, (probably quite frequently) the mini-essays that I produce from my lecture notes. I want for these to be a resource not just for me, but for other people. I am doing this principally to organise my notes, but it also has the secondary impact of allowing me to practise and hone my writing skills.

This is the essay that came of the notes I took in the first lecture of my module on the social, political and economic ramifications of World War One.

The Old Order: a world in crisis?

In an attempt to discover why the First World War changed from a local political incident into a world war, it is necessary to discuss several key questions. Firstly, it is necessary to ask why the world was in crisis. Had the shifting and changing of global empires placed new or undue strain on the contemporary political situation? Undoubtedly this is the case. Following the upheaval of Napoleon’s ravaging of Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, a delicate balance was established and maintained under various international Congresses and treaties.

However, the strains of empire were beginning to show, if not visibly in the British and French empires, certainly in the case of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires. The latter of these groups converged on the Balkans, and thus were always going to be at risk of stepping on one another’s toes. The nationalistic ideals that were sweeping Europe at the time, on the back of the French revolution, served to increase the tensions in the Balkans.

The area of the Balkans consists of complex intermixing of ethno-national and religious groups, including Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, Bulgarians, Slovaks and Czechs. One of the key areas of conflict was Bosnia, where Bosnian Muslims, Serbian Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox Croats lived together. These split loyalties to the imperial powers, within the single state of Bosnia, made integration of cultures difficult.

The superficial strength of the Congress system, invoked after the Napoleonic period, was in the notion that as ‘civilised’ nations, the states of Europe could avoid war simply by resolving disputes in a civilised, diplomatic way. In this way the Balance of Power was maintained. However, as with any historical situation, it is possible to demonstrate weaknesses and failings of this idealistic system. The conflict in the Crimea is a good example. Russian attempts to secure the warm water port of Sevastopol on the Caspian Sea could not be tolerated by Britain and France, as allowing Russia year-round access to the world’s seas meant that both of these empires were more vulnerable, both economically and militarily.

Britain was perhaps the most interested in maintaining this congressional Balance of Power. This is understandable when one considers Britain’s imperial position, as the dominant global empire. She maintained this position through the strength of her navy to the point where she was accused in the nineteenth century of “gun-boat diplomacy”.

Britain’s preparedness to opt out of diplomatic disputes did little to help shake these jingoistic notions. The British public was very sensitive to losses of armed forces. One need look only to press coverage of the Indian Mutinies to see this. Coupled to this were the emerging problems in Ireland. However, while Britain’s empire remained perhaps the most secure. The French empire was in dire straits. With a falling birth-rate and her failure in the Franco-Prussian War, France was no longer feared as an imperial power. The falling birth rates in France also led to a paranoia about the strength of the military. The age range of conscription in France was enlarged to increase the size of the army.

The Russian empire was in a similarly poor position. The failure against Japan in 1904-5 undermined the authority of the Tsar and illustrated how ineffectual the Russian military was. However, some social attempts were made to improve the situation. The rail network was improved and attempts were made to increase living standards. The Russian rebellion of 1905 however, confirmed the demise of the Tsars.

The Austro-Hungarian empire was created to erase the tensions between the Hungarians, Czechs and Jews. It was to ruled by a Magyar and Austrian alliance. There had been attempts before to soothe the tensions in this area. The 1879 Austro-Hungarian alliance resolved some problems.

A revolution in Turkey in 1908 linked Germany and Turkey together. The Turks were keen to take advantage of Germany’s rail network, and their militaries worked in close consort. While Turkey had long had naval links to Britain, the link with Germany gradually became stronger until the British link was superseded. However, Germany was wracked with internal strife. The power of the Kaiser was under threat, because of the changes in leadership styles across Europe.

So perhaps what changed the situation was “The Serbian Question”. This was brought about by a pair of wars in the Balkans. The first, in 1912, involved an alliance of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro fighting the Turks. The victorious Balkan states then fought, in 1913, for control of the spoils of this fight. The changing positions of this outcome led Britain to take a far greater interest in Balkan politics and led what could have been a third Balkan war to become a major international event.

In 1911, David Lloyd George gave a speech at Mansion House in which he stressed the importance of the economic advantages of empire. He pointed out that Britain could not afford to stand idly by while the rest of the world cooperated. However, one could question German awareness of British intentions. In Britain and France, Germany was seen as a very militaristic. One of the key exponents of German militarism was General von Bernhardi. In “Germany and the Next War” Bernhardi is forthright about the power of German military.

However, militarism is not an entirely German phenomenon. It can be seen in other countries at the time. German realisation of this fact can perhaps be seen in the fact that she relied so heavily on her alliance with Austria-Hungary. As Huw Strachan has suggested, perhaps Germany should have realised that as a result of her alliance with Austria-Hungary, there was no hope of any Balkan conflict, however trivial, remaining localised.

Playing Guitar

As a metaphor for life?

Maybe.

But then, anything can really be a metaphor for life, really. I was struck for instance by how accurate a metaphor for life that skiing is. You're learning all the time. Every experience is different. Sometimes it's pretty easy to figure something out. Sometimes it's tough and you fall over. But it doesn't really hurt. Unless it does, and then you learn from that. But you can never really go back to something again. You can do the same run again, but you'll never go over the same patch of snow again.

Playing music is a bit like that. It's instant and ethereal. It exists only for the split second that your mind is processing it. A bit like life. Life exists only for the split second you are processing it, the moment that you are living in. It is only this moment that you have any control over, and it is only this moment that can have any impact on your future. Only by conducting yourself correctly in the present can you manifest the future that you desire.

Key changes represent the big deals, the big events that come along and change you. A major injury. The end of a relationship. Moving house/town/school. Reading a book/hearing music/seeing a film which truly touches you. These big events, like key changes, take a second or two to adjust to, but usually things work out for the best.

Chord changes and resolutions, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. They are similar to harmonies. Sometimes harmonising can be difficult, sometimes it's easy. Sometimes it just doesn't work, sometimes it blows you away. But you deal with it in the instant that it occurs. And then it's gone, and you're on to the next harmony, the next line, the next chord. You can analyse it after the fact and maybe make positive changes, but in the instant, all you can do is go with it.

Music, like everything in life, is a bit like life itself. You learn something, you make a mistake, you learn from that mistake. Sometimes you get to revisit mistakes, sometimes, you can use the lessons learned making one mistake, to stop you making the same mistake.

One message to take from this: Live in the moment. It makes so many things so much easier!