No, drilling, baby

Bernie Sanders | Oil spill shows drilling is not the answer | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an unmitigated disaster. Its full consequences will not be known for decades. What we do know, however, is that BP president, Tony Hayward, was incredibly wrong when he stated that the spill will have "a very, very modest environmental impact". Quite the contrary! In fact, one of the most beautiful and productive coastal regions of the world is being turned into a giant cesspool and, in the midst of a major recession, thousands of workers are going to lose their livelihoods.

It goes without saying that BP must pick up the full costs of the cleanup and the economic damages. BP earned $5.6bn in the first quarter of this year. BP, not the American taxpayer, must pay for the devastation it caused.

Further, we must learn that with any risky technology, whether it is offshore oil drilling or nuclear power, it is not good enough to be 99% safe. One event can have a calamitous and irreversible impact. We need a major investigation to understand how this accident occurred. We must make certain that precautions are put in place so nothing like it ever happens again.

This crisis occurred at a time when the United States was considering opening new areas to offshore oil drilling. If there is a lesson to be learned from this disaster, it is that Congress must end that policy. There must be no new offshore drilling. Not now, not ever.

Offshore drilling simply does not achieve the goals that its advocates claim, and it is not worth the risk. If we are serious about wanting to break our dependence on foreign oil and move to energy independence; if we want to lower the cost of energy; if we want to combat climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions; if we want to create millions of new jobs – then more offshore drilling is not the way to go.

The simple truth is that we cannot drill our way to energy independence or lower gas prices. The US uses roughly 25% of the world's oil, 7.5bn barrels per year, but we have only 2-3% of the world's proven petroleum reserves. Offshore drilling today provides roughly 1% of the oil we use in the United States.

That is why I have introduced legislation to reinstate a ban on new offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific continental shelves and along Florida's gulf coast and dramatically increase fuel efficiency for vehicles sold in America. Instead of saving three cents a gallon by 2030 by allowing wide open offshore drilling, we can save far more with stronger fuel economy standards. Just by raising our fuel efficiency standards to 35.5 miles per gallon for cars and trucks, as President Obama is doing, we will save consumers the equivalent of $1 per gallon of gas in 2030. If we enacted my legislation, we would reach 55 miles per gallon by 2030. That would save motorists the equivalent of $1.43 a gallon of gas. It also would eliminate the need for 3.9m barrels of oil per day, more than double the amount we now import from Persian Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia.

We know we can get better fuel economy, because other nations are already doing it. The European Union currently gets 42 miles per gallon and is moving to 65 miles per gallon by 2020. China, Canada, Japan, and South Korea all have stronger fuel economy standards than the United States.

If we take bold action in energy efficiency, public transportation, advanced vehicle technologies, solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal, we can transform our energy system, clean up our environment, and create millions of new jobs in the process. This direction, and not more offshore drilling, is where we have got to go.

Religion and Science

Religion has nothing to do with science – and vice versa | Francisco J. Ayala | Science | guardian.co.uk

Scientists like Richard Dawkins say the universe has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, but these things are not the business of science, says geneticist Francisco J. Ayala. They are the exclusive preserve of religion

*
Pope Benedict XVI and Dawkins

By the same token, religion should not make assertions about the natural world that are contrary to science. Photograph: Max Rossi/Reuters

Are religion and science incompatible?

Some scientists assert that valid knowledge can only come from science. They hold that religious beliefs are the remains of pre-scientific explanations of the world and amount to nothing more than superstition.

On the other side, some people of faith believe that science conveys a materialistic view of the world that denies the existence of any reality outside the material world. Science, they think, is incompatible with their religious faith.

I contend that both – scientists denying religion and believers rejecting science – are wrong. Science and religious beliefs need not be in contradiction. If they are properly understood, they cannot be in contradiction because science and religion concern different matters.

The scope of science is the world of nature: the reality that is observed, directly or indirectly, by our senses. Science advances explanations about the natural world, explanations that are accepted or rejected by observation and experiment.

Outside the world of nature, however, science has no authority, no statements to make, no business whatsoever taking one position or another. Science has nothing decisive to say about values, whether economic, aesthetic or moral; nothing to say about the meaning of life or its purpose.

Science has nothing to say, either, about religious beliefs, except when these beliefs transcend the proper scope of religion and make assertions about the natural world that contradict scientific knowledge. Such statements cannot be true.

People of faith need not be troubled that science is materialistic. The materialism of science asserts its limits, not its universality. The methods and scope of science remain within the world of matter. It cannot make assertions beyond that world.

Science transcends cultural, political and religious beliefs because it has nothing to say about these subjects. That science is not constrained by cultural or religious differences is one of its great virtues. It does not transcend these differences by denying them or taking one position rather than another. It transcends cultural, political and religious convictions because these matters are none of its business.

Some scientists deny that there can be valid knowledge about values or about the meaning and purpose of the world and of human life. The biologist Richard Dawkins explicitly denies design, purpose and values.

In River out of Eden, he writes:

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

William Provine, a historian of science, asserts that there are no absolute principles of any sort. He believes modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society.

There is a monumental contradiction in these assertions. If its commitment to naturalism does not allow science to derive values, meaning or purposes from scientific knowledge, it surely does not allow it, either, to deny their existence.

In its publication Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences emphatically asserts that religion and science answer different questions about the world:

"Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science."

The academy adds:

"Consequently, many people including many scientists, hold strong religious beliefs and simultaneously accept the occurrence of evolution."

Science as a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe has been immensely successful and of great technological and economic consequence. The US Office of Management and Budget has estimated that 50% of all economic growth in the US since the second world war can be directly attributed to scientific knowledge and technical advances.

The technology derived from scientific knowledge pervades our lives: the high-rise buildings of our cities, throughways and long-span bridges, rockets that take men and women into outer space, telephones that provide instant communication across continents, computers that perform complex calculations in millionths of a second, vaccines and drugs that keep pathogens at bay, gene therapies that replace DNA in defective cells.

These remarkable achievements bear witness to the validity of the scientific knowledge from which they originated.

People of faith should stand in awe of the wondrous achievements of science. But they should not be troubled that science may deny their religious beliefs.

Nor should people of faith transgress the proper boundaries of religion by making assertions about the natural world that are contrary to scientific knowledge. Religion concerns the meaning and purpose of the world and human life, the proper relation of people to their Creator and to each other, the moral values that inspire and govern their lives.

Science, on the other hand, concerns the processes that account for the natural world: how the planets move, the composition of matter and the atmosphere, the origin and function of organisms.

Religion has nothing definitive to say about these natural processes: nothing about the causes of tsunamis or earthquakes or why volcanic eruptions occur, or why there are droughts that ruin farmers' crops. The explanation of these processes belongs to science. It is a categorical mistake to seek their explanation in religious beliefs or sacred texts.

Science provides an account of how galaxies, stars and planets came about after the big bang. It has discovered how the HIV epidemic originated and how Aids spreads. A person of faith may interpret these events in religious terms, but they are explained by science.

There are people of faith who see the theory of evolution and scientific cosmology as contrary to the creation narrative in Genesis. But Genesis is a book of religious revelations and of religious teachings, not a treatise on astronomy or biology.

According to Augustine, the great theologian of the early Christian church, it is a blunder to mistake the Bible for an elementary textbook of astronomy, geology, or other natural sciences. As he writes in his commentary on Genesis:

"If it happens that the authority of sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly."

He adds:


"It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [the Earth, the heavens, the motion and orbit of the stars, the kinds of animals and shrubs]."

Successful as it is, however, a scientific view of the world is hopelessly incomplete. Matters of value and meaning are outside the scope of science.

Even when we have a satisfying scientific understanding of a natural object or process, we are still missing matters that may well be thought by many to be of equal or greater import. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions and illuminate the significance of life and the world, but these matters are outside the realm of science.

Francisco J. Ayala is a molecular biologist and evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Irvine, and winner of this year's Templeton Prize

Sunday

My parents just came back from Menado, and bought so many things. They seem enjoyed the 4 days trip which is good.
Btw, I was going to give a special food to welcome them but it was disaster. I am such a bad cook. A whole chicken I bought from Carrefour been wasted. It would go to rubbish bin. I am sorry I have wasted food.
So, for this late lunch, it is taken away food from Dapur Bebek.

JAN MOIR: Why do so many male stars have sordid affairs with downmarket imitations of their wives? | Mail Online

What a misogynistic organisation the DM is.

It always criticises women in the public eye (even though their existence generates a lot of readership and therefore money for the paper) about their clothes, their make-up; being too fat, too thin; having too little muscle tone, too much muscle tone; a visible panty line here, or a builder's bum there; not shaving under-arms or legs - mustn't bear too much relationship to a real human being girls, turn yourselves into barbie dolls.

AND now, they have a field day being thoroughly catty and snobbish about the women some men have been unfaithful with. The press cannot lose can it, if its is currency running down women? It doesn't matter to them which woman or women it is - they are all targets to the misogynist.

Gene tests could save your life

I have to remove this article as someone requested me to do so.