Okej, nu slutar vi snacka om Afghanistan

Slutsnackat för den här gången. 

Not even Amin was *this* daring

The American blame game has begun. Here´s just one example. Yes, I picked the weirdest one so far. Literal globo homo? 

"Biden prioritized LGBT agenda while terrorists took over"

Lite intressant statistik

Vi anlägger givetvis inga som helst politiska eller andra aspekter på nedanstående.   

Snart är hälften av USA:s befolkning icke-vit

Talibanångest

 

Vår kille i Kabul (han här ovan) fick visst talibanångest och flydde sin kos. Ingen svensk psykolog närvarande, tydligen. Najibullah hade mer stöd 1989 än den här snubben hade när USA stack. Hur ska man tolka det? Ni kan ta det från mig, jag är inte kommunist. Men okej, han ville väl inte sluta som Najib...

Biden´s Saigon or Swedish Saigon?

Our little Saigonette,
Swedish foreign secretary Ann Linde

Sweden is acting as if the fall of Kabul was the Swedish Saigon. Which, I suppose, is interesting in many ways...

How to hack the climate

Can geoengineering save the world from man-made global warming? A 2020 NOVA documentary, with the somewhat uncertain title "Can Geoengineering `Undo´ Climate Change?" (note the scare quotes around "undo") at least tries to sound optimistic about it. I recently saw it on Swedish TV, thankfully with a Swedish narrator replacing the American one (at least on NOVA´s site, the narration sounds terrible). 

The documentary cockily claims that we can stop carbon emissions entirely within a couple of decades by a mix of wind, solar, whatever-whatever, yada yada and (a bit of a surprise) nuclear power. Which, of course, we can´t. There is just one catch even if we learn Harry Potter magic: the carbon dioxide already in the air. NOVA (or the Swedish editors?) clearly have the figures wrong, since at one point they claim that 1000 gigatons of CO2 have been emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution, while later its "only" 660 gigatons. Either way, *a lot* of CO2 have to be literally removed from the atmosphere even if we stop all new carbon emissions, otherwise Earth climate is seriously screwed anyway. "Can Geoengineering `Undo´ Climate Change?" then discusses various more or less fanciful technologies that supposedly can make this happen, none of them really operational at the moment. 

There is the Swiss company Climeworks, with its "carbon dioxide air capture technology". Then there is CarbFix, which stores captured CO2 in the Icelandic basalt deep underground (it takes a lot of water to accomplish this). Even NOVA admits that this technology can´t be scaled up, and that it probably needs too much energy to begin with. But perhaps the evil molecules can be recycled instead?

An enormous solar panel can turn CO2 into "solar methanol" by heating up a solar reactor. The solar methanol can be used as fuel to power airplanes! The catch: it´s six times more expensive than fossil fuels. Another team of mad engineers have developed a technology that can turn CO2 into essentially any product: cutlery, cement, wrist watches, what have you (the cements being the most important). Once again I wonder about the energy needs of this industrial neo-revolution? Don´t get me wrong, I unironically *like* technology like this, and used to believe in its possibilities myself, but then somebody pointed out to me that there are such things as economy and energy (not to mention politics...) which put definite limits on what even ingenious humans can accomplish. 

Slightly more sinister are the plans to literally geoengineer the Earth itself, or rather its weather systems. One method is to enhance the reflectivity of naturally occuring clouds by spraying them with aerosols to stop global warming. 15 to 20 years of research is said to be needed to do this properly. A more radical version would be to spread the aerosols directly in the stratosphere. This way less sunlight would reach the Earth, thereby stopping global warming...but perhaps also other things, screwing up our weather for good. 

NOVA also mentions two more organic solutions to the crisis. One is to plant one trillion trees, something that is (perhaps) possible to do according to a controversial study. Trees are "carbon-capture machines". The problem is that the land used for tree-planting might be needed for other things, perhaps agriculture when the population continues to rise and more mouths need to be fed. I also wonder how safe these trees would be for forest fires? Aren´t they increasing already, due to climate change? Finally, there is composting, which binds CO2 in the land but also leads to less methane emissions - methane (which constantly "leaks" from our agriculture) is an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide! Composting also makes plants (food plants?) grow better. Win - win? Yet, the scientist interviewed admits that more research is still needed before the results from local experiments can be extrapolated to "all of California" or the entire world.

Despite the modestly optimistic tone of this production, I have to admit that I became modestly more pessimistic after watching it. My trollish side even smiled, at the hubris of modern civilization, a civilization I nevertheles feel very comfortable with. Perhaps I´m laughing at myself, who knows...

That was fast

Some very stray thoughts on the fall of Kabul...

Back in 2001, I actually supported the US intervention in Afghanistan. There wasn´t any obvious alternative. Al-Qaeda had attacked on 9/11. The Taliban (not exactly angels) were protecting al-Qaeda. Ergo: bomb the Taliban (and, hopefully, get al-Qaeda). I still *guess* that this was the right line of action, but of course, there is a broader context, which isn´t exactly kind to the United States. As in support for Taliban-loving Pakistan, "stirring up some Muslims" against the Soviet Union (yeah, they sure stirred things up, alright), arming and training the guys later known as al-Qaeda... And how do we know 9/11 wasn´t a provocation? It was certainly used that way. Afghanistan was just a side show to the main thing: the attack on Iraq (which I opposed). But Iraq didn´t cooperate with al-Qaeda, as was obvious even at the time. Al-Qaeda became strong in Iraq *after* the US invasion, and later morphed to the even worse "Islamic State". In Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance may have been "the good guys" (sort of) in 2001, but Biden´s Saigon still feels like a kind of karmic reckoning... 

Further, I note that the Taliban seems a bit smarter this time around than back in the 1990´s. So far at least, they haven´t dragged any former Afghan presidents through the streets in assassinated condition, instead opting for a peaceful transition of power, apparently brokered by Qatar. They have established de facto diplomatic relations with both China and Iran, the latter being a traditional enemy of militant Sunnis and politicking Pakistanis. The reason why most of northern Afghanistan fell so quickly to the Taliban is that this mostly Pashtun movement decided *not* to overthrow the local strongmen, who represent very different ethnic groups. However, the Taliban are still for gender apartheid, including opposition to schooling for girls. If they plan to reinvite al-Qaeda (or invite IS) remains to be seen. 

Perhaps the Taliban will prove to be more pragmatic this time around? If that *really* improves the situation in Afghanistan is, perhaps, another matter entirely.

While I´m no big fan of Russia or China, I suppose it´s the lesser evil if they stabilize the situation in their backyard regions, if the West isn´t strong enough to hold on to them anymore. 

Don´t stir up these guys again, Henry!

När blir tjänsten ledig? Om klimatångest och politik

En sajt med det tilltalande (nåja) namnet Wellness diskuterar "klimatångest" med en "klimatpsykolog". Låter som ett lukrativt uppdrag. Tjänsten ledig för nyrekrytering circus år 2090? Observera att flera av de "psykologiska" rekommendationerna i själva verket uttrycker *en viss politisk linje*, vilket kanske säger oss något om vad det här egentligen handlar om...

Så hanterar du klimatångest

En rabiesspruta verkar ju mer relevant här

Vad är det här för dumheter? 

Serbisk eremit uppmanar alla att vaccinera sig

The real Jungle Book?

I didn´t know that "Wild Karnataka" was considered to be one of the most spectacular nature documentaries released in 2019 (or ever). In Sweden, it´s not narrated by David Attenborough, and has been retitled "Svarta panterns skog" (The forest of the Black Panther), although that particular big cat is only briefly shown. So I suppose I didn´t watch it in the right reverantial mood, lol. Indeed, the profane Swedish public service TV made an explicit connection to Bagheera from "The Jungle Book"! Interestingly, the soundtrack from the docu has been released, composed by Ricki Kej, an Indian environmentalist activist and award-winning musician who currently resides in Karnataka.

Karnataka is a state in southern India, and the documentary gives us a straightforward look at its wildlife, from the ocean to the monsoon forests. Animals featured include leopards, tigers, otters, dholes, wolves, monkeys, peacocks, crabs, and fish. And (of course) elephants! We also get to meet the myrmecophagous sloth bear, which does indeed have some similarity to Bagheera´s jolly friend Baloo. Some of the situations in "Wild Karnataka" are the opposite of what you would expect: an aggressive deer manages to chase away a pack of hungry wild dogs, while an otter family scares the living daylights out of a tiger! More typical is a leopard hunting monkeys (hint: leopards can climb trees). Personally, I wonder if the gigantic shadow cast by the elephant when seen from above is real or a special effect added later?

Perpahs I´m getting spoiled by spectacular nature documentaries, since Karnataka´s wilder sides didn´t move me *that* much, although I admit Ricki Kej´s music did give the production a certain "Hindu-Buddhist" meditative feel...