Howard's Way  

TreeHugger has a post on advances in water desalination that reduce energy usage by half. Good news, residents of Adelaide - your artificial water may only cost half as much !

Turning salt water into fresh water is not the end solution to all water shortages or contamination. But as with all technologies, we can strive to make them more efficient for when they are needed. Eric Hoek and his team from UCLA have shown yet again that the control of materials at the nanoscale can lead to very big advances in technology. The nanocomposite material has unique advantages over current reverse osmosis (RO) technology.

“The nanoparticles are designed to attract water and are highly porous, soaking up water like a sponge, while repelling dissolved salts and other impurities,” Hoek said. “The water-loving nanoparticles embedded in our membrane also repel organics and bacteria, which tend to clog up conventional membranes over time.”

The most exciting bit is that the breakthrough is already being applied by the start-up NanoH2O. Usually, a scientific breakthrough will go through years of further R&D before it is pushed to a market. In this case it looks like technology is a reality right now. NanoH2O predicts that their ‘thin film nanocomposite’ (TNF) will reduce the cost of water derived from RO. From their website:

“With a target of doubling the current productivity of RO systems, NanoH2O projects that its technology can halve the size an existing RO process plant while maintaining the previous production capacity. The result is approximately a 25% savings in the cost of produced water, making TFN a truly disruptive technology.”

The reduction in energy needed to pump water through the TFN membrane plus the longer life of the TFN membrane results in a more robust and efficient technology. For other clever uses of water in arid areas check out our previous post on the seawater greenhouse.

The CSIRO have come up with a way of further reducing water usage in Australian homes courtesy of a new shower head design (hot showers also account for around 40% of average household energy use here, so this will have energy consumption benefits too).

As Australians become increasingly alert to the importance of using water wisely in the home, CSIRO researchers have found a way to use a third less water when you shower – by adding air. The scientists have developed a simple 'air shower' device which, when fitted into existing showerheads, fills the water droplets with a tiny bubble of air. The result is the shower feels just as wet and just as strong as before, but now uses much less water.

The researchers, from CSIRO Manufacturing Materials Technology in Melbourne, say the device increases the volume of the shower stream while reducing the amount of water used by about 30 per cent. Given the average Australian household uses about 200,000 litres of water a year, and showers account for nearly a third of this, the 'air shower' could help the average household save about 15,000-20,000 litres a year. If you extend this across the population, that is an annual saving of more than 45,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

The Aerated Showerhead creates the sensation of having a full and steady stream of water even though the water is now more like a wet shell around a bubble of air.

Mobjectivist points to a post at The Oil Drum UK on the rapid decline of UK oil production.

TOD/UK posted that UK Oil Production Lowest For 28 Years

Take a look at the following graph and you can see the trend:

The UK double humped peak has officially ended.

Grist has a look at how the Rodent is viewed overseas.

Australia plagued by historic drought, not-so-responsive leadership

Wondering how Australia's doing? It's dry as a dead dingo, thanks for asking. The "Sunburnt Country" is undergoing a severe drought -- the worst in 1,000 years, according to one expert. The lack of precipitation could cut agricultural output by 20 percent, and it's only going to get worse: a government organization has predicted that the eastern part of the country will see 40 percent less rainfall and a temperature rise of more than 12 degrees by 2070. The 91 percent of Australians who say global warming is a problem apparently does not include Prime Minister John Howard, who has refused to back the Kyoto Protocol.

A full 62 percent of Australians are dissatisfied with the government's response to global warming, but citizens shmitizens: Howard, a gung-ho nuclear-power promoter, recently dismissed another poll indicating that only 17 percent of Australians are pro-nuclear, sniffing, "I can't have a policy on something like this dictated by an opinion poll."

Sic the dingos on 'im!

While the process of turning the conservative hive-mind around to address real issues is slow, signs of industry starting to take energy efficiency and carbon emissions seriously (or at least marketing products and processes on this basis) can be seen all over the place. The Australian has a report on Rio Tinto's efforts to develop a new energy saving process for smelting iron.

HIsmelt is a direct iron-making process in which iron ore fines and non-coking coals are injected directly into a molten iron bath to produce molten pig iron. It is being marketed around the world as a potential replacement for high-energy blast furnaces or, in pellet form, as direct feed for electric arc furnaces.

More than $1 billion has been spent on the investigation to the commercial phase, with $125 million being provided by the commonwealth and more than $40 million by the West Australian Government, making HIsmelt one of the most expensive technologies yet to be developed in Australia.

But Rio Iron chief executive Sam Walsh yesterday described the commercialising of HIsmelt as "a new chapter in the history of steel making".

Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said the HIsmelt process tied in with Australia's commitment to develop technologies that reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and was particularly important in terms of the Asia Pacific Partnership of Clean Development and Climate (AP6).

After the ceremony, Mr Macfarlane said Australia would be looking to sell technology "which offers our trading partners the opportunity to continue to buy our iron ore and our coal, but at the same time try and process it into steel with a lower greenhouse footprint."

Mr Walsh said there had been a lot of interest in HIsmelt, with virtually every major steel maker in the world visiting the Kwinana plant, as well as the President and Premier of China, which showed that people could see the promise and opportunity that HIsmelt offered.

Toyota is looking at adding to their portfolio of cleaner transport options with a new biodiesel engine design

Toyota plans to propose joint development of a new diesel engine, powered by biofuel, with Isuzu Motors Ltd. under a tie-up accord they recently agreed to conclude, Toyota officials said.

The planned joint work will develop a device to control the supply of biodiesel fuel to the engine and technology to secure the necessary strength of parts. Biofuel engines are friendly to the environment as they reduce the emission of harmful sulfur oxide and particulate matter. Toyota will also propose joint studies to develop engines powered by dimethyl ether and "gas to liquid" fuel.

Having advanced petroleum-electric hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles, Toyota is a leader in developing environment-friendly cars. It hopes to further strengthen its position by developing a biofuel diesel engine.

TreeHugger has a post on an article by Sir Nicholas Stern in the Financial Times.

Sir Nicholas Stern has just published a guest editorial piece in the Financial Times, in which he addresses comments made about his recent report on the economic benefits of mitigating C02 emissions.

What a Gentleman he is, saying "I am keen to respond to some of the questions that have already arisen and to explain some further thinking about what I believe to be an innovative new approach to looking at this problem". And elegant too: "The bottom line is that the less weight you attach to the future simply because it is the future, the less you will value investments in a stable climate. If you consider that the needs of future generations should be represented in decision-making, the case for strong mitigation is overwhelming".

His Financial Times narrative serves as a good faith communique to delegates to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, now meeting in Nairobi. If he really wants to reach beyond those in government, to the money managers and captains of industry, we think he'll have to take them on at their level, Mr. Rogers-like. Perhaps Sir Stern could therefore invite them to view this lovely video-byte called Beautiful Day, produced by Chris Sargent for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

The BBC has a report on a new report on global warming that concludes that global climate change mitigation efforts thus far are 'woeful'.

The report, called Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis, says climate change "now poses what may be an unparalleled threat to human development". Lead author Kevin Watkins said people living in vulnerable conditions were already having to adapt. "There is a lot of evidence that the droughts in the Horn of Africa this year are connected to climate change," he told reporters. "This is not an issue for 50 years down the road, it is an issue for today."

Mr Watkins added that the worst affected areas were regions with very limited water infrastructures, such as Sub-Saharan Africa.

"It is not a region that has the irrigation capacity or the water harvesting capacity to store water in ways that can smooth out irregularities in supply," he observed. "More than 90% of people living in rural Sub-Saharan Africa are dependent on rain-fed agriculture, so what happens to rain and moisture content in the soil has very profound and immediate implications for poverty."

He warned that crops yields could fall by a third or more in some regions.

While the outcomes may vary from country-to-country, the report said some "broad consequences" could be predicted:

* agriculture and rural development will bear the brunt of climate risk
* extreme poverty and malnutrition will increase as water insecurity increases
* more extreme weather patterns will increase the risk of floods and droughts
* shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels will reduce access to fresh water

The CleanTech Blog has a report from the Solar 2006 conference in California.

7,000 members of the solar power industry converged in San Jose last week. An added 2,000 local individuals also viewed the latest solar power on display. There was enthusiasm for advancements in photovoltaics (PV) and in large-scale concentrating solar power (CSP).

PV installations continue their 20%-plus growth rate in the U.S., showing strong acceptance by business, individuals, government and public utilities. Grid-tied PV now outsells off-grid. Commercial outsells residential. Deutsche Bank forecasts that the PV market will grow from $13 billion in 2006 to $30 billion in 2010. The PV growth rate would be higher, but the basic material polysilicon will be scarce through 2008. Polysilicon supply is expected to triple by 2010.

The shortage has also been a driver of technology that delivers the required electricity output with less silicon. These technologies include thin film, high efficiency PV, organic, concentrating PV (CPV) and balance of system improvements. World leader, Sharp is participating in all these technologies.

SunPower is approaching a 23% efficient PV. This helps it take business from typical 17% efficient PV. Dr. Richard Swanson, CEO, SunPower gave the conference good reason to expect continued high growth. He pointed out that in 1975 solar modules cost $100/watt. By 2002, the cost had fallen to $3 per watt. The industry learning curve of 30 years has been consistent – each time that production doubles, cost drops 81%. Dr. Swanson expects $1.40 per watt by 2013 and 65 cents per watt by 2023.

Jeff Vail has been looking at the emergy of solar power and once again isn't convinced that solar EROEI is all its cracked up to be. While I tend not to agree with his conclusion (and given his money based proxy for emergy analysis, the figures quoted above may change his conclusions over time), Jeff's posts are always worth considered. He also has a good post on "elegant technology".

Does solar energy—specifically photovoltaic (PV) panels—ever produce as much energy as the energy that was initially invested in their manufacture? Industry, academia, and government all seem to be in agreement that the answer is “yes.” The consensus seems to be that PV produces as much energy as was used in its creation in a time period of 1-5 years, allowing PV to produce between 6 and 30 times more energy over its life than was used in its creation. These two answers—that PV produces more energy than is used in manufacture, and that PV provides an Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) of between 6:1 and 30:1 —suggest that photovoltaics can be and should be a cornerstone of our efforts to replace our reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels.

There are serious problems, however, with the methodology used at present to calculate the EROEI of solar panels. Some authors claim that life-span EROEI for photovoltaics is as high as 50, but provide no information for how that figure is calculated. Others, such as Clarion University’s calculations, take a very limited view of energy invested in PV production, accounting only for energy use of the manufacturing plant itself. Under these assumptions, they understandably arrive at a very optimistic EROEI of 6:1 to 31:1. So what energy inputs are not being accounted for in such a calculation? Let’s work backwards...

CleanTech also has a post on some of the companies exhibiting at an energy fair for venture capitalists.

I attended the Energy Venture Fair in Santa Clara this week, and had a chance to see a number of the presenting companies. CEOs of nearly 50 startups from solar to batteries to hybrid systems were hawking their companies.

The most interesting to my eye included Wireless Seismic, a developer of a low power, high bandwidth, short distance RF mesh based wireless technology that can cut the cost of a seismic run for onshore oil & gas by up to 50%.

The winners of the 5 Most Promising Companies awards were announced this afternoon as follows:

Zolo Technologies - A Colorado based startup pitching its laser based instrumentation system for optimizing combustion in coal fired boilers for better efficiency and NOx savings.

Wilson Turbopower - Wilson, a holdover from the microturbine development, is commercializing a high efficiency ceramic recuperator (heat exchanger).

KiteShip Corp - A developer of of Very Large Free Flying Sails for ship transport, and previously the winner of the California Cleantech Open Transportation Prize.

Ice Energy - A startup with another intriguing product that has been making the rounds, this one stores thermal energy for home or business use in the form of a gigantic icemaker.

Hythane - Another Colorado based startup, this one focused on natural gas/hydrogen fueled products.

The Oz still hasn't learn to sing Rupert's new tune on climate change properly as its busy running interference ("Green jihad" on coal) for the coal mining industry as its future comes under a cloud.

This sort of delaying tactic will no doubt be employed for some time as per the tobacco and asbestos industry examples, but it simply guarantees the impact of global warming will continue to get worse, which will bring more and more pressure to bear from affected groups like the agriculture industry and insurance industry to replace coal fired power stations. I do admire the blatant hypocrisy of the "we're doing it for the workers" angle though, and the refusal to acknowledge that "clean coal" will never be implemented if "flithy coal" isn't somehow taxed or regulated out of existance (which then opens the way for replacement with renewable alternatives).

This week, in the grip of greenhouse hysteria, the Newcastle City Council, at the behest of Greens councillors and supported by Labor councillors, determined that Newcastle's coal shipments should be limited. The motion said the council recommended "the NSW Government establishes a cap on coal exports from Newcastle at existing levels" and "initiates a moratorium on new coalmines at Anvil Hill and elsewhere in the Hunter Valley and Gunnedah Basin".

It went one further by backing calls from conservation groups to shut down the coal industry, and called for the industry "to fund the just transition to sustainability in the Hunter beyond coal". That is, levy the coal industry to fund its own closure and find jobs for the displaced workers. "Just transition" is greenhouse-friendly code for sack workers.

Endorsed federal Labor candidate and potential ALP leader Bill Shorten and Victorian state Labor candidate Evan Thornley both suffered collateral damage this week because of their links with the GetUp campaign. As the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Shorten was defending the pay and conditions of the unsung heroes of the Melbourne Cup, the jockeys, but at the same time GetUp, of which he and Thornley are board members, was calling for an end to the coal industry and a "just transition". Both rapidly distanced themselves from any suggestion they supported the closure of the coal industry.

Beazley also made it clear yesterday that the future of Australia's baseload electricity power would come from coal and that he was backing the coal industry: a clean coal industry.

The Opposition Leader was emphatic about the Newcastle council's ban: "That's not the right answer. The right answer is to go down the road of active measures for clean coal technology. We've got to become the world experts at clean coal technology and, as we export coal, we need to export those technologies with it, make sure we can survive economically and also survive environmentally."

Beazley is right: it's a mixture of surviving economically and environmentally. But there has been too much emphasis from Labor on the potential effects of greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power stations.

Certainly there is a clear political differentiation between the Howard Government and Labor over the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and entering a carbon emissions trading scheme that makes coal more expensive. But Labor has to be careful not to be seen as embracing unreal emotional claptrap that threatens the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Australian workers.

Labor's industrial relations campaign and its position on Iraq have rebuilt the ALP base and secured it a steady spot above the crucial 40per cent of the primary vote in opinion polls, but it cannot afford to alienate that base in pursuit of a new campaign to pick up concerned green Liberals in leafy suburbs and keep faith with the progressive Labor Left.

Howard's response on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions has been ad hoc and sloppy. Some sort of an emissions trading scheme is inevitable, yet the Coalition is poorly placed to deal with the politics.

CleanTech blog has a post on "What is Australia's ‘Natural Advantage’?" which considers our traditional natural economic advantages (coal and uranium) versus our wealth of renewable options for the future from Neil Bruise at CleanTech Forum - "the organiser of the AustralAsian Cleantech Forums, and the leading advocate of Cleantech in Australia"

Its an interesting time here in Australia at the moment with the recent release of the Stern Report on the economic impacts of climate change this week, the government and oppositions arguments regarding what should be done and public opinion. Head to this article for a snapshot of the politics.

The PM's position on this is that Australia's interests to be panicked into measures that will hurt industries, that will give Australia a natural advantage. The opposition advocates portfolio of renewables - politics or response.

So what is the natural advantage of Australia? The traditional energy industries and PM highlight its reserves of coal, gas and uranium whilst the renewable sector highlight its abundant wave, wind and solar resources. One industry faced with the cost of cleaning up its act, the other faced with the challenges of market penetration and price competition. Australia's cheap electricity from coal also provides a haven for energy intensive industries such as aluminium production - so where lies Australia's future.

In the court of public opinion, A recent opinion poll commissioned by a coalition of green groups has found 86 per cent of voters think the Federal Government should be doing more to tackle climate change. The Newspoll has found 75 per cent of voters want the Government to sign the Kyoto protocol, while 80 per cent think big polluters should pay a tax on their emissions.

It also found 92 per cent of Australians do not believe the Government is doing enough to encourage clean technologies.

Another classic anti environment piece in the Oz is "Wind farm to ruin birds' backyard" - one minute its the workers' interests they pretend to have at heart, the next its wildlife - anything to avoid action on global warming...

Despite opposition from residents and environmental concerns, NSW Premier Morris Iemma yesterday announced approval of the new $220 million wind farm in the notionally Liberal-held state seat of Goulburn, to be contested by Pru Goward for the Liberals in next year's poll.

The Weereewa project is likely to be the first of about 1200 giant wind turbines that will be required in NSW if ambitious renewable energy targets, outlined yesterday in a green pre-election pitch by Mr Iemma, are to be met. Industry attacked the mandatory renewable energy targets of 10 per cent of electricity consumed in NSW by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2020, claiming they were expensive, inefficient and politically motivated.

Environmentalists and the renewable energy industry welcomed the targets, claiming they would drive investment in renewable technologies while cutting emissions by 86 million tonnes. Energy Supply Association director Brad Page said wind turbines would almost certainly be needed to provide most of the renewable power, requiring a minimum of 1200 turbines across the state.

Labor seem to be willing to ignore much of this paranoid scare mongering in Victoria at least, with the likely announcement of a plan to cut emissions by 60% by 2050 (which isn't perfect, but at least its a first step).

VICTORIA would have laws to slash greenhouse gas emissions under a re-elected Labor Government, with plans to be announced as early as next week. The Age believes that after months of internal debate, Labor will promise to introduce a legally binding greenhouse reduction target of 60 per cent by 2050, which would require major changes to the state's energy-intensive economy.

But it is not yet clear whether Labor will also commit to shorter-term targets within the next 15 to 20 years, which environment groups argue are essential to ensure Victoria starts reducing its heavy rate of greenhouse emissions.

Some Liberals in Victoria are also starting to understand the reality of the situation - clean energy technology creates well paid, clean, safe jobs, unlike the coal mining industry - as the Liberal anti wind power platform looks like costing one MP his seat in parliament because of anger from local businesses and their workers.

Senior state Liberal frontbencher Denis Napthine has called on the Howard Government to do more to encourage renewable energy, as the Opposition came under fire over its level of support for the industry. His comments came after The Age reported that a wind tower maker in Dr Napthine's electorate had written to its employees saying their jobs would be lost if the Opposition won the election.

Stephen Garner, general manager of Portland's Keppel Prince, wrote to his 450 employees saying: "Make no mistake about it - if the Liberal Party wins the election on November 25, it will effectively kill the wind industry in this town."

The Liberals say they will abolish the Victorian Renewable Energy Target scheme, which requires energy retailers to source 10 per cent of their power from renewable energy by 2016. But Dr Napthine yesterday backed the renewable energy industry. He called for a national approach and said he would push the Federal Government to extend its scheme, which has been capped at 2 per cent.

While wind farms have been a contentious issue for many communities, Portland residents have widely supported them.

Mr Garner said the issue could result in Dr Napthine losing his seat, which he holds by 0.8 per cent. "We have helped grow the town, and the people here are supportive of the industry," Mr Garner said. "Under the Liberals, 25 per cent of our business will be destroyed. Under Labor we expand. That sounds political, but that is the hard, cold facts."

In NSW another example of the positive impact both global warming and peak oil could have on the local economy came in the form of a massive order for new trains for the Sydney rail network.

The company behind the troubled millennium trains has been awarded a contract to build Australia's largest ever order of passenger rolling stock.

The NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, today announced the $3.6 billion deal for Sydney's CityRail network had been awarded to a consortium, involving Downer EDI.

The contract calls for the building of 626 carriages and their maintenance for 35 years. The new carriages are to replace all old non-air-conditioned carriages, with the first scheduled to hit the tracks in 2010.

"The scale of this project is unmatched by any previous rolling stock purchase in Australia," Mr Iemma said.

Past Peak notes that Jesus Camp is shutting down (who knows what their neo Hitler Youth will get up to over summer now) and includes a classic quote from Pastor Ted "gay hookers and crystal meth" Haggard.

The documentary, which hit select U.S. theaters during the summer, portrays Fischer, 55, as drill instructor to a group of young evangelical children steeling themselves for spiritual and political warfare.

Led by Fischer, the children pray in tongues, as is common in charismatic strains of Pentecostalism; tearfully beg God to end abortion; and bless President Bush at a weeklong camp in Devils Lake, N.D.

Fischer has drawn fire from some corners for "brainwashing" the children. After vandals damaged the campground last month and critics besieged Fischer with negative e-mails, phone calls and letters, the pastor said she's shutting down the camp for at least several years.

"I don't think we'll be doing it for a while," she said.

Fischer lives in Bismarck, N.D., and is chief pastor at The Fire Center, a church devoted to children's ministry there. She has run the weeklong "Kids on Fire" summer camp, which is featured in the film, since 2002, with 75 to 100 children attending each year.

The documentary also includes scenes of Haggard, the evangelical leader accused of gay sex and drug use.

In one scene, directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady visit Haggard's 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. He tells the vast audience, "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible."

Then Haggard looks into the camera and says kiddingly: "I think I know what you did last night," drawing laughs from the crowd. "If you send me a thousand dollars, I won't tell your wife."

And to close with a bit of tinfoil, here's some notes from the thinking man's conspiracy theorist, starroute, in the comments thread of an RI post on the US election result, new US defense secretary Robert Gates and the Iran-Contra affair.

There is something very special about Iran-Contra. It wasn't just one more government scandal like, say, Iraqgate. It was far larger, deeper, and more multi-faceted. In fact, the very name "Iran-Contra," is a kind of coverup, implying that it consisted of nothing more than selling arms to Iran and diverting the proceeds to the Contras.

I've been trying to get my head around it for a while, and I still can't say I have an absolutely clear idea of what was really going on. The best I can put it is that it was the test drive of a new machine which had been in the building for the previous 15 years or so, and that anybody who had been involved with the building of that machine was in on it.

At the heart of it was the coalition George H.W. Bush had been putting together starting when he was CIA director in 1976: The rogue CIA guys like Shackley and Clines. The Neocons. The warhawks and old-timey anti-communists and crazy generals, many of them left over from the China Lobby of the 50's and 60's. But those were just the core elements -- there were many other parties involved.

For example, the Israelis were there in spades. The aftermath of the 1973 war and the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 had set them to selling arms to anybody available, and they were dealing with both the Iranians and the Contras long before Mossad agent David Kimche got together with Bud McFarlane to bring the US into things.

The Arabs were involved as well -- most notably, Adnan Kashoggi -- mainly through their ties to Bush and the rogue CIA.

So was the World Anti-Communist league, which served as Ollie North's main conduit to the Contras, and with it a whole set of connections to European fascists (including P2), Latin American death squads, and the Reverend Moon.

There too were the New Rightists -- most of them alumni of Young Americans for Freedom -- who in the 70's had gotten pulled into groups like the World Anti-Communist League and in the 80's set up a slew of pro-Contra organizations, many of them entangled in some way with Moon's Unification Church. The names of members of those groups keep coming up in Republican politics (and particularly in GOP campaign psy-ops dirty tricks) every bit as often as the more senior and "official" representatives of Iran-Contra.

And then there's the drug aspect -- both the cocaine which got moved around as part of the Contra arms trade and the heroin which had flowed freely through Iran before the overthrow of the shah and with which Bush's rogue CIA guys were intimately involved.

And on top of that, BCCI -- which is to say arms, drugs, money-laundering, and dreams of controlling the world's economy.

And *all* these forces were part of Iran-Contra and using it as a test run, a first attempt to exercise their power.

As to the nature of what that beast really was, that's where I'm still straining to get a clear image. My best guess at this point is that it represented a coming-together of several different right-wing elements -- American, British, European, and East Asian -- which had decided in the wake of the 1968-69 popular uprisings that they had to shift their attention from the fading specter of communism to this new threat to their accumulated wealth and power

I believe also that a central aspect of this coming-together was a decision that they would have to operate by largely covert and special ops-type methods rather than by anything representing traditional warfare. Even the traditional CIA was too government-based and too straight arrow for what they had in mind.

Despite what some people like to suggest here, conspiracies are not eternal. They are born, they serve a purpose, and then they die along with their leading members. But older conspiracies do tend to seed newer ones. Whatever came together between 1969 and the early 80's had its roots in fascism (both European and Asian) and in the pro-fascist maneuverings of Prescott Bush, Allen Dulles, and their friends. However, most of its components were entirely new -- new as a coalition of formerly disparate elements, new in terms of its methodology, new in its immediate goals and objectives.

(Significantly, Dulles had died in 1969 and Prescott Bush in 1972 -- signs of the passing of the old guard.)

That conspiracy developed in the shadows through the 70's, gained public legitimacy and influence when Reagan became president, first flexed its muscles in Iran-Contra, and is now the hydra-headed monster that assails us from every side.

And *that* is why "Iran-Contra" means ever so much mere than merely some shady arms dealing involving the Contras and the Iranians.