by Julien Lalonde
An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
** In the last few months there has been a lot of activity surrounding the Keystone XL, a mega-extraction infrastructure project with investment slated to come from TransCanada corporation. The proposed 1,700-mile-long pipeline would transport tar sands oil from northern Alberta to Texas refineries in the U.S., a distance that covers two-thirds of North America.
What tar sands oil consists of is not conventional crude, but a thick, dense, and difficult-to-extract and process bitumen. The primary method of extraction for tar sands oil, known as SAGD (steam-assisted gravity drainage), is extremely energy-intensive, wastes 3 to 4 barrels of water for every 1 barrel of oil produced, and is devastating the Athabasca River system, the third-largest watershed in the world. The tar sands is one of the most environmentally destructive extraction projects in the history of humanity.
Furthermore, the sheer size of the tar sands makes it the biggest carbon pool in the world, and James Hansen, the top U.S. climatologist at NASA, has stressed repeatedly that tapping the tar sands via this cross-continental pipeline to bring it to U.S. markets would effectively mean “game over for the climate.” **
The ‘game over’ idea is not new. Take note, in regard to the above linked-to article, that there are two big problems humankind is faced with. I guess we could come up with one or two more. But I’m just going to look at these two, namely; global warming and the global water crisis, about which Maude Barlow has some interesting things to say. More on that later.
I recall Gwynne Dyer penning a poignant lament a few years back for a besieged planet that those who have the power to destroy or save have explicitly said that they will not save. Over time, He’s penned more than one article saying the same thing – giving the same warning – about global warming, since he’s following this story, as any sane person would let alone someone vitally interested in the big stories of the day. (I don’t pretend to fully understand the details of this story. I don’t know math and I am not formally educated beyond a grade 10 level. I don’t know, for example, whether our most recent data on record breaking temperatures requires a reformulation of the description of the tipping point. You’ll see what I mean as you read further. Anyway, Not having the foundation to totally grasp the science and math here doesn’t prevent me from seeing that we have a big problem.) Of course, he’s not the only one saying what’s he’s saying. On global warming, he takes the responsible position of basing his statements on mainstream science.
Gwynne, and those saying what he’s saying about our poor prospects for survival as a species due to the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, are not presenting us with ‘a boy crying wolf’ situation. That’s because the scientists who know that we can’t go beyond a global average increase of 2 degrees centigrade (beyond the hottest temperatures of the decade of the 1900s) without triggering uncontrollable feedback mechanisms, have not warned about a tipping point date that has come and gone. They are warning about a tipping point date that we are about to hit. (Now they are saying that the decade ending in 2009 was the hottest on record.) Greenpeace’s website has some information about that.
If the science behind the tipping point warning, in regard to greenhouse gas emissions, is sound, then How do we feel about sound science that says we are reaching a tipping point beyond which human survival is off, in relation to the global water crisis? If one problem – that shows no signs of being fixed – is enough to end the game, Are we okay with two?
Global warming from greenhouse gases has led to much discussion about a tipping point where, as noted, the failure to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions triggers feedback mechanisms beyond our ability to stop, while the destruction of water sources everywhere, because of lawless, mafia capitalism and because of ignorance and desperation, has led to much discussion about a tipping point that obtains once we’ve destroyed the groundwater and the hydrologic cycle upon which humankind depends for it’s survival.
As Maude Barlow explains on page 6 in her first book, “Blue Gold,” about the global water crisis, there are two main types of ground water, which is 60 times greater in volume than fresh water found on the surface of the planet. One type is ‘meteoric water’ which moves and feeds rivers and above ground lakes. The other type is ‘stable’ and consists mainly (?) of aquifers, some of which (the Ogallala and Guarani aquifers for example) are enormous in size. Capitalists and desperate (and sometimes uncaring) people are draining aquifers faster than the natural recharge rate for them, which will lead to their destruction. When they collapse, they’re gone.
It’s hard, for those who are rational, to hear again and again, because we are paying attention, that we are heading rapidly for that tipping point that leads to our destruction as a species while those who can keep us from reaching it have no intention of doing so. It’s relative. The time is short, but within the few years we have until we are completely screwed – without divine intervention – we could easily hear this message many times. Indeed, Expect to. And expect the urgency of the tone of our unwelcome messengers to increase as well.
In 2010, Dyer wrote the following:
“It may seem premature to talk about last-ditch measures to deal with runaway climate change, but Ben Lieberman has it right. Lieberman, an energy expert at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think-tank, responded to the news that the US Senate will not pass any climate legislation this year by saying: “It’s pretty clear that no post-Kyoto treaty is in the making — certainly not in Cancun, and maybe not ever.”
“The Cancun meeting next December is where the optimists hoped to untangle the mess left by last December’s abortive climate summit in Copenhagen and create a new treaty to replace the Kyoto accord, which expires in 2012. It was always a slim hope, but the US Senate has decisively crushed it. Big Coal and Big Oil win again.
“The US Senate is one of the more corrupt legislative bodies in the Western world, so this comes as little surprise. Few senators take direct bribes for personal use, but very many believe that they will not win re-election unless they accept cash donations from special interests like the fossil fuel industries. Taking the cash obliges them to vote in defence of those interests. Pity about the public interest.” (“Climate Change: The Last Resort”)
This past December (2011), Gwynne wrote the following. The article is titled “Suicide Pact At Durban.”:
“The Durban climate summit that ended on Sunday has been proclaimed a great success… Don’t be fooled. It was an almost total failure…
“Over the past fifteen years of climate negotiations there has been a steady decline in the seriousness of the response. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 committed the developed countries to stabilise their emissions and then cut them by an average of six percent by 2012. Developing countries were exempt from any controls, because they were not then emitting very much. And deeper emission cuts would come in a second phase of Kyoto, beginning in 2012.
“Based on what we knew then, it was a cautious but rational response. In the meantime, however, developing country emissions have grown so fast that China now produces much more greenhouse gas than the United States. Global emissions are not in decline, as they should be. Last year, they GREW by six percent.
“So what was the response at Durban? The 1997 Kyoto targets for the developed countries will be maintained for another five years (with no further cuts), and developing countries will still not accept any legal restraints on their emissions. Then everyone will sign a more ambitious deal (still to be negotiated) by 2015 – and the new targets, whatever they are, will acquire “legal force”, whatever that means, by 2020.
“By that time, annual global emissions will probably be at least twice what they were when the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997 – and the +2 degree barrier will probably be visible only in the rear-view mirror…”
Here’s what Maude has to say about the global water crisis:
“Erik Peterson, director of the Global Strategy Institute of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research organization in Washington that calls itself a “strategic planning partner for the government,” says that the United States must make water a top priority in foreign policy. “There is a very, very critical dimension to all these global water problems here at home,” he told Voice of America News. “The first is that it’s in our national interest to see stability and security and economic development in key areas of the world, and water is a big factor with that whole set of challenges.” His center has joined forces with ITT Industries, the giant water technology company; Proctor & Gamble, which has created a home water purifier called PUR and is working with the UN in a joint public-private venture in developing countries; Coca-Cola; and Sandia National Laboratories to launch a joint-research institute called Global Water Futures (GWF). Sandia, whose motto is “securing a peaceful and free world through technology” and that works to “maintain U.S. military and nuclear superiority,” is contracted out to weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin by the U.S. government, to operate, thus linking water security to military security in a direct way.
“The mandate of Global Water Futures is twofold: to affect U.S. strategy and policy regarding the global water crisis and to develop the technology necessary to advance the solution. In a September 2005 report, Global Water Futures warned that the global water crisis is driving the world toward a “tipping point in human history,” and elaborated on the need for the United States to start taking water security more seriously: “In light of the global trends in water, it is clear that water quality and water management will affect almost every major U.S. strategic priority in every key region of the world. Addressing the world’s water needs will go beyond humanitarian and economic development interests… Policies focused on water in regions across the planet must be regarded as a critical element in U.S. national security strategy. Such policies should be part of a broader, comprehensive, and integrated U.S. strategy toward the global water challenges.” -pages 149 & 150 of “Blue Covenant – The Global Water Crisis And The Coming Battle For The Right To Water,” by Maude Barlow
Maude herself explains how water companies have made the case themselves, to governments, that their profit-making concerns are connected to the national security of the nation (the U.S.) and she understands that it isn’t so hard for a government that is already predisposed (to say the least) to seeing everything in terms of markets and opportunities for investment to go along with those companies. But then she is reduced to only being able to urge us to lean on governments. I guess one human being can only fight so many big battles on behalf of her fellow humans at once.
The Perfect Storm
In fact, the crisis of democratic representation converges with the global water crisis and the global warming crisis (and other crises) to create a more than perfect storm, requiring more than a weak resort to leaning on corporatocracy governments to do the right thing. We can’t get there from here. The people aren’t in control. The corporations who are destroying our liveable earth are in control. It might be an impossible task to fix that, but the need to destroy the corporatocracy in order to then deal with other crises that it created is the real, concrete need here. You can’t address global warming or the global water crisis until you destroy the ‘armed to the teeth’ corporatocracy. So, We aren’t fixing anything while we all go off a cliff together.
When Maude writes that “First World governments need to take control of their corporate nationals in foreign countries,” that completely skips over the reality that first world governments are corporatocracy governments (See page 160 of “Blue Covenant.”). Actually, Such governments need to see to the needs and wants of corporations. ‘Our’ need is to change that reality. Neoliberal, pro free market, law and order governments are essentially fronts for corporations that the people are tricked into legitimizing through election rituals in which we get to choose from a handful of corporatocracy-approved candidates belonging to the few major business parties, some of which may refer to themselves as leftwing or democratic, which in one sense they may be, but only in the sense that way over there on a segment of the rightwing spectrum there will be a right and a left. That ‘left’ is only Left in relation to the more extreme Right to the right of it.
Maude puts on a brave face, listing the water fighters (those fighting the corporate takeover of water) and their gains, but in the end, her own argument for fighting without first coming to grips with the reality that corporations have captured governments, doesn’t support her strategy of leaning on governments. She can only come up with ‘one’ government that has 1. enshrined both the concept of water as a human right and 2. the obligation of government to ensure that water for citizens is delivered by government, not private companies. For sure, Steps have been taken by governments that could lead to similar, water justice, constitutional amendments. For sure, The UN has moved ‘toward’ a convention that explicitly declares that water is not merely a human need (which I ‘do’ find to be rather semantical), but a human right, But are such seemingly democratic gestures genuine or are they designed to placate victims of water apartheid and water companies’ predations while tamping down water warriors’ activism? Even when states, like South Africa, acknowledge that water is a human right, they can still evade what would be their responsibility to the people if they were truly of and by and for the people. That’s what it’s done. South Africa allows private delivery of water and poor South Africans are paying the price.
“The World Water Council and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development were major players at the biggest water summit of them all… held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in the late summer of 2002…
“…The gathering was held at the Sandton, the most exclusive suburb in all of South Africa and its financial heart, with gleaming office towers, five-star hotels and a glittery nightlife of posh bars and restaurants. Across a small river (covered in cholera-warning signs) from Sandton sits the township of Alexandra, one of the poorest slums in Africa, where children sift through garbage for food and line up at filthy pipes for water…
“The only concrete outcome of Johannesburg was that governments and the UN cemented their relationship with the corporate elite and paved the way for years of partnership hype and “greenwash.”” (pages 55 & 56 of “Blue Covenant”)
There may be deception and manipulation on the part of the water companies, and their political allies, The World Bank, The IMF and such bodies, but any look at the history of Nelson Mandela’s and Thabo Mbeki’s oversight in South Africa should dispel the notion that there is any real siding of corporatocracy leaders with the people who corporations are happy to use and abuse. (Naomi Klein has some interesting things to say about Mandela and Mbeki in her explosive book “The Shock Doctrine – The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism.”)
Gwynne noted back in 2008 that global warming would be viewed by governments as a national security issue. Of course, fascist governments are essentially governments directed by corporations, including water companies which seek to exploit the global water crisis which accompanies, and, some point out, exacerbates, global warming. “Private transnational corporations cannot maintain a competitive position in the water industry if they operate on the principles of water conservation, water justice and water democracy,” writes Maude in “Blue Covenant.” Which answers the question “Why aren’t governments dealing with the global water crisis?” They aren’t dealing with that or the global warming crisis because they are fronts for corporations. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. As I told a nurse recently here in Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, media and governments have a vested interest in not telling people plainly, and with urgency, about the global water crisis. That vested interest is easy to see. You can’t blow the whistle on your boss and expect him to continue to employ you.
Regarding the 2005 Global Water Futures report which Maude refers to (above), Maude notes that “the report links upholding American values of democracy with the profit to be gained in the process,” quoting the report, which states “Water issues are critical to U.S. national security and integral to upholding American values of humanitarianism and democratic development. Moreover, engagement with international water issues guarantees business opportunity for the U.S. private sector, which is well positioned to contribute to development and reap economic reward.” (page 151 of “Blue Covenant”)
Maude’s book says virtually nothing about global warming, which is so intertwined with the story of the corporate takeover of water that I find that omission surprising. But ‘virtually’ isn’t ‘absolutely’. She mentions Slovakian scientist Michal Kravҫik’s belief that the global water crisis is in fact “the most important factor in climate change.” She reports that Michal and his associates (along with Peter Gleik, who Maude talks about on page 28 of “Blue Covenant”) “argue that the only solution is the massive restoration of watersheds. Bring water back into parched landscapes, they argue.” Whereas, There they are in the tar sands, as Julien Lalonde’s top of post (linked-to) article notes, wasting 3 or 4 barrels of fresh water for every barrel of oil produced. Not to mention the wasting of cleaner fuel, namely natural gas, which is used to extract the oil. To repeat Lalonde’s information about SAGD, “The primary method of extraction for tar sands oil, known as SAGD (steam-assisted gravity drainage), is extremely energy-intensive, wastes 3 to 4 barrels of water for every 1 barrel of oil produced…” I have no idea whether Julien Lalonde is a male or female, incidentally. I’m guessing male.
It’s bad enough that the tar sands operators are using fresh water to extract bitumen so that capitalism as we know it can continue. But when the huge carbon sink that is the tar sands (in various ways) is gone, that is going to help ensure that we have no chance of keeping under the 2C average global temperature by the early 2030s that we must do. The top of post article that I quote mentions James Hansen, the NASA scientist, and his assessment that it’s game over if we don’t stop operations in the tar sands. He refers to it as being a huge carbon sink whose store of carbon we cannot afford to release. Other references to the destruction of carbon sinks in connection with the tar sands operation include information about the destruction of forests and their underlying peat bogs. The trees themselves are a carbon sink, but the destruction of the bogs will also result in the release of huge amounts of carbon.
What’s truly frightening is this: Even if the global water crisis isn’t the biggest factor in climate change, it is hardly unbelievable that it will cause climate change. We can’t get corporatocracy governments to do the right thing in regard to global warming, obviously. When we pressure them to commit to cuts in emissions and make it binding and mandatory and so forth ‘without’ tying that into the need to employ the non fancy, relatively non technical solutions which depend for their success upon the participation of communities and individuals, rather than corporations, we get huge resistance. Mention that “Oh yes, The only solutions that will work won’t involve profit making opportunities for your friends in the private sector” and expect stony silence. The most realistic, practical solutions, a major part of which will include unexciting conservation, in fact conflict with the solutions high tech companies will want to employ. How will we get corporations and corporatocracy governments and institutions to pull back from their destructive behavior? We can’t even get governments to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, let alone deal with the connected problem of abusing water through negligence and deliberately for profit!
The global water crisis may not bother psychopathic, war-loving governments and their private sector partners in the security industry who will be called upon to deal with water refugees and wars caused by water shortages (something envisioned by Britain’s former defense secretary, John Reid) and the concomittant food shortages, but for those of us who have had no say in governments’ policy-making in the area of water management, and who, especially in equatorial regions, come to be victims of water shortages and the ensuing chaos, it will not be pleasant nor fair.
Should we be afraid or can we relax? Actually, We should all have heart attacks from looking at where we stand in our assault on the liveable earth. If there is no God to step in and save us from ourselves, then we are most definitely doomed.
Imperfect Heroes Range From Being Well Intentioned But Wrong To Being Evil
I have come across some interesting information about progressives and others who might be taken for progressives that causes me to issue a warning about imperfect (but not bad intentioned) and fake (bad intentioned and sometimes utterly evil) heroes. All of us, heroes and non heroes, are imperfect of course. But I don’t think I’ve seen any bad press on Mikhail Gorbachev until I read most of Maude Barlow’s “Blue Covenant.”
Revolutionaries like Mikhail Gorbachev (whose peaceful revolution was undone by the West’s strong man, Boris Yeltsin) and corporations like Starbucks (which sells bottled water to poor, thirsty Africans, if they can afford it) aren’t the answer. Noam Chomsky tells his audiences to not believe anyone, including himself. He doesn’t mean don’t believe anyone, exactly. He means question everyone. Don’t take the position, for example, that because someone who you trust – because they’ve been fighters for social justice in the past – says something is so, then it’s automatically so. (But there’s nothing wrong with assuming, until you’ve acquired information to the contrary, that, in any debate, the story told by those you trust is true rather than the story told by those who you know are bad.) Ultimately, A stated fact is only so if it’s so, on it’s own merits, not because of the source from which it issues. You should critically examine any matter and then make up your mind. I also learned the ‘good faith’ principle from Noam Chomsky. It’s simple. You listen to what a source, like Coca Cola for example, says about something, say the need to protect vulnerable polar bears (which, by extension, means caring about their fast melting icy habitat) and then you compare that to their record. That doesn’t mean that you deny facts or the good that that organization says it’s doing. It just means you don’t automatically accept that org’s claims about anything. And you have to assess what that org is doing in view of what it represents and what it’s revealed – by it’s record – intentions are.
Mikhail Gorbachev heads up an environmental education organization called Green Cross International. He has launched a high profile campaign for a UN convention on the right to water, which, Maude Barlow notes, “Loïc Fauchon could live with.” Loïc Fauchon is president of the World Bank- and United Nations-sponsored World Water Council, which “has become, along with the Global Water Partnership,” another nasty org, “a major vehicle for the corporate takeover of the world’s water.” (page 50 of “Blue Covenant”) Notes Maude, on page 171 of “Blue Covenant”: “Although the Green Cross draft convention admits that there is a problem with “excessive profits and speculative purposes” in the private exploitation of water, it nevertheless places the commercial and human right to water on an equal footing, sets the stage for private financing for water services, allows for the private management of water utilities and says that water systems should follow market rules. In a legal analysis of the Green Cross draft convention, Steven Shrybman, a Canadian trade expert and legal counsel to Canada’s Blue Planet Project, says it is “so seriously flawed as to represent a retreat from current international legal protection for the human right to water.” Yet Gorbachev defended his pro-corporate proposal in an interview with the Financial Times when he said that corporations are the “only institutions” with the intellectual and financial potential to solve the world’s water problems and that he is “prepared to work with them.” – That, In case folks were wondering where, exactly, Gorbachev stands on the issue of the 99% vs the 1%.
I also received today in my inbox one of the regular (and fantastic) Bulletin notices put out by the Canadian organization ‘Straight Goods’. It provided me with a timely link to a blog post about Coca-Cola and the World Wildlife Fund (which has various branches). The blog is titled “A Different Point Of View…,” and it’s owned by Nick Fillmore, author of the post (“Coke helps save Canada’s polar bears but exploits developing countries”) which I’ll now quote from:
“The Coca-Cola Company has put on a happy face for the North American public by pledging to help protect the iconic polar bear while, at the same time, continuing to be one of the worst environmentally destructive corporations in the underdeveloped world.
“Pointing out on its website that the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic threatens the future of the polar bear, Coke says it is extending its financial support for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) with $2-million over five years toward conservation efforts…
“However, this project raises two important questions:
* Should Coke be allowed to get away with the hypocrisy of exploiting an emotional campaign to help save polar bears while, at the same time, depleting water resources, exploiting workers in developing countries, and telling us that it is “fun” to drink its sugar-laden products?
* Secondly, should the World Wildlife Fund Canada be taking money from a corporation that destroys the environment and wildlife in other parts of the world?…
“While Coke is demonstrating its’ social conscience while helping to save the polar bear in North America it continues its sinister activities in underdeveloped countries…
“Of WWF Canada’s 24 corporate donors listed on its website, at least five of them could easily be rights violators or responsible for environmental damage as part of their business practices. Sometimes immoral corporations make donations to a high-profile charity to try to compensate for, or “greenwash”, their bad image. In this regard, Coca-Cola is one of the most cunning and manipulative corporations in the world.
“Monte Hummel, who pioneered the practice of appointing business people to the Board of WWF Canada, tells the International Institute for Sustainable Development: “Show me a single decision that has ever been improperly influenced by a relationship with a corporate donor.”
“Well Monte and I do not live in the same world. I was involved with a prominent Canadian NGO for some 20 years and, as soon as the group started soliciting corporate donations and started putting on fundraising dinners paid for largely by corporations, conservative types were added to the Board and the organization’s activities became more conservative.
“In the case of WWF’s work, both in Canada and internationally, from what I have observed, their campaigning never names corporations as being responsible for damage to wildlife or the environment. International WWF works on water issues in India, but a search turned up no references to the destruction caused by Coke.”
Maude says, about Coca-Cola:
“Hoping to restore some of the goodwill that made its flagship brand a global icon, reports the Wall Street Journal, Coca-Cola has gone on a clean water kick in the developing world…
“But the major problem with this green-washing PR is that it masks the real issue of water abuse and the role that corporations such as Coca-Cola and Nestlé (and Suez and Veolia) play in this abuse. It also puts a human face on a deeply flawed and corporate controlled system of water distribution that, with the few charitable exceptions these companies make to their own rules through these projects, supplies water as a private commodity to those who can afford to buy it and denies it to those who cannot. The few they reach through these charitable acts pale in comparison with the millions they deliberately leave behind in their quest to control the world’s water.” (pages 140 & 141 of “Blue Covenant”)
Tony Clarke, for example, co-authored “Blue Gold – The Battle Against Corporate Theft Of The World’s Water,” with Maude Barlow. It’s an important book and I’m not about to dismiss Clarke’s work based on one critical review of another book by him (“Tar Sands Showdown”) by an author who I don’t know. But Petr Cizek’s criticisms, given an airing in a reputable progressive magazine, do underscore that no one should be beyond examination and, if need be, criticism. (See “Taking On The Tar Sands,” by Petr Cizek.) What’s interesting about this article by Cizek is the fact that he criticizes two progressives, namely Tony Clarke and Andrew Nikiforuk, who The Tyee, another progressive journal, has hired to write regularly for it. The criticism of Clarke concerns his lack of commentary about the waste of natural gas in the tar sands, as well as his uncritical reliance on information provided by the oil industry-connected Canadian Boreal Initiative (CBI). For myself, I’m not competent to say much about the particular information that Clarke and Nikiforuk take from the CBI, but, obviously, such information ‘must’ be received critically. Cizek’s criticism of Nikiforuk, and his book titled “Tar Sands,” looks a little more serious. Besides Nikiforuk’s (allegedly) uncritical acceptance of certain of the CBI’s statements, he also fails to see the problem with the oil industry generally, seeing a slow down in it’s operations as necessary in order to keep on top of it’s destructiveness but otherwise not finding much fault with an industry that enables the burning of fossil fuels that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when all of that needed to stop yesterday.
I would like Petr Cizek to have said more about all of that in his CD article and perhaps there’s material available online for that purpose.
I see in the Toronto Star today that Coca-Cola’s headquarters here in Toronto, on Overlea Boulevard, is being abandoned for digs downtown somewhere. Whatever. I only know that they will still be about 10 miles too far north. I read that in the Star in a coffee shop I visit regularly. I went home and searched for it online, on the Star’s website, and couldn’t find it. How pathetic is that?! However, Here’s a reference to the story from another media outlet: “Canadian Coca-Cola Headquarters Slated For Closure.”
The Star’s article showed an image of the twisted – appropriately, from my standpoint – and entwined coke bottles statue. Perhaps someone there said something to their Star friends about the potential for the story, and that image, to draw negative attention. Given how hard this bloody company is trying to greenwash itself (those who don’t care won’t know anything either way and those who do care and know about Coke aren’t going to stop exposing Coca-Cola because the company now says it cares about polar bears), that wouldn’t surprise me if it were true. And I just now grabbed an image, using Google, of that Overlea Blvd statue. I accidentally closed the link to the site and when I immediately did the search again to find it, so that I could link back to it via the image, it was gone!