Greenland Ice Melt Speeds Up
Warming: Trend is Confirmed via Satellite, Flyovers
NASA scientists reading signals from a satellite in orbit, and flying aboard a low-flying plane over Greenland, are finding fresh evidence of melting snows and thinning glaciers in vast areas of the massive island.Their observations confirm the climate's warming trend in the far northern reaches of the world, they say, where changes in the circulation of waters feeding into the Arctic Ocean are altering crucial patterns of ocean currents there with effects that are increasingly uncertain.
The pace of glaciers sliding into the sea along Greenland's southwestern coast "is speeding like gangbusters this year," said William Krabill, leader of a NASA team that has just ended a three-week airborne mission probing glacier dynamics with lasers and radar.
In order to avert distortion by dense clouds, the team flew crisscross patterns over the ice at altitudes no higher than 1,500 feet, Krabill said Friday in a telephone interview from his base at NASA's Wallops Island Flight Facility in Virginia.
In similar flights seven years ago, he recalled, data gathered by instruments aboard the plane showed that glaciers were moving into the ocean at a rate of only about 6 feet a year. But seven flights this spring, covering 16,000 miles of Greenland's surface and coastal glaciers, revealed that ice along the southern coast is speeding to the sea at more than 75 feet a year, Krabill said.
The island's huge ice sheet is 2 miles thick at the center, and Krabill's team has been monitoring the inland surface and the glaciers flowing into the sea every year for the past 15 years. It's clear, he said, that the entire island has been losing significant amounts of ice year by year.
And while the glaciers are on the move, Greenland's snows have been melting over large areas of the ice sheet, according to Marco Tedesco, a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center who has been working on a joint climate study project with the University of Maryland.
Data from a Defense Department meteorology satellite show that last spring the snow on Greenland melted over an area of more than 375,000 square miles -- nearly 2 1/2 times the surface area of California, Tedesco said Friday in a telephone interview. That was far more than the island's average summertime snowmelt area of 350,000 square miles, he said.
Eighteen years of the satellite observations have shown that while the fluctuating trend of melting ice continues, Tedesco said, last summer didn't set the all-time record for snowmelt area on Greenland's surface. For example, five summers ago the melting snow covered more than 540,000 square miles -- nearly 3 1/2 times California's area, he said.
The satellite data also showed that last summer the island experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than the average of all the past years -- particularly in the southern part of the island, he said.
Melting snow is more significant than just another indicator of global warming, both Tedesco and Krabill said, for in many areas near the coast the water can drain through surface cracks and vertical passages inside the glaciers and reach bedrock where it lubricates the ice sheet and speeds the flow of the glaciers to the ocean.
© 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
26 Comments so far
Show AllTo add to Ken Hausle. Not to point fingers but, when it comes down to numbers it actually takes a larger imput of fossil energy to produce 1 watt of electricity through conventional solarpower methods (it applies for wind and most other ALTERNATIVE energy sources as well, discluding hydro power)then it does to produce 1 watt of electricity through burning fossil fuels in power plants, because of the huge input of fossil energy it takes to produce, ship and maintain convention solar energy methods, along with the others.
ALSO, by the rate we are screwing the environment, all those hydro-powered station wont be producing much energy when the rivers dry up.
hopeforthefuture: Nicely said.
I am also an engineer and a big advocate for solar energy as well as wind (it just makes good clean sense). I have purchased several solar panels, along with batteries, and an inverter or two, and now I have a decent back-up power supply. At my website (www.kjh-es.com), I have been trying to kickstart a voluntary "solar contest" idea that would facilitate education regarding solar energy and might result in some excellent locally-focussed solar system designs.
However, a question I have is even if the decision was made to earnestly implement usage of solar power, are there sufficient materials for large-scale production of the panels? My recollection is not to long ago the solar power industry was wrestling with silicon shortages. If demand increased by several orders of magnitude, what would happen? Additionally, a friend of mine did an analysis that showed to maintain current levels of power output that folks in the US have been accustomed to, it would be necessary to have solar panels that literally covered a surface area equivalent to all of Alabama and parts of Georgia. I don't think this is feasible.
What this says to me is even with clean energy, current levels of power usage that those in the US have become accustomed to are not sustainable, and the whole concept of ever increasing power generation and usage needs to go by the wayside. But, in my mind, this is a GOOD thing because it will trigger a re-evalution of needs versus wants when it comes to energy and power. I know I "need" my coffee machine and I'd really like to keep using my clothes washer, but I don't need my clothes dryer and my girls don't really need hair dryers (I'm sure they would argue this last point with me, but really their hair will dry all by itself). What I'm saying is much of the energy/power used today is shamefully wasteful.
Lets whole-heartedly and earnestly begin implementing usage of "clean energy", but it is imperative that we also learn to make do with less. The somewhat ironic thing is that I see an enhancement in QUALITY of life, if this occurs. People will start realizing how spoiled and wasteful we have become with respect to "artifically cheap energy", and this recognition can trigger so many other good and necessary changes in mindset.
Peace,
Ken
* I support HRes333 - Impeach the VP
***** time is of the essence *****
Although I am aware that this kind of terrible environmental news is very disheartening for any thinking person (this excludes most Fox news viewers, most of them do not think at all) the doom and gloom I see in the commenters of this article is not helpful either. I am an engineer and find it pointless to complain about a problem while doing nothing to solve it. Some of the people commenting on this article talk about an 80 % reduction in greenhouse gases emissions as something close to impossible. It's not. In fact if the world (not just the USA but also India as well as other rapidly industrializing nations) musters the political will for doing so we can entirely (100 %) eliminate the use of fossil fuels within the next thirty years. Solar energy can meet all our energy needs without counting on any future technological breakthroughs. We can take even extremely low efficiency solar cells that have a measly 7 % efficiency (the current solar cell record holder is at 40.7 % ) and even that is competitive with fossil fuels not in some far off future but TODAY. All that is needed is to manufacture them in very large amounts so we can get economies of scale (just like cars were too expensive individually until they were mass produced. Read this
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/nrel_hp_super_large_thin_film_manufacturing_oct04_short_form.doc
and pay particular attention to this quote:
"We have studied the design for "A Solar City Factory" that will produce 2 - 3.5 GWp of solar panels per year—100x the volume of a typical, thin-film, solar panel manufacturer in 2003, and more than 4x the volume of the entire solar panel industry in 2003. With a reasonable selection of materials, and conservative assumptions, this "Solar City Factory" can hit a price target of $1.00 per watt as the total price for a complete, installed solar energy system (6.5x - 8.5x lower than prices in 2003). This breakthrough in the price of solar energy comes without the need for any significant new innovation. It comes entirely from the design of a very large, dedicated and optimized factory, the design of manufacturing equipment for a very large factory and the cost savings resulting from operating at such a large manufacturing scale."
and note that they are talking about TOTAL cost not just the cost of the solar panels themselves (i.e. it includes the costs for the connectors , inverter, voltage regulator and installation cost). Also take a look at this quote of the report:
"At the price of $1 per watt for a complete and installed system, the payback time in states like California is under 5 years. At this price, the demand for solar energy systems will explode."
A very interesting proposal I found talks about much of the North African desert with solar panels and thereby supplying ALL the electricity needs not just of Europe but also the middleeast. We could do much the same thing with the american southwest. And not just there either, I don't like centralized powergeneration. Solar energy should be nationwide just with emphasis on the south and southwest. With massive enough solar energy we could even make a hydrogen economy a reality by having enough electricity for it to make energy sense as well as economic sense to get hydrogen from seawater. We could also use some of the photovoltaic power for massive seawater desalinization. There are some proposals that could well result in a far more efficient means to harvest the Sun's energy than photovoltaics but photovoltaics are a good enough solution NOW and the emergency is grave enough we should not wait for something nearly perfect to be discovered. One of the first things I was taught as an engineer is that no design is ever perfect so one should be guided by the principle of whatever is good enough and not ask for an impossible perfection which is usually unattainable while solutions just slightly lees good are easily at hand.
I agree with some of the posters that a great deal of global warming is inevitable if we just start reducing greenhouse emissions. The Earth is just a system after all and as with all large systems there is a lot of inertia involved. A large system will resist a change in it's current state but once the state starts changing an opposite force must be exerted for the system to stop moving and then begin moving back to the previous operating point. I.E. the world is like a big 18 wheeler truck and stopping greenhouse gas emissionsonly takes the foot off the gas pedal but unless you want the truck to get a very long way away from it's original position before it stops on its own because of friction you had better press the brake pedal. One way that humans can step on the brakes of global warming is an idea that probably some of you may have heard of. It involves basically setting up a giant "umbrella" (actually a translucent membrane that does not stop light, just disperses it slightly) at the Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun (where their respective gravities cancel each other out and is therefore a point of relative stability) and thereby the total amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth would be reduced by maybe just 1 % (low enough that you wouldn't even notice a difference here on Earth). This would actually reverse global warming instead of just slowing it down. Such a project would of course be EXTREMELY expensive. I'm talking in the trillions of dollars. But since global survival may actual;ly be al stake money isn't really important at all. In any case ALL countries (not just the US, Canada, the European Union, Japan and China but all countries) must contribute heavily since ALL countries are at stake. Even here this cost could be reduced. A crash course of research should be immeaditely funded internationally to achieve cost effective means of reaching Earth orbit. Two possibilities come to mind: one is the laser propulsion technique being developed by professor Leik Myrabo at the Renseelaer Polytechnic Institute and the other is the possibility of implementing a space elevator either with carbon nanotubes or some other material.
In any case an emergency is a moment for clear thought and bold action. Fear just hastens the end of the world. As I said above all that is needed is political will as well as the action of the best and brightest engineers and scientists. During the Apollo era for the first and still only time in history scientists and engineers were given a mostly free hand in taking decisions without interference by politicians (whose vast majority understand little or nothing about science). Global warming must return us to such a time (at least with regard to the subject at hand, global warming not necessarily with other issues) and electing an engineer as president as well as many engineers and scientists for Congress is likely a crucial first step.
Someone whose name escapes my memory said something fitting for this subject:
"Do not go gently into that good night. Fight, fight against the dying of the light."
I do not believe in any hell and if there is a God he had better be far better than the petty and vengeful being so many so called men of god make him out to be. It is in our power to make this world a hell or a heaven. Let us choose well.
With love and knowledge working together nothing is impossible. Let us start working.
We in the west all live like Roman emperors. We do as we like, we have hot water, chilled water, ice when we want it, and the best food the planet has to offer. We travel where we will and we need not lift a finger to have laborious work done for us.
Once only emperors, kings and nobles could aspire to such luxury - and then without decent medical help when necessary! How spoilt we all are.
Sadly, our luxury has been had at the expense of others in far off places, and, more recently, our planet itself. As we suck up the last drops of the oil and gas that has made this incredible decadence possible, let us remember how lucky we have been, and how unlucky or decendants will be.
Kelmer - Notice how your pro-vegan remarks are ignored? At least the so-called progressives who visit this site have not attacked you in the way they go after most vegetarians/vegans. Going veggie is the single most powerful way of defeating global warming and resisting the corporate rape of the environment, but most so-called progressives don't want to hear that. They are a part of the problem. Actions count, words don't. They denounce the corporate state while they eat the dead bodies of their fellow sentient beings, slaughtered by the corporate state.
The melting of Greenlands ice will be a blessing in disguise as the Northern Hemisphere will cease to function as it now does. It is good to remember that if you take away all the religious dogma that has been instilled in humans for the sole purpose of control,power and profit, we are just one species of life out of many that have equal right to be born,to live and to die after a normal life.We are not special, this is obvious when you look at how fragile human life is compared to other species.We all bleed and grieve similarly.Bullets and bombs do the same damage to humans and other species alike.I grew up on a farm and can still recall the way that life was before supermarkets and malls.We killed our own stock for meat and grew our own vegetables. Every farm had a large orchard with a good variety of fruit that could be preserved for use throughout the year.The point is that while we were financially poor and without luxuries by todays standards, we were reasonablly in balance with the natural world. The coming climate change will reduce significantly the human impact on the planet through massive economic failure and loss of human life and dislocation. If you look at the rates of melt in Greenland,The Arctic and Antarctica, there is evidence of increase that does not follow tidy computer modelling.Greenland was,according to the article above, melting at the rate of 6 feet per year seven years ago compared to 75 feet per year now.Thats 12.5 times faster now than then. That is classed as a "BY ORDER OF MAGNITUDE"
increase.Who knows how much it will speed up as we contine to indulge in consumerism in ever increasing ways and means.Do not be complacent and think 2040 or 2100 or some far off time that is to far away to be tangible.Think around 2015-2020 because at 12.5 times faster over 7 years equals 937.5 feet per year at the end of the next 7 years.ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE PEOPLE. I live in a Southern Hemishere country so the impact will be different here but equally devastating.
Find a cave and a big stick. There will be alot of hungrey housepets and rightard cannibals.
Just look at Cheney's eyes.
therzal says: "It is possible we could make a difference IF there was world wide effort to do so".
I agree, and it seems to me that we must at least try to make this world wide effort happen. I know it seems like nothing but a dream now, but it could happen, and I'd rather focus my efforts on playing my part than sitting on the sidelines waiting for "the end" and complaining about how stupid humanity is.
I just know that when I look in my own backyard the density of life is mind boggling. We could do likewise and mimic this, but our addiction to "wasteful energy" needs to end. Humanity does not need to end, but we do need to learn. Widespread ecological awareness coupled with "low-energy & resource-efficient" technologies could offer hope. Yes, changes on a massive unprecedented scale would be necessary but if People got on board then it could happen. It could. Do I think it will -- well that is a whole different question, and what difference does it make. I know what I want to happen and that is what I'm going to work towards however I can.
As for as the "Walking Protest", there has been some preliminary talk of a possible protest in September if the so-called leaders in DC continue on with "business as usual" in senseless defiance of the common interest. My wife (who is someone that I really need to listen to !) says she doesn't want me to walk all the way from Charlotte, so I may have to adjust my plans a bit.
I know this. We can talk, and e-mail, and write all sorts of grand ideas and this is important, but it is going to take more than this for substantive change to commence. When the peaceful protest happens (its going to happen isn't it?), I want to be there. I will get to DC without using an automobile or plane (can you say train), and the last leg of the journey will be by walking on the two legs that I was born with.
Peace everyone.
Ken
* I support HRes333 - Impeach the VP
***** Time is of the Essence *******
It is too late to do anything to stop the melting of IceCaps and glaciers etc. What we are seeing is the result of long term neglect plus now the "climate buffers" are overflowing as they become saturated with our waste gases. Add to this the acidification of the seas, the death of phytoplankton (the organisms that produce OXYGEN) the destruction of forests (the "organisms" that absorb CO2 and produce OXYGEN) and you can see where we are going
karlof1 is quite right.. The best we can do is prepare to ameliorate the worst of it. We should move our infrastructure to higher ground, we should install clean renewable energy systems, we should take steps to protect/relocate our agriculture and technical industries..
The list goes on.. If we don't do something and have alternative energy in place before "Peak Oil/Gas/Coal, we will be thrown back into a catastrophic preindustrial world but without the prospect of evolving to anything better this time.
How do you reverse 100 years plus of CO2 and Heat emissions??
The answer is it is very hard if not impossible, given the stunning ignorance and complacency of many in positions of influence and authority.
It is possible we could make a difference IF there was world wide effort to do so.
Oh we are not doomed. There will be an upheaval, major setbacks to civilization in terms of loss of technology, literacy, and so on. And of course massive population reduction.
Even if our civilization is destroyed, humans will live on in quasi-tribal groups. As usual, the most vicious and powerful will tend to outlast the poor and ill-equipt. The rich will have a higher survival rate until currencies collapse and their protectors (hello, Blackwater) use their resources for their own survival and power.
Following several generations of violence, things will quiet down because a new socio-political equilibrium will have established itself. But civilization itself will remain crippled until the climate re-stabilizes. After all, our current civilization was only able to gain traction after the last Ice Age ended.
No worries, it's just the Earth's way of keeping us in check. I believe the ecological role of humans -- what we bring to the environmental table, if you will, in the way beavers bring dams and bees bring pollination -- is to release stored up energy, so it can be reused. After all, what distinguishes us from other creatures? Fire. And what does fire do but return the energy stored in the wood (or the coal, or the petroleum) back into the atmosphere, where it is available for plants and other life forms?
But we overdid it, like locusts. So nature is putting on the brakes, slowing us down, via climate change. Too much carbon in the atmosphere and whoops!
It's so very exquisite, if you can see past the tragic devastation.
It's too late now. The tipping point is not in ten years. It was ten years ago. Anything done now is just barn door stuff. Sad to say but we are doomed.
Ken, lets walk! I've been dreaming about spawning a cross country national march to washington for years now. I've never been able to wrap my head around how to gain enough attention.
There is significant data showing that when Greenland loses it's ice cap, a new ice age is very likely.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warming%3B+greenland+ice+cap%3B+new+ice+age%3B+2007&btnG=G...
Some defeatists think that we should just let the world go to hell because we are all hypocrites to our own causes. We drive cars to our environmental functions. We use electricity from fossil fuels to cool our homes. We elect/re-elect politicians who accept campaign donations from the biggest polluters and so on. We are a nation of hypocrites who talk about giving up our conveniences while using those same 'conveniences' so we can have what everybody else has. I see no real solution for this conundrum and can only conclude that it may take a hurricane in Canada or a complete melting of the arctic ice to jar people into making drastic sacrifices. Of course by then, it will be too late.
I was watching Terminator 3 yesterday and at the end of the movie, John Conner finally realizes that trying to save the world is fruitless when no one else can see the end coming. Maybe we should all just give up on preventing global warming and just get our road warrior gear ready.
Darn it--and the International Whaling Commission just voted to let so called "traditional" whalers kill more whales with their non traditional weaponry. Looks like they better hurry and kill as many as they can before the Climate takes away their "heritage."
The UK Telegraph reported the other day:
Go vegan to help climate, says Government
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
30/05/2007
It would help tackle the problem of climate change if people ate less meat, according to a Government agency.
It would help tackle the problem of climate change if people adopted a vegan diet, according to a Government agency
Adopting a vegan diet dramatically reduces one person's impact on the environment
A leaked email to a vegetarian campaign group from an Environment Agency official expresses sympathy with the environmental benefits of a vegan diet, which bans dairy products and fish.
The agency also says the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is considering recommending eating less meat as one of the "key environmental behaviour changes" needed to save the planet.
It says that this change would have to be introduced "gently" because of "the risk of alienating the public".
David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, has raised the issue that farm animals are blamed for producing large amounts of the powerful greenhouse gas, methane, and told farmers they need to do something about it but the agency's response appears to go further than official advice.
advertisement
It has provoked an immediate response from the National Farmers' Union, which said the suggestion was "simplistic" and "a cause of concern".
The agency's official was responding to an email from the vegan group Viva, which argues that it is more efficient to use land to grow crops for direct consumption by humans rather than feeding them to dairy cows or livestock raised for meat.
The campaign group entered a comment on the Environment Agency's website saying: "Adopting a vegan diet reduces one person's impact on the environment even more than giving up their car or forgoing several plane trips a year! Why aren't you promoting this message as part of your [World Environment Day] campaign?"
An agency official replied: "Whilst potential benefit of a vegan diet in terms of climate impact could be very significant, encouraging the public to take a lifestyle decision as substantial as becoming vegan would be a request few are likely to take up.
"You will be interested to hear that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working on a set of key environmental behaviour changes to mitigate climate change. Consumption of animal protein has been highlighted within that work. As a result the issue may start to figure in climate change communications in the future. It will be a case of introducing this gently as there is a risk of alienating the public majority.
"Future Environment Agency communications are unlikely to ever suggest adopting a fully vegan lifestyle, but certainly encouraging people to examine their consumption of animal protein could be a key message."
Juliet Gellatley, director of Viva, said: "I think it is extraordinary that a Government agency thinks becoming a vegetarian or vegan could have such a positive impact for the environment yet it is not prepared to stand up and argue the case."
A Defra spokesman said: "The Government is not telling people to give up meat. It isn't the role of Government to enforce a dietary or lifestyle change on any individual."
**that last line is hilarious--if global warming is as serious as they say then forcing changes on the individual to stop catastrophe would seem er, sensible to say the least.
Come on Bill,
Don't just wish me luck. Join the effort.
Peace,
Ken
Mr. Ken!
Good luck to you sir! Hope the media treats you well. THANKS!
Anyone else like the idea above? I think it is a good one because it could be accomplished by those who are able, lots of communication will happen, and on the way, People could help out other People.
Peace everyone,
Ken
I'm calling for a "Walking Protest to DC".
* Start from your hometown or somewhere outside of DC, and walk in. Converge on the city and try to speak collectively.
* On your way, speak to your neighbors. Get to know each other. Be friendly.
This could be a chance to really communicate what sensible People are thinking.
I know I am going to do it (leaving from Charlotte, NC sometime in August).
Ken H.
I support HRes333 - Impeach the VP
Hope, Remedy, Peace --- if only.....
******* Time is of the essence *******
Well I sold my economy car in 1982 and began to use public transportation and my mountain bike to get around. I was hoping people identifying themselves as progressives might follow the path I chose; never happend. What did happen was the movement righward of the Democratic Party and a lovely marriage took place to the status quo. Nothing has changed since the darling of right disguised as a progressive destroyed the Democratic Party with his creation of the DLC: namely, Bill Clinton. And since Hillary seems to be marching toward the nomination, looks like the 'end game' is already upon us!
Live with our own change: arranging SCUBA-gear on the Titanic.
For recent info taking a different look at the Gulf Stream, please go to this realclimate item, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/ocean-circulation-new-evidence-yes-slowdown-no/#...
For those who haven't been, realclimate is a site run by actual climate scientists from around the world whose mission is to inform the public and show why the deniers are wrong.
The rate of climate change and associated sea level rise are near-term wild cards. The Greenland melt rate is very worrying, and the current rates mentioned are for the MIDDLE of Spring. It would be very helpful to repeat the data collection in September to see how much acceleration took place. FWIW, I think half of Greenland's ice sheet will be gone in 20 years for a sea level rise of about 3 meters, and there's no stopping it as we've already got the temperature rise needed "baked-into" greenhouse gasses already emitted. What we humans can do is to try to mitigate how drastic climate chaos becomes. For any sort of mitigation to happen, the US must cut its total power consumption by 80%; when the fossil fuels runout--2040-2050--we'll be forced to cutback by that amount anyway. Even before then, we can expect severe financial dislocations as first oil, then natural gas, followed by coal "peak" in producers' abilities to meet demand.
This is all Overshoot.
I have read that in both Iceland and Greenland that as much of the polar melt as possible is being converted into beer and upscale bottled drinking water. Seems the ancient H2O has superior taste to most of the fresh water available today. Duhh...
If true, it would be a fitting legacy for the "me generation" to have said that they literally pissed away this important ecological treasure.
I suppose the next big spat will be whether to cnnvert all the thawing tundra to mechanized farm land or to burn it like a peat bog.
Kathyodat--I remember seeing Alan Alda on a PBS show discussing how this global warming phenomena could indeed usher in an "ice age in Britain and all the rest of the lands who depend on the present flow of the Gulf Stream (also known as the North Atlantic Drift)to moderate their climate extreams. Maybe that is why the Brits and the continental Europeans are just a bit more assertive on global warming than US.
Studies like this are excluded from the current conservative IPCC report since they do not yet define a continuously progressing trend toward glacial collapse in Greenland and West Antarctica.
But if there is such a trend, it will result in the most profound changes to coastlines, far beyond the IPCC projection of 1 to 3 feet this century.
Tis Ok
and the circle shall be unbroken
20k yrs ago the place I live in N. Idaho was covered in ice..See every day the results of the big ice dam burst above Flathead Lake..Mother nature does not fool around..
Oh yeah
I reported awhile ago--no bees..
Not true, they are back, although
Half as many
and they seem half size..
Ken
"...changes in the circulation of waters feeding into the Arctic Ocean are altering crucial patterns of ocean currents there with effects that are increasingly uncertain." Why does the MSM lightly scamper over portentious topics with intriguingly vague statements? Thom Hartmann isn't so vague on the possible effects. He discusses the danger of the shutdown of the gulfstream and the possibility of a northern hemisphere ice age (in the midst of global warming no less). Well, if we can have droughts and floods here in Oregon all at the same time, why not?
But hey, we don't want to get the public too excited, they might actually demand that something seriously be done right away. So let's everyone head for www.nationalinitiative.us and do it ourselves. And while we're at it why don't we do a few other things, like single payer health care, free public education through college, publicly financed electon campaigns, returning the Fairness Doctrine to the airwaves, and repealing the Taft-Hartley law for starters. And oh yes, getting out of Iraq.
hooray! we get to transform or perish! Choose.