I wonder if we'll all watch live on TV as the last iceberg in the arctic fizzles away like an icecube in a glass of Cherry Coca-Cola.

The climate change threat needs drastic action.....so says the headline.

That's right. Drastic.

You know what's drastic AND needed?

Rationing. That's the ONLY thing that is going to turn this around. People are simply not smart enough or care enough to do it voluntarily.

RATION fossil fuel. Everyone gets ten gallons a week/forty gallons a month (Truckers exempt). Otherwise carpool. Take a bus. A train. Bicycle. Walk. Hitchhike. If the big boys need to run their yachts then they pay a 50% surcharge that goes directly into the alternative transportation fund.

RATION electricity. 42% of carbon emission is coming from coal fired electricity generation. We need to bring that kind of usage down , down, down. And we don't need to substitute "nukular" for it. Wind, solar and wave energy. In the interim low usage must be the mantra. Rolling patterns for areas or so many hours per day or night. Figure it out. Live without.

RATION water. The waste of this resource is ridiculous. We need to start with golf courses, agribusiness and work our way down through humungous water thirsty lawns. This is a no brainer. We are experiencing droughts throughout the hemispheres. If glacier and mountain melt dwindles we are not going to have what we are used to. Might as well start to get into practice now.

Price mitigation is obviously not going to affect the most egregious consumers of all of the above. They simply pay more for what we cannot afford. Remember they have all the little green paper markers.

80% reduction of carbon by 2050. What did people think that was going to look like? Today's public is clueless.

Rationing would definitely go a very very long way. I'm ready. I don't think the government is ready to lead and then face political suicide.

CB-ten gallons a week would be a month's worth of gas for me-I'm lucky enough to work at home and live where I can walk or bike just about everywhere. Do the 10 gallons a month and we'd see a change in the types of cars and a surge in use of public transit.

Reference www.planetextinction.com and www.dieoff.com and then spread the word that people no longer have "terrorists" to worry about. The so-called terrorist threat is a true pipsqueak next to climate disaster. And the narrow interests of Zionists must also be taken off the table to deal with this huge global threat.

But of course, the 'terrorist threat' serves the need of an 'enemy' in order for the Military Industrial Complex to operate with impunity. (Though way back in 2004, even a Pentagon report indicated that climate change was the number one crisis of our time, and that preparations for massive upheaval by populations and war over resources must be made.)

However, since there's no money in saving the planet for life itself, Incurious George and The Big Dick Cheney and Dumbass John McCain- who scored a perfect Zero in votes For the environment- will continue to lipservice this crisis. A Vote for any Republican is a Vote FOR DEATH, as they are after all, the pro-death party.

No, No, No. Please drop the word "war". I've not even read the article yet the American obsession with war (even when it does not exist, as in Iraq) is the source of all problems.

Using the word "war" establishes a mindset, and given that EVERY war the US has waged in the past 60 years has either been lost or worked to a standstill because of an inability to think beyond the constraints of "war", a "war" on global warming will also FAIL.

This mindset of "war" prevents creative and innovative thinking, instead relying on a failed concept that money and intent solves all problems.

Look where Vietnam, every conflict in the South Americas, drugs, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, terrorism has taken the US - on the road to financial and social ruin.

So drop the word "war", NOW.

Please.

Calm down WTF,
This was an article written by a Brit and was published by the Guardian/UK. Seems like more than just the U.S. is enamored with war.

Agreed, rationing would be better than ...whatever chaotic and horrible situation we're beginning to find ourselves in.

I think the majority of people in the Western world probably don't use much beyond what sensible rationing would allot them. Ending things like watering endless golf course-yards, air conditioning malls, and our absurd situation with autmobiles would probably do more than we'd expect.

But Washington doesn't have this sort of leadership, so brace for chaos and misery.

1. Big Idea
To change the Corporations Act so that the duty of corporate directors to act in the best interests of the corporation is amended to include the words, "but not at the expense of the environment." This eight word change would set in place the principle that corporate profits should no longer be achieved by polluting the environment.
Such a change cannot occur overnight. Companies need time to find ways to eliminate the pollution created by their manufacturing and products. The new provision would not have full legal effect until a time in the future to be determined, but in no event sooner than at least 15 years after the date of its enactment.
The new provision would (i) set a goal for business to become environmentally sustainable, (ii) give existing businesses adequate time to replace current plant, equipment and technologies that are damaging the environment, (iii) create tremendous incentive for companies and citizens to undertake new research and development that will convert companies that are damaging the environment into businesses that are environmentally benign and (iv) gradually reduce corporate pollution to negligible levels.
2. Rationale
Under current law, directors are obliged only to comply with existing environmental laws. They have no separate obligation to consider the effects of their company on the environment. Our environmental laws are often not sufficient to protect the environment from severe harm. The emission of greenhouse gases is a good example. Companies operating well within the law are still causing severe damage.
The environmental effects of industrial technology are often not fully understood until many years after the technology is operating. By the time the problems become known, billions of dollars may have been invested in this technology.
Rather than closing down operations that are polluting, existing corporate law makes it more likely that companies will defend their "right" to continue to pollute. Polluters have little alternative. They don't want to shut down and immediately have to write off massive investments. Even if directors were willing to stop polluting, replacement technologies are often not yet developed to the point of being viable alternatives.
Legislatures want the pollution to stop, but are faced with a situation where replacement technology is not yet available and simply shutting down a polluting company will have a material adverse effect on the economy.
Without some intervention, this situation will go on forever. We will continue to deal with pollution as we always have and usually get the same results—laws that are inadequate and companies continuing to "legally" pollute.
Existing companies need time to gradually write-off environmentally damaging investments and to undertake new research and development to come up with environmentally benign alternatives. Once this transition has occurred, companies can be held to a much higher environmental standard. With the adoption of this change, companies planning their new operations will have full knowledge that they will be held responsible if they damage the environment. This should make them more conscious of the environment and more cautious in their planning.
This transition cannot happen under existing corporate law and market conditions. In competitive markets, companies are unlikely to risk making such a change unilaterally. All companies must have a duty to protect the environment. This will create the need for all companies to make the change and thereby level the playing field.
Directors need both the legal imperative to move their companies towards a more environmentally sustainable future and the protection from shareholders if they choose to do so. The change suggested here will provide both.
3. Impact
Existing corporate law sometimes pits the pursuit of private corporate interests against the public interest by discouraging directors from taking steps to protect the public interest that might adversely affect profits in the short term.
The change in the law suggested here would require that companies to change their ways. It will also give them the time to do so. It would then be up to them to find a way to do it profitably. Government should provide all the assistance it can in this effort. See Enablers/Support below.
The change in the law will also create a huge incentive for new investment in research and development of technologies that will eliminate pollution. The technologies which will be developed will be attractive to other companies. This should result in considerable first mover benefits for those who take up the challenge and develop the necessary technology to move to a pollution free world.
In addition to gradually reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the discharge of other pollutants, the change in the law could eventually result in the elimination of the need for volumes of environmental laws, regulations and red tape.
4. Feasibility
Changing the law will require public support, both from the business community and the wider public. It is almost certain that vested interests will oppose the change. See Additional Information below.

5. Precedents

The proposal is the next step beyond the recent changes to the UK Companies Act 2006 and stakeholder statutes of 35 American states. Those statutes either require or give permission to directors to consider the environment when making business decisions on behalf of their company. Their language is precatory in nature and designed to protect directors from liability should they decide to put the environment ahead of enhancing shareholder value.
The change suggested here goes further. Its phrasing is mandatory. It requires companies stop degrading the environment while leaving in place the primary goal of the corporation under existing law, to make money for shareholders.
6. Enablers/Support
The change requires the government to change their corporations laws. In making this change, the government should also consider how it can support business in achieving the goal. Consideration should be given to research and development subsidies, tax incentives and other means of encouraging investment in new research and development and easing economic hardship caused by the transition.
In addition to assisting companies in making the transition, government who make the change should encourage other governments to join them in this challenge. Efforts should be made to allow companies to work together in developing the new technologies necessary to affect the change to a pollution free economy.
The government should also pledge that its own operations shall become subject to the new laws contemporaneously with full legal effectiveness in the corporate sector.
Finally, government should monitor and consider ways to make sure the corporate sector is making sufficient progress towards the goal during the transition to a pollution free economy. This may include gradually tightening existing environmental laws.
7. Barriers/Resistance
The consequences of making this change to the corporations act are huge. It will involve major industries changing their operations to pursue methods of operating which do not yet exist. For many companies, especially companies whose only operations are doing substantial damage to the environment, the challenge may be beyond them. As a consequence, their management and possibly their employees are likely to oppose such a change.
Some existing company directors (again, especially from companies which are damaging the environment) will contest the change on the basis that it creates the potential for additional liability.
The change will also establish a need for huge investments to be made in the research and development of new technologies and processes.
Opposition to making the change can be softened by providing a longer transition period to legal effectiveness (thereby giving companies more time to write-off environmentally damaging investments and converting to operations which are environmentally benign), providing exemptions for small companies (eg. under $100 million in annual sales) and by building in a business judgment like defence which shields directors from lawsuits. Consideration may also be given to establishing maximum liability caps for directors.
8. Process for implementation
This change cannot be made without broad public support from the business community. In order to build that support, there needs to be strong leadership and a wide ranging public discussion of the idea. Such discussion should focus on (i) when legal effectiveness should occur (thus changing the debate from "how much" pollution is acceptable and "where" it can be discharged to "when" it should stop), (ii) which companies, if any, should be exempt and (iii) the extent to which directors should be liable should they fail to meet their revised duty.
In addition, steps should be taken to capture support of the Australian public. In 1961, President Kennedy announced that America would put a man on the moon and bring him home safely by the close of the decade. That goal captured the imagination of the US public.
America's goal and the goal of ending corporate pollution have much in common. Both are Big Ideas. In both cases, the technology to achieve the goal did not exist at the time it was undertaken. To be achieved, both needed many years and lots of clever people and capital. It both cases, announcing the goal required leadership not afraid to make a bold move and willing to take on a challenge. President Kennedy's goal was achieved and celebrated throughout the world. A world free of corporate generated pollution can be achieved as well.
9. Additional Information
No one is in favour of pollution. We have come to accept it as a fact of life because we have been told that profit and protection of the environment are mutually exclusive. It must be conceded that, in the short term, this may be true.
We should begin to consider longer term solutions. The change suggested here stands fundamentally on the premise that, by taking time out and setting goals well in advance, we can have both a strong economy and full protection of the environment. It risks a little of what we have in the hope of something much greater that might be. The alternative is to continue with what we have even though we know that it is morally wrong and may result in catastrophic consequences.
Doing away with corporate generated pollution is a worthy goal for our generation. Changing the duty of corporate directors to require that they safeguard the environment is a cornerstone to achieving that goal. We should give it a try.

This is what we're up against from the GOP and the rest of the deniers:

"Global warming has ceased... That's one of many facts to be gleaned from an intelligent and calm book, 'An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming,' by Lord Nigel Lawson, a British politician and former journalist."

"So the new religion of global warming, however appealing it may be to the politicians, is not as harmless as it may appear at first sight. Indeed the more one examines it the more it resembles a 'Da Vinci Code' of environmentalism. It is a great story and phenomenal best-seller. It contains a grain of truth – and a mountain of nonsense."

That was posted yesterday over there on the "right."

One side wants to declare "war" on GW, the other claims there is no GW to declare "war" on.

Smell that? That's the sweet odor of bipartisanship...

civil behavior had a good list of places to start rationing.

Unfortunately, it is terribly limited in scope, affecting only the middle class home-owner.

Why are you protecting ineffective and inefficient industries by not suggesting rationing for industry?

Example: The #1 user of water in the US is agribusiness.
- It takes 1500 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of biofuel.
- It takes 620 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef.
- 35 gallons of water for 1 serving of rice, and rice is grown in arid California!
- 120 gallons for 1 egg
- 39,000 gallons for 1 car (not agribusiness, but interesting nevertheless)
http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/edu/sc1action.cfm

Golf courses and household use is a drop in the bucket. The kind of thinking that asks the middle class to make the sacrifices when the rich continue to rake in the profits is exactly the kind of thinking that is rife in the US.

It's industry that needs to work more efficiently, not people. When industry is mandated to incorporate efficiency, prices of goods will naturally rise, enforcing consumer rationing. So it is a win-win approach.

But forcing rationing on the middle class and allowing industry to continue their merry way is just mediocre thinking.

Actions will always speak louder than words, and your personal actions are the easiest to control. You are all just pissing in the wind if you think you can bring about change by not leading by example...

Who needs a governemnt to ration things when you can do it yourself? Or are you so weak and intimidated to act for your own best interests because the vast majority of people are clueless and are followers?

Those that prepare themselves for the worst of times will be the ones that survive for the best of times...

Get out of town, move to the country! Get a life and forget about the vast majority that won't make it.

A period of reckoning will soon come when you must earn your place in the future, many billions will fail...

The more self sufficient you can become the better off you will be, and isn't that really the key to the survival of the Planet as we would like to know it?

The meek shall inherit the Earth are great words of wisdom if you "get it".

CO2 cools-the-Earth, and plants 'need it to breathe' [quit falling for this nonsense...].

Else-wise, the Meek shall Inherit global-starvation, and energy-deprivation...and the biggest Die-Off in History...

The Die-Off has already started, the carring capacities of key ecosystem have been exceeded, we have past the point of no return. The right-wing fringe has won! Every man for himself... welcome to free market anarchy.

Hey, MeAlsoToo please take as many with you as you can if you really believe CO2 cools-the-Earth.

You must think the center of the planet has a light sweet crude center too, right?

Here is a suggested list (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/63169/Home_fires_burning.html) of the kinds of things that would need to be put into action to get the world on to a war footing. It is the kind of list that Britain and America must have prepared before World War 2. Is it too much to hope the list for the Global War on Global Warming has been prepared too? If not, the suggestions are there to start work. And don't wait too long, the "Poland moment" (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/33371/The_Poland_moment.html) for the GWoGW has come and gone already.

I agree with WTF on the war crap. It only rarely meant a strong communal effort, and even then much of it was in a bad cause.

Why all the argument over a metaphor? Besides it's already been tried.

Jimmy Carter in his "malaise" speech raised the energy crisis to the level of "a moral equivalent of war." The result was immediate repudiation and years later he lost the election, not to that issue alone by any means, but his funding for renewable energy was slashed by 90% by Mr. "Morning in America" Reagan, the solar panels removed from the roof of the White House and CAFE standards for cars were halted in 1985.

(Personal testimony - I was as guilty as those who slap happily supported Reagan as I voted for him not once but twice. You can throw me in there with the rest of the lot)

ok here;s where we are

global capitalism is operating on a self imposed but irrevocable mandate to increase its profits every year. This means more production, more consumption- and devouring more of what's left of our planet.

a sustainable economy is the opposite. it demands using up progressively less and less.

no, i do not know how to do this.

but we could abolish the world bank the imf and the wto. just to get started.
and no more subsidies for u.s. agribusiness.

'War' would be the correct term for the fight against CO2 caused global warming since all wars are based on lies, especially the recent ones, like the 'war' on terror, which is also a total hoax, and of course we all know how we got the war in Iraq.

The most disappionting thing to me is that supposedly progressive news sources like this one and Democracy Now will not even print or report a dissenting view and then will complain that the media is 'one sided!' This is exactly how we got into the war in Iraq, with no dissenting views. If CO2 caused global warming is a slam-dunk, 99% certainty then what's wrong with a printing an opposing view? It should only sound silly and help the cause, right?

This seems like it has become more of a religion or cult than science, with believers and deniers, which I suppose is the way that it has to be now since there really is no global warming. Just be sure not to follow Al Gore to South America to drink funny tasting cool aid!

No one is talking about the fact that it was an incredibly cold winter in the Arctic and while 2005-6 saw a really large retreat of the icepack (which was touted in the news as "the end is upon us.."), 2007-8 was so cold, teh ice pack built up substantially. I am not saying the Arctic climate is not changing, because it seems to be, but - site like these are very selective about printing only info that supports their claims.

I was in the North this winter, and as I was freezing my butt off at -72deg celsius, I thought, wow, if the mean temperature of the earth rose 2degrees, it would be a balmy -70!! (that is with the windchill)

Okay, if the word "WAR" annoys anyone, just instead say,

"We MUST have a massive, world wide effort to prevent a total disaster, that can eradicate all life on Earth down to the microbal level within hours, if we don't fight it." ____ The word WAR is shorter.

This three minute read in the link I will post here is the most important issue humanity faces. That is how it is, not ~Kem Patrick's~ opinion. The author is well qualified to state it, how it is and will be if we don't stop burning coal and fossil fuels. That can be accomplished within ten years and we may have that much time, ___ we may not. Do you have children and love them? Read this and seriously think about it.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html

Jimmy Carter promoted energy efficiency way back in the late '70s. Then along came Reagan and the Republicans who were convinced that the Earth is a giant sphere full of oil. Opportunities were lost during the Clinton years, despite Al Gore's warnings. Bush has been environmentally disastrous, as in all other spheres of governance. Although the Democrats are tepid, they're far better than McCain. I have no doubt that if Gore had become President and there had been a Democratic majority we would be in somewhat better shape. We need to elect the most progressive candidates and push them on the issue.

Tech,

We are on the cool side of all-time warming because we're still in a (weakened) La Niña and a local mininum of the solar irradiance cycle.

From NASA:
Small long-term temperature changes have vastly more consequence than large short-term temperature changes:

The large short-term temperature fluctuations have no bearing on the global warming matter or the impacts of global warming…. A global warming much smaller than weather fluctuations has the potential for dramatic effects, e.g., by setting in motion future large sea level change, species extinction, and various other impacts.

In other words a little jiggle in the weather should not be confused with an ongoing warming trend.

I really hate to see bloggers like ~GEO 522~, MESANTHOROPE~ TECH~ and other like denyers who post comments denying climate change and global warming here at Common Dreams. They are so horribly ignorant about the global warming issue and are exactly the type of people who have caused the issue to be controversial and therefore little is done to help with our most serious issue.

How can any intelligent person deny that the Arctic is thawing and the perma-frost which holds over 500 gigatons of Methane gas is now thawing and that has not happened for millions of years. How can any deny the lakes in the Arctic which have been ice bound for millions of years are now ice free and tons of methane gas is spewing out into the atmosphere. One does not have to be a scientist it observe that with their own eyes.

Here is a link which shows how the Arctic is thawing and it's only May, summer is coming.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.0.html

The same terrorists that gave you 9/11 so as to justify war in Iraq and Afghanistan are terrorizing you with global warming.

War on Terror - our response, "Protect me! Take away my liberties, just keep me safe".

War on Global Warming -our response, "Save us! Reduce our consumption and living standards, depopulate the world"

Now within most of our lifetimes, we have certainly seen global warming. I remember the 60's and 70"s when some were predicting a coming ice age. There is no question it's warmer today despite a very cold winter in Asia where I am. The question is, is the warming coming from man made CO2 that is emitted in the use of fossil fuels?.

The Global Warming Terrorists insist with a certainty that could not possibly exist, that it is. Many on CD accept this as a matter of faith, worshipping at the alter of the neo-Malthusinas, like Al Gore. I used to believe too, before I started looking into it. After all, if they could lie about 9/11, what won't they lie about.

My take on CO2 induced global warming is it seems very unlikely. Has CO2 increased? Yes, since 1910 it has went from 290 ppm to 380 ppm, and temperatures have increased 1 deg C over 100 years (0.7 deg C between 1910-1950). Has that increase been harmful? Not really, if anything it has probably saved millions of lives.

Why? Well, it's like this. CO2 is food for what grows in the ground. It is essential for the plants, who photosynthesize the carbon in CO2 and it returns to replenish to soils carbon via the rain, making it slightly acidic which is also good. Since 1950, global crop yields have increased 15% as a result of this airborne fertilizer (agri-business is upset because they can not charge you for it, thats what the proposed tax is for. No free lunch!). Greenhouses are good things as those who grow plants know.
Of course, we do not want to overdo it.

Also, lets consider the amount of CO2 in the air. It is 380 ppm. Water is present at levels 50-100 times higher. In fact, in the troposphere, which is what we are concerned about, water accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. From the link below, you will find that we have too much CO2 in the air to be utilized fully for energy absorption. Our CO2 is starving in for energy, since the infrared radiation coming from the earth, in the wavelength that CO2 is able to absorb it, is inadequate for all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Competition is fierce. So adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, when it is already saturated relative to the energy available for it to absorb, should not be an issue.

We already know that CO2 and warming have a logarithmic relationship, and is not linear. If temperatures increase 1 deg C with a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the math says that the next 30% increase, to 500 ppm will have less of an effect, less than 1 deg C.

Most of the worlds population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, which contains 70% of the land mass, and much of the Northern Hemisphere is not very productive for growing food due to the cold winters. A 1 deg C increase in temperature might be a good thing, if we can then utilize this land for crops.

But lets say we allow man to play god, and we lower the CO2 of Mother Earth to 290 ppm, assuming we could. Perhaps we induce a global famine, or perhaps an ice age. Maybe Mother nature is calibrated so that when our population increases, she needs to put more C02 into the atmosphere to make sure she can provide us with food.

Consider also mans significance in nature. Of the 75 billion tons of biomass (ex water) on the planet, (man, animals, insects, etc), humans make up 100 million tons. Domestic Animals (700 million tons) and crops for food (2.7 billion tons) that we need make up 3.4 billion. So man and what we eat is responsible for less than 5% of the worlds bio-mass. Doesn't seem like we should be too much of a burden for Mother Nature, especially if we can stop dropping bombs on her.

Anyways, not saying the issue should not be studied and monitored closely, and there is no harm in seeking out and developing cleaner fuels, increasing the efficiency of our vehicles and using less energy. Why are we not doing this if Peak Oil and Global Warming are real issues. Lets stop offering solutions that include lowering living standards or depopulating the planet. The science does not justify the certainty for this. Science can offer solutions other than lowering living standard and depopulation.

Maybe when they can create weather models that can predict the weather with certainty tommorow, we can have more confidence in their long term modelling. Otherwise, I am inclined to believe it is a hoax for terrorizing the people into submitting to world government. Models are only as good as the underlying assumptions. Look at the CPI (assumption: whatever goes up in price is not purchased, and we chose what went up the least, eg. chicken instead of beef). So inflation is low, so says CPI, but prices go up much faster.

You could read the following for a better understanding.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Civil Behaviour,

Yes, I agree that you are correct. And I would add that the overall mean earth temperature is really a measure of the "internal energy" at the surface of the earth (basic thermodynamics 101 for the "state of a system'),
so my comment was perhaps not taking into account the big picture, which you have.

I was trying to point out just how cold it is in the Arctic, especially inland, away from the coast, and how it is a land of temperature extremes. It can be -15deg C outside, and yet if its spring with 16hrs of sunshine on a clear day, you can get surface melting of the snowcover. But the next day there is a bit of cloud, or the temperature drops, and everything is immediately frozen again. Its so complex.

I would like you to consider something, given that you brought up La Nina.

The circulation of the atmosphere and the oceans are the greatest single influence on how much heat the earth sheds.
gross assumptions in the computer models.
And its far too complex a process for any of these computer simulations to model
The C02 content of the atmosphere may be rising but if the earths atmospheric circulation changes as a result, we could be in for an iceage rather than a hothouse.

Are you familiar with any of the following EMICS:
Bern climate model
Climber
Genie
ISAM-2
Loveclim
MIT integrated Global System Model
Plant Simulator
PUMA
UVic Earth System climate Model

How do they treat atmospheric and ocean circulation?

My basic points are these:
1) Climate reasearch, especially the simulation models, are in their infancy, and the output of these programs need to accepted within the confinds of the program assumptions.
To extrapolate to "we are all going to die" is what I am against, I am not a "climate change denier".

2) Climate change has become so political, that for a scientist to speak out freely is just about impossible, without risking their career and reputation. I am not talking about scientists who deny something is happening with the climate, I am talking about speaking out against some scientists who are making far reaching predictions that are not justified by the data and the assumptions of the models.

3) there has been resent research to prove the output of these Climate Modelling programs, by using climate data from 1960's/70's and seeing if they correctly predict the climate at 2000.
The programs fail to predict accurately.

I am against religious fanatacism, not global climate change.

KEM PATRICK, you seem like an intelligent fellow, and I just do not understand this methane problem you seem to see so clearly.

I agree that its a facinating subject, and it clearly shows how the earth's atmosphere has been very different in the past, moreover, you have left out the sulpher content of these hydrocarbon deposits. That introduces an even more facinating bend (consider Venus and its H2S atmosphere)

HOwever, I have some questions for you:

Are you aware that the explosive % content for methane is 5-15%, too much or too little will not be explosive.

How much total energy would it take to thaw out the arctic permafrost? Will a mean temp rise of 2 or 3 degrees provide the energy for this?

Can you comprehend the implications of the following: The tilt of the earth nullifies 100% the possibility of solar radiation melting the Arctic and Antarctic. Therefore only atmospheric and ocean circulation can do it.

great idea rolling blackouts, hay didn't ENRON try that and the price of electricity went up?

The millions of bucks the Gov no matter what country you are in makes off gas tax is the problem. As long as the GOV can start to spend our tax bucks better and smarter then we won't see any or very little change.

I like the idea of blackouts but it should be done on a home by home bases. Have a timer that shuts off parts of the house for 60 minutes a day but leave things like furnace and security systems running. Trouble is when you are sleeping what power is being used?

OK a test
What do you have in your place that uses power when off or is left on 24/7
3 TV's
4 plug in clocks
1 Microwave
3 night lights
2 fans to move heat around
now muliply this across the country

Hollow Point-We just this year put most of our electronics on power strips. Now it is a matter of retraining ourselves to turn off the power strips and unplug applainaces when not in use. Noticed a drop in our electric bill when we did this.

MiMiCcS wrote: The same terrorists that gave you 9/11 so as to justify war in Iraq and Afghanistan are terrorizing you with global warming. [snip] You could read the following for a better understanding.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Ah, yes, the great junkscience.com web site. This web site was created by Steve Milloy, who also created DemandDebate.com. Milloy has practiced to deceive before in the climate arena, and his junkscience.com, claiming to debunk the junk science of others, is actually a terrific source of specious deception in its own right. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations.

Anything on junkscience.com, like Fox News, is to be taken with a grain of salt.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy

So your statement that the same people the brought us 9/11 also brought us global warming is WRONG. Instead, the same people the brought us 9/11 is also covering-up global warming.

Prove me otherwise.

~TECH TWO~ My intelligent ratio is irrelivent. It is not ~Kem Patrick~ who has determined the methane gas issue is so important and such a deadly threat to all life.

Instead of arguing or questioning me, address the article I posted and argue with the scientist and geologist who wrote it. Apparently you believe you are more informed on the issue than he is. Debate what he wrote with me, come on, tell us where he is wrong

That goes for you also ~MiMiCcS~ Your comments are totally wrong according to hundreds of highly trained people who have spent their entire adult lives studying the planet, the atmosphere and the oceans. You say there is no global warming problem but just the eyeball evidence proves that you are ignorant on the subject and you continue to deny the obvious every time an important article such as ths one is posted here.

The things you two guys write here are very harmful and only tend to create confusion on the most important issue facing mankind. I'll post the article here one more time. Open the link, read the article it takes abou tthree minutes to read and understnd it. Then if you disagree with the author state why he is wrong. ___ I dare you.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html

Frank1569 posted: "Global warming has ceased… That's one of many facts to be gleaned from an intelligent and calm book, 'An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming,' by Lord Nigel Lawson, a British politician and former journalist."

The first thing that comes to mind when reading this is, "Oh, so the author is a politician and he used to be a journalist? Cool! He must be right, then. Now if he were a climate scientist he'd be wrong, because they don't know anything about global warming, but no one knows more about global warming than politicians do. This takes a load off my mind."

It seems ironic to me that two bad things are happening at once, running out of oil and global warming, and yet we refuse to do anything about either, even though simply using less oil would greatly ameliorate both problems. We could kill two birds with one stone just by driving less and not making any more vehicles that get less than 40 mpg.

It doesn't make sense. Heck, we're actually at war to control the substance that causes global warming. That's like getting into a brawl with someone over who gets to eat the poisonous mushroom.

Actually, burning COAL is the major problem, burning gas and diesel fuel is number two. If we have any chance at all, we must stop burning coal and do it soon. That is where the word "WAR" is most appropriate. Not a killing war, a war to save the planet, with every nation on the same side. We do not have a lot of time. Global warming is not a joke or a ~Chicken Little~ squaking, it's as real as the sunrise every day.

You did raise some good points there ~TECH 2~.

First you stated that you do not understand the "methane gas" issue. ____ That's obvious. Then you say that a certain ratio of methane in the atmosphere is explosive, too much or too little is not. Well when the ratio is correct any spark or a bolt of lightening could set it off. ___ KA-BOOM.

That however is not the most likely scenerio. Methane is a colorless and odorless gas which is far lighter than air and is many times more effective as a Greenhouse gas than Co2 is. When the Arctic methane gas burps out it won't kill us. It will however trigger a global warming that we can not even comprehend and that's the major problem. Once that happens we are screwed, ALL of us.

Read the article I offered and get educated before you continue to make a fool of yourself here.

While I don't have a lot of time right now, I can begin:

1) PETM is the subject of ongoing research, ongoing scientific debate, and a variety of theories.

2) the most well publicized alternative theory to the one you have presented is an asteroid impact, which I think is the currently accepted version. Isolation of the arctic sea is another.....

3) regarding methane, if you reject the "external trigger" explainations, and focus on an event within the earth's biosphere, the first question is you would be is the methane an effect or the cause??

4) there are so many radical changes occuring during this period, including strange biological activity, no one really understands fully what the order of events were.

5) from a purely physics point of view, my opinion is that the evidence points to an external trigger. (caused by something outside the earth biosphere. see paper by B.Kramer, D Kent, Rutgers/Tohoku Univ. The change which they call "geologically instantaneous", happened too rapidly and the global changes were to quick to be explainable within the dynamics of a closed earth system.

6) the article you mentioned is full of speculation and unwarranted conclusions. HE only talks about one possible senario, and he makes the huge assumption that methane release was the cause.

7) the article you quote is written by a geologist that does not seem to be in tenure anywhere, or actively doing research, but instead is involved in public policy.

Arguing over the authenticity of any "factoid" is really innane....As we know the "spin doctors" can and do create perceptions and beliefs for whole nations....most of it is aimed at making money for someone...or herding the populace into a way of thinking....
Who is going to profit from spreading Global Warming propaganda....who will benefit from caring about future generations....who will benefit from asking for less pollution....who will benefit from reducing our comsuptive addictions....?
Thinking for oneself is so hard to do when one has been brainwashed since birth....the belief systems that have been handed to us are not going to work....
Bottom line....we all live on a finite planet...some of us care about the future generations and will carefully monitor our use....some of us don't see the planet as finite and will continue with the perspective of plenty for me in my lifetime....
"Givers and Takers"....the only question is which one are you?

Kem,

I want to say that I am not denying that the Arctic is changing. Anyone who goes up there on a regular basis can see it.
For instance, the permafrost layer has been changing, I am not denying that. ITs been going on for a long time.

What I am against is unwarranted conslusions, religious zealotry in regards to scientific theories, and especially overreliance on computer modeling in science.

I don't think you have answered my points directly.

I read the link that you specified.

The Author Atcheson predicts all life on earth is going to be destroyed because the earth is about to go through something similar to PETM(Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

He states that high concentrations of methane gas are the cause of all the incredible transient phenomena recorded in the geologic record.

You asked me to dispute his claims and I have.

The methane burp was simply an effect of an asteroid impact. The asteroid impact had many effects, to single out one of them, and call it a cause of all the other effects has no meaning to me.

In other words, because I am proposing PETM was caused by an asteroid impact, the many varied effects including incredible changes in the carbon cycle on a vast scale are effects.
Just effects of the main cause.

Again, just to be sure you are understanding me: you seem to be implying that an asteroid hit the earth, and the only thing it did was cause a methane burp, and then the methane burp caused everything else in the fossil record. That is bad logic.

Your article has no references to scientific research or journals, no bibliography.

I have quoted one paper, by Kent and Kramer - credible experts in the field, who have written a paper that has a completely different explaination than what Atcheson presents.

In short, I have proven the article you have posted a link to is not a credible scientific paper, but is a poor attempt at presenting a complex scientific theory, and draws unwarranted conclusions.

Where are these "hundreds of lakes that are ice free"???
Goodness, the Great Lakes freeze every winter, and you are telling me that the hundreds of thousands of lakes in the high arctic are ice free?? Its still below freezing for 8 months of the year in the Russian and Canadian arctic (inland areas where there are lakes).

There are hundreds of thousands of square km of tundra in the world - how much of it is thawing???
In case you did not know, the ground freezes every winter, in a good portion of the Northern states of the USA.

As for "how much the Arctic ice has melted in the past three years" I am constantly told on this site that climate change has nothing to do with the short term weather conditions.
Besides it was a colder than average winter this year, and the Arctic icepack grew this year.

Well ~TECH 2~, John Atcheson is only ONE of hundreds of geologists who have proven that indeed, almost all life on earth was twice previously eradicted within hours by massive "burps" of methane gas. It is also true that the prior events were caused by nature, or as you noted, once by an impact of a massive asteroid strikng the planet and or huge volcanic eruptions.

This time the methane "burps" WILL be caused by "global warming" which has been created by humanity during the past 200 years, or since the beginning of the industrial revolution when burning coal was used as the primary source of power. As time passed the use of fossil fuels or oil was added to the atmospheric pollution, a problem which continues unabated. __ We have to fight it or else.

Personally It makes no difference to me what John Atcheson's position is now, nor should it be of concern to anyone. He could be selling newpapers on a street corner for all I care, that is not of any sigificance. The main point is, he is a hghly respected geologist and few if any other highly respected geologists disagree with his findings. They do argue the amount of time we have left to correct the issue.

There is no sensible argument whatsoever that the Arctic is thawing at an alarming rate and hundreds of lakes which have been frozen over for millions of years are now ice free and methane gas is spewing out from their bottoms into our atmosphere. How much has already escaped from the Arctic perma-frost and how much more will be loosed in the next year or so and are we going to even attempt to fight it are the pertanent questions?

You asked, "Is the methane an effect or the cause? I'm not sure that I understnad the question or even why you asked. Do you deny that if billions of tons of methane gas is released into our atmosphere it would end all life on Earth? If yu deny that, there is no sense of anyone debating the issue with you. There is no reasonable argument about that fact.

Do you deny the Arctic perma-frost is thawing and it has not done so to any major degree for millions of years? Do you deny the other link I posted which shows how quickly and how much of the Arctic ice has already melted in just the past three years? That is as of this week, it is current. Who can deny that?

What exactly is your point of arguing the issue? A fifth grader with an average IQ can easily see what is happening, it does not take a highly trained geologist or an atmospheric scientist to see what is happening and fully understand the reasons why.

In addition ~TECH 2~ I also will state that John Atcheson "ASSUMED" nothing, as you blithly state that he has. Neither did michael J. Benton or hundreds of other respected geologists ASSUME. Their findings have been well proven. The next time if any, you should perhaps consider taking the ncecessary time to respond to such an importint issue.

Actually your type of posts are helpful to a degree. Others who have good and factual information often will respond to them and that way we may learn things of importance.

thank you, Kem Patrick, for persisting. Here is another approach for us all to consider:

do any of you go without insurance for your cars, homes and health care? What about flood, earthquake, life, disability, renters, travel, credit card loss insurance? What about private security services or home alarms?You may hate the insurance industry, and the lack of an American safety net which requires us to pay individually for some level of security and peace of mind, but you pay anyway, if you can afford it, because the alternative would be worse, to be without insurance in the event of a serious car accident or major health crisis.

Assuming you do carry some of these types of insurance, can you extend your self-preservative approach to take personal responsibility to reduce carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases? What is the harm done if we all take steps to prevent the possible scenarios offered by climate change models?

Our environment is already degraded, our consumption levels are over the top, and our children's future is threatened. Why is there such resistance to acknowedging the ills that already exist that need our attention, even if climate change is ultimately proven to be non-existent? Why do you not want to do whatever you can to address this?

Why do you pay for insurance for your home, your car, your health, but are not willing to invest your time and energy to make this world a better place? Maybe it's that 'free rider' approach - 'someone else will take care of it so I don't need to', that our public television and radio stations use to 'guilt trip' us into supporting them.

It's terrifying to think about, but burying our heads in the sand and denying it won't save us. Think about the German minister who wrote after WWII about how he didn't speak out when the Nazis took the Jews, and the Gypsies, and the gays, and the Communists, and the mentally ill, and by the time they came for him there was no one left for him to call for help.

Hey, if fear doesn't work for you, then think about all the cool dudes and chicks you can meet riding the Metro, or buying CFL lightbulbs at the store. Stop wasting your money on gas -- turn off your car engine while you are checking your voicemails or talking on the phone; you will also reduce air pollution that way.

Whatever gets you motivated, use it and get moving. My brother loves race cars and has high performance vehicles at home. He loves his toys; he also loves his kids and wants them to have a good future, so through his blog he convinced a number of guys to reinstall their smog control devices - the converters. Make it a competition as to who can get the best mileage; whatever floats your boat. just do it! What's the harm?

You are wrong about the Arctic thaw ~TECH 2~. It is thawing at an alarming rate, just as the Anarctic and Greenland are.

Lakes thawing? Last month some Russian scientists were in the Siberian Arctic area and the large numbers of lakes which are now open water is well documented. Lakes there which have never in our history been ice free and by ice samles taken by scientists, prove they have been 'constantly frozen' for millions of years.

They are not like the Great Lakes which thaw every spring. There is no comparrison there bud. I take it you believe we should do nothing, is that so? Cutting our personal gasoline use, turnng our thermostats down, stop eating meat, etc, is not going to prevent the looming disaster. We humans must stop burning coal world wide for starters.

The Russians saw that escaping methane gas was roiling the lakes surface waters and it scared the scrap out of them, as it should have. Read Benton's book, "When life Nearly Died". I did not disagree with you about the asteroid strike which caused the methane to burp previously. I wonder why you or anyone would deny that global warming could cause the same thing to happen. It is not only an asteroid strike that can cause the Arctic perma-frost to thaw and allow the release of millions of tons of methane and trigger an evem far more release of methane from the ocean's floor beds.

You are criticizing me, saying "YOUR ARTICLE" does not contain references, etc. It is not MY article. ___LOL.___ It is only one of many hundreds available. I posted that one and hundreds of other scientists agree with that author. You have a paper written by scientists who disagree. I'm not surprised.

Google Arctic methane gas and pick out any or all you wish, some are written by "scientists" hired by Exxon/Mobil, they deny there is a problem. Try this one see if it opens, if not there are several hundred more available.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/080423/2/16lfb.html

That link opened up just fine ~TECH 2~.`

It tells exactly how much methane entered our atmosphere last year and it is not good at all. ___ Perhaps you could find the time to read it and see if you have any arguments about it, because it shoots your comments full of holes.

WAR___WAR___WAR__. There I wrote it. "WAR". It's a three letter word, it could be a GOOD word. It should be.

We must fight a war against global warming as the author of this article states. It must be a world-wide war, with every nation and country involved and all on the same side. A good and a vitally necessary war.

Is that possible? Of course it is. Is it affordable? Yes, and a hell of a lot less expensive than Bush's war with Iraq and far more important and necessary. Besides, it wouldn't be illegal or unjust and no one need die.

Is it practical? Yes, indeed it is. The technology to have truly clean energy without the use of nuclear is well proven to be practical and is a viable alternative. We have not funded clean energy,___( solar,__ wind,__ geo-thermal,__ wave and __ tidal ) energy projects with enough money to have it available with any amount required to sustain our needs. We have funded nuclear power with billions of dollars and look what we have accomplished, a sorry and dangerous situation.

During the second world war, just here in America, we accomplished many almost impossible, massive projects within four years or less time. We afforded it. In fact, with the jobs it provided our economy blossomed. I do not intend to say, or to imply that was a "good war" for any reason. I only use what transpired from 1942 thru August of 1945 as an example of what humans can do if they deem it to be a necessity.

We built the Alcon highway and it was open for use in less than a year, __ a massive, near impossible task. We also at the same time began our infamous Manhatten Project. Within less than four years we had three "marvelous" atomic bombs. It was a massive project which many believe was the most expensive war project ever. It wasn't, the largest and the most expensive was Boeing's B-29 aircraft program. Our B-17s and B-24s couldn't carry the atomic bombs we were developing.

On the lighter side, we built the "Big Inch" a forty inch oil pipeline from Texas to northern New Jersey. The largest pipelne ever then ran over hill and dale, across mighty rivers and through mountains and swamps, it was buried deep in the ground and in less than a year the oil flowed. It worked.___ It still does.

We produced thousands of mighty ships and boats of war, thousands of aircraft of every description, millions of vehicles, cannons, guns, bombs and bullets. We had so many bombs left over we dropped them in vietnam for several years, 108 at a time salvoed or strung out for miles from each armed B-52.

We recruited and trained millions of men and women, we clothed, fed and housed them, we trained them to fly, sail, fight, cook, operate radios, nurse the wounded, care for and bury the dead and to help win a war.___ A "bad war". We can do the same with a "good war".

We MUST stop burning coal, we must then stop burning fossil fuels, we must have truly clean energy and produce electrical powered vehicles and as soon as possible, along with fully electrical heated homes. We could have the clean energy and stop all use of coal within four years time and have the rest accomplished within ten years and have millions of good paying jobs provided while doing it.

We could also mend many fences with other nations, all of them if we really tried. ___ Well, fraid the Arabs and Iranians would be a little upset. But we'd still need lots of oil, ya can't fly a jumbo jet with electric motors.

"It isn't an army we must train for war, it is a nation." ___ ~Woodrow Wilson~ 1917. ___ Still true in 2008.

KEM, I've said it once, I'll say it again. It is not a war.

War requires an "enemy". Climate change is not an enemy, it is a natural process that is being exacerbated by human activity. Calling for war against global warming anthropomorphizes the effect, but not the cause. The slippery slope is of course that some people are more guilty of contributing to global warming than others, and thus they should be the recipients of "aggression". The US is among the greatest contributors to GW, but it will be the most resistant to change, and if we maintain this attitude of "war", the the US will instead seek/force other parties to make the big sacrifices.

Furthermore, "war" is incredibly unkind to the environment, seeking "victory" to the expense of all else. A war on GW will effect undesirable social and environmental change in order to achieve a "victory" of say CO2 content reduction to 250ppm. The path taken to achieve this "victory" may not be gentle.

One only has to look at the GWOT. This should be a police action, not a military action, and look at the mess we and the rest of the planet is in.

Get over it. A war on GW will fail. GW is a crisis, and requires techniques of crisis mitigation. Not a military mindset.

I don't agree with you ~WTF~ and obviously neither does the author of this article, say it again forever if you desire. You are just playing a silly game with a word and detracting from the primary and important issue.

I doubt anyone here disagrees with you that war is never productive. This is a different type of war. One can fight cancer. Fightng could be termed WAR. Why not address the issues of global warming, the Greenhouse effects of Co2 and methane gas instead of wasting your time arguing over a word? Try growing up.

How it's said or word usage is not important, how it's done is. Global warming is the most important issue facing all of mankind and if we don't address it and do so soon we are going to lose a war we started against the planet and one we never tried to stop or correct.

I also do not understand how having clean energy and cease burning coal world wide could be harmful in any way to anyone or the enviroment, the oceans and atmosphere of the planet. Also climate change we are now experiencing is not natural it's man made.

Yes that would be seeking victory over all else as you put it. Those who lose jobs mining coal could have better jobs producing clean energy. Of course the coal and oil industries would suffer We don't have any other option except to contine on as we are now and that's stupid.

We certainly don't have the time to replace coal with nuclear power and even if we did that would be stupid also when we have far better, cleaner, safer and less expensive options.

Wasn't WWI the "War to end all Wars"?...
anyway, just to throw some "woo woo" into this mix...
Law of Attraction...."war" is the pushing against an "opponent" which begats more of the same....in our thinking and saying the words we commit to continuing the same energy....

Commit to slowing down, connecting to our earth and really BEING pro-life in all ways would be a tiny start in a Pro Earth direction...

As for this article...Mothers and children united in a world wide boycott or earthpeace march would also be a lovely piece of a solution..i'm in

Further to the above the money spent on the US war machine could put the USA and the world on a different road toward environmental responsibility and innovation. Lets stop talking about coal, atomic energy or any other obfuscation used by industry and special interests to avoid a truly pollutant free and sustainable world economy. The USA needs a "change" in direction and lets hope that Obama,regardless of his problems is able to do it.

Mr. Sanders, reformer or not, one thing is abundantly clear and for Obama as well, this American military adventure in the world must come to an end. The money that has been spent on this war alone, never mind the defense budget that drains millions for military supremacy that is an idea unbridled in this congress. The USA is the reason for any arms race or self-protection that nations resort to for protecttion from the USA preemptive war strategy.

Many people here in the USA think to give their vote in the upcoming election to someone who they think represents the absolute truth, maybe Nader? To do that would at the same time elect by default the very same regime that has brought America to this present. After all and under scrutiny this is not a democracy, and the "truth" as presented has more than a few deficiencies.

I have followed patiently the dreamers, the pseudo intellectuals, and the great scholars, on the pages of many blogs, periodicals, and media who think they have the sort of thinking able to help bring the USA back from the horrid mess it has become. There are those, like so many who write, who like me have seen through the sham and the shame of the present global dilemma. Many in these tomes offer their great thinking to help us to see more clearly, good Liberal egalitarian ideas, that might help our situation if adopted and I hope seen by others.

Few here have touched the central issues, this countries greed, the economy and your 401ks. You have been sold this scheme so you could be good Americans and invest in the scam of Wall Street. By so doing you all have become part of this bogus system of economics that continues a way of life that will undo the world civilization, built on the layers of blood of countless generations. This form of economics- which panders to the worst human values- It is equal to one investing in a gambling house, but you have been led to believe it is your way to survival rather than the world's doom. Greed is a very difficult motivation personified by the "killer capitalism" of the USA and fans the seeds of greed, an acquisitive human characteristic that holds nothing or no one sacred, as of course some of you know.

The essence of the fight for human retrieval of hope and security, and the reestablishment of ethics, morals and purpose - so many write about - and who are disgusted with the American system fast becoming the global system - who would like to see change regardless of how questionable or what the downside might be. It is the reason people spend their time on blogs reading petty responses to the huge problems we face. Responses grounded in the rubbish the leaders of this sorry mess of an empire have indoctrinated their people to believe. This empire fueled by an auto-centered culture supported by the advertising indoctrination machine that supports the bogus media.

Those who respond to the articles on blogs, written by people who are surely less than the quality of the true thinkers like, Nietzsche, Camus, Dostoevsky and so many others who have written about human fallibility, the human condition and the abuse of power in America and the West. One of the best amongst them in the modern era is Noam Chomsky, a great American scholar and a champion of truth, who articulated the USA and its power lust for empire in his book "Hegemony or Survival.

Those who write, are people generally frustrated, those who feel helpless in terms of where we see this entire human global adventure going and see clearly that the present American election possibly holds the seeds to genuine change in the USA if not the world should it really should occur? In view of rapid change and absolute necessity in the USA for global survival we have to look at the so-called democratic process. The comparison between the facile political landscape as presented in media and look at this abomination called reality. Power is a strange issue, it can be best represented by its two possibilities, Power to and power "over" as represented by the present US administration. The power to "create" as represented by Obama's rhetoric is the hope of half of the USA. Yes, there are many political power brokers that hold the keys to Obama's success and we must accept the compromise of the imperfect but it is the best there is at this critical time. At the very least he has invigorated Democracy and interest in this failed Democratic, extreme capitalist experiment.

However, many are not fooled by the array of candidates and their claims to complete truth and fairness, this is, as it should be. A healthy pessimism is necessary so long as it is not cynicism. Some of us understand that survival is surely not based in the petty politics practiced on the media, or on-line which is a mirror of the American people and clone of the US Congress. However, many truly care and see clearly why the USA has morphed into a right wing crazed oligarchy. Many people writing her genuinely care about this superpower gone amuck, called the USA. Most of the world's people polled think the USA should be feared as a rogue state. Moreover, there are people in government who are genuinely worried about the extreme of American plutocracy on the world stage.

Sadly, many of us know the slate of candidates running leaves a great deal to be desired. Yes, they have all dissembled, as politicians are wont to do, in the endless necessity for compromise, even to achieve small things for the people. One cannot come from the masses in the USA, be a politician who aspires to become president of this woebegone culture and not have to assume the sickening compromises that would attract support to continue on the quest to accomplish change. It is impossible to be pure but it is possible to hold new truths close to ones fundamental belief system until possible to employ those ideas and idealistic visions of a better world. When people rally behind the leader who becomes transparent in office it is possible for the people begin to believe the leadership of a visionary. America believed in the JFK speech that accomplished the moon landing!

I believe Obama's hope and vision is to restore the USA to its former respected place in the world in a new way. One can see how it is veiled in his rhetoric but it is there. We can only hope that he is not murdered using some obscure assassin. When I think of the charge against Obama that he supported that toad, Joe Lieberman or the many obfuscations, of Clinton and McCain to paint him "black" I have to laugh at the simplistic charges and the lack of understanding of what is necessary to be a politician in the USA.

But there are some who hold out the small hope that if Obama, the least of all the evils presented to the electorate, somehow becomes president he may become another great man in the office and in effect serve the people, the country and the globe. He is the only one, in my view, who holds that possibility, without question, if we join and accept some of the thinking written on the pages of common dreams and other liberal blogs, many agree with this idea. It is so because of his background, his actions in Chicago, despite his missteps, and the fact that this is the final chance at survival for the human family!

We must take this chance and hope that the creeping filth of corporate power in collusion with government and media that has brought humanity to this pass will not assassinate him; if he truly tries to affect the changes that must take place in America and the world, for make no mistake about it: survival is at stake.

Yes, many nations look to different nations and models other than the USA in this for leadership and assistance turning their back on the US and the rejection of the Bush regime. The USA can take on a new challenge, with a new leader, a new vision with a country and a congress that supports him! I believe Obama can assume a place in the world as one of the leaders of the world- rather than, the lone, dogmatic, power driven capitalistic - globalized monster eating everything in its path for it own advantage. I believe that Obama, in recognizing the state of this world, seen with the idealistic vision he espouses, is able to help the USA join with other nations in the world, not as the sole leaders but one as one of its important contributors. The USA is a technological giant it is time to use its strength to assist the world, as it once did, not only for its GDP but also the truth of its responsibility and concern for the problems humanity confronts.

Now, as never before, to the present degree, a great leader and vision is required to help draw the world back from the nightmare now taking place. The climate, energy, food, water, the oceans, forests, human health, world poverty and so many other issues will require a man that has the youth and the guts to try to bring about the change in the USA needed for the future generations who see his vision. Change is fundamental to his campaign alone, since he has captured the belief of so many whom once believed it to be impossible. However, in the end it all may be too late!