Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The WMD That Really Should Be Worrying Us
If al-Qa'ida was unleashing this weather of mass destruction, we would do anything to stop them
Imagine if tomorrow the CIA and MI6 discover that Osama bin Laden has invented an incredible new weapon. This machine - stashed away in some dusty Afghan cave - doubles the intensity of hurricanes, causing them to drown a US city and kill nearly 2,000 people. It turns Spain and Australia dry in the worst droughts on record. It makes the oceans acidic, killing essential parts of the food chain. It is causes these acidic seas to rise and wash away whole nations like Bangladesh and Tuvalu. And if the machine is left switched on for too long, it will drown London and New York and Lagos and Kinshasa too.
This machine exists. It is called global warming - and we are our own Bin Laden. The world's scientists say our greenhouse gas emissions are causing this planetary cooking as surely as HIV causes Aids or smoking causes lung cancer.
If al-Qa'ida was unleashing this weather of mass destruction, we would do anything - anything - to stop them. But because the enemy is inside each one of us, we stagger on, building more airports and coal power stations and shrieking for cheaper oil. We are suffering from what psychologists call an "external context problem": this is so far outside anything we have experienced before, it instinctively seems it cannot possibly be true, no matter how much evidence washes at our feet.
This week, a small band of the sane is gathering to try to shake us awake. In the English countryside of Kent, thousands of ordinary people have set up camp to demand the British Government cancel its plans to build a new coal power station, with six others to follow. Coal is the worst warming-weapon, responsible for half of all the greenhouse gases humans have pumped into the atmosphere. It is twice as warming as the next worst fossil fuel - natural gas - and more than a hundred times worse than wind power. The Climate Camp protesters are refusing to be part of Generation Zzzzzzzz, drugged by celebrity and consumption. Armed only with the science, they are urging us to be rational, now, while we still can.
To grasp the urgency of the situation, let's look at one aspect of global warming that has been widely overlooked. As you lie on a beach this summer and stare at the ocean, you should be aware it is becoming rapidly more acidic - because of your emissions.
The oceans are the greatest carbon sink we have. They have inhaled a third of the carbon dioxide pumped by us into the atmosphere and buried it on the ocean floor. But there is a price. When CO2 combines with water, it creates a fizzy carbonic acid. You taste this acid on your tongue every day in your can of Coke. The more carbon the ocean soaks up, the more acid it produces. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of the seas has soared by 30 percent, and by the end of my life, it will have increased by 150 percent - unless we reverse course fast. "A change of that magnitude is more than we have seen in 20 million years," says Richard Feely of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle.
Turning the seas acidic sets off a series of disasters, only some of which can be predicted in advance. Disaster one: The collapse of the oceanic food chain. At the turn of the century, the US, Japanese and German governments were so impressed by the capacity of the oceans to mop up CO2 that they proposed compressing emissions from power plants and pumping the goo into the sea. So a series of tank-experiments were set up to see what would happen. Once the water became strongly acidic, the shells of dozens of sea creatures - from sea urchins to molluscs - simply dissolved, and they died. The food chain collapsed; almost everything else in the experiment died too.
One of the creatures that is killed by acidity is the pteropod, a tiny little sea snail. That doesn't sound like a big deal - until you realise pteropods are the major food source for salmon, herring, cod and pollack. If they die, so does the staple food of hundreds of millions of humans. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Disaster two: the death of coral. Acidic oceans dissolve coral like a fizzing paracetamol in a glass. So the coral reefs - the rainforests of the ocean, home to a quarter of all sea life - are dying at a rate that has staggered the scientists who study them. And the Reefer Madness gets worse: atolls like the Maldives and Tuvalu have foundations made of coral, so they will dissolve and collapse, if rising sea levels don't get them first.
Disaster three: the seas will lose their ability to soak up carbon dioxide. The creatures that currently "eat" carbon dioxide and sink to the bottom of the ocean - shelled plankton - are killed by acidity. The result? A sharp acceleration in global warming up here. There is even a fear the vast amounts of methane stored in the oceans will be destabilised and rise to the surface. The last time this happened, 55 million years ago, it caused warming so rapid most life on earth died. Think of it as the fart at the end of the world. That's why the biological oceanographer Professor David Hutchins says: "Frankly, ocean acidification is apocalyptic in its impact."
But remember: these are only some of the effects on the oceans - and the oceans are only one dimension of global warming. Suddenly the analogy with the al-Qa'ida psychosis doesn't seem so extreme. As the environmental writer Mark Lynas notes: "If we had wanted to destroy as much of life on earth as possible, there would have been no better way of doing it than to dig up and burn as much fossil hydrocarbon as we possible could."
We need a sea change before the seas change irreversibly. That's why I will be going to the Climate Camp. Where will you say you were when the carbon bomb was fired into the atmosphere?
--Johann Hari
©independent.co.uk

185 Comments so far
Show AllOh-oh, here comes ~MIMICCS~ and all of the other crazy global warmng deniers.
So economic collapse is in a race with global warming to see which will decimate life on planet earth.
"If we had wanted to destroy as much of life on earth as possible, there would have been no better way of doing it than to dig up and burn as much fossil hydrocarbon as we possible could."
Good way to look at this. Best strategy for coal, oil, and gas is to leave it where it is, already sequestered in the ground.
Kind a makes all the IEDs , anthrax letters , nuclear bombs... seem like toy guns in comparison , doesn't it ?
Talk about putting problems into rational perspective .
/sarcasm on
Not to worry old chaps, just as soon as bush nukes Iran all the dust from the explosions will cool the planet. Then we can burn more coal and oil too warm it up again. When the planet again heats up we can nuke someone else. Using WMDs to save us from WMDs, thank god for bush!
sarcasm off/
Nietzsche August 4th, 2008 12:42 pm
"So economic collapse is in a race with global warming to see which will decimate life on planet earth."
Well, it is a bit overwhelming, isn't it? I mean, we have so much to choose from: Global warming, economic collapse, peak oil, the next influenza, overpopulation and the resultant diseases, war, terrorism, crime, pollution, poverty... Did I leave anything out?
It's no wonder so many are paralyzed with fear.
A friend was telling me about car accidents in Saudi Arabia. He said that there are very few accidents where an ambulance is necessary. See, they drive so damned fast that there are rarely any survivors in car wrecks. But, the people there have a philosophy: "If it's your day to die, it's your day to die."
Now, I'm not suggesting that we have such a cavalier attitude when it comes to world-altering crises, just that we lighten up enough so that we are not paralyzed by all the bad shit that's going down. We will all die...eventually. What's the use in living in a constant state of fearful subservience? There is much about life, even now, that is good. Living it well is the ultimate revenge. And, it will allow us the breathing room to actually make the changes that are necessary. It beats trying to make changes in a straight jacket.
Don't forget about HAARP
There are Mayors' Projects, and Neighbors' Projects etc etc that can enable you to find out where your town's power comes from, and how to find and implement alternatives.
Nietzsche -- lighten up? "We're all going to die?" By "we" I assume you mean people. Well there's a hell of a lot more life on this poor and possibly doomed planet that just people. We're just the infestation that kills everything else. If I could push a button and end all human life on this planet, leaving it for all the other life forms, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Since that is not within my power, I do whatever I can, wherever I can, to slow global warming, protect wildlife habitat, and fight the human stupidity of people like you who say, no doubt with a self-mollifying sigh, "well, we're all going die die sometime." Don't you give a damn about what you will leave behind you? Telling people to "lighten up" is tantamount to telling them not to care so much, not to feel the urgency that this situation demands from us. There are already enough people who, whether from denial or lack of understanding (from lack of basic intelligence or lack of education) who don't care or don't think about it that those of us who do get it have to work extra hard to overcome those who don't. It's sounds to me as though you understand the situation perfectly well, you just don't want to be bothered.
I sure hope you don't reproduce. And no, before you make some nasty, snappy comeback, my husband and I did not have children, for this very reason.
A global warming denier is the one with their back to the tsunami, holding up their hands saying "All is well!"
KEM PATRICK August 4th, 2008 12:31 pm
TheLorax August 4th, 2008 2:52 pm
So if anyone is not yet convinced or if they don't agree with you they are crazy?
Do you view the assertion of certainty to be the same as proof of certainty?
Disclaimer...I don't know which side is right.
Thomas More:
They're not crazy, they're just clinging to the last remnants of "normalcy" left in their worldviews. The fact that everything is crumbling around them just makes them fight even harder to maintain their illusion of a comfortable and easily explained existence. We should not be too hard on these people because it just strengthens their resistance. I'm sure you would respond in a similar fashion if someone was bashing you over the head with something you disagreed with, even if they were right. Here's the main reason we should all be kind and sympathetic to one another: We are all in this together, and the truth may be so bleak that we all may be wishing for a reprieve one day. The reality is soaking in, deniers or no. Frankly, reading this article makes me feel ill, and I wish I hadn't because I have to get back to work, being a human in this reality with a questionable future.
Well ~THOMAS MORE~, all any half intelligent person has to do is study the issue, listen to both sides and then observe with their own eyes what is occurring in the Arctic. Teh current global warming is a fact and it's caused from the Greenhouse effect in our atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and the only deniers are those who don't wish to hear or accept the truth, loud mouth idiots and the Exxon/Mobil and coal Companies CEOs.
~TED~ We are all going to die someday but we don't have to force the issue, or leave our future generation holding the sack.
I live on a ridge-top, very rurally. I have 5 households of neighbors. They are using water as if it was water--as in the old days: abundant. Now my well is being affected. Mind you, we are 1/4 mile away from one another, each on 18 - 90 acres and no one else lives within a mile or so of us.
So I am, and always have been, very frugal with my water use.
But my neighbors are not.
The scope of getting the US's military, corporations, government and private companies on board with alternative energy is huge. And what about every other country on earth?
Does anyone have any idea how to go about influencing my neighbors or the world?
esarge August 4th, 2008 4:02 pm
Thanks! "We are all in this together" Wish more thought so.
KEM PATRICK August 4th, 2008 4:04 pm
Well, being as you know a person of only one quarter intelligence I'm a bit more challanged. Climate change I believe is a reality, global warming? As I go outside to 107 degree humid heat, I'm getting closer to jumping on the bandwagon.
But as ice is melting on one cap, I understand its forming on the other.
"it's caused from the Greenhouse effect in our atmosphere from burning fossil fuels "
That simply hasn't been established for a scientific certainty that I can find. There is quite a bit of disagreementb in the scientific community as to what is really causing the change in climate.
I guess we could add a forth classification....those that don't see enough evidence so far to be sure idiots.
Granted that its correct, its hard to see what we will be able to do about it. In fact I'll hope you are wrong because there isn't much we can do about it.
"We are suffering from what psychologists call an "external context problem": this is so far outside anything we have experienced before, it instinctively seems it cannot possibly be true, no matter how much evidence washes at our feet."
Which would explain a lot, like: the Bush regime is so much more corrupt and twisted than anything we have experienced before, it instinctively seems it cannot possibly be true. Or: the economy is so much more dire than anything we have experienced before... etc.
Thomas Moore:
I do not think that the snowfall rate at the South pole has increased significantly. That place has always recieved only 5-6 inches of equivalent precipitation a year, it is, ironically, one of the driest continents on Earth. Of course, all the precipitation falls as snow which then doesn't melt.
Instead that snow collects and packs into several continent-spanning glaciers that then 'slowly' work their way to the oceans.
Now what is a FACT, is that the Ross Ice shelf, the Wendell Ice shelf, and there was one other this year have completely collapsed for the first time in an estimated ten thousand years. These are ice shelves in the ocean just off the shores of Antarctica and so they themselves do not increase sea levels. They collapsed because of the same kind of polar warming that is going on at the North pole.
In every single case, when these shore-line ice shelves collapse the rate at which land ice migrates to the ocean increases by factors of 4 or so. It is as if the sea ice shelves were corking up the ice on the land and slowing it's flow. This effect has been recored both in Antarctica and in Greenland where large near-shore ice shelves have suddenly dissappeared.
We know for another fact that Greenland is now losing ice to the sea faster than the rate of snowfall on the Island. I am not certain if we know enough about Antarctica's snowfall rate vs. the current ice flow rate to be able to make such a statement....but clearly the loss of major ice shelves (amounting to an equivalent land area at least the size of Connecticut so far) is causing an effect which is headed in the WRONG direction.
Another myth, by the way, is that Antarctica is getting colder. This was in Micheal Criton's book "State of Fear" which is, I should point out, a work of fiction. At the time he wrote the book the average interior temperature was slightly colder than average. I believe this is no longer true. But what is certainly true is that the seas surrounding Antarctica further north than the deep continental centre have warmed up dramatically.....one reason why all those ice shelves are vanishing. They disappear dramatically too. One month it is there, the next it is entirely broken up, all at once.
Sleep well.
Thomas Moore:
I do not think that the snowfall rate at the South pole has increased significantly. That place has always recieved only 5-6 inches of equivalent precipitation a year, it is, ironically, one of the driest continents on Earth. Of course, all the precipitation falls as snow which then doesn't melt.
Instead that snow collects and packs into several continent-spanning glaciers that then 'slowly' work their way to the oceans.
Now what is a FACT, is that the Ross Ice shelf, the Wendell Ice shelf, and there was one other this year have completely collapsed for the first time in an estimated ten thousand years. These are ice shelves in the ocean just off the shores of Antarctica and so they themselves do not increase sea levels. They collapsed because of the same kind of polar warming that is going on at the North pole.
In every single case, when these shore-line ice shelves collapse the rate at which land ice migrates to the ocean increases by factors of 4 or so. It is as if the sea ice shelves were corking up the ice on the land and slowing it's flow. This effect has been recored both in Antarctica and in Greenland where large near-shore ice shelves have suddenly dissappeared.
We know for another fact that Greenland is now losing ice to the sea faster than the rate of snowfall on the Island. I am not certain if we know enough about Antarctica's snowfall rate vs. the current ice flow rate to be able to make such a statement....but clearly the loss of major ice shelves (amounting to an equivalent land area at least the size of Connecticut so far) is causing an effect which is headed in the WRONG direction.
Another myth, by the way, is that Antarctica is getting colder. This was in Micheal Criton's book "State of Fear" which is, I should point out, a work of fiction. At the time he wrote the book the average interior temperature was slightly colder than average. I believe this is no longer true. But what is certainly true is that the seas surrounding Antarctica further north than the deep continental centre have warmed up dramatically.....one reason why all those ice shelves are vanishing. They disappear dramatically too. One month it is there, the next it is entirely broken up, all at once.
Sleep well.
A video of melting sea ice over the past ~30 years. It shows seasonal changes as well, so when the video first starts, pay attention to the borders of the ice, especially in late summer.
Right click and "SAVE AS" ... the file is about 45 MB:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/all.final.1978-2006.mov
Other information about the state of the cryosphere:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere
I have to say that I am tired of hearing terms like "Generation Zzzzzzzz." This does not apply to me or to anybody I know who is under thirty years old. Yes there are young people who do not care, who lack ambition, who are totally clueless about what is going on in the world, but they do not make up this entire generation. Listen, things started going wrong a very long time ago and to place the clean up on the shoulders of this generation is not only irresponsible, it is also the easy way out. I made this mess, now you fix it for me. This up and coming generation is filled with earth-loving-fired-up-educated people too. What has been left for us to do is overwhelming at times. The question I ask myself is, what kind of an earth do I want to leave behind for my children? Hopefully, this generation will be the first to actually ask themselves this question seriously.
Uhhh ~MANDI~, you say you're tired of the term "generation", you say that term does not apply to you or any you know under the age of thirty. But then you speak of your children and wonder what kind of an Earth do you leave for them and then use the words, "this generation". Sorry, you confuse me.
It very well may be, that your children won't have ANY future if THIS generation does not stop polluting our atmosphere with excess Co2.
Here is a very informative and an important three minute read which compliments this article about global warming.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
The fresh water ice in Antarctic has been thawing at a RAPID pace for the past two years and the thawing amplifies daily. There is enough fresh water ice in Antartica to raise sea levels 70 meters when it melts.
So if you live anywhere near shore lines, Florida, New York city, or New Orleans for examples, purchase some long steel poles to build your next houses frame on.
Oh, and purchase lots of bottled oxygen also. LOTS of it, a lifetime supply.
There is one person who's making a difference every day, I believe. That's the OIL guy who's pushing solar and wind power. This aging brain in my head has a hard time hanging on to names, but I've seen his commercial and was very impressed - just because he is OIL. My son, one of the "this happens every so many million/billion years" kind of guy, saw him, and now he's rethinking his position. I'm sure there are a lot of others out there being influenced the same way.
But I still say the fastest way to make a change is to educate the little people (kids), and they'd hound their parents to death getting them to change their ways.
physicscitizen August 4th, 2008 4:42 pm
"Sleep well."
GEE,THANKS!
Now that I can understand. So you believe we actually have "global warming" rather than just climate change? That it's man made?
Defenestrator August 4th, 2008 5:16 pm
Thanks...interesting.
KEM PATRICK August 4th, 2008 6:53 pm
"It very well may be, that your children won't have ANY future if THIS generation does not stop polluting our atmosphere with excess Co2."
How could you accomplish this? If we are all polluting our atmosphere with excess Co2, how can you get developing nations like China and India to stop? We could control ourselves.
wilmoor- that "OIL guy" is T. Boone Pickens
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan
Defenestrator August 4th, 2008 7:06 pm
Beat me to it. And T Boone has already started.
~THOMAS MORE~ You ask me, "how could you accomplish this?" ___ Accomplish what?
When I used the words "this generation", I was refering to ALL of humanity, not just the people who blog comments here at CD, or just Americans.
How do I get developing nations like India and China to stop pollutiong our atmosphere you also ask of me. I can't stop my neighbors cattle from farting and I have no idea how we can force India or China to do anything. Do you have any ideas on that score?
"Do you have any ideas on that score?"
I certainly don't. We couldn't even get them to agree to the Koyoto accords. So failing that, even if we could be sure what to do, we can't get others to go along.
So what you are actually saying is, if you are right, in your opinion, we are screwed?
~THOMAS MORE~ When more than ten thousand scientists world wide, have the same opinion that humanity is the cause of our current global warming and only a few say otherwise, I tend to take the word of the vast majority.
I especially listen to their opinions when they have well proven, that our use of fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution, has increased Co2 in our atmosphere by 25%. Here's a current link with excellent information on the subject.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080423_methane.html
It is not my opinions that matter Thomas, It's the opinions of those I quote here that matter. I beleve them, that's my perogative. As to our being screwed, I fear that's a fact.
Cool idea obscuring the subject with the WMD title, and no pictures of glaciers or ice caps! The trolls haven't spotted this one yet.
This is truly frightening stuff. If the ocean ecosystem collapses... unimaginable. I had thought we were reaching some sort of saturation point and dissolved CO2 would flatten out. This is what I'll be reading tonight:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/
REAL OBSTRUCTIONS TO CARBON POLLUTION CURTAILMENT:
We now have the potential technology to mitigate the effects of carbon pollution. However, until we erase the abusive policies of the Bush administration and their energy cohorts, who condone manipulation of science to curtail these critical reforms, they will never be possible.
The most significant obstacle is not this administration–instead it's the apathetic and unlearned populace who have allowed them to steal elections, and then tolerate their unprecedented wars on our planet.
wilmore, the oil guy is T Boone Pickens.
Thank you for that informative link ~BBR-001~.
The Arctic sea ice has reduced by 50% in the past 50 years, the majority of that reduction since 2006, the year it shrank to a record low, a low which has now been surpassed in 2007 by an area the size of Alaska. No small potatoes there gang.
Where Robert Peary saw solid ice in the Arctic that appeared to him to stretch to infinity, is now "open water". Methane is releasing from those open waters as the permafrost thaws.
Currently the methane in our atmosphere is 1,800ppb, which is a bit troubling for many cliamtic or atmospheric scientists. There is 3,000 times that amount of methane safely frozen in the Arctic's tundra, waters, and perma frost. When the Arctic thaws suffecienlty, the methane will release and then we can multiply the "troubling" 1,800 by 3,000, which will equal 5,400,000ppb. That figure is more than a bit troubling.
Ten years or so ago, the ice melting at the poles was predidcted to play out over the next 100+ years. Well golllleee, guess what has happened? Now since mid 2007, the melt is happening on a scale scientists are now describing as "OVERNIGHT". They are amazed at what they are seeing. I'm amazed too, and even more amazed when someone says the Arctic is not thawing. Those type of people could pet a three legged goat and swear under oath it had six legs.
The massive __Larson B __ ice shelf in Antartica, the size of Rhode Island, had been stable for at least the past 10,000 years and it literlly disapppeared within 21 days. Any who say Antartica is not thawing is reading the wrong literature.
Why don't we just stop breeding like rabbits? Its good for the planet and maybe some jobs will open up.
The guy below is obviously crazy.
http://www.robertovacca.com/warming.html
HAARP. High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. Havent heard about that in a while. First heard it talked about in the mid 90s. A project to manipulate the jet stream if I recall correctly.
Can anyone link me to a site where I can find out the names and qualifications of all the scientists who believe man is causing "catastrophic" global warming. Maybe I am wrong, how can I argue if 10,000 scientists believe this to be the case. I must know the truth and be free of my denier status. Show it to me so I can be born again and saved.
Key word, catastrophic.
This is from he who shall not be named.
"The fresh water ice in Antarctic has been thawing at a RAPID pace for the past two years and the thawing amplifies daily. There is enough fresh water ice in Antartica to raise sea levels 70 meters when it melts."
First of all, this refers to a 2 year trend. Thats not climate, thats weather (and one of the ice shelves is deteriorating in winter when temperatures are well below zero, mayube it's just too heavy from all that precipitation). Second, it uses a term "rapid". No numbers or context, no supporting evidence to justify the use of "rapid". Then it tells you there is enough ice in the Antactica to raise sea levels 70 meters when it melts. If all the ice in the Antarctic melted, it would raise sea levels over 200 meters, not 70 meters. But nobody is seriously predicting this will happen because of mans CO2, except perhaps some other terrorists. The comment just serves to promote fear and terror, but thats what terrorists do.
BTW, 5,400,000 ppb methane is 0.54% methane. And thats assuming it happens all at once since methane does not last long in the air before it is broken down into CO2 and H20.
Over the last 1 million years, we have had 8 ice ages that lasted on average 115,ooo years, and interglacials like we are in now that have lasted 12,000 years. We are almost 12,000 into the current interglacial. Ice shelves that were stable 10,000 years have been affected by 10,000 years of warming. History say another ice age is looming.
REBUTTAL TO THOSE WHO DENY THE VALIDITY OF GLOBAL WARMING
Special interests argue that the current warming trends follow historic warming cycles, and hence reflect natural weather patterns--but they omit obvious differences: The earlier warming trends developed at slower rates which permitted the ecosystems to adapt. Morever they resulted from temporary natural events, which allowed transitions back to normal temperature patterns--by contrast, the current warming patterns result from artificial causes that will only intensify unless mitigated.
By all indicators, global warming will self perpetuate as the melting ice sheets absorb rather than reflect heat, as the melting permafrost releases more CO2 & methane, and the list goes on. Inundation of low lying areas, spread of tropical diseases to temperate latitudes, sea life destruction from changing ocean chemistry, & currents, are only some potential consequences.
Often overlooked is the fact that, the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were no issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.
Contrary to right wing assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our rejection of Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution. With our participation in international efforts, China & India could no longer use our non-compliance as an excuse for their non-participation.
The US rejections of Kyoto, and later the Bali Conference, underscore the dangerous control that special interests exercise over this administration's policies. Their distortions of scientific data typifies their unconscionable war on science. Evidence linking carbon pollution to warming has long been as close to certain as science can be. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.
The environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution can only worsen if we allow this administration, guided special interests, to continue their war against our planet.
Hallibarton and Blechtel will build a 3000 mile levee around Florida and little Manhattan. The elites have your best interests at heart, so you can leave all the decisions to them. Now please pay up.
Mandi Locke, the responsibility is everyone's no matter what.
girlinworld: "Does anyone have any idea how to go about influencing my neighbors or the world?"
The world outside the USA generally doe not need the help of Americans in embracing social/environmental responsibility.
In your local area, you can treat your neighbors with respect, educate them on the water problem, suggest changes, and the rest is up to them. You can also propose rules at the local government level.
As for the US government, you can ask your federal reps to take actions during the current period that uphold your principles, to earn your vote on election day. When they fail, you vote third party.
~MIMICCS~ When an ice shelf has been stable for at least (10,000 years) and suddenly it breaks up and melts in (21 days), that's considered to be "RAPID" in the judgment of most clear thinking people. Now if it took 21 days to gain a hardon, that would be "SLOW". ___You understand, "rapid versus slow"?
You sure it is (200 METERS) MIMI? I thought it was near (200 FEET.) I may be wrong about the amount of feet or meters the sea levels will rise when Antartica thaws suffeciently. Well, either one would be far enough to sink Disney World.
You give YOUR opinions, but nothing to back it up, such as saying, "But NOBODY is seriously predicting this will happen, etc, etc, blah, blah". But you criticize others for offering their opinions and say they have no supporting evidence.
I offer links to back up mine, read em and argue them with some credibility. Hell, this article is supporting evidence, do you claim this author is wrong also. ___ Of course you do. ___ LOL, but you are not funny.
"Methane does not last long in the atmosphere". Yeah MIMI, it takes about 100 years for Ch4 to break down to Co2 and methane is 25% more potent as a "Greenhouse gas" than Co2 is. That's the problem, as the methane may burst out all at once, as it did one time in the past and almost all life was eradicated within a few hours.
Reference: Michael J. Benton's book, "When Life Nearly Died". He states it is about to re-occur, unless we stop burning coal.
And the Anartic thaw is NOT a two year trend ~MIMI~, the thaw became "RAPID" or "fast", "very quickly" during the past two years. You have a reading disability ~MIMI~.
You also wrote: "History says another ice age is looming". Is that a fact?
When in history has there been a time when humans burned fossil fuels at the rate we have during the past 200 years? The annual discarge of Co2 into the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels, is equivelant to that which would be emitted by 17,000 volcanos.
In a previous post, Ted Markow srote:
"Well, it is a bit overwhelming, isn't it? I mean, we have so much to choose from: Global warming, economic collapse, peak oil, the next influenza, overpopulation and the resultant diseases, war, terrorism, crime, pollution, poverty… Did I leave anything out?
It's no wonder so many are paralyzed with fear."
I think one of the reasons why many Americans, in particular, are paralyzed with fear is because they don't see any meaningful solutions to the above problems being offered by the political establishment, that is to say, by either of the two major parties.
(I'm not saying that this refers to you, Ted, it's just a thought that comes to mind, re. your post.)
I think that for many people this "fearful paralysis" goes hand-in-hand with the cynical, defeatist attiude of "vote-for-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils." In other words, it's a form of ... quiet desperation.
The thing is, though, these problems *are* solvable. Humankind has the wherewithal to solve these problems. But NOT given the vision of those in power. NOT given the priorities of those in power.
Those currently in power represent the greedy and the short-sighted -- the exploiter of people as well as of the earth's natural resources.
It seems to me that Americans, by and large, "give up too easily." Radical changes need to take place and one way those radical changes can take place is by electing leaders who are radically different than those now in power.
Vote Nader. Or else vote McKinney. Or else vote socialist. ... I know all the reasons why that's not a good idea. But there's one reason why voting that way *is* a good idea. ... Because it represents sanity over insanity; life over death.
Are we a successful species? It seems we have killed ourselves off in pretty much record time! Men may come, and men may go..but Pachamama abides. (Personally....I say good riddance to us)
ACC >>Don't you give a damn about what you will leave behind you?<<
Sure we care, but fact of the matter is that there is now and always has been change. If it is our time to end, then that's it. Earth will be here as always and life will continue. Don't get your panties in a bunch over the Polar Bear or whatever, they are going to die out and someday there will be something else. None of this is a crisis to the Earth, or the Polar Bears for that matter, they don't care. Nature doesn't give a crap about us or any other thing for that matter. Only people care so start caring about them is my advice ACC.
Kem Patrick - You're right, my use of the word "generation" is confusing in that post. Still, I find it hard to believe you missed my point. What I was trying to say is that people constantly use terms like "Generation Zzzzz," when describing my age group and it really pisses me off. Lack of ambition, when it comes to the environment, clearly cannot be blamed on one generation. It is a collective responsibility.
Nobody here is saying that global warming is not urgent, but I refuse to live my life in fear. I will not teach my children that they are "screwed", that the end is near. For me, it is more important to empower them and educate them when it comes to the environment. Nobody ever did that for me, so now I'm catching up.
One way or the other we seem determined to exterminate ourselves.
War and global climate change are both potential planet-destroyers, and neither can be given more urgency than the other.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898
SKIPPYAGOGO
ha ha ha, that made me laugh on a par with mordechai shiblikov's george 'wanker' bush................
KELMER
haarp is still there but very quiet...............and apparently its use is for communications with submarines.........ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa
"Paralyzed with fear" = learned helplessness. There are so many diverse societal forces at work in hindering critical thinking by ever increasing numbers that a sociologist could probably take five years of research and write a book and still not reveal all the reasons why we are dumber and saddled with inertia. Not to include this group, because for the most part we are progressives and we seek each other out so that we can read and engage in these dialogues. I wish I could be more optimistic and believe that a few million progressive, environmentally aware people could change our country's direction, but I fear that big business has gotten a stranglehold on government and it would take a social movement of vast size to break that hold. Somebody please say I'm wrong and offer a realistic plan. I'm all eyes and ears. Peace
PBK
i would really like to reassure you and say it's all a bad dream, but i fear they have us by the short and curlies and we are doooooooooomed.................(how's that for paralyzed with fear???)