Dispatch from Denver: Making Climate Change THE Issue
DENVER - Author and environmental leader David Orr is upset about the corruption of language in the United States. He doesn't like how some groups have co-opted phrases like "pro-life" and "conservative" to promote their own political agendas, which often have little to do with saving lives or acting conservatively. But the greatest travesty, he says, is the way Americans throw around the term "global warming."
"This isn't 'global warming,'" he exclaims with an air of severity and
deep concern. "This is planetary destabilization. And it's already
begun. The question is: How do we arrest this before it gets to the
point of catastrophe?"
Orr joined a panel of top climate scientists and activists this morning at The Big Tent, a new media and activist hub just steps away from the action inside the Democratic National Convention here in Denver this week.
Drawing from material in his latest book, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Earth Policy Institute founder Lester Brown explained the scope of the impending planetary destabilization as well as what needs to be done to avert catastrophe and what is scientifically achievable now and in the near future.
The Scope
There is mounting concern about the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Brown said, explaining that scientists recently witnessed a glacier there flowing at 2 meters an hour -- not the typical 2-3 meters per year they're used to seeing. If that sheet collapses into the ocean, the Earth will experience a 23-foot rise in sea level, Brown said, noting that massive relocations of populations would result -- all across the planet.
Scientists are also increasingly concerned about the melting of glaciers in Asia's Himalaya range. Those glaciers feed the major rivers of Asia, and as their seasonal flows are diminishing, so are the hopes of farmers and villagers downstream, who rely on those rivers to raise crops and sustain human life across the continent of 4 billion people.
And last Sep. 16, scientists recorded the annual minimum amount of ice in the Arctic region at a level 22-percent lower than it ever was before, explained Chuck Kutscher, a climate scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. Those numbers, according to Kutscher, are "off the charts."
"The Earth could be free of Arctic summer ice within our lifetime," Kutscher added. "This has not happened as far as we know in 130,000 years -- as long as human beings have existed on the planet.
"If you had a gauge in your car reading in the red zone, how long would you feel comfortable driving down the highway like that? That's where we are now."
Added Orr: "This issue is threatening our life, liberty, and property."
What Needs to Be Done
Many politicians are talking about cutting carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. They say this is what is politically feasible. Brown and many other top scientists have looked at the problem in a different light, asking not what is "feasible," but rather what is necessary to avert global catastrophes. Working from that, he says, we can shift the bar on what is politically "feasible."
A brief example illustrates Brown's point. Shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt laid out massive arms-production goals and asked the automobile industry to lead the effort. Most industrial leaders thought the targets were unreachable, but Roosevelt shifted the bar on what was feasible by taking bold action, explained Brown. "He said, you don't understand, we're going to ban the sale of new automobiles in this country," which freed up the industry to fully join the war effort.
Instantly, a previously inconceivable goal became "feasible," and all the arms productions goals were exceeded within a matter of months, said Brown, who has been described by the Washington Post as "one of the world's most influential thinkers."
So what do scientists say is necessary to avert planetary destabilization today? According to Brown, the scientific research now shows that an 80-percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is needed not by 2050, but by 2020. And Brown and his colleagues say it can be done.
What Can Change Right Now
"If we were to move to the most efficient lighting technologies available today, we could reduce electricity demand by 12 percent," Brown says, noting that a worldwide effort to "ban the bulb" would allow the immediate closure of 270 coal-fired power plants.
There is a growing grassroots movement opposing the construction of any new coal-fired power plants in the United States, Brown said, adding that we may be at a "tipping point" on coal-fired energy.
Kutscher says energy efficiency alone can reduce U.S. energy use by 57 percent.
And beyond efficiency, carbon emissions can be drastically reduced by generating vastly more energy from cleaner sources like the wind, sun, and Earth's heat.
"In the new energy economy, we see 40 percent of the world's electricity coming from wind," Brown added. "That would require building roughly a million and a half wind turbines over the next dozen years. Now a million and a half may sound like a lot, but we make 65 million cars a year."
Hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created in the process.
And what about cars: The United States consumes more gasoline than the next 20 countries combined, Brown said. But he believes U.S. driving habits don't have to change to stabilize the climate.
"The answer is plug-in hybrids," he explained, referring to automobiles that use gas-electric hybrid engines and can be plugged in when not in use to allow them to travel considerable distances without using any gasoline at all. Five companies are close to bringing these cars to market, Brown said, noting that Toyota may be selling a version next year and GM could have a plug-in hybrid on the market in 2010.
Algeria, which is currently planning to develop 6,000 megawatts of solar-energy generating capacity to export to Europe, has enough solar energy in its vast deserts "to power the world economy," Brown said. "I mention that just to give a sense of how much renewable energy there is out there. Three states in the U.S. -- Kansas, North Dakota, and Texas -- have enough energy capacity to power the whole country."
And Indonesia, the fourth most populous nation in the world, is planning to produce enough geothermal energy, which is derived by harnessing the heat generated within the Earth's crust, to satisfy one quarter of its energy needs.
Randy Hayes, climate policy officer at the World Future Council, cited the German "feed-in tariff law" as a model for how short-term government incentives can help launch a renewable-energy-based economy. The German law rewards people for feeding energy into the system, Hayes explained, saying we must transform "from being a nation of energy consumers to being a nation of energy producers."
"Wouldn't it be nice if you put solar panels on your house, you got a check in the mail? Farmers in Germany now have a new revenue stream," Hayes said, noting that "cloudy Germany" -- with solar-energy capabilities roughly equivalent to those of just the U.S. state of Alaska -- has become the world's leader in solar energy generation.
So What's Holding Us Back?
"We have the solutions. We just need to come up with the political will to get those technologies out there even faster," said Kutscher of the National Renewable Energy Laboratories. All the scientists and activists on today's panel agreed that politicians will only institute the necessary economic incentives and punishments to jumpstart a renewable-energy-based economy when ordinary Americans rise up and demand it en masse.
Hayes founded the activist Rainforest Action Network in 1985, and he's ready to take to the streets to get political leaders to take comprehensive action to avert planetary destabilization.
"We believe in using nonviolent civil disobedience at times when it's necessary to incite change. It takes me to jail sometimes," he said, adding: "As I look around the room, I see some of the people I've been to jail with here today."
"We can't have incrementalism now," Hayes concluded. "We can't have half measures. We don't have time to lose. We have to hit the ground running."
Betsy Taylor's group, 1Sky, is mobilizing Americans to contact their elected representatives in every Congressional district of the country.
"Now is the time to speak the truth and bring new people into the political process. We'll only do this from the bottom up -- if people way beyond Denver are getting on the phone and calling their member of Congress and saying 'I want to talk about this.'"
Taylor appeared to grow emotional when she spoke about the future of her grandchildren, and wondered if Americans would provide the groundswell of activism required, in time.
"Are we going to have the biggest political failure in the history of the world?"
"Are we going to create a human wave that knocks down the doors of Congress and knocks down the doors of the White House? Or are we going to do just a little bit?"
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
56 Comments so far
Show All~NOTHING ELSE IS THIS IMPORTAN
Except perhaps that a lt of great people are blogging comments again.
HI COCO, good gal, BBr, USAN, Siroxrose and all.
"This isn't 'global warming,'"
I knew it. Ü
Driving down I-5 from Seattle to So. Cal. at 60 mph in our Honda, with my wife, for the return leg of our annual, there was something very indicative of our plight. It shocked me. The Lake Shasta waterline is at least 200 ft down from the tree line. The bottom is stirred up by power boats.
I have never seen Mt. Shasta so devoid of snow, the visible old glacial ice, of which there is very little, a dirty brown.
The Sacramento River originates on Mt. Shasta with springs, then is fed from snow melt and rain into feeder streams and smaller rivers directly or that are stored in Lake Shasta, and others, which are released into the Sacramento. I believe it is then sold to water companies, municipalities, corporate Central Valley farmers, family farms, etc.
This is the weird part, to me. The Sacramento is running full, the Russian River is down. I have not seen the other major rivers in Calif. this year, so I cannot comment to far. I do know the Sierras did not do well with snowfall.
I have been a passenger, or driven, every road, usually on a motorcycle, from So. Cal to the Northwest, and back, since 1960. I have never witnessed this extreme natural condition.
Most of my landscaping is drought resistant. My lawn is dead. I have cacti in pots I will use to replace it. I also have natural flora all over.
If there were better incentives for solar, I would do it in a New York minute. That is what needs to be done. But it will go to oil, coal, corporate solar electric projects so the homeowner can pay more with minimal incentive to produce.
Same shit, different bossman.
Can anyone here really keep a straight face and tell me you are cool with Al Gore's House using more energy a month than mine does in a year...and tell me you think he has credibility?
I think that moment was when I became a skeptic...
Snow wolf,
Why do you insist upon spreading disinformation. READ, will you.
If you weren't so lazy you could read about how homes the size and age of Gore's home would be consuming three times what Gore uses in particular with most that energy coming from the power grid. Instead Gore has installed solar panels (as large as he could given the local zoning restrictions that he also pressed to change so that solar could be used in Belle Meade. It was during the period of appeal waiting for the local council to rule on the changes that the nasty articles appeared about him. He had been in the process of installing them way before the articles came out but was waiting for approval.
He also had a surge in use of grid energy but that was during a time where he had to turn off the solar panel system while he had geothermal installed. Geothermal to increase his use of CLEAN energy. Again the media reports that he used too much energy and refuse to print the whole story.
Man, you need to read more. Use that computer to read instead of spouting off on things you refuse to give both sides of the story on. Read the facts from BOTH sides.
Geez, teaching you young ones is a difficult chore if you are unwilling to comitt to doing your homework.
Well here is my source (they are pretty thorough)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
here their excuse is its also their office...but they also mention the "home improvements" you site
The Guy is selling snake oil
Gore not only uses his home as a home, but also as the center for his global warming fight. Basically the home is his corporate headquarters, too.
If you were to compare the energy uses of Gore's "home" with an international corporations with the same number of employees as the Gores' offices I would bet you would find his home/headquarters to be light years ahead and very green.
Snowwolf, the point of going green is not based on how much power you consume rather be concerned about the source of the power you consume. I don't give a hoot how much he or anyone else uses as long as it's based on clean energy and for an interim cash inflow buying credits that go directly into development of more clean energy which benefits the planet (including you).
I just wish Bush was half as smart and had half as much conscience as Al Gore. If he did we wouldn't have been bleeding America dry in blood and treasury for the last 5 years for his whoring oil pigs.
You best wake up. You're on the wrong side of eternity. You're focusing on the wrong snake.
While I respect Orr, I disagree with his tactics of holding a begging bowl out the the do nothing Democrats. The Dems represent perpetual plan B. I think it time environmentalists vote for the candidates that actually have a plan that represents their values: Nader or Mckinney. Wake up David, because you are barking up the wrong tree.
It is quite simple - if the Dems were crazy enough to make climate change THE issue of the election, they will LOSE! Climate change can only be addressed once you actually have the power and are willing to roll the dice.
The world we can change is our own little world. Creating a sustainable personal environment is our responsibility. Those who have been taught resource exploitation through Christian Dominion will not change. Others who have bought into competition, greed, and selfishness will not change. People who express rights absent responsibility will not change. These are forms of rigid thinking that will not be broken without tragedy and hardship. Rigid thinking is not a self sustaining life skill, it is a mechanism of self reassurance motivated by fear. Fear of the future will only make them more rigid. I have not yet seen anything demonstrated that will change rigid thinking. Time is up and they refuse to recognize it. The circle of destruction is fear, denial, death.
HI KEM, glad to see you are still with us..........
latest headlines: arctic ocean sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews
btw, can anyone tell me how to get another password. the one i've been given stretches to the moon and back............
top of the page, on the right, "my account"
thank you. that worked..............shame we can't solve the global warming/water shortage/food crisis that simply.
Climate change is a political tool of the elites. Its purpose:
(1) More control over humans.
(2) Sneak nuclear energy back in the ecological back door.
And in the case of the Democrats:
(3) To have a Big Issue to discuss--so they don't have to talk about their toadying to the Bush Administration, their continuation of the attacks on civil liberties, and their absolute servitude to neo-con (fascist) foreign policy.
************************************
No one who supports the police state and the military-industrial complex can be called "progressive".
YAWN...
Your name gives away the stereotype I'm envisioning all too easily.
Cute theories, but ultimately a waste of breathing. And the days for healthy breathing are numbered, anyway.
SnowWolf: Is a cooling trend starting, or is it the deniers' last hurrah?
The longer we wait to cut CO2 emissions, the harder we will hit the wall, and the bigger the risk of reduced "global dimming" when industrial, construction and transportation activity slow to a crawl. Dimming is partly masking the greenhouse effect for now.
The world's population has pretty much caught up with the "green revolution" in agriculture. It didn't take long. Large scale crop failures anywhere and we will have to become a very, very generous race. The human race is screwed.
'morning Kem!
Climate is Cyclical
The Earth Warms, the Earth Cools...been going on for Millenia
There have been Ice Ages...and they have passed...what do you think caused the end of the last major ice age?...Clovis People driving their SUV's or emissions from Mastodon Farts?
During the Dinosaur era the whole earth was much warmer...dare I say tropical? life flourished....much more than there is today
I won't say I'm a denier...but I am skeptical...especially in the face of lots and lots of evidence that they got this cycle wrong
it is late August...I live very close to Washington D.C. We should be sweating our Ba um..butts off...and it feels like Late October out there...leaves are falling
Just keep an open mind...and fervently pray that we ARE warming...
~Snonwolf~, did you happen to see the glacier that just broke off in Greenland that is the size of Manhatten? ___ Guess one could call that the "tip of an iceberg". Did you know that our Coast Gaurd has just dispatched more cutters to patrol the Arctic becaue of the massive ice breakups? ____ "Cold weather" is the problem huh?
Co2 and methane in the atmosphere are rising by the second as you sit there typing funny stuff about global cooling.
"Data from ice cores indicate that from AD 800 to 1300 the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate.Trees and herbaceous plants grew there, and the climate initially allowed farming of livestock as in Norway.[4]"
Ok...so the Norse Peoples will once again be able to Farm in Greenland
Even if the worst happened and the coastal regions here flooded it would take years...thats a long time to walk away from the beach
I honestly hope we are warming...but I don't think so
I will not debate "word phrases" with you ~MISS ANGELL~ but I will repeat that the climate change our world is experiencing is caused by "global warming" which this time is not caused by nature. _____It is caued from "humanity burning coal and oil" for the paat 200+ years and it has to stop and that is the ___MAJOR ISSUE___ humanity faces. One may ignore it, make jokes about it, deny it, say it's mother nature and it has happend before, and that won't change a thing about the Arctic thawing like it has not thawed in over 600,000+ years. And the last time it thawed, it did so over "millions of years" in time, not 20 plus years. NOTHING should be of more importance than to address that issue. If you disagree with what I posted about it, that's fine, ____ then argue the link I offered and tell us it it's not an issue and that the author and those he quotes are wrong. ____Global warming caused by humanity burning fossil fuels is "THE najor ISSUE" Angel, and I don't like it either.
6.) Legislate the Mormons and Catholics to adhere to a responsible change in their belief systems. They want to mix church and state? Well, here's a DAMN good reason to let them do it!
meanwhile Muslims in europe are having a birthrate of 8 or 9 children...and they aren't going to listen to your sensible suggestions on zero population growth
besides...it seems that at the moment the evidence is showing that we are entering a hundred year cycle of Global Cooling...not Warming
The Wheels are starting to come off the Global Warming myth
Global Cooling is more dangerous to the World
Those who are crowing about the recent “cooling” need only do one thing: pick a set of temperature anomalies, Hadley or GISS, for example, and plot 10 year and 30 year trends. Once you step back from the variability of annual noise, the signal is unmistakable.
If we get 5 years of cooling, you have a story.
What we’ve had is 3 months of cooling, or more accurately, 3 months of less intense warming. As compared to all published results there is no debate. The overall trend is up, up, up.
I suppose you believe global warming will be GOOD for the planet, failing to understand that the microflora has been designed by evolution to be tailored to a very minor range of temperatures and atmospheric conditions.
As the old cliche says " Ignorance is bliss."
I believe I read somewhere that global warming would cause a variance in the Gulf Stream that would result in a reduction in the flow of warm water to Europe thereby resulting in a mini Ice Age for most of Europe. Ironic turn of events but if true I would reckon that it points out the fact that not all of the planet would be sweltering in the event of temperatures rising. I don’t mean this in defense of global warming but to point out how unpredictable things could get as far as human life being able to be sustained here on Earth.
Population growth is mainly driven by food supplies. Food supplies are in turn mainly driven by energy supplies. Mankind's contemporary energy supplies are largely fossil fuels. Population growth requires evermore food, which requires evermore fossil fuel, which ultimately calls for evermore climate change. Conversely, by reducing fossil fuel consumption, food supply must decline, and therefore human populations decline as a result.
Those who believe fossil fuels are a finite resource, thereby accept that mankind's population must decline along with fossil fuel depletion, whether we like it or not.
The remaining question is
Can Humanity part ways with fossil fuels, whilst still maintaining some grace and dignity?
I suspect that it shouldn't be that hard, after all, fossil fuels have only been the dominant energy source for about 7 generations. If life before fossil fuels was good enough for hundreds of our ancestors, save the last 7, why shouldn't it be good enough for us today?
Which brings us to the final question
Will we destroy our Planet, rather than accept a lifestyle enjoyed and accepted by the bulk of our ancestors? These ancestors include the authors of our Bible, our Torah, our Qur’an, our History.
Food for thought.
Where did Mankind get it's energy before fossil fuels?
LETS BAND TOGETHER PEOPLE! IT'S THE NEW WORLD ORDER!
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT AN ISSUE! IT IS A FACT OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET! IT IS ONLY AN ISSUE WHEN WE GO AGAINST THE NATURAL PROGRESSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVOLUTION.
Please excuse me. I meant (within a few short years time) in that prior blog, ___ not ONE year's time. It's going to be less than twenty years though, maybe ten or so. We humans must initiate a massive clean energy program right away and ban burning all coal world wide for starters. The world leaders must all be made fully aware of the seriousness of it _______ and believe it.
~The ___issue___ is the election, Obma versus McCain." Wait, maybe the issue is the economy? Oh, but what about abotrionk, over-population? How about the occupation of Iraq and OIL? _____ Nop, it's polar bears and honey bees. Hillary and Bush are not very important at the moment.
NOTHING --- NOTHING,--- NOTHING,--- is as importnt as global warming, the resulting climate change, the world's melting glaciers and the thawing Arctic.
NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When the Arctic's methane gas is released into our atmosphere, global warming will be out of the contol of humanity. Whe that happens within the nextt very short years time, almost all life, down to the microbal level will be eradicted on this water world we have t live on. Therefore, that being a fact of life and reality, how can anything else actully be of extreme importance?
We must establish priorities!!! If someone is about to kill us, we don't worry about our doctor appointment, which is important enough, but not when we're about to be shot and killed. Well, we are not about to be kiled, but we are rapidly running out of time to make sure we aren't. That real threat includes our children BTW.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
Today until November 4, 2008, Election Day, the issue is ending Republican rule.
if what is needed is a wave of people to knock down the doors in washington, is hard to say which would be a better outcome-mccain or obama. there is already too much reliance on the government, i'm affraid an obama win leads to people sitting back and waiting to see what he can do. leaving the clock ticking and risking weak results.
it should be said i am not a republican, but sovling any of americas problems come down to a wave of citizen demands.
'Meet the New Boss...same as the Old Boss.'
************************************
No one who supports the police state and the military-industrial complex can be called "progressive".
They're leaking it out to you in drops, folks...
Should a glacier cut loose into the Atlantic it would be likely to cause, in addition to sealevel rise, a tsunami that would affect N EU coast and perhaps trigger that cracked island in the Azores (Antilles?) that is said to be ready to slide, thereby sending a tsunami to the US east coast. This is what they mean by "forcings". I would take it a bit farther and expect a "forcing of the forcings" such as: these waves loosing undersea methane, or the angular momentum of the earth's rotation being tweaked by the flow of water to the equatorial bulge, thus inciting the tectonic plates to move, increasing undersea volcanism which would more or less flash heat the oceans and the atmosphere...
The urgency that our "leaders" don't get is clearly obtainable from a study of the ice core data charts of the IPCC (and Gore's book-Inconv Truth), and the simple deduction that in order for there to have been 650ky of data over six cycles of ice ages, the tipping point and subsequent successful climate correction/reversal must need to have occurred BEFORE the ice melted off Greenland. From the data we see that we have run GHGs well beyond historical norms. Simply put, this burning hydrocarbons for profit and fun must stop cold just so we can hope for a normal, successful climate reversal. If we can come to that collective resolution, we have a 50/50 chance that history will continue in some fashion. If we cannot, someone may get to try again in 80,000 years.
Dear people, I'm not trying to frighten, and I hope I haven't slipped my gears---I am just connecting the dots as I see them. I encourage everyone to do the research and read the readily available books, etc. USGS, NOAA/NWS, form your own opinions and respond accordingly. The politicians will be the last to act. The corporations are too wedded to the status quo, inflicted with the "Titanic" mind set, and fatally enthralled with concentrating wealth and power to make the jump.
It's up to us.
I think Rep. Dennis Kucinich put his finger on it when he said "Wake Up, America!"
The Robber Barons intend to completely destroy our American government and the civilization that goes with it and replace it with corporate anarchy. It is the Great Satan that is preaching "God, Guns and Gays" and abusing women's rights while murdering and maiming women and children all over the world. Yes, Wake Up, America lest you be cast out!
Democrats may TALK about climate change but they'll follow whatever the corporate polluters order them to. Utter scum.
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, what you always get is the GREATER evil.
"THE issue is NOT climate change. THE issue is world overpopulation. Track ANY problem in the country or the globe and it will ALWAYS come back to overpopulation. EVERYTHING--without exception." by Clypped-Eagle. I am wondering and going to watch how many others will get that this is the only issue everyone needs to be concerned about. All other issues are fluff and time wasting.
laffingbear August 26th, 2008 6:09 pm
"THE issue is NOT climate change. THE issue is world overpopulation. Track ANY problem in the country or the globe and it will ALWAYS come back to overpopulation. EVERYTHING--without exception." by Clypped-Eagle. I am wondering and going to watch how many others will get that this is the only issue everyone needs to be concerned about. All other issues are fluff and time wasting."
If over-population plays the principal role in global-problems, "without exception". Perhaps a closer look at World population is in order?
Questions:
Does Human-population vary historically?
What precipitated any noteworthy changes?
Radical growths in population, require radical growths in food supply.
Radical growths in food supply require explanation.
So the article proposes a solution that could be in effect by 2020. What is your solution to reduce population to an acceptable level by 2020?
Solution to reduce population by 2020? Simple, (s)elect MadKane -- he'll reduce the population before 2012...(snark)
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round
The problem with grass roots rising up is that many people are uninformed, too busy just survivng day to day, or are misinformed by the GW denial establishment.
Other than environmental writers and activists, leadership has come from companies investing in renewable energy sources, some governors denying coal-fired power plant permits, professional scientists in the US Governnment (NASA, NOAA, EPA...), the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership among others. In Spain, Portugal and Germany, government has mandated renewable sources with some success. (Germany apparently plans on replacing nuclear with some coal-fired.)
The next administration and congress need to:
1. Cap GHG emissions and define reduction MANDATES. Make it law.
2. Define the strategy for achieving these goals.
Cap and Trade and Carbon Taxes aren't going to do it.
Decide on nuclear power and live with the decision.
EVERYONE needs to cut back at home, on the road, and at work.
Carrots: Tax incentives and grants. Government contracts...
Sticks: Cut off your energy. Padlock your place of business. Put you in jail.
Communities must provide conservation assistance to homeowners and small businesses.
3. Put the plan in place, enforce and correct it as necessary.
Be ready to enforce energy rationing if necessary.
Fund increased research by academia, corporations and the government.
4. Make exporters to the US prove they are also reducing GHG emissions, and screw the WTO if it interferes. Exporting our GHG emissions to China and Mexico is self-delusion.
I don't think it will happen. Even the Kyoto signers are building dozens of new coal-fired plants. We will talk and play with it until its too late, and it will be too late in the "third world" first.
yeah, go nuclear. That's the ticket. Lets replace our problem with global warming with the problem of having a planet full of deadly radioactive wastes we don't know what to do with. That'll certainly solve all our problems.
My web page of this article displays a box with:
"You can't request more than 20 challenges without solving them. Your previous challenges were flushed."
Whay could that mean?
I got that same notice a short while back and have no idea what it means either. It happened during this changeover that CD is doing. Nothing changed for me though.
THE issue is NOT climate change. THE issue is world overpopulation. Track ANY problem in the country or the globe and it will ALWAYS come back to overpopulation. EVERYTHING--without exception.
Scratch Open A Cynic And You Will Find An Angry Idealist.
So the article proposes a solution that could be in effect by 2020. What is your solution to reduce population to an acceptable level by 2020?
Vasectomies not abortions. (snark)
1.) Let the old and the sick die gracefully.
2.) Two children MAXIMUM per family...by legislation.
3.) Penalize on taxes those with more than two children--don't reward with tax breaks the more children you have.
4.) EDUCATION about the seriousness of country/world overpopulation.
5.) Pass out condoms, pills, and other anti-pregnancy items like candy starting in high school.
(Preferably ON REQUEST without making the requester feel like a "bad" or immoral person.
6.) Legislate the Mormons and Catholics to adhere to a responsible change in their belief systems. They want to mix church and state? Well, here's a DAMN good reason to let them do it!
7.) Think of some yourself....
Scratch Open A Cynic And You Will Find An Angry Idealist.
#1 is a lovely sentiment. Let's start with your kids and/or your parents.
You MUST be a christian: Preach and teach the beauty of an afterlife and are scared to death to die. Typical hypocrisy! Death is a part of Life. You spent EONS dead before you got Life. Open your mind and close your bible!!!
Scratch Open A Cynic And You Will Find An Angry Idealist.
Its been consistently shown that the more education people have, the less children they have. And especially when you educate and empower the women.
The part about changing the tax code as suggested above makes a lot of sense. Now I'm holding my breath waiting for a Democratic candidate to suggest it.
turning blue now .....
This convention is a joke.
It's an exercise in fascism.
The Democratic party is not the party for environmentalists. This is a distraction. They will do anything to avoid discussing their congressional record during the Bush years.
Yes, it is possible to make these reductions and at the same time strengthen the economy with well-proven and relatively low-level technology. It just needs political will - and to ensure the political will, citizens will have to make it plain that their congress people will be out of a job if they try to carry on business as usual.
Then we need one child per family for a couple of generations to make sure the world doesn't starve.
MPH
Did they mention that if the Repugs get in, we're screwed?
Did they mention if the Democrats win, we are equally screwed?
This issue trumps all other, because without a habitable world, what does another issue matter? Start doing what you can, right now.
The GOP is making abortion their issue. How do these hypocrits find the time after butchering so many thousands of Afghan and Iraqi babies?