Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiClimate Rage
The only way to stop global warming is for rich nations to pay for the damage they've done - or face the consequences
One last chance to save the world - for months, that's how the United Nations summit on climate change in Copenhagen, which starts in early December, was being hyped. Officials from 192 countries were finally going to make a deal to keep global temperatures below catastrophic levels. The summit called for "that old comic-book sensibility of uniting in the face of a common danger threatening the Earth," said Todd Stern, President Obama's chief envoy on climate issues. "It's not a meteor or a space invader, but the damage to our planet, to our community, to our children and their children will be just as great."
![[Illustration by Tim Bower]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/climate_rage_large.jpg "climate_rage_large.jpg")
That was back in March. Since then, the endless battle over
health care reform has robbed much of the president's momentum on
climate change. With Copenhagen now likely to begin before Congress
has passed even a weak-ass climate bill co-authored by the coal
lobby, U.S. politicians have dropped the superhero metaphors and
are scrambling to lower expectations for achieving a serious deal
at the climate summit. It's just one meeting, says U.S. Energy
Secretary Steven Chu, not "the be-all and end-all."
As faith in government action dwindles, however, climate activists are treating Copenhagen as an opportunity of a different kind. On track to be the largest environmental gathering in history, the summit represents a chance to seize the political terrain back from business-friendly half-measures, such as carbon offsets and emissions trading, and introduce some effective, common-sense proposals - ideas that have less to do with creating complex new markets for pollution and more to do with keeping coal and oil in the ground.
Among the smartest and most promising - not to mention controversial - proposals is "climate debt," the idea that rich countries should pay reparations to poor countries for the climate crisis. In the world of climate-change activism, this marks a dramatic shift in both tone and content. American environmentalism tends to treat global warming as a force that transcends difference: We all share this fragile blue planet, so we all need to work together to save it. But the coalition of Latin American and African governments making the case for climate debt actually stresses difference, zeroing in on the cruel contrast between those who caused the climate crisis (the developed world) and those who are suffering its worst effects (the developing world). Justin Lin, chief economist at the World Bank, puts the equation bluntly: "About 75 to 80 percent" of the damages caused by global warming "will be suffered by developing countries, although they only contribute about one-third of greenhouse gases."
Climate debt is about who will pick up the bill. The grass-roots movement behind the proposal argues that all the costs associated with adapting to a more hostile ecology - everything from building stronger sea walls to switching to cleaner, more expensive technologies - are the responsibility of the countries that created the crisis. "What we need is not something we should be begging for but something that is owed to us, because we are dealing with a crisis not of our making," says Lidy Nacpil, one of the coordinators of Jubilee South, an international organization that has staged demonstrations to promote climate reparations. "Climate debt is not a matter of charity."
Sharon Looremeta, an advocate for Maasai tribespeople in Kenya who have lost at least 5 million cattle to drought in recent years, puts it in even sharper terms. "The Maasai community does not drive 4x4s or fly off on holidays in airplanes," she says. "We have not caused climate change, yet we are the ones suffering. This is an injustice and should be stopped right now."
The case for climate debt begins like most discussions of climate change: with the science. Before the Industrial Revolution, the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - the key cause of global warming - was about 280 parts per million. Today, it has reached 387 ppm - far above safe limits - and it's still rising. Developed countries, which represent less than 20 percent of the world's population, have emitted almost 75 percent of all greenhouse-gas pollution that is now destabilizing the climate. (The U.S. alone, which comprises barely five percent of the global population, contributes 25 percent of all carbon emissions.) And while developing countries like China and India have also begun to spew large amounts of carbon dioxide, the reasoning goes, they are not equally responsible for the cost of the cleanup, because they have contributed only a small fraction of the 200 years of cumulative pollution that has caused the crisis.
In Latin America, left-wing economists have long argued that Western powers owe a vaguely defined "ecological debt" to the continent for centuries of colonial land-grabs and resource extraction. But the emerging argument for climate debt is far more concrete, thanks to a relatively new body of research putting precise figures on who emitted what and when. "What is exciting," says Antonio Hill, senior climate adviser at Oxfam, "is you can really put numbers on it. We can measure it in tons of CO₂ and come up with a cost."
Equally important, the idea is supported by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - ratified by 192 countries, including the United States. The framework not only asserts that "the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries," it clearly states that actions taken to fix the problem should be made "on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities."
The reparations movement has brought together a diverse coalition of big international organizations, from Friends of the Earth to the World Council of Churches, that have joined up with climate scientists and political economists, many of them linked to the influential Third World Network, which has been leading the call. Until recently, however, there was no government pushing for climate debt to be included in the Copenhagen agreement. That changed in June, when Angelica Navarro, the chief climate negotiator for Bolivia, took the podium at a U.N. climate negotiation in Bonn, Germany. Only 36 and dressed casually in a black sweater, Navarro looked more like the hippies outside than the bureaucrats and civil servants inside the session. Mixing the latest emissions science with accounts of how melting glaciers were threatening the water supply in two major Bolivian cities, Navarro made the case for why developing countries are owed massive compensation for the climate crisis.
"Millions of people - in small islands, least-developed countries, landlocked countries as well as vulnerable communities in Brazil, India and China, and all around the world - are suffering from the effects of a problem to which they did not contribute," Navarro told the packed room. In addition to facing an increasingly hostile climate, she added, countries like Bolivia cannot fuel economic growth with cheap and dirty energy, as the rich countries did, since that would only add to the climate crisis - yet they cannot afford the heavy upfront costs of switching to renewable energies like wind and solar.
The solution, Navarro argued, is three-fold. Rich countries need to pay the costs associated with adapting to a changing climate, make deep cuts to their own emission levels "to make atmospheric space available" for the developing world, and pay Third World countries to leapfrog over fossil fuels and go straight to cleaner alternatives. "We cannot and will not give up our rightful claim to a fair share of atmospheric space on the promise that, at some future stage, technology will be provided to us," she said.
The speech galvanized activists across the world. In recent months, the governments of Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Paraguay and Malaysia have endorsed the concept of climate debt. More than 240 environmental and development organizations have signed a statement calling for wealthy nations to pay their climate debt, and 49 of the world's least-developed countries will take the demand to Copenhagen as a negotiating bloc.
"If we are to curb emissions in the next decade, we need a massive mobilization larger than any in history," Navarro declared at the end of her talk. "We need a Marshall Plan for the Earth. This plan must mobilize financing and technology transfer on scales never seen before. It must get technology onto the ground in every country to ensure we reduce emissions while raising people's quality of life. We have only a decade."
A very expensive decade. The World Bank puts the cost that developing countries face from climate change - everything from crops destroyed by drought and floods to malaria spread by mosquito-infested waters - as high as $100 billion a year. And shifting to renewable energy, according to a team of United Nations researchers, will raise the cost far more: to as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade.
Unlike the recent bank bailouts, however, which simply transferred public wealth to the world's richest financial institutions, the money spent on climate debt would fuel a global environmental transformation essential to saving the entire planet. The most exciting example of what could be accomplished is the ongoing effort to protect Ecuador's Yasuní National Park. This extraordinary swath of Amazonian rainforest, which is home to several indigenous tribes and a surreal number of rare and exotic animals, contains nearly as many species of trees in 2.5 acres as exist in all of North America. The catch is that underneath that riot of life sits an estimated 850 million barrels of crude oil, worth about $7 billion. Burning that oil - and logging the rainforest to get it - would add another 547 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Two years ago, Ecuador's center-left president, Rafael Correa, said something very rare for the leader of an oil-exporting nation: He wanted to leave the oil in the ground. But, he argued, wealthy countries should pay Ecuador - where half the population lives in poverty - not to release that carbon into the atmosphere, as "compensation for the damages caused by the out-of-proportion amount of historical and current emissions of greenhouse gases." He didn't ask for the entire amount; just half. And he committed to spending much of the money to move Ecuador to alternative energy sources like solar and geothermal.
Largely because of the beauty of the Yasuní, the plan has generated widespread international support. Germany has already offered $70 million a year for 13 years, and several other European governments have expressed interest in participating. If Yasuní is saved, it will demonstrate that climate debt isn't just a disguised ploy for more aid - it's a far more credible solution to the climate crisis than the ones we have now. "This initiative needs to succeed," says Atossa Soltani, executive director of Amazon Watch. "I think we can set a model for other countries."
Activists point to a huge range of other green initiatives that would become possible if wealthy countries paid their climate debts. In India, mini power plants that run on biomass and solar power could bring low-carbon electricity to many of the 400 million Indians currently living without a light bulb. In cities from Cairo to Manila, financial support could be given to the armies of impoverished "trash pickers" who save as much as 80 percent of municipal waste in some areas from winding up in garbage dumps and trash incinerators that release planet-warming pollution. And on a much larger scale, coal-fired power plants across the developing world could be converted into more efficient facilities using existing technology, cutting their emissions by more than a third.
But to ensure that climate reparations are real, advocates insist, they must be independent of the current system of international aid. Climate money cannot simply be diverted from existing aid programs, such as primary education or HIV prevention. What's more, the funds must be provided as grants, not loans, since the last thing developing countries need is more debt. Furthermore, the money should not be administered by the usual suspects like the World Bank and USAID, which too often push pet projects based on Western agendas, but must be controlled by the United Nations climate convention, where developing countries would have a direct say in how the money is spent.
Without such guarantees, reparations will be meaningless - and without reparations, the climate talks in Copenhagen will likely collapse. As it stands, the U.S. and other Western nations are engaged in a lose-lose game of chicken with developing nations like India and China: We refuse to lower our emissions unless they cut theirs and submit to international monitoring, and they refuse to budge unless wealthy nations cut first and cough up serious funding to help them adapt to climate change and switch to clean energy. "No money, no deal," is how one of South Africa's top environmental officials put it. "If need be," says Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, speaking on behalf of the African Union, "we are prepared to walk out."
In the past, President Obama has recognized the principle on which climate debt rests. "Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead," he acknowledged in his September speech at the United Nations. "We have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these [developing] nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development."
Yet as Copenhagen draws near, the U.S. negotiating position appears to be to pretend that 200 years of over-emissions never happened. Todd Stern, the chief U.S. climate negotiator, has scoffed at a Chinese and African proposal that developed countries pay as much as $400 billion a year in climate financing as "wildly unrealistic" and "untethered to reality." Yet he put no alternative number on the table - unlike the European Union, which has offered to kick in up to $22 billion. U.S. negotiators have even suggested that countries could fund climate debt by holding periodic "pledge parties," making it clear that they see covering the costs of climate change as a matter of whimsy, not duty.
But shunning the high price of climate change carries a cost of its own. U.S. military and intelligence agencies now consider global warming a leading threat to national security. As sea levels rise and droughts spread, competition for food and water will only increase in many of the world's poorest nations. These regions will become "breeding grounds for instability, for insurgencies, for warlords," according to a 2007 study for the Center for Naval Analyses led by Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former Centcom commander. To keep out millions of climate refugees fleeing hunger and conflict, a report commissioned by the Pentagon in 2003 predicted that the U.S. and other rich nations would likely decide to "build defensive fortresses around their countries."
Setting aside the morality of building high-tech fortresses to protect ourselves from a crisis we inflicted on the world, those enclaves and resource wars won't come cheap. And unless we pay our climate debt, and quickly, we may well find ourselves living in a world of climate rage. "Privately, we already hear the simmering resentment of diplomats whose countries bear the costs of our emissions," Sen. John Kerry observed recently. "I can tell you from my own experience: It is real, and it is prevalent. It's not hard to see how this could crystallize into a virulent, dangerous, public anti-Americanism. That's a threat too. Remember: The very places least responsible for climate change - and least equipped to deal with its impacts - will be among the very worst affected."
That, in a nutshell, is the argument for climate debt. The developing world has always had plenty of reasons to be pissed off with their northern neighbors, with our tendency to overthrow their governments, invade their countries and pillage their natural resources. But never before has there been an issue so politically inflammatory as the refusal of people living in the rich world to make even small sacrifices to avert a potential climate catastrophe. In Bangladesh, the Maldives, Bolivia, the Arctic, our climate pollution is directly responsible for destroying entire ways of life - yet we keep doing it.
From outside our borders, the climate crisis doesn't look anything like the meteors or space invaders that Todd Stern imagined hurtling toward Earth. It looks, instead, like a long and silent war waged by the rich against the poor. And for that, regardless of what happens in Copenhagen, the poor will continue to demand their rightful reparations. "This is about the rich world taking responsibility for the damage done," says Ilana Solomon, policy analyst for ActionAid USA, one of the groups recently converted to the cause. "This money belongs to poor communities affected by climate change. It is their compensation."
68 Comments so far
Show AllOK, so just how exactly would you go about extracting these billions in reparations from those nasty developed countries?
I guess you could just ask nicely, or perhaps you could invade. Or how about cyber-bank robbery?
Or, you could convince some politicians. I'm sure the ones from New York and California would go along. Hey, they could have a place in history as the ones who caused the modern revival of the time-honored practice of tarring and feathering.
I'd have to say, 'Good luck with that!'
Most of you people are pathetic.
OldManMoron, Klein's Rolling Stone article states his father died from cancer resulting from "using high-tech energy-taxing scintillation counters without sufficient radiation shielding." Scintillation counters don't have a radioactive source. If he knew how to properly operate a scintillator, maybe he wouldn't have got cancer. Unfortunatley,he lived long enough to reproduce.
Mairead - news flash - you're not Dr. Science or Mr. Spock. Wheat may not grow in Florida, but it's not so much the heat as it is the rainfall. Your optimal temperatures for humans is absolute BS. Sixty to 80 degrees? What planet do you live on? Throughout the course of human histry, people have prospered well out side this range.
For all you cat lovers and Walmart haters, the cheapest cat food is at Walmart. Some of you people have some fat-ass cats.
My real question is for all you global warning freaks. Just how long does something have to cool before IT'S NOT WARMING??? Isn't 10 years and counting enough? The oceans are cooling - notice the decrease in the number and severity of Atlantic Hurricanes?
Obama knows global warming is a hoax. He can cut emissions by signing an executive order lowering the national speed limit to 55 mph. If Obama thought GW was truly a threat to the world, why doesn't he do it? He won't do it because Pelosi et al can't make a dime off of lower speed limits, but they can make a fortune off of crap and trade.
And for you fans of reparations, life isn't fair. Get use to it.
Wake up. Or I guess we could just sit around, hold hands, and sing kum ba ya...
Tex, Your post is pathetic right-wing radio distortions of the lowest caliber.
1. You blame the victim for unsafe equipment. If he'd have just known how to use that bandsaw he'd not need liberal safety guards.
2. Mairead is correct. I'm not sure what "course of human histry" you've been studying, but this was the temperature range for primate bodies prior to tool making (means clothing).
3. the cat comment is bizarre and appears to be meant as intimidation.
4. Your Ocean Temperature misconception is certainly not based on science. The ocean is hotter than it ever has been if you don't cherry-pick a range of only ten years. For your education, post this in your browser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880
Scroll down to the NOAA chart: "Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean" if some snappy Faux News Graphics don't distract you before you get your finger on the down arrow button.
If you could pay attention to the points made by fine posters like Mairead instead of running your red-neck mouth, you might learn something.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Your BS post is a disgrace to Thomas Jefferson's name. He'd kick your ass if he saw the crap you're writing while hiding behind his name.
I'm not right wing. I never watch fox, I can't stand rush, anne colter, o'reilly, and try to avoid business that force you to watch that crap when your in their establishment. Guess that crystal ball of your needs a shine.
1) The point is a scintillator can't cause cancer. You like Wikopedia, look it up.
2) Primates originated in Africa (I think it gets above 80 degrees) and spread out over most of Europe and Asia where there is a rather wide range of temperatures. Maybe you can find that on Wikopedia too.
3) My cat comment was nearly as bizarre as some of the posts. Scroll down and read them for yourself.
4) I'm not cherry picking. You are. Are you ignoring 10 years of data? Climate flucuates over time. Always has, always will. Why do you feel the need to assign blame? Who was at fault for the drought in the US in the 1930's??? Who do you blame for the ice ages?
You must have a thing for Mairead. Hope that works out for you, buddy.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
The above quote is Thomas Jerrerson. The real Thomas Jefferson.
Wow, way to bloviate for 9 paragraphs without actually saying anything. Nice empty argument.
Oh by the way, here's what Monticello.org says about your "Jefferson" quote:
"We currently have no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%" or any of its listed variations. We do not know the source of this statement's attribution to Thomas Jefferson."
About sums up the total value of your contributions here. Empty.
Tex (Thomas Moore) whoever,
You're a CLIMATE DENIER. You're a NEOCON. All your positions and attitudes reflect that conservative bend. No one needs a crystal ball to know what you are: You are a BIG OIL/MIC fanatic claiming to be from Texas.
You're self-centered and apparently don't care what happens to your offspring. You're going to cook them because you don't understand science. ALL the major scientific bodies agree: Global Warming is real and it is caused by man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]
Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature will probably rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions. Some other uncertainties include how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most studies focus on the period up to the year 2100. However, warming is expected to continue beyond 2100 even if emissions stop, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[5][6]
An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of subtropical deserts.[7] The continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice is expected, with warming being strongest in the Arctic. Other likely effects include increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions, and changes in agricultural yields.
.
.
You pretend to speak for science but apparently don't understand that the primates of today are NOT the common ancestor we shared eight million years ago. The Hylobatidae, Ponginae, Gorillini and Pan Families, subfamilies, tribe, and genus of the Catarrhini Infraorder evolved separately but parallel to us. The Common Ancestor was very different from the non-human primates of today (it was more like the texas Bushmonkey of today) who needs to be inside when it is over 80 degrees or it will perish. Yes, forget your Intelligent Design Delusions. You are a primate. We all are. But we are cousins, NOT descendants of the 100 degree monkeys you cite. Our common ancestor of eight million years ago probably couldn't exist, as we can't, naked, outside the 60-80 degree range cited by Mairead. But you're from "The Planet of the BushApes" so you probably can't fathom this.
I agree with posters who think you use multiple screen names and that you are a mindless troll. Why not head on over to NASCAR.com or AssKickinRednecks.com and grunt with your own kind. They would be impressed with your simple-minded distortions of science.
TJ
go away, troll
Some questions for the folks?
What is the optimum temp, and who says so?
What's better, for global temps to rise, or fall?
Do plants(food), grow better when it's warm or cold?
If CO2(greenhouse gas) is a pollutant, can H2O(greenhouse gas) be a pollutant?
If business in your community completely dried up, or a drought hit so hard nothing would grow, wouldn't you move?
If I reached into your pocket and took some money, and I proclaimed, I can't prove it, but you caused some bad stuff to happen to me, and you owe me, would you call the cops?
Have you seen Al's house?
Do you still think Obama's the one you've been waiting for?
Do you have any common sense?
I doubt you're asking these questions honestly, but honest answers can nevertheless be given:
---------------------------------
What is the optimum temp, and who says so?
---------------------------------
There is no single 'optimum temp', but all things living today evolved within a very narrow range of conditions and cannot survive outside such conditions. So the 'optimum temp' *range* for most high-order mammalian life like humans is about 60F-80F. As to 'who says so': physics and biochemistry say so.
--------------------------------
What's better, for global temps to rise, or fall?
--------------------------------
Low temperatures are better, within broad limits. The reason being, all warm-blooded lifeforms, including humans, are heat *generators*. So with insulation we can live at -40F (100F below our 'optimum' lower bound), but no amount of insulation will save us at 180F (100F above our 'optimum' upper bound). The reason being, our own heat generation works against us when it's hot, but not when it's cold.
--------------------------------
Do plants(food), grow better when it's warm or cold?
--------------------------------
Plants have an even narrower range than humans, so your question has no single answer. There are plants adapted to the tropics that go dormant in temperatures humans find comfortable, but there are also plants that can't tolerate heat. Wheat, for example, doesn't grow in Florida: it's too hot. Unfortunately, at the current rate of change, soon wheat won't grow in Kansas either. The strains now growing in Canada will need to move to Alaska and the Yukon, and the US strains will only grow in Canada.
--------------------------------
If CO2(greenhouse gas) is a pollutant, can H2O(greenhouse gas) be a pollutant?
--------------------------------
Too much or too little of anything is bad for organisms that need less or more of it. Plants need CO2 - we don't. We need O2 - plants don't. Everything needs H2O - but not enough to drown in. (H20 is not a gas, it's a liquid)
--------------------------------
If business in your community completely dried up, or a drought hit so hard nothing would grow, wouldn't you move?
--------------------------------
You're mixing up two different issues. 'Business' is a recent human invention; humans don't need it in any sense comparable to our need for water and food. Humans, and the plants we eat, do need water. So we would have to move to escape drought, but there's no special reason to have to chase 'business'.
It's worthwhile noting that the people who *own* the most 'business' choose to live where there is no 'business'.
Sadly, it seems the more common option for rich nations, with the US far in the lead, is to spend hydrocarbons to dominate hydrocarbon sources and play for military dominance in a kind of last-man-standing endgame.
I find Correa's approach refreshing, though. Perhaps he will find support among other 2nd-tier military powers similar to Germany, who are well to do but likely to get cut out of a shrinking hydrocarbon pie by the aggressive USA or advantageously located Russia.
The other NATO countries in particular would do well to wake up to this sort of suggestion. They have traditions of more or less friendly dealings with the US, but the Americans will turn on them in a shot they second they hit gas rationing.
Europe needs protective alliances with oil producing countries to prevent progressive American invasions of all major oil-producing regions.
We can see the strategy we must fight against in the American expanse of hostilities in Colombia.
A particularly good approach would be to start by supporting the Sucre as an alternate to exchange in dollars, the better to strengthen Latin American and particularly Venezuelan resistance.
It is very hard for usans or for that matter any colonial power to own up to the raping and pillaging they have done to the Global South, especially during the last century, and continuing into this one. Pretending we didn't do it is a suckers game that works only on our own selves. The rest of the world knows what has been going on and they know what we need to do. Which is what Naomi is talking about. Paying the climate debt. Nobody expects the rich world to like it. all we are saying is it's gotta happen.
"The catch is that underneath that riot of life sits an estimated 850 million barrels of crude oil, worth about $7 billion. Burning that oil - and logging the rainforest to get it - would add another 547 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere."
This math is nonsense. Assuming the logging she refers to would create around 100 million tons of CO2, does Ms. Klein expect us to believe that one barrel of oil produces more than half a ton of carbon? I am all for action on climate change, but if we play games with numbers then we are no better than the fossil fuel lobby.
When you burn a hydrocarbon, you produce a much greater weight of CO2 because you are adding oxygen. For example gasoline (C8H18) weighs 740 grams per liter (6.2 pounds per gallon) and contains 623 grams of carbon and 117 grams of hydrogen. if completely burned, it produces 623*(mol. wt of CO2/mol. wt of C), or 623*(44/12) or _2285g_ of CO2 from the original 740 grams of gasoline.
In US units, a barrel (42 gal) of gasoline weighs 260 pounds and produces 260*(2285/740) or 803 pounds of CO2. This isn't quite a half-ton, but crude oil isn't gasoline - it contains much more carbon. I'm not sure what the proportion of carbon is, but a barrel of medium-heavy crude (API grade 20) weighs about 330 pounds, and this extra weight is nearly all carbon, so a barrel of medium heavy crude produces about 1020 pounds of CO2. That's about a half-ton (metric or US) as Ms. Klein pointed out.
Oh, you think your going to save this world?
For human beings not to destroy themselves you would have had to live like the Tribes used to live for the time continuum to be timeless outside of natural disasters.
Life is good. What an experience! It's always best to forgive.
I'm on a land-line modem so I can't watch the video but I did read Klein's Rolling Stone article also here as the lede headline at CD which offers no opportunity for comment, so here goes...
Klein writes:
"... The developing world has always had plenty of reasons to be pissed off with their northern neighbors, with our tendency to overthrow their governments, invade their countries and pillage their natural resources. But never before has there been an issue so politically inflammatory as the refusal of people living in the rich world to make even small sacrifices to avert a potential climate catastrophe. ..."
She wants the "rich world" to pay a climate "debt." But who within the rich world does she think would pay that debt, the rich? Hell no, and she never addresses that inequity.
My family were poor midwestern dirt farmers without electricity or tractors until well into the 1930s. They might as well have been Third World; for all practical purposes they were. What debt do they owe? Or, for that matter, how about the poverty-stricken coal miners of West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky who pulled all that coal out of the earth so rich people could get richer and then died of black lung? What debt do they owe?
My father devoted most of his life as a cancer researcher, using high-tech energy-taxing scintillation counters without sufficient radiation shielding and he died a painful cancer death at age 61. What's his debt?
The problem with Klein's article is that it artificially divides rich countries and poor countries without taking into account the vast carbon-consumption disparities WITHIN those countries. By far the largest carbon footprint within ALL countries is that of the filthy rich. And if this carbon "debt" thing is ever implemented it will be via Naomi Klein's very idea of Disaster Capitalism. The rich won't pay. The already poor will pay whether we live in a "rich nation" or not. That is far more the dilemma. The elitism subtext within her thesis really reeks. Tax the goddam rich! Everywhere! And stop their resource wars (talk about a large carbon footprint!), now.
-30-
Two day ago I heard Gwynn Dyer speak about the upcoming environmental disaster we'll face as the 450ppm thresh hold is broken(it will be surpassed he predicts) and global temp. goes beyond 2 degrees C. With some stop gap solutions in geo-engineering offered as a salve to our fears, we left the lecture with little to be optimistic about.
So, I stop at Walmart for a can of rust paint for my aging Jetta. No worries here, just hundreds of overweight shoppers clinging to carts cruising the aisles in search of bargains amidst the huge clutter of made-in-China Christmas-related products. Welcome to the apocolypse. Too many North Americans are over-fed, over-weight,over-drawn, and under-educated to stop the impending environmental disaster. No wonder a local emergency room MD said that the only people having babies in our washed out steel town are those on welfare.
You could at least go somewhere else than Wal-Mart.
I take great pride as a USA patriot in saying that I have never been in a Walmart and never will. If your wondering where the manufacturing jobs and locally owned stores and shops went just visit a town that has a new Walmart and watch what happens to its economy.
It took Walmart just under two years to completely destroy my hometown in a far corner of WA state. I happened to be living there at the time Walmart came in, and had a front row seat as stores that had been there my whole life, (nearly sixty years at the time) closed one by one. It ended up a town of eating places, grocery stores, a lot of second hand stores, and a few specialty shops with quality shoes and other such things that Walmart didn't carry. A few years ago the Walmart became a Super Store, so I'm sure the number of grocery stores in town went way down. I refuse to go to Walmart and if I can't find what I want or need elsewhere, I do without.
I always find it coincidental that all the countries that are apparently being destroyed by so called "global warming" are the ones being run by tin pot dictators who produce nothing in the world. Meanwhile the west is unscathed by the apocalyptic devastation predicted by Algore the great God of Gaia. To add to the stupidity, extreme socialists like Klein and her nose ring minions scream about "climate debt" while pounding away on $1000 Mac's. Talk about hypocrisy. Shouldn't you be conversing on stone tablets? Adding your thoughts here are increasing your "carbon footprint".
Did it ever occur to any of you that the very thing that has made the west prosperous is what those poor countries need... ENERGY. Give them a few coal fired plants and let them turn on a few lights and you would increase life expectancy overnight. No, that's alien to the wealth distributors of the left. Making the United States and Canada and the rich (people who create prosperity and jobs) pay is the real end game here. It's the assault on capitalism that Klein and Gore and the IPCC want. Meanwhile all of those nose rings come in handy as the minions are lead nose first down the garden path.
Windmills and solar panels won't help the third world, it will doom them to continued suffering. What this article advocates is anti-human.
Okay minions: Here's a link for your MacIntosh technology.
450 peer reviewed studies by actual scientists who say man made global warming is not happening.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
133 months... no warming.
Hipnosis,
Well i just randomly opened one of the papers collected at your link. Here's a quote from it, in which the authors respond to critics of a previous paper they published:
"Point 1 is concerned with the relative amplitudes of variations in radiative forcing due respectively to the Sun and CO2. The 2 Wm−2 value for CO2 change is not disputed. The value of 1–2 Wm− 2 we quote for the Sun is disputed by BD07, who quote Crowley's (2000) value of 0.5 Wm− 2. This point is admittedly unclear in our paper and deserves clarification. Satellite observations of solar irradiance are available since 1976 (Fröhlich and Lean, 1998). Longer term variations are indeed in the 0.5 Wm− 2 range quoted by BD07. We note however that shorter term fluctuations reach 1 Wm−2 (in comparison to the incoming 345 Wm− 2) and that these might be relevant if non linear forcing effects are involved. In any case one can argue that variations in solar irradiance at operative frequencies may not be as negligible compared to CO2 variations as generally assumed."
So the authors of these two papers DO NOT DISPUTE the role of carbon in the atmosphere as upheld by standard scientific models of climate change. What they do say is that perhaps the role of the Sun is understated in the standard models, and even here they admit that their interpretation is not certain.
So this peer-reviewed paper is NOT what you claimed, "actual scientists who say man made global warming is not happening." You are misstating the nature of the site you directed us to. It is NOT a site containing 450 peer reviewed papers disputing the existence of man-made global warming. What it is is 450 papers that dispute particular aspects of the theory of climate change.
Also, you are obviously not interested in this but there are FAR MORE THAN 450 PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that uphold the standard scientific models of human-induced global warming. Actually, as i just demonstrated, many of your 450 papers also uphold the standard scientific models of human-induced global warming.
Go away troll.
Thank you webwalk for taking the time to debunk the "Hippie troll". I'm just too tired to do it anymore. Next, one of them is going to start the: "the Sunspots did it" Red Herring, and then we will have to pull out the NASA proof that the Sun has been quiet these last cycles.
They just never quit regurgitating their Republican talking points. "Climate Change is normal." "Plants need CO2 or they'll be no oxygen", "Greenland was green......"
I guess this is where they came up with the band name "Simple Minds".
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
perhaps they should pay us back for this, which has allowed them to spew this social physco-babble http://www.texasbobsworld.com/arrogance.html i wonder if hitler would have gone green?
perhaps they should pay us back for this, which has allowed them to spew this social physco-babble http://www.texasbobsworld.com/arrogance.html i wonder if hitler would have gone green?
"133 months... no warming."
Ah, yes, the extreme short-term thinking of the AGW denier. Silly me for worrying about what we will leave for out descendants 500 years from now - not a very long time.
Environmentalists are missing one very important point. Working people are broke and cannot absorb a doubling or tripling of their heating costs. They will not support a policy that leaves them in the cold.
What is needed first is an immediate change in tax policy requiring the rich to pay a lot more tax and the working people must be subsidized.
Most environmental policy makers, like politicians, are not experiencing the economic hardships being endured by working people. It never entered their mind that the costs of environmental changes would be beyond the ordinary working persons capability. A reasonable redistribution of wealth will be necessary before any policies mitigating global warming will be acceptable to the majority of people. Placing the cart before the horse is fool's play.
"working people need to be subsidized"? If you're an American this kind of thinking needs to stop. Subsidizing people is called socialism, that is not what made the United States the greatest and the most free place on the face of the earth. If you have a problem with the doubling of your electric bill, tell your representative to vote no on Crap and Trade. And educate yourself about the scam of global warming, climate change or whatever term they come up with. Also understand that when this hoax is exposed, they will come up with another doom and gloom hoax to sell.
Or, more simply. Implement free public transit town by town. Helps workers, helps small business, makes the town center more attractive. People can move to town and get work more easily. Small business has better access to labor, and their customers won't abandon them for big box easy parking. The suburbs can be gradually undone and returned to the organic farmers. Eventually people will realize what has always been true: the private auto is not now, nor has it ever been, necessary for human survival. http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
we should go even further and make everything free. free healthcare, free transportation, free housing and so on. think how attractive that would be to everyone, even the working rich. you would end up having everyone happy . no one would have any needs because everything would be free. peace
"Working rich"? That's an oxymoron if there was ever one, except if you're talking about people who are rich because of their personal creative efforts rather than their ability to skim value from the work of others.
But it's a very good idea that the necessities of life should be perquisites of citizenship. It's a criminal nation that uses its citizens only as labor and war units.
awww, come-on! The richest 1% of Americans have only gone from owning 20% of America to 40% of America in the last 30 years. They can't possibly be asked to pay more in taxes until they own at LEAST 60% of America.
"U.S. negotiators have even suggested that countries could fund climate debt by holding periodic "pledge parties," making it clear that they see covering the costs of climate change as a matter of whimsy, not duty."
"Pledge parties"? I would have expected this sort of claptrap from Bush. Does this administration really want to be Bush III?
Right now, the buzz word is 'collapse.'
As in:
Earth's 'normal' climate is collapsing;
Empire USA is collapsing;
Capitalism is collapsing;
Democracy is collapsing;
The Middle Class is collapsing;
Etc.
Seriously, there's only so much simultaneous collapsing us puny humans can handle before we all start going cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs...
At the root of all this yannering is the collapse of Common Sense.
Try to define that.
It's a nice little racket. Game the system so you have to "elect" the candidates they fund. Then people will get all excited about which candidate they love or hate, thinking either candidate could actually make a difference. So they've set us up to argue among ourselves over which politician is better or worse instead of with the actual con men that are fleecing us through our "representative" government, the best money can buy.
Sir Richard Branson has offered a $25 million prize for sequestering great amounts of carbon. I must tell him that making carbon dioxide into oil and sequestering the carbon by pumping it back down an old oil well costs at least twice as much as not pumping the oil up in the first place, along with finding a way not to use that oil.
He should take the $25 million, find a small city, make pubic transit free, and see what happens. In Changning, China, they estimate that free public transit has taken about 10,000 cars off the road.
http://freepublictransit.org
There is only one physical reality, with only one ongoing present timeline that can never be reversed. Unfortunately there are too many people, policies and trends that cannot satisfy even the concept of a secure future for complex carbon lifeforms.
The great captain Obama continues to let the empire USA steer itself at its top speed of war and consumption. It is a desperate policy of throw more money into the banks and keep the economy afloat, a fixation on continuing the already productive rackets, foriegn policy and wars while they last, and making sure nothing, nothing at all, changes to threaten the privileges of global banking elites. This man promised change, which in our electorally bankrupt media language actually meant no change at all of course.
Consider that the next economic shock the empire will face, already draining blood with its dollar value becoming anaemic, is that theworld peak oil production has already been achieved, and will decline with increasing rapidity at current rates of consumption, as current fields become exhausted.
Apart from the exorbitent profits per oil barrel, the cost of running the empires wars and bases will become less affordable.
The price of industrial style agriculture, manufacture and transport increases. The current slow decline in USA standards of living will continue. The people will have to make yet more sacrifices to the gods of USA exceptionalism.
If only the final oil shock could be accompanied by a reduction in carbon emissions. But the end result may be increased use of and dependence on coal and more energy expensive resources such as shale oil (which is oil to die for), further bankrupting the global ecosystem. Seven billion people trying to survive after the oil party ends, can really trash the earth. Previous ends of civilization from ecological finalities will be envious in comparison.
So adaptation to end of cheap oil, and each non-terminal crisis, will bring on final climate and ecological system crisis all the more quickly to end our human plague. Each cure and refusal to face impending death will make a final death more likely.
The movement to go to more sustainable, renewable energy and resource lifestyles will only be effective if there are far fewer of us, and everyone is constrained with wholesale commitment, including population growth constraints. All the blatent carbon-emitters have to stop emitting in the first instance, otherwise nothing anyone else does in restraint will matter at all, as much as a snowballs chance in hell.
It is no surprise that the developing world will suffer the most and first from the continued assult on nature from the developed world, and is not be allowed to develop the way we have. I hope that when the oil crunch bites, that the nations least dependent on oil lifestyle will be hit relatively less, if there is any justice.
The developed world will eventually be constrained, despite political inaction over carbon emissions, because it looses cheap oil, because the finite realities of nature will constrain endless economic growth. As nations succumb to ever increasing climate crises, the developed world will lose its markets and resource sources in the developing world, and in the long run the developed world will lose more than it gains from unstoppable climate change, even in the short term relative strategic sense for getting warmer northern climates, which seems to be one of the reasons for this short term inaction. If the developed world gets so much from the developing world, they should make sure it is looked after better.
The truth is the developed world is in it for the short term money and lifestyle, and let us damn the next generation. Its all about what we can extract for status and comfort now, from the developing world before it apparently declines first. It will be a rush to the lifeboats as the good ship earth sinks, and look after yourselves first. The developed world will keep the cavier and champagne on board, and shove off any survivors and stragglers from the rising seas.
Just look at the new Australian illegal immigrant policy. Its part of the Australian government policy of full coal burning economic growth ahead and send the global third class citizens back home to the frugal lifestyle we do not desire. Meanwhile a near doubling in population from 21 to 35 million is not politically advertised as undesirable, as if per capita carbon emissions, and exhaustion of water supplies did not matter.
Damn, it's depressing when you think your smart huh?
Excellent post, B3nign. I think you're right on target with the strategy that the developed world will use to ensure that our lifestyle is maintained while the Third World bears the brunt of the climate crisis.
According to neoliberal gurus, the "invisible hand" of the market should respond to the crisis. In fact, there is no real feedback mechanism that can be can check capitalism’s destruction of the biospheric conditions of civilization and most forms of life on this planet. On the contrary, whole new industries and markets aimed at profiting from planetary destruction are being opened up. Al Gore's status as the first carbon trading billionaire is a leading indicator for those on the lookout for the next bubble.
I think that the ruling elite and their minions in the developed world believe that capitalism and the lifestyle it enables must be preserved at any cost. For the time being, they will delude themselves with fantasies about technical fixes, such as saturating the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide to cool the planet. But these will fall apart once the full scale of the catastrophe unfolds. Then we will understand why billions are being spent on a massive wall on the border with Mexico.
The fundamental fact is that capitalism thrives on scarcity. Nothing dismays investment bankers more than the thought that we might create a planet where there would be abundant food, water and health for all. The costs of ecological destruction are externalized - i.e. assumed by the public, like the bank bailouts, and by nature as a whole, while yielding fat profits for the middle men. As for the hundreds of millions who must starve, drown or die of thirst - well, the planet's overpopulated and this must be "nature's way" of adjusting the balance.
To compensate for this grim, but likely vision, I'm working on a new post on the Nonviolent Jesus blog (http://nonviolentjesus.blogspot.com) that analyzes the weaknesses of "green capitalist" solutions and attempts to offer a realistic alternative.
FALLACY OF CLIMATE NON COMPLIANCE
Our Nation's non compliance with the rest of the developed nations concerning global warming mitigation underscores the dangerous control that special interests have exercised over our policies. Their manipulations 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 the dedicated international scientific community including The Union of Concerned Scientists.
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 reflect less 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 inevitable 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 environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution and related ecological concerns can only intensify until we detooth the special interests,who have blocked these vital reforms in the past.
Ah, the greenhouse gases emanating from these comments. Burn that coal.
The human population is in deep overshoot. Enjoy life while you can. All this ogita about Copenhagen is for naught.
Dieoff is coming this century.
What a common sense solution. However the real government, the real government we don't get to see would never allow it. They rely on extraction of resources, extortion of financial systems and the theft of labor world wide. If anything like this was even thought to be considered by governments world wide they would need to call on Busha Obombya or who ever they appoint as president through our phoney election system to protect our interests. By the way protecting our interests is not your interest or my interest but capitals interests. War is good for their interests. I agree with Buck. One cannot support these bastards in any way. Don't fight their wars. Don't buy their financial sevices. Don't legitimize their candidates by voting for them.
Capitalism is at the root.
If you aren't prepared to live a simpler lifestyle while holding a world view that includes all people, then it is nothing but talk.
Stop playing in their games.
Vote them all out.
Vote in common people, anybody. I mean it.
Quit paying taxes.
Don't invest in stocks or do business with banks.
Quit buying junk.
Rediscover Nature.
You forgot the most important one: organize!
Hear, hear!
In terms of wealth, if nothing is done, the developing countries will lose less than the developed countries. They have much less to lose.
The USA is in a corner and is really stupid not to grasp the opportunity to do something now.
So, something has to be done about the over-fed dunce now grasping the school lunch box and backing into his corner.
The key could be that Americans, the people, are not USans, the capitalists.
Hey we can finally post on this article!
Here's a clip from my post on today's CD article about Greenpeace:
The posturing and glacially slow action to address human-caused climate disruption remains frustrating to witness.
The frustrating thing is that at the most basic level, the science was clear forty years ago - the atmosphere retains heat with a measurable rate of efficiency, and adding carbon to the atmosphere increases the efficiency of heat retention. Yes there has always been some uncertainty about exactly how climate change will play out as we change the atmosphere, what role is played by feedback loops in the complex climate system, how much amelioration or amplification of effects might occur. But as many many scientists have pointed out, uncertainty is reason to be careful, not reason to charge forward with increasingly disruptive action.
Almost thirty-five years ago, the USA under Jimmy Carter began taking steps to reduce our carbon output. But almost thirty years ago under Ronald Reagan these steps were reversed, and we have charged forward with increasingly disruptive action.
So here we are, the wheels falling off our ecology, glaciers melting, extinctions spiking, sea level rising, droughts and hurricanes on the rise, etc etc etc.
Obama needs to announce a massive worldwide investment in conservation / reduction in use of fossil fuels and transition to renewables. There is more to it than that - clean water, food sovereignty, climate justice, climate reparations, etc - but giant steps need to be taken NOW. Worldwide carbon output in 2010 needs to drop from 2009, and every year into the future, and the USA is in the position of greatest responsibility and greatest opportunity to act.
The frustration is, it ain't gonna happen. What needs to happen goes beyond investing trillions in conservation, efficiency and renewables. We need dethroning corporations from power, and reforming the money system, and transforming agriculture, and the entrenched power of these systems is resisting fundamental change. And Obama is effectively the global spokesperson and front man for these systems of entrenched power that resist change.
This from England is a step in the egalitarian direction:
Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what (carbon) they are using.
If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.
Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.
Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a "Green New Deal" to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference on Monday.
________________________________________________________
Of course this will never fly in the good old Goldman Sachs USA. The very idea that Blankfein, Paulson, Buffett or Oprah would have to pay trailer trash for their pig carbon footprints is un-american, and, heaven forbid, socialist. Shriek!
I kind of like the idea, though. How about you?
Consider that this idea could be (and should be) expanded to country carbon footprints (HELLO PENTAGON). You would have to pay for your military carbon footprint as well as all the pollution from depleted uranium. So how do you pay for the birth defects now exploding in Fallujah where our Semper Fi assholes had a pillage party?
If we had a shred of decency in this country, we would all be required to fund all services for anyone (anywhere in the world) who makes less than a livable income. Are you worth a million dollars or more in net worth? You are helping destroy humanity. Thanks a lot. No, you DID NOT earn it. No, giving to the needy is NOT charity; it is required for YOU to survive. You, the rich, are the world's basket cases. You have everything ass backwards. Change or die.
If you can convince a slave holder that he has no right to the profits of his cotton plantation, or convince Dow Chemical (or whomever owns them now) that they have no right to the profits from their plant in Bhopal, you could give lessons to Elmer Gantry.
I think you said it all, and the chances of the super rich calling a halt to their drunken party and, taking the advice of Jesus: "Give all you have to the poor, take responsibility for your own mess, and follow me"---are very poor indeed.
As long as the owner class is also the ruling class, they will continue to take care of their interests at our expense.
If they determine that population control is necessary (which it is) they will accomplish it by killing us 'useless eaters' via Katrina-like 'malign neglect', or active inducement of regional famine, or local wars. They will do whatever they decide to do without any interference from their (non-existent) consciences.
We are the only ones who have even a chance to stop them. The peasants in India, Africa, and China can't do it -they don't even live in the same sociopolitical galaxy as the owner class. We are the only hope, we who at least live on the rim of the owners' galaxy as their servants.
Will we do it?
It depends. If our middle class pulls its' head out of its' "american dream" illusion and realizes that the rich are the problem, they'll stop trying to get rich. All those resources from the middle class (forget getting a nickel from the rich-they're hopeless) used to stop war, unnecessary shopping, living square feet, trips, size of the cars, etc., THEN the priorities can be directed to demonizing the rich life style planetwide. This would radically reduce carbon footprints without the "OH shit, I'm poor and on a diet" meme that makes people hate frugality. It would stop the wars (they happen for rich profits anyway) and the associated pollution. We have to unwind centuries of war grorifying by our media. That is a tall order. Who will be first to say their relatives fought for the rich? Who will be first to say thir relatives were fools? I'll say it. My father retired from the US Army as a major after 30 years. He fought in WWII and Korea for the rich - for NOTHING!. He was a stupid fool! Two of my brothers went to Viet Nam. They are FOOLS! I was in the national guard during Viet Nam. I was a FOOL!
You are a fool if your home has more than 1,000 square feet or so. Do you drive a pick up truck when you could have a small car and use a tow traailer on the few occasions you need to haul a load? You are a fool!
Who is next?
STOP BEING PIGS! REDUCE YOURSELF!
As far as cars, the most important change is the way community are constructed. It is a simple matter to construct (or actually, return to constructing) communities where personal cars aren't needed. Until then, as individuals we can choose home and work location areas where we can do without a car most of the time. In particular, this "living out in the country" and driving, single occupant, 50 miles each way to work every day is a bourgeois indulgence that has to stop!
What prospective change represents the intersection of (a) so obvious a benefit that it would be madness to resist and (b) biggest enabler of more comprehensive change. I can think of several possible candidates, but can't consistently decide among them.
a) madness is par for the course among the masses becaise of PR so forget rational thinking leading to proper behavior. Right now forums like this one are the only vehicle to logical thinking and we don't reach enough people (yet).
b) The middle class is the biigest enabler of the satus quo. Hence, we have the power to modify the status quo as well. If we "get it", the country will follow.
As to the top item on the list in order of priority, I list war beacause of its' gigantic carbon footprint (whether the military are fighting or not) and pollution. The pro-war PR is equally destructive. The rest of the stuff comers later.
I think I'd have to disagree on 'war', not because it's not hateful, stupid, and a gigantic wealth sink, but because (a) we're kept from experiencing it directly and (b) too many jobs depend on it. So any attempt to stop it doesn't, as we've repeatedly seen, get much support. I'm trying to zero in on some change that would be such a total no-brainer that it couldn't be resisted, and that would enable other changes.
So you're saying that workers want wars to go on so that they can keep earning a wage. Perhaps what needs changing is not the way our economies work so much as the way our consciences don't work. It's obscene that selfishness is now the only motivation with any credibility at all. All these hard hearts. They are what really need changing.
No, they don't *want* wars to go on, but given that job loss can mean destitution, they have little choice. How many people work in the war industry and on its periphery. Millions, I'm sure. Imagine them all being thrown out of work at once.
That's the genius of Capitalism: eliminate all choice but 'Obey' and 'Die'. How many people would choose 'Die'?
I would choose neither. I would choose to begin killing "them"- ALL of "them"- and, yes, we do know who "they" are.
Well, one thing that I have mulled over is the environment destroying "planned obsolescence" meme that guarantees low quality products. It isn't hard to convince people that a quality product is a better product. If we can convince people that mass production of cheap goods that wear out quickly so we have to replace them over and over is bad for the environment, it will kick start a move to quality and away from mass production. Quality products last and because they aren't mass produced, provide more jobs.
It would be a start but I think people are getting pretty sick of Wall Street getting fat off of wars while jobs disappear. We all do what we can.
By the way, my cat is 15 years old and weighs 10.4 lbs. He almost lives on my lap. He's a grey tabby. I hope your kitty is fine too.
It's lovely to hear that your tabby is in good health at a good age! Cats are such fine people.
My cats are all dead, saddeningly. My last one died at age 25 on 17th August 2 years ago. Now I'm old enough that I can't really expect to outlive another one, so after more than 40 years of having cats in my life, I'm alone.
I'm sorry to hear that. You might consider cat sitting for the local shelter. Here they allow you to provide foster care for homeless cats when the shelters are too full. My other cat died in 2007. He wasted away for six months and despite benzos that kept him eating (and comfortable) and other medications, he just kept wasting away. The vet at first thought it was hyperthyroidism but his T3 and T4 levels were fine so she just sort of gave up on my kitty. I think it was a type of feline corona virus that lives in the cat for several years until the cat (he was 13) gets a compromised immune system from age. I kept him comfortable and happy to the end. Most people have no idea how a person's heart tears apart when their pet dies. I'm still grieving for that cat. The tabby I have now is a "stray" that adopted us in 2008. It's a long story (that's how I know his age) but the poor thing was getting eaten alive by parasites and had worms. He is not a very voluble cat but he was meowing all over the neighborhood begging for food. He had crusty scabs from fleas and insect bites all along his neck and back bone (allergic reaction). We kept him in for a week and let him out when he looked healthier and he disappeared for 3 days. When I let him in again because he was scratching at the door, I noticed a vicious rope burn around his neck. I said, that's IT. He stays with me from now on. In the last year he has gone from 7.5 to 10.4 lbs and he is not fat.
Your comment has inspired me to comment! I recently moved to South Korea to teach English. One of the things that struck me about this place early on was the lack of cheap plastic products. Everything here from cars to pencil sharpeners have a sturdy quality that you don't often find in the States. Additionally, every aspect of daily life contains efficiency, from the water heater/furnace which heats up my floor and requires you to push a button for "shower heat," to the "garbage trucks" which pass by 6 days a week, and come with staff who sort out all the recycling as they collect it. They even have receptacles for "food trash" which they take and use to make "junk food." Recently the national government decided to dedicate 2% of it's GDP for use in making Korea greener. I have been in certain wonderment. The downside to all this? I had to leave my cat with a friend. Koreans don't often keep cats as pets. But all said, Twinkie is living very well in NE Minneapolis. He lives with several other kitties for the first time in his life, and he gets along remarkably well with them. (He always did like other cats.) My friend lives in an old school turned apartment building, which his room is the gym, so he pretty much lives in cat heaven. He's a 4 year old 16 pound yellow tabby, no fat.
Twinkie is a large kitty! He seems like a maine coon sized cat, almost. I'm glad he is doing well.
As to the mass production equals cheap problem, that is really systemic in the USA. I read that Henry Ford started the ball rolling on this ridiculous anti-quality barrage. The point is that mass production has always been dehumanizing. The concept, like mono-culture in agriculture, is environment destroying. And for at least 30 years, the darwinian idea that it's okay to let people die if they don't have the money to get health care or live a quality life, is just a cruel extention of the "everything is a commodity to be exploited" meme that began with Rockefeller.
We need to get back to quality because the most elementary basics of human respect for uniqueness and our survival depend on it. The corporate monsters keep pushing uniformity and group think because they are greedy and stupid. They have never stopped to think what a cancer groupthink is for humanity.
I wish we did things like they do in Korea. I'm glad they aren't boweled over by the crazy capitalists from out country.
Speaking of cats, I love cats and have one myself. They are a great source of reducing blood pressure. :)
Jennifer,
I know. Fresh lemon catnip isn't available all year. [:<)