Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rich Nations Accused of Climate-Change 'Bullying'
Britain and other rich countries are using aid money as a lever to bully developing countries over climate change, according to a new report by an anti-poverty pressure group.
Filipino activists in flower headwear listen during a rally about climate change near the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines, Thursday Nov. 24, 2011. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila) With international climate change negotiations beginning in South Africa tomorrow, a report by the World Development Movement reveals that threats and bribery are often attached to aid packages.
The report also highlights how wealthy nations use secret meetings to produce last-minute deals – presenting poorer countries with a fait accompli, as happened in Copenhagen two years ago, when delegates had an hour to read the final document drawn up by 26 countries.
The negotiations in Durban are the last chance to set binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions before the Kyoto agreement expires next year.
Murray Worthy, of the World Development Movement, said: "The US, UK and EU are using the same strong-arm tactics to bribe developing countries that we saw at Copenhagen. Abandoning their previous commitments to provide finance to help developing countries deal with climate change, they are now saying finance will only be available to countries that agree to a new deal that effectively abandons the Kyoto treaty."
The report accuses countries such as America and Britain of using "unfair, undemocratic and even deceitful means to skew the climate change negotiations in their favour".
At Copenhagen, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was reported to have treated leaders of small island states as "naughty school children".
79 Comments so far
Show AllThe law of karma will hold those who had the power to do something constructive in the face of climate change to account for instead leveraging their influence to do nothing... which in this case translates to excessive harm. It's interesting that the same nations that have bullied the world with armies, weapons, and war are right on the front lines of doing nothing to protect populations from Mother Nature's growing fury. Extending the metaphor of the Great Mother, imagine how this sentient Being feels with the painful knowledge that so many of the species borne from her Body have been decimated in the relative blink of an eye? One after another, each sent into senseless extinction so that the Merchants of More can Manufacture More of Thneeds (as Dr. Seuss termed them). It's a paradigm of death delivery dressed up as Defense and/or proof of advanced civilization.
"The law of karma will hold those who had the power to do something constructive in the face of climate change to account"
Sorry, but it won't. It'd be awesome if justice existed independet of human beings, but it doesn't. People make justice - and we either hold these evil scum to it or they *will* get away with it, as they always have. What exactly in History makes you believe there is justice and that karma comes back to people? Everything in reality says the opposite, as far as I can see. You can certainly say that I don't see far enough, and that may well be true - but an important principle of pedagogy is that evaluation (be it punishment or reward) has to be a quick and unmistakeable reaction to an action, that it has to be unambiguously connected to it mentally, otherwise it won't work - and what's the point of punishment if you can't learn from it and if it doesn't stop you from repeating mistakes and crimes?
Interesting but slightly not thoroughly thought through comment Atomsk I fear. As you said. I fear that, "You don't see far enough".
"It'd be awesome if justice existed independe[n]t of human beings"
Nothing exists independently of anything else, but Karma works without the "interference" of humans, just like a natural baffle in the flow of a stream.
Take a drug addict. Such activity is inevitably self destructive, the more the addict feeds the illness that he or she sees as a "need" the more the addict suffers, although for an ever shorter time that "need" is assuaged with a temporary "fix". The addict suffers and dies in his or her own deprivation or excess. That is the self inflicted punishment.
The corporatocracy and their political go-fors suffer addiction to usury and cheap, dirty energy.
Pain and suffering is relative. The suffering of those in collapsing or collapsed sophisticated and financially complex economies are far greater, by multiples, not by degrees, than those who had less to loose or are accustomed to the precariousness of circumstance (people of the lesser "developed" nations).
And so Karma naturally hands out rewards and suffering by degrees, of improper grasping and dependence. If you live a simple and clean life, with less grasping and less demands to cause imbalances in nature you will naturally feel suffer less. Certainly you have less to fear. And the fear of pain is far greater suffering than the pain itself.
Death is inevitable and comes sooner or later. The more one tries to avoid that inevitability the more one wastes one's life, it's true, and one never defies death. That is the Karma too. The Karma is the ultimate teacher. Mother earth as well has no place for political compromises. And those that think there are last minute technological redoes, are living in a fools paradise. Re-engineering the climate is the road to certain disaster. But that is another story of human arrogance and stupidity.
Well yeah, it would be nice. But I'm pretty sure that the biggest criminals, the individuals most responsible for mass suffering, have never received, even remotely, their fair share of justice, and they never will. No matter how I look at it, I see success and power and even happiness going to fucked up evil scum and nothing like that for nice people.
"Pain and suffering is relative. The suffering of those in collapsing or collapsed sophisticated and financially complex economies are far greater, by multiples, not by degrees, than those who had less to loose or are accustomed to the precariousness of circumstance (people of the lesser "developed" nations)."
Please. Would you be willing to explain this personally to poor people in developing nations? Seriously, you're probably right if material well-being is above a certain minimum level, which is absolutely not true for probably most of the world's population. If you're hungry, uneducated, have no future and are locked out of all (material and intellectual) wealth of the world, you suffer more than when your access to a few of these decreases.
"And so Karma naturally hands out rewards and suffering by degrees, of improper grasping and dependence. If you live a simple and clean life, with less grasping and less demands to cause imbalances in nature you will naturally feel suffer less. Certainly you have less to fear. And the fear of pain is far greater suffering than the pain itself."
Errr, I don't get it, are you saying that "fear of pain" (that btw people can and do think away through religion and forgetting and rationalisation and diverting attention through material excesses) is worse than actual pain, like being raped, electrocuted, waterboarded, suffering from hunger?
I was already called an idiot over what I think is a very similar issue (by a person with whose posts I basically don't disagree, although this issue was different (not my idiocy, he may easily be right on that one)), but I think actual physical suffering is much worse, much much much worse, incomparably so, than mental suffering, which can of course be bad enough (and of course this may be different for a few people, but not the overwhelming majority).
And I do not believe, because I know a little bit of history, in karma or justice. They definitely do not exist in this world. What is possible is that humans could turn the idea of justice into reality, that is all. But it is just an ideal, something to strive for, not an automatic part of the world. Right now, the biggest criminals are never punished, the biggest murderers are proud of their crimes, the biggest greed has control over all life, the biggest lies are believed by most people. And when the rich and powerful fucks destroy the world, they will survive for longer and will suffer less than everyone else. They'll just buy their way out of karmic justice. Of course they will die eventually, but there will be no justice and no karma in their death.
And honestly, I don't see the difference between Karma or divine Justice administered after death. On a statistical level, these ideas have mostly the same effect of stifling action and thinking to change the world, and this was their function in societies organised around these beliefs, whether in Catholic Europe or Hindu India: to keep up the status quo (of course this doesn't mean that every single person who believes in them serves the status quo and none of them want change, there are quite a few very strong counterexamples, but I'm talking about the general statistical historical effect).
You ask:
"Please. Would you be willing to explain this personally to poor people in developing nations? Seriously, you're probably right if material well-being is above a certain minimum level, which is absolutely not true for probably most of the world's population. If you're hungry, uneducated, have no future and are locked out of all (material and intellectual) wealth of the world, you suffer more than when your access to a few of these decreases."
Let me explain it to what I see as a poor person, who thinks he is more poor than others, those "rich and powerful fucks destroy[ing] the world". From reading your writing I know you are not one of the "over" educated without a future and believe me, they count in the hundreds of millions too, and is their suffering less? Your world is black and white in the way you see "justice", you are worse than a Jesuit, because you don't even have the learning. You miss many shades of grey. The higher one puts oneself, the further one has to fall. There is freedom and strength in less. This is what is needed to be discover when looking at the future of a planet burning up because people want more.
For example, what do you think hurts Dr. Henry Kissinger most at the end of his pathetic life, being old and decrepit and about to die soon, or being known as a war criminal that managed only to avert jailed by the power of his rotten friends. He cannot even fool himself when his fawning cronies are not around, that he was a "great statesman". He is a clever man and when he is alone, and we are all alone in our minds, he knows just what kind of a rotten shit he is and always has been and how many good people died because of his decisions and he has to wake up and smell it every day he lives.
Now aren't you lucky and noble that you cannot feel any compassion for his suffering, and if I'm wrong and he does not suffer, then for his mental illness as a sociopath, one who cannot himself empathise with another human? How inuhan is that life? But you can judge; and you can quantify the crimes, big ones small ones. Can you? Well then. who would you imprison, torture, or have thrown out of a plane?
What level of well being is sufficient to share what you have with others? Or do you keep it all to yourself, so those useless lazy buggers below you and those powerful fucks above you don't get a slice of your pie? Have you ever noticed how the most generous people are those who have least and the least generous are usually those that wouldn't miss it? Wonder why?
BTW a little bit of hunger is good at sharpening the whit, you might try fasting from time to time! And those "powerful fucks" didn't do it all by themselves, did they? It was the avarice of billions and many generations that gave them the way. If we all lived like cows, eating your grass, chewing your cud, and standing in our cleaned stall, and accepting your fate, they'd never get their hooks into us. Oh yes, that is what we did but we wanted more, and they gave us more, at what cost?
But if you think about it, all you really need is to eat enough, to have the energy to live, to have shelter and clothing, the rest is up to you. What matters is what you do with your life and your mind and how you use what you receive. Anything else is just superficial and not worthy of attachment. Do you give back more than you receive?
Change the world now that's it. Did you change the world today? If I can get you mad enough, or thoughtful enough to read a couple of books so that you learn what Karma is, and is not, (and you will learn that it is not something you "believe in" or "divine justice") and then maybe you will stop spouting ignorant crap about Catholicism and Hinduism and stifling action. I do not believe you have much knowledge of history, certainly not about humanity or Asian belief systems.
That was excellent! __ BAM! Case closed.
You attribute opinions and attitudes to me that I do not have. I do not think I'm poorer than others, just the opposite: I know I'm richer than most people in the world. Also, you know nothing about whether I'm overeducated or undereducated. Maybe you got that impression because I'm not a native speaker and never attended an American university that would have taught me a style of writing that would make me look smart. But, you know, I don't give a shit about that. I read and write and curse in several languages and I have my reason for that. As I said, I'm not a poor person, at least I wouldn't be considered one in my country, but I know poor people, and I know that suffering caused by material poverty is not really comparable to our "elite" mental suffering.
"For example, what do you think hurts Dr. Henry Kissinger most at the end of his pathetic life, being old and decrepit and about to die soon, or being known as a war criminal that managed only to avert jailed by the power of his rotten friends. He cannot even fool himself when his fawning cronies are not around, that he was a "great statesman". He is a clever man and when he is alone, and we are all alone in our minds, he knows just what kind of a rotten shit he is and always has been and how many good people died because of his decisions and he has to wake up and smell it every day he lives. "
This is called conscience, and I'm not entirely sure that Kissinger has anything like that. And while I could probably muster some superficial sympathy for him if I really wanted, I don't see the point. I'm not Jesus Christ and I can't love all people equally. In addition to this, you can't seriously say that a few pangs of conscience he might feel at the end of his long life is commensurate with the suffering he caused. If that's Karma (which of course it isn't), it's not worth much.
"But you can judge; and you can quantify the crimes, big ones small ones."
Of course, to some extent you have to, unless you pretend to be God with a perspective where all crimes seem the same. I know for example, that in most cases jaywalking is not as big a crime as killing someone (although it's possible to invent special circumstances). I'm not sure about all the details and "ranking" of all crimes of course, and there are lots of questions I can not decide, in which case I fall back to common morality or admit ignorance. But I know simple things, that there are big crimes and small crimes; there are things that are considered crimes legally that are not crimes in reality and there are things that aren't considered crimes but are in fact that. And I don't think my opinion on the most important of these is so different from the majority.
"Well then. who would you imprison, torture, or have thrown out of a plane?"
Honestly, I don't give a shit about revenge and I don't want to do that to anyone. But I do think that a lot of people who have power, shouldn't have.
"What level of well being is sufficient to share what you have with others? Or do you keep it all to yourself, so those useless lazy buggers below you and those powerful fucks above you don't get a slice of your pie? Have you ever noticed how the most generous people are those who have least and the least generous are usually those that wouldn't miss it? Wonder why?"
o_O I have no idea what you're talking about. Apart from my books, I have basically no material possessions, and it's not like I don't give those away all the time to anyone remotely interested. Thing is, I have a good comfortable job that pays well enough, which most people in the world do not have. As for sharing, I inherited my total lack of awareness of material circumstances from my mom, so I'm not really good at keeping anything for myself, but that's just wastefulness, lack of foresight and avoidance of responsibility, not really a good trait at all.
"BTW a little bit of hunger is good at sharpening the whit, you might try fasting from time to time! And those "powerful fucks" didn't do it all by themselves, did they? It was the avarice of billions and many generations that gave them the way. If we all lived like cows, eating your grass, chewing your cud, and standing in our cleaned stall, and accepting your fate, they'd never get their hooks into us. Oh yes, that is what we did but we wanted more, and they gave us more, at what cost? "
A little fasting may be good, and I do that from time to time, when I run out of money. That's just another thing I can afford because of my luck with my job (ie. I don't need to cook for myself as I know I'll be able to afford to order a pizza so I can afford to be lazy and wasteful). But I wouldn't compare my end of month "fasts" to real hunger at all.
"But if you think about it, all you really need is to eat enough, to have the energy to live, to have shelter and clothing, the rest is up to you. What matters is what you do with your life and your mind and how you use what you receive. Anything else is just superficial and not worthy of attachment. Do you give back more than you receive? "
A lot of people don't even get these, and that was my point. A lot of people don't even have enough to eat or access to shelter, let alone "luxuries" like learning.
"Change the world now that's it. Did you change the world today? If I can get you mad enough, or thoughtful enough to read a couple of books so that you learn what Karma is, and is not, (and you will learn that it is not something you "believe in" or "divine justice") and then maybe you will stop spouting ignorant crap about Catholicism and Hinduism and stifling action. I do not believe you have much knowledge of history, certainly not about humanity or Asian belief systems. "
Errr, what I said about Catholicism and Hinduism isn't even controversial. The social function of a belief in a kind of post-death judgement (which can be a direct judgement or a sequence of lives that "evens out" morally over time, ie. where what happens in a life is in a large part a moral consequence of previous lives) is in a large part to stop people striving for change in this one. If you think you deserve being a dalit because of your karma or if you think your evil landlord will be punished in Hell for his avarice, you have a lower chance of rebelling against your status. Maybe it is ignorant crap, so if you can, please explain why, as this seems to be a pretty common (and common sense) conclusion.
Atomsk, I enjoyed reading this little branching off into a debate on karma. I could agree with parts of both arguments - yours as well as Lucitanian's. As someone who has somewhat internalized this concept of karma, I took a conscious position many, many years ago - maybe 20+ years ago, that I would use it only to guide **my** choices and not use it as a way to explain or rationalize other people's circumstances or prospects in the future.
Yes, it's tempting to think that the evil people will face their consequences. But even if they do, we may not always see a direct correlation and direct proof. They may suffer in a next life, but we can't prove it. And we can't prove that those who suffer in this life has done something bad previously, either. I know some VERY, VERY good people who accepted their suffering in this life as a consequence of something they might have done previously, and it pained me so much that I wanted to throw away the whole damn concept of karma as worthless. But then, it was their way of accepting things that they could not change, and they were not bitter about any of it. In fact, they only made life richer and more meaningful for other people around them simply by their presence and their way of living their life. A belief that these people will be richly rewarded in the future is a comforting thought for me, because of my love for them and a way of coping with my regret for not being able to do more for them. But it's a personal thing for me, and it's obviously not policy that I can recommend for others. Besides, I am also intrigued by the notion that the present moment is all we have, and so what matters is how we live right now.
I also believe that karma is not just about wrong action. It is also about inaction in the face of injustice. The saying "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" has been so true in recent history.
That said, I cannot help thinking that some people committed to particular ideologies are accumulating a bit of bad karma by their refusal to acknowledge other people's suffering because of being blinded by their ideology, and they end up contributing in some small ways to the ongoing suffering of others by arguing from a superficial, secondhand, and wrong information. So my way of confronting this accumulation of bad karma by otherwise well-meaning people is to counter it with more firsthand information, from the people who are actually undergoing the suffering.
I liked your post a lot, especially these parts:
"As someone who has somewhat internalized this concept of karma, I took a conscious position many, many years ago - maybe 20+ years ago, that I would use it only to guide **my** choices and not use it as a way to explain or rationalize other people's circumstances or prospects in the future. "
So awesome. And:
"Yes, it's tempting to think that the evil people will face their consequences. But even if they do, we may not always see a direct correlation and direct proof. They may suffer in a next life, but we can't prove it. And we can't prove that those who suffer in this life has done something bad previously, either."
Yeah, this is exactly why I wrote this in my first post: "an important principle of pedagogy is that evaluation (be it punishment or reward) has to be a quick and unmistakeable reaction to an action, that it has to be unambiguously connected to it mentally, otherwise it won't work - and what's the point of punishment if you can't learn from it and if it doesn't stop you from repeating mistakes and crimes? "
I mean, people make mistakes and can even be "bad", that is unavoidable - but while I can understand revenge coming from anger, I don't think it changes anything for the better. I can at most justify punishment (which includes intentionally increasing suffering) as something that helps learning, whether at the social or individual level, something that helps people and societies become better, but not for itself (maybe there are other justifications too, I don't know). Of course it can be said that karma is the way of spiritual learning, that you accumulate spiritual experience and knowledge through multiple lifetimes, but as long as this experience and knowledge doesn't manifest itself in real life, as long as wisdom gained from past lives is not a reliable, common real-life experience that everyone can accept as a fact of life like hunger or words, as long as you have to take second-hand recollections of it on trust and can't check for yourself, it can't reliably form a social basis of commonly applied moral knowledge - even with the best intentions, it will turn into an authority, a source of power just waiting to be abused, without any control from reality.
Yes, you are absolutely right I did suggest lots of assumptions which had nothing to do with you but did manage to bring out your better side and you write excellently, better than many here at CD, especially when you drop the epithets. For someone who said they don't understand the question or suggestion, you sure gave a clarifying response.
No I was not talking about pangs of conscience, I was talking about a man how spent his entire life wanting to be respected, realizing his own utter failure as a human. Hunger can be remedied with food, but one cannot relive ones life. The hungry guy can hope to eat tomorrow. What can Kissenger hope for? At least Caligula could claim madness.
You seem to have captured the arbitrary nature of crime and punishment in the legal sense. I am more interested in the concept of peoples judgement on a human and philosophical level. Like how I might see Kissenger's crimes, relative to how he might see his own and then there is the question of how those that suffered as a result of them might judge the crime, or the man.
I feel I most probably would agree with you on many points. The questions of man made climate change is most often laid at the doors of hapless politicians and faceless corporate interests, but the reality is that demand for more and better stuff at cheaper costs by more people is what causes the ecological, economic, and social imbalance. That demand is the same one that invents Gods to forgive sins. With slightly higher and less material goals, a little less competition and a little more cooperation and compassion, humanity might actually have avoided this apparently suicidal path.
Yes, a lot of people die needlessly from hunger. That is the sad truth that each well fed individual like me has to live with. Yet every action has a reaction no matter how great or small. Some little peccadilloes or an act of compassion can have vast and unknown consequences, while massive wars costing the lives of millions, may change very little. It is not simply a matter of reincarnation (although I am Buddhist and accept that "belief") or a question a life in heaven or hell after this one that people may need to believe in. This time, this moment is all there is. It defines the future. Our present is defined by our past yet we see there what we want to. Our future, our ego pretends to forge, but that delusion become tempered by the reality of our present action. We live with free will and its consequences. To understand that suspension of time and action is to understand Karma.
I enjoyed our exchange. For a deeper definition of Karma:
http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud9.htm
"No I was not talking about pangs of conscience, I was talking about a man how spent his entire life wanting to be respected, realizing his own utter failure as a human. Hunger can be remedied with food, but one cannot relive ones life. The hungry guy can hope to eat tomorrow. What can Kissenger hope for? At least Caligula could claim madness."
Hehe I think you are probably a nice person and maybe for some reason you can't imagine that some people aren't actually nice deep down inside :-) I just think humans are pretty flexible beings: we can believe anything and its opposite, a human life can be filled chock full of incosistencies, contradictions and irrationality and still appear completely rational for the one that lives it, and one can be the source of immense harm and suffering and still not recognise it or convince themselves otherwise. We are just that powerful :-/ Also, while lying is not good, and lying to yourself may lead to some unhappiness, it's also a fact that life is finite. Maybe it's impossible to live an infinite life based on a lie and be happy, but it seems to work for a lot of the people who do die eventually.
"You seem to have captured the arbitrary nature of crime and punishment in the legal sense. I am more interested in the concept of peoples judgement on a human and philosophical level. Like how I might see Kissenger's crimes, relative to how he might see his own and then there is the question of how those that suffered as a result of them might judge the crime, or the man."
Well, this is a difference in our curiosity then :-) I'm much more interested in theories of people who tried to understand reality and talked about it and added to common knowledge (and this includes everything from literature to religion, not just science or philosophy). People are interesting enough, but I'm not that good with them, so I try to stick to what I consider the external world :-D
"The questions of man made climate change is most often laid at the doors of hapless politicians and faceless corporate interests, but the reality is that demand for more and better stuff at cheaper costs by more people is what causes the ecological, economic, and social imbalance."
With this, I kind of disagree. Of course there is probably some kind of wish for more material wealth in everyone, or at least the overwhelming majority of people, but it's not intemperable at all, despite the quasi-liberal "it's human nature" stuff. Without the really extremely large spending on actively incresing demand (marketing and other propaganda for the "consumer society"), I think most people in the rich world would have stopped wishing for more already. I also think that a lot of people would even now give up a lot of material wealth in exchange for a better society that eg. has more free time, more possibility of involvement in local and larger scale political affairs and discussions, more time with children, gives a better chance for doing work that people actually find fulfilling and allows people to have more control over it and so on - as material wealth is too often nothing but a placebo, a drug that helps one forget what's really missing for a short time. I think the (absolutely understandable) wish for material security and wealth was abused and exploited by the cancerous system that we built. (Whether we had to unavoidably build such a system in history, I don't know, maybe, and in that sense, it would really be a part of "human nature", but I don't really believe that's obvious.)
"Yes, a lot of people die needlessly from hunger. That is the sad truth that each well fed individual like me has to live with. Yet every action has a reaction no matter how great or small. Some little peccadilloes or an act of compassion can have vast and unknown consequences, while massive wars costing the lives of millions, may change very little. It is not simply a matter of reincarnation (although I am Buddhist and accept that "belief") or a question a life in heaven or hell after this one that people may need to believe in. This time, this moment is all there is. It defines the future. Our present is defined by our past yet we see there what we want to. Our future, our ego pretends to forge, but that delusion become tempered by the reality of our present action. We live with free will and its consequences. To understand that suspension of time and action is to understand Karma."
Hmm, I don't know, just a small thing: I don't think karma can really "work" without reincarnation, as it is primarily the question of moral balance (as "karma is moral action and moral responsibility") and individual lives are very often and very visibly morally unequal, but that's just what I think.
A lot of half interesting, but mundane off topic coments posted due to Siouxrose using the work "Karma" in her first posted comments here and your nonsensical disagreeing with her with your silly and nonsense agruments due to word usage.
I believe Sue very appropriatly used the word Karma in the context of Mother Nature, or natural events of nature which will now occur due to human's stupidy of over loading the atmosphere with Co2 from burning coal.
Mother Nature does not shoot dice, as the geologist and author John Atcheson so well described in a breif scientific paper he penned which concerns the dire effects global warming is going to soon blast us with.... Permanently blast us when runaway GW begins within a few years, perhaps a few as two more years.
Your acting like a self ordained psychologist with your unwanted or asked for advice and you vulgar condemnatins is laughable... Do you honestly believe anyone here gives a rip of what you think? As the sage Dr. Winfred Godmicule once stated, "stuff it".
You are correct Siouxrose... Mother Nature, with our able assistance, is going to set off runaway global warming with dire results which nobody has ever honestly imagined... It will be Hell on Earth and our rich nations leaders are not only ignorant, they are stupid.
"The negotiations in Durban are the last chance to set binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions before the Kyoto agreement expires next year".
Could someonen please explain to me what good the Kyoto Agreenent has accomplished... It is projected that within the next ten years, we humans will burn 35% more coal than we presenty are burning.
The amount of coal we have been and still are burning is already going to insure we have runaway global warming, which very possibly will begin by 2015,, unelss drastic action is taken now to prevent it.
The world leaders had better wake up to the truth by Monday morning.
Hi, Wayne. I admire your commitment to this topic, whether in the form of exposing the ravages of Depleted Uranium, or the radioactive particles emanating from Fukushima, or the methane "vaults" about to open due to the huge temperature melt-down... however, I would not say the leaders are ignorant. Arrogant is a better word. Those who've been taught to abide by military codes confuse their power to kill and blow up civilizations with the opposing power to heal or protect. I believe they are indoctrinated into their own narrow concept of power. Also, there is the financial element. How can they tell their big money donors that the game these hot shots are invested in, the game that's allowed them to extract all the goodies this world can offer, must end! As if the "live simply that others may simply live" adage can be internalized by the uber: capitalists of our times? And finally, let's not under-estimate how deeply the myth of End Times speaks to many of these people. Some are involved with prayer breakfasts in Washington, D.C. and Bush, Tony Blair, Erik Prince, and likely Hillary all think that they're part of a holy war... with the big finale due any day now in Jerusalem. Why worry about pesky things like The End of Oil, melting glaciers, or massive climate change when Jesus is about to show up to mend it all, or otherwise beam the faithful up to some cloud get-away in the sky? Deranged, sociopathic, greedy, and hubristic are better definitions for those who have bullied their way up to the top of the human pyramid. GW NORTH (and maybe some other CD posters) recommended the most excellent book: "The Chalice & The Blade." It validates everything I've ever stated iin this forum about the difference between a balanced society, and one with values 100% oriented towards Mars, the god of war and destruction. Decisions NOT to help heal the earth while continuing to fund (and plan yet more) war validate my contention. --------------------------------------------------------------- In other words, these "leaders" don't want to wake up. But millions of everyday people ARE waking due to the calamitous disregard they feel coming from leadership, along with grotesque negligence on the part of these dead, if highly positioned, souls.
Sioux,
"I would not say the leaders are ignorant..." I would. Consider how they spend their time. Day after day they consult with bankers, generals, captains of industry and a vast assortment of security advisers In none of those conversations is truth brought to the table. Do you reckon obama, in his off hours, seeks the truth, or even considers the consequences of his actions? Karma: The wealthy prosper, the poor get poorer.
Not being able to see beyond their own politician carriers which are defined by the short term economic interests and machinations of wealthy and powerful greed crazed oligarchs and sycophants that are their puppet masters, is the epitome of ignorance on the part of what we euphemistically call these "leaders". This is exactly their ignorance.
Ignorance does not only mean not knowing. It also means ignoring in terms of looking the other way, avoiding an obvious truth.
--The report accuses countries such as America and Britain of using "unfair, undemocratic and even deceitful means to skew the climate change negotiations in their favour". --
In who's favour are these "representatives" negotiating? Certainly they have not got the interests of their citizens in mind. Their constituents are obviously limited to the narrow, short term corporate interests.
I can only repeat that in Durban the bulk of effected "developing nations" including the Alliance of Small Island States who disagree with the so called "Rich Nations" namely the UK, European Union, Japan, US, should form a union of solidarity and survival with an elected representative council and with immediate effect suspend all interest payments and repayments of all debts to the World Bank, the IMF, and the commercial banks of those "Rich Nations". Those funds to be diverted in full to a common fund to be held and dispersed for and by the union for projects of climate change mitigation and disaster defence.
Such action can be justified legally as unilateral deferment to national security. Not applying the Kyoto Protocols and refusing to agree any subsequent replacement is tantamount to global genocide by negligence on the part of the major polluters. Killing the environment is the same as attacking the people that depend on it for life, and in the face of such a direct threat, financial and commercial interests of the offenders should be used as far as possible to mitigate the damages.
Let the rich countries choke on their own debt. How would they deal with 100 Argentina or Iceland type unilateral defaults? They have already started gagging on their own greed. Such a union could insure the necessary revolution, negotiate a more balanced future and in any case the resultant economic crash in the developed world can only reduce their emissions further.
Well said ~Lucitanian~... You nailed it with spikes.
>>WayneWR: "Could someonen please explain to me what good the Kyoto Agreenent has accomplished... "<<
WayneWR, it pains me whenever I see such questions raised somewhat casually. I have posted so many times on the importance of an international treaty and specifically about the Kyoto Protocol. It is wrong to dismiss the Kyoto treaty as a failure, because some of the countries that did sign and ratify the treaty lived up to their commitments for the most part. The biggest factor for the apparent overall failure is the refusal of the USA to ratify this treaty. And the deliberate sabotaging of all efforts to make it work, in the years following the signing of the treaty in 1997.
First of all, the Kyoto treaty was NOT aimed at producing any major cuts in the emissions in the first stage. The primary aim was to get the ball rolling, to start making modest cuts in emissions of the rich nations, before the rest of the countries can be brought on board to accept binding limits on their emissions. HOWEVER, because of the refusal of the US to undertake even this most modest of cuts - of only 6% below 1990 levels by the year 2012, the whole treaty and all subsequent negotiations have been criminally sabotaged.
I would like to refer to a whole lot of info. on this topic, but I can sense extreme frustration and disgust rising up in me whenever I try to do so. I would just refer you to a recent thread where I was arguing on the need for such a treaty involving ALL countries. The main, and obvious, need is to cap the emissions on a global basis. That is, to put an upper limit on the TOTAL emissions, on a GLOBAL basis, as dictated by science, and then work out the details of how to apportion this limit to various countries. Voluntary or unilateral actions at the national level alone simply cannot achieve this GLOBAL upper limit on emissions.
Please check out this thread where I had posted a few comments.
Greenhouse Gases Rise by Record Amount
While my comments on this topic are all over the page, perhaps you could read the comments starting from "Alcyon - Nov 5 2011 - 4:17am".
I am assuming that you asked the question with some level of seriousness, so I want you to understand why such a treaty is important, why "Kyoto" was not totally effective (but it WAS partially effective), who made it ineffective and who has continued to sabotage all subsequent efforts. If you are going to reply, I would hope that you do so after you've had a chance to browse through my comments there. I do not think I will post further on this thread on this topic, because, as I said, this is one topic that makes me frustrated to no end!
Alcyon,
If your defense of Kyoto made no traction, you would be justified in feeling frustrated. But your arguments have been substantive and effective. I hope you don't get the feeling nobody is listening.
There's no substitute for binding emission limits from international negotiations. That's the spirit of Kyoto, and (as I read it) of your defense of Kyoto. Somebody needs to say it, and you've been saying it well.
Obama's methodical sabotage of climate talks, closing off the possibility of progress for many more years, will be remembered as the most severe, consequential crime of his administration.
Thanks, Aleph Null, for concurring. Unfortunately, and alarmingly, all our discussions and arguments are becoming irrelevant. Here's a sample news story from today:
Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month
>>"Canada will announce next month that it will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, CTV News has learned. The Harper government has tentatively planned an announcement for a few days before Christmas, CTV's Roger Smith reported Sunday evening.
"Canada goes to Durban with a number of countries sharing the same objective, and that is to put Kyoto behind us," (Environment Minister Peter) Kent said.
NDP environment critic Megan Leslie called the government's decision to pull out of the Kyoto accord "disappointing." "It's a really cynical and it's a really cowardly move," Leslie told CTV News.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May called the move "a very damaging act of sabotage." "It will reverberate around the world," May told CTV. "Canada will be a pariah globally if it goes through with this."<<
So you see, it's so easy for others to point fingers and find excuses to opt out when the biggest emitter of GHG refuses to agree to a binding treaty.
It's like trying to achieve worldwide nuclear disarmament when one country refuses to participate. Very soon, you'll see even those countries that might have taken the first step towards disarmament suddenly backing off and pointing fingers and the whole deal will collapse.
I agree especially with your last line. I just hope that something changes in people's minds in the days and months to come that would lead humanity away from the brink of disaster. Something that would enable ordinary people to bypass governments and corporations. I know at this point it's only a fantasy, but ...
The Kyoto Protocol was certainly a great start. It had the wisdom to try and create a system that bridged the rich nation - poor nation divide. If it continued and deepened in cuts, it could have provided a truly global solution to a global problem. Of course, it would have been better if the cuts had been based on consumption rather than just carbon output in the sense that Chinese products made for export consumed in the US should have its carbon output added to the US rather than China since it's US consumption that is driving the carbon output. Outsourcing one's carbon producing industries for domestic consumption, and then claiming a carbon reduction is just a whitewash. Nevertheless, the system was wise with respect to carbon trading that allowed technology transfer from west to east, removing an environmental treaty from becoming a trade war in disguise.
Now we're back to the same old story where environmental issues are just a smokescreen for western protectionism and displays of power. You simply can't divorce environmental issues from inequality between and within nations and expect a successful result.
The ruling class of this earth is leading us into ruin and still people are wondering whether inconveniencing others in a minor way is an acceptable form of protest. It's time for revolution to upend the current system before it's too late to reverse the damage to the planet which sustains all of us and come up with a global solution to live our lives peacefully, justly, and within natural limits.
Yeah ~~Ragavacharyar~~ ,,, the Kyoto agreement was the (first step) and clearly the final step as things have progressed so far.
Look; in spite of the Kyoto agreement, economists have recently determined that burning coal will have increased world wide by 35% by the year 2021, only ten more years... Good grief,, it was still horrible if we had only reduced it by 35% by 2021.. Any %age increase is the worng way to travel.
The Kyoto agreement was a "pacifer" for the lefties, warmers, tree huggers, us guys, until the Koch Bros', major oil and coal firms could develop the most highly funded program ever seen in human's history, to spread false information and derail the global warming issue with the paid professional deniers, a few corrupt scientists and science professors and some elected rats,,, and the smart ones who thought up the extremely effectve "Climategate" lie.
A lie which was broadcast by the New York Times, who's editors should have reported some thieves illegally hacked and stole climate scientists e-mails and are attempting to discredit them by taking their words out of context... But noooo! __ Idiots,,, no,, fools.
Le't get real about it and stop tryng to kid ourselves. The Kyoto agreement was well orchestrated bullshit... We desperatly need some firm, sensible and very tough action agreed upon by all at the climate conference starting today.
Ragavacharyar, "outsourcing one's carbon producing industries" can be easily addressed by tightening up the accounting system, whereby the carbon emissions associated with imported products are "credited" to the importing country and "debited" from the exporting country. Such accounting does take place on an unofficial level. Not just for carbon, but even for the so-called "virtual water".
I agree that it's time for the people to take charge of the situation (and that would require comprehending what's really at stake here) and come up with ways to achieve what the governments have failed to do.
Well ~Alycon~, I am sorry if I pained you, but I very respectfully and totally disagree with you... I have read your many posts on the Kyoto issue and have never replied to them, but will now since you replied to me and so we can or may debate the issue.
Your one comment is the (*most importnat*),.where you stated,,, ("First of all, the Kyoto treaty was NOT aimed at producing any major cuts in the emissions in the first stage.).
It should have been the FIRST and ONLY stage to cut Co2 emmissions by a major amount right away quick and all nations would have had to initiate a major program to develop truly clean energy and stop burning coal and also replace nuclear... That should have been agreed upon with full agreement by every country on Earth and we then may have not had any failed future climate conferences, such as the one starting in a few hours in Africa is predicted to fail.
The science related to global warming was well established and proven by the vast majority of thousands of scientists and college science professors and not just "climate" sceintists, but by thousands of Earth Sceintists, geologists and Oceanic Bio-chemists from all around the world,,, long before the Kyoto concference.
And it didn't make a lick of difference if many countries complied with the Kyoto agreement, because those agreements were not near good enough to reduce atmospheric Co2 emmissions below 340 ppm by 2012 or 2100 and prevent the Arctic sea ice to reduce to the point where the summer sea ice will be gone by 2015,, which is a most important issue.
And to say it is mostly the fault of the USA is higly debatable, China and India for example are on a track to outdo us with burning coal.
The Kyoto conference was a bunch of leaders (*compromising*), like the most serious issue humanity will ever face was a (political and financial) issue,,, and not an issue of saving the planet and preventing a mas extintion of life.
If every nation had complied with the Kyoto conference agreement it would have been putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound to the head, right between the eyes with a 45 slug... It's "do much of nothing" bullshit.
Sorry to dampen your enthusiasm with painful words Alycon, but that's the "painful" truth and you may wish to re-evaluate your set in concrete opinions about it, because the truth is always the truth and the only way to disrupt the truth is to be ignorant of it, ignore it, or lie about it.
In 2003 some of our top scientists were aware that CH4, methane, was causing 1/3rd of the rising temperature of Earth,,, NOT just a1/6th, as was reported by the IPCC.
Yet in spite of that new scientific peer reviewed finding by top scientists, climate scientists have still not computed the vast amounts of the Arctic's CH4 in their (computer modeling) of the vast amounts of methane gas which is releasing from the Arctic region of the planet an area of Earth where global warmng is the most prominent... Now that's so far beyond my sense of understanding, that I don't even know how to illustrate how incredibly stupid that is.
Scientists have been far too conservative with their words and warnings about the global warming issue, not wishing to sound like "Doomsayers" and sometime later find they were mistaken... Human nature strikes again... For example; Al Gore and the highly regarded scientists he garneded his imformation from were incorrect about time preidictions of rising sea levels,, and look what happened to Gore because of that. Gore was correct, except for the time frame.
And our leaders indeed are (*ignorant*) among other things,, about the truth of global warming and how few years we have left to act, Being ignorant is not a horrible fault,, we are all ignorant about many different subjects, but being ignornt about an issue which is so deadly serious and dangerously important as global warming is criminal negligance for world leaders and that includes the corrupt ones of our 536 DC elected, who have made GW a political issue.
If you decide to reply Alycon, let's continue at the end of the comments where there will be more space for our debate... Take care.
WayneWR, let me reply briefly here, and you are free to continue at the bottom of the thread next time.
Your comment that the Kyoto treaty "should have been the FIRST and ONLY stage to cut CO2 emmissions by a major amount right away quick" is correct, as per science, but completely ignores present as well as historical realities, which involve people, governments and corporations. You sound like a typical callous westerner belonging to a rich nation. You seem to have NO intention of understanding or accepting the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities". Since it is a moral principle and an issue of fairness, AND generally recognized universally (except by some), I have nothing further to say to convince you on this.
And there are a lot of "should have"'s in your post at the top. But I don't see any proposal from you as to how to make it a reality. And reality involves people and governments and corporations with varying motives, and MUST BE confronted for anything meaningful to be achieved. As a not-so-bright individual, one way of implementing such a massive, global effort that **I** know of is through an international treaty. There are treaties and conventions on human rights, banning certain types of weapons and even
banning nuclear tests, etc. I understand treaties are not very popular in the USA
Also,to say it is mostly the fault of the USA is NOT debatable AT ALL! Here's a copy/paste of my reply to another poster who kept repeating "China and India":
** Historically, as in the last 200+ years, the three biggest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita have been Britain, the US and Germany - **in that order**. (James Hansen).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7143567.stm
** Atmospheric CO2 emissions do NOT reset year over year. The present CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the cumulative effect of what was emitted in the last 200+ years, and particularly the last 100 years. This rise is due to the rupturing of the balance between CO2 emitted and CO2 absorbed.
** This imbalance was caused mostly by the rich countries, and therefore the rich countries should take the FIRST major step. Hence the "Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities."
** China, India and many developing countries are ready to commit to emission cuts IF the biggest climate criminals are also ready to play fair.
"
Developing Countries Pledge Bigger Climate Emissions Cuts Than World's Richest Nations"
** What the rich countries are trying to do is to maintain their unfair advantage while trying to put other countries at a disadvantage.
If the USA had ratified the Kyoto treaty and had met its commitments (eminently achievable, as the cut required was most modest), it would be in a position to literally bully all countries the world over, including China, to accept limits on their emissions this time around.
How do you expect a country that refuses to even cut its emissions by 6% below 1990 levels to cut CO2 emmissions by a major amount right away quick? Reality, my friend, reality!
All this is not very different from the western countries trying to beat up Iran for allegedly trying to develop nuclear weapons while these countries have enough weapons to destroy the whole world many times over. But this fact would be difficult to see and understand for an average westerner who would never question the right of his country to possess nuclear weapons. It's NOT different from the USA's refusal to clean up or pay for clean up of the bombs dropped in South East Asia. "Polluter Pays" is a simple principle. An extension of that is, "Biggest Polluter Pays First" before asking others to pay as well. It's really very simple, except for those who wish to make it complicated.
I'll reply right here ~Alycon~ I didn't expect to have personal attacks from you though.
As far as I am concerned the one thing you just posted that made any common sense to me is,,, Quote > ("Your comment that the Kyoto treaty "should have been the FIRST and ONLY stage to cut CO2 emmissions by a major amount right away quick" is correct, as per science,"). < End Alycon quote.
Yes indeed; as yoou stated alycon, I am correct as (per science) .. Forget all the rest of your comments ~Alyucon~... It is proven (science) and a matter of life or death we should be discussing..
We are now very short of time to prevent (*runaway*) global warming and if that happens,,, and it very well may by 2015, or perhaps as late as 2020,, we will have a catastrophic, world wide disaster, for (everybody) on the planet and zero chance to correct it, accordin to some of our top scientists.
Then you wrote,,, quote > ("And there are a lot of "should have"'s in your post at the top. But I don't see any proposal from you as to how to make it a reality:)..End Alycon quote.
Have you ever posted what must be done Alycon? __ You have previousy read my proposals Alycon.. We must have a world wide program to develop clean energy, not nuclear energy, and stop burning coal within two to three years time, (for starters) and do that so that all electrical power for everyone is from clean energy and then stop burning gas and oil to boil water.and have it all completed within no less than a five year time frame,, if we hope to have a chance of preventing runaway GW.
We also must have agreements with all nations to stop burning and cutting down our forests and have a massive program initiated to clean up the gian floating plastic garbage dumps in the oceans. Some are half the size of the United States.
Are such programs possible? Indeed they are, but I have very, very serious doubt such programs will ever be proposed or even discussed. They will talk (*economics*) and try to do such and such by 2100 and ignore the climate scientists warnings.
Then you wrote about me,,, Quote > ("You sound like a typical callous westerner belonging to a rich nation."). < End Alycon quote.
Bulshit Alycon, I want to save everybody possible from the catastrophy that will occur and prevent runaway global warming where we will not be then be able to do anything at all about GW... You sound like ~~Aleph Null~~ on the issue, as he cotinually repeats,, (just do as Dr. James Hansen advises and all will be hunky dorey.) ..That too is sheer nonsense, it isn't near enough. We must do much more than just Hansen's proposals.
Anyway Alycon, you have not told me or anyone else how the Kyoto agreement has helped at all... It has accomplished nothing... We are bruning far more coal now than we were then and it will increase by 35% witnin ten years time.
You don't address those facts Alycon.... Instead, you write a bunch of nothing, sounding like a politician, or an economist giving economic theories,
What did the Kyoto conference accomplish to slow down atmospheric Co2 emmissions? __ Nothing at all and don't expect anything to be accomplished at this one starting today either... There Alycon,, I answered it honestly for you, no relpy is necessary.
WayneWR, I do not doubt your sincerity on the issue. I just feel that confronting reality would mean that implementing or enforcing an upper limit on GHG emissions on a GLOBAL basis (because nothing short of that would suffice) would require a binding treaty on emissions. Since you want to believe that the Kyoto treaty has achieved nothing, I have nothing further to add, except to point out that there has NOT been any other arrangement so far that even comes close to addressing this crisis. I, and many others, have been calling for a treaty that goes far beyond what the Kyoto Protocol mandated. Whereas you are still stuck in the "Kyoto failed" argument, WITHOUT acknowledging the reason for its failure.
And I say "Kyoto" is NOT a complete failure. But honestly I don't want to take up more space here to list the real changes that did take place in European countries as a result of "Kyoto". HOWEVER, when countries around the world saw what the U.S. was up to by not ratifying the treaty, one by one, they started to cut back on their efforts. And this is also the factor that emboldened countries like China and India to proceed as they do, and this is what allows Canada to proceed as it does. It's very simple. But you REFUSE to acknowledge this factor.
Yes, I have read your proposals. But my question remains:
WHAT would make countries, or WHAT would force countries, to move from fossil fuels and into doing all that you have proposed? Forget "countries". Take ONE example: WHAT would make Canada close down tar sands oil production?
P.S. I don't think I made any "personal attacks" at all! I said "You sound like a typical callous westerner belonging to a rich nation" because you bring up China and India while refusing to acknowledge that international efforts to cut emissions have been sabotaged by rich (mostly) western nations.
You really should consider my analogy with nuclear disarmament. Most sane people agree that nuclear weapons should go. So, what would make China and Russia give up their weapons? It would have to be an international treaty, with provisions for verification and all that. And what would make them refuse to do so? Very simple: the refusal of at least one major nuclear weapons state to give up its weapons. And if such a treaty does indeed get signed, things start to move, and then regress because of the actions of ONE country, would you insist that the whole treaty was a failure, or would you also mention the reason for its failure?
And as a corollary, supposing that the big five nuclear weapons states agree on complete nuclear disarmament, do you think countries like India and Pakistan and North Korea have ANY chance of holding on to their piddly little stockpile of weapons? That would still leave one other rogue nation. But everyone else HAS TO fall in line! Again, it's very simple! The problem with your stance, IMO, is that you refuse to move from "science" to "people" and their motives.
"We must have a world wide program to develop clean energy, not nuclear energy, and stop burning coal within two to three years time, (for starters) and do that so that all electrical power for everyone is from clean energy and then stop burning gas and oil to boil water.and have it all completed within no less than a five year time frame, , if we hope to have a chance of preventing runaway GW."
In terms of solutions to how to accomplish this and recognize historical realities, I think the West should pay to help the Global South reduce its dependency on coal and nuclear power. They've got the advanced technology and the wherewithal to build clean energy generating projects. It would acknowledge that it was the West that generated most of the problem coming up today in the first place and cease to make this an issue of protectionism and economic comparative advantage. Without that component why would any underdeveloped nation agree to a cut on fossil fuel energy output?
"Bulshit Alycon, I want to save everybody possible from the catastrophy that will occur and prevent runaway global warming where we will not be then be able to do anything at all about GW... You sound like ~~Aleph Null~~ on the issue, as he cotinually repeats,, (just do as Dr. James Hansen advises and all will be hunky dorey.) ..That too is sheer nonsense, it isn't near enough. We must do much more than just Hansen's proposals. "
For fuck's sake. Of course we do. Everyone here can see this. But you have to realise that this is not obvious to everyone in the world, especially not to the people who are most responsible for this, and even more especially not to the people leading them. This is not a question of what should be done in some ideal world. A smarter ten year old kid (and you sound like one sometimes) would be able to solve this problem in an ideal world. The question is about what to do HERE and NOW, in this world that's far from ideal and where selfish, short sighted concentration of power is a huge part of reality.
You want to save everyone? Do you really think that Alcyon and Aleph Null do not? Or do you think that you have a larger amount of will than them and that sheer willpower will save the world somehow? What exactly is your point, beside endlessly repeating things that everyone here is aware of - but calling people names if they go any further and propose actual practical solutions? And how are you proposing to save people if you dismiss every single realistic attempt at a solution?
The important thing is that it is not the scientific facts or the lack of knowledge that stand in the way of a solution. It's human systems, concentrations of economic and political power. The question is not what to do with climate change technically. The question is how to make our own human systems do it. And yep, everyone (here at least) knows that if we don't act, we're fucked. There's no disagreement about that. Everyone knows we have to stop extracting and burning fossil fuels, develop clean energy etc etc. This is all absolutely trivial compared to the question of HOW to make human systems accept these obvious actions.
Excellent reply. You've covered all the bases here. As you say, I think WayneWR is seeing things from a first-world western perspective and doesn't take into account historical realities. There are plenty of Western environmentalists that can only see environmental problems with an environmental lens and can't appreciate the last several hundred years of colonialism and sixty seventy odd years of colonialism that produced the world we live in now. They also fail to recognize class inequities between and within nations as being part of a larger struggle that includes the environment. In order to rectify the environmental issues and save humanity from destruction by its own hand it is necessary to address these other issues and not solely the environmental ones, or at least take these issues into account in terms of making a fair international treaty to tackle pressing environmental problems to give more time in working out the other issues.
~Ragavacharyar~ ... I'll repeat to you and Alycon this ,, ("You don't address those facts Alycon.... Instead, you write a bunch of nothing, sounding like a politician, or an economist giving economic theories,")
An excellent reply?? ,, Anotlher long winded load of zip is an excellent reply.for you Rag.. Of course you too don't understand the issue either.
We lost several years to act on the most serious issue humanity will ever face because the Kyoto Conference was a load of political do nothing.
Tell ya what ~Rag~, when the Arctic's methane burps out by half a trillion tons, you and Allycan can rip the screen off of your computers and eat your silly words.
That half a trillion tons would be just a third of the methane gas in the Arctic.. Some of out very best scientists have warned in so may dire words,,, that if only 2% of the Arctic methane escapes from the once frozen permafrost, you can just put your affairs in order and forget it all, because the party will be over,, for everybody.
WayneWR, I've replied further down - due to the narrowing of width here. Time stamp:
Alcyon - Nov 28 2011 - 1:53pm
Oh for fucks sake. Everybody knows this ffs. Everyone. You are preaching to the choir, except that you can't seem to accept that changes can only happen in the real world.
Of course it'd be better to start doing shit immediately. Everyone here knows that, not just you. And it's not Alcyon and the other people you love to argue with who are standing in the way, it's fucking *reality*. It's not exactly difficult to keep shouting "WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE" - especially not when everyone you are shouting at actually knows this - but it's just bullshit when everyone already knows that and accepted it even without your completely pointless shouting.
And yes, you are in fact saying a bunch of nothing - apart from repeating (well known on CD) problems and issues on global warming that nobody really doubts here (although there are disagreements on the importance and urgency of certain issues). But just keeping shouting doesn't exactly help. Not that there's much wrong with it in itself - it's just your constant dismissal of all possible solutions without an actual critique and actual arguments, let alone alternative proposals, that is pretty fucking annoying.
"Tell ya what ~Rag~, when the Arctic's methane burps out by half a trillion tons, you and Allycan can rip the screen off of your computers and eat your silly words."
Are you suggesting that "Rag" isn't aware of this? That he would disagree with proposals and plans that could stop it? Fuck off with the strawmen. I mean, it's ok that you don't have any practical suggestions, and it's also ok to criticise other people's ideas even if you don't have any yourself, but you are doing neither - you are just calling people who think about solutions stupid without any arguments, any ideas, any proper criticism. Really, really fucking annoying - not that you try to focus attention on the methane issue, not even your dismissal of all practical proposals, not even the fact that you don't have one yourself - but that you pretend you are saying something worthwhile and not just repeating the same old shit that everyone is already aware of and especially that you pretend that everyone else is actually ignorant.
~~Atomsk~~ You wrote, , ("Of course it'd be better to start doing shit immediately. Everyone here knows that,")... End quote.
Well Atomsk I didn't start the debate on the issue, ~Alycon~ did, or I would't have posted several comments here.
You have any problem with Alycon? Except for a few, I replied to those who had replied to me and you start raving at me.... Shove it .. Obviously everyone does not know we have to take somd drastic and immediate action right now... If you don't like what I write, use your scroll feature and pass on by... See you told Siouxrose she was wrong too.
You said that the Kyoto treaty accomplished nothing and Alcyon disagreed. But you never made a concrete proposal, you never made a single argument, you just kept shouting "the sky is falling" - to people who already know that.
"Obviously everyone does not know we have to take somd drastic and immediate action right now..."
Every person you replied to does at least. It's pretty fucking obvious from their posts.
"If you don't like what I write, use your scroll feature and pass on by... "
This is called a discussion, and frankly, for me it's much less interesting and productive to discuss opinions that are the same as mine than different ones. This is how I learn at least. But overall, I'm pretty sure discussion forums work the other way around: if you don't want to see different opinions, and if you don't want to see counter-arguments to your own points - don't post here. A discussion is not about people just saying stuff and ignoring all replies and contrary arguments.
"See you told Siouxrose she was wrong too. "
I disagree with her. I don't think we should trust Karma to provide justice. What exactly is your point with this?
Good to see you are here contributing so much useful information to the discussion and the subject matter of the article~ Atomsk~.You are a very smart guy.. gal?
Neat the way you use the F word too,,, very impressive tt.
It is almost unbelieveable that intelligent and actually highly educated people such as Hillary Clinton, Obama, and so many others in power, will play political games and be obtuse and greedy to the point, where they will ignore the warnings of the top scientists in the world... Who are warning us of what will happen if we don't reduce our use of fossil fuels by at least 50% and do that very soon.
It is possible to accomplishs such a goal and not ruin the world economy and save the life on the only world we have from ecodcide, or another mass extintion of life.
That is not crying "the sky is falling", it is how it is and any who deny that are ignorant of the scientific facts and the truth.
This sociopathic refusal to act now dooms humans and other species to suffering and premature, avoidable death in the years ahead.
"Playing nice" with our politicians has failed. All environmental leaders, including Bill McKibben and Van Jones, must now denounce, in unambiguous language, the greedy "leaders" of these selfish and suicidal rich nations, especially Obama, for their complicity in the coming mass murder.
Fascism is capitalism unfettered
The great uprising and demand for jobs, and a bigger share of the economic pie (OWS) can only lead to more consumerism, more cars on the road , more environmental degradation. As much as OWS is to be admired for pointing out and protesting the inequities of the system the solutions they seek seem to be detrimental to the environment and the future. Does anyone else see the dilemma here?
The way out of this dilemma is pointed to by Naomi Klein, in her excellent analysis Capitalism vs. the Climate:
In other words, culture is rapidly shifting. And this is what truly sets the OWS moment apart. The Occupiers—holding signs that said Greed Is Gross and I Care About You—decided early on not to confine their protests to narrow policy demands. Instead, they took aim at the underlying values of rampant greed and individualism that created the economic crisis, while embodying—in highly visible ways—radically different ways to treat one another and relate to the natural world.
From my personal experience of OWS protests, I agree with you that there's cause for concern - I don't see or hear a whole lot of ecological concern expressed at OWS actions. There is a shortage of big-picture visionaries like Naomi Klein.
Maybe Naomi, you, and I can have a positive effect on this movement.
Good to see you are coming around a little bit there ~~Aleph Null~~..Not too long ago you wrote on a previous thread here that the OWS protestors were a buch of left wing liberals and they should all shut up and go home, to pharaphrase your words.
I never speak in the manner ascribed to me here. The poster is remembering someone else's words, not mine.
You have a memory problem Null? I can cut and pate what you wrote and post it here for you.
I can do the same with the lying, obnoxious attacks you posted yesterday on another thread here,, claiming once again that I'm a professional GW denier and a buddy of Anthony Watts.
So what? It's not like you're the nicest and most civil poster here who never uses ad hominems. This is unavoidable in debates over topics that people are actually passionate about.
Aleph Null, the following quote is from an interview video on CD today,
Pablo Solon at the UN Climate Talks in Durban: Occupy Movement Is a Source of Hope:
Pablo Solón (Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN) in the video:
"If we all come together and say, 'Hey, the 1% of the population cannot define the temperature we, the 99% of the population, are going to have to suffer', then there is the opportunity to change this. To do it only through diplomatic strategies is not possible."
I have to hope that the 'Occupy' movement will evolve into something that demands change at a more fundamental level. I think it's time for ordinary people to start thinking of how to force the issue.
It's the only wedge I've got left to hope in: that we have a chance of moving to a better way outside established systems of governance, around the ossified worldwide death trap of global capitalism. I've plum run out of the credulousness required to motivate work within the system. Things need to start happening more quickly. Life on Earth is running out of time.
A healthy environment means a healthy economy
Ezeflyer
Can we have both, how?
Overnight solar on all homes, no individual combustion engine transportation., no factories manufacturing unnecessary consumer goods. That's a start but how do you change peoples desires to have more of everything and what do they do for employment. We can go back to the hunter-gatherer mode of living but we must have a massive die-off of the human species first.
Still a dilemma
genicon, you may recall the what we produced, in a very short time, when we entered the fray in WW11. We face a challenge that is even more serious today. The frustrating part is we have the solutions at hand to meet the the challenge; but the enemy is much stronger and diabolical, and much of the population is living in a disnyesque illusion of reality.