EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Fierce Urgency of Now
Yes, windmills and dams deface the landscape but the climate crisis demands immediate action
Don't be too "Canadian" about the backlash - this is no time for Mr. Nice Guy
Watching the backlash against clean energy projects build in Canada has moved me to think about what Americans have learned from facing this same problem. I have been thinking and writing for several years about overcoming conflict-avoidance and the importance of standing up for "Big Truths" even at the price of criticizing fellow environmentalists.
It's not that I've developed a mean streak. It's that the environmental movement has reached an important point of division, between those who truly get global warming, and those who don't.
By get, I don't mean understanding the chemistry of carbon dioxide, or the importance of the Kyoto Protocol, or those kinds of things - pretty much everyone who thinks of themselves as an environmentalist has reached that point. By get, I mean understanding that the question is of transcending urgency, that it represents the one overarching global civilizational challenge that humans have ever faced.
In the U.S., there are all manner of fights to stop or delay every imaginable low-carbon technology. Wind, solar, run-of-river hydro - these are precisely the kinds of renewable energy that every Earth Day speech since 1970 has trumpeted. But now they are finally here - now that we're talking about particular projects in particular places - people aren't so keen.
Opponents of renewable energy projects point out (correctly) that they have impacts - there are (overstated) risks to birds from wind turbines, to fish from run-of-river hydro, that the projects mean "development" somewhere there was none and transmission lines where there were none before.
They point out (again correctly) that the developers are private interests, rushing to develop a resource that, in fact, they do not own, and without waiting for the government to come up with a set of rules and processes for siting such installations.
The critics also insist that there's a "better" site somewhere - and again they're probably right. There's almost always a better site for anything. The whole business is messy, imperfect.
If we had decades to burn, then perhaps the opponents would be right that there's a better site, and a nicer developer. There's always a better site and a nicer developer. But in the real world, we have at most 10 years to reverse the fossil fuel economy. Which means we have to do everything quickly - conservation and plug-in cars and solar panels and compact fluorescents and 100-mile food and tree planting. And windmills, windmills everywhere there is wind, just like off the shores of Europe.
Whatever natural endowments a region is blessed to have, these are the basis for your green economy: solar in the deserts, wind where it's windy, hydro where water's falling, geothermal if you've got it. Do it all, and do it quickly.
In the ideal world, we'd do everything slowly and carefully - but this planet is rapidly becoming the worst of all possible worlds, a place that before my daughter dies may well see temperatures exceeding anything since before the dawn of primate evolution. A planet facing hundreds of millions of environmental refugees as a result of rising seas, with heat waves like the one that killed 35,000 in Europe becoming commonplace occurrences.
The evidence gets worse by the day: already whole nations are evacuating, the Arctic is melting and we have begun to release the massive storehouse of carbon trapped under the polar ice. Scientists figure the "safe" level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 350 parts per million. This is the most important number in the world. Go beyond it for very long and we will trigger "feedbacks" that will result in runaway warming spiralling out of any human control and resulting in a largely inhospitable planet.
We are already well beyond 350 and accelerating rapidly in the wrong direction.
So when local efforts to delay or stop low-carbon energy projects come into conflict with the imperative to act urgently on global warming, they have to take second place. Because even if we win every other battle, if we lose 350, it won't make any difference at all. You can "keep" every river and bay and lake and mountain and wilderness, but if the temperature goes up 3 degrees globally, it won't matter. The fish that live there won't be able to survive, the trees that anchor the landscape will die, the coral reefs will bleach and crumble. Whatever the particular part of the world that we're each working on, it's still a part of the world. Global warming is the whole thing.
Believe me that I understand how difficult this is. I have spent a lifetime loving and fighting for the Adirondacks and other treasured areas. Perhaps you've spent your life fighting for birds, and I understand how wrenching it must be to acknowledge that "some birds may die from this wind farm." But what 350 forces us to say is: every bird, every fish, and everything else that we know, is fundamentally at risk in the next few decades.
In the name of birds, I want that windmill on my ridge. In the name of rivers, I want run-of-river hydro. In the name of wild beauty, I want that windmill out my window.
350 means it is too late to be arguing for theories or cool ideas. In the real world, the one where CO2 inconveniently traps solar radiation, you don't get to argue for perfection.
You can say, as opponents of clean energy projects have said, that we'd do more to fight global warming by improving gas mileage in our cars. You can say that we should insulate our homes and build better refrigerators. You can say that we should plant more trees and have fewer kids.
And you would be right, just as every Earth Day speech is "right." I've given my share of Earth Day speeches. And if we're to have any chance of heading off catastrophic temperature increase, we have to do everything we can imagine, all at once. Hybrid cars and planting trees, windmills, energy conservation, carbon taxes, emissions caps, closing the coal plants and pressuring our leaders.
I understand the opposition to clean energy projects. And I would have supported the opponents years ago - before climate science became clear. I live in the mountains above Lake Champlain, where the wind blows strong along the ridgelines. I'll battle to keep windmills out of designated wilderness if that ever comes up, but right now I'm joining those who are battling to get them built on the ridgeline nearest our home. And battling to see them not as industrial eyesores, but as part of a new aesthetic. The wind made visible.
The slow, steady turning that blows us into a future less hopeless than the future we're steaming toward now.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
50 Comments so far
Show AllThe preference for nuclear power over wind, solar and hydro is one of the greatest ironies in the fights in the US the author refers to, and demonstrates the superficial criteria many Americans apply to decision making.
In many areas of this country a clothesline is illegal. Hanging your unmentionables out to dry is not socially acceptable. It is more socially acceptable to burn tons of coal for electricity to run dryers than it is to 'clutter' up the neighborhood with sheets flapping in the breeze. Oh, yes, and hanging clothes out to dry is more work, which is also socially unacceptable.
Bill--come to your senses--you're not being helpful. I can understand the sense of frustration--even one of panic.
But there are better and cheaper ways to harvest the energy in the atmosphere than the building of "conventional" wind turbines, which despoil the countryside. This is NOT conservation, nor is there enough there (at the right time of day/year) to meet the needs.
So OPEN YOUR EYES, EARS and SCIENTIFIC MIND. Open your browser and type in http://vortexengine.ca , click and you will have the answer you're looking for. Virtually boundless, inexpensive renewable energy, obtained from the solar energy that the sun stores in the atmosphere each day (CAPE--http://www.tornadochaser.net/capeclass/) or by the transformation of so-called "waste heat" (of which there is also a virtually endless supply, e.g. Lake Ontario) into electricity.
If you have questions, concerns or doubts, I will even travel to where you are and discuss this science and technology with you (under_hogg(at)yahoo (dot) com--just one g), or even request the INVENTOR of the AVE, Louis M. Michaud do so (He lives closer to you than I do).
Meanwhile, I suggest you contact the Renewable Energy Center Director at Cornell, or Prof Nilton Renno, UMich for further discussions.
I hope you don't take this too harshly, AVE, but it is you, and not McKibben, who is in denial. Despite the issues you raise which are legitimate in my view, one particular egregious aspect of Obama's energy plans place most of his efforts on coal. He often likes to refer to coal as "clean" which it is not, and never will be. I would refer you to Jeff Goodell's comprehensive book on the subject, Big Coal, The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future, with an impeccable overview of the science behind Obama's false assertions that coal is clean. Sustainable energy (depending on one's source) currently represents between 3.8%-14% of the energy grid. The dominate source of energy currently being used in this country is coal, and China is building coal fired plants exponentially, which will further debilitate efforts to reverse the downward spiral. Unless these problems are attacked from a comprehensive plan, it matters little what sustainable sources are advanced. Coal needs to be shut down, but this hardly seems likely when the leader of the free world is married to it.
elohim,
What are you talking about???? Where in my posting did I suggest that coal is any type of solution? Please do as I suggest and type in http://vortexengine.ca into your browser, MAYBE, you will understand what I'm talking about. Hint: it may take an hour of study out of your busy day to understand the concept that is presented--but the enlightenment you might receive might be well worth the effort.
On the other hand, you might not be capable of understanding it at all. If so, just say to yourself: Warm air rises, cooler air sinks...and, vortexes are amazing phenomena, that might possibly be harnessed to serve the needs of mankind as well as to prevent rapid climate change.
cool technology (no pun intended). the vortex concentrates and converts the heat energy into mechanical energy. How do they go the next step to electic energy? vertical turbines might work, but wouldn't they destablise the vortex?
This is indeed great technology, but is still is in its early stages of development. We, as a society need to shut off the carbon-derived power in 10 years or so or it won't matter. Wind, solar now. Wind, solar, AVE, and who know what else in 2050.
btw AVE_fan have you looked at these ultra-high-speed mag-lev flywheels to store power instead of batteries? http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/power-ring.html Also very cool
The AVE technology, on a fast track could be ready for an initial, industrial scale (100 MW) plant within two years, and large-scale deployment within four. Within 10 years, we could replace 50% of the existing coal electric capacity.
The AVE doesn't depend on winning the AGW argument with the denialists. It wins on a purely economic basis--CHEAPER, FASTER, CLEANER, MORE AESTHETIC, DECENTRALIZED PRODUCTION FACILITIES, NO MINING OR FUEL TRANSPORTATION WITH FUTURE ESCALATION COSTS--SIMPLY BETTER IN ALL RESPECTS THAN ANY OF THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES.
AVE, it is unfortunate that emotionalism is fueling your rebuttal, a kind of knee jerk reaction that keeps a physiological reaction in perpetual motion. Since my point went over the top of your head, like Bill's article, let me rephrase. The context Mckibben is speaking from is the urgency to engage sustainable solutions (including the one you offer- at least I don't think he would dismiss it out right) as a comprehensive strategy. Bill eloquently notes the problem facing us is imperfect, but requires immediate action; not ten years from now, or thirty years from now. We need to move on these life threatening issues related to climate change NOW. Of course, under this urgency our collective efforts are not going to be PERFECT. McKibben is advocating from this context.
In regards to coal, I was trying to introduce a reference to the current data in Goddell's book and not as a rebuttal against your post. (The numbers are depressing if coal continues to assert its dominance.) Regardless of whatever type of sustainable efforts emerge politically on behalf of clean energy, without taking seriously efforts to downsize the coal lobby, our collective efforts to introduce sustainable solutions will be undermined and offset by coal which currently stands as the largest source of energy on the planet. I don't care if someone discovers cold fusion next week providing clean and cheap energy to the planet. Every un-sustainable source of energy represents corporate interests that will protect their industries from dilution or extinction. These are dual considerations in our mutual efforts to solve this problem among many others.
Why not get off your elevated pedestal at the same time bringing down the seminal word of your pet project on the passive body of the congregation you represent? No single form of sustainable energy will eliminate its polar opposite. To think otherwise, is engaging in either/or thinking. I would suggest you try something non-linear and comprehensive, but as a free being follow your counsel however jaundiced.
Wind generators are NOT despoiling, defacing, detracting from or in any way ruining the countryside. Pictures of several hundred-year-old Dutch windmills--the cutting edge technology of the day--have long been admired for their esthetic appeal. What makes people think modern, sleek-looking, beautifully-curved wind turbines are ugly? My heart soars every time I see one. Proportionally more when I see a hundred.
When I first got into goat dairying, I thought the goats the dairy people liked were ugly--blocky and emaciated and unbalanced. (good conformation, they said) I soon came to appreciate them. Form follows function; the esthetics of something lies not just in symbolic superficial appearance but in the reality behind it. Every time new car models come out with a different look I think they're ugly. Within a year or 2, well, I still think they're ugly. Form follows function. Cars ARE ugly, and the only way one cannot see that is to cut off one’s awareness of what they do to society, ecology, individuals (50,000+/yr. in the US, not counting injuries and lung damage). Coal burners are ugly. Oil refineries are ugly. Transmission lines are ugly blights on the landscape but who among the trollhead, knee-jerk anti-wind reactionaries is complaining about them? The nuclear-looking vortexengine thing your link goes to is ugly, (and I suspect is on a sci-tech par with cold fusion.) How can you criticize wind turbines and support this monstrosity? Is someone paying you to?
If I come across a brilliant red flower in the woods, and it turns out to be a candy wrapper, my feeling goes from wonder and gladness to disgust in milliseconds. And if a candy wrapper turns out to be a flower—the same in reverse. To a psychologically healthy person, symbol and reality are one.
The reality is that wind power will cause a tiny fraction of a percent of the ecological damage, bird deaths and eyesores that our current fossil fuel-with-a-little-nuclear system does. Conservation, efficiency, passive solar, rooftop and parking lot solar are even better, and we absolutely can build enough of an interlocking combination of these to meet our needs ecologically, democratically, and safely. Why have do-nothing climate-deniers, oil-company conservatives, and unreasoning nuclear pollyannas, who have never in their life given a damn about birds, bats, esthetics or anything like them, suddenly gotten all up in arms about the horrors of windmills?
We come to the usual question we keep asking ourselves about neocons and their ilk: lying, stupid, or crazy? Or is it D. all of the above?
In the spirit that Bill calls for, I offer the following:
Almost all have seen “An Inconvenient Truth” and noticed or remember the big ice core data chart projected on a wall and viewed from a fork lift. A study of that chart reveals a lot about our predicament.
The chart shows about 6 ice age cycles over the last 650,000 years. Temperature deviation from mean and CO2 rise and fall together. The last 3 cycles show well-defined spikes. We are now at or very near the top of a spike.
Several questions and observations present themselves just from this chart alone:
--Did humans or some other overly-successful mammals cause or merely ride the previous cycles?
--What sort of weather phenomenon defeated and reversed these spikes in such a short time?
--When, where and how does the massive ice that constitutes an ice age form?
--How will the massive excess of GHGs we have added affect the way this cycle will play out?
--Obviously, the ice sheets on neither Greenland nor Antarctica melted entirely off before the reversals occurred, or no ice core data could have been harvested.
--We're getting a lot of melting now.
--The height of the temp reading is very close to what looks to have been the trigger point range for the other cycles.
Gore/IPCC, Hansen and others have concluded that anthropogenic forcings will drive planetary mean temperature to increase, raising the sea to catastrophic levels. Others, Hollywood included, have proposed that changes in the ocean conveyer current drives climate change. I would presume to amend the former to state that we are in and part of a natural climate cycle, but have driven and continue to drive important aspects of the climate (GHGs) out of natural levels into very dangerous territory. I would presume to conjecture about the latter that variations of conveyer currents are phenomena characteristic of a mature or receding glacial period.
But the signature, sudden and long-term reversals of previous spikes strongly suggest another outcome, which is neither less challenging nor requires a different remedial strategy. I think that the temperature rise to tipping point will occur, not gradually, but suddenly, and that sea level will actually fall as water is relocated to the polar latitudes. Simple mechanical actions inline with physical laws will act in concert to drive temperature to the tipping point. It is likely that the timing of such an outcome is linked to the rate of melting of Greenland’s ice sheet.
I theorize that a combination of changing angular momentum of the planet, tectonic plate movement, and under-sea volcanism will provide the last few degrees of heat, and charge the atmosphere with the water vapor and energy necessary to drive the phenomenal weather event(s) which will replace water to the high/mid latitudes as ice /snow, reverse the temperature rise, end the present inter-glacial period, and begin the descent into an ice age.
Angular momentum is now changing as land-borne ice melts and relocates as liquid to the equatorial bulge of the planet. Angular momentum varies as the square of the distance of the mass from the rotational axis. Ice close to the axis near the poles is melting and relocating as water at the maximum distance from the axis. High latitude ice packs a big punch as low latitude water.
Tension on tectonic plates is now increasing as mass moves and momentum changes, as well as from the slow rising of the unburdened land areas. Tidal and slight gravitational forces may play a part. I theorize that these, in combination, will lead to a planet-wide seismic event. Thence, volcanism along tectonic plate boundaries will add heat to the sea. Events associated with seismic activity, such as tsunamis, and, typical but grand storms will soak large areas of land with water which will then be heated by the Sun, raising even more water vapor into the atmosphere. The time span within which this process would occur would necessarily be short---a flash in the pan---weeks, to perhaps a season.
Angular momentum is the missing note in the chord. It is the counter-intuitive, non-linear key to the forcing of the forcings. Whether or not this theory obtains, no doubt, Nature will reveal herself as a complete system, whether I/we understand, agree or not.
Keeping in mind that humanity, such as we are, has survived a previous natural cycle, we are faced with the most serious challenge. Our challenge is to break the inertia of and reverse all aspects of the anthropogenic status quo which are driving planetary GHGs and heat out of historical norms. Should we succeed at that, we would have at least an even chance that recognizable civilization may continue over the next 100,000 years. Should we fail at that, our very survival as a species would be subject to variables we have not faced before. Of course, if the above theory is accurate, all our activities as civilized, rational societies should be re-directed away from petty economic concerns to long term survival in harmony with Nature.
Our response will be the measure of our species.
Sincerely,
snydly
Nice treatise snydly,
Yet angular momentum as a function of equatorial displacement of water and ice seems a bit of grandstanding on the force of gravity and your interpretation of tectonic plate movement responding to this normal planetary behavior seems as if you might be standing on a collapsible box of incomplete thought. You don't mention the overdue electromagnetic pole reversal that is theoretically overdue even as you entertain an 'angry earth' theme for your plausible constructs with a curious blend of vernacular that entertains notions of an erudite mind. You fail to address your introductory questions one would presume to be the constructs for your research and experimental verification.
While you posit these rather fundamental and somewhat curious notions as intrepid questioning of observable data they end up just kindergarten speak for your lack of knowledge. Have you ever thought seriously of being a comedian or a cartoonist?
I mean, I love this excerpt "...I theorize that a combination of changing angular momentum of the planet, tectonic plate movement, and under-sea volcanism will provide the last few degrees of heat, and charge the atmosphere..." and this one is particularly presumptive of a mind bent on impressing the novice with lofty meaningless rhetoric from say a bumbling, nose-picking sophomore trying to establish credentials for an article of professional level thought and writing but stumbling from mediocre ability and superficial knowledge. Here...
"Tension on tectonic plates is now increasing as mass moves and momentum changes, as well as from the slow rising of the unburdened land areas. Tidal and slight gravitational forces may play a part. I theorize that these, in combination, will lead to a planet-wide seismic event. Thence, volcanism along tectonic plate boundaries will add heat to the sea. Events associated with seismic activity, such as tsunamis, and, typical but grand storms will soak large areas of land with water..."
Seriously, do you suffer a form of immaturity in understanding how pretentious this hilarious paragraph is? You posit geology 101 generalities as if you were the founder of a cult of masturbatory children playing scientist without parental guidance.
I'm sorry. I can't continue this for you are truly entertaining. Read up more on 'angular momentum' and 'equatorial bulge' and contradictory movement of water masses to the poles and the equator simultaneously. And how this curiosity supports your axis theories irrespective of your 'angular momentum' hypothesis. Please don't forget your absolutely quaint idea of homo sapiens lasting another 100,000 years as a romanticised neolithic creature battling the great glacial age to come. I am laughing so hard I can hardly breathe!
In Snydly's post, I see a sincere attempt to explain the possibility of a catastrophic event; the intent of which may be to wake up an outrageously lethargic, uninfomed citizenry. In your reply, I see a vicious, immature attack meant to discourage a well-meaning poster. Whose comments serve the larger purpose?
Thank you, O, I welcome feedback.
I would like nothing better than to be wrong about the way the circumstances and data appear to me. There are large un-filled gaps in that post, but they can be filled by checking out a few sources. I have used, in addition to those mentioned, USGS earthquake data over 3 years, NOAA/NWS satellite wx, articles on magnetic striping, books such as "Under a Green Sky", "The Great Ice Age" by Wilson/Chapman etal, "Bridge at the Edge of the world", by Speth, IPCC reports and Hansen's lectures.
Few have a theory on the mechanics of the spike reversals that sit prominantly in the middle of the ice core data charts. Many comment that the paleo-climate record shows evidence of rapid/sudden changes.
I'll leave it at that for now.
Odd, though, if I'm wrong everyone will know it---if I'm right, everyone will be busy doing other things...
(Coincidentally, I am a clown---and have the suit to prove it. And a cartoonist---earthlingenterprises dot com. But, I have never been a member of the cult of which Dogleg seems to have first-hand knowledge.)
(reach for your oxygen bottle, breathless one)
As if anybody is still reading this article...I am not above taking constuctive critisizm, even when rudely presented.
So, here: a gift.
Almost all have seen “An Inconvenient Truth” and noticed or remember the big ice core data chart projected on a wall and viewed from a fork lift. A study of that chart derived from ice core data reveals a lot about our predicament. The chart shows about 6 ice age cycles over the last 650,000 years. It shows that temperature deviation from mean and CO2 rise and fall together over those cycles. The last 3 cycles show well-defined spikes which indicate the end of an interglacial (warm) period. We are now at or very near the top of a temperature spike, and CO2 is shown to be well above any previously recorded level. The excess CO2 is obviously the result of human activity, most likely the choice of fossil fuels for energy.
Several questions and observations present themselves just from this chart alone:
--Have humans or some other overly-successful species caused or merely ridden the previous interglacials?
--What sort of weather phenomenon can defeat and reverse these spikes in such a short time?
--When, where and how does the massive ice that constitutes a glacial period (ice age) form?
--Will the massive excess of GHGs we have added affect the way our cycle will play out?
--Obviously, the ice sheets on neither Greenland nor Antarctica melted entirely off before the reversals occurred, or no ice core data could have been harvested.
--About 80% of Greenland’s ice sheet (~8,000 ft) was replaced during the previous glacial.
Gore/IPCC, Hansen and others have concluded that anthropogenic forcings (GHGs) will drive planetary mean temperature to increase beyond historic levels, raising the sea to catastrophic levels. Others, Hollywood included, have proposed that changes in the ocean conveyer current drives climate change and may be the mechanism by which the spikes are reversed. It is quite a stretch for me, a non-scientist, to comment about such an important topic and expect to be taken seriously. But perhaps someone who knows something may read it and help us deal with whatever it is that we are facing.
I would tweak the IPCC version to emphasize that we are in and part of a recurring natural climate cycle, but, as they ably point out, have driven and continue to drive important aspects of the climate (GHGs) out of natural levels into very dangerous territory. About the latter (ocean conveyer current), I would simply observe that variations of conveyer currents look to me to be phenomena characteristic of a mature or receding glacial period, and not the trigger for the big change into full glacial conditions.
But…(here we go)…and I know of no other way but to blurt it out: I think the signature, sudden and long-term reversals of previous spikes strongly suggest another, as yet, unexamined scenario, which is neither less challenging nor requires a different remedial strategy. I think simple physical laws come into play and will act in concert to drive temperature to the tipping point, not gradually, but suddenly.
From what I have read, Greenland ice is presently melting at a pretty good clip, as are other glaciers. The earth is not a perfect sphere, but an obloid---is slightly “wider” at the equatorial latitudes---because the mantle is molten, liquid rock and it rotates. Mass that rotates creates angular momentum in proportion to the square of its distance from the axis of rotation. It follows that when mass moves in a closed system (earth) the angular momentum (forces on the planet) changes. For instance, say G’land is 1000 miles from the earth’s axis, and the radius at the equator is 4000 miles…or simply: 1 and 4. So when, if ever, ice melts off G’land and flows into the sea, the sea seeks its own level and rises proportionally from G’land to the equator where that mass creates between 2 and 16 times the force it had sitting as ice on Denmark’s largest province. Now, that may not be much in relation to the total mass of the earth, but it may be enough to affect the crust which floats on the mantle. I don’t know. Ask an expert.
Sooo, for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action. Net---something happens.
To continue---
I brazenly theorize that such a change in angular momentum would affect tectonic plate (crust) movement, possibly exciting under-sea volcanism which, in turn, could provide the last few degrees of heat, charge the atmosphere with the water vapor and energy necessary to drive the phenomenal weather event(s) which would be the cure to the over-heating of the planet. The cure replaces water to the high and mid latitudes as ice /snow thick enough to remain through seasons, thus defeating and reversing the temperature rise, ending the present inter-glacial period, and beginning the descent into an ice age.
So, angular momentum is something to toss into the mix. One could also toss in a couple associated ringers like un-burdened (of ice) land masses tend to rebound, albeit slowly, as ice melts off them; if any seismic activity was accompanied by tsunamis, there would be a greater area of soggy coastal land to add water vapor into the atmosphere. Im sure you can come up with some others.
In an odd way, if the cycle is kicked into motion by it (A.M.) our bacon might be saved from the massive death-to-all-species super hot scenario of runaway temp and GHGs. But by the same rules, it is likely that the higher GHGs will mess with the outcome anyway. No doubt, Nature will reveal herself as a complete system, whether I/we figure it out, understand, agree or not.
I optimistically keep in mind that humanity, such as we are (roughly same brain size), has survived a previous natural cycle. Obviously, we are faced with the most serious challenge. The unavoidable conclusion is essentially the same as that of Gore/IPCC/Hansen/McKibben.
Our challenge is to break the inertia of and reverse all aspects of the anthropogenic status quo which are driving GHGs and heat out of historical norms. Should we succeed at that, we would have at least an equal chance as our ancestors to survive the climate change. But, as they all now say in muted tones, should we fail at that, “our survival would be subject to variables we have not faced before”.
It’s hard to waltz around the fact that all our activities as civilized, rational societies should be re-directed away from petty economic concerns to long term survival in harmony with Nature.
And, I guess it’s not overly dramatic to say that our response to this challenge will be the measure of our species.
---------------------------------------------------
There you have it, Mr (I assume) Dogleg. Gotta go now, there is some sort of youth gang parading in my yard dressed as professors, or scientists, with pocket protectors, crew cuts and wingtips, and what! yes! OMG they're picking their noses and mas... oh, man, there goes the neighborhood. I'm callin the cops.
While not many of us can afford to put up a windmill or install geothermal heating in our houses, we all can reduce our energy consumption. Pressuring the government to make everybody do the right thing is good but the first thing is to do the right thing ourselves: stop driving and flying.
Someone is, no doubt, going to respond with something about all of the people who make their livings making cars and planes. Would you say the same thing about people who make their living making cluster bombs?
We desparately need to radically restructure our economy. Rather than try to protect the jobs of people who are employed making things we'd be better off without, our focus should be on rebuilding the social safety net to the point that people who loose their jobs don't end up destitute.
I'm with you, tommy, but beg to differ on a coupla points. Especially with a little help, many more of us than you imagine will be able to put up wind generators and PV installations, as well as passive solar retrofits and solar water heating, and electric car-rooftop-parking lot solar tie-ins, and yes, the best and cheapest and fastest and most ecological--conservation. Efficiency, cogeneration...and don't forget about the most important change of all--stop eating meat. Walk, bike, garden, and start playing a (non-electric) instrument. See where you can go from there.
In the movement for Indian independence, Gandhi was very concerned that no one be made poor by boycotts, homespinning industry, etc. so he made sure even opponents were offered help when it was needed. So yes, until universal income security happens we should help out cluster bomb workers and oil refinery workers and auto workers alike. They are our natural allies in this struggle and removing pocketbook issues will make it easier for them to see that.
certainly, climate changes, whatever term preferred, are enormous challenges...our only hope to meet any challenges on this planet, however, is to maintain the inter-dependent molecular structure of the living, natural systems...we are treading very dangerous water, and climate change may be a major result, but if we alter too many molecules out of the living cycles, we will fracture the living systems to the point where they will cease to function, regardless of climate...there are only so many molecules to begin with, and we are altering them, removing many from the natural cycles, at an alarming rate every day...which piece of the living food chain will go first, due to either the depletion or alteration of their natural ecosystem through human intervention, or the human-forced ingestion of non-respirable, non-digestible, or toxic materials, might be the most important question right now, as opposed to how we will generate more electricity to run things we can't molecularly afford to make anyway...perhaps discussions regarding not generating and not using so much electricity so frivolously should be 'on the table'? Discussions regarding the decreasing of molecular alteration, as well?
we can all start on saturday 28th march when it's 'earthhour' day
see: www.earthhour.org for details...............
The American People are zombies. Only when people start spontaneously combusting will they awaken. Unfortunately that will probably be a collective comubstion.
Bill McKibben has finally gone mad or been paid off.
I don't understand why so many people don't seem to realize that the jig is up? What right do we have to continue to decimate the entire planet for human benefit? No offense Bill but, I don't give a damn about you wanting to preserve your 'standard of living' by damming more rivers, killing more birds with windmills or whatever green energy scheme you can come up with. I care about the whole planet and all of the lives here. You so called environmentalists have so much blood on your hands at this point that you have lost any credibility. This isn't an argument for philosophical purity, it's a cry to save our home.
Tell us Bill. What good is a world that has kept CO2 under 350 ppm but has hardly any other species left but us, huh? You want to keep the world from burning up by destroying what biocommunity we have left? I can just see you now.
"We had to destroy the global village in order to save it." -- Bill McKibben
This is madness. Civilization has conducted a 12,000 year reign of blood, violence and suffering. In less than 500 years, Western Civilization has come close to destroying the one planet we know we can live upon. I'll miss McDonald's french fries, the internet and central air just as much as all of you. But, damnit, let it go! I'm not anti-human nor do I want to see us suffer for our crimes against life, although it would be just. I just simply want this all to stop so that my babies don't inherit a world that is shattered and useless for thousands of years to come. Why is this so hard to get?
Instead of building more dams, blow the ones we have up and let the rivers be free. Instead of wind turbines that we know are killing birds en masse, tear them down. Hell, even if we have to go back to the stone age, we have to make the choice to between a planet that is full of life or one that only has us, Climate Change or not. Anything else will prove that we have become the bane of the planet.
There is not a single fact in your piece. The impact of wind turbines on birds or other wildlife is very low. Keeping co2 under 350 ppm is how we will preserve the planets wildlife. A return to stone-age culture would consign 95% of humanity to starvation.
---USAn---
No, PJD, you are mistaken. We've known, even from the MSM, that birds, especially Birds of Prey are especially vulnerable to murder by wind turbine. A simple 'googling' should give you all the facts you need about that. Current impacts may be 'very low' (have you tried asking birds what they think?) but, spreading wind farms all over the globe to a level large enough to sustain even a more conservative usage of energy would still be orders of magnitude more deadly to our avian brethren.
Keeping CO2 under 350 ppm would help keep the global temperature from rising further but, we are already past that with no end in sight. Whether humans are the cause or not (I won't argue the point either way), we are headed into a massive climate change scenario. That is a fact.
BTW, my assertion that we need to see a huge lowering in our 'standard of living' will not be the cause of consigning anyone to starvation. The current iteration of civilization has already done that. Without oil, we couldn't grow even a tenth of the food that we do now. If we deliberately and compassionately reduce our standard of living to the smallest footprint possible (see below), loads of people won't have to die from massive starvation. But, if we do not, it will not be a Neolithic lifestyle that will have killed all of those people, but this civilization. I will tell you that if we continue to focus solely upon human needs with the 'new and improved' green raping of the planet, the other lives on the planet will have nowhere to go but extinct. Do you think that some humans won't go hungry then?
Neolithic technology was and will continue to be the only 'sustainable' level of human activity on this planet. You can argue for more than that but, you're already in unsustainable territory from that point. When the black blood (oil) runs out and Civilization™ has been exsanguinated, we'll return to that level of activity, whether we want to or not. I would just like to see us recognize that and have some of our vaunted human consciousness behind the change. But, from the sound of some of the comments in this article, more likely pigs will fly before we give this up and let the planet heal.
In fact, pigs have proven they can sprout a large wingspan and fly directly into the face of such utterly insipid stupidity.
Bill McKibben has most certainly not been paid off or gone mad. He is one of the few on this planet who is waking up the snoring. Black_Anarch, you miss the point of Bill's article entirely. We *must* and *can* get the levels of carbon down to 350ppm or it won't just be our winged or four-legged or other friends that go extinct - in fact, it will be the entire human race and Mother Earth HerSelf. Wake up!!!
Thank you for your response. I am not sure that we can get the CO2 levels back down by scaling back and putting up more 'green' energy resources. Also, while I definitely share your concern for the planet, I don't believe that we will even try. There is just too much to lose, in the minds of most folk, for us to make a start of it. I say that we need to stop it all for a long while.
I was reading an article about the blackouts on the east coast. In just 24 hours, particulate matter in the air dropped 90%, visibility was up and air pollution was way down. This is one day. Imagine if it were 24 years with no pollution. None. No cars, no lights or anything. However, I don't hold out any hope for that. Because people will not give up 'civilization'... in which I see very little that's civil.
I saw two wind turbines in Cape May, NJ last week, and the Coast Guard station there wants to build some more. There is nobody more bird-happy than CM birders. We will know very soon if the turbines are killing birds there.
Aesthetically, they look no worse than water and radio towers, and fishing boats, ferries, bridges... What if there are hundreds? That is planned for off shore, possibly out of sight distance. (On a clear day you can see a supertanker out in the bay off-loading crude to smaller tankers that can get up the river to Philly.)
Amen.
I find small small, single wind towers kinda cute; large single towers kinda silly looking; I've seen three commercial scale towers on a ridge over a small town which looked--weird, but OK. But I also saw a field with a couple dozen commercial towers, and it was gorgeous. There's something about all those blades turning at different rates . . .
We have transmission towers and utility poles all over the place, and they are much uglier than any wind tower. Not to mention all those cell phone towers.
How many birds do we kill with our cars? Our sky scrapers? Our destruction of bird habitat?
Go wind power! And off-grid solar. And massive solar for industries--on site. And YIMBY (yes in my back yard) to appropriate scale hydro (no Hydro Quebec--wrong place, wrong scale).
As the saying goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
What some find ugly "despoiling to the landscape" others find beautiful.
"How many birds do we kill with our cars? Our sky scrapers? Our destruction of bird habitat?"
True. But as you can see from Black_Anarch's position downthread, they would eliminate cars, sky scrapers, cities too. The position of Black_Anarch and those of that persuasion is to eliminate modern civilisation, that "Neolithic technology was and will continue to be the only 'sustainable' level of human activity on this planet".
Actually, it's not my persuasion. Whether we change anything or not, what we have is not sustainable. No matter what cornucopian thoughts enter our heads this all will one day fall. Deny this assertion if you want but, every step humanity has made beyond the Neolithic has been more and more detrimental to the planet. This is a matter of history. Cars, cities and skyscrapers are all unsustainable and what's worse is that we all know this. Tell me one city that would survive without the importation of 'resources' from outside it's borders.
If you want to argue just how much damage we can do against how much the planet can heal then do so. But, it is disingenuous to pretend that we can just 'roll back' all of this and think that it'll be all good. We may have already done too much damage to the planet and the lives here for it to easily be repaired. After the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum period, it took the planet between 30,000-150,000 years to recover. Are we so heartless to want to consign the whole planet to this again? I don't see where popping up a bunch of wind towers, covering the planet in solar cells and the like is supposed to be better than just stopping this madness and starting over. Just my two cents.
I know how hard it is to have to give up what essentially has been heaven on earth for some of us. But, we either choose to give it all up and leave something for the lives that come after us or we give it up when there is very little to anything left to sustain anyone. I don't see where this should even be that hard a choice to make but, the fact that we're debating it has shown me just how murderous and insane our culture really is.
In California the PUC and the major energy suppliers colluded to prevent 'off the grid' solar, wind or burping for that matter. Sure we can spend whatever for, say, a solar system. My house with a south facing roof is very good. So after say the installation, with all pre applying for the rebates, tax credits, inspections mandatory hookup technology to feed back to those SCE masters of their universe, my $25 to as much as $40 grand investment might be reduced to about $16 grand to $28 grand. But I will never see a nickel from SCE that my system will pump back into theirs as my excess of supply. Yet SCE can change from clean hydroelectric to 30% nat gas thereby rocketing my normal $100 winter bill to over $254.00 simply because they can without, as far as I can tell, any oversight and no warning whatsoever. I was seriously considering solar. I want to do whats right. Obviously the economy and the meager rebates yet high expense of solar is preventing most of us from doing what we know needs to be done. Until the power structure and death grip of utility companies in both generation and distribution are curtailed to prevent the toxic environment for solar and wind at the residential point with greater rebate and tax incentives it wont grow here the way it should. The energy companies want to control wind, solar, wave, hydro, geo, electromagnetic, bio and if they could psychosensory, probably. I go to Google Earth to see how much solar is going onto rooftop in this fairly upscale slice of fascist suburbia where I can't get out of for the immediate future. Thousands of residences from 2000 sq. ft. to 7000 sq.ft from $400,000 to almost $2,000,000. with most having $25 grand to $50 grand swimming pools. Yet it is easy to count the solar installations with just ten fingers. I don't have a pool and I did all the hardscape and planting of every tree, and plant while our garden is a mutual endeavor now as we get older. I lost 3 trees to high winds. i bought the house before all the giant developers and the city raped this really neat natural area. I paid $180 grand during the low cycle in 93 for a previously listed $340 grand house(new construction), the last in the tract built. The value jumped to $600 grand in 07 and dropped at least 35% of that in 08. I laugh when I think about it. I took no equity out of it. The taxes are high, my homeowners insurance stared at $800 a year. The last 3 years it went from $1000 to $1900.
I'm retired and disabled. Can't qualify for SS disability because the state agency did not take out SS for the 18 years I worked there as a teacher. Vietnam vet with a Master's degree. If I think about how much this system has denied and refused to honor its commitments and out right prevented the correct course for us all to take it tears my brain out of my head. In my 62 years There has never been so many corrupt and diseased minds running this dump of a country. And what really gets me riled is its my generation with its abdication of its birthright and responsibility.
All I can do is say. "Fuck it." and worse.
I apologize for that vulgarity and my generations lapse into chronic cynicism and false pride.
KILLER WINDMILL GANG PROVED INNOCENT!
Utility lines, US: 150 million deaths a year and growing
Cars and trucks: 70 million deaths a year and growing
Buildings: up to 1 billion deaths a year and growing
Cell phone and com towers: 50 million deaths a year and growing
Pesticides: 70 million deaths a year and growing
Pet and feral cats: ?
__________ ______________________________
Non-wind human sources 1.3 billion deaths a year and growing
Wind generators: 50 thousand deaths a year and shrinking
(per turbine)
Household scale wind generators: near 0 deaths
True bird death rate from wind generators = .004% of deaths, not even counting habitat loss, especially in rain forest, which destroys the wintering grounds of many US and endemic S. and C. American species and may be the single biggest killer of birds.
McKibben is hysterical about the wrong issue. He should be concerned about the root cause of climate change, which is excess human population. And there seems to be nothing we can or will do about that except to wait for it to crash. Undoubtedly, it will. Nature will see to it.
In the meantime why don't we forget what we think we know about the second law of thermodynamics and take all the energy we need from the quantum flux, the vacuum, the aether, whatever you prefer to call it? Check out http://www.cheniere.org/ and see what Tom Bearden has to say.
Look at the Orion Project, led by Dr. Steven Greer www.theorionproject.org.
Conventional thinking will not get us out of this highly unconventional situation. Neither will Bill McKibben's hysteria.
Are you referring to those two nebulous participants in the universe known as dark matter and dark energy? We know those little beauties comprise about 95% of the Universe and we are pretty sure one of them, dark energy, is responsible for the coalescing of galaxies and what appears to be a continuing expansion beyond the 13-14 billion year current visual limit. Dark matter is the more mysterious and least known although its data is being compiled more and more. Human knowledge in this realm is increasing very quickly with each new launch of specialized observing mechanism and exploratory experiment within our small section of our galaxy and beyond our immediate solar system and into the galactic plane and even that monster black hole at center where Sag A is.
"Opponents of renewable energy projects point out (correctly) that they have impacts"
Actually, certain renewable energy sources do not expand development nor transmission lines. Mounting solar collectors on roofs, particularly industrial/commercial roofs, and also on the very large existing buffer areas surrounding industrial infrastructure, eliminates the need to expand development and transmission lines.
The currently developed area in the contiguous USA is about 170 million acres or 9% of the total area. We've already calculated that the USA can supply all of its energy needs using solar collectors on less that that, more like 5% of total area. This area can and should be cut way down, to below 1% for various reasons, one being we consume too much energy.
Then the fact that some applications have special requirements best supplied by fuel combustion, so we can cut the total electric production in half again, to supply the USA via solar collectors on about 0.5% of land area, i.e. about 6% of already developed land area, an amount that is surely available among the existing industrial infrastructure.
You can see for yourself via online satellite maps. Look at the industrial parks near the population centers, starting with the largest cities. Also remember that the "American Way" lifestyle based on the mirage of unlimited energy was created by and for elites. Can we instead choose our own lifestyles based on our own moral codes?
The basic change in lifestyle advocated by the progressives on the far left includes five times less energy/materials consumption, ownership of all production by the people, all benefits of production to the people, and three times less labor for the same benefit. These are accomplished by ostracizing the elites from the society.
Yes, but...
Think of it in terms not of 'developed area' but existing structures and parking lots. If a quarter of the roofs and 1/2 of the parking lots in the country were covered with solar panels, and added to reasonable wind development and mere technical conservation, that would be more than enough for an temporary overlay onto our existing lives. Larger life changes will happen more slowly so we can continue to improve for a century or more, as people move work and home closer, towns become stronger, food and necessary cottage industry and crafts become more local, etc.
If we had started this when we shoulda, in 1973, we'd be 7/8 of the way there by now. Conservatives, nay-sayers, deniers, lazy people, and people whose huge fortunes depend on us not doing it have kept us from seeing and following that path. We should stop listeing to them now, stop listening to their many specious arguments, defense-in-depth nonsense(climate change isn't happening; if it is it's not us; if it is it's not serious; if it is the answer is to grow our way out of it...etc.) and anti-science crap. Neocons' touching new love affair with the avians among us aside, certain crash programs need to be started now. With all the false starts and inefficiencies crash programs entail, it won't be as pretty as it woulda been, started 40 years ago. But we gotta do what we gotta do. Small changes, big changes, all gotta be done now. So get off the computer and go plant some lettuce.
Or maybe rather than ostracizing elites, encouraging them to use their privilege to wake up in a very public way...for instance, along with gardening, Michelle Obama and other media celebs could demonstrate LIVING WITHIN OUR ECOLOGICALLY LIMITED MEANS in ways that the wider culture might emulate... how many famous rock stars and actors have solar panels on their SMALL houses, primarily get around on foot, bike & public transportation, and are seriously working on reducing their carbon footprint?.. there's GOTTA be a few... Being continually surrounded & encouraged cradle to grave for generations by a multitude of enablers of our fossil-fueled addictions does not make for an easy or simple start on our much needed learning curve, but now that the perfect storm is on our radar screens, poised to obliterate our "american way of life", maybe we can rise to the occasion?... I keep hearing about Saturday's "Earth Hour"... an hour seems a pretty stingy amount of time to demonstrate one's concern over our profligate energy use, but it IS making me think more about how much energy I'M using just sitting here typing right now.... I'm reminded of an urban family I know who actually IN WINTER have for years NOT turned on their lights once the sun goes down and whose kids actually enjoy (as their many friends do!) sleeping outside on the enclosed porch any time of year. I wonder how many people actually do that who are 'on the grid'... hopefully more will catch on and cease with their excessive (mostly coal-fueled) energy use. Living as off- grid as possible, whether still plugged into the grid or not, is one possibility...so is harnessing the wind & sun...biking...gardening...recycling...going out into your neighborhood and organizing a really really Free Market and 100mile potluck are others... Thank you Bill for the reminder too, that
"In the real world, the one where CO2 inconveniently traps solar radiation, you don't get to argue for perfection."
reminded me of Rebecca Solnit's quote from "Hope in the Dark":
"PERFECTION IS A STICK WITH WHICH TO BEAT THE POSSIBLE."
sheesh...enough words. dusk isn't that far off. think i'll turn this thing off & see how possible it is to go without lights, computer, etc. til morning. haven't seen a good sunset in toooooo long.
You are obviously a good, responsible and intelligent person and I thank you for your comments. However, you are dreaming if you think Oprah is going to give up her jet. They don't care. It's all a front. Don't believe ANYONE on television with an income above $100,000 a year. If you do you are being sold a lie.
Bill:
If you want very soon (anywhere from 1 to 3 years out) then please ask the government to support small alternative energy inventors who want to bring their improvements to commercial viability. The little innovative stuff is close to ready. It just needs to be polished. In my case, lots of important work is sitting around doing nothing, which is an outrage.
I love ya Bill, but now even you are forgetting to mention the one strategy that we can all employ NOW--Conservation! We Americans are a spoiled, wasteful lot, I know, but one screaming yuppie at a time we can cut carbon quickly and without despoiling our environment. Turn off you computer, unplug it tonight...
And who is going make us conserve? The 1% that mostly trash the planet isn't going to stop building mega factories, digging for metal ores or whatever just because we lower our thermostat. Do you really want to help? Stop spending money! It starves the corporate beast. Stop calling it conservation and start calling it frugality. Then you might get some traction.
In paragraph 12, he says, "The evidence gets worse by the day: already whole nations are evacuating, the Arctic is melting and we have begun to release the massive storehouse of *carbon* trapped under the polar ice."
Instead of carbon, I think he means methane, trapped not only under the ice, but also in what had been the "permafrost" (no longer so permanant) of the tundra. Methane is, they say, 25 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and there's more of it under the ice and in the (very temporarily) frozen tundra than all the reserves of fossil fuel.
Release of methane, they say, could accelerate global warming racially.
We used to view global warming in a linear fashion:
CO2 emissions cause warming, which brings bad things.
Now some scientists are recognizing feedback loops and methane reserves:
CO2 causes initial warming, which triggers feedback loops and releases methane reserves, which accelerates the process, so worse things happen than anticipated, sooner than anticipated.
"Instead of carbon, I think he means methane."
Methane is a carbon compound, dude. A hydrocarbon, to be exact.
this is serious business and something NEEDS to be done to get naive people to understand reality! i just cannot empathize with those who are in denial of the death of this planet! what can we do?
I will share a few things you can do. Tear down the dams, stop raping the land with mono-cropping and extractive agriculture and the seas with fishing. Let those people in the so-called third world be and stop robbing them of what they need to live. Build homes that can be built with materials right on site. Get rid of governments and companies. Forget about some mythical 'standard of living' that we're supposedly entitled to. Hell, these things alone would radically change human activity to a level that is somewhat sustainable.
Once again we have one of the premier Environmentalists whose only mention of transportation is "plug-in cars".
This when transportation accounts for 30% of US greenhouse gases 99% of that from cars, trucks and planes. The biggest greenhouse gas savings as well as oil savings in very short order would come from utilizing and expanding mass transit.
And yet St. Louis is forced to sell their buses due to the budget crunch,
NYC is raising fares and cutting transit services, Transportation of America
has identified 80 transit cutbacks across the country:
http://t4america.org/transitcuts
We need to stop all transit cuts, increase gas taxes and funnel all the increases to mass transit, stop all major highway and road expansion in favor of mass transit and rail.
At the same time Bill McKibben's point about blockage of Green Initiatives applies even more to rail and mass transit.
For example a hundred years ago the Lackawanna cutoff across New Jersey to Scranton, Pennsylvania was built in just 1 year.
Those tracks and bridge still exist and some 15 years ago were proposed to
be brought up to modern conditions to alleviate massive traffic along Route 80.
Yet it is considered a great triumph when a mere 6 miles of restoration of this
railroad is finally being brought up for Environmental Impact Studies??
Environmental Impact Studies of restoration of EXISTING rail lines have delayed
many rail projects for years.
And yet amazingly enough the $7 Billion proposed in New Jersey to further expand the NJ Turnpike to even more lanes is projected to sail through and actually be built in a couple years.
How is that?
You want Greenhouse gas savings NOW!?
Up the gas tax, run all mass transit to capacity instead of 3 hour delays and no service on weekends, run shuttles from key stops, then use the thousands of miles of existing rails, abandoned trolley lines to get mass transit running again in cities where it has been abandoned across the country.
Less talk, more action.
Sadly, no one is listening.
Another work day, another 60 million barrels of oil burned, another day of everyone pursuing their own greed. Another day where thousands of cars stream down Main St. as they pursue their greed and selfishness, nearly all of them carrying three empty seats.
If you are not part of the one percenters, your opinion, your vision of the future, your life is worthless.
MLK said in his "Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam" that "the Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just."
It is also not very intelligent, in that it is blind to its suicidal tendency to distance itself from, and thereby ignore the ripple effects of its institutional violence and other-izing. Our fossil-fueled dependence has numbed most of us to the fact that our way of life is NOT the be-all, end-all, ONLY way. Plenty of people around the world have lived "off-grid" and adapted to their environments admirably, and designers (of the indigenous world, but sometimes even the techno-geek world) more motivated by human rights/well-being than profit have been at work all along coming up with solutions to human survivability/sustainability problems related to scant resources and human impact on the environment. Hopefully we 'privileged' cyberspace voyagers can learn, for example, from the Haitian sugarcane charcoal briquette-makers, innovators of water pumps and solar ovens in Africa, and from Native American respect for nature's rhythms along with the everyday social glue seen in Ladakh community (where they are remarkably adept conflict mediators) and NOT just coopt, dissect, repackage, patent and sell every portion of every (initially) good idea for the sake of a fast buck. The commodified world is crumbling noticeably -though, of course, the most entrenched and comfy will stay in denial about it as long as they can.
We have to learn how to live, share, and communicate with each other, across class lines... something our 'independent' lifestyles buffered by our cars, our temperature-controlled environments and absurdly huge living spaces have made seem unnecessary. Well, it's necessary NOW. And maybe even Oprah or even Donald Trump one of these days will encounter one of those 'aha' moments (perhaps standing before the giant monument to the boll weevil in Enterprise, Alabama and considering their place in the scheme of things and the folly of monocultural systems) & find themselves unbearably embarrassed by their own personal excess and go greener than any of us pontificators on CD....I mean, ya never know. It's more our business anyway to change ourselves before we worry so much how to get others to change. Enough with the electronic words for today...