Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ignoring the Obvious: The Floods and Fires, the Droughts and Disasters Will Continue
You may know I've just returned from Niger. There, tens of thousands of people are facing extreme hunger because of the droughts of the last two years.
The rainy season is under way but the rains around the capital of Niamey have been torrential and persistent. It's not what is needed. The water is not nourishing the soil. It's washing away the crops. It's washing away homes. It is destroying lives.
The trouble there comes as Pakistan struggles to cope with the worst floods since the creation of the state. Millions of people are homeless. The UN predicts the devastation will be worse than the Asian Tsunami, which struck several countries.
Torrential rain has swept through China. The official death toll is creeping up all the time. It is going to be in the thousands. Mudslides have brought havoc to many places across the country's northwest.
In Russia's capital, Moscow, forest fires - started in scorching hot temperatures - have left the air quality so poor, the authorities are telling people who cannot leave the city to stay indoors.
In Greenland, a mass of ice has broken away from a glacier. Four times the size of Manhattan Island; it's the biggest iceberg in more than half a century. Scientists say arctic ice is melting at record pace and 16 countries have recorded record temperatures this year.
Yet despite the evidence of floods and flames, of drought and danger, there is no concerted international action towards reaching an agreement on the best way to fight climate change.
Most countries of the world gathered in Denmark in December. I know because I was there. They left after ten days suggesting there had been substantial progress, that things were moving in the right direction and it takes time for an international agreement to be hammered out.
There were hopes that a comprehensive, legally binding deal could be reached when the next round of talks convened in Cancun in Mexico in November 2010.
That was both optimistic and unlikely. The politicians smiled and used honeyed words of good intention, but already the process leading up to Cancun is, in the words of a leading environmental journalist, in "semi-crisis".
There is a preparatory meeting scheduled for China in October. What should happen there is that a draft text is agreed so that the politicians can roll up, sign the deal and depart looking like they've saved the world. Sound familiar? Well, that was what was meant to happen in Barcelona last year.
Instead, what we have is a forty page document which has to be negotiated line by line. And there simply isn't the time to do that.
There is an optimistic idea that with countries suggesting things to be added to the text, it means they are now fully engaged in trying to reach a balanced agreement.
In Copenhagen last year, developing countries reacted angrily to the deal, which was tabled. The idea was the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding agreement on reducing carbon emissions, would be scrapped, replaced by a new agreement which would allow industrialised countries to set their own targets and timetables to make the changes needed.
The countries most at risk raised their voices loud. They felt they were being told that they must reduce their minor emissions and deprive their people of developing a stronger economy while richer nations did little to minimise the impact of more than 100 years of mass industrialisation.
The US is the largest historical emitter and the second biggest carbon polluter in the world. China overtook it in 2007. Its plan to help remains essentially the same - cut emissions by four per cent on the 1990 figure; a suggestion widely derided in Copenhagen, and a sign the US isn't quite ready to face the pain of significant changes to the lifestyle its people enjoy or the way it uses fuel.
The poorest countries are getting angry again. More than 100 of them are now calling for any future climate change agreement to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5C - not the 2C everyone has been talking about. They are demanding more money to help with fighting the costs of climate change - saying the $100bn a year already suggested simply isn't enough. And they want much more from richer countries that aren't willing to give.
And that's where the basis of future disappointment in Cancun lies. If the rich don't want to do anything - despite the howls of protests outside the halls and the demands for action from charities and non-governmental organisations - then nothing will happen.
And Cancun will be remembered for failure in the same way that Copenhagen is remembered. The countries will leave, claim they're taking important steps and push for agreement in 2011, or 2012 or 2013. And the whole process starts again.
Meanwhile, the floods and fires, the droughts and disasters will continue.
56 Comments so far
Show All"convened in Cancun in Mexico in November 2010": past tense?
Looks like the grammar editor took a nap.
Or, it could be for effect as his point is given the unliklihood of anything important happening, as at past conferences, the conference might as well not occur.
ROFL...................right, you got it.
I took it as meaning that there **are** no hopes anymore. Like so:
"There are hopes that a comprehensive, legally binding deal could be reached when the next round of talks convenes in Cancun in Mexico in November 2010."
==>
"There were hopes that a comprehensive, legally binding deal could be reached when the next round of talks convened in Cancun in Mexico in November 2010."
I think it's technically correct, although, in reality, there **never** were any hopes after what happened at Copenhagen.
Also, I see that most journalists seem to think they need to keep omitting the terms "COP" and "UN-FCCC" while writing of these "rounds of talks" in Copenhagen, Cancun, etc. It's a needless dumbing down and diminishes the importance of these talks. If they actually mention these terms, I don't think it's too much of a deal for people to learn two terms that would help put these in a historical context - which I think is really important - if for nothing else, to see the continued sabotaging of real action. Since I've mentioned these before, I'll just copy /paste here again from my comment on another story:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/08/01-2
*************************************************
This "upcoming meeting" is the 16th **annual** meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP). That is, pretty much ALL the countries of the world - the signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC).
"The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) is an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. The objective of the treaty is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." - Wikipedia.
All international climate-related negotiations, discussions and proposals for action follow from this UN-FCCC, which was adopted in 1992. The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-1) was at Berlin in 1995. The third meeting - (COP-3) took place at Kyoto where countries adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which was an agreement to achieve modest reductions based on 1990 levels by the year 2012.
The Kyoto treaty, adopted in 1997, was based on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities."
>>"The parties agreed that:
the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries;
per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet social and development needs"<<
To anyone with half a brain, the above principle should make perfect sense, irrespective of the subsequent action.
The UN-FCCC itself is based on the "Precautionary Principle".
From Wikipedia:
>>"In decision making, the precautionary principle is considered when possibly dangerous, irreversible, or catastrophic events are identified, but scientific evaluation of the potential damage is not sufficiently certain. The precautionary principle implies an emphasis on the need to prevent such adverse effects.
Uncertainty is associated with each link of the causal chain of climate change. For example, future GHG emissions are uncertain, as are climate change damages. However, following the precautionary principle, uncertainty is not a reason for inaction, and this is acknowledged in Article 3.3 of the UNFCCC."<<
Once again, even the cynics among us can see that there was a bit of common sense and responsibility in the 1990's, culminating in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The Rio "Earth Summit" itself was the result of a recognition of the dangerous course followed by humanity - particularly the industrialized nations. The Rio summit not only brought together the activists, scientists and governments, it also clearly energized all these groups to try and do everything possible so as to avert danger - based on the above two principles.
So, let's check the timeline once again:
Rio Earth Summit - 1992, where the UN-FCCC was adopted (which clearly shows that the danger posed by climate change was recognized internationally, YEARS before such a Convention could be adopted in 1992).
As a related body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity" was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in **1988**.
The "Conferences of the Parties" started meeting annually, starting with the COP-1 in Berlin, in 1995.
Kyoto was COP-3 in 1997, where the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.
Countries have been meeting ANNUALLY after Kyoto.
The meeting at Copenhagen (COP-15) was especially significant, because it was planned years in advance to adopt a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol (1997). But Copenhagen was pretty much a disaster on a number of counts.
The "upcoming meeting of international negotiators in Cancun" referred to in the IPS news story is COP-16.
It is clear to everyone concerned that the momentum of the 1990's has been lost, while emissions have increased, and so have the warnings from the scientists. So, unfortunately, not many are holding their breath about the outcome from Cancun.
UN-FCCC and COP: Now, is it so difficult to learn a couple of acronyms that have so much significance, considering what they are dealing with? Ok, and the Kyoto Protocol too.
Is it really all that difficult to tell people what these mean, considering all the trivia that's banged into people's heads?
Let's consider the momentum that existed in the 1990's, all the way up to 1997. Even though the denial industry (as described in George Monbiot's book "Heat") had started working around this time, it really kicked in and went all out, post-Kyoto.
The media that has consistently blacked out the timeline and has created an impression that somehow the climate change thing started in recent years is nothing short of CRIMINAL. Why is that more people know about climategate, the Himalayan glacier story, the scientists emails, etc., and almost nothing about the UN-FCCC and the Conference of the Parties to this Convention? It's because "they" want it that way.
Think about it: they can decide and control what people talk about. It's called "controlling the discourse".
Excellent post Alcyon! Thanks.
Here we go again. We could temporarily carry excessive water from flooded areas and transfer it to scorched areas. I see it as a great way to deal with climate change. If you're concerned about fossil fuels and Peak Oil, then raise your voice for steam engines and solar electric powered vehicles. That's a lot of cool green jobs you can make out of it and put this climate change issue to rest some.
What proponents of alternative energies nearly always fail to understand, is the enormous amounts of fossil energy that would be required to bring any alternatives up to scale enough to make even a small dent in the energy equation. Solar, wind, steam, whatever...the logistics of replacing more than a fraction of oil with these would make the task impossible. We just don't have enough (accessible,profitable) oil left, unless we all decided to stop using it for things like driving, heating, manufacturing and plastic bags. Ever hear the outcry when a city tries to make plastic bags illegal? You'd think they were trying to starve them to death. Nope. Ain't gonna happen. We're going to go down, but we're going down in with our new gas grills, g-damit.
Man learned to use the power of the sun and wind all along and steam engines existed long before the first oil fields were discovered. I don't know what to tell you about plastics other than the public will not tolerate banning them unless something cheap can replace it.
The Peak Oil cries are scare talks identical to the fable of boy crying wolf. They kept saying that Peak Oil was coming ever since oil was discovered but they would be proven wrong every time. Peak Oil never happened and we're still using oil.
I disagree with you about Peak Oil:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25306.htm
It is still ambiguous. Not to be too optimistic but in the article, it was mentioned that different technologies come up for extracting oil in places thought not to have any so I just don't know. The Saudi oil fields never go down and we're stuck in Iraq for the oil. There's also a debate about abiogenic oil. I don't know who's right and who's wrong. So many things in science are open to debate. We could have an alternative in place and suddenly Peak Oil is off the worry radar. Thanks for the article though.
bluesky,
Developing countries don't have to overturn fossil fuel-dependent technology in order to build alternative energy platforms. Neither do rural people in the US: they can move to photovoltaics and dispose of propane with just a bit of government incentivizing. That's the direction I'm hoping for: individuals getting off the grid, one by one. The government will diddle around as it always does, making no effort to solve the problem, but people will begin to act on their own.
I can't wait until the price of energy goes through the roof; then and only then will people leave a smaller carbon footprint. Until then, we can expect exactly nothing from the governments of the world.
It's absolutely true that everyone is going to have to make due with less. A lot less.
Still, I think people can still have a small amount of energy for their use from solar/wind/geothermal.
Imagine, for example, if all houses were required to be insulated to R-50 (using natural materials), and were designed/retrofitted for passive solar heating.
Michael....I'm not trying to be rude, but seriously, you should study some basic physics and chemistry and perhaps a bit on heat transfer.
Here's an experiment for you, keeping in mind the huge distances you suggest moving water.
Take a 55 gallon drum and put it in the trunk of your car and fill it with water. If your car will move, drive it around for 100 miles and see what it does to your gas mileage. The difference between that and normal gas mileage with some simple math will show you how much energy is required to move a gallon of water 1 mile using gasoline as the energy source. Now multiply that by billions of gallons and thousands of miles.
Caution! Be sure the drum of water is secured extrememly well!
You forgot to mention that the steam engine is different from internal combustion engines. The only reason internal combustion engines stood to the day was they were cheaper then and the oil and auto corporations didn't want competition. Water is a renewable resource unless you count a million years it takes for fossil fuels as renewable efficiency is not a serious issue on water but efficiency can still be improved. It has been done before. We could settle for a compromise on using steam engines for short distances and gasoline for long.
with what energy source would you make steam?
Yes, unless you are tapping geothermal steam or have a solar thermal boiler, steam engines use much more fuel to produce each horsepower than internal combustion engines use.
My father-in-law, a farmer, always said that God was a great engineer: 'can you think of a better, simpler, cheaper way to carry water than a cloud?' he would ask. I had to agree with him. Engineered water-projects (mostly canals) have worked very well in the U.S. and elsewhere. They are expensive, but a good investment long-term. I believe the U.S. should start thinking about how to 'canal' water from the upper Mississippi into the parched Western States (whose drought will likely continue). As regards those countries that border the Himalayas, we know the glaciers are going away, leaving those valleys subject to massive repeated washouts and loss of water during the dry season. The only answer is massive dams. Likewise in Bolivia. Its sad that its had to come to this, but we need to catch rainwater off mountains that is no longer falling as snow (or no longer remaining in snow catchment in the spring), or many areas are going to be subject to spring flood/summer drought conditions. As my father-in-law might have said, 'can you think of a better, simpler, cheaper way to store water in wet mountain areas than snow and glaciers?' Well, those are going away and we need to prepare.
I agree with your father-in-law on almost everything but the dams part. Some people argue that dams can interfere with the environment. Cheaper or long term? Tough call.
The dams part is mine, and I don't see a way around this unfortunate circumstance. Without snow cover in mountains, all precipitation runs off as floods in the spring, leaving summer without any water for crops: starvation.
I mention dams as the only way to fix this situation (short of mass-starvation) until/if the glaciers and mountain snow cover come back.
"Yet despite the evidence of floods and flames, of drought and danger, there is no concerted international action towards reaching an agreement on the best way to fight climate change."
"Fight" ? Send armies against it? Nuke it? I would suggest that the militaristic mindset implied in the language we use is a major barrier to understanding and dealing with urgent problems, and even to asking the right questions.
What if we employed our minds and resources to the question: "How shall we adapt to the inevitable climate changes and help the world's peoples mitigate their most damaging effects?"
Might these so far useless conferences come up with more productive plans?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" remains a humane, reasonable (and non-ideological) guideline.
Nyssa
The ideology that global warming does not exist would not be surrendered even if it's proponents were on fire.
Mother Nature apparently reached a consensus years ago and is well along with Operation Climate Shift. She is more decisive and better organized than we are, and not hamstrung by cerebral constructs such as human civilization with its delusional television reality. Given that the continued proliferation of the human race will be much worse for life on this planet than whatever steps are necessary to send the failed experiment of simian cerebration back to the drawing board, these apparent disasters are probably a good thing. Hope we don't take too much of the wildlife with us on our way to the scrap heap of evolution.
They have an answer! Lower marginal tax rates and everything will be fine!
This planet doesn't care about us, & never did. If we all died today, Mother Earth & her other creatures would be much better off .....
yes, the 'other' creatures haven't wreaked as much havoc.................
"If the rich don't want to do anything - despite the howls of protests outside the halls and the demands for action from charities and non-governmental organisations - then nothing will happen."
That's the whole point, isn't it? That sentence can be applied to virtually every world-threatening issue there is. Only the rich decide anything, the rest of us are totally irrelevant. If we live or die, it's the choice only the super rich are allowed to make. Capitalism on a platter.
There's never going to be enough money to fight climate change because that threatens the core dogma of capitalism: profits unceasing for the billionaire class. Those profits override every other consideration, including the likelihood that millions will die because rich countries, especially the US, refuse to address the issue at all. Nobody can make them do it, because the American people refuse to organize and throw the bastards out, eliminate capitalism and create a sane and just society and peaceful world. War is our only business, and war dictates that we remain anchored to a fossil fuel economy and energy delivery system, chiefly because that's where the real money is--for them.
It's structural, and no amount of howling from the plebes, drowning in floods and hurricanes, baking to death in droughts, starving by the millions, can move our overlords and master class from their reveries of everlasting PROFITS. So we all just have to die to satisfy their insatiable greed. It's God's will.
This is a good article; however I would say it doesn't go far enough. This year has involved an unprecedented upping of the ante on climate change.
The author left out:
1. Current fires in California
2. The nearly-dead Gulf of Mexico (rain bands from the tropical system are hitting my area now)
3. A million Haitians still homeless after the big quake
4. Chile recently experienced a huge quake
5. The Iceland volcano recently began to let off steam
There is so much misery! Add the numbers of persons now homeless (or without sources of food) to those displaced by U.S. wars of aggression.
What continent has not been touched?
In previous posts I went on record to say that this summer was going to involve enormous changes that would destabilize established systems.
When human beings, especially those who have been conditioned to accept "Mars rules" as a substitute for a sane society, fail to respect the natural world they rely upon, then Mother Nature has no choice but to play teacher.
The harvest cycles of our world have been hinged upon the 4 seasons, and those "cardinal points" are where the astrological action is now PACKED. While each of the gyrating spheres operates in accord with its own orbital rhythm, something akin to a template has just been forged. And just as the photographic negative of earlier days could be relied upon to reproduce the image there embedded, this invisible, albeit powerful, astrological template (serving like that negative) will continue to produce reverberations long after August, 2010.
Yogananda lectured to the United Nations that until human beings learned to live together by ceasing their investments in arms/weapons, weather events of the most destructive and dramatic sorts would prove the rule. THAT is what we are experiencing, and this explanation works as complement to the scientific proof of massive climate change. There are many layers to the lotus... each of them reveals a portion of the truth. If taken together, we see far deeper into the big picture that enfolds upon and informs our lives.
"The author left out: 1. Current fires in California, 2. The nearly-dead Gulf of Mexico, 3., 4., 5."
6. Large menhaden fish die-offs occuring in Delaware Bay and the NJ coast, apparently due to low oxygen levels in the ocean, which is due to record high water temperatures (hot water holds less O2 than cold water).
http://www.thealternativepress.com/article.asp?news=14670&DEP-Continues-Investigation-of-Major-Die-Off-of-Menhaden-in-Delaware-Bay
Sioux Rose a thoughtful post as usual.
I have taken the liberty to piggyback my post from todays other climate change article as it has some resonance with yours.
Form peer groups of like minded family and friends and start the transition from individual self motivated capitalists to more sustainable and natural living styles. This would include sharing of resources, food, land and lodging with emphasis on food growing, small cash cottage industry (could be selling something as simple selling honey), and renewable energy systems like solar and wind.
One would start slowly with the closest of friends but always with the goal of more integration toward shared and sustainable living. Creating "pockets of living environmental change" will go a long way in setting visible examples of living lifestyles for a sane world.
Emphasis should be placed on simple positive change starting with kindergarden basics like food growing and conservation methods of living and travel.
Criticism of establishment practices should be done in sympathetic manners as to have compassion for individuals still trapped in the world defeating selfish competitive lifestyles with all it's alienation, guilt and loss of connectedness, whether these people are billionaires or the homeless.
Billionaires should be looked as as people that have a deep almost pornographic compulsive bulimic greed disorder and like any ....oholic are desperately crying out (with each new vila purchase) for control, counsel and healing.
Let's get together with friends and just start the conversation about a shared and positive lifestyle. Look for small old farms or bigger houses (multiple houses) with something approaching a acre of land or more. Hell it could be better then the late 60's because this time it's for real and what do we have to lose anyway but a lot of primitive, narcissistic, capitalistic addictions.
It will sure beat holing up in your own private bunker with some gold sovereigns, survival meals and huge cash of guns and ammo and waiting to be burned out.
Set the example for the positive not the negative and we will be imitated.
RALPH: Thank you for the compliment. I read your post on another thread and it moved me. Isn't this the ideal? Small groups of like-minded persons learning to live together? I now own some land in a region that is pretty good for farming. I figure I can always make the land available to those who wish to reside on it in exchange for growing some food.
Gordon Michael Scallion has been a source of info on climate/earth changes for about 20 years, and he pubished a map of Florida where half the state disappears (under the waves). I am in the part that theoretically would remain. I would LOVE to have cool people live together on this land. The problem is our egos. We're so accustomed to being individuals that living and working together will become a challenge. It's hard for any Leo not to be "boss lady." Still, I believe that we will need to soon learn to live in a manner more reflective of Indigenous communal values. This shift is already knocking and could emerge as THE new norm within a decade or two.
I thought of purchasing a gold sovereign... $1500! In a moment of hunger I'd be tempted to exchange it for a corn on the cob! My next strategy is to have good coffee on hand to trade for venison (although I generally don't eat meat); or pass around some of the neat clothes I've picked up over the years at Goddess knows how many consignment shops. I have worn the same size for 30 years... that means a LOT of options. I just got back from Athens, Georgia where I spent my birthday. Quite serendipitously I popped into a little consignment shop located in their cool downtown sector. There was a HUGE pile of clothes on the floor... fill a bag for $10! I got my guy a Ralph Lauren shirt, picked up a size 4 pair of pants from The Gap, and a great white, satin jacket... felt like prosperity raining down. And the size 4 pants fit... that felt great, too! It's cathartic to visit a "recyclatorium" and find what you need not buy new for bigger bucks!
nicely said Sioux
To your list I'd add the increase in the number of antibiotic resistant organisms that are starting to overcome all current medicine.
Unfortunately,the Democrats are too compromised by their dependence on corporate money to push for the simplest and fairest way to begin to force the changes needed: A straight tax on carbon combined with an elimination of personal income taxes. If people paid zero income tax, they would be less likely to complain about huge taxes on gasoline and fuel oil, and alternative energy sources would become suddenly profitable. If the US took the lead on this, China and Russia would certainly come on board. Their leaders are well aware of the realities of climate change and do not need to cater to the likes of Exxon or BP, and the EU is more than ready. This approach won't prevent climate disasters over coming decades but it could keep temperatures from reaching a point where our species becomes extinct.
So much depends on the role the US plays worldwide that those of us who live here are morally bound to do all we can to inform people and to put pressure on those running for election in November. It's easy to give up hope but we have no right to do so.
One caveat. The tax on carbon must go to fund green energy: wind, solar and non-polluting forms of geothermal.
Talking monkeys everywhere.
The rich have the guns, the poor want peace, guess who wins? Someone earlier mentioned we don't ask the right questions, therefore we have no justified answers. Hey there! pukingly rich folks, come back to Earth or all your servants will die for lack of resources to take care of themselves. Share the wealth and the Earth or parish.
It's really hard not to get totally despondent about our future on this planet. Our ability of denial is almost limitless, that the deniers can still get away with creating a debate is baffling to me. Sounds odd but the only thing I can comfort myself with is I don't have kids. It's bad enough I have to go through this, with watching our planet die before my eyes, at least they are spared the same misfortune.
It's just very hard for me to keep even a sliver of hope up when I see all the madness and denial around me...
IMO it's an insane age I am living in, I agree with Howard Zinn...
"I start from the supposition that the world is topsy turvy. That things are all wrong. That the wrong people are in jail, and the wrong people are out of jail. That the wrong people are in power, and the wrong people are out of power. I start with the supposition that we don't have to say too much about this because all we have to do is think about the state of the world today and realize that things are all upside down."
Saw this coming years ago, didn't have any kids.
Ditto
I wish I could say the same, but the reason I don't have kids is that I'm gay...
Of course, the increasing magnitude of the environmental disaster is making me wish that I never used condoms. It'd be nice to know that I wouldn't be around to see the end of this civilization.
don't be so despondent saturnalia.............
we are living in 'interesting' times. be proud that you are one of the billions who have managed to devastate our existence in a mere 'blink of an eye' in the earth's time frame.......
the dinosaurs took 160 million years...........(and it wasn't even their fault)
we've managed it in 200,000 years...............(well, probably in only the last 200 years)
the earth is 4.5 billion years old..........
the universe is 14 billion years old...........
we are insignificant, whether we use condoms or not..............
This article ignores the fact that there are millions upon millions of Christians who would welcome the "end of times" that the rest of us call climate disaster. And for those that live in the US, and believe the US is god's gift to the world, when they hear about all these disasters in foreign lands they think to themselves...serve those godless savages right.
It doesn't hurt their argument that the affects of climate change are so 'old testament': massive fish die-offs, locusts, oily volcanoes erupting from the Gulf of Mexico, drowning coasts, massive fires and floods, and smothering, festering clouds of methane gas rising from the Arctic permafrost.
Gee, could it be the Christians in the Department of Defense have figured out how to cause severe droughts and torrential rains???? Try researching "Videos of Chemtrails", even the History Channel documented The Department of Defense's experiments over the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the Viet Nam War....they seeded the clouds during monsoon season to create heavy rains! Gosh, look up in the sky sometime and see if you don't see strange crossing patterns of jet trails that last for hours and sometimes longer? Water vapor disappear quickly!
>>ubrew12 August 12th, 2010 1:41 pm: As regards those countries that border the Himalayas, we know the glaciers are going away, leaving those valleys subject to massive repeated washouts and loss of water during the dry season. The only answer is massive dams.<<
ubrew12, there already **are** several **large** dams across **all** the major rivers originating in the Himalayas, and the jury is still out on the **net** effect of these dams despite the obvious benefits of irrigation and power generation and the real need for electricity in this region that lacks large petroleum reserves.
Building small dams, while also having an impact on the environment, is not as damaging to the local ecosystem as large dams. There is massive displacement of people who have lived there for generations (and, in the case of tribals, pretty much forever). These people are moved to - essentially dumped in - a different location, often not getting the compensation promised. But most of all, they are moved so that the benefits of the dams can go to people living far from the dams. It's a form of imperialism in action.
Arundhati Roy has written on big dams and has participated in action to seek justice for those displaced by the construction of a major dam in India:
"The Greater Common Good"
http://www.narmada.org/gcg/gcg.html
While this brought attention to the struggles of the "Narmada Bachao Andolan" (NBA), led by another great woman, Medha Patkar, many Indians (obviously urbanites, and living **far** from the dam site) were furious. All kinds of attacks followed. Here's one that at least sounded decent, and trying to shoot down Arundhati Roy's points (but clearly condescending):
"A Poetic Licence" - by B.G. Verghese
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?207723
>>"The poetry was charming; the facts wrong; more rhyme than reason. Arundhati Roy, the poet laureate of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (nba), allowed poetic licence to run away with her in writing about the ssp or the Sardar Sarovar Project (The Greater Common Good in Outlook, May 24). Having denuclearised herself in an earlier article, she is here at the barricades as 'Big Dams are to a Nation's Development' what nuclear arms are to its Military Arsenal...both weapons of mass destruction '. The Indian state/democracy is a pestilential 'poverty-producing machine ' made to order by rich urban elites to grind down the rural poor."<<
This prompted a response from Arundhati Roy:
"The Greater Common Good II"
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?207770
>>"Almost everyone who wants to rubbish my argument begins by paying me extravagant, back-handed compliments about my 'poetic writing'.
Almost as though poetry by definition is imprecise, unsubstantiated mush. Not something that Real Men who build Big Dams dabble in.
... The poetry may have been charming (though it's not an adjective that I would choose), but the facts are right."<<
My point is, if you get down to the local level, you can see that inequality is at the root of these problems. A certain class of people, who are comfortably located away from the flood zones (notice how it's always the poor people who are affected; how come?) need all the energy and the resources to support their lifestyle. Although far less wasteful than the average westerner's lifestyle, the elite in these countries like India and Pakistan still consume far more than their fair share.
Pushing urban growth close to the edges of the rivers is probably at the root of these catastrophes. A river is a living thing. A massive one at that. It cannot be treated as just another resource to be tamed, exploited and controlled without repercussions. Rivers need room to make small adjustments from year to year. But the primary problem is locking in property rights that forces people to build ever closer to major rivers. It also forces people to resort to cutting trees and grazing livestock to make a living - thereby exacerbating the deforestation, another major, major factor that turns an ordinary weather event into a catastrophe in many poor countries.
But the biggest problem I see with your post is to forget the climate change factor.
Some people are talking of a "supercharged jet stream" strengthened by climate change as responsible for the floods in China and a heatwave in Russia - in addition to the floods in Pakistan and northern India:
"The world weather crisis is causing floods in Pakistan, wildfires in Russia and landslides in China"
http://timeslahore.com/2010/08/10/pakistan-floods-supercharged-jet-stream-causing-flooding/
"Frozen jet stream links Pakistan floods, Russian fires"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727730.101-frozen-jet-stream-leads-to-flood-fire-and-famine.html
"Floods and mudslides on three continents, as drought hits Africa"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/09/floods-mudslides-drought-extreme-weather
So, it looks like the lifestyles of those in far away places have something to do with these floods as well. Inequality at the local level and greed, selfishness and callousness at the global level - unless these are addressed, more dams won't solve these problems.
Thanks Alcyon. I went through your links you gave on climate change. Solving it is going to be pretty complicated.
HAARP.net - The Military's Pandora's Box by Dr. Nick Begich and ...
www.haarp.net/
The military, through HARPP is capable of reversing any drought, stopping flooding, etc. But that is not happening.
They are also capable of causing any of what is happening now. Are they?
Are they just twiddling their thumbs, day to day, doing nothing with this technology?
Obviously they do not have the capability to cause any sort of weather.
If they did, don't you think that the Iranians would be roasting in 50C or 60C daytime highs? Wouldn't the Afghans who resisted the usa be buried under an avalanche of snow?
Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, this HAARP business is just bullshit and snake oil sold to the gullible by those who want to distract you from actually doing something?
Well, it is sometimes possible to trigger earthquakes by deep drilling in earthquake prone zones. That's why there are very strict rules about it in California.
well, look on the official website..........
www.haarp.alaska.edu
and see what THEY say.............
Who in the hell is playing God (God?), Apollo or whatever and fricking around with the weather? Strange about those never-seen-before floods in Pakistan and all the other "never seen before" weather, quakes and strange clouds worldwide. All of this combined is beyond global warming alone and screams for an investigation and audit of what DARPA or any other foreign darpa's are doing to ensure no countries are using their weather control systems erroneously. Clinton's secretary of defense, Mr. Cohen, gave a speech in the 90's about the U.S. capabilities to do quakes and all sorts of science fiction like weather scenarios. I thought he was just kidding to throw off the enemy until I read Russia sent a letter to the UN about their concern about our ability to manipulate beyond the normal atmosphere, from a planetary perspective. Again, who knows with all the disinformation and joy the wizards have in scaring the people.