EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Gulf Will Be Beautiful Again
Not a lot of people talk about "beauty" and "the Gulf" in the same breath these days.
Five years ago, New Orleans was under 15 feet of water, debris, toxic waste and dead bodies. The disaster killed 1,800 people and caused $75 billion in damage.
Today, the Gulf region finds itself awash in 4.9 million barrels of oil and thousands of gallons of toxic chemical dispersant. Eleven men lost their lives, tens of thousands in the fish and shrimp industry immediately lost their livelihood, and hundreds of thousands more could lose their jobs, homes, boats and businesses. Meanwhile, their children's health will continually be at risk from toxic air and water.
These twin tragedies represent a double blow to the region's confidence and the nation's conscience. Sometimes it is hard to imagine that the cycle of destruction and suffering will ever end.
But the Gulf will be beautiful again. We can restore the land and help the people heal.
Viable solutions exist. First, we need to stop adding damage to damage. Rather than trying to address a toxic spill with toxic "dispersant" chemicals, we should rely on greener solutions. The emerging field of biomimicry imitates nature's designs and processes to solve tough problems: "Innovation inspired by nature." Biomimicry expert Paul Stamets has already discovered a method of growing fungi to absorb oil and chemicals.
Second, we need to get serious about finding climate-friendly, job-generating alternatives to the region's oil drenched status quo. The energy future of the Gulf is not down the holes that BP is drilling. If we want to see the future, we need to look up at the sun and the sky, finding ways to use solar and wind power to meet more of our energy needs.
A strong commitment to renewable energy can create 8,500 well-paying manufacturing jobs in Louisiana, and about 77,000 jobs in the entire Gulf region, according to a study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project. Already there are nearly 500 manufacturing firms in Louisiana that could supply the parts needed to deliver a 15% reduction in the region's carbon emissions.
The people of the Gulf need jobs that are not bound to a dirty, dangerous and uncertain fossil-fuel economy. The shrimpers and fishermen must return to clean oceans; business owners, restaurateurs and hotel workers must return to work on clean coasts. Oil rig workers and machinists should begin building and installing the solar panels and wind turbines using the skills they already possess. An entire new generation of scientists and engineers can rise to help restore the wetlands, purify the oceans, and innovate the clean technology that will save us all.
Third, America's public and private sector needs to invest in infrastructure that keeps us safe. Tragically, the Gulf disasters were caused by a broken levee in New Orleans that George Bush refused to fix and a $500,000 safety valve on the Deepwater Horizon that BP failed to install.
We can boost the ecology and the economy simultaneously. Coastal wetlands serve as a natural buffer zone and protect the Gulf from inland storm damage -- and thus far we have destroyed nearly 80 of the region's wetlands. Restoring the Gulf Coast can create 16,000 direct jobs in the region and 41,000 more in related industries. The richness and diversity of Gulf culture -- the music, foods, faiths and lifestyles -- are all ready to reemerge stronger and more vibrant than ever.
Fourth, we also need to tend to the needs of the people. We need to make sure the people have homes and communities to go back to. These homes should be efficient, elegant and affordable. The rebuilding should be done by, and under the guidance of, the people who live there. And while we are at it, let's make these communities green and gorgeous. Global Green is already building 10,000 green homes in the region -- continuing to rebuild green can net many more construction jobs for the region.
Finally, we need to ensure that the people are healthy. Emergency department visits increased 100 percent in the month following Katrina and hospitalization rates increased 66 percent in the first month and 23 percent over the ensuing year. 50 percent of residents showed a need for mental health counseling post-Katrina.
The numbers are equally striking for the Gulf spill: 30 percent are suffering mild to serious psychological distress, and one third of children along the most impacted areas are experiencing physical or mental problems. The people need more than a few clinics and claims adjusters to address the gamut of health issues in the Gulf.
If we do these things, the beauty will return -- stronger than ever.
- 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...
54 Comments so far
Show All"And while we're at it, let's give everybody a unicorn. And there must be dancing and singing. And we'll all take long walks through vast forests of big healthy trees. The lion will lay down with the lamb and instead of elections we'll just have big old bipartisan love-fests with love-ins and teach-ins. It'll be awesome. And the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees in the Big Rock Candy Mountains...
Hey don't bogart that bong man, it's my hit."
I swear the more I hear from this guy, the more I'm glad the gutless Obummer administration saw fit not to defend him against the right-wing smear machine. This man's fragile grasp on reality suits him perfectly when one takes into account his unfailing support of the Administration. He's like a cheerleader for the Washington Generals, "come on guys, you can beat those Globetrotters, YEAH!"
The fungi will eat oil so fast that we will have to dump all of our used crankcase oil into storm drains just to satisfy the appetites of all those fungi.
I'm sure everyone who has seen a horror movie knows how that turns out!
The fungus crawl up the sewer pipes, first it eats cars, then it goes after people, Then the National Guard get's called in, before you know their nuking the fungus,,, but it doesn't die at the end theres always a bit in a storm drain ready to come out for "Fungus 2" next spring movie season.
>^^<
Well, and amusingly, stated. The real first step is to wrest control of our governance from those who seek endless profits.
Shut up Van Jones. You're a moron. This idea that humans can do things even better than nature is what has brought us to the brink of extinction.
Well said.
The surface may be beautiful for boaters much like Lake Erie is so.Only a propagandist would predict recovery so soon;before the extent of harm is truly known.
Perhaps Van is trying to get Rahm to rehire him.
The Gulf will be beautiful again...
Once man is finally extinct.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
I don't know about totaly.. But most of the single-family Brother-Sister marrages and other swamp related genitic expirments gone wrong,, that would tidy things up quite a bit.
Unless you got an airplane or a shotgun most of us will never see the gulf anyhow. Let it burn!!
>^^<
I used to respect Van Jones. No amount of verbiage will make a salt water ecosystem healthy when it has been inundated with petrochemicals. Ask anyone who has tended to the delicate needs of a salt water aquarium. It will take time, perhaps decades, perhaps never. Meanwhile, there will be serious effects on sea plants, plankton, invertebrates, shellfish, crustaceans and fish, aquatic birds and mammals. We will see next year how this disruption in long established life-cycles will play out.
Even "an entire new generation of scientists" will not be able to fix the ongoing ruin of the Gulf (nor our rivers, lakes and oceans) unless we start behaving differently. Some things, once ruined, cannot be easily fixed.
The best sentence in the article: "The people of the Gulf need jobs that are not bound to a dirty, dangerous and uncertain fossil-fuel economy." Why in the world is the paltry "stimulus" not expanded to set up factories to make solar panels and windmills, and training programs to prepare people to install and maintain them? Do we have to keep buying them from Germany while our people go jobless?
Joe
We're all in full agreement that repairing the Gulf won't be easy, will take a long time, and that some of the damage done is irreversible. Van Jones is assuming that where it can be fixed is where his solution of green jobs could come in handy. We can't afford to wait and see the results of the damage being done. The sooner more green jobs are rolled out, the sooner we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and avoid another "Deepwater". Now if we want to beat Germany and stop depending on them or China for that matter, then we'll have to stop limiting our ideas and give other good ones a chance. They must have less restrictions on what can or can't be used to manufacture their items while this country forbids harmless items while subsidizing dangerous ones for manufacturing when there's less importing from China and Germany. Until then, all we can do is flub the dub.
You and I and Van Jones agree on the necessity for Green Jobs, right now. Sadly, money allocated for Green Jobs is small and spotty, window dressing if you ask me. And I agree we cannot wait to see what happens. I am so grateful for those fishermen and shrimpers in the Gulf who will not go along with the idea that the seafood is safe. Meanwhile, they have families and no income on the horizon. That is bravery. That is patriotism. The oil rig workers are not as brave, although I have sympathy for people who have to feed children every day, no matter what. They need this jobs program too. So do miners.
We must take the Green Energy initiatives out of the hands of the energy companies, who will sit on it. It takes a lead period to develop the jobs and the clean energy sources before they will make a profit. Oil companies do not want to invest in the long term health of our country, to wait for returns, just grab and grab as fast as they can.
It takes investment to make big changes. The return is safety, a clean environment, freedom from dependence on oil, domestic or foreign. If the money we use to invade countries to protect our hegemony on oil were turned back to providing clean energy, we would have enough cash. If the rich and corporations did not get a free ride on taxes, then we would have enough cash to do that.
We must demand a major plan, PLAN, not talk. For those who still believe that private enterprise is the best way, at least get rid of the financial incentives that favor fossil fuels. Oh and Max, hemp can be a part of the plan :)
Joe
Joe, I just thought of another thing. This has been brought up before but I think it's relevant here. You might have heard about how the same cars produced elsewhere get stripped of their mileage when imported here. My wife did some research on this and wondered what would happen if we were to import their vehicles as was without any modification. Then I remembered that the same "free market" crooks calling for doing away with CAFE standards were the same crooks lobbying to set their own standards on highest mileage. Behold, another case in the contradiction of "free markets". All along I had thought that it was mainly forbidding hemp and algae production that was the cause of our dependence on oil. However, I'll have to partially scratch that out after my wife and I went through endless pages of how the oil and auto industries not only had plans to keep their engines designed for petroleum as alone as possible but to do every nook and cranny to make those engines bigger guzzlers no matter what. It's hard to believe their insane motives but they do exist. I've been slowly realizing what pushed me into believing that hemp and algae would be major helpers. Aside from the knowledge of the plant, it was my jealousy of other nations boasting of fuel efficiency autos that drove me insane somewhat and made me think "Oh what's the use of bothering to regulate on mpgs? We need to find something unique to show them or we'll never stop buying autos from them !". But what would always escape my mind until the recent times was that even if we could grow all the plant oils, too much more backbreaking work would have to be done just to offset inefficiency. Furthermore, if allowed to be too inefficient, then the effectiveness of cleaner burning fuels would be lost. All said, I'm thinking that maybe we should hold off on hemp and algae while calling for exposing the corporate frauds for their "free market" hypocrisy and call for importing their autos with no design modifications such as stripping the mileage. If it takes longer to burn the same amount of oil in a higher mpg vehicle, then oil drilling will be less arduous because less oil would have to be drilled so soon and pollution would be much less intense. As for solar panels and wind mills, I hope that private energy companies don't do to good imports what the auto giants did. Making solar panels inferior in quality to keep us still hooked to fossil fuels is what I'm watching out for in this dirty capitalism.
Just a comment on your comment: About the mpg. In 1998, I bought a new gas-burning Nissan Sentra with AC that got 38 mpg. In 2002, I went to buy another and the best I could find was 32 mpg......hmmmmmmm.
In 1996, while in southern France, I rented a Renault with AC that burned diesel. First let me say, that I find France's air to be much less polluted than the USA. Anyway, that car seemed to go forever on a tank of gas, so doing the math (liters per kilometer to mpg) I calculated the car got 53 mpg.
And, remember the VW Rabbit in the mid/late 70's? Seems I recall the diesel version got close to 60 mpg.
There does seem to be some sort of conspiracy.
Only in CA, we have many conspiracies. Were not allowed to have small diesels, only large ones in trucks. I see many things like this on the internet VW and Toyota, Nissian most all the auto companies have diesel versions that sell well and get as you noted great gas milage. China I see even has diesel motorcycles and scooters for sale, you just can't have one in California.
Living in China now and riding a bicycle. The most danger I face is from the numerous electric scooters. They soundlessly zip by. Another thing here, many of the larger cities are giving 60,000 yuan (around $8900 US) rebates towards the purchase of electric cars. I don't think it makes the international news, but China is doing a lot of 'green energy' projects. IMHO, the leaders here realize the vast population and the speedy economic development. Coal is still king, but new technologies and less polluting plants are the future. And, many nuclear plants are being built, mainly with help from France and Germany.
I wish I could see the same thing happening in America.
I've been to China myself earlier this year. It's good that you can still ride a bicycle because I came across a lot of highways where biking used to be the main mode of transportation but now FORBID biking. I disagree that electric cars are necessarily going green once you consider the main source of electrical energy, coal and nuclear, and the likely demand which will make electrical cars just as problematic as gasoline powered ones. Nuclear power plants are not a way of going green either given that it takes tons of fossil fuels and water just to build, operate, and maintain the power plants. I read about the embarrassing power outages France has had to face from droughts with its nuclear power plants and Germany has been turning to putting up more coal powered plants. A better role model for cleaner energy would be Spain and Portugal. I've been reading a great deal about their solar energy projects despite their tougher economic times.
Dizi, thanks for confirming my fear of this being planned long term. Why the peak oil enthusiasts or neo-Malthusians never want to discuss this is beyond me. It would make logical sense to conclude that the longer it takes to burn one gallon of gas, the cleaner our air will be.
You can buy a Diesel Jeep Wrangler in Europe, but can't get one in the U.S, we tried. Why is that? And diesel engines were originally designed to run on vegetable oil, but now that wouldn't be too profitable for Big Oil, huh? Drove 900 miles on waste veggie oil (wvo) recently, that's right straight from a truck stop's fryer. A switch off of oil and gas can be done, just buy diesel and convert to veggie! Help spur a movement, check these families out - http://www.livelightlytour.com.
Man these bloggers are bitter. Is there no hope? Hopelessness does not bode well for our nation.
They seem to think that the shining hill must be a gas flare.
Boy, talk about wishful thinking and living in a dream world. I want some of whatever this guy is smoking. Super Van to the rescue!
Van's still on the oboma payroll!
Plus Salazar went to DC Circuit Court in April 2009(8?) to overturn the ruling against Oil Drilling in Mississippi Block 252 where the disaster occured and Salazar even mention Deepwater Horizon in his Brief.
Thanks again OilyBomber!
Well most everyone seems grouchy this morning, Van Jone's suggestions seem right on, but you all are correct in that in the implementation is the task.
VJ must still be angry at Glenn Beck when he should be just as angry at Obama for pushing him out. While you and I know by now that Obama is no friend of the environment, most Democratic voters still buy into the association of Democrats with environment blindly. The Republican voters do too but for absurd reasons of their own. I'm with you that VJ did a poor job of trying to express his green jobs solution without nailing Obama for actually shutting down such prospects. It's my first week in years starting out unemployed with my wife and running against the wind that is the MIC where all jobs are tied to wars, fossil fuels, and nuclear everything. If you had seen that earlier speech by VJ asking everyone to be "optimistic" despite the obvious, you would have been much angrier at what he said. I know I was.
I agree with RichM and the earlier comments he cites. CommonSenseParty deserves honorable mention for the "unicorn" comment, which wholly comports with my own simpression and is a delight to read.
Since I don't follow "green" issues very closely, I hadn't heard of-- or maybe just didn't pay much attention to-- Van Jones until he was railroaded off Team Obama.
But there was so much outrage and indignation here and elsewhere at both the fact and manner of Jones' departure that I assumed he was indeed the real deal.
This article suggests otherwise; it reads exactly like something a Team Obama or BP flack would put out.
"I love that guy" ..Van Jones speaking recently about Otheprez..
Van Jones hit on but a small number of things that could be done. Urban politics rarely include a deep understanding of Gulf Coastal ecology, food chains or jobs of seasonal harvest. It shows in his writing. I grow tired of those meaning well but wasting time promoting ideas that leaving in place the very institutions that have created the problem...corporate lobbyist and their muscle in government.
I couldn't get past this…
"…and thousands of gallons of toxic chemical dispersant."
Gee whiz, only thousands?
No, they used close to 2 Million gallons of Corexit.
Hugh Kaufman EPA policy analyst suggested they used Corexit to hide the magnitude of the spill to avoid fines.
here @http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/20-3
The fact that fossil fuel industries spend so much money to vilify clean energy is proof that they know they cannot compete with fuel free electricity sources. The pursuit of oil and coal wastes as much energy as what is gained. Look at the amount of fuel used to search for oil, then drill for it then transport it to refineries, process it into individual products, transport those products to point of sale. How much energy is left after all that effort? Then to burn the fuels in engines that are only 30% efficiency and suffer the expense of environmental degradation and health effects of pollution. How does this make sense? Compare that to growing hemp and algae for industrial purposes or even better, building a solar or wind system with plastics made from hempseed oil or algal oil and operating it with minimal fuel or mining costs and little to no transportation of fuels for the lifetime of the machines. Obviously the clean system is going to save great sums of money in the long term, and the lack of pollution and health damage is a bonus. Only those who have us dependent on fossil fuel could be against clean energy sources. People need to think about these issues when the TV adds tell us to defend the old ways.
Max,
I'm afraid that only some of what you say is accurate. The parts pertaining to Energy Return on Energy Invested is for now totally inaccurate. It is true that there are many external costs of fossil fuel energy that are not being paid by producers or consumers, but in the strictest sense fossil fuels and oil in particular represent a tremendously potent source of energy that has been thus far relatively cheap to find and extract based on the EREI. As we use up more of the easy oil this becomes less the case, but the real argument that can be made against fossil fuels are the ones regarding externalized costs: air pollution, global warming, ocean acidification, etc.
The Big Lie about renewable energy sources is that we will be able to continue to consume energy at the same exponentially increasing rates globally or even the same rate nationally under a green energy regime. The numbers just don't add up. The following video explains why in a much clearer and more engaging way than I possibly could here:
"Crash Course: Energy Economics"-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeBtdwPpTQM&feature=channel
Also, a primer on Peak Oil. You may as well watch this one first even if you are familiar with the concept. It contains lots of updated stats and data, and explains the concept of "energy slaves" which is really important:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNgNyiXPLk
CSP, I used to be hooked to the feeling of using renewable energy sources as our getaway from fossil fuels but as I detail in "maxpayne September 8th, 2010 2:57 pm", I've come to see my folly in doing so. I'm afraid that we will inevitable have to take a 3-pronged solution of habitually finding ways to reuse and repair, making more out of fuel efficiency and conservation, and converting to renewables. My guess is that attempts will continue to be made to do one or two out of three but not all three until we have virtually no way around putting it all together.
Did you watch the video on Energy Economics? There are important considerations related to increased energy costs leading to the inevitable development of technologies to offset supply/demand constraints on the availability of petroleum energy. This video analyzes these considerations, in part by first taking into account the relationship between economic growth and reduced petroleum availability and the resulting reduction of the surplus wealth generated by the global economy. This is very important because while our economy currently generates surpluses adequate to our high standard of living as well as massive government expenditures, as energy and resource costs continue to rise, the real economy (Non-finance) will continue to contract. Our national and individual budgets for renewables shrinks even as the cost of such technologies goes up (as a result of higher materials, manufacturing, and transport costs).
If we start a massive, massive program to green the country yesterday, it could go a long way toward pulling our collective ashes out of the fire. But we are not doing that, in part because the public has no idea, none, what the data tells us about what the future trendlines of supply and demand for oil will do to the world economy. Hell, even most educated progressives have only a peripheral knowledge of the real state of the energy economy and its relationship to the real economy. And the truth of the matter is that any major alteration in the energy economy and/or government spending and taxation regimes would cause aggregate economic growth to stop and probably lead to economic contraction- a situation our corporate elected officials are contractually bound to avoid at all costs.
Yes! we have to get started in any way that we possibly can under the circumstances, but this issue is so urgent and is not being met with the urgency that it demands.
I watched the energy video and it talks too much about peak oil and population numbers. He mentions the problems associated with some, not all, of the renewable energy ideas. I have seen videos and presentations just like the one you gave in the link in the past. By blaming the population numbers and neglecting to mention how the market was actually rigged to force dependence on oil, all it amounts to is another everyone's at fault and we're all goners. If more people are at fault, then fewer people are really at fault. Any massive program to reduce our dependence on oil will be met by fierce opposition and the wealthy oil goons are counting on us to fight amongst ourselves. Hell, nobody wants to see the real price of gas at the pump.
PS, Ephraim explains this better at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/27-2 under "Ephraim June 27th, 2010 1:18 pm".
If you need a place to drill, I say we use the Governor of the State of Californias office.. It's not doing a thing right now. You can use the Senate chamber for amud pit, and the Legislative floor for anything really nasty. or just to set the slightly used blowout preventers.
Our state will not even have a budget this year, due to our total lack of Government!
Maybe this guy can read poems at a joint session of the Ledgislature and Governor, they can pass around the grass till they see the light!
>^^<
It is noted that the bitter postings fail to present any positive input - much akin to flat-earth argumentation.
The disasters that happen always have and always will present challenges - one of which is, to paraphrase Einstein - finding the solutions to problems that are never achieved from the same perspective from which they arose.
We're looking at a paradigm based on an irrationally acquisitive divide and conquer strategy no longer sustainable under extremely finite conditions, and working on re-emergence of realization that we are not separate from nature but integral to it.
What Van Jones has posted is a convenient link - even for belly-achers to access lay explanations of hard science contributions that fuel - literally - change.
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_stamets_on_6_ways_mushrooms_can_save_...
I generally agree with Van Jones estimate that the Gulf COULD be made beautiful again...but he is missing one important point--
We don't know where all the oil has gone--where the "slowly biodegradable" residue will ultimately settle, or already has settled.
If it settles (has settled) in the bottom sands of the relatively shallow water near the shore and in the bayous, it may remain there causing problems, including "anoxic" conditions, for a long time.
Certain "remediation" process which root out this residue could be implemented to make it "relatively" pure once again.
This would involve "scraping" (using tines) of the bottom while pumping air down to cause the residue/surfactant mix to rise from the effects of "froth flotation" a well-known method used in waste-water treatment.
The idea that "biomimicry" can be used for remediation is not without some merit.
But, in order to be effective, the residue must first be exposed and extracted from its "hiding place".
A task force to determine if such residues are present in the sands should be established, along with a testing program to study various engineering methods and process design configurations to achieve the desired result in an economic manner.
Not that Van Jones wasn't long ago outed, (outed himself actually), as a corporate fool's tool already.
So no surprise this Alice in the Gulf of Wonderland story is about how it'll be "beautiful" again.
Of course, what might look "beautiful" in this BP greenwashing commercial on the surface doesn't mean it isn't in the throes of toxic failure below the surface.
The technological fundamentalism underlying Jones' message of free market environmentalism is that corporations can not only get filthy rich destroying our ecosystems but save us all from their malfeasance by profiting off of the technomiracles of "restoration" too.
Such disaster capitalism is happening everywhere we look.
Americans who fail to rail against this terminal corporatism are complicit in their own demise.
I'm with you...I can't believe this guy has such following on the west coast....what a dweeb and a dreamer....the Gulf is fuked...just ask the folks in AK after the Valdez fuk-up.
Yes..The Gulf will be beautiful again...After we are all gone...............................
It sounds as if reading the headline is ALL some ever do.But I digress.
I like the optimism.. Jam on 4ever New Orleans!
Nice job Mr. Jones - by sanding down the sharp edges on this mega-issue and pushing it to the "acceptable center", you've minimized your image as a cast-out and put your self back on the track to public rehabilitation.
I'll expect to see you sometime in the near future on Bill Maher's show.
Two sicophants in a pod.
"Mein Führer! I can walk!"
Sorry to rain on your parade, Mr. Van Jones, but I think that the Gulf of Mexico has been permanently destroyed, if not killed off outright by that dangerously shortsighted 100 mile offshore oil drilling job that the Obama Administration allowed to take place to begin with, and then had the audacity to allow BP to manage this overall sordid situation thereafter. You should also be lambasting Obama and Salazar for letting all that happen!
On a more serious note, VJ says the following:
"An entire new generation of scientists and engineers can rise to help restore the wetlands, purify the oceans, and innovate the clean technology that will save us all."
The Big Lie about renewable energy sources is that we will be able to just replace oil with these groovy non-polluting technologies and our economy will be able to carry on just as we have done for the last century. The numbers just don't add up. The following video explains why in a much clearer and more engaging way than I possibly could here:
"Crash Course: Energy Economics"-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeBtdwPpTQM&feature=channel
Also, a primer on Peak Oil. You may as well watch this one first even if you are familiar with the concept. It contains lots of updated stats and data, and explains the concept of "energy slaves" which is really important:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNgNyiXPLk
we can only hope that when we all do finally make it to that big rock candy mountain, "optimists from hell" will stop with the damn knee jerk happy talk.
there people, FIRST, get mad at the greed, stupidity, filth and death....and THEN they do justice (people go to jail), and THEN they "paint up clean up fix up" AND THEN (and only then) do they begin to say optimistic things.
when the first thing out of your mouth is "happy talk" you look like a fool... or a tool...
This is just a terrible, terrible article.
There was enough damage done to the Gulf in the first 3 weeks of the spill to effectively destroy any chance of it ever returning to normal and VJ knows this.
This is just another another public figure protecting his place in the mainstream food chain by practicing disaster capitalism.
I swear, I'll never take another word this guy says seriously ever again.
A terrible, shameless performance.
Observers of Disaster Capitalism take note:
As Van Jones suggests how to make the Gulf "Beautiful" again, he reminds us " we should rely on greener solutions" giving a link to a biomimicry expert, Paul Stamets, who finally admits his "solution"(patent pending) "is experimental and not yet proven".
So why would Van Jones be providing entrepreneurial "solutions" not yet even proven to work?
Why not go to the source of the problem: BP's regulatory capture of government agencies?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/report-illustrates-regula_n_709681.html
Three years ago, BP paid More Than $370 Million to avoid prosecution in Environmental Crimes, and Fraud. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2007/October/07_ag_850.html
Clearly, such fines represent no deterence to recidivist environmental criminals like BP.
Van Jones needs to understand profiteering from false environmental solutions is treating the effects of problems and not the causes of the worst oil spill in US history.