Go Home

Happy New Year, It's 2030!

Nonnytrash_405b3.JPG

In my last C&L post on climate change, I ‘predicted’ (if that’s the right word) that at the current rate of global warming/global dimming by 2030, global temperatures could rise more than two degrees, twice as fast as previous models suggested they would, and trigger the irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet – after which nothing could be done to stop the eventual death of the entire planet by the end of the century, which no would be around to see anyway. Pretty grim stuff, really.

First, the bad news. Happy New Year, it’s 2010.

Our politicians, just about all of them from every country, are like children playing on a beach while the tide goes out and fish flop on the sea bed, ignoring the signs of a coming tsunami, too busy squabbling over toys and kicking sand in each other’s eyes. Our current technology is shackled to oil interests, with alternative energy and its technology insufficiently advanced to make much of a difference. According to the figures whizzing by ever so quickly on an excellent website, Worldometer, we’ve consumed nearly 170,000,000 MWh of energy today alone, 156,700,000 of which is from non-renewable sources. We’ve got 15,676 days left until oil runs out completely.

That’s slightly less than 43 years. That’s all – 43 years, and we’ll have sucked those wells dry as a witch’s... bones. My grandmother was born in 1910, she saw the car replace horse-drawn wagons, and by the time she died, she’d witnessed the birth of the internet and a man walking on the moon. A child born this year, 2010, a mere hundred years later, could possibly see that happen in reverse... should we survive that long. By 2030, energy, water and food shortages will be heading toward a ‘perfect storm’, with major upheavals, destabilization and riots worldwide as food prices will rise to become unaffordable to the majority, starvation increases and millions of refugees flee climate ravaged regions.

We are consuming the world’s resources like a plague of locusts, ripping through the earth’s metals, fossil fuels, timber, and by 2030, we’ll have consumed the lot. A study of 1700 species over 35 years, from 1970 to 2005, have declined in numbers 28 percent overall, with a 51 percent decline in tropical species. We’re consuming fresh water at an unsustainable rate, just to produce stuff – the U.S. using 2,483 cubic meters, about the size of an Olympic swimming pool, every year. The amount of land necessary to support one human being is 2.1 hectares. Demand in 2005 amounted to 2.7 hectares per person. The United Arab Emirates, a tiny country of only 32,268 square miles with 6 million people – about one acre per person – needs 23 acres of agricultural land, pasture, forests, fisheries and space for infrastructure, as well as absorb all the waste products and greenhouse gases, for each and every one of those inhabitants. The U.S. is the second-most demanding country per inhabitant, with Kuwait taking bronze. We’re consuming everything we need for long term survival – trees and animals do more than provide us with wood and food, they protect coasts, conserve the soil, replenish the air we breathe, provide us with medicines. Mostly trees, we’ve still got plenty of animals – if you don’t mind domestic sheep and cows replacing more useless wild things. And maybe not so much the trees, either, palm oil production destroying tens of millions of hectares of rain forests along with killing 50 orangutans a year, pushing Sumatran tigers and rhinos and the Asian elephant into functional extinction within ten years.

Worse, we’ll have run out of ‘waste disposal’, the earth slowly being buried in our own crap, now doesn’t that conjure an interesting image? Having trouble with that? Here, how about the world’s biggest rubbish dump right now, a vast 100 million tonne expanse of ‘plastic soup’ twice the size of the continental US floating in the Pacific Ocean, from Hawaii to Japan, choking off sea life. The man who had the dubious honour of discovering the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, Charles Moore, an American oceanographer and former sailor, also happened to be a very rich man, inheriting a family fortune in the oil industry – y’know, the stuff they make plastic from. What he discovered shook him badly enough that he sold off his business assets and became an environmental activist, warning that if consumers don’t cut back on disposable plastic, this vast, reeking, toxic garbage slick is going to double in size by 2020. If a rich oil man giving up his personal fortune to fight for the environment doesn’t convince you, I can’t imagine else what would. But unless you’re a wealthy yachtman, or live on Hawaii where occasionally a few tonnes of floating plastic waste vomits up on the beach, its... far, far away. Out of sight. Out of mind.

And unless you’re a worker in India, China or Africa, you probably won’t see the vast mountains of e-trash piling up, either. Computers are a source of concentrated heavy metals and toxins that have a tendency to leak after awhile. But those of us who can afford to ‘upgrade’ every few years don’t need to worry too much about that , we just buy new gear and ship the old stuff off to... well, where? Safely recycling old computers is expensive, far cheaper to ship it to the third world, which is eager to have it all, extracting any working parts and stripping out the gold, platinum and copper in the circuitry. Supposedly, under the Basel Convention, it’s illegal to export hazardous waste, but – like much of anything the first world does these days – we say one thing and find loopholes to do another. Even when offending exporters are caught, so what? They get slapped with a small fine, and the stuff is auctioned off – usually to the same company that imported it in the first place, thus cleverly turning their own crime into legitimate goods. Convenient, that.

Then it all goes into huge piles of junk where low-caste workers in India or poor women and children in Asia make $1.50 a day smashing circuit boards, pouring acid on electronic parts to extract the precious metals, burning the plastic and breathing in carcinogenic smoke, drinking ground water with 190 times the pollution levels allowed by WHO guidelines. All because you and I just had to have the newest computer and Gameb oy and Playstation and iPod and mobile phone for Christmas and chuck the old ones away. But again, we don’t see that – it’s happening on the far side of town, in countries far, far away.

Speaking of Christmas, isn’t ironic that good boys and girls are ripping the wrapping paper off the standard Christmas gift #138, on page 57 of Santa’s Christmas gift catalog, volume 2, issue number 9, a lovely new telescope… which they can’t really see much out of anyway, due to the increase in Yuletide light pollution from all those ‘festive’ Christmas decorations, not to mention the spike in electrical consumption and the increase in fossil fuel necessary to create that energy. Oh, let’s not forget the amount of Christmas paper used each year, 8,000 tonnes of the stuff, the equivalent of 50,000 trees, all torn to bits in seconds and shoved into landfills to rot for years. I don’t even want to think about the number of obligatory Christmas cards – all the paper used, the ink, the petrol and aviation fuels consumed to send bits of paper around the world to people we otherwise never even think about the rest of the year. But it does make for more festive looking trash heaps, I suppose.

Ho-ho-ho.

This isn’t a cute Disney scenario; we don’t get to fly away in big rocket ships where we turn into lazy, pampered globuloids while Wall-E stays behind and cleans up our mess for us. We die, all of us, slowly boiled alive and choking in our own toxic filth. But according to far too many with vested interests, global warming is a myth, and even if it’s real, it’s not as bad as us pessimists are making it out to be.

Loony leftwing alarmists like, oh, say, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey Office, predict that at current rates of deaths due to loss of habitat and food sources, two-thirds of the polar bear population will disappear by 2050, just around the time we run out of oil. In 1987, there were 1,197 polar bears in Canada’s Huston Bay. In fifteen years, that dropped 22%, to 935. I find it remarkable that someone like Sarah Palin has eyesight so acute she could see Russia from her kitchen window, but somehow can’t spot dying polar bears in her own backyard.

Okay, is everyone thoroughly depressed? You should be. Now for the good news... Happy New Year, it’s 2010. We’ve got twenty years left. Not a lot of time, but still... we’ve got twenty years to save the planet. So Option One, embrace the End of the World, consume to your heart’s delight because there’s bugger all we can do about it anyway, party like there’s no tomorrow... because there isn’t one. And besides, isn’t it all just a sign that Jesus is about due to come back and rescue his faithful patriotic consumers? Or, Option Two – sod the Copenhagen Accord and its non-binding, worthless ‘meaningful agreements’. Sod the oil-driven multinational corporations whose only goal is money and power. Sod our politicians, on both sides, self-deluded deniers and spineless wankers the lot. Sod the religious right and their apocalyptic death wish. Sod the naysayers who claim – albeit largely correctly – that solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy, etc., isn’t enough, too expensive and doesn’t produce enough energy. We’ve got a huge variety of methods at our disposal, right now. In 2010.

We’ve got... paint. If we simply painted all our roofs white and made road pavements a lighter colour, that simple, low-tech action, which doesn’t depend on any large scale government funded geo-engineering projects, would offset global warming effects of all the cars in the world for eleven years, reducing carbon emissions as if we simply stopped driving altogether. We don’t need to wait for any corporate or government investment or high-tech equipment; all any of us needs is a can of paint, a brush and a ladder. Not only will it help the planet, it will help your pocket – lighter roofs decrease the amount of energy costs needed to keep your house cool.

We’ve got Facebook. A bunch of antipodal chocoholics with a conscience and an internet connection has persuaded Cadbury to stop using palm oil in its confectionary. Cadbury New Zealand managing director Matthew Oldham not only admitted the change was in direct response to consumer pressure, including hundreds of letters and emails, but actually apologised, admitting Cadbury’s use of palm oil was ‘wrong’ and hoping Kiwis would forgive the company.

We’ve got... air. The Air-Car, developed by an ex-Formula One engineer, is ready to roll off production lines in one of those countries currently out-polluting the United States, India, running off compressed air, the CityCat clocking out at 68 mph with a range of 125 miles. Its designer, Guy Negre, has already signed deals with Germany, Israel and South Africa, and a hybrid version is in development, petrol-powered compressors refilling air tanks rather than current hybrids with expensive, heavy and largely toxic electric batteries. The technology already exists that would see an air car able to cross the entire United States on a single tank of petrol.

We’ve got fad diets. We love our fad diets! Millions of people slavishly scour the pages of celebrity magazines obsessed with how the beautiful and the famous and even the downright weird are eating. A few highly visible movie stars and celebrity chefs to tout the benefits of the ‘low-carb’ diet –carbon rather than carbohydrates – and it could impact on the environment as well as decreasing cardiovascular disease and strokes from obesity. Consumer pressure makes a difference – once the largest global restaurant chain, the corporate giant MacDonald’s has dropped to third place behind Subway Sandwiches, which heavily promotes its health-conscious marketing.

Morgan Spurlock’s film, Supersize Me, forced MacDonald’s into eliminating super size options, and the fast-food chain began offering salads and low-fat wraps and fruit on its menu. MacDonald’s has switched to organic milk, makes coffee from beans certified by the Rainforest Alliance, and uses non-trans fat for fries. And that very rapid change came about through the simplest of means – one mouth at a time.

Livestock accounts for one-fifth of the world’s total global greenhouse emissions, and with China, India and other developing nations aspiring to adopt western styles, it’s only increasing. The entire world doesn’t have to become vegan overnight, something that will never happen, nor would necessarily be a good thing even if it did. But simply cutting meat consumption by half would reduce greenhouse emissions by 12%. The Bon Appetit Company celebrated its second annual Low Carbon Diet Day in April with some very trendy recipes and events, while the city of Ghent has declared every Thursday as a ‘meat-free’ day, with restaurants and schools and even hospitals promoting vegetarian cuisine with festive relish (pun intended). If every person in Flanders alone, about as many as in the United Arab Emirates, gave up meat for just one day a week, the CO2 saved would equal half a million cars off the road. If China and India want to emulate trendy western lifestyles, we need to alter our lifestyle trends.

We’ve got bacteria. We could run our cars on refined left-over vegetable oil from every MacDonald’s in the country, but even better, Americans still possess the brains and ability to turn garbage into ‘Oil 2.0’, a carbon-negative product made from leftover corn stalks and wheat straw and woodchips and germ poo that is interchangeable with fossil fuel derived petrol. We have the existing technology – right now, not in twenty years. And homemade at that – we can pry the grip of Middle Eastern oil on our throats off one finger at a time.

We have seaweed. Lots and lots of seaweed. Kelp grows phenomenally fast, up to a meter a day, and can be used for everything from medicine to cosmetics to food to natural fertilizer to booze and even biofuel, a litre of fuel for every five kilograms of seaweed. Even more interesting, seaweed can be cultivated using the carbon dioxide emissions from industrial power plants – instead of releasing CO2 gasses into the atmosphere, the gas if filtered into a pool where it feeds microscopic seaweed, which is then cultivated to turn into biofuel.

We’ve got... thermosiphons. (Stay with me here...) These are incredibly simple low-tech devices that have been used for fifty years in Alaska to draw heat out of the ground to combat the thawing of permafrost. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline has about 120,000 of them. Basically, thermosiphons are little more than tubes rammed halfway into the ground and filled with a gas such as CO2. The top part exposed to cold winter air condenses the gas inside the tube into a liquid, which falls into the bottom of the tube, where the relative warmth of the ground heats it back into gas and sends it back to the top of the tube. This simple heat exchange mechanism cools the ground around the tube so thoroughly it stays frozen even in summer. Even better, thermotubes can be used as fencing, and are more stable than traditional fence posts, which suffer from ‘frost-jacking’, driven out of the ground by shifting soil. Annual sales of thermosiphons have increased 50% in the last five years, used to shore up mines, stabilize railroads, buildings, utility poles, transmission towers, roads and airport runways.

We can make biochar. That’s not new technology, we’ve been making the stuff for 2,000 years, taking agricultural waste and cooking it into a charcoal, and turning it into a soil enhancer that traps 70 times more carbon than non-treated soil, boosts food production, and reduces deforestation. The technology for turning agricultural waste into biochar through superheated high-tech kilns while producing carbon-negative energy at the same time already exists.

It doesn’t even need to be on an industrial scale. A small American (American!!) company manufactures a compact, mobile machine called the Green Energy Machine, capable of processing three tonnes of trash a day, enough to heat a 200,000 square foot building housing more than 500 people by converting trash into small pellets that are then converted into carbon-negative electricity and gas heat, diminishing the production of greenhouse gas by 540 tonnes a year.

We can grow plants. Grow some lettuce or strawberries in with some flowers in a window box, if you don’t have a garden. If you do have enough ground to make a garden, think about what plants to grow – plant shade trees on the south side of your house (or north side if you live on the southern half of the planet), plant Mediterranean perennials which thrive without a lot of water, and taste good, too – rosemary, sage, oregano, thyme, lavender, and any local native plants, as they’re likely to be under pressure from English roses and cottage garden variety delphiniums. Hook up a rainbarrel to your gutter. Plant carbon-eaters like clover rather than high maintenance grass lawns. Grow agastache flowers to help sustain bees and hummingbirds. Choose hardy plants that can survive a range of weather conditions, magnolias and pines can take a lot of battering.

We can read labels. Wealthy shoppers are increasingly worried about finite food resources, and by 2030, supermarkets will become the supreme arbitrators of what goes on our shelves, from how much fresh water and energy was used to produce it, to the packaging it’s in, and listing a breakdown of ingredients on our labels, and where they came from, than just information about carbon footprint.

We’re doing it all now. Even if our current politicians only saw their personal political gains in the slogan Yes We Can, we, the people, understood it for what it really means. The trend in ‘people-powered’ conservation is already playing a major role in saving the kiwi in New Zealand, as well as many other rare and native species under pressure of extinction. It’s the single most important fundamental factor, possibly the only one we need, to save our world and ourselves. So sod the politicians. Sod the corporations. Sod the naysayers. We, as individual human beings have plenty of tools and technology we need – not tomorrow, not in ten years or fifty years, but right now – to make a significant impact on climate change, with not all that much effort or money or imagination or even too drastic changes in our lifestyle.

Happy New Year, everyone. We’ve got twenty more New Years left. Let’s make them all as happy as we can.

About nonny mouse
nonny mouse's picture
Grumpy left-wing ex-pat foodie living in Queensland, Australia. Love grilled kangaroo steaks, barramundi in coconut curry, sauteed crocodile fillets, and Barossa Valley Semillon. Hate Vegemite. Not too sure about witchetty grubs...
Share This Post

Link To This Post


108 Comments
Evet's picture

Ignorance is Strength

Attention Shoppers, only 20 years left. All things must go!

and not surprisingly the conservatives would never have considered. If we had (and still can) aggressively create clean alternative fuel sources we would:

* Wean the oil sheiks off our money
* Reduce our reasons to be in the Mideast
* Diffuse the anger at the invading west
* End our funding the terrorists
* Create more good paying jobs domestically
* Create an exportable good improving our real GDP and economy
* Reduce our emissions and carbon finger print

But war is so much better for the Limbaugh's and Hannity's of the world.


Goodnight, Frau Blücher

Doug Alder's picture

It's possible to build more efficient, more powerful, safer (can't melt-down), cheaper and non-polluting nuclear reactors by switching to Thorium as fuel rather than Uranium. We've known this since the 50's but the desire of the MIC to build atomic weapons forced the use of uranium which produces the plutonium needed. Great article in Wired and more information at the Energy From Thorium site.


http://www.thealders.net/blogs
Just call me Dazed & Confused

Ushouldno's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
Hechicera's picture

You leave out population growth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY (Part 1 of 8 dry, boring, and rather old video)

The whole concept of growth as an economic and, resource gathering model in a finite system doesn't work once you've gotten to about 50% of the resources. It is all related, the earth is pretty close to a closed system. Even our space junk, can't quite escape. Yeah, we're littering there too!

Paul's picture

...look like they were ahead of the rest of us in many regards. Everything they do is based on sustainablility and low foot prints.

smchris's picture

If the earth has an unsustainable population now, where's the sustainability? Erhlich was right 40 years ago when he wrote the Population Bomb. His timeline was just off because he underestimated the ability of technology to wring the system dry of resources.

Just means the crash will be that much harder. As a species population, we act about as intelligently as a population of lemmings when it comes to the broad challenges that require some vision. Understandable human stupidity really. If we can't get people to believe the hard sciences on issues like evolution, how much harder to convince them that the social sciences are on to something?

calandra_speaksout's picture

that was awesome


your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny

fiver's picture

That was a great piece David. Thank you.

[I know the byline says David, but nonny mouse wrote this. We're working on getting the author's name corrected-Sitemonitor]


Corruption favors the wealthy.

fiver's picture

Great work. Thanks for the mini-library of links.


Corruption favors the wealthy.

save the planet. Should we take bets on which government, if any, is going to take the first steps to avert this catastrophe?

Personally, my wifes been a vegitarian for the past 10 years and finally I'm trying to do the same (it's been a few months w/o meat).

Your probably tired of hearing this, but our company was a plastic recycling firm which the city shut down. It's interesting how in an industrial neighborhood there can be dozens of plastic manufacturers who generate waste, but your not allowed to collect the waste and recycle it in the midst of the polluters.

Kind of sums up our government, no?

Evet's picture

we got it, your uh future, like all under control man . .

http://jriddell.org/photos/2005-09-01-akademy...

Handypants's picture

I expect mother earth - Gaia - Nature to deal with us.

We are just one pandemic from population reduction so profound as to change the state of our existence.

I don't wish it on anybody but overpopulation is something that has been dealt with many times and in many species.


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

RobertD's picture

...not to bring more kids onto the planet.

Not a popular opinion, but one worth considering.

Then what?

feverishly trying to keep the hordes under control.

miss_kitty's picture

the right wingers are having huge families; the lefties, smaller ones.

miss_kitty's picture

I caught a bit on Oprah and it was the Osmonds, and she was going on how great it was that from mom and dad, they had 9 kids, those 9 have (so far) squeezed out fifty-fucking-five between them, and those breeders are off and running w/ 48 + 4 born in the update with another 12 on the way.

Oprah thought they were amazing; I thought they are amazingly selfish. Oprah, anyone can make a mess o babies. The amazing thing would be if people would just knock it the fuck off with these million kid families. You aren't farmers.

fiver's picture
~

more like ranchers...


Corruption favors the wealthy.

miss_kitty's picture

really. My gran was the oldest in Northern Norway. She ended up being the 'child wrangler' of the house...

RobertD's picture

China's brutality toward its citizenry is legendary, but I think there's something of value to the "one child" policy--provided that girls are as celebrated as boys.

Rich H's picture

I'll relate our family had/has four natural kids, three adopted (me included), and about a dozen or more foster childs. Wow, way to go mom and dad!

miss_kitty's picture

plenty of kids need families. Way to go Your mom and dad!

Rich H's picture

we've taken in troubled kids (and got them through school) and have adopted one.

miss_kitty's picture

and I wouldn't be so quick to say you aren't half as great as your parents. You learned an amazing lesson about adoption from them, and passed it on. Also, in helping troubled kids, you really don't know what effect you've had on them, as far as what you've saved them from. They've ended up with a real chance.

Rich H's picture

We're just doing what we can.

RobertD's picture

.

"... the Earth That Was ... was used up."

Patriot Actor's picture

you have glass beaker filled with food. An organism is placed in it that doubles every 30 seconds until midnight when the beaker is full.
At 30 seconds to midnight it is only 50% full, 1 minute to - 25%, and so on. So at 2.5 mins to midnight the organism only takes up 3.125% and is floating around without a care in the world....

Technology can buy you another full beaker and possibly a second one...
and then it is a minute after midnight.

Excellent post by the way!

Hernand Cortex's picture

... I truly think that math, especially exponential growth should have been explained to everyone on earth.

We have two choices:

1. Keep up gracing at our navels, and continue doing the same stupid shite we have been stuck doing for eons: waste our lives under a weird system of values which has absolutely no bearing with reality (honestly, why do people kill themselves for something as useless as pure metal which "shines" Think about that for a second and think how excited your pet gets trying to catch some useless gimmick that just flaps around or shines). If we decide that is our destiny as a species, so be it. But we need to come to the realisation that we live in a world with a finite set of resources... and thus exponential growth is the least likely approach to allow for a sustained future. In other words, if we want to keep acting retarded so be it... but people should at least stop having so many kids (a fair trade off I think)

2. Fucking evolve already and move on from this silly approach to society, get an actual goal as a species. Use technology to help ourselves, not to enslave ourselves. Get out of this planet and start exploring. Life's mission is to colonise the universe, since self aware lifeforms are likely the conduit the universe evolved to understand itself. We also need to understand that there is a high possibility of life elsewhere, and as soon as that life reaches a new level of evolution and starts spilling throughout the universe. It is only a matter of time before they find us, and then it is all over.

Nature is not kind, and all those idiots who keep crooning about "social selection" don't really understand how cruel the mechanism is at a macro scale. An alien race which finds us, will not have mercy on some unevolved annoying animals which are using up a perfectly lush planet in the middle of the cosmos. Nothing personal... the human history itself is littered with examples which tell us that it is better to be the one doing the discovery than being the ones being discovered!

Sorry if I sound like a crazy person. But honestly, we waste our lives being miserable when we could be doing so much better as a whole. It is simply maddening, we are shooting ourselves in the foot because just a few people on this earth lack anything remotely close to a conscience and feel entitled to unmitigated power and wealth (again wealth being a completely abstract notion... it makes the whole thing even more stupid)

Hechicera's picture

series I linked in my first post in thread does.

The physics prof. that gives the lecture self-titles it:

"The Greatest Shortcoming of the Human Race is Our Inability to Understand The Exponential Functions"

seriously, it is his first slide.

sixandseveneights's picture

Zero job growth decade. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

I think we all know which party controlled all 3 branches of government for most of that time.

in zero job growth, isn't it possible it was actually negative?

Hernand Cortex's picture

however, if it was made public, your country as a whole would collapse period.

Mitch61's picture

This is an article draft I was thinking of posting on my local paper's website after I read comments about the paper's editoral position on cap and trade. (Please pardon my chart attempt at the end of this comment. It doesn't transfer well to this format, but readers should be able to make out the content.)

Ever since computer hackers made the startling discovery that UK scientist's aren't perfect, climate change skeptics have been pushing to throw out conclusions based on data associated with their research.

The rock throwers are often people with a financial interest in short-circuiting any attempt to alter our current energy use. They have been joined by citizens who want to deflect human complicity by charging "The volcanoes did it." Still others choose to surrender their doubt to a capricious weather God who moves in mysterious ways. Then there's the ever-present fear/hatred industry generating fantastic conspiracies about the United Nations, conservationists, or Al Gore.

Their arguments against global warming are varied. One of them is a narrow attack on the idea of warming. "Climate change has happened in the past so no need to worry about the future," they say. There is indeed some truth to the fact that the atmosphere is in flux and sometimes it's difficult to know a global surface temperatures with certainty. In fact, for scientists to reach that average surface temperature for Earth, they have to get readings from not only different points on the globe but at different times of the year. As a result, while temperatures in one location may go up, temps at another location may go down. Furthermore, the climate scientists must continually grapple with the effects of slash and burn agriculture activities (tree cutting) which not only destroys a Nebraska sized portion of the Earth's bio-diversity each year, it alters the regions weather patterns. These variations in temperatures however, do not disprove the premise of climate change. It means that scientists have to continually adjustment their conclusions based on a moving target.

Another method by which the skeptics attack climate science is with historical red herrings. Europe was once cold so heating now is a natural, regulatory cycle. A thorough study of the past does reveal evidence of regular climate variations. Great human events were sometimes precipitated by poor grain harvests. However, the historical evidence they cite in regard to climate variation does not constitute proof that what is occurring now, and in the future, is a natural cycle that we should ignore.

The primary reason that skeptic's historical evidence is faulty is their disregard for the unique nature of one epoch in comparison to another. Not only is the composition of past emissions different but so is the sheer volume of people contributing to it. The oceans acidic has risen by an estimated 150% since the beginning of the industrial era due to its absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. As for population, the estimate for Great Britain was 2.6 million in 1500. That number has grown to 60 million today while the Earth's population has grown from 791 million in 1750 to 6.79 billion with a current growth rate of 1.14% a year. Those increases are not without consequences for our biosphere.

The science is in. Without efficiency improvements in fossil fuel use, diversification of energy sources, and policy initiatives that reverse the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a climate disaster is inevitable. What's not settled is this: At what level does atmospheric carbon dioxide put earth-life on the almost unimaginable path to extinction?

If you think that's an overstatement, consider these numbers:*

Mars Earth Venus

Atmospheric carbon dioxide(%): 95 .038 96

Average surface temperature(C): - 63 14.6 464

Life: No Yes No

* (Note that Mars and Venus, with high concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, are lifeless.)

Shadowgm's picture

But the global warming deniers won't even accept the fact that we KNOW what excessive levels of carbon dioxide do in a planet's atmosphere. If the problem is carbon dioxide, why, it can't be because of our barbecues and SUV's and industrial manufacturing and profligate use of fossil fuels.

The continued naysaying shows both the surprising and blatant stupidity of faith-based thinking and the inability to judge statistically independent events. It's being able to understand something as simple as a game of blackjack - the outcome is highly dependent on what cards have already been played, not on wishful thinking.

You correctly point out that the danger is not the potential for an environmental catastrophe, but the point at which the trend becomes self-sustaining and inevitable. Once you burn that piece of filet mignon, no power in the universe is going to enable you to serve it up medium-rare.

Handypants's picture
...

"This only is denied to God: the power to undo the past."

Agathon (448 BC - 400 BC), from Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

it must not be true, and everything you presented must have liberal sources, so it must not be true.

That is how your presentation would be perceived by conservatives, and they would do this without even reading it. If they did read it, it would only be with the intent to counter it with opposing information.

That is how bad it has gotten now.


Goodnight, Frau Blücher

nonny mouse's picture

Sod the rightwing self-deluded deniers and apocalypic death wish.

Just... screw 'em. It isn't about convincing them. It's about everyone who cares doing what THEY can. The one thing about the rightwing mentality is their slavish susceptibility to peer pressure and mob rule, and the desire to be on the side that's 'winning'.

How many letters and emails and Facebook messages did it take to get Cadbury to stop using palm oil in their chocolate? Do you think the vast hordes of rightwingers outnumber us that it simply wasn't possible to do? But... somehow... Cadbury doesn't use palm oil anymore. And neither do a LOT of other food manufacturers who can read the writing on the wall and want it on their labels.

The mistake we're making here is to believe the myth that the rightwing is the MAJORITY. To believe that all conservatives are rightwing extremists. They're busily beavering away to convince you that that handful of extremists DO speak for ALL conservatives - and they don't. Your coworkers are going to be peppered with enough ignoramuses that the flavour of the entire group is soured. A few lone vocal liberals aren't going to convince the world. But there's enough people sitting in the corner, drinking their coffee and just listening, who are the key. Those are the people who make the real difference - they, and their children.

And believe me, we're doing our children a huge disfavour by bringing them into a world we don't even know is going to last long enough for them to have grandchildren. But they will save us. The dinosaurs are already dying, albeit a few of them not fast enough.

VegasRage's picture

All we any of can do is try and bring the hard evidence to "people sitting in the corner, drinking their coffee and just listening" as you said. Thanks for the well thought out piece you presented above.


Goodnight, Frau Blücher

cund_gulag's picture

You deny that there's global warming, despite all of the evidence. But, don't you have children, nieces, nephews, that will live long after you're gone?
OK, if you're a rich denier, you can leave them some money - you can't take it with you, you know. But what will they have to spend it on? What will they breathe, drink or eat?
Isn't it worth doing something just on the off chance that you are wrong about there being no global warming? What will it cost YOU? Very little. Because if you're wrong, it will cost US everything. Think about it. EVERYTHING!

MountainMan23's picture

By 2050 the US population (currently just over 300 million) will expand by the same amount (approx 150 million) as the Chinese population (currently in excess of 1 billion - 1000 million).

In other words, the US population (which is less than 1/3 the Chinese) will expand by the same amount.

What's worse is that the Chinese population is actually forecast to begin to decline by 2040, but the US population is forecast to continue to expand at an alarming rate.

So the US is going to need MANY more jobs, or to expand entitlement programs to feed everyone.

AND it will be even more necessary to rein in our rate of polluting the planet.


When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?

Not soon enough!

curtilingus's picture

Breeders!

Evet's picture

thankfully . . when the tattoo etched drunken hordes get seriously pissed off . .

VegasRage's picture

at 12 billion and then taper back to 9 billion population. How do you painlessly drop back 3 billion people? I don't think you can.


Goodnight, Frau Blücher

Handypants's picture
...

Poor healthcare insurance?

(JK)


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

Shadowgm's picture

.... if 3 billion people dropped dead because of starvation or environmental catastrophe, the rich swills like Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush wouldn't even blink.

Handypants's picture
...

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

Joseph Stalin (1879 - 1953)


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

Handypants's picture
...

Or (predictably) GWB/Rush types would play the victim for surviving.

Diggin' graves is hard work you know?


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

miss_kitty's picture

The survivors will be happy to see them go, bring out your dead and all

Amitola's picture

?;)


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

VegasRage's picture

The conservatives will never listen

Nonny I have little hope we’re going to avoid the perils of our actions as well. I debate this topic with my conservative coworkers who get all their news from Fox News. They firmly believe it is all a hoax; that evil financial interests are behind the whole global warming theory. They don't recognize the oil industry has a far greater financial interest in maintaining to status quo. They point back to the medieval period when the earth was warmer as proof that we don’t know as much about global warming as we think and that is likely a result of natural causes. They maintain CO2 is too heavy to rise into the atmosphere and all the science is BS.

They fail to recognize or even acknowledge that we have an unprecedented human population level (growing exponentially) in an unprecedented industrialized world exhausting resources like never before. They fail to even accept NASA’s or NOAA’s own research and suggest liberal influences are behind their findings. If you mention that we have a 2% fresh water supply and 2/3rd’s of it is locked up in our melting polar caps, they will shrug it off convinced desalinization will be the cure. They firmly believe science will save them while they continue to squander all that exists and some how we’ll figure it out before it’s too late.

You got to hand it to the conservatives, they have serious blind faith.


Goodnight, Frau Blücher

Rich H's picture

while denying the conclusions of science? Man, it must be tough working with your co-workers.

Patriot Actor's picture

very well put...

VegasRage's picture

to present info to them, the effort is an exercise in futility because they believe Rush Limbaugh's scientific reports over NASA or or the NOAA's. They are nice people I work with, but they are totally convinced the conservatives have it right.


Goodnight, Frau Blücher

Handypants's picture
...

"They were so strong in their beliefs that there came a time when it hardly mattered what exactly those beliefs were; they all fused into a single stubbornness."

Louise Erdrich


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

VegasRage's picture
O_o

Dead on correct, damn!


Goodnight, Frau Blücher

Hernand Cortex's picture

... I have witnessed that over and over during my lifetime. I could, however, not put it in such a concise written form. Thank you.

Shadowgm's picture

LAKE TAHOE.

When I was growing up in the 1960's, it was pointed out that the water was so clear, so pure, that you could see all the way to the bottom.

Now, there's a cloudy haze, a combination of pollution from our speedboats and jetskis and SUVs and barbecues.

party complete with chicks ripping off their tops and sticking their tongues out at red bull and beer pumped jerks?

ugggh

fiver's picture

They used to be really good at regulating growth and controlling pollution. Sorry to hear that's dropped off. An amazing place.


Corruption favors the wealthy.

Shadowgm's picture

... but the damage has been done.

Rich H's picture

see somewhere between 10 to 30 feet down in the water where it used to be crystal clear.

mudshark's picture

Parts of it were beautiful blue. A big part of it looked like someone had poured a boatload of milk or white paint into it. You couldn't see 2ft through it. If that. The Blue, you could see down into it. But not very far.
I seriously doubt they'll be able to correct or fix it.
Too many people. Too much construction. Too much runoff.
They've been clearing forest land to build everything from homes to big hotels and casinos. And where there's constrction. There's new roads. The roads collect all the grime and oil and everything else.

And lets not forget that garbage pile the size of Texas out in the Pacific.


What is your conceptual, continuity?

nonny mouse's picture

You're off by several thousand square miles. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is double the size of the continental US. In a decade it will be four times the size of the US.

There's a link to this missing in my post - will try to get it fixed. Meantime, a GREAT video with Charles Moore, the rich oil guy who discovered the GPGP...

http://www.ted.com/talks/capt_charles_moore_o...

nonny mouse's picture

he says, a teacher taught him how to mathematically compute the percentage of plastics recycled in the United States... diddly point squat.

He's great, I think I'm in love....

mudshark's picture

Twice the size of the continental US? Think about that for a second.
I like the guy in the video. I like what he's saying and doing. No matter the size. That thing is such a problem that there is no way to clean it up now. All of that garbage is a likely result of the last 50 years.


What is your conceptual, continuity?

did to the lake in Wanessa. Approving unlimited big box growth with all the runoff going directly into the lake. I've read it killed all the fish.

Handypants's picture
...

"that evil financial interests are behind the whole global warming theory"

It's true, if they mean the oil and energy companies financing the lies. . .

Probably not what they mean but


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

Handypants's picture
...

"With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another."

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742 - 1799)


"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that!
" ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )

Evet's picture

Goodbye cruel world,
I'm leaving you today.
Goodbye,
Goodbye,
Goodbye.

Goodbye, all you people,
There's nothing you can say
To make me change my mind.
Goodbye.

Patriot Actor's picture

for all the fish!

neamhni's picture

when the world starts declining. Any good reason why i shouldn't just kill myself right now? i know it's the truth, but it's so damn depressing that i don't see the point in continuing. Especially when my suicide will make the earth a little less populated. What's the point in waiting around to suffer? And hell, i'm glad i didn't have kids.

Mitch61's picture

It's a simple, and perhaps flippant answer, but that's what I do.

Shadowgm's picture

... you should have seen one of my rants from back around Christmas. I was essentially screaming for the worthless politicos to push the button, start their Christian Armageddon, and blow us all the hell up ... good luck to whatever comes after us.

Despair is easy. So is fear. That's why the corporates use them like a club against us.

Edwin's picture

I hear ya, but it's not a solution. Solving these problems could be interesting and enlightening!! You might witness the birth of a new age. (Not holding my breath, but... )

If I hit 70 and we're fighting each other for a heel of a loaf of bread, or a few drips of water, I'll do the planet a favour and off myself. ;)

(I'll be 50 in 3 months)


far left loon >.<

nonny mouse's picture

aren't necessarily doomed to breed to extinction. A good friend of mine, Jack Cohen (who wrote the Collapse of Chaos and Figments of Reality with Ian Stewart is/was a reproductive biologist. If I can remember our conversation correctly after too many years, he noted that in the 60's, world-wide, the population took a slight dip as record numbers of women decided - for whatever reasons - not to have children. It's since gone back to the same locust levels as before, but in areas where women are given education and the chance to make a living with small businesses, such as Bangledesh and India, as well as medicine for children increasing the survival rates of what babies are born, the population drops. Radically. The single most powerful weapon for population control isn't China's draconian single-child families, which has led to horrendous abuse and infanticide, but the education of women. Women are the key - which to those of us who are women isn't really a huge surprise.

Give us the choice of how many babies to have, and most women will choose a sustainable number. Some of us will choose none - I did. Some, like the Osmonds - will choose to breed like rats, because religion plays another role in how many babies are born today. But most, most, in any religion, in any country, given the choice, will have only the number they can afford.

We get our ravagingly appetite for natural resource consumption under control, educate women and give decent basic health care to everyone in the world, we'll have saved the planet. Full stop.

Shadowgm's picture

My wife and I, both reasonably well-read and well-educated, chose to not have a child ... not only because of the political/economic realities of the world, but because I was working nights/weekends at the time, and damned if I was going to be an absentee father (and dump the child-rearing on my wife, who has her own demanding career).

It really is all about making smart and sensible choices.

nonny mouse's picture

for very similar selfish reasons. I wanted to have a life of my own, and even in this 'enlightened' age, it still falls on the woman to sacrifice her desires to raise children.

That, and I raised a few who weren't mine over the years, raised Our Kid sister, a stepson and became a registered foster mother at the age of 20. I've done my bit - the idea that children have to be squeezed out from between my legs to be 'mine' is ridiculous. Thing is - ALL children are ours. All of them.

BigIslandDave's picture

It isn't incumbent upon any of us, male or female, to breed.

Hechicera's picture

There may be a more subtle connections:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/21052...

Guttmacher does good work.

Amitola's picture

Education is the key to empowering women. Unfortunately, RELIGIONS and the misogynistic men who control the religious teachings in most places around the world (including the US), view women as worth-less.
Those belief systems need to be eradicated.....good luck with that.

Also, we need to re-think our entire economic structure - capitalism needs constant growth to sustain itself, and growth needs consumerism
(and the inevitable resource waste that requires) to complete the never-ending cycle.


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

Edwin's picture

As countries get richer and more educated, and create more waste and consume more (btw), the poulation increase slows dramatically.

Here in Korea, my friends come from families of 5, 6, 7, 8 kids (they were very poor and agrarian in those days). Now Korea is rich, and educated, and the birthrate is 1.18 kids per family, and women are waiting till about age 27 (not 15). Same in Japan.

But, they are playing catch-up, lifestyle-wise, to the USA like nobody's business. Consumerism is rampant!!!! Same across Asia, the richer a country gets.

[edit: PS the rampant consumerism, as I said, is still NOTHING compared with N. America!!!!]


far left loon >.<

Floridiot's picture

permafrost is thawing up in the Arctic, releasing the stored methane from the bottoms of the lakes. But there is no Global warming /s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa3M4ou3kvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1liqk9UQNAQ&NR...

pluky's picture

This is exactly the tipping-point event that has lead me to stop worrying, and accept that we as a species have royally screwed up. My solace lies in that our (post?-) industrial civilization will probably crash before we manage to kill the planet.

Edwin's picture

Well, ya, there's that. We probably deserve it: irresponsible stewards of this fantastic planet.


far left loon >.<

gmoke's picture

Here in Cambridge, MA, Home Energy Efficiency Team (http://www.heetma.com) has been doing monthly weatherization barnraisings since the summer of 2008. Now there are at least 15 other groups from as far away as Providence RI and Albany NY who are doing something similar. I would like to see this kind of positive protest go viral. Instead of making another speech and walking around with another "Save our planet" sign, why not have mass weatherizations instead? Do something positive that will save money and reduce greenhouse gases no matter whether or not that particular politician will listen to you or that piece of legislation passes. If we had a monthly weatherization barnraising in every Congressional district, it would be a real demonstration of grassroots support for sound energy and environmental policy. It would be a real demonstration of the American tradition and street democracy.

I've been doing public demonstrations of renewable technology for 30 years and it grieves me to see us delegating all our power to legislators when there are many, many things we can do for ourselves, affordably and simply, that will make a concrete and practical difference in our own lives today and show the feasibility of renewables to all those who care to look, including brain dead politicians and media personalities. One year of going to the over 4000 farmers' markets that meet every week throughout the growing season all around the USA and demonstrating practical energy and environmental techniques there would change the discussion in this nation in less than a year. It would save money and energy and greenhouse gases for thousands of people within that core constituency and begin a word of mouth process that would make our lapdog pols sit up and take notice.

I don't expect it to happen, however, because we are so much invested in the usual way of doing things. If anybody's interested, the first posting at my blog, http://solarray.blogspot.com, explains in greater detail how to do energy education at a farmers' market and the two most recent postings at my blog will show you almost everything I've learned in my 30 years of public demos of renewable tech in less than 30 minutes of youtube videos broken up into eight parts.

Don't wait for the politicians or the media. If you want things to change, do it yourself.

Good work and congratulations by the way. I've always wondered how new construction is permited to build without solar tiles on the roofs, residential and commercial.

Just think how that little, tiny, basic requirement would change everything.

nonny mouse's picture

THAT'S what I meant! Don't sit around waiting for some nebulous entity like 'the gubmint' or 'scientists' to save you. DIY. It's cool, it's trendy, it's something tangible that anyone can understand. And I would hazard a guess that there are/were more conservatives who were fans of This Old House than liberals, despite the heavy New England accents.

This isn't really about who's on the right and who's on the left. It's about individuals, one by one, doing something positive to lessen the burden on the planet. The idea that we have to sacrifice everything, give up meat and televisions and computers and cars and buying new clothes and whatever else is wrong.

It's not about giving up anything. It's about giving. And that we have to do ourselves, one person at a time.

Amitola's picture

My gawd, isn't that Socialistic???? #:}

Seriously, I wish there was a group doing that down here in PA - I'd join up in moment to get my house fixed up and then to help others. In fact, instead of building so many new houses, community groups should start doing projects similar to what your doing only to rehab, recycle and reuse all the foreclosed/abandoned homes littering our nation.


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

Moose's picture

I firmly believe that bioengineering will have a significant impact this century. Whether it be bacteria that break down our plastic junk piles or blue-green algae harnessing the power of the sun and purifying our drinking water, the potential in these microbes has yet to be fully realized.

"Even if our current politicians only saw their personal political gains in the slogan Yes We Can, we, the people, understood it for what it really means"

This line reminds me of the teenager from Malawi, William Kamkwamba, who built a windmill from parts he salvaged from a garbage heap. It is this type of individual determination and inspiration that personifies Yes We Can and shows that anybody, no matter what their level of education or how impoverished they may be, can truly make a difference to our planet and to our global community.

nonny mouse's picture

A poster on another site about the GPGP said this:

I was a sailor on the USS Port Royal in the mid-1990s. Unfortunately I was part of a trash detail that would take the trash from our mess decks and toss them into the Pacific in the middle of the night. I hope they stopped this practice or at least make others aware that this is happening.

80% of the trash that ends up floating around in the Pacific is land-generated, 20% comes from ships. Not just Navy ships, like the Port Royal, but cruise ships - a 3,000 passenger cruise ship produces over eight tons of solid waste a week, which they dump into the sea.

We've got FACEBOOK people! I doubt there's much we can do about forcing our military to stop being such filthy slobs, since my faith in the power of politicians do get anything positive done in the country is at an all-time low. But cruise ships? I think I'm going to start targeting them with some scathing emails and badgering anyone in the media who'll put up with me for ten seconds. If Cadbury could stop using palm oil, and MacDonalds start buying their coffee from sustainable sources, then making cruise ships eco-friendly should be a walk in the park... pun intended.

I'm going to start with finding out just how eco-friendly our cruise ships are down here in New Zealand, and email info@cruisesdirect.co.nz.

Who's with me?!?

I've friends there who have come to visit, but I've never had the pleasure of making the return trip.

As for facebook, that's something I've avoided, but perhaps I shouldn't. Does that really make a difference? I mean, did Cadbury really change what they were doing because of Facebook or did they run the numbers and come up with a more cost effective solution than Palm oil and then attribute it to their conscientousness?

nonny mouse's picture

It's true - Cadbury went back to old fashioned cocoa butter, and the change was directly attributed to consumer pressure, emails and letters. Cadbury isn't the only company either, but far too many still use the stuff. So...

... read your labels. If it says palm oil, put it back on the shelf and either buy something else or do without. And if you're not sure, a lot of companies have 0800-numbers on their labels for you to ring up and ask. You'd be surprised - not every company is 'evil' or just out to screw the consumer for money, money, money. A lot of manufacturers are quite sensitive to how they're seen in the marketplace, and right now - being environmentally friendly is good marketing strategy.

And yes, I'm currently living in New Zealand, which is possibly one of the cleanest and prettiest places in the world. I'd like it to stay that way.

The past decade under Bush was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

TheFalseFlag's picture

But, even if we stop all fossil fuel use in 20-40 years we would correct the temperature 2 %.

We are not creating global warming / cooling and are affecting it so nominally that our ceasing use of fossil fuels will not solve the problem.

But, stopping fossil fuel extraction asap is absolutely necessary to clean to air, water and reduce the health problems related to its use. The warming thing is just the scare factor that is not "proven science." We can't stop it, if it is even occurring long term.

And, well, of course, what is the point of me using less toilet paper or plastic when people are procreating faster than the death rate? Logically does not make sense.

No one wants to talk about population growth. Economies grow with more people, whether you care about growth or not. So how can you have a long term solution to a problem you are exacerbating with more polluters while trying to reduce the pollution with the polluters that are here.

Tax the companies that extract and sell the stuff, not the users!

Edwin's picture

Instead of painting your roof white, here's an alternative-- green roofs. THese are on the Faroe Islands, in the N. Atlantic (Danish). It looks LOVELY and I'd like to visit.

http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/faroe-isl...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Bour,_Faroe_Islands_(10).JPG

http://well-worthy.com/Green_Roof_Faroe_Islan...

(google some inages-- they're all over the world, too)


far left loon >.<

for years and it had a flat roof which the sun just baked in the middle of the city. I always wanted to put about a ten foot square patch on the roof where I'd be able to go and enjoy myself at the end of a hard day.

I never did it though, I brought it up and it was never allowed.

Edwin's picture

Do some googling about this; lots of websites. They are all over the world, even in the USA. Lots of skyscrapers and apt. bldgs. are starting to put gardens on their roofs. You can see images of modern cities built under green canopies. (They look kind of Dr. Seuss and very cool.)

The cost is $5~10 per sq. foot.

Check out this website:

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/902/

PS I have a very green rooftop at my pad in Seoul. That's why I stay here: it's right out my kitchen door. Flowers, vegetables, shrubs, even a tree.


far left loon >.<

Rich H's picture

.

patmcgrowen's picture

I suggest for everyone to check out Mike Judge's movie Idiocracy. It is supposed to be comedy, however it left me with a depressing feeling. I know that if the W.Bush/Palin/Limbaugh's of the world regain control, this is how our country will end up. It's funny that it makes an interesting point saying that the more intelligent decide to wait or not have children. Leaving a huge population of idiots, because they breed like rabbits. Check it out to see the results of those decisions. It's not just about reducing population, but reducing the ignorant. I feel the only hope for our future depends on a population of the intelligent. If you ever wondered what the country would look like if it was full of Glenn Becks, you've got to watch Idiocracy. It might just be the motivation we need for the 2010 elections.

JohnnyBravo's picture

is one of my favorite movies of all time. I laughed and almost wanted to cry. Unless something is done, we are truly doomed.


NOBODY 2012

JohnnyBravo's picture

We elect and pay them to DO SOMETHING about the country's and world's problems. Instead, they sit on their hands and act like kids. All while collecting money from lobbyists.

The Earth is burning and these assholes are filling their already huge bank accounts. When, not if, When the shit hits the fan, their money will no longer protect them.


NOBODY 2012

BigIslandDave's picture

... about what selfish, myopic, reactionary reich-wingers think:

Humans are the problem, period. We long ago met the enemy, to borrow from Pogo, and it is us.

For your delectation, check out this thread from Alternet.org:

www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141959/15_hor...

Our green-and-blue Mother Earth is being devoured by humans. Not only are we breeding mindlessly, we're clinging to the hoary, unhealthful habit of eating meat. Switching to a global plant-based diet would save billions of dollars, conserve resources that could be better allotted and expended elsewhere (water, grain, etc.), and improve the health and well-being of millions of individuals around the world.

But no. We continue to reproduce for the sake of religion and vanity (how many offspring do the goddamn Osmonds need?). We continue to deforest the globe so that there will be more "feed" for "cattle." We continue to hoard and waste that most precious of elements, water. We continue to litter and smoke and rape and pillage.

We're the only stupid creature in the history of the universe. Read that again. The ONLY stupid creature.

There are no "useless" animals. All flora and fauna are precious, as fully deserving of being here as we greedy, groveling humans are. Almost every animal I can think of -- giraffe, macaw, lemur, elephant, lynx, you name it -- is superior to homos sapiens in nearly every way. More intuitive and instinctive. More beautiful. Possessed of superior taste, smell, hearing and sight. Able to swim deeper, run faster and fly higher. Is it jealousy that drives us to harass and abuse and destroy them? Or just the blood lust of some strange need for power and exploitation?

We alone foul our nests -- and then bleat in fear and bewilderment as our ego-fueled edifices crumble about us.

I say this misanthropically, and with full detestation of the ingrained anthropomorphic mind-set that got us into this predicament. If we had any collective sense as a species, we'd drastically curtail our reproduction, immediately jettison our gross and wasteful meat-based diet and replant and reforest every available and suitable acre of land around the globe.

OK, that's it from this proud Luddite and tree-hugger. If you're a Palinite or a devotee of James Inhofe, don't come screeching to us reality-based liberals and progressives when the runoff from the polar ice caps is finally lapping at your feet.

I assume other progressives with nimble brains and wide-open eyes feel the same. But, damn, it's hard to tell these days.

Anyway ...

Peace and aloha, especially to all of our besieged animal friends,

BID

meat"

Dude, I think that is why we have the kind of teeth that we evolved. To eat meat, not plants.

BigIslandDave's picture

... or the stomach or intestines for consuming flesh. Neither do our primate cousins.

Felines and canines do.

BID

littlepitcher's picture

I refused to give the tazpack a child to hammer into the Peer Pressure Machine to egoshred and process into defeatism or pack membership.

I'm howling with delight at the recycle/reuse/frugality ethos because it disempowers the same corpoRATions which brainwash women into mindless consumption while discriminating against us in employment and wages.

We have to utilize this depression to assure that green jobs, a green economy, telecommuting and/or other shifts in employment become a permanent force and not just another fad left over from the 1970's economic decline and energy crisis.

Great post, David. Now if they can bring us that air car with an electrostatic or other filtration device so it actively purifies the air previous generations have polluted??

Comments are closed on this entry