Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

How Close to Catastrophe?

By Bill McKibben, The New York Review of Books and TomDispatch. Posted November 4, 2006.


Several new books explore technological innovations and the need for radical lifestyle overhaul in the race against time to save the planet.
200610mckibbens
Advertisement

[This piece, which appears in the November 16, 2006 issue of the New York Review of Books, is posted here with the kind permission of the editors of that magazine.]

James Lovelock is among the planet's most interesting and productive scientists. His invention of an electron capture device that was able to detect tiny amounts of chemicals enabled other scientists both to understand the dangers of DDT to the eggshells of birds and to figure out the ways in which chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were eroding the ozone layer. He's best known, though, not for a gadget but for a metaphor: the idea that the earth might usefully be considered as a single organism (for which he used the name of the Greek earth goddess Gaia) struggling to keep itself stable

In fact, his so-called Gaia hypothesis was at first less clear than that -- "hardly anyone, and that included me for the first ten years after the concept was born, seems to know what Gaia is," he has written. But the hypothesis has turned into a theory, still not fully accepted by other scientists but not scorned either. It holds that the earth is "a self-regulating system made up from the totality of organisms, the surface rocks, the ocean and the atmosphere tightly coupled as an evolving system" and striving to "regulate surface conditions so as always to be as favourable as possible for contemporary life."

Putting aside questions of planetary consciousness and will (beloved as they were by an early wave of New Age Gaia acolytes), the theory may help us understand how the earth has managed to remain hospitable for life over billions of years even as the sun, because of its own stellar evolution, has become significantly hotter. Through a series of processes involving, among others, ice ages, ocean algae, and weathering rock, the earth has managed to keep the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and hence the temperature, at a relatively stable level.

This homeostasis is now being disrupted by our brief binge of fossil fuel consumption, which has released a huge amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Indeed, at one point Lovelock predicts -- more gloomily than any other competent observer I am aware of -- that we have already pushed the planet over the brink, and that we will soon see remarkably rapid rises in temperature, well beyond those envisioned in most of the computer models now in use – themselves quite dire. He argues that because the earth is already struggling to keep itself cool, our extra increment of heat is particularly dangerous, and he predicts that we will soon see the confluence of several phenomena: the death of ocean algae in ever-warmer ocean waters, reducing the rate at which these small plants can remove carbon from the atmosphere; the death of tropical forests as a result of higher temperatures and the higher rates of evaporation they cause; sharp changes in the earth's "albedo," or reflectivity, as white ice that reflects sunlight back out into space is replaced with the absorptive blue of seawater or the dark green of high-latitude boreal forests; and the release of large amounts of methane, itself a greenhouse gas, held in ice crystals in the frozen north or beneath the sea.

Some or all of these processes will be enough, Lovelock estimates, to tip the earth into a catastrophically hotter state, perhaps eight degrees centigrade warmer in temperate regions like ours, over the course of a very few decades, and that heat will in turn make life as we know it nearly impossible in many places. Indeed, in the photo section of the book there is one picture of a red desert captioned simply "Mars now -- and what the earth will look like eventually." Human beings, a hardy species, will not perish entirely, he says; in interviews during his book tour, Lovelock has predicted that about 200 million people, or about one thirtieth of the current world population, will survive if competent leaders make a new home for us near the present-day Arctic. There may also be other survivable spots, like the British Isles, though he notes that rising sea levels will render them more an archipelago. In any event, he predicts that "teeming billions" will perish.

***

Lovelock, who is in his eighties, concedes that this is a gloomier forecast than those of scientists more actively engaged in peer-reviewed climatology; it is, in a sense, a visceral feeling. It should be approached somewhat skeptically, for Lovelock has been (as he has always forthrightly admitted) wrong before in his immediate reactions. Though he invented the machine that helped us understand the dangers of CFCs, he also blithely dismissed those dangers, arguing that they couldn't do enough damage to matter. The American chemists Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina ignored his assurances and performed the groundbreaking work on the depletion of the ozone layer that won them the Nobel Prize. (And won for the planet an international agreement on the reduction of CFCs that allowed the earth a chance to repair the ozone hole before it opened so wide as to annihilate much of life through excess ultraviolet radiation.) Lovelock has also failed to identify any clear causal mechanism for his sudden heating hypothesis, explaining that he differs with more conventional forecasts mostly because he thinks they have underestimated both the extent of the self-reinforcing cycles that are causing temperatures to rise and the vulnerability of the planet, which he sees as severely stressed and close to losing equilibrium. It also must be said that parts of his short book read a little oddly -- there are digressions into, say, the safety of nitrates in food that don't serve much purpose and raise questions about the rigor of the entire enterprise.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: worldchanging, environment, catastrophe

Bill McKibben is the author of "The End of Nature" and "Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
There goes the ballgame
Posted by: Intraspecto on Nov 4, 2006 1:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine...yes I do... ah R.E.M. had it right...

Oh well...

Maybe we should just all drive Hummers??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There goes the ballgame Posted by: diamondvajra
» RE: There goes the ballgame Posted by: R.I.P.
NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT THE ANSWER
Posted by: LeftWright on Nov 4, 2006 1:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservation and a crash alternative energy program is.

NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT THE ANSWER by Helen Caldicott

From her site:

In a world torn apart by wars over oil, many politicians are increasingly looking for alternative sources of energy - and their leading choice is often nuclear. Among the myths that have been spread over the years about nuclear-powered electricity are that it does not cause global warming or pollution (i.e., that it is "clean and green"), that it is inexpensive, and that it is safe. But the facts belie the barrage of nuclear industry propaganda:

- Nuclear power contributes to global warming

- The real costs of nuclear power are prohibitive (and taxpayers pick up most of them)

- There’s not enough uranium in the world to sustain long-term nuclear power

- Potential for a catastrophic accident or terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits.

Trained as a physician, and - after four decades of antinuclear activism - thoroughly versed in the science of nuclear energy, the bestselling author of Nuclear Madness and Missile Envy here turns her attention from nuclear bombs to nuclear lightbulbs. As she makes meticulously clear in this damning book, the world cannot withstand either.

The edition published by Melbourne University Press contains a special preface for Australian readers.

Time to get busy, brothers and sisters, we have alot to do and need to start November 8th.

See you on the street.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

long
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 4, 2006 2:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In any event, survival will be a long hard slog from the general indifference of today to a decent universal survival mode. We need to get the governing fools to stop killing/polluting in Iraq and elsewhere and start thinking about getting out of the way so that decent folk can do the thinking/doing required to make a survivable better civilization now because later it may be way too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: long - 50 years Posted by: symcokid
» RE: long - 50 years Posted by: rsaxto
Cause and Effect
Posted by: edith on Nov 4, 2006 2:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is one major question which McKibben's informative article does not answer: Is climate change primarily caused by human activities, particularly by generation greenhouse gases, or not? Lovelock recognizes, as do climate scientists and the UN's ongoing science study group on the subject, that significant natural phenomena like the sun's temperature, the wobble of the Earth on its Axis, and the cyclic nature of temperature on Earth affect climate change.

The world was significantly colder in the Middle Ages than in the "Classical" period when Greek and Roman civilization flourished. That our temperature is rising from that unusual colder base is not in itself abnormal.

It seems to me that the case that human, not natural, activity has primarily caused an acceleration of dangerous climate change has not been made. Therefore drastic conservation and economic suppressors, that are supported by persons understandably concerned about potential, but still unproven deleterious change, seem premature. The negative effect of massive unemployment, loss of income, both per capita and and GDP, the drying up of needed capital to raise living standards in nations like India, Thailand, China, Brazil and other formerly "poor" nations, is not worth it in the absence of clear and convincing evidence.

The causes of climate change still appear primarily to be natural. Is it not premature to trigger economic depression, political upheaval and war over excessive emotional fear over inevitable flux in global temperatures? After all, there has been little or no evidence that the atmospheric temperatures, as constasted with select surface temperatures, have risen by any amount to justify concern.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cause and Effect Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Cause and Effect Posted by: Cathyc
» Feces is Not The Answer Posted by: edith
» RE: Cause and Effect Posted by: AdamG
» RE: Cause and Effect Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Cause and Effect Posted by: edith
» Anthropogenic forcing is real Posted by: particle
» Yes Posted by: edith
» Holy smoke, Edith! Posted by: JohnF
» RE: Holy smoke, Edith! Posted by: edith
» RE: Holy smoke, Edith! Posted by: JohnF
» RE: Holy smoke, Edith! Posted by: edith
» RE: Holy smoke, Edith! Posted by: JohnF
» BTW... Posted by: JohnF
Some of us tried
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Nov 4, 2006 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the 70s we weren't able to get McGovern elected, but we did see the back of Nixon. We had 'Earth Day' and EnAct, or Environmental Action. Earth Day turned into a hippie fest and EnAct became a de-facto student newspaper. Health food stores opened here and there along with a few health food restaurants. One was called The Harvest Moon.

In 76, one of the cooks from the Harvest Moon and 5 more of us devised a plan to rent an old farm house with the words 'The Good Earth' painted over the barn door. Only 3 of us actually paid rent and moved in - myself and 2 girls. We got Farmer Brown (his actual name) to plow a field for us, and during the initial planting we actually had a dozen or so people involved. Eventually, though, it was me, one of the girls and her little sister's boyfriend who loaded up the VW van everyday and carted the produce out to our roadside stand. We couldn't afford to rent a store space in town, so we did what we could.

None of our young friends ever bought anything - they waited til we were gone and picked whatever they wanted from the field. It wasn't much, though, as they were generally too lazy to deal with raw produce. Farm trucks stopped by and sold us watermelons, canteloupes and a few other items we hadn't grown ourselves. Hundreds of people in town grew their own tomatoes and corn is fairly ubiquitous in Indiana. One of the girls and her mother made the 90 minute drive to a wholesale produce market in Indianapolis once or twice a week and bought some additional items that we hadn't grown.

The other girl, a nursing student, bailed out and wisely accepted her internship (or whatever they call that program for nurses) at a nearby hospital. The other girl eventually started part-time at a flower shop and I did the same as a janitor. We were unable to sustain it into the winter and had to give up. One by one all of the health food stores and restaurants also tossed in the towell. None survived more than about 3 years.

In 1979, the owner of that old farm house (and dozens like it) brought in the nations largest corn crop, having farmed numerous large tracts throughout a multi-county area using mechanized agriculture. He parked combines and harvesters in the old barn. Eventually some yuppies bought the house and had it fixed up real fancy. They have nice cars, and the whole complement of creature comforts, but I never saw them in the field with a hoe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Some of us tried Posted by: Gregor
» Ther wasn't much support Posted by: Bic Pentameter
» RE: Some of us tried Posted by: AdamG
» Adam... Posted by: vangogh69
» RE: Hate to be pessimistic Posted by: Smiggsy
» RE: Some of us tried Posted by: richviss
if
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 4, 2006 4:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"earth might usefully be considered as a single organism"

What does that make humanity? A virus??

"Japan has heavily subsidized the purchase of rooftop solar panels by home owners."

This should have been done in the USA during reagan's reign. But no, those assholes wanted to subsidize the oil industry. It appears the scales of economy are taking over in Japan as I would think they could have here many years ago. This is one of the big reasons I will never support "conservatives" or "republicans" or whatever those nazis want ot call themselves.

"almost all the solar panel plants are now in Japan and Germany."

Well, that probably means they will be high in quality.

Why is it that as a teenager I could see what Germany and Japan are now doing should have begun in this country 20 years ago? It's another sad reflection of the foresight and intelligence of amerikas leadership. Whereas we could have been a leader in the industry and promoted change, now we will lag behind as we are beginning to do in so many areas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: if Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: if Posted by: MAD
» a bit earlier - that '70s show Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» Japan, for example Posted by: vangogh69
Well it's hot all right.
Posted by: mat38 on Nov 4, 2006 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Republicans probably read this article and mistook the outhors use of " homeostasis" for homosexuality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well it's hot all right. Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
The problem is the fossil fuel industry and their financial beneficiaries
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 4, 2006 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global warming due to fossil fuel burning is a well-understood phenomenon - at least as well understood as biological evolution. You add infrared trapping gases to a planetary atmosphere, the planet will trap more outgoing heat and will warm up. It's true for Venus, for Mars, and if we ever reach another solar system, it will be true there, as will the law of gravity.

The only reason this is still 'debated' in the press is because the fossil fuel industry has spent billions to confuse the issue. They've set up a whole series of astroturf 'front groups' who preach that fossil fuels aren't causing any problems, and who alternatively claim that global warming will be a good thing. Who funds these groups? See http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

The solution is obviously going to be solar power, wind energy and biofuels - a pre-fossil fuel society with the benefits of modern renewable energy technology. But don't expect any corporate agribusiness to move away from pesticides, herbicides, patented biotech seeds or fossil-fuel based fertilizers - they're all largely owned by the same people who own the fossil fuel corporations. Corporate ownership is highly concentrated, and fossil fuel money underpins the entire operation.

These are the same fossil fuel financiers that wholeheartedly backed the invasion and slaughter in Iraq in order to secure control of the region's oil. Their program is to install US-friendly dictators in all the world's oil rich regions to ensure that US-based corporations will maintain their dominant position. The enforcers of this scheme? The US military - it's all spelled out by the PNAC. That's the document that called for military domination of the MidEast, among other things.

You think these people are going to worry about global warming? Their response will be, "Let the world burn - I've got my air conditioning"!

Renewable energy is, in their minds, something that will reduce demand for fossil fuel products and undercut their markets. They do all they can to keep it suppressed and controlled, and have been doing so for over a century - with a major push back in the early 80's. There was a massive research effort into renewables initiated in the mid-70's, which was completely gutted by the Reagan Administration when they came on the scene in 1980.

Nuclear is something the fossil fuel crowd also likes - construction of nuclear power plants costs billions and is funded by taxpayers - lots of juicy profits - and the corporate conglomerate retains control of the power supply. The highly dangerous waste and potential for meltdowns is not a concern; making a tidy profit is another story.

Face it - with respect to fossil fuels, America is like a hooked heroin addict - and the heroin dealer doesn't want to lose his best customer, now does he? That's the essence of the problem. See George is Hooked.

"Environmentalists" tend to have a social science outlook (at least that's how most 'environmental studies' programs are structured - training for PR firms, mostly), but anyone concerned with global warming and renewable energy needs to spend a lot of time looking at real energy science and economic geopolitics as well. For example, it should be obvious that solar is the only real long-term solution, and that solar energy threatens the established financial order because it's FREE!

The major issues that are preventing the wholesale adoption of renewable energy and the necessary 70% reduction in fossil fuel emissions have very little to do with scientific or technological limitations - the barriers are economic, political and military.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dinosaur World View Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Dinosaur World View Posted by: richviss
Doomsday scenario can only be derailed by a super depression!
Posted by: hot_rad_man on Nov 4, 2006 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Money brokers control the environment and money brokers rule the world. They have to be derailed by a super depression so that money is worthless. Then they will stop polluting the atmosphere. Capitalism and the quest for more is the damnation of the world and only a Marxist based Communistic society can save us! Think very carefully about that, it is based on fact not money!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to save Gaia
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 4, 2006 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or is it Giai? I always forget our Mother's name. Let's save her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We need to save Gaia Posted by: tiellis
Before we consume the whole planet, it will consume us.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 4, 2006 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"The Japanese authorities began to do this, in part, because they wanted to meet the promises they made on their own soil at the Kyoto conference on global warming, but also, Bradford suggests, because they sensed that the industry could grow if it were encouraged by an initial investment."

This is the problem, the core problem, of the entire corporate, and now governmental, culture in America: corporations here slavishly avoid investment with uncertain returns in favor of quick, short-term profit, the consequences be damned. It is the reason the Japanese have beat our pants off, the reason we lag behind the world in almost every innovative, and greener, technology, and the reason we'll be the prime contributer to our own demise. Only one word exists to describe the american corporate attitude: greed.

Human greed, which is borne of fear and insecurity, is the enemy of both the innovation and community spirit needed for us to save ourselves because it is the basis for the dog-eat-dog, Darwinian economic model of which we seem to be so proud. The author is right: we can no longer afford that model; while each of us is forced to fight for the best deck chair on the Titanic (to use a cliche), the whole ship is heading for the bottom. It is of little comfort to be the last passenger to drown.

Oh, by the way: After Ahnold Shwarze-reneger signed that bill pledging Cailfornia to a greener future, word has it that in the middle of the night, without the fanfare that accompanied the bill's signing, he signed an executive order effectively cancelling it.

This is what we get from politicians: smoke and mirrors (and bulls**t). When will we ever learn? Do we still have the time left to learn?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has any American noticed yet the ecological analysis by Sir Nicholas Stern?
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 4, 2006 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His report made the news on 10/30. It's all over the British and European press. As he's simply GB Treasury and a former World Banker, I guess his prediction that global warming will send the world into a 1930s style depression doesn't count for much???

I hope it will be on every front page newspaper in these days before the American election!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pessimism v Optimism
Posted by: StuartH on Nov 4, 2006 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the comments here seem to reflect an immediate reaction to McKibben and Lovelock's sensible consideration of a possible future that comes from knee-jerk pessimism.

Optimism has to be tempered, because it's going to have to be very hard headed. The question on the table is really, "How many humans - and other animal and plant species - are going to survive into the 22nd century and beyond?"

This question is larger than corporations, government, politics, economics or other mental templates we use to organize our world.

I would propose that we humans have, at our deepest level of thought and soul, been preparing for this problem for over a century. The internet exists because of inspirations about electronics and communication technology innovation that create the potential for connecting the distributed intelligence of the whole species into a cooperative problem solving matrix.

This is beyond our conscious capability, but given the scope of the issues involved, it might be interesting to see whether or not, as the stresses increase, this new ability might not result ultimately from the crisis.

It seems that we are beginning to see the worldwide reduction in the overall supply of oil and other resources, the effects of human overpopulation and global warming. All of this at once is more than our current systems of leadership can deal with.

The Bush administration has been dedicated to avoiding any of this like the plague, because it means the end of large corporate structures that operate extra-legally and with no accountability to the public interest.

The decades ahead, especially the next two or three may see the beginning of a testing time that will rise in intensity over the rest of the century to test the limits of the human race and its overall ability to work as a conscious species.

I think that if we cannot overcome our more negative tendencies, such as the proclivity to look to warfare as a solution to problems, the human race might really join the endangered species list. Maybe our potential will wind up as interesting fossils.

Sometimes it seems that , if an alien space probe came to earth to assess whether there was intelligent life on the planet, the answer sent back would be "negative."

But the optimistism potential is that we really are intelligent enough, even though arriving at a way to deploy the human potential might become the greatest struggle in the history of the species.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» oh please! Posted by: JCR
» RE: Pessimism v Optimism Posted by: edith
» RE: Pessimism v Optimism Posted by: richviss
The Great Depression is no joke
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Nov 4, 2006 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I notice that a lot of posts here take the idea of a worldwide economic depression as some kind of joke. A colapse of the world financial system may just be the event that buys us time to solve environmental problems and slap some sense into the self-involved consumers of the Western economies.

Anyone that doesn't take a financial meltdown seriously suffers from a brain warp like our idiot-in-chief, or the talking ignoramouses of CNBC. Derivatives-- labeled as "financial instruments of mass destruction" by Warren Buffet-- are growing by around 15 percent a year. The nominal value of all derivatives is now substantially greater than the world's GDP!

The idea of derivatives, as explained by that financial genius Chairman Greenspan (the guy who has single handedly given us more financial bubbles than any other central banker in history), is to reduce or offload risk by banks on their loans and investments. To offload risk, you have to have someone TAKE ON increased risk. And just who would that be? It seems to be the bankers themselves-- offloading risk right back onto themselves! Study financial meltdowns of the past and you'll find that all it takes is one small meltdown somewhere in the system, and BANG! The system itself colapses in on itself.

Long Term Capital Management, a small hedgefund run by some Nobel Prize-winning economists, nearly brought down the system when their over-leveraged bets was hit broadside by a Russian default. A one percent default in the world derrivatives market would amount to a trillion dollars. Who's going to make that up? Worse yet, the derrivatives instruments are so complicated that few, if anyone really understands how they might perform under some default stress. Given that we have a trained chimp for a president that can't even run a small potatoes war in the middle east, just how would this clown deal with a real crisis?

As my previous posts show, I follow one derrivatives market very closely-- the one for silver. Right now, there are 40 million oz of silver to cover 800 million oz sold short. This is typical of the stupidity of our present market regulators and guys like "Helicopter money Ben" are new chairman of the Fed. You can't create silver, oil, zinc, or whatever out of book keeping entries, no matter how hard our financial markets try. (By the way, we are now in de facto default on the silver derivatives. The contracts can't possibly deliver silver by the terms of the contract. Buyers of silver in any quantity have to wait months for delivery.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for the question, Edith Posted by: ReallyBearish
The Great Depression is no joke
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Nov 4, 2006 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I notice that a lot of posts here take the idea of a worldwide economic depression as some kind of joke. A colapse of the world financial system may just be the event that buys us time to solve environmental problems and slap some sense into the self-involved consumers of the Western economies.

Anyone that doesn't take a financial meltdown seriously suffers from a brain warp like our idiot-in-chief, or the talking ignoramouses of CNBC. Derivatives-- labeled as "financial instruments of mass destruction" by Warren Buffet-- are growing by around 15 percent a year. The nominal value of all derivatives is now substantially greater than the world's GDP!

The idea of derivatives, as explained by that financial genius Chairman Greenspan (the guy who has single handedly given us more financial bubbles than any other central banker in history), is to reduce or offload risk by banks on their loans and investments. To offload risk, you have to have someone TAKE ON increased risk. And just who would that be? It seems to be the bankers themselves-- offloading risk right back onto themselves! Study financial meltdowns of the past and you'll find that all it takes is one small meltdown somewhere in the system, and BANG! The system itself colapses in on itself.

Long Term Capital Management, a small hedgefund run by some Nobel Prize-winning economists, nearly brought down the system when their over-leveraged bets was hit broadside by a Russian default. A one percent default in the world derrivatives market would amount to a trillion dollars. Who's going to make that up? Worse yet, the derrivatives instruments are so complicated that few, if anyone really understands how they might perform under some default stress. Given that we have a trained chimp for a president that can't even run a small potatoes war in the middle east, just how would this clown deal with a real crisis?

As my previous posts show, I follow one derrivatives market very closely-- the one for silver. Right now, there are 40 million oz of silver to cover 800 million oz sold short. This is typical of the stupidity of our present market regulators and guys like "Helicopter money Ben" are new chairman of the Fed. You can't create silver, oil, zinc, or whatever out of book keeping entries, no matter how hard our financial markets try. (By the way, we are now in de facto default on the silver derivatives. The contracts can't possibly deliver silver by the terms of the contract. Buyers of silver in any quantity have to wait months for delivery.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

something we can do now...and everyday!
Posted by: CyberBrook on Nov 4, 2006 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another Inconvenient Truth
http://www.eatkind.net/inconvenient.htm

EarthSave: A New Global Warming Strategy
http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

Another Inconvenient Truth: Meat is a Global Warming Issue
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3312

ABC News: Meat-Eaters Aiding Global Warming?
abcnews.go.com/Technology/TenWays/story?id=2119267&page=1

Greenpeace: On Your Plate
www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/green-living-guide/on-your-plate

Fight Global Warming by Going Vegetarian
goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp

Vegan diets healthier for planet, people than meat diets
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060413.diet.shtml

The SUV in the Pantry
http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc/gasfood112105.cfm

Cut Global Warming by Becoming Vegetarian
http://www.physorg.com/news4998.html

Five Food Choices for a Healthy Planet
http://www.veg.ca/issues/enviro-5reasons.html

and

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
http://www.brook.com/veg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "Green Shift" initiative
Posted by: tiellis on Nov 5, 2006 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pessimism is very easy these days, while optimism is very hard to sustain. Still, despair is self-validating: if we assume nothing can be done, nothing will be done.

Conversely, empowerment can be self-validating as well; the challenge is to make it self-replicating. How can we create an invitational, self-replicating approach to transforming our culture and saving the planet?

Here is one action I have recently taken. As a professor at a community college in southeast Virginia, I find myself in a very backward, neurotically reactionary culture, where environmental consciousness seldom crosses anyone's mind, and where most people, in hearing of these issues, mouth the empty, banal platitudes they hear from Rush Limbaugh or Fox News--e.g. "It's a natural cycle" or "Environmentalism is a liberal conspiracy (or a plot by pagan "tree huggers") to impose socialism on us and destroy our freedom." The working-class students who attend are mostly focused on immediate personal needs--getting a degree or getting job training to emancipate themselves from the stressed-out minimum-wage slavery that characterizes their current lives. Larger issues, such as the fate of the planet, are far from their consciousness.

So I have created a small, but dedicated student group on campus called the "Green Earth Society." Rather than focusing on specific issue advocacy, as most student enviro groups do, we are focusing strictly on public education--holding biweekly "Green Earth Forum" events, hosting local speakers or showing documentary films, and sponsoring campus consciousness-raising activities focusing on simple things students can do starting today, such as recycling (of which there is very little on campus), compact flourescent lighting and other energy-saving measures, etc.

One student came up with a simple but wonderful idea, which I would like to share: launching an ongoing publicity campaign encouraging everyone at the college to "make the Green Shift." The "Green Shift" campaign is invitational, rather than gloomy or dire--in its very name, it emphasizes the idea of personal initiative, yet it also creates a "bandwagon effect." We will start with Vegan bake sales (no styrofoam cups!) and other simple fundraisers, at which we will hand out brochures entitled "Make the Green Shift!" offering a host of practical suggestions to people for recycling, saving energy, eating low on the food chain, buying local produce, organizing Community Supported Agriculture cooperatives, carpooling, etc.--again, simple things students can do, working with each other, starting today.

The "Green Earth Forum" events (in which students are introduced not only to global problems but also to visionary local solutions) and the "Green Shift" campaign will reciprocally reinforce each other in a positive feedback loop, with the result that it can trigger a self-replicating "bandwagon effect:" the initiative can quickly spread across all four campuses, be adopted by the college administration, then move up to the VCCS (Virginia Community College System) statewide, then be adopted by the State Government, and then even "go public," as a televised public education campaign nationwide...or--with the Internet--globally .



The great advantage of such a campaign is that it does not point fingers or demoralize people with all the bad news; rather, it is invitational and empowering from the outset, and as it catches on, it is self-validating as well, for the more people who make the "Green Shift," the more merchants will catch on in making "Green" merchandise more available, and the more politicians will want to jump aboard the "Green Shift" bandwagon.

It is through self-validating and self-replicating processes like this that a simple idea can quickly catch on and maybe, just maybe, lead to the Spontaneous Remission of the Cancer of the Earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America's shortsightedness caused by its rootlessness
Posted by: vangogh69 on Nov 5, 2006 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I currently reside in the midwest, and have for the majority of my life. What this has meant is that I've been able to observe the climate here change, though not dramatically, subtly over the years. We used to (in Missouri, where I'm from) get a hearty amount of snow in the winter. Seasons were rigid and you could tell when we were going from the fall to the winter. Contrast that with today: for the past few years, it's been in the 50's and 60's here; snowfall has become a shadow of what it once was and although we get the cold weather here still, winter isn't nearly as dreadful as it once was; summers get progressively hotter each year, slowing killing more plantlife (which can't handle the heat), affecting mammals which populate an area, attracting more disease, etc. I bring this up because this sort of phenomenon is something you can only observe about a place if you've lived in it for a while.

Americans are notorious for their lack of loyalty to a paticular area and in fact pride themselves on moving every month/year to a new location. This has resulted (in my view) in an alienation from their environment, a lack of awareness with their surroundings, and ultimately, an inability to comprehend life outside their immediate situation. Consequently, Americans will waste waste waste, fill up an area with garbage, and move away when it gets to be too much (unaware that that garbage pile will decompose into toxic elements which then mingle with the air they breath, unknowingly, in their new location which can be thousands of miles away from where they once lived).

This article is depressing to me. I think we humans have failed to see something so basic, which is that we need the land (or the earth) to live, not the other way around. We so-called "civilized people" forget that the water we use comes not from an endless stream, but from a limited aquifer or river. We forget that the shit-stained paper we flush away doesn't go out to space, but likely will wind back up in our food supply. And man, if you really wanna bum yourself out, look around and think about how much energy it takes to sustain what's called a "modern city." I don't know what the answer is, in truth, but I know we can't continue this way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vote Green
Posted by: rwa on Nov 5, 2006 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It makes little sense that well-qualified anti-war Green Party Senate candidates in states like Wisconsin, New York and California – where pro-war incumbent Democrats are projected to win by a huge majority – have failed to get much popular support. A strong showing by the Green nominees would send a powerful and badly-needed message to Washington without jeopardizing a Democratic victory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: tc Posted by: rwa
Well for once, the author mentioned hemp. Now if he'll just
Posted by: NDnative on Nov 5, 2006 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
elaborate on it some more and motivate readers to fight to legalize hemp. If Alternet and possibly others, left or right, will promote articles to enlighten readers into legalizing INDUSTRIAL HEMP, then I'll start apologizing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is there no call to PREVENT the coming Climate Change Catastrophe?
Posted by: wteague on Nov 10, 2006 7:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is there no call to PREVENT
the coming Climate Change Catastrophe?

? Does it make sense to work on reducing “global warming,” but ignore a rapidly approaching climate catastrophe? How much time do we really have and what it will take to avoid the many “tipping points”? And most important, can we mobilize to do what it will take before the deadline? And if we failed, wouldn’t an irreversible climate catastrophe make our current, best environmental efforts relatively worthless?

? Don’t you agree that without serious leadership calling for prevention - clarifying what must be done and by when - our anti global warming efforts will probably turn out to be too little, too late!

? So why is it, as the growing scientific evidence asks us to consider the drastic and irreparable consequences of a climate catastrophe, we talk of other things than prevention? Are we all in a suicidal collective State of Denial?

So if we are too succeed, we must stop using the cloudy term “Global Warming” and instead make a clear and worldwide call for prevention of the coming Climate Change Catastrophe.

1. We need a growing, worldwide call to prevent the catastrophe.
2. We need to know the deadlines and what is needed to meet them.
3. Based on the best science available, a worldwide plan must be developed.
4. Leaders must speak up, give direction and take all necessary actions.
5. And we the people, need to know if we are succeeding!

The growing scientific evidence shows we face not some Teddy Bear like “global warming” which we could adjust to, but such vast and prolonged damage to our seas, food supply, world economies and the death of millions, that it will make irrelevant all our current efforts to maintain and improve life. If we ignore the evidence and delay or response, we face a global climate change with unimaginable consequences!

Mother Jones magazine compared the danger to 12 asteroids on collision course, any one of which could devastate earth. How would we react if even one of these was going to hit us in 10 years, destroying cities, killing millions and threatening our very survival, wouldn’t we mobilize the world to divert it? Clearly, we need to such a clear targeted threat and deadline to force us to act in time.

And yet, most world leaders are not making a clear, concerted call for prevention of this increasingly predicted catastrophe. You probably didn’t hear that on 10/30/06, President Fidel Castro, speaking from his hospital room and clearly aware of the climate crisis, warned "I feel the obligation - as we all should - to make a special effort to avert a fatal 'catástrofe' for humanity." Yet no leader or group is making it clear to the world’s people what we must do and by what deadline if we are to successfully prevent this Climate Change Catastrophe. So then why isn’t prevention the main agenda?

Are we accepting catastrophe as inevitable, because we don’t want to think about how bad it will be, avoiding even trying to prevent it from happening?

• So while we may still have a chance, we must all demand that the scientists, politicians, rational folk and anyone who wants humanity to have a viable future, commit to and work for prevention of this catastrophe. Anything less may turn out to be futile.

Imagine how we will be judged if by our ignoring both hindsight and foresight, we were too late with too little! Who would be most guilty if we fail to meet this challenge?

We must stop using the cloudy term “Global Warming” and instead make a clear call for prevention of the coming Climate Change Catastrophe !

Walter Teague
wteague@verizon.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New extremists in power
Posted by: ng1944 on Nov 16, 2006 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We still have repubfashists ruling by the fear of terrorism.
Now new extremists are coming, envyrofashists,
that wants to rule by the fear of the end of the world

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]