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
  • 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

The Most Important Thing You Can Do To Stop Global Warming

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted February 1, 2007.


Environmentalist Bill McKibben explains that forcing Congress to take action on climate change is the top priority. Fortunately, he has a plan.
020107story
Advertisement

It has been a winter for the record books in the Northeast and Midwest. People are golfing in Michigan instead of ice fishing, sap is running in Vermont, and cherry blossoms are blooming in Washington, D.C.

People are waking up to spring in January and the stark reality of climate change.

"Hurricane Katrina blew the door open and Al Gore walked through it with his movie," environmental writer Bill McKibben said. "Now we have to take that education and turn it into action."

Americans finally understand that climate change is real -- and it is a problem. So, now what?

"People are ready to do something -- to do something more than change their light bulbs," said McKibben, "they understand the need for quick and dramatic political action."

McKibben is spearheading what will be the largest public demonstration against global warming our country has ever seen. "On April 14, instead of doing a march on Washington -- which would burn a fair amount of carbon," said McKibben, "we will have a nationwide rally, occurring more or less simultaneously, in all the places that people love around the country."

The goal of the action, Step It Up 2007, is to demand that Congress enact immediate cuts in carbon emissions and pledge an 80 percent reduction by 2050.

This is not your typical protest.

"A big group of scuba divers have signed up to hold a rally underwater off the coral reefs in Key West and in Maui," said McKibben. "Another group just signed up to ski down the huge, but dwindling, glacier above Jackson Hole; there will be people on Mt. Hood; on the levies in New Orleans' Ninth Ward; and on Canal St. in Manhattan, which will be the new tide line if the seas go up a few feet."

There will also be people gathered at parks, at city halls, on the steps of their churches and schools, and the list just keeps growing. So far there are over 500 events planned in almost every state and the project is only just beginning.

"We wanted these to be in the sort of iconic places that would remind everyone of what's at stake," said McKibben.

If anyone knows what's at stake it's McKibben. He wrote the first book on global warming, The End of Nature, published in 1989. Since then, he has been writing and speaking on the subject, but most people have been unwilling to listen. Until recently.

"Some time last year I finally reached a point of despair about how little was being done," he said. "With a few friends we decided to organize this march across Vermont where I live. After five days of walking across the state we had about 1,000 people, which was good. It turned all our candidates for federal office into tremendous advocates for doing strong things about global warming."

In Vermont they advocated for the same plan -- an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. "Our experience was that we didn't need that many people to begin changing a lot of minds," McKibben said.

"The Republican candidate for Congress in her announcement speech in June said she wasn't sure global warming was real and that more research was needed," he continued. "Well, it turned out that the research that needed to be done was how many potential voters were willing to walk for five days across her state to demand action on this. After our march democracy worked the way it was suppose to -- she was terrific. She was the second coming of John Muir on global warming."

Despite the success of the event, McKibben and his friends realized that their 1,000 supporters were the largest demonstration against climate change in the U.S. -- a pretty paltry number in comparison to the great activist movements in our country's history.

"One of the things that I realized as I started thinking about this was that we have all the parts of a movement -- the scientists, the engineers, the economists, the policy people -- the only part we have been lacking is the movement part," said McKibben. "We are just trying to provide an easy way for people to step into that role."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, stepitup2007, bill mckibben, climate change

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

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:
Coal, oil and empire
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 1, 2007 12:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States is one of the world's biggest users of coal, and coal is at the top of the list of the worst energy sources when it comes to CO2 emissions.

Over the past ten years, the US has seen a 17% growth in the amount of coal burned for electricity generation, and very little growth in solar and wind.

We have to shut down coal-fired electricity generating plants from the South to the Northeast to the Midwest to the Northeast - but will Congress really do that? (maybe) If they did, would Bush veto the bill? (yes)

If the US overseas military apparatus is dissolved, the resulting monetary savings will allow us to build a completely renewable energy economy. Otherwise, it will not be possible.

You can't have fake democracy at home and militaristic imperialism abroad and expect to get anything done on the issue of renewable energy and global warming - especially when much of the imperialism abroad is aimed at controlling global oil supplies. The Bush Administration and the international system that backs them has many supporters within the US, and they seem unable to even consider giving up the empire... but they must come to understand that their actions are a threat to human civilization as great as the threat of global nuclear annihilation.

The question is this: where will the corporate media be on this? The owners of the media are dedicated to the global empire, from the New York Times to FOX News - they'll bury the story. It may be necessary to march on the media, to occupy the New York Times corporate headquarters and the NewsCorp offices with hundreds of human bodies - there may be no other way forward. You may have to first get Congress to break up the media monopoly in the same way that the Standard Oil monopoly was broken up in the early 20th century - and they will fight as hard as they can to prevent that from happening.

The rest of the world sees America as the "Propaganda Nation" - and they're absolutey right.

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

» RE: Coal, oil and empire Posted by: willymack
It's Beyond Time to Act
Posted by: bttl on Feb 1, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I well understand McKibben's frustration- I have been aware of climate change for many years and the lack of any meaningful conversation on it or action has been appalling. It is likely sad but true that the US due to its profligate nature in terms of energy use has much "low hanging fruit" to pick in terms of energy/carbon emission reductions. Given that we with 5% of the world's population emitt 25% of the world's greenhouse gasses- well it's obvious that we have room for major reductions.

The bigggest problems though are several- the lack of leadership on this issue, the media, and the sense of entitlement that American's have to their lifestyle. We are not going to be able to do what we need to do by just changing a few lightbulbs- and many people won't even do that much willingly. It is likely going to take serious carbon caps for businesses and households in order to make the cuts that we need to achieve. And that sounds like austerity and sacrifice and people don't get re-elected if they support such endeavors.

I personally have made many changes over the years- I live
off-grid with a modest system, drive an old car that gets > 40 mpg, have halved my driving this past year, take the bus if I can, have adopted eating local foods whenever possible- in short I have tried to be thoughtful in my energy use and reduce as much as possible. I now am at that place where the "low-hanging fruit " has all been picked-and any further reductions will be difficult to implement without much of my community changing as well. I do sometimes wonder what effect I am having however- when I drive less it just leaves more room on the road for the neighbors SUV's........

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

» dont despair Posted by: grim ripper
» RE: don't despair Posted by: David V
» Global Warming Posted by: derfb1
» RE: Global Warming Posted by: David V
» RE: Global Warming Posted by: edgar_michel
It is up to us in another way
Posted by: malaparte on Feb 1, 2007 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Denver, where normally the weather changes every few days. Any ways I have helped finance a restaurant to get both solar and wind(Mini-windmills on the roof) to get alternative energy that goes down to the restaurants refrigeration so that if power goes out than nothing will be lost. In Colorado they talk of wind farms which are being built but the problem is in transmission lines of which there aren't enough. Seems if people could get together and help fund businesses and apartment buildings with the understanding that the money saved on energy would be payed back we could start some grass roots organization or go through Enviromental Defense or other orgs. out there. After the pay back we could fund another property. There's one problem with this . Namely the government doesn't give any credit for wind energy on property but that is something that ahs got to be addressed.

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

'small farmer' despairs at relative insignificance of striving for 'small footprint'
Posted by: salshep123 on Feb 1, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, too, have been picking the "low-hanging fruit": struggling to stay warm with wood rather than effortlessly clicking on the fossil fuelish gas furnace ; making and running on No War Required! biodiesel, and 'running' as few miles as possible, etc. But I routinely panick and despair at the ridiculous fruitlessness of my little actions each time i'm literally and figuratively run down by yet another DHummer, and pass by entire neighborhoods of balmy-in-the-winter/iceynice-in-the-summer mcmansions....
Thankfully, I recently read on a Bioneers website about a new solar enterprise that will enable hundreds of thousands of homes to go solar THIS September by RENTING pv solar systems [no investment, no maintenance...] This concept and enterprise has given me hope that solar can and will go immediately mainstream and make a tremendous leap forward for renewables. Heartened that this can be revolutionary, which is what is needed if my 2 grandaughters are to have lives worth living on this planet, I am spending my time and energy, huddled here by the woodstove, working the phone and the computer keyboard to get the solar panels on as many houses, and mcmansions, as i can get signed up. Sign up to GoSolar this September and help spead the word. shepherdsally@hotmail.com

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

McKibben's a really decent guy, and the bastards ground him down.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Feb 1, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For truly sick irony, consider the AlterNet's perverse similarity to the neocons.

Neocons scorn the very idea of population growth. And so does the AlterNet!

I often advocate prioritizing birth control on this website. When I do, I'm usually told I'm either flat-out wrong, or I should state my case politely and shut up forevermore.

Bill McKibben seems to have learned that lesson well.

You may have noticed, we're often told we have "just 10 more years" to get serious about ecology. Well, it was 9 years ago that McKibben, in his gentle way, argued that serious birth control is absolutely essential to get serious about ecology.

And how was that book received? Many know of McKibben; few know of his passionate plea for serious birth control. That's hardly surprising -- after all, when the neocons AND the left want a problem to be ignored, it tends to be ignored.

McKibben himself now seems to ignore serious birth control -- it's doesn't even rate lip service here as "The Most Important Thing You Can Do To Stop Global Warming."

Meanwhile, 750,000,000 more consumer-units (and consumer-unit-wannabes) have been added to the horror since McKibben last saw fit to highlight birth contol. If that's not ridiculous enough, billions more are arriving shortly (assuming our whole stinking mess doesn't hit the fan first).

No, I'm not as polite as Bill. And I am not going to let the bastards grind me down.

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

What I plan to do....
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Feb 1, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all I plan to throw another bucket of coal into the fireplace. Hmmm.....toasty warm. I'll be going to the foodstore later which is well within walking distance. I only need a couple of items but its more fun to drive my SUV FORD NAVIGATOR. Alas.... the Hummer is in the shop otherwise I'd use the diesel. I have to call the energy supplier for this area because the oil tank is runnin' a little low. Its amazing how little time it takes to burn 150 gallons of heating oil. I then have to go out and feed the cows (I'm a dairy farmer ya' know). Friggin' cows.....all they do is eat, crap and FART. I gotta burn a whole lot of brush and if I have the time I'm going to ride my 4-wheeler all over the property. For vacation I'm going to take one of those really BIG JETS (just like ALGORE) and fly to the other coast just for the fun of it. Instead of complaining about global warming I'm going to embrace it. If it gets warm enough I'll be able to grow bananas and oranges next season here in Maryland. Hopefully the enviro-whackos will all get the heebey-jeebies and hives. I'll just turn up the AC and have a really good laugh as I watch the haze coming up off the ground in late February. Might as well make the best of a good situation.

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

» Chlorine Posted by: benzene
» Coal indeed Posted by: fifthworld
One possible solution to Global Warming that is avoided by progressives
Posted by: LarryGroff on Feb 1, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently read James Lovelock's, "The Revenge of Gaia" , who states essentially that we don't have time to address global warming with just solar, wind, hydrogen and other such technologies that will take too long to develop and have mainstream society switch over to handle these new energy sources. These are far more desirable technologies for many reasons and should be continued to be advocated and worked on. However, in the short time we have left to reduce carbon emissions enough to prevent the massive devastation from global warming we need to consider a quicker fix.

His solution is to dramatically increase the use of Nuclear power to replace carbon burning power sources. His point seems to be that even though there are obvious issues like nuclear waste and the like - they are much less of a problem to civilization than global warming will be, that to use nuclear energy will be our only option for something that will actually work on the scale needed, in the time frame required and that has enough political and social viability.

I am a long time anti-nuclear activist, I was part of the Clamshell alliance back in the beginning of the movement. Helen Caldicott has been a big hero to me over the years. But after reading The Revenge of Gaia I am starting to reconsider my thinking about Nuclear power. There will much we still need to address to make Nuclear power safer and more sane but it can buy us more time to fully develop other more desirable alternative energy sources like solar - that can eventually replace nuclear power once it has matured in such a way that will support society as we know it.

Granted, it might seem better to just get everyone to use less power, dump their SUV, dramatically limit industrial production, and the millions of other ways people can live much simpler, less energy intensive lifestyles. But I doubt we can really change people that much in 9 years time.

We need to come up with ideas that will actually work and work in the immediate time frame needed. There really aren't too many options.

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

» I didn't know that. My apology. Posted by: Pat Kittle
It's a no brainer
Posted by: ncg96773 on Feb 1, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
#1. Get rid of your car. If you live in a place where you have to have one, move!!!
#2. Work within walking distance of your home. If you can't find a job in your field, change jobs.
#3. Get rid of your television. It's the reason you still doubt global warming and still think you need a car and more and more and more and more....etc.
#4. Stop traveling. Don't fly in a plane. Just don't. Aviation fuel was never eliviated of its lead contents and is literally killing your children. So, don't fly. Stay home. Spend some real time with the people that mean something to you.
#5. Stop supporting companies that would never hesitate to destroy it all for a buck. Since that covers most of modern commerce, keep your consumption to an absolute minimum.
Visit your local thrift store. Buy things used.
#6. Switch to local organic farms as your supplier of food.
Reject processed and packaged items and make sure they are not being shipped cross country or across the planet before they land on your table.
#7. Get a solar panel. Start with a small one to get the feel for the technology. Then get a solar water heater for starters.
#8. If you chose to reproduce, teach your children that they are part, not apart from nature. Shield them from the doctrines this self destructive consumer based society floods them with from birth on.

Be the change you want to see in the world. Live it. Be gentle with yourself, for there will be great resistance to change, most likely. Remember that we all have been programmed to not comprehend the suicidal nature of our societies today. Waking up is not necessarily easy to do, but it's mandatory, especially for all of you out there, who call themselves Moms and Dads.

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

» RE: It's a no brainer Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: It's a no brainer Posted by: ncg96773
» RE: It's a no brainer Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: It's a no brainer Posted by: ncg96773
» RE: It's a no brainer Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: It's a no brainer Posted by: ncg96773
Gaia will punish you for polluting
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 1, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
her body with your flithy ways. The parasites, humans, on Gaia will be torn asunder and rendered to dust by Gaia for the abuse. Our mother, Gaia, is sick and tired of human parasites disturbing her order. She will seek revenge via warming, ice storms, floods, earthquakes, tidal waves, hurricanes, droughts, famines, and tornadoes. Gaia will get you. You better pray to our mother, Gaia, and change your ways immediately!!

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

Agreed +1
Posted by: lisat on Feb 1, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll agree with all of those suggestions--and would like to add the one that has the most impact. Go vegan! Animal agribusiness contributes more to environmental problems, including global warming, than do auto emissions (recent UN report on this, in fact). The number one thing we can all do for the environment is switch to a vegan diet.

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

» another childfree vegan here! Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Good intentions
Posted by: fifthworld on Feb 1, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see a lot of thoughtfulness on this string of comments and I've lived as simply as possibly myself. Still I think it's important to be, not cynical, but fully honest, that it may be too late for the planet, or at least for us. The greenhouse damage was done over decades; and at this point it's basically damage control and a good bit of delusion. Maybe we're being shaken off like chaff. It raises tough issues no doubt, at the core of who we are, what life is. But even the likes of Stephen Hawking are telling us our only real chance of survival is to diversify to space. Obviously the higher-ups (low lives) know this and probably have for a while. It constantly reminds me of the ancient Sumerian account of how the Nephilim came to the planet to mine for the gold they needed, and created humans as slaves for the work. That's not so spacey really. Just look at these dumb fucks we have, with the oil and the wars for "full spectrum dominance" -- they don't give a god damn.

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

» Yikes! Posted by: famouspipeliner
» RE: Good intentions Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Good intentions Posted by: MartianBachelor
Exxon posts biggest profit ever - they won't stop voluntarily...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 1, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"HOUSTON - Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $39.5 billion — even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent.

The 2006 profit topped Exxon Mobil's own previous record of $36.13 billion set in 2005. Revenue at the world's largest publicly traded oil company rose to $377.64 billion for the year, surpassing the record $370.68 billion Exxon posted in 2005.

"Exxon Mobil continued to leverage its globally diverse resource base to bring additional crude oil and natural gas to market," Rex W. Tillerson, chairman of the Irvin, Texas-based company, said in a statement."


Translation: Oil from Africa financed by the World Bank and the IMF, and oil from Iraq financed by the US military, is making Exxon's wealthy shareholders ever richer - and spending $100 million of greenwashing PR campaigns stating that 'they're concerned about global warming' is just a drop in the bucket.

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

what's with all the SUV bashing?
Posted by: Trazom on Feb 1, 2007 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am starting to grow tired of all the SUV bashing when people talk about global warming (no I don't work for any of the auto companies). It isn't just SUVs. Yeah, they're not fuel efficient in general, and most families don't actually need them (we got by fine for decades with station wagons and then ultimately mini-vans), but there are far greater issues at play here. Take for instance driving habits.

Mom has to go to work at 9:00. She drives 10 miles to work, then another 5 to go pick up her kid from pre-school. She then has to be home by 3:00 to get her two older kids off the bus. They eat a quick dinner at 4:30 because Johnny has karate at 5:30. So they drive 5 miles to get to the karate place. But Susie has ballet at 6:00 another 8 miles from there. So after she drops Johnny off she then takes Susie to dance class. But Johnny gets out of Karate a whole half hour before Susie does, so she must then drive the 8 miles back to get him, wait 15 minutes or so, and then drive back to finally pick up Susie, after which they finally drive home. Now I don't know how much mileage all that is (depends on where these places actually are), but it's at least 54 miles for this one day (if I did my math right). Now I don't care whether you drive a SUV that gets 17 miles to the gallon or a Honda Civic that gets 32 miles per gallon, that's still a lot of driving and pollution.

I hope everyone sees my point, that it is people's lifestyles that drive our fuel consumption and ultimately our carbon pollution. And I don't see it changing anytime soon. How are you going to explain to a whole generation of kids that they can't be involved with anything because it is polluting the planet? No parent will allow their children to go without regardless. I see it in people's blank stares when I mention this to them - absolute refusal to give up this freedom. It really is a non-negotiable way of living for most rural Americans.

On a similar note, what about the people who just have to have pickup trucks? I know lots of them, why doesn't anyone badmouth them? Unless you're a contractor why on earth does a single person need a exteded cab pickup for day-to-day travel?

I understand that SUVs personify a lot of what is wrong with America and its energy consumption for the sake of vanity,comfort, etc. But as long as people have money there will always be huge SUVs on the roads. They don't have an incentive to conserve if they don't care, and we can't change that.

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

» RE: what's with all the SUV bashing? Posted by: CriminallySane
» RE: what's with all the SUV bashing? Posted by: MartianBachelor
It does your thesis a disservice...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 1, 2007 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...when you attribute events like hurricane Katrina to global warming.

On the other hand, I agree with the author's use of polar bears. They are quite cute from a distance.

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

» Want to explain this (if you can)? Posted by: ReallyBearish
» Or... Posted by: ABetterFuture
Need this argument
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Feb 1, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barbara Boxer got herself one upped in a debate on Larry King regarding global warming. Her opponent used the failed prediction of 30 years ago of a new ice age as a parallel to the global warming debate. If she had been better informed, she would have come back with the chloroflorocarbon debate of around the same period, where excaped refrigerant gases were destroying the ozone layer. Her opponent used the same falacious economic arguments against doing anything about global warming as were used against doing anything about the destruction of the ozone layer. In fact, I suspect that the same economist clowns that made that argument have been recycled for this issue.

Fortunately, corporate America ignored the economists and worked to replace the old refrigerants with ones that were ozone friendly. Unfortunately, we still have a hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole left over from this era.

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

» RE: Need this argument Posted by: MartianBachelor
getting the next "fix"
Posted by: zooeyhall on Feb 1, 2007 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am afraid most Americans are on an "oil addiction", and its just as bad as a drug addiction. It has all the symptoms: denial, blaming others, sacrificing money and integrity all just to get the next "fix". And God forbid we would ever have to go into withdrawal. And like a drug addict's withdrawal, it wouldn't be pretty. Screaming and thrashing and heaven-knows-what-else.

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

Hurricane intensity is indeed set to increase, and has already
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 1, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's lots of evidence that the intensity of Katrina was related to global warming of the oceans - usually, when a hurricane makes it through into the Gulf of Mexico, it encounters cooler water and loses energy.

Katrina, unlike virtually every other hurricane of the twentieth century, actually intensified to a category 5 after entering the Gulf of Mexico, because the surface water was unusually warm and deep, which can be attributed to global warming and heat absorption by the oceans. It died down to a category 3 when it made landfall, or it would have killed many more people. Any rational person should expect more intense hurricanes to be a regular feature from now on - and don't believe me; look at what the insurance companies are doing in coastal regions - abandoning them!

Insurance Companies Staggering Under Global Warming Damages: BOSTON, Massachusetts, September 13, 2005

Solution: sue ExxonMobile and the American Petroleum Institute for damages.

Katrina the hurricane was different from Katrina the Disaster, however: The truth is that the gross incompetence of the Bush Administration was responsible for the deaths; I mean Cuba, the third world country, managed to evacuate everyone from the path of the storm with zero fatalities - including their pets. Bush was playing guitar in Texas and Condi Rice was shopping for spiked heel boots in New York while New Orleans was abandoned - absolutey contemptible and grossly incompetent behavior.

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

» WHATEVIDENCE??? Posted by: gellero
No...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 1, 2007 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most important thing you can do.. is start questioning the very basis of industrial society.

www.greenanarchy.org

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

» Well... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» How about de-consumerizing? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: How about de-consumerizing? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
owning large dogs as pets bad for environment
Posted by: kuro_neko on Feb 1, 2007 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've known otherwise progressive people who insist that they need to buy an SUV b/c they own large dogs that cannot fit in small cars.

If you need to truck around a large canine and this makes you need to pollute the planet in a large vehicle...Seems to me to be a bigger enviro-threat than having a kid (who can nicely fit in a small car and be raised on meat-free-diet). Dogs eat meat, the consumption of which ruins the atmosphere. If you're a child-free person but still need to truck around your big german shepard in your truck or SUV, you're not doing anyone any favors.

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

» dog food, dog poop, etc.. Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Global Warming
Posted by: sallym on Feb 1, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand the need to send a message - but please turning off the lights on the Eiffle Tower for 5 minutes??? How about turning off 1/3 of the lights permanently! That goes for envirnmental gatherings as well. How do we get there - drive? Doesn't it make more sense to do something local - use compact lighting at your home, walk to meet friends and do something that doesn't take resources to get there.

I lived for 7 years on solar with rainwater harvesting and put a soft footprint on the earth - or so I thought. But after seeing Inconveneint Truth, I realized that even doing all of that I lived remote and was driving more than ever. I just moved, and feel terrible about using regular electricity and water, but I drive only a fraction of what I was doing those years. There are no easy answers. The best thing I have done for global warming? I am an only child who had an only child who has choosen to have no children!

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

» childfree by choice Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Global Warming & outdoor lighting Posted by: MartianBachelor
What Will Our Climate Be Like
Posted by: edgar_michel on Feb 1, 2007 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carbon dioxide levels have varied between 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million regularly with a period of just over 100,000 years for the last 400,000 years. The level of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere is 380 parts per million. The interesting aspect of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is that for at least the last 400,000 years sea level and average global temperature have faithfully followed carbon dioxide levels. Average global temperature has varied by 18 degrees F from the coldest average temperature to the warmest average temperature. We are currently at the warmest temperature during our 100,000-year cycle, which is 18 degrees F warmer than we are during the coldest time. But we have additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That means that the temperature we will arrive at in the near future will be current temperature plus some additional temperature. If an increase of carbon dioxide from 180 ppm to 280 ppm caused a rise in temperature of 18F, then X (280-180)/180 = 18, or X = 32.4. That would give the new temperature which would be X (380-280)/280 = 11.57F higher than the current temperature. Now there are buffers that I'm not considering, but this number should give everyone pause with regard to what we are doing to our atmosphere. That is more than the difference between the average temperature of the last ice age and the present. And if I use the same logic I get a sea level rise of 84 meters since the sea rises 130 meters from the period of minimum carbon dioxide to a period of maximum carbon dioxide. What does that portend for the future. We don't know, because this planet has never visited that temperature regiem before in the last million years. But the sea level rise would certainly make our coastlines significantly different than they are today. That is why we have to take immediate remedial action in order to preserve our lives. I have used purely mathematical figures and there are certainly to be some mitigating mechanisms, but 84 meters of sea level rise, even if we only realize half of that amount of 42 meters is 137 feet of sea rise. Now there probably isn't enough ice in the world at present, because we are at a minimum in terms of glaciation, but 80 feet of rise is too much. We still need to take immediate remedial action.

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

Kyoto what?
Posted by: JustAnotherGuy on Feb 1, 2007 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmm... an entire article dedicated to pressuring the US government to join the rest of the world in reducing CO2 emissions an no mention of the Kyoto protocol. My suggestion to the average American activist, please pressure your representatives to ratify the Kyoto agreement like most other countries.

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

» Second that Posted by: thoughtcriminal
lol
Posted by: Jesusxxiha on Feb 1, 2007 4:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
each post could have been the last. How devoid of personal opinion! Each ov you maintaining the status quo and trying to look 'informed". The closest one to original was the Green anarchy fellow but even he advertized a site where he got his opions for.

THINK FOR YRSELF SHEEp

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

» RE: lol Posted by: mn
Simplest Solution
Posted by: danielgeery on Feb 1, 2007 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or at least serious food for thought.

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

» Also... Posted by: Habaro
» RE: Simplest Solution Posted by: Logic's Edge
Good News, Bad News
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 1, 2007 10:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bad news is we are way late on acting to address this issue. The good news is that many of the solutions to carbon emissions causing global warming also address issues such as Peak Oil and transitioning to a sustainable economy. The people need to get involved not only to see that action is taken, but that policy is dictated by the best interests of all and not some half-baked boondoggle designed to look good while lining the pockets of big oil and other energy companies.

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

UK Commentator
Posted by: GoodByeToAmerica on Feb 2, 2007 1:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't see much mention of Biofuels this time round? Maybe the starving Mexicans who have seen their staple food source (Tortillas), rise 400% due to the corn being used for ethanol production instead has finally put paid to this riduculous idea. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6319093.stm
Oh! Where does this article get off on saying that the first book on Global warming was written in 1989? Nonsense, sheer nonsense, Global warming as a theory has been around over 40 years with thousands of articles and publications, including books published over the decades, very poor research indeed.

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

We CANNOT stop climate change
Posted by: dayahka on Feb 2, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most worrisome aspect of the article was the writer's last sentence where he called for action to stop climate change. Sorry, but that's like pleading to stop the ocean waves. Climate change always has happened and always will happen. Instead of being reactionaries and seeking to stop climate change, we need to be progressives and respond creatively to climate change. The current awareness of climate changes could lead to a revolution in our architecture, our energy systems, our agriculture, maybe even our politics. Instead of the impossible task of trying to roll back changes, we should see climate change as a challenge. We shouldn't roll back our petroleum-based emissions, for example, we should get rid of the entire greedy, toxic, polluting industry and find new sources of energy. We shouldn't surround our cities will walls, but create new sub-surface forms of dwellings. We shouldn't try the impossible task of toning down hurricane ferocity, but in developing habitations other than the rectangular nail and scotch tape shacks so favored by the building industry.

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

Picture postcard campaign?
Posted by: lwarfield on Feb 2, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There seems to be a postcard campaign in Ireland (see Greens in postcard protest plea over climate change at irishexaminer.com on 2/2/07). Isn't that a great idea? Picture postcards from all the places that will be affected by global warming (in other words, everywhere) asking the President -- or maybe somebody else, somebody who might care, for instance -- to finally start taking some action on this.

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

The Most Important Thing You Can Do
Posted by: nc green on Feb 2, 2007 4:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... IS STOP DRIVING.

Period.

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

Think damage control; what to do on the sinking ship
Posted by: fifthworld on Feb 2, 2007 9:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The UN Report means what it says, that climate change is INEVITABLE:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/177547

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

re: what's with all the SUV bashing?
Posted by: spanky on Feb 5, 2007 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The decision to buy an SUV is a manifestation of absolute greed and selfishness, and a profound disconnect with the conseuquences of one's lifestyle and choices. You are choosing to expedite climate change, degrade air quality, waste fossil fuels, and kill more of your fellow humans, all for the sake of convenience, image, status and wanting to belong to the herd.

Obviously these things can be said of driving any car, but SUVs are worse in every way and multiplied by millions, it becomes serious business. At one time, 1 in 4 new cars purchased in the US was an SUV. The numbers for minivans and pickups was/is nowhere near this high. This is one reason why SUVs *should* be the target of so much scorn and criticism.

There are also the intangible/symoblic reasons for hating SUVs - they are one of the most visible symbols of our culture of me-first conspicuous consumption, and moronic obsession with self worth through automobile choice.

They also illustrate just how ignorant and confused we are as a nation. No doubt one of the top rea