Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Environmental Failure: A Ruined Planet Is Closer to Reality

By James Gustave Speth, Yale Environment 360. Posted October 21, 2008.


Environmental groups have grown in strength and sophistication, but the environment has continued to go downhill. Why?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

A specter is haunting American environmentalism -- the specter of failure.

All of us who have been part of the environmental movement in the United States must now face up to a deeply troubling paradox: Our environmental organizations have grown in strength and sophistication, but the environment has continued to go downhill, to the point that the prospect of a ruined planet is now very real. How could this have happened?

Before addressing this question and what can be done to correct it, two points must be made. First, one shudders to think what the world would look like today without the efforts of environmental groups and their hard-won victories in recent decades. Listen: James Gustave Speth talks with Yale e360 about building a new environmentalism. (27 min.) However serious our environmental challenges, they would be much more so had not these people taken a stand in countless ways. And second, despite their limitations, the approaches of modern-day environmentalism remain essential: Right now, they are the tools readily at hand with which to address many pressing problems, including global warming and climate disruption. Despite the critique of American environmentalism that follows, these points remain valid.

Lost Ground

The need for appraisal would not be so urgent if environmental conditions were not so dire. The mounting threats point to an emerging environmental tragedy of unprecedented proportions.

Half the world's tropical and temperate forests are now gone. The rate of deforestation in the tropics continues at about an acre a second, and has for decades. Half the planet's wetlands are gone. An estimated 90 percent of the large predator fish are gone, and 75 percent of marine fisheries are now overfished or fished to capacity. Almost half of the corals are gone or are seriously threatened. Species are disappearing at rates about 1,000 times faster than normal. The planet has not seen such a spasm of extinction in 65 million years, since the dinosaurs disappeared. Desertification claims a Nebraska-sized area of productive capacity each year globally. Persistent toxic chemicals can now be found by the dozens in essentially each and every one of us.

The earth's stratospheric ozone layer was severely depleted before its loss was discovered. Human activities have pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide up by more than a third and have started in earnest the most dangerous change of all -- planetary warming and climate disruption. Everywhere, earth's ice fields are melting. Industrial processes are fixing nitrogen, making it biologically active, at a rate equal to nature's; one result is the development of hundreds of documented dead zones in the oceans due to overfertilization. Freshwater withdrawals are now over half of accessible runoff, and water shortages are multiplying here and abroad.

The United States, of course, is deeply complicit in these global trends, including our responsibility for about 30 percent of the carbon dioxide added thus far to the atmosphere. But even within the United States itself, four decades of environmental effort have not stemmed the tide of environmental decline. The country is losing 6,000 acres of open space every day, and 100,000 acres of wetlands every year. About a third of U.S. plant and animal species are threatened with extinction. Half of U.S. lakes and a third of its rivers still fail to meet the standards that by law should have been met by 1983. And we have done little to curb our wasteful energy habits or our huge population growth.

Here is one measure of the problem: All we have to do to destroy the planet's climate and biota and leave a ruined world to our children and grandchildren is to keep doing exactly what we are doing today, with no growth in human population or the world economy. Just continue to generate greenhouse gases at current rates, just continue to impoverish ecosystems and release toxic chemicals at current rates, and the world in the latter part of this century won't be fit to live in. But human activities are not holding at current levels -- they are accelerating, dramatically.

The size of the world economy has more than quadrupled since 1960 and is projected to quadruple again by mid-century. It took all of human history to grow the $7 trillion world economy of 1950. We now grow by that amount in a decade.

The escalating processes of climate disruption, biotic impoverishment, and toxification, which continue despite decades of warnings and earnest effort, constitute a severe indictment of the system of political economy in which we live and work. The pillars of today's capitalism, as they are now constituted, work together to produce an economic and political reality that is highly destructive environmentally. An unquestioning society-wide commitment to economic growth at any cost; powerful corporate interests whose overriding objective is to grow by generating profit (including profit from avoiding the environmental costs their companies create, amassing deep subsidies and benefits from government, and continued deployment of technologies originally designed with little or no regard for the environment); markets that systematically fail to recognize environmental costs unless corrected by government; government that is subservient to corporate interests and the growth imperative; rampant consumerism spurred by sophisticated advertising and marketing; economic activity now so large in scale that its impacts alter the fundamental biophysical operations of the planet -- all combine to deliver an ever-growing world economy that is undermining the ability of the earth to sustain life.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: environment, consumption, growth, environmental movement

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

Advertisement
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:
Collision Course
Posted by: Last Chance on Oct 21, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While planet Earth is slowly cooling and shrinking, the human race is growing its population and expanding its economy, but not for much longer!

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

» Short and True!! Posted by: PaulK
The problems are: INNUMERACY, lack of education in science and lack of intelligence.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 21, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sacre innumerate humanitologists who are running the
environmental movement continually shoot themselves, and
everybody else, in the foot and other places by advocating
solutions that have no chance of working. The religionist war
against science is greatly to blame. The average intelligence of
Homo "Sapiens" is so low that our survival as a species is clearly
in doubt. The educational system in the US is so bad that it
makes the lack of intelligence much worse.

James Gustave Speth is completely wrong when he says: "Our
environmental discourse has thus far been dominated by lawyers,
scientists, and economists. Now, we need to hear a lot more from
the poets, preachers, philosophers, and psychologists."
We have heard entirely too much from preachers and sacre
innumerate poets. Religion is caused by insanity and religious
insanity is a major driver toward the extinction of Homo
"Sapiens."

A simple example of advocating solutions that have no chance of
working is advocating wind and solar power as a replacement for
coal while driving people paranoid of all things nuclear. Wind
and solar clearly DO NOT WORK. If you want to avoid
extinction, you had better get an education [that means a degree in
a hard science or engineering] and start advocating nuclear power.

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

» The Problem Is Too Many People Posted by: Last Chance
» What would you do on calm nights? Posted by: AsteroidMiner
What the coal companies know that Alternet doesn't:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 21, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as you keep messing around with wind, solar, geothermal and wave
power, the coal industry is safe. There is no way wind, solar, geothermal and
wave power can replace coal, and they know it. If you quit being afraid of
nuclear, the coal industry is doomed. Every time you argue in favor of wind,
solar, geothermal and wave power, or against nuclear, King Coal is happy.
ONLY nuclear power can put coal out of business. Nuclear power HAS put coal
out of business in France. France uses 30 year old American technology. So
here is the deal: Keep being afraid of all things nuclear and die either when [not
if] civilization collapses or when H2S comes out of the ocean and Homo
"Sapiens" goes extinct. OR: Get over your paranoia and kick the coal habit and
live. Which do you choose? I put quotation marks around "Sapiens" because it
is not clear that most of us have enough brains to avoid extinction when it is
clearly predicted and the safe path has been pointed out. Nuclear is the safe path.

PS: My numbers are correct. Nuclear is the cheapest and safest source of
electricity. Nuclear life cycle CO2 output is the lowest per kilowatt hour because
it takes a huge number of windmills or solar collectors or wave machines or
whatever to produce the same power as a nuclear power plant. All of those
windmills or whatever have manufacturing processes that make CO2. Hydro
power requires an enormous amount of concrete. The first step in making
concrete is heating limestone to drive off the CO2. That is one of the sources of
CO2 from hydro power. The price for electricity for the various sources of
power include the total life cycle costs. The cost to build the reactor is not much
different from the cost to build a coal fired power plant and the money comes
from the same source. There is no $765 Billion tab. Whoever would pay for
the reactor is the same person who would pay for the coal burner. LOOK at the
price for the electricity. It is the total life cycle cost. Nuclear is the cheapest and
the only full time replacement for coal. Nuclear power would be much cheaper
than it is if nuclear were allowed to be as unsafe as the other sources of power.
Nuclear power plants are self-insured. Tax money is NOT involved and would
not be mentioned if it were not for the civil disturbances caused by coal company
shills, alias protesters. The nuclear industry needs and deserves protection from
people who are obviously either mentally ill or very misinformed. When tax
money is mentioned with respect to nuclear power, the money is the extra money
that is wasted because of pointless protests.

I DO NOT work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am a retired
Department of the Army scientist and engineer.

There is NO SUCH THING as nuclear waste. There is fuel that is being wasted
for political reasons and because the coal industry has driven you paranoid. The
coal industry's reason for doing so is the $100 Billion per year cash flow they
receive as long as you remain in your present mental state. If you remain in your
present paranoid state and prevent the conversion from coal to nuclear, we all die,
as I said before. The cure for your present mental state is for you to go to
college and get a 4 year degree in a hard science [physics or chemistry] or
engineering, or for Americans to start acting like the French with respect to
nuclear power.

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

extinction
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 21, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken NOW.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

OIL SHALE, TAR SANDS AND COAL MUST BE LEFT IN
THE GROUND TO AVOID THE EXTINCTION OF US
HUMANS.
We have to convert to plug-in hybrid cars so that electricity made
by low-CO2 methods powers most of our driving. Nuclear power
produces the least CO2 of ANY source of electricity.
32 countries have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb.
The top 4 producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal
fired power plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China,
India and Russia. Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050
requires drastic action in the USA, China, India and Russia.
Coal, oil shale and tar sands must be left untouched in the ground.

I have no connection to the nuclear power industry.

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

Religion is caused by any one or more of about half a dozen mental illnesses.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 21, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The truth about religion can be found in these books:

"The Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs" Dr. Michael A. Persinger MD,
psychiatrist 1987 "Religious people are just like my temporal lobe patients"

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind" Julian
Jaynes Professor, Harvard University 1976 "Religious people are just like
schizophrenic patients"

"The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice" Roger A. MacKinnon, M.D.,
Robert Michels, M.D. W. B. Saunders Co. 1971 "Religiosity is a common
symptom [of] schizophrenic patients"

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. "Religion is caused by a kind of
computer virus that infects the living computer, the human brain."

"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer, 2004 "Morality and Ethics
are now in the jurisdiction of Science and greatly improved thereby."

Many books in the new science called "Sociobiology": Morals and ethics are
instinctive and they evolved.

"God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger. Scientific proof that god does
not exist.

"The God Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper 1996. "The USA is anomolusly
religious because many early founder groups were religiously insane and fleeing
prosecution in Europe. Religion is a genetic disorder."

"The Accidental Mind" by David J. Linden, 2007 Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Religion is caused by the extreme klugeyness of the "designed"
by evolution brain. In particular, the narrative creation system cannot be turned
off. It generates false narratives that are believed by the generating person. This is
seen in experiments done in the laboratory. This book has the best explanation of
resistance to evolution: "There has also been an assumption that if one accepts the
idea that life developed without divine intervention, it necessarily follows that all
aspects of religious thought must be rejected. Those who take this line of
argument to extremes argue that when religious thought is rejected moral and
social codes will degenerate and "the law of the jungle" will be all that is left. It is
imagined by religious fundamentalists that those who do not share their particular
religious faith are incapable of leading moral lives." These suppositions are not
true many times over. Linden later mentions that the creationists [intelligent
design advocates] are exactly 180 degrees wrong rather than just a little wrong.
Being exactly wrong, they are unable to unlearn their error. See Sociobiology or
Sciobio.

"Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism" edited by Petto &
Godfrey, 2007. The ID and creationist crowd are trying to do away with science.
They see science as a "godless religion." Science is a process, not a religion.

"Manufacturing Belief" by Lewis Wolpert
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

"The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", by Daniel Dennett
Let's do scientific research on religion and find out what causes it.

"Origins of the Modern Mind" by Merlin Donald 1991 "So what did you expect
from a brain that is based on the Chimpanzee brain?

"Atheism, A Case Against God" by George Smith

"God is not Great; how religion poisons everything" by Christopher Hitchens, 2007

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

The Republican War on Science
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 21, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "The Republican War on Science" by Chris
Mooney, 2005, Basic Books.

It has the following URLs:
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
http://www.chriscmooney.com/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05268/576883.stm

See also:
"Undermining Science, suppression and distortion in the
Bush Administration" by Seth Shulman, 2006
www,ropercenter.uconn.edu

"The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney says:

Because Trofim Lysenko convinced Josef Stalin that
genetics is wrong, 12 million people died of starvation.
The coal companies convinced President George W. Bush
[and Senator Inohe] that global warming hasn't happened
and 12 hundred people died in hurricanes in 2005. For the
same reason, people died in the wildfires in Oklahoma. 12
hundred is less than 12 million, but GWB is still comparable
to Stalin. Both adopted anti-science policies for ideological
reasons and thereby murdered large numbers of their own
citizens.

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

Can't see the forest for the trees
Posted by: Growthbuster on Oct 21, 2008 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gus Speth, you are a true visionary and American hero. You have written what has so desperately needed to be said. It is time to stop relying on evolution and begin the revolution - tackle the disease instead of treating the symptoms.

The population and economy of the planet in 1970 were small enough the environmental movement could treat the symptoms and see real results. Today we are on a train speeding out of control in the wrong direction, and most environmentalists are in the aisle running as fast as they can in the opposite direction (I don't recall at the moment who I'm borrowing this metaphor from, forgive me). It is time to stop and turn the train.

Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
www.growthbusters.com

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

My detractor have forced this reprint:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 21, 2008 10:06 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest. This is the full life cycle CO2 output. There are no hidden CO2 outputs.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output. The refereed scenarios from the IPCC
failed to hold the CO2 down to 450 parts per million. You can't without building
something like 10,000 new nuclear power plants world wide to replace every coal
fired power plant on the planet. The 10,000 includes replacing all Generation 1
[Chernobyl style] power plants with safe American Generation 4 technology.
Let's get it done.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.00 times nuclear's
price. This is the full and total price. There are no hidden costs. There are no
subsidies. There are no tricks. 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour is all of it.

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.28 times nuclear's price

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.36 times nuclear's price

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.7 times nuclear's price

Wind fits in here.

solar in a sunny place 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.79 to 23.26 times
nuclear's price

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[Batteries not included but required for wind and solar. Why did wind and solar
operate so far below capacity? Simple: Wind power never works when the
wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at maximum during the noon hour. Wave
power only works when the waves are the right height and the generator hasn't
been washed away in a storm.]

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

Coal contains uranium
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 21, 2008 10:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD,
MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine,
Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium,
Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum
and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially
viable ORE for the above elements. Coal also contains organic hydrocarbons.
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The
result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese
industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. Coal varies a lot.
You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump.
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
See also: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

Coal is a $100 Billion per year industry in the US alone. That is why stopping
coal is going to be difficult.

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

Importance of Focusing on Economic Growth
Posted by: CASSE on Oct 22, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As stated in Bioscience last year, this new environmental movement would be well-served by a foundation of professional society policy statements. See:

http://steadystate.org/CASSEBibliography.html

and search for term "Foundation" to download the article.

These professional society statements must set the record straight that, despite all the political rhetoric to the contrary, society faces a trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection.

Meanwhile, at CASSE we have been advancing a grassroots element of this movement, namely a position on economic growth that is e-signed by individual scientists and concerned citizens worldwide. With nearly 2,000 signatures and 50 organizational endorsements, the position is beginning to bear fruit in refuting the destructive rhetoric that "there is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment." The position is here:

http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html

Brian Czech, Ph.D., President
Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
5101 S. 11th St.
Arlington, VA 22204
brianczech@steadystate.org

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

dennis baker
Posted by: dbaker on Oct 22, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The prejudice by environmental groups against the folks whom protest outside of their "parameters of failure" ensure others fail as well!
Dennis Baker

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

One solution: Steady State Economy
Posted by: nkdawe on Oct 22, 2008 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James Speth has hit the nail on the head and it is odd the environmental groups haven't had the foresight to see and act on this on their own, but they haven't. Worse, in many cases it has already been clearly pointed out to them but the criticisms have been ignored.

Chief among these have been the criticism that addressing only the symptoms will result in a lot of wasted effort. It seems fairly obvious that if we keep giving aspirin to a fellow with a headache (symptom) resulting from a brain tumour (cause), the fella's gonna die.

The root cause of virtually all our environmental problems and many of our social ones, is our incessant demand for economic growth. The solution? A steady state economy, one that's in balance with the regenerative and assimilative capacity of the biosphere. An economy based on ecological economics that considers scale and just distribution of resources before it considers the allocation of scarce resources.

As Daly and Farley in their excellent book, Ecological Economics, state: The main idea of a steady-state economy is to maintain constant stocks of wealth and people at levels that are sufficient for a long and good life. The throughput by which these stocks are maintained should be low rather than high, and always within the regenerative and absorptive capabilities of the ecosystem.

The scale of the economy must also be sufficiently below the ecological limits so that enough natural ecosystems and biodiversity remain to allow normal ecosystem functioning, which provides the ecosystem services necessary for life on Earth. The answer to the macro-allocation problem--how much of the ecosystems of the Earth should we leave in their natural state for the provision of life support services and how much can we use as raw materials for throughput to our economy--is a pressing need.

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

"A New Environmental Politics" pssst....just don't say Green Party
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 24, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to laugh my ass off when I read the whole section near the end of the piece talking about this "new environmental politics" with a glaring gaping absence of the words "Green Party" included or even discussed or critiqued.

The Green Party's 10 Key Values and it's GPUS platform does EXACTLY everything the authors says is necessary and yet, in 'Merkuh, land of the willfully stoopids, even "movement" people just can't bear to say the words or commit the resources to the Green Party. And THAT is the entire problem, the great elephant in the living room taking a massive shit on everyone and we don't dare utter a sound about this.

When it comes to political integration and a pressing urgent need to overgrow and overthrow the extent two party corporatist system, liberals routinely and repeatedly throw progressive allies under the bus and progressives split up under two banners: the realos who say, settle for the lesser and the Greens who say opt out and take over (but feel guilty and silenced and disenfranchised by even say it out loud). Until every last progressive in America joins and funds and works within the Green Party--the only political organization that actually walks its talk that actually puts the Earth first on each and every aspect of the whole of human lived experience on this planet, this notion of a "new environmental politics" will be just as pallid and anemic as the environmental movement has been in trying to work within the system as the author points out.

Reading his piece was like watching Al Gore's moovee... god dammit, another fucking rich white guy saying the same shit we Greens have been saying for decades comes along and claims it was his own invention and all the rich librul ilk fall all over themselves to join an vapid "movement" that does nothing to actually result in a changed outcome. It's just fucking brilliant and so very 'Merkaaner. This is why progressives cannot trust liberals no matter how sweet they might be or how enlightened "sounding" they are. They will prevent us from getting anything done. They are as recalcitrant and obstructionist as the RWA and we all fly along towards extinction because of both of them.

We need a massive enema and we need it now. We need to start doing what's necessary and fuck everyone else in the process. If we stop or check ourselves for one second because of some vapid stoopid thing like extant governments corporations and other shit like that, we're accepting extinction as the outcome.

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

Dennis Baker
Posted by: dbaker on Oct 24, 2008 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It was confrontational and disobedient, but it was nonviolent."

Just like me, only I act alone, with some success but not nearly enough.

why dont you all join in and help me replace the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities with Hydrogen powered electrical generating facilities?

The hydrogen comes from converting sewage( human excrement) into hydrogen by exposure to intense radiation (spent nuclear fuel bundles)

combining two waste streams to create energy.

the result is Clean Air, Clean Water and Renewable Energy.

Ya I got a dream

Dennis Baker

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

» Nonsense Posted by: AsteroidMiner
IF YOU WATCHED THE LATEST FRONTLINE ON PBS I WOULD SAY WE ARE SCREWED
Posted by: cori on Oct 28, 2008 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have 600 coal fire plants in this nation alone. The emissions from our cars are more then all other countries combined. China has no intension of cutting CO2 emissions from coal plants and they are going strong, the same thing is happening in India. Also making cement, that is produced in vast quantities, puts out an enormous amount of CO2. In addtion when uranium is mined, only 1 per cent of the ore is used. 99 per cent, or millions of tons of radioactive waste, called tailings, that when exposed are like getting a continual Xray, have and are being left all over our Southwest next to schools, shopping centers and rivers, I know I produced a documentary for PBS that aired nation wide about this and the process for making uranium for power plants also releases enormous amouts of CO2. American coal companies have no intension of slowing down and neither are the oil companies. This doesn't include recent reports that the fast food hamburger industry, from beginning to end, releases more carbon into the atmosphere then all the SUV's in our nation combined. SO as far as I can tell we are totally screwed and god help our children.

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

PROTECT OUR PLANET - STEAL BACK THE VOTE
Posted by: cori on Oct 28, 2008 6:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. FROM ROBERT KENNEDY JR. Don’t don’t don’t Mail In Your Ballot-unless... or those of you who mailed in your ballot, please tell me, what happened to it? You don’t know, do you? I can tell you that officially, three-fourths of a million absentee ballots were never counted last time, on the weakest of technical excuses. And you won’t even know it. Furthermore, tens of thousands of ballots are not mailed out to voters in time to return them - in which case you’re out of luck. Most states won’t let you vote in-precinct once you’ve applied to vote absentee. Every time I hear of a voter going “absentee” to avoid computer screens, I want to “go postal” myself.
But don’t throw out your ballot if you have a mail-in. Either mail it in, making sure to include ID if required (you first-time voters) or, better, WALK it into your county clerk’s office.2. Vote Early...very early
Every state now lets voters cast ballots in designated polling stations and at county offices in the weeks before Election Day. Do it. Don’t wait until Election Day to find out you have the wrong ID, your registration’s “inactive,” or you’re on a challenge list. By Election Day, there’s little to do but hold up the line. 3. Register and Register and Register
Think you’re registered to vote? Think again. With all this purg’n going on, you could be x’d out and you won’t know it. Check online with your Secretary of State’s office or call your County Board of Elections. Then register your girlfriend, your wife, your mailman and your mommy. Contact the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the League of Women Voters, and your local party organization, and commit to a couple of days of door-to-door registration, especially in minority neighborhoods or at social service agency offices. And if you’ve served the time, you can sign: in almost every state, ex-cons can vote. 4. Vote Unconditionally, Not Provisionally
In 2008, they’ll be handing out provisional ballots like candy, especially to Hispanic voters. If your right to vote is challenged, don’t accept a provisional ballot that will likely not get counted no matter what the sweet little lady at the table tells you. She won’t decide; partisan sharks will. Demand adjudication from poll judges on the spot; demand a call to the supervisor of elections; or return with acceptable ID if possible. Defend the rights of others. If you’ve taken Step 1 above and voted early, you have Election Day free to be a poll watcher. Run into trouble¬-you’ve been caged or purged or challenged-call Election Protection at 1-(866) OUR-VOTE. Then challenge the challengers, the weird guys with Blackberrys containing lists of “suspect” voters. Be firm, but no biting.
5. Occupy Ohio, Invade Nevada Take the resistance door-to-door-to register the vote, to canvass the voters, to get out the vote. Donate time to your union (if you’re not in a union, why not?) or to the troublemakers I’ve already listed here and on our site. This may seem a stupendously unoriginal suggestion, but I know of no other method more effective for confronting the armed and dangerous junta that has seized the White House.
6. never vote alone. As our sponsor, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, says, make a date to ‘Arrive with Five.’ And keep this comic book in your holster - with our 800 numbers and your photo ID in your hand. And Bobby, make sure your ID says, “Robert Kennedy JUNIOR” or your vote is toast. 7. Make the Democracy Demand: No Vote Left “Count the votes.” You can have all the paper ballots in the world, but if you don’t demand to look at them, publicly, in a recount, you might as well mark them with invisible ink. Democracy requires vigilance The Day After. That’s when you check in at www.stealbackyourvote.org one more time.

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

Mining uranium without disturbing the surface:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 9, 2008 9:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In-situ leach uranium mining
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_leach

In-situ leaching (ISL), also called in-situ recovery (ISR) or
solution mining, is a process of recovering minerals such as
copper and uranium through boreholes drilled into the deposit.
The process initially involves drilling of holes into the ore deposit.
Explosive or hydraulic fracturing may be used to create open
pathways in the deposit for solution to penetrate. Leaching
solution is pumped into the deposit where it makes contact with
the ore. The solution bearing the dissolved ore content is then
pumped to the surface and processed. This process allows the
extraction of metals and salts from an ore body without the need
for conventional mining involving drill-and-blast, open-cut or
underground mining.
Contents

1 Process
2 Soluble salts
3 Uranium
3.1 Examples of in-situ uranium mines


4 Copper
5 Gold
6 Controversies
7 See also
8 External links
9 References



Process

In-situ leach mining involves pumping of a leachate solution into
the ore body via a borehole, which circulates through the porous
rock dissolving the ore and is extracted via a second borehole.

The leachate solution varies according to the ore deposit - for salt
deposits the leachate can be fresh water into which salts can
readily dissolve. For copper, acids are generally needed to enhance
solubility of the ore minerals within the solution. For uranium ores,
the leachate may be acid or sodium bicarbonate.


Uranium

Solutions used to dissolve uranium are acid (sulfuric acid, or less
commonly nitric acid) or sodium bicarbonate [baking soda].
Ammonium solutions have been pilot-tested, but have not been
reported used in commercial-scale mining. ISL of uranium ores
started in the United States and the Soviet Union in the early
1960s. The first uranium ISL in the US was in the Shirley Basin in
the state of Wyoming, which operated from 1961-1970 using
sulfuric acid. Since 1970, all commercial-scale ISL mines in the
US have used sodium bicarbonate solutions.[1]

There are currently five in-situ leaching uranium mines operating
in the United States, operated by Cameco, Mestena and Uranium
Resources Company, all using sodium bicarbonate. ISL produces
90% of the uranium mined in the US. Two more ISL projects are
in licensing and proposal stages in the US, and two in reclamation
in 2006.[2]

Significant ISL mines are operating in Kazakhstan and Australia.
The Beverley uranium mine in Australia uses in-situ leaching. ISL
mining produces around 21% of the world's uranium
production.[3]


Examples of in-situ uranium mines

* The Beverley Uranium Mine, South Australia, is an operating
ISL uranium mine and Australia's first such mine.
* The Honeymoon Uranium Mine, South Australia, due 2008,
will be Australia's second ISL uranium mine.
* Crow Butte (operating), Christensen Ranch (reclamation),
Irigaray (reclamation), Churchrock (proposed), Crownpoint
(proposed), Alta Mesa (operating), Hobson (standby), La
Palangana (development), Kingsville Dome (operating), Rosita
(standby) and Vasquez (operating) are ISL uranium operations in
the United States.

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

Almost all of the radiation in your body is identical to the radiation in your distant ancestor's bodies, centuries ago.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 9, 2008 9:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the difference comes from medical X-rays and coal fired
power plants. Natural Background Radiation according to
Gwyneth Cravens:
Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about
nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 35: Your golf clubs may contain depleted uranium [DU].
Don't worry, and don't confuse DU with spent fuel. DU is what is
removed from the uranium to make it enriched in U235. DU is
pure U238. U238 has such a long half life that it is almost not
radioactive. DU is safe to handle, but don't eat it because it is a
chemical poison. Heavy metals in general are poisons, radioactive
or not. DU has other uses that depend on its high density.

Page 70: Natural background radiation where the author happens
to be at the time is higher than what people living at Chernobyl are
getting. The US national average background radiation is 360
millirems/year.

Page 71: The natural background radiation in northeastern
Washington state is 1700 millirem/year.
The natural background radiation on the Zuni uplift is 500 to 700
millirem/year.
The natural background radiation in New Mexico is greater than the
calculated dose from the Three Mile Island meltdown, if you were
next to the reactor.
A chest x-ray gives you 10 millirem.

Page 72: The natural background radiation inside Grand Central
Station is 600 millirem/year because Grand Central Station is made
of granite. [ALL rocks are radioactive.]
The allowed exposure to the public from a nuclear power plant is
15 millirem/year.
A set of dental X-rays gives you 39 millirem.

Page 74: Smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes a day gives your
bronchial airways 1300 millirems/year according to the NCRP or
8000 millirems/year according to the National Academy of
Sciences.

Page 76: The cancer rate in New Mexico is much lower than the
national average but the natural background radiation is much
higher than average. The highest rates of cancer are around heavy
industry, chemical factories and petrochemical factories. [Benzene,
a petroleum distillate, is a very powerful carcinogen.]

Page 77: Natural gas contains radon, a radioactive gas.

Page 86: Among 80000 nuclear bomb survivors from Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, the cancer rate was only 6% higher than expected.
Radiation is very weak at causing cancer.

Page 90: At Chernobyl, only 13 to 30% of the reactor's 190 metric
tons of fuel evaporated. .13X190=24.7 tons.
.3X190=57 tons. [Much lower than the previous estimate of 200
tons, and trivial compared to what coal fired power plants give
you.]

Page 98: There is a table of millirems per year from the
background in a list of inhabited places. Here are some of them.
Chernobyl: 490 millirem/year
Guarapari, Brazil: 3700 millirem/year
Tamil Nadu, India: 5300 millirem/year
Ramsar, Iran: 8900 to 13200 millirem/year
Zero excess cancer deaths are recorded. All of the above readings
are natural except for Chernobyl.

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

How do you suppose it is that we can date ancient mummies with radioactive carbon they ate thousands of years ago?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 9, 2008 10:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Natural Background radiation that has always been there.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily
come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and
subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust
and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment
of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also
comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.

............shortened.............

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation,
terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a
human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic
radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial
radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been
decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from
potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth.
Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes,
such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor
to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in
the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire
in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear
licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation
limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be
disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

............shortened.............

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of
which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results
from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small
fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

............shortened.............

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

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