How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth

Really enjoyed the read.

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

Definitely the philosophy of a typical Euro-Socialist Statist snob.

Please, Messiah, keep them far away across the Great Ocean...........

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

Even lower income Americans refuse to recycle, refuse to limit child-bearing to 2 kids or less, refuse to reduce consumption of red meat, refuse to ride public transit, refuse to buy less plastic junk they don't really need.

Finger pointing at "The Rich" is a facile, flabby theory.

Consumer consumption of Americans is greater than ANY nation on earth. Even the poorest welfare recipient and Appalachian holler dweller consumes more stuff than Third World peasants.

When I lived in Latin America back in the 1970's and Europe in the 1980's EVERYONE carried tote bags with them to the market when grocery shopping. Most nations view recycling as a way of life - in America perhaps less than 30% of citizens bother to recycle.

And about those left wing, hipster,
eco-people.....at my super "progressive" Northern California natural foods organic coop, in the restauruant deli section of the store there are two BIG recycling bins - yet easily 85% of customers insist on throwing their glass, plastic, paper in the trash bin and won't use the recyling bin.

I used to be a student at a radical left wing "Open University" - the New College of California in San Francisco. Despite recycling bins everywhere - nearly every 20 feet - the vast majority of the politically correct lefty students at this campus refused to use recycling bins - and would thoughtlessly dump their glass, aluminum, plastic, paper in the trash can.

When I tried raising this issue at my hippie, left wing natural foods coop in groovy Northern California - and agan try to educate my fellow students at the radical left wing campus about taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their carbon footprint - I was met with hostility and indifference.

One of the MOST politically active community organizers I know in my town became physically violent with me when I said ordinary middle class, working class folks need to consume less oil, plastic, eat lower on the food chain. He said "that is typical bougeoise sell out thinking and you are just a capitalist tool". He insisted that what we needed to clean up the environment was a Stalinist type purge - ala' mass execution squads who would kill off the Corporate CEOs, George Bush and other henchmen who run transnational corporate cartels!

The hubris in apathy of what allegedly passes for the so-called "Progressive Movement" fills me with disgust! I grew up in the 1960's in California and am sick to death of Radical Chic finger pointing blaming "The Rich". That is tantamount for blaming "The Media" and public schools because your kids are on drugs.

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

The reality is that the operation of civilization entails using up irreplaceable natural material resources (INMR). The INMR is limited and is now becoming scarce. That is the stark reality. Society will be better able to cope with the inevitable powering down if there is widespread understanding of the reality. Improved technology can only make better use of some of the remaining INMR (natural capital).

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

Corporatism is a fatal disease.
Capitalism is a FAILURE!
Let the Schlock Market Die.
What the FUNK does a EX-Home Depot CEO know about CARS?
Is that why GM is building TEN new models of Cadillac and a $60,000 DOLLAR Hybrid Yukon?
Who’s going to buy this shit?
Who wants or can afford a CADDY with a 556 HP Engine?
Someone’s living in La La Land!
It is the same Old Corporate
BU__! SH__! That got us into this problem in the first place.
Saying one thing and doing another.
G.M. will bring out another electric car in 2010 after killing the first one in 1995. (EV1)
Now that’s backwards engineering!
Too little,
TOO late.
All they're trying to do is Un-employ (lay off) the rest of the North American work force.
Let's go beyond the CORPORATE shell game.
Who owns all the wealth? and
Who owns all the stock?
If 99% of everything is owned by less than 1/10 of 1% sounds like the game is rigged.
The largest transfer of wealth in the History of the World to Corpirate C.E.O.s!
For What?
Sounds like someone is getting ripped off.
Stop the Charade!
Buy a bigger T.V. for what?
So Ironman can drill a bigger hole in your empty FUNKING head!
If all they’re going to tell you is LIES and indoctrinate you, why bother?
If all they’re going to do is poison you and sell you garbage,
What’s the Point?
All Hail the Corpirate (Banker/Spanker) King
Emperor Ratschild (who by the way owns only a mere 50% of everything in the Whole Wide World.
The Puppet Master really has something to loose.
You, not so much.
Eat FRANKEN SH-T and drink some cheap Ratschild Wine!

The door is open,
Walk out.
Any child could do better.
Be child like.
STOP buying what these Lying, Spying, Torturous Parasites are selling.
Kick them out and
Start over.
Who controls your T.V. set?
Who privatized 85% of The Government?
Who owns all the Media?
Who is behind the Giant Octopus that ruins The World?
What do you think they're doing with all that time and your Money?
Building a better Mouse Trap?
Yea!
Hypnotic Conditioning
Propaganda.
Corp-pirate Clones, Snoops, Spooks, Snooks, Crooks, Shysters, Carnival Barkers, Media Prostitutes, Stooges, Mercs, B-Actors and crude rude ROBOTS.
This is what makes their world SPIN.
Bail out while there is still time.
The clock is ticking and it is about to strike TWELVE!
Join,
The Micro Democracy Revolution
Go Local
Go Green
Go Organic
Help rebuild America from the Ground up, starting in your own backyard.
Invest in yourself, your neighbors and your own Community.
Build a more efficient, positively creative, self sustainable, self sufficient, Model Society.

SURGE
PURGE
Update and
REBOOT!

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

this is truly fascinating. maurice cotterell on coast to coast discusses:

SOLAR CYCLES AND CIVILIZATIONS (RT: 120 minutes)

Solar Cycles & Civilizations
Oct 2, 2008. RT: 120 minutes


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k-viHt97jg


Engineer and scientist Maurice Cotterell discussed his research into sun spots and solar cycles, and how they affect history, evolution, and the rise and fall of civilizations. The Chinese first observed sunspots more than 3,000 years ago, and were aware of their 11-year cycle, he said. Additionally, there are sun cycles lasting 187 years, and 18,000 years, Cotterell explained. Periods with higher sunspot activity lead to increased fertility but also disorders such as schizophrenia, whereas during the solar minimum there can be mini-ice ages, he detailed.

He theorized that creatures evolved through DNA mutations brought about by solar wind radiation-- the radiation from the sun would arrive in narrow beams, so only certain members of a species would be affected.

Ancient sun-worshipping civilizations were aware that the sun affects fertility and personality determination, and the Maya knew their civilization was going to die out because of the sun's upcoming magnetic changes, he noted. Regarding 2012, Cotterell believes the Mayan message has been misconstrued-- infertility, drought, and an eclipse for five days were what was predicted, not the end of civilization, he said.
Category: Education

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

These are across-the-board problems - the impact on the atmosphere is a global problem, in which hundreds of millions of poor people play a role as well as millions of rich people. It's also worth remembering that by global standards, almost all Americans are still "rich".

The wealthiest of the wealthy could be leaders in cleaning up the problem - but you don't get to be the wealthiest of the wealthy by altruism - so the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet want to invest in Canadian tar sands, for example. The wealthiest of the wealthy will continue to keep their investments in the dirtiest of fuels, because that's where they earn their highest profits. They'll also continue to outsource jobs to countries with no labor or environmental standards - because of the fatter profit margins.

This will not change, unless you have clear government regulations, tax policy, etc. that make the true costs of fossil fuels and deforestation clear - and then, the cheapest energy sources will also be the cleanest energy sources, namely wind, solar and fossil fuel free-biofuels.

The author's blanket rejection of technological advancement is also misguided, though it certainly won't cure many problems. However, for hundreds of issues, better technology is the answer. Raw sewage being dumped into the ocean? A sewage treatment plant is a good thing in that case, and a solar-powered one is even better.

Note also that once you eliminate fossil fuels, you have energy supply problems - so you need solar technology, wind technology, energy storage technology, electric transportation technology - those are some of the main areas. No, it won't solve ALL problems - just a whole lot of them.

Hammering out how it all works will take social organization of some kind - i.e. government involvement. There are no technological fixes here - social issues are tricky, and require people who are not bent on dominating and controlling - which is quite rare, huh? Especially in authoritarian corporate American culture - anyone with any level of compassion for people is viewed as weak, right? What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

However, blaming the problem on "the rich" is just silly. If "the rich" were to redistribute all their wealth to Chinese farmers, would that solve anything? People would still need electricity, and they would go on burning coal to get it.

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

Those self-deluded "conservatives" who think they're big shots are just as responsible for screwing this planet. And with too low to be true gas prices, who's gonna give a flying fuck? Besides, as long as you so-called "environmentalists" allow fuel efficient vehicles to stay more expensive than the cost of pumping gas in the long run, don't expect them to take this seriously. Nowadays, if you're in a big city, there's more high volume traffic unless you go to work at 5 AM even if there is public transportation out there ! Even with the election of Obama, amorality in America ain't gone yet. If you don't want the rich to destroy this planet, then for GOD's sake, don't make them rich !

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

I saw and heard Paul Simon sing "American Tune" on The Daily Show recently, and I rate that higher than this article, but why exactly, I don't know. I think it might be attitude. Like most intelligent people, I like thinking, but I don't necessarily believe that thinking is going to save my ass. When you consider questions of whether the universe exploded into space, or time and space exploded into nothing, the question of who is destroying Earth seems almost moot. The bottom line for me is that if the environment can no longer support all of us, some of us will die. The poor will go first, the flawed next, and then the gentle.
Whether we like it or not, the presently rich will survive, but they won't be so rich anymore. As Simon says, "We can't be forever blessed".

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

"it has abandoned any ambition of transforming the world. .. the left displays an almost cartoonish refusal to truly engross itself in environmental issues." I suggest that this assertion is somewhat unproven. I am part of the social-democratic left, in Ireland, and while we have certainly had a very limited success, thus far, there is a component of awareness that the environmental imperatives, for survival, are linked inextricably with the need for social justice. We cannot have a viable eco-system (one where we survive) without an acceptable degree of equality. That equality is of acces to food, to education, to healthcare. If (we rich people) do not assent to it, then the diseases which will be endemic will kill our children just as much as any others.

We, the Rich; (note that that includes most 1st world people, most of the citizens of USA, Canada, Japan, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the elites and middle-classes of India, China, Asia in general, etc.), are wealthy by comparison with the ~ 60 % of humans who do not have our income, or our resource use. We use more, and have an exponentially wealthier lifestyle than aristocats of previous ages. We have to change our consumption pattern.

Personally, I argue that is is possible to have a comfortable life with an enormous drop of materials use and of waste; the drop is essential, the comfort is possible/ desirable. I believe that with the right allocation of resources, at a government level, (since capitalism has shown itself too easily swayed by the most powerful money interests, who in this past 90 years are tied, both practically and ideologically speaking, to the Oil and energy industries) that it is possible to have cheap electricity and heat. The technologies to achieve this are either mature (Solar heat capture devices, and CSP electricity generation) or at the laboratory level (capacitor super storage, carbon nano tubule electricity transmission). These developments have been stymied, up to the present, by the money and oil interests mentioned above. Those interests were solidly entrenched within American politics, for a long time. Identifiably since the Eisenhower era, (Nixon and SOCAL) spectacularly with the dying Bush- Cheney regime.

Its fun sometimes, to see the difference in attitude, US v Europe. In USA, the dislike of 'Big Government' has been inserted into public consciousness as a statement of 'freedom loving'; it goes along with libertarian and survivalist doomsday attitudes, where everthing that is not 'individualist', is lesser. In Europe, the majority position is that government, the rule of law, is an essential counter to the otherwise extravagant abuse of power by powerful individuals and industries. In Europe, the idea of 'community' is alive, in a way that I think is lost, in (much of) USA. But then, as was pointed out in this forum some months ago, 'the kids are allright'. Young Americans have shown themselves to be engaged in this struggle.

Many of their parents, however, are wedded to an intellectualised position, of libertarianism and a kind of conspiracist belief, that 'the elites/ the illuminati/ the (insert your own) are controlling us, and nothing can be done'. Meantime, they (strongly represented on these pages of Alternet) practise their firearms and survivalist skills

Bollocks. Depressive assholes. Get up off your knees and fight. And I mean politically, not with pistols, or rifles.

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

"The left remains pickled in the idea of progress as it was conceived in the nineteenth century, still believes that science is produced the same way it was in the time of Albert Einstein, and intones the chant of economic growth without the slightest trace of critical thinking. Moreover, "social capitalism" rather than "social democracy" is undoubtedly the more apposite term."

I don't expect many to agree with me, at first reading, that this statement is in error; I and friends are not "pickled in the idea of progress", we will see how we get on.

While I welcome Mr Kempfs article, and agree with parts, I suggest that the analysis of Naomi Klein is more apposite; the facts of life and of credit supply having come to roost on the erstwhile kings of the dungheap, the Chicago School monetarists and their wealthy friends, well, things are looking up.

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

Greed is an awful disease. It causes you to de-value people based on the most weakest of ideals. It makes all things,good and bad, something to make a prifit off of. It causes you to buy politicians. It makes you get laws passed so you can dump poisons into the water,the air and on the ground. It causes you to drive the cost of living up so high the only you and your friends can afford the lifestyle shown off as 'attainable' on the T.V.
The greed of the rich causes all the wars that have ever been fought,including the one we're in now. Greed buys elections. Greed provides the means to point a finger at someone and call them 'terrorist' or 'druggie'
or 'thug' when it's their tryanny that has created the need for terrorists,druggies and thugs. If it weren't for the actions of the rich we would have Liberty, real Freedom and
real pursuit of Happiness.

Instead we're forced to bailout the very folks that created the money problem. We're made to drink fowl water,breathe poisoned air and eat GMO crops. Simply put, THE RICH ARE FUCKING THINS UP FOR EVERYBODY.....

BRING BACK THE 91% TAX BRACKET ON THE RICH!!
Then maybe the rest of us might just be able to live.

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

This article is not about blame. It's about priorities. Those who comment that we would all be poor if we redistributed the world's wealth equally, miss the point: the rich set the standards.

We are caught in a contradiction. Capitalism is motivated by growth (also often mistaken for progress). That worked when the planet was a vast treasure of undeveloped resources."Growth" now means eating our seed corn, destroying our resources, wallowing in our own waste, fouling our nest.

The image of doing as the rich do has been the ideal as far back as we can look. My personal interest is the extent to which a religion that worships a lord, king, judge, prince, ruler, etc. contributes to the notion that should be what we all want.

Yes, Europe has come to terms with the limits of imperialism in a way we, Americans, have yet to learn. But our Constitution was written by people who knew the dangers of monarchy.

We have not yet learned how to teach the next generation about those dangers. So we must see them for ourselves. Look around. It's not the only thing going on, but it is the dominant theme.

Everybody wants to be rich, so we get exploited by our own temptations. Twas ever the same.

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

liberty and brotherhood were non-threatening enough to elites and kept them in.

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

is to take out the elite, one by one.

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

Extracted from Thanksgiving serves up some ‘old time religion’
Story Published: Nov 21, 2008
Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt of a popular column written by our late friend and teacher, John C. Mohawk (1945-2006). It was originally published in Nov. 2003.

When Americans are asked what they have to be thankful for, they produce a list of things related to their individual happiness or well being: good health, friends and family, economic well-being, and strong emotional relationships.

The English at the first Thanksgiving had reason to express gratitude to their God for their collective survival against difficult odds in a new land, and had they even a trace of self-awareness they might have included Squanto on their list.

The Indians of the time had a different custom. They recognized that life, all life on the planet, is a miracle of good fortune, that it is dependent on numerous components which include earth and vegetation and water and sun and moon and in all a complex order of higher powers and that humans, as a species which is aware of this good fortune, has an obligation to express a collective statement of gratitude in joyous celebration of the good gifts of the powers of the universe.


Happy Indian Heritage month, think of me and I will think of you. We have an obligation to express a collective statement of our gratitude in joyous celebration of the good gifts of the powers of the universe, do we not?

Yes we do.

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

I’m not sure many of my countrymen are ready to hear this from a Frenchman, but I sure am. I’ve been hearing these sounds in my head for years. (Except I thought it was “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” I’m not complaining. Maybe ecology IS the new equality.) I find Kempf’s list of obstacles right and questionable in turn, even though I support his main premise. I would expand the first; received wisdom or prejudices, to include mindsets and blind spots. P.E. Obama yesterday said that denial can no longer be a response to the environmental crisis, and NPR went OFF on definitions and types of denial that (I would say) we all share. And yes, it should have been obvious to us decades if not a century ago that unlimited growth on a finite planet is an idiotic basis for an economy. Technology, the second, will not be a fix-all, but it will alleviate problems and provide sustainable paths into the future. A new kind of balance between new and old technologies must be realized, with ecology rather than profit and waste dictating the choices. On employment I agree wholeheartedly. And I would respond to the fourth obstacle, U.S. exceptionalism, by again expanding the point. The U.S. populace must become educated to it’s image in the world and it’s responsibility for the cutting edge of the ecological crisis, i.e. an economy based on war, waste, blind wealth and lies. I believe Obama is the appropriate teacher. On dividing the oligarchy, I’m less sanguine but hopeful. It may take a massive shift to a democratically chosen state of economic justice. Good hearted or not, the rich will be slow to admit their responsibility or to part with more than a philanthropic fraction of their wealth. We share an abhorrence for advertising; I focus my criticism on TV ads because they are so dynamic and more difficult to ignore than those, for example, on this page. Advertising in the U.S. has so distorted the flow of free information that it bears huge responsibility for the environmental crisis, the war, the stolen elections and the market crash. I look to the internet to create a new balance in the information “market.” The left, as an obstacle, deserves more attention, criticism and often contempt than it gets. When will the Old Left drop out of the Republican party and recognize that ecological survival, economic justice, peace and traditional leftist values ALL point toward the same set of remedies, at their core a redistribution of the wealth? We may differ on the meaning of “progress” – again I think new technologies are part of the solution.

Yes, yes, yes, we are in fact witnessing AND participating in an unprecedented phase of the Human Experiment, one that will require widespread RETHINKING. Obama had my vote and active support when he was the first politician in my memory to use the term “mindset,” as in “I want to change the mindset that led us to war.” I’ve been arguing on my art rant that a revolution in thinking is a prerequisite to peaceful evolution – within a generation – to a new sustainably organized economy. I assume I’m echoing Kempf’s position when I wonder out loud and in writing: How can the fear of “redistributing the wealth” create such strong feelings, even in the middle class (!!??) when the fundamental questions have not been asked: How does the exercise of massive wealth impact human rights? or, Does the conspicuous consumption of the super-rich have an environmental impact? or What’s behind that compulsion to possess unimaginable wealth anyway? or for that matter and perhaps most important, How did the mountain of private wealth get ‘DISTRIBUTED’ in the first place? Rationally? Legally? Ethically? Morally? I call the strategy “Total Global Reparation.” Thank you Mr. Kempf.

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

In America most leaders are rich. Leaders set the example. Many want what they have, more than one house, private jets, many cars, etc.
This is a finite planet. There are only so many resources. When people emulate rich Americans they help to destroy the planet because we need many planets to support the rich American lifestyle. We don't have many planets.

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

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623

linked text

I am a scientist and I have to ­follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my ­opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: “I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?”

At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: “This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic,” and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we’ve seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly – and they’ve not grown for a long time.

I’ve seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies – carbon dioxide is not the driver.

The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it’s a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer.

If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we’d be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn’t be here otherwise.

People such as former American Vice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming – which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you’ve got no proof.

And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science.

To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that’s not global warming. They’re drying up for the very ­simple reason that most of them have dams around them.

So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and veget­ables for the supermarkets of Europe.


The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.

Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas.
That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.

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

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. The coal fire has to keep on
burning in case the wind dies or the sun goes down. 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: 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. Whoever
would pay for the reactor is the same person who would pay for the coal burner.

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.

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 Americans paranoid.
The coal industry's reason for doing so is the $100 Billion per year cash flow
they receive as long as you are afraid of all things nuclear. If you remain afraid
of all things nuclear and prevent the conversion from coal to nuclear everybody
dies. The cure is for everybody 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 people with respect to nuclear power.

I have never worked for the nuclear power industry.

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

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092944/

"User Comments
(Comment on this title)
12 out of 15 people found the following comment useful:-
I am the one,Orgasmatron, 9 April 2002
Author: warrentaylor-2 from australia

This is one of the most wittiest films made that covers everything ,eg: Religion ,Politics ,Social Classes etc, and the best part ITS A COMEDY. With just about every decent British comedian present,Too many to mention and the soundtrack is by MOTORHEAD. This film takes the p*** out of almost everything, so if your offended by unpolitically correct comments, don't watch this.If you not offended by the words (Poof,Black B**tard or F***king then you will love it."

We are supposed to be going to see Motorhead tonight and have got the tickets

But we aren't going cos I just heard my Brother died last night

And its incredibly fucking cold

Tony

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

How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
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. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air. Coal fired electric power plants account for
40% of our CO2 output.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter.
Industrial processes are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial
processes is concrete making even though the energy used is less.
The first step in concrete making is heating limestone [calcium
carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium oxide.
Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater
source of CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making,
metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear. After that,
sequester CO2 from industrial processes. Not that I like the car
makers, I don't. They royally deserve to go bankrupt just for
making short-lived unreliable cars. There is no engineering
reason why cars should not go at least 10 times as far as they do
before wearing out.

My sole source of income is my retirement annuity from the
federal government. I am telling you the above to avoid the
horrific consequences of global warming.

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

The number one issue is THE DOCTRINE OF PERPETUAL GROWTH of the global economy and the human population on Planet Over-Birth-Earth, an extremely fragile HOST ORGANISM of FINITE space and FINITE resources.

Wake up! Perpetual growth is NOT progress! IT IS CANCER! Old Coyote Knose! Old Coyote Knose!

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

RealClimate.org
8 May 2008
Filed under: Climate Science — stefan @ 1:55 PM

By Stefan Rahmstorf, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, William
Connolley, David Archer, and Caspar Ammann

Global cooling appears to be the “flavour of the month”. First, a
rather misguided media discussion erupted on whether global
warming had stopped, based on the observed temperatures of the
past 8 years or so (see our post). Now, an entirely new discussion
is capturing the imagination, based on a group of scientists from
Germany predicting a pause in global warming last week in the
journal Nature (Keenlyside et al. 2008).
Specifically, they make two forecasts for global temperature, as
discussed in the last paragraphs of their paper and shown in their
Figure 4 (see below). The first forecast concerns the time interval
2000-2010, while the second concerns the interval 2005-2015 (*).
For these two 10-year averages, the authors make the following
prediction:

“… the initialised prediction indicates a slight cooling relative to
1994-2004 conditions”

Their graph shows this: temperatures in the two forecast intervals
(green points shown at 2005 and 2010) are almost the same and
are both lower than observed in 1994-2004 (the end of the red line
in their graph).

Figure 4 from Keenlyside et al '08

The authors also make regional predictions, but naturally it was
this global prediction that captivated most newspaper stories
around the world (e.g. BBC News, Reuters, Bloomberg and so
on), because of its seeming contradiction with global warming.
The authors emphasise this aspect in their own media release,
which was titled: Will Global Warming Take a Short Break?

That this cooling would just be a temporary blip and would
change nothing about global warming goes without saying and has
been amply discussed elsewhere (e.g. here). But another question
has been rarely discussed: will this forecast turn out to be correct?

We think not – and we are prepared to bet serious money on this.
We have double-checked with the authors: they say they really
mean this as a serious forecast, not just as a methodological
experiment. If the authors of the paper really believe that their
forecast has a greater than 50% chance of being correct, then they
should accept our offer of a bet; it should be easy money for them.
If they do not accept our bet, then we must question how much
faith they really have in their own forecast.

The bet we propose is very simple and concerns the specific
global prediction in their Nature article. If the average temperature
2000-2010 (their first forecast) really turns out to be lower or
equal to the average temperature 1994-2004 (*), we will pay them
€ 2500. If it turns out to be warmer, they pay us € 2500. This bet
will be decided by the end of 2010. We offer the same for their
second forecast: If 2005-2015 (*) turns out to be colder or equal
compared to 1994-2004 (*), we will pay them € 2500 – if it turns
out to be warmer, they pay us the same. The basis for the
temperature comparison will be the HadCRUT3 global mean
surface temperature data set used by the authors in their paper.

...................article continues..............

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

Global Ocean Wind Energy Potential according to NASA

Wind Energy Potential according to NASA
Large images [On the original web site. If you look at the images, you see
that the best wind is at very INconvenient locations, like near Antarctica and in the
North Pacific ocean.]

"Wind energy has the potential to provide 10 to 15 percent of the world’s future
energy, according to Paul Dimotakis, chief technologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. Once windmills are installed, wind can be converted to electricity
inexpensively. But not everyone likes wind farms. The giant collection of whirling
blades mars scenic views and can kill birds and bats, particularly if located in a
high-traffic flyway. To minimize these risks, one solution may be to place wind
farms in the ocean. Wind tends to blow stronger over the ocean than over land.
The ocean presents a smooth surface over which wind can glide without
interruption, while hills, mountains, and forests tend to slow or channel wind over
land.

But, as any sailor could tell you, wind over the ocean isn’t consistent. In some
places, the air is still, while in others, the wind blows fiercely. To identify potential
wind farm locations, NASA scientists Tim Liu, Wenqing Tang, and Xiaosu Xie, all
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, mapped out average wind intensity over the
ocean between 2000 and 2007. They created their maps from data collected by
NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuickSCAT), which measures wind speed and
direction over the world’s oceans. The satellite sends pulses of microwave energy
through the atmosphere to the ocean surface and measures the energy that bounces
back from the wind-roughened surface. The energy of the microwave pulses
changes depending on wind speed and direction. The scientists averaged
QuikSCAT’s measured wind speeds by season, and then calculated the wind
power density, the amount of energy that could be derived from a wind turbine in a
given location. Their maps for the winter and summer seasons are shown here.

Wind strength is influenced by seasonal patterns, land-ocean interactions, land
topography, and ocean temperatures. All of these interactions are evident in this
pair of images. Areas of high wind power density, where winds are strongest, are
purple, while low power density regions are light blue and white.

The largest patterns shown in the images are seasonal patterns. In December,
January, and February, winter storms fuel strong winds in the mid-latitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere. In June, July, and August, winter reigns in the Southern
Hemisphere, and the pattern is reversed. The Asian monsoon also controls the
seasonal distribution of wind. In June, July, and August, strong winds gust across
the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. From December to February, the monsoon
winds blow over the East China Sea. Finally, the trade winds trace their way
across the tropics, stronger in the winter than in the summer."

==================article continues at the URL above=========

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

Yucca Mountain contains an enormous supply of nuclear fuel that
should not be wasted. We don't recycle nuclear fuel because
spent fuel is valuable and people steal it. The place it went that it
wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small town
near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in
the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job
there, designing a nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [The
army offered me more money to work on nuclear weapons
effects.] [A nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting
many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor.
Numec "lost" a quantity of reactor grade uranium. It wound up in
Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their nuclear power plants
and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear "waste." See:
Pittsburghlive

It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United
States. It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste"
that you have to do the difficult process of enriching uranium,
unless you have a Canadian "CANDU" reactor or a British
Magnox reactor, both of which run on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel
in the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution
at that time, given that private corporations did the reprocessing.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO
plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion
would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

I have no financial stake in the nuclear power industry, and I
never have. Nobody is paying me to say this.
See:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Factory made nuclear reactors.

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

breeders are destroying the earth and the big breeders are in Latin America, Africa and Asia(outside of China and Japan). eventually darwinian logic will overcome religious foolishness and the excess cellular matter produced by ignorant poor will be disposed of(in a green manner of course).

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

The following quotes, facts, figures and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter: What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."

---John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation

One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.

A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day. This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.

A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year. Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.

One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human's daily total. One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from 9 million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then. By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.

"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined."

---Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York

Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health. Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain. Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.

The world Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

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

The following quotes, facts, figures and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture. While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.

Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals. By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world's land resources.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

33 percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only 2 percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."

---Jeremy Rifkin, author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.

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

Not everybody who got lucky and succeeded in business or won the lottery or whatever is to blame for this mess. Just some of them.

Specifically the petrolords--the oil corporations, their owners and their allies in the finance industry. They're sitting on a trillion barrels of oil in the ground; they've got an enormous capital investment in tankers, fractionating plants, trucks, gas stations, etc. They mean to realize a full return on that investment. The petrolords own North America. They rule legislatures, auto companies, power companies and advertising media with an iron hand. We won't see any meaningful investment in 'alternative' energy or fuel-efficient transportation while those unimaginably rich and powerful creatures squat over our land, governments and political economies.

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

If read your history books and actually looked up the facts, you would have realized that I was correct but don't let me stop you from being a foam-at-the-mouth Malthusian because pointing out the facts to dingbats such as yourselves is like trying to pull the Limbaugh dittoheads out of their blind worship of the rightwing.

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

"We have to change direction in X years because if we wait twice as long, nothing will get done (and no one will fund us) and if we claim we have less time, nothing will get done in time (and no one will fund us)."

In terms of global warming, we are actually vastly late now. I can't help it. That's the truth. No baloney.

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

"...growth as the sole means of resolving social problems."

But growth can be useful. It solves some social problems. Some.

"technological progress will resolve environmental problems."

Certain types of technological progress will help quite a bit. Other technologies are neutral, and some technologies are just plain accursed.

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

This author is getting really weird! "Europe" is made up of many countries, many parties, many individuals, as is the U.S. In particular, W. Bush does not, and should not, speak for the rest of us.

Next is the whole idea of the "rich" having all the power. Power is also measured in wisdom, in connections, in fame. A drug-addled trust fund baby may have lots of money but little real power to change anything.

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

If it continues at the current rate

Unless WE Get Rid Of The Lunatics Currently In CONTROL

They are already CRASHING The Entire Financial System Of The WORLD

And They Have Got These BLOOD and GORE CRAZIES closing down Coal and Nuclear Fired Power Stations and replacing them with fucking Windmills

America and Russia Currently Grow an ENORMOUS amount of FOOD

With even a mini-ice age

That FOOD Simply WILL NOT GROW

And You TOTALLY FUCKING INSANE IDIOTS are complaining About CO2 causing Global Warming?

I KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE INCREDIBLY FUCKING COLD

And it ain't nice

Tony

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

From:
energy.gov
we find:
"The Price-Anderson Act (PAA) provides a system of
indemnification for legal liability resulting from a nuclear incident
in connection with contractual activity for DOE."

Contractual activity for DOE nas nothing to do with electric
utilities' nuclear power plants.

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

Reference: "Google and the myth of universal knowledge"
by Jean-Noel Jeanneney 2007 The original is in French.

When you do a Google search, you get "sponsored" links
on the right side and "non-sponsored" links on the left.
The "NON-SPONSORED" links on Google ARE LISTED
IN THE ORDER OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER to lowest
bidder. Companies pay dollars to Google to get web sites
other than their own that lie in favor of the paying company
to be at the top of the "non-sponsored" list. Google search
results in your getting nothing but corporate propaganda.
Since the coal industry has a $100 Billion per year income
at stake, they can and must share a lot of money with
Google.

Page 32: 62% of internet users questioned make no
distinction whatever between advertising and other
information, and only 18% proved capable of telling which
data were paid for by companies for their promotion and
which were not."
"92% of users of search engines have full confidence in the
results of their search, and 71% (users for less than five
years) consider that information from this source [Google]
is never biased in any way."

Suggestion: Use only Google Advanced or Google Scholar.
On Google Advanced, specify either the .gov domain or the
.edu domain. Otherwise, use only web sites that
www.RealClimate.org uses.

There should be a law requiring Google to disclose the above
and the donors and the dollars for each "non-sponsored" link.
Environmentalists should work on Google legislation first.

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

etc

MUPPET

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

Snow in London
A sudden cold snap brought snow to London in October
# Read more from Christopher Booker

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
# EU facing revolt over climate change target enforcement
# EU plans new energy deals
# Himalayan glaciers 'could disappear completely by 2035'

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

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

The real truth: Nuclear power is cheapest in spite of coal company propaganda.
"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.
[Supposed subsidies cover the cost caused by irrational protesters. That is a cost
of civil order, not a cost of nuclear power. The price would be lower if the safety
level were lowered to equal other sources of electricity.]

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.]

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

Who the fuck is "Yahweh"?

FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

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

The videos below are about change, inspiration, belief and compassion. I hope you like them and share them with everyone you know. We are headed in a new direction in the world we live and we as a society should embrace this new era with love. I ask for your support in helping spread the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM58nqX1ehE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN_pGy_1bEg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD0iAQN7VPY

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH9BtZwTyHo

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UssvnQMn-EM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdfvQmh3b90

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Enn5yiY-0

Go to youtube and do a search for "thinkverybig" and watch all of those videos. The one called "We Must Change" would be fitting to recite at Obama's Inauguration.
Here's a community organizer that's reached out to over 20,000 youth and has a goal of touching a million by teaching them the game of life using the game of chess. Click below to watch video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLFENGymr34

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

Emergency! The rich are destroying the earth! Ten years to go! Sure, sure. Where have we heard this before?

But...I hesitate to criticize environmental hysteria because it promotes skepticism about the whole movement, and that's a good thing.

Who says that people aren't sacrificing enough for the environment? Millions of consumers have said they're not buying it - figuratively and literally. They know a come-on when they see it.

Keep up the good work, Kempf.

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

Nothing drives people away from liberal ideas like these sort of articles.

As long as you take the "blame everything on the rich" stance, you are certain to have at least 75% of Americans against you.

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

Well, the way I see it, we're all in this together. Here in Sedona, Arizona, an advantaged-class retirement town, the number of Prisuses is growing fast, will Hummers are now being driven by illegal aliens probably because ten of them can pool their resources to fill the tank.

The very classy health food store is filled with shoppers buying fabulous organic foods, often grown locally. Most shoppers are thin and healthy.

Solar is going over big, along with water conservation, recycling, and mountain bicycling.

Those with sufficient resources are really taking healthy, sustainable living (quality of life and conservation) serious.

Unfortunately, the seeds of social and economic justice have yet to germinate. Wealthy retirees still choose to hire illegal aliens as gardeners and maids because they are both docile and cheaper.

However, the tourist business is sinking fast which is resulting in a massive growth of the "invisible poor". Even illegal aliens are starting to move out.

For social justice to gain support, personal qualities such as empathy must emerge. We still have a long way to go, baby! Giving a few cans of beans to the local food bank doesn't really amount to much more than a hill of beans. Oh darn!

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

Most of the comments above are, alas, disappointing.

The Herve Kempf article (and book) - which says what we at dipconsult have been saying for years, but far better and with far more authority - makes one particularly important point: Europe must lead over saving the planet.

Obama certainly sees the problem (e.g. he repeats M L King's "the fierce urgency of now") and if he really does set up an alternative energy movement like Kennedy's massive 'go to the moon' effort, we may get somewhere.

But he is dogged by the wide-spread refusal in America and elsewhere to accept that our Western lifestyle is indeed endangering the planet. He has to work against the Bushian brakes that have cost us 8 years (not to speak of the Republican brakes in Congress which for another 8 years wrecked Clinton's none too robust efforts).

So it is essential that Europe speak with one voice for once and drags the US along with it on the many issues humanity faces.

We must all get away from the mind-set of confrontation in favour of a new era of international cooperation made possible by the end of the Cold War.

Fortunately Obama is a 'Cassandra' (one of us who warned in vain of the worldwide disasters of invading Iraq before that war started). So he is free from trying to justify his past - and so may be able to wean America from confrontation and get it on the track of cooperation.

If that's to happen, though, the US must at least tacitly abandon the G W Bush neo-conservative militaristic drive to create a unipolar world - unacceptable even to US allies like Germany and France.

But here too Europe needs to speak with one voice and act in unity to help him.

For more see our website www.dipconsult.eu

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

Al Gore is a good example of the rich killing the earth!

Great Article!

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

Over population. The more people that are brought into this world, the quicker we plunge towards an ecological disaster. Humans are parasites by nature. They are the only species on this planet that do not fit into the ecological cycle and formula. Why? Because we're too smart. We do not follow the original natural instinctual methodology that other creatures on this planet continue to follow even after millions of years of evolution.

Unfortunately, we're still not smart enough though. We're at least 100-200 years away from being able to travel to other planets in the universe. Therefore, until then we need to educate the ignorant that having too many kids ruins the one and only planet we have right now: Earth. Explain it in a way they can understand. Tell them that having a kid is like taking a big dump in their kitchen. Then, without ever cleaning it up, every time they need to take a dump, they (including however many kids they have) add to the ever growing pile. Soon enough that pile grows so large, that the kitchen isn't big enough and so pretty soon the pile starts to overflow into the dining room and then into the living room. After a short time, you have one big giant house of shit. Now, multiply that by 5 billion+ people doing the same thing every day and you have what we call Earth. They'll get the picture.

If you say you want to "save the earth", then you need to stop breeding and to encourage others to stop breeding. People who have 2+ kids should be admonished and scorned like we do to smokers now. It used to cool to smoke, but not anymore. It used to be cool to have a ton of kids, but not anymore. If you call yourself "green" or state that you have a very small carbon footprint, then you better not have more than 1 kid. Otherwise you are contributing to the demise of the planet and are just as bad, if not worse, than the "Rich".

Perhaps the world should take a lesson from the Chinese. No, I'm not talking about the forced abortions and sterilizations on women that had more than one kid. That's of course completely inhumane and unethical, but also impractical. I'm talking about the more recent practice of issuing steep fines on parents that have more than one kid.

No more tax breaks for having Earth Killers (kids). Instead, we should tax the parents that have more than one kid. We could start off relatively small: The first kid is tax-free. The 2nd kid would be a $10,000 tax. Every kid after would be $100,000. We could call it a carbon footprint tax or Save The Planet tax to help them feel like they are counter-contributing to the demise of our collective home. The tax collected could be used for ecological research or for finding a way to travel to other planets.

I know, the tax wouldn't work here in the States. Both the Left and the Right (for two completely different reasons) would no doubt balk at this plan. Both sides would be ingenuously saying that people have the 'right' to have as many kids as they want, regardless if they (or we as planet) can afford them.

Hey, to deter this looming ecological disaster, we as the only intelligent(?) species on this planet have to be willing to make sacrifices. Stop breeding!

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

Modern Republicans (Wall St., no-tax Reganites) and Modern (DLC) Democrats are still into competition as a world view and life-view.

Postmodern Democrats (progressives) have evolved up the spiral to green where interdependent cooperation while retaining full individual initiative, cooperation, uniqueness (This is the ideal, anyway for progressives' level).

The video at the link below presents the notion that there are really four (major) political parties in the U.S. now -
traditional Rep., modern Rep., modern Dem,. and postmodern Dem (progressive). Not an earthshakingly new idea, but an important one, and one that although it's pretty obvious, until it's delineated, a lot of people ignore:

http://integrallife.com/node/15724

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

Join the Green Party!

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

Resturants are the enemy without question. They destroy our health, our economy and our environment.

Let's examine the matter closely. In the first place they push expensive red meat and greasy french fries and other fried foods. People can cook better for themselves at home and be healthier. Think Supersize Me!! Fast Food Resturants cause more heart attacks than we know.

Fast food resturants, especially taken together with the entire resturant industry in the US, are responsible for the Concentrated Animal Feed Operations that destroy the environment. According to the EPA, 85% of all factory farms (animal feed operations) don't meet EPA public health and environmental standards. Many people have died in small rural towns from toxicity due to manure overloads from Animal Feed Operations. These operations make billions serving industrial consumers of beef, eggs, poultry and pork such as the resturant industry. The stench from these operations have rendered many small communities uninhabitable.

Resturants are America's worst employers. The offer low wage, dead end jobs often done by illegal immigrants. If all the money wasted in resturants were spent in unionized grocery retail chains where the average hourly wage currently exceeds $12/hour our economy would be more viable and people would earn better money. In addition, the unionized sector would grow thus helping the US labor movement to flourish. The UFCW represents thousands of workers and more jobs would strengthen the US middle class and the labor movement in general.

Let's kick resturants to the curb where they belong. They are becoming the real enemy of America.

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

My French Friend Emmanuel Taught Me That It is

COMPLETELY O.K.

To Hug and Kiss YOUR FRIENDS

REAGARDLESS OF WHETHER They WERE

MALE Or FEMALE

It Simply Does Not Matter

Love is Love

And It's Perfectly O.K.

To Not Only Love Your FRIENDS

But also Express That LOVE By PHYSICALLY

Cuddling Them Really Tight

And Pressing Your Head Really Close To Your fRIENDS HEaD


It doesn't matter if they are the same sex as you and whether or not you may or may not want to do it with the genitals as well

I'm talking


BRAIN SEX

Just a Cuddle

The French Ain't Stupid

Tony

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

Of Converting All Their Stored Destructive Energy In Their Nuclear MISSILES


In an ENOROUS NUMBER of NEW Nuclear Power Stations - Some Really Small...

To Maintain Current Levels of Electricity Across AMERICA

And Bring The Rest Of The World UP To These Normal Standads of Life For ALL Human Beings Across Our Planet Earth

Or The Rest Of The World Will Do It

And We will Continue To Donate a Few Dollars

To The Second Harvest

FEEDING AMERICA

Can't you just get Obama to Arrest All The War Criminals

If Not Then America Can FUCK OFF

The Rest Of The World is Not Scared Of Your BOMBS

America needs to start trying to provide Everything itself for the People of America in the Land of America

Rather Than Raping and Pillaging The Rest Of The World

Sure I know us British were Cunts

But 200 years later the People of the Countries we totally fucked over

Are STILL PROUD to be a part of the

BRITISH COMMONWEALTH

And they ALL HATE AMERICANS

Because Americans Have Got

NO CLASS

Tony

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

Princess Diana Couldn't Produce an EVIL Child

Americans Don't Understand

They Have No History Except Us Europeans Told Their Great Great Gandparents To FUCK OFF

And to demonstrate how lucky us Europenas were to get rid of these evil bastards

They go off and kill Over 90% of The Native Americans and Native Australians

And People Blame all The Shit on The Fucking Jews

Almost so completely insignificant in the history of the world - i am amazed they even get a mention

Its the fucking Welsh that you want to be worried about

Tony

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

We Have Got Your NUMBER

And I suggest you evil cunts just melt away

And Let

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

Do His Job

Tony

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

I have an EGG account with you

But I NEVER DEPOSITED ANY MONEY

It is an EGG Card Where I GET FREE INTEREST FROM YOU

I Have Always Paid The Balance OFF Every Month - Once We Had Dumped OUR SHIT ON YOU

And The Amount of SHIT YOU Have Spread All OVER THE WORLD.......

You STINK TO HIGH HELL

And I am amazed that anyone is even thinking about buying any of your assets

So Citybank

Fuck Off and Die

Tony

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

We Know Who You CUNTS ARE

AND YOU WILL BE ARRESTED

AND WILL FACE A WAR CRIME TRIBUNAL

Where you will identify all the Criminals in Control

You Are All Going To Spend The Rest Of Your Lives in JAIL

Tony

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

The below are exerpts from a paper by Dr. Smalley found
at:
Smalley paper
with my comments on Smalley's mistakes.

Smalley: Imagine that by mid-century, nano-technologies,
new materials, and possibly new physics will have enabled
us to create local storage units for electrical energy that are
not much bigger than this lectern. The units would store
100 kilowatt-hours, which is enough to run a normal house
for 24 hours.
Asteroid Miner: That is 4167 watts average. A small
house starts with 200 amp service, which is 22000 watts
available at all times. Smalley must be living in a one room
house which is very small indeed! Smalley lives in Texas
but he has foregone air conditioning? Sorry professor, air
conditioning is a necessity in most of the country, especially
in Texas! Multiply that storage capacity by 5.3 to get a
reasonable storage capacity to start with.

Smalley: If we tried to run this type of unit right now
using a lead acid battery, the unit would have to be about
20 times this volume —the size of a small room. The cost
would be around $10,000. I believe that if we really put
our minds to it, we could think of a way to shrink the unit
volume significantly and drop the cost dramatically. There
must be many technologies that would fit inside this “box”
and store that amount of energy..
Asteroid Miner: IF Smalley's guess is right on the cost per
unit, and I doubt it, the cost is $53000.

Smalley: Since the unit would have to be inexpensive —a
few thousand dollars at most —customers who were not
satisfied could replace their units or trade up to a better
model, as they do now with other technical products such
as computers. It would be a way to “PC ” this critical
aspect of the energy industry. Every five years or so, on
average, customers would opt to upgrade their storage unit,
based on local economic incentives and newly available
product improvements driven by free markets and
entrepreneurship.
Asteroid Miner: So the entrepreneurs get another chance
to rip us off another $53000 every five years. $53000 is a
whole year's gross income for most people. It is also half
the price of the house these batteries are storing power for.
Smalley may be able to afford such nonsense, but most of
us cannot. Of course, the batteries will be designed to fail
in 5 years, just in case you had any inclination to keep them
longer.

Smalley: In fact, we already have dc lines that carry
electricity for 1500 miles
Asteroid Miner: WRONG! We have AC lines, not DC
lines, that carry electricity for 1500 miles. 1500 miles is the
limit because power losses are too great beyond 1500 miles.
There are both resistance losses and radiative losses in a
line that long. To make an electric power transmission line
go all the way around the earth, as solar power requires, we
need a superconducting DC line. The superconductor
must be cooled to near absolute zero. Doing so is possible,
but the expense is so high, and the failures would be so
often, that it isn't really feasible.

Smalley: Nuclear power plants should be located in
remote places.
Asteroid Miner: WRONG! Smalley assumes that nuclear
power plants are dangerous. He is wrong. Nuclear
power is the safest kind. Nuclear power plants should be
located inside or very near cities.

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

Humans have the smarts to extract a billion years of solar energy from the earth. In two hundred years we create industrial, agricultural and medical revolutions that enable us to become the most abundant large species to inhabit the face of the earth, ever. Shows we are smart, but doesn't prove we are smart enough to gracefully exit the fossil fuel orgy.

Oil and coal will be burned by rich and poor alike. It is easier to burn oil than to keep a stable with a hundred horses and a compound with a hundred slaves.

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

"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 249: "The manufacture of photovoltaic panels requires highly
toxic heavy metals, gasses, and solvents that are carcinogenic. ........
If a residential fire burns a solar panel, people would be at risk for
exposure to toxic vapors and smoke, ... . If modules are dumped
into municipal landfills, then heavy metals such as arsenic and lead
can leach into the soil and water table. Hundreds of thousands of
years from now, some of those substances will still not have
decayed: their life spans are essentially eternal."

Page 250: "Solar farms big enough to supply 1,000 megawatts per
year [sic] or more would cover over fifty square miles and produce
a quantity of toxic waste that would be significant."
"For the 70 to 80 percent of the time when nature isn't cooperating
[with your solar power scheme], you need the grid or a fossil-fuel
generator."

Page 251: Solar power requires cutting down trees to keep the
trees from shading your solar panels.
"Wind tends to fail during heat waves. ... Wind power turned out
to be highly unreliable, with capacity plunging from its usual 33
percent to 4 percent during the time of peak demand."

Page 257: World CO2 emissions from electricity generation come
to 9,500 million metric tons a year. Using a small footprint,
hundreds of nuclear plants in more than thirty countries cut carbon
emissions by 600 million metric tons every year."

Page 269: "[E]very day the collective households and industries of
America throw away nearly a million tons of garbage containing
toxic heavy metals and dangerous chemicals, as well as plastics that
will never break down. That garbage will be our culture's real
legacy, enduring for millions of years after all the present nuclear
waste has decayed."

Page 290: There is a mistake: She says that the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant in New Mexico is the only nuclear waste repository in
operation. France has one.

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

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]

This is a Gobble-Goop article. I hope the author got what ever EVIL SPIRIT he/she had in his/her head out and feels better!

Sorry this is just so over the TOP it is disconcerting. I don’t consider this ARTICLE informative, useful, or even relevant.

The best working systems in the world to date are Republics, Democracies, and Capitalism. Communism, Socialism, and Fascism system have all failed.

To solve today’s wows existing systems must be improved upon. Anarchy and/or total re-write will NOT work.

Critical thinking in the UNITED STATES is not main stream. Emotional thinking and how-do-you feel about it today thinking are used. Sound bite analysis is used, here is a quick example.

“Bill of Rights” and “Polar Bears are Dying” – okay say these are two topics.

Q1) Are the dying polar bears from the North, South or Both poles?
Q2) How many Bill are in the Bill of Rights?

I would suggest to you that most people would miss at least 1 of these questions maybe both.

So it you don’t understand the very basics just running around like a worried “sound-bite-driven” Thanksgiving Turkey and being an Anarchist is not the solution.

I would suggest to everyone become competent on where we are and move forward from that position.

The person that wants 100% change and touts their analysis and an anarchy solution needs to be recognized for their single minded self servicing blinded would-be leader they want to become.

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

I heard an amazing statement that illustrates the moral distance between the two sides in the environmental debate. It was uttered during a disagreement between a conservative and an environmentalist.

The person in question had just been reminded that, worldwide, two million people (two million children) die of a single preventable, treatable disease every year.

That person's reply was, "Yeah, yeah, millions of people die of different diseases..."

By the way, that indifference was uttered on Thanksgiving Day.

You be the judge about which side in the environmental debate is two quarts low on humanity, and which people need to put a little compassion on their Christmas wish list.

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

...how we got conned into believing that greed is the proper impetus of our economic dealings? What if we accepted lust as the primary motive of our community endeavors?

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

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8512 Yes it seems Russia now has democracy? Even when it was Communist (sharing of wealth) the rich were there under it all. The people suffered thinking it was fair and equal when it was not. It was corrupt. It is still corrupt.

The Russian Empire fell into debt a short time because of their bad foreign policy and wars. The Cold War is back due to President Bush and his oil policies.

We see many of the wealthy Russians in Miami with their yachts, etc. Don't ask them to suffer like the average Russian.

Most the resources in the country were owned by the state. Now the few elite have it. It is called "privatization". This is occurring all over the world with the "privatization" of the countries resources and wealth. Globalization is the privatization of the resources by the elite. It is corrupt and it is dangerous since it consolidates the power and wealth in the hands of the few.

Globalists who say we are better off are lying. We don't need a world trade organization who does not make sure things are honest, equal, or fair (the EU and China profits most off us). We can do trade which benefits us not destroy our wealth, security, and democracy.

We Americans should get out of the World Trade Organization and stop globalization by our leaders who would betray us. It is not in our best interest. Our country is on its knees because of them. Make those secret organizations who meet and decide our future illegal. Under the Logan Act Americans who join them are committing a felony. It is not democracy by "We the people" but corruption by the few elite (many who prospered by the democratic contract but want it all to themselves).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act The Logan Act was last amended by Nancy Pelosi. It's not enforced since Congress can't regulate themselves. The FBI and Attorney General fail to enforce it also. No public action group has moved to fight it either. It seems to be ignored by the media as a potential threat to our democracy and security.

The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderburg Group (leaders Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller) have American citizen leaders, bankers, business leaders, journalists, etc. who are not elected to represent us or our goals. Their goal is World Order Government by the few elite. If they had no power no one would attend the secret meetings. It is a felony by these unelected for that purpose to meet in secret deciding our future. It is treason and betrayal by our elected leaders to allow its existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderburg_group Bilderburg Group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission Trilateral Commission

These groups are more than discussion groups or they wouldn't be secret. To meet in secret in a democracy is betrayal anyway. They divide up the world like it is a board game.

No society can prosper with corrupt, greedy, war mongering, and lying leaders. It is a public trust which has been abused. History proves this over and over. It's obvious their blindness to this fact is missing since they drag us down with them. They lie and act like we run our own democratic country when we do not.

Our political leaders seem to be puppets to these secret organizations for their own wealth and power. Some are put out of power or used as stooges for the "greater good" of the power elite.

It is very much an Orwellian type government we have today. They create the problem and then the solution. They don't have "solutions" which work though for the survival of humans.

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

People should know that the fewer children they have, the more resources they have for the children they do have and the more resources they have to enjoy life with.

But we have these people who continue to breed entire litters because they haven't gotten the message that THE MORE PEOPLE, THE FEWER THE RESOURCES FOR THESE PEOPLE.
Mexico sends their surplus over our borders in tidal waves of immigration and the ones in Africa die terrible deaths of malnutrition,and in civil wars over these scarce resources and the Chinese are arming themselves to the teeth and thinking about getting Lebensraum for their seething millions upon untold minions.
I have been told that some people LIKE big families. Yeah, and there are a lot of things I LIKE too that probably wouldn't be any good for me or the fellow earthlings I share this planet with...A lot of the international bloodshed are caused from the fear that there won't be enough resources for everybody.

THE FEWER PEOPLE,THE MORE RESOURCES FOR EVERYBODY SO SOMEONE,SOMEHOW NEEDS TO GIVE THESE BREEDERS BIRTH CONTROL BEFORE SOME SORT OF PLAGUE OR WAR DECIMATES THE PLANET AND WE ALL BECOME SPACE DUST!

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