Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Forget the Polar Bears -- The Climate Crisis Is About All of Us

By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted December 3, 2008.


Do we want to be remembered as the generation that saved the banks and let the planet collapse?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

George Bush is behaving like a furious defaulter whose home is about to be repossessed. Smashing the porcelain, ripping the doors off their hinges, he is determined that there will be nothing worth owning by the time the bastards kick him out. His midnight regulations, opening America's wilderness to logging and mining, trashing pollution controls, tearing up conservation laws, will do almost as much damage in the last 60 days of his presidency as he achieved in the foregoing 3,000.

His backers -- among them the nastiest polluto-crats in America -- are calling in their favors. But this last binge of vandalism is also the Bush presidency reduced to its essentials. Destruction is not an accidental product of its ideology. Destruction is the ideology. Neoconservatism is power expressed by showing that you can reduce any part of the world to rubble.

If it is now too late to prevent runaway climate change, the Bush team must carry much of the blame. His willful trashing of the Middle Climate -- the interlude of benign temperatures which allowed human civilization to flourish -- makes the mass murder he engineered in Iraq only the second of his crimes against humanity. Bush has waged his war on science with the same obtuse determination with which he has waged his war on terror.

Is it too late? To say so is to make it true. To suggest that there is nothing that can now be done is to ensure that nothing is done. But even a resolute optimist like me finds hope ever harder to summon. A new summary of the science published since last year's Intergovernmental Panel report suggests that -- almost a century ahead of schedule -- the critical climate processes might have begun.

Just a year ago, the Intergovernmental Panel warned that the Arctic's "late-summer sea ice is projected to disappear almost completely towards the end of the 21st century ... in some models." But, as the new report by the Public Interest Research Center shows, climate scientists are now predicting the end of late-summer sea ice within three to seven years. The trajectory of current melting plummets through the graphs like a meteorite falling to earth.

Forget the sodding polar bears: This is about all of us. As the ice disappears, the region becomes darker, which means that it absorbs more heat. A recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters shows that the extra warming caused by disappearing sea ice penetrates 1,500 kilometers (932 miles) inland, covering almost the entire region of continuous permafrost. Arctic permafrost contains twice as much carbon as the entire global atmosphere. It remains safe for as long as the ground stays frozen. But the melting has begun. Methane gushers are now gassing out of some places with such force that they keep the water open in Arctic lakes through the winter.

The effects of melting permafrost are not incorporated into any global climate models. Runaway warming in the Arctic alone could flip the entire planet into a new climatic state. The Middle Climate could collapse faster and sooner than the grimmest forecasts proposed.

Barack Obama's speech to the U.S. climate summit last week was an astonishing development. It shows that, in this respect at least, there really is a prospect of profound political change in America. But while he described a workable plan for dealing with the problem perceived by the Earth Summit of 1992, the measures he proposes are now hopelessly out of date. The science has moved on. The events the Earth Summit and the Kyoto process were supposed to have prevented are already beginning. Thanks to the wrecking tactics of Bush the elder, Clinton (and Gore) and Bush the younger, steady, sensible programs of the kind that Obama proposes are now irrelevant. As the PIRC report suggests, the years of sabotage and procrastination have left us with only one remaining shot: a crash program of total energy replacement.


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

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change

George Monbiot is the author Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

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


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great!
Posted by: bornxeyed on Dec 3, 2008 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But missing in this report is where this total energy replacement is going to come from.

Solar won't do it: 200w/m2 at the equator isn't enough

Wind won't do it, that is just solar energy, anyway.


Tides? As an engineer I can't figure out how a something with a 13 hour cycle and a "head" of about 20 feet maximum will provide continuous industrial levels of power and not destroy every ecosystem on every shoreline, even if it could.

Nor will the miraculous hemp plant save us all, although, according to our resident energy expert, Max, it can grow in a vacuum with no inputs and provide infinite energy for an infinity of people. And we can still eat it, too.

Ah, "faith-based physics", eh?

Nuclear might, but it isn't sustainable, and will dump just as much CO2 into the air anyway, and will take decades to implement. And it just leaves a toxic mess around whether we survive to maintain it or not.

Hydro is probably tapped out and the rotting vegetation upstream of damns dumps as much Co2 into the air as a similar sized natrual gas-fired power plant anyway.

Geothermal is the only sustainable, non-toxic energy source with the intensity to keep 7 billion people in some reasonable standard of living. But it seems conveniently missing from any short- or long-range energy plan.

So, what is the solution for total energy replacement?

It seems a major issue is being totally ignored. Where will the energy come from?

For 30 years we've been discussing this but it has been the same discussion. Nothing has chnaged since I was in high school but the amount of energy we use - double - and the time we have left - less than half.

We need to do something. So let's just keep talking about it a bit more, I am sure something is bound to pop into out heads, right, just as long as it doesn't involve reducing the number of people or giving up the Western standard of living.

Dream on!

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

» RE: Great! Posted by: pvanderk
» Forget it. Hydrogen is not a solution. Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» And for the record... Posted by: bornxeyed
» Let the Planet Collapse? Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» Ignore salt-of-the-earth. Posted by: bornxeyed
» What's the deal about avoiding CO2? Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» RE: What's the deal about avoiding CO2? Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» RE: Great! Posted by: asackett440
» RE: Great! Posted by: asackett440
» No one source, all of the above Posted by: greenknight
» and more Posted by: greenknight
Bailing Banks for Food
Posted by: TitanicExplorer on Dec 3, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mentioned that we would be remembered as the ones who bailed out the banks and not the biosphere.

I would say that if we don't bailout the biospere, there will be scant few to remember anything at all.

In the last month I have dug a 45 by 85 foot pond. The weather simulations in my region point to severe water shortages and increased monsoon type rain events.

Water harvesting. Whoo'da thunk it. Not Uncle Sam.

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

» RE: Bailing Banks for Food Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Bailing Banks for Food Posted by: TitanicExplorer
» RE: Bailing Banks for Food Posted by: bornxeyed
"eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and eliminate deforestation"
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Dec 3, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another use of polite code-words like "decarbonization". Why can't the editors simply state the obvious: eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

Oh, right, this is another sanitized Alternet headline. Here's the original:

"The planet is now so vandalised that only total energy renewal can save us. It may be too late. But without radical action, we will be the generation that saved the banks and let the biosphere collapse"

Note: please just use the original headline that the original author of the article came up with, would you?

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

» Ever hear of the Rain Forests? Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» RE: ver hear of the Carboniferous Period? Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» RE: ver hear of the Rain Forests? Posted by: Life of Illusion
Not only that, Alternet hacked the article in half! Here the real intro:
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Dec 3, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Bush is behaving like a furious defaulter whose home is about to be repossessed. Smashing the porcelain, ripping the doors off their hinges, he is determined that there will be nothing worth owning by the time the bastards kick him out. His midnight regulations, opening America's wilderness to logging and mining, trashing pollution controls, tearing up conservation laws, will do almost as much damage in the last 60 days of his presidency as he achieved in the foregoing 3,000.

His backers - among them the nastiest pollutocrats in America - are calling in their favours. But this last binge of vandalism is also the Bush presidency reduced to its essentials. Destruction is not an accidental product of its ideology. Destruction is the ideology. Neoconservatism is power expressed by showing that you can reduce any part of the world to rubble.

If it is too late to prevent runaway climate change, the Bush team must carry much of the blame. His wilful trashing of the Middle Climate - the interlude of benign temperatures which allowed human civilisation to flourish - makes the mass murder he engineered in Iraq only the second of his crimes against humanity. Bush has waged his war on science with the same obtuse determination with which he has waged his war on terror.

Is it too late? To say so is to make it true. To suggest there is nothing that can be done is to ensure that nothing is done. But even a resolute optimist like me finds hope ever harder to summon. A new summary of the science published since last year's Intergovernmental Panel report suggests that - almost a century ahead of schedule - the critical climate processes might have begun.

Just a year ago the Intergovernmental Panel warned that the Arctic's "late-summer sea ice is projected to disappear almost completely towards the end of the 21st century ... in some models." But, as the new report by the Public Interest Research Centre (Pirc) shows, climate scientists are now predicting the end of late-summer sea ice within three to seven years. The trajectory of current melting plummets through the graphs like a meteorite falling to earth.

Forget the sodding polar bears: this is about all of us. As the ice disappears, the region becomes darker, which means that it absorbs more heat. A recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters shows that the extra warming caused by disappearing sea ice penetrates 1,000 miles inland, covering almost the entire region of continuous permafrost. Arctic permafrost contains twice as much carbon as the entire global atmosphere. It remains safe for as long as the ground stays frozen. But the melting has begun. Methane gushers are now gassing out of some places with such force that they keep the water open in Arctic lakes through the winter.

The effects of melting permafrost are not incorporated in any global climate models. Runaway warming in the Arctic alone could flip the entire planet into a new climatic state. The Middle Climate could collapse faster and sooner than the grimmest forecasts proposed.

Barack Obama's speech to the US climate summit last week was an astonishing development. It shows that, in this respect at least, there really is a prospect of profound political change in America. But while he described a workable plan for dealing with the problem perceived by the Earth Summit of 1992, the measures he proposes are hopelessly out of date. The science has moved on. The events the Earth Summit and the Kyoto process were supposed to have prevented are already beginning. Thanks to the wrecking tactics of Bush the elder, Clinton (and Gore) and Bush the younger, steady, sensible programmes of the kind that Obama proposes are now irrelevant. As the Pirc report suggests, the years of sabotage and procrastination have left us with only one remaining shot: a crash programme of total energy replacement.

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

Nuclear power CAN do it, and we have fuel for 5000 years if we recycle and breed nuclear fuel, as I have told you many times before.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 3, 2008 11:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Renewing nuclear fuel.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 3, 2008 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything, including yourself, is made of atoms. All atoms have nuclei. You
have many atomic nuclei inside yourself since you are made of atoms. The
simplest nucleus is one proton. That would be a hydrogen atom. An oxygen
atom has 8 protons and either 8, 9 or 10 neutrons in its nucleus. All other nuclei
also have neutrons. Uranium has 92 protons and either 143 or 146 neutrons. If it
has 143 neutrons it is U235. If it has 146 neutrons, it is U238. Nuclear fuel is
only 2% to 8% U235, the kind that fissions/divides, providing energy. The rest is
U238 that doesn't fission. A nuclear reaction happens when a neutron is captured
by a nucleus. If a U235 nucleus captures a neutron, the nucleus and the atom split
approximately in half and 3 more neutrons are released because the 2 smaller
nuclei don't need so many neutrons. If a U238 nucleus captures a neutron, it
ejects an electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The U238 thus becomes
Plutonium 239. Plutonium is fissionable, which means that plutonium is a good
fuel. If you add Thorium to the fuel, you can make more fissionable uranium. If
a Thorium atom nucleus captures a neutron, it ejects an electron and the neutron
becomes a proton. The Thorium atom thus becomes U233. U233 is fissionable.

Depending on the design of the reactor and the mix of the fuel, the fuel % in the
reactor can either grow or shrink. It is kind of like the fuel gauge can go either up
or down, but it is more like the reactor can run hotter or cooler over time. The
temperature is kept constant by adjusting the control rods. A breeder reactor is a
reactor designed to make the fissionable part of the fuel load grow rapidly.
Normally, fuel is left in the reactor for about 10 years, or 10% of the fuel is
replaced each year. The reprocessing step sorts out the fuel and puts the
percentage of fissionable fuel back to the starting percentage. In the process,
plutonium may be removed and either wasted or used as fuel. If we add thorium
to the fuel, we can make more uranium than we put in. Since the earth contains
more than twice as much thorium as uranium, it would be wise to make thorium
into uranium. By reprocessing nuclear fuel, we get an enormous, many centuries
long fuel supply. The products of fission are also removed when fuel is
reprocessed. These are just other ordinary atoms that are no longer useful as fuel.
The quantity is very small. We should reprocess fuel to keep the fuel load at the
correct percentage of fissionable fuel for the particular reactor design. Instead, we
go through the expensive process of making more "virgin" fuel for each new fuel
load. This greatly increases the price you pay for electricity. We are not
reprocessing nuclear fuel for political reasons.

I have zero financial interest in nuclear power, and I never have had a financial
interest in nuclear power. My sole motivation in writing this is to avoid extinction
by H2S gas. H2S is how global warming kills everybody if we don't act.

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

Why geothermal power is not possible in most locations:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 3, 2008 5:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At sufficiently high pressure, solid cold steel will flow like water.
The same is true of solid rock and any other material. As you
drill into the earth, the pressure increases with depth. The steel
pipe well casing at sufficient pressure changes from a large
diameter thin walled pipe to a small diameter thick walled pipe due
to the external pressure of the "solid" rock. Since the pressure is
equal all the way around and points toward the center of the pipe,
the pipe retains a circular cross section. Under more pressure, the
pipe becomes a solid rod. The deeper you drill, the greater this
effect becomes. The solid rock flows inward, clamping your drill
bit more and more as you drill deeper. For this reason, there is a
limit to the depth of any hole in the ground. The maximum depth
hole turns out to be too shallow to extract geothermal energy in
most locations.

I hope you will agree that drilling into liquid magma would be a
foolish idea. Yes, there are many people who live in Naples, Italy,
right beside Vesuvius. They live there in spite of the fates of
the people of ancient Pompeii and Herculanium nearby. Sorry,
but I am not that foolish.

Geothermal energy can be extracted ONLY where there is a hot,
but solidified, "Pluton" of rock near the surface of the earth. The
pluton is former magma that did not erupt as a volcano, but came
most of the way to the surface and stopped. Since the magma
pluton arrived at its location near the surface of the earth, a long
time, by comparison to a human lifetime, has passed so that the
magma has had time to cool enough to be very solid. The pluton
must still be plenty hot enough to boil water. The pluton must
also be sufficiently large to hold enough heat energy to keep
boiling water for a long time. These conditions are met in a few
places. In those few places, geothermal energy extraction is
possible.

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

» This makes sense, but what's the point? Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» Different types of geothermal Posted by: bornxeyed
Thank you George Monbiot. You are correct.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 3, 2008 6:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following is an article by Mark Lynas based on his book Six Degrees: Our
Future on a Hotter Planet. It was published in the Guardian on 23 April 2007. The
original version is available here.

1ºC: Nebraska isn’t at the top of most tourists’ to-do lists. However, this dreary
expanse of impossibly flat plains sits in the middle of one of the most productive
agricultural systems on Earth. Beef and corn dominate the economy, and the Sand
Hills region – where low, grassy hillocks rise up from the flatlands – has some of
the best cattle ranching in the whole US. But scratch beneath the grass and you
will find, as the name suggests, not soil but sand. These innocuous-looking hills
were once desert, part of an immense system of sand dunes that spread across the
Great Plains from Texas in the south to the Canadian prairies in the north. Six
thousand years ago, when temperatures were about 1C warmer than today in the
US, these deserts may have looked much as the Sahara does today. As global
warming bites, the western US could once again be plagued by perennial drought –
devastating agriculture and driving out human inhabitants on a scale far larger than
the 1930s “Dustbowl” exodus.

1ºC is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Since the year 1750, we have already caused 1.3
degrees Fahrenheit of global warming. You didn't notice it because you are not
300 years old. The rate of global warming continues to speed up. It won't take
much longer. Only another half a degree Fahrenheit and Americans stop eating.
American civilization collapses and 99.99% of all Americans and Europeans die.
Cannibalism happens.
Read: "Collapse" by Jared Diamond and "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan.
Something like 2 dozen civilizations have already disappeared because of climate
changes smaller than the one we have already caused. Starvation was the cause of
death. The rich have no more chance of being the 1 in 10,000 who survive than
anybody else. The most likely survivors are living in the stone age in a jungle or
on a tundra far, far away from you. The survivors have never seen or heard of a
computer. If you are reading this, you will not survive a crash of our civilization.
If you want to keep your computer and survive, you don't have enough
ammunition unless you live inside and army ammunition plant.

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

» explaination Posted by: jon B
» RE: explaination Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» more explaination Posted by: jon B
Factory built nuclear power plants.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 3, 2008 6:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following was downloaded from Hyperion
"Why Nuclear?
Each location on the planet offers its own unique set of energy
needs and challenges. No one type of technology can provide the
most appropriate solution everywhere. That’s why in order to
accommodate everyone on our planet, mankind must utilize a mix
of clean energy technologies that includes wind, solar, geothermal,
and nuclear.

None of the options available today are as perfect as we would
like them to be. Geothermal has its obvious site limitations, but so
do wind and solar. In addition to requiring large tracts of land for
“wind farms” and solar panels, the drawback of these
technologies is that neither can offer consistent, reliable baseload
electricity. When the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow
these types of plants do not deliver electricity.

Regardless of the weather, nuclear-based power plants can
produce base load electricity 24/7 with no greenhouse-gas
emissions.

And while researchers are constantly seeking ways to make
nuclear even more safe and efficient than it is now, nuclear is not a
“new” alternative to fossil fuel-based energy. It is the safest, most
reliable, and least harmful way to generate electricity. The 104
nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. provide over 20% of
the country’s electricity. For some nations, this percentage is
much more; in France 78% of the country’s electricity comes
from nuclear.

Now with Hyperion, communities and their infrastructures,
emergency operations, military bases and even industrial
operations, that, because of land limitations or other concerns,
could never hope for reliable nuclear power, can enjoy its benefits.
Hyperion Power Modules (HPMs) are small enough to be
transported by truck or ship, and are setup and operable quickly –
in much less time than the 10+ years it takes to build a traditional
nuclear power plant! Whether the location is a small island, a
remote mining site, or a hospital campus that needs independent
backup power, everyone can enjoy safe, clean, reliable, affordable
power."

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

If economics is the challenge, we've got plenty of possibilities
Posted by: curiouspatrick on Dec 3, 2008 11:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really appreciate Monbiot's clear statements of what we face, and I think that his perspective on the economic side of things is very shortsighted.

So, we're faced with 10% decline in consumption, as measured in national currency. Okay. We can deal with that. There are so many ways to work with that, and so many different ways of shaping our economy that are already in practice all over the world. The global "solidarity economy" movement and the Transition Towns movement are among the group of growing networks of economic change that will enable us to shift the ways we organize ourselves economically.

For more about solidarity economics, Transition Towns, and financial permaculture:
- Summary of the solidarity economy movement at the US Solidarity Economy Network website
- Another definition of the solidarity economy, and the links lead to more resources at the Transformation Central website.
- Other Economies are Possible at Grassroots Economic Organizing.
- Financial Permaculture definitions and look around the rest of the blog for a lot more ideas.
- The US Transition Network is a good entry point into the Transition Towns movement -- perhaps more aptly named the Transition Initiative movement, since there are Transition Islands, Counties, Cities, Counsels, and more.

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

No Politics, No Economics
Posted by: writerman on Dec 4, 2008 2:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the environmental crisis and the actions we need to take to avoid planetary collapse, with devastating effects for humans and many other species of fauna and flora, are fundamentally political and economic in nature.

We need, as priority, to radically democratize our economic system and the only way to do this is through political action, the people gaining power over the economy and changing it so that it benefits everybody, not just a tiny minority.

We desparately need a new political, economic and social paradigm, which puts the environment first and profits second.

Now, one can call this totally unrealistic, utopian, or whatever, that doesn't matter much. The real question is another; is 'free market' capitalism - realistic any longer? A dogma based on the strange, bizarre, idea that infinite growth is possible on a planet with finite resources.

It's important that we understand that 'capitalism' has passed its sell-by date as a system and is no a real threat to our civilization and our environment.

Simply put. We need to cut our consumption of all forms of energy and resources, if we are serious about saving the planet. Cutting energy consumption means cutting economic growth. How can we have capitalism without economic growth, or version of growth that has virtually nothing to do with capitalist economics?

Perhaps we won't even need to 'overthrow' capitalism at all? Maybe it's destroyed itself? Maybe this crisis signals the end of capitalism and the beginning of an era of 'permanent' economic stagnation and a massive decrease in econimic activity and consumption?

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

» Your point is too extreme Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» First and foremost Posted by: bornxeyed
The Conclusion
Posted by: writerman on Dec 4, 2008 2:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I missed the final bit of my first post.

I have to add that I was simplifying my thoughts and arguments greatly, but not the gist of them.

I think many Greens like Monbiot fundamentally ignore or choose to ignore, the harsh and brutal political and economic consequences of their arguments. They act as if it's possible to change our whole way of life fundamentally, our economic system, which is the only rational conclusion one can come to after having analysed their arguments; without changing and challenging the distribution of wealth and power in society. Ignoring this fundamental question is illusory. One can, of course, refuse to face up to these realities if one chooses, say that 'reforming' or 'replacing' capitalism is simply not possible, but I think it's foolish not to follow the logic of ones arguments and attitudes to their logical conclusion, no matter how disturbing, and political these answers prove to be. To do so is to merely blind ourselves to the real nature of the struggle we are involved in. Saving the planet is a profoundly political challenge.

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

» RE: The Conclusion Posted by: jon B
» RE: The Conclusion Posted by: writerman
» RE: The Conclusion Posted by: jon B
"Global warming" - just another scare propaganda
Posted by: laszlortreiber on Dec 4, 2008 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those old enough to remember, the debate over global warming may be reminiscent of the equally intense scare propaganda lasting for several years during the 1980s. Just like the predictions of doomsday then coming in form of “nuclear winter”, nobody can escape being exposed today to the projection of the ominous effects of greenhouse gases.

I certainly find the narrow scope of the ongoing “scientific” debate about “global warming” very disturbing. One does not need more than high school science education and common sense to question the scenarios as the alleged consequences of greenhouse gases generated by human activities.

Since the impact of carbon compounds on the climate is the issue, it is most appropriate to take a look at the history of carbon now found in fossils. There is absolutely no doubt about the fact, that at one time virtually all the carbon now trapped in fossils was present in the biosphere. After all, before carbon compounds became converted to fossils, they first, by definition, had to have been incorporated in living materials. With all the carbon available in the biosphere, the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and light hydrocarbons had to have been substantially higher in the atmosphere than it is now. Nevertheless, the evidence is overwhelming, that Earth not only did not go up in flames but instead it was a very inhabitable place providing favorable conditions for all kinds of living organisms to thrive.

Typical of the narrow scope of the rhetoric about “global warming” is the completely one-sided characterization of the significance of humans and their activities in the movement of carbon. The natural physical and chemical processes converting biomass to fossils are irreversible. The overall result of the phenomena involved in this process is, that the amount of carbon available in the biosphere is steadily diminishing and, on a geological time scale, it is certain that without human intervention it would eventually lead to critical shortage of carbon available for life on Earth.

Humans probably are the most successful species on our planet when it comes to their ability to adapt to virtually any condition Earth has to offer. As a matter of fact, for thousands of years humans were very resourceful in finding food, cloths and shelter in areas ranging from the frigid polar region to the scorching deserts, from high mountain ranges to farmlands several feet below sea level. Obviously, humans have the capacity to adopt to climate changes caused by their own activities or by nature, although the preference is obvious as evidenced by the voluntary migration of people to warmer climates (to e.g. Florida, Arizona, California, Costa Rica, Mexico, etc.). Historic records leave no doubt about the fact, that we have more reason to fear global cooling than warming. The agriculture-supported Viking settlements of Greenland established during the warming trend were wiped out and parts of Europe suffered from famine during the subsequent “little ice age”. Now, should “global warming” proceed as predicted, increasing temperatures would open up vast territories of Canada, Europe and Siberia for agriculture as well as industrial development, that currently are sparsely populated due to the climate too cold to be attractive for the majority of the population. I personally would very much like to plant some palm trees in New Jersey!

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

» RE: Weather is not climate Posted by: lessbread
» H2S and you, imperfect together Posted by: bornxeyed
The global cooling mole
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 4, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from RealClimate
Written By
John Fleck and William Connolley

7 March 2008
To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling
canard - "How can we believe climate scientists about global
warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was
imminent?" - must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-
mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down
the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of
us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he
quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in
his newspaper stories.

The problem is that the argument has played out in competing
anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of
what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time.
But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points
aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is
needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age,
it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they
thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science-
politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other
hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then
the argument needs to be retired.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic
Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond
the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at
the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time
human time scales. The results are currently in press at the
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice
has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended
version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting
in January is on line.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different
from what you see today. There was far less integration among the
various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote
sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in
their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in
the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between
1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral


In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you
believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were
doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that
increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any
changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping
its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does,
this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful
discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying
back in the 1970s.

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

» limitless supply? Posted by: jon B
» RE: limitless supply? Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» RE: limitless supply? a quick Google Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» more conspiracy theories Posted by: jon B
Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people including laszlortreiber.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 4, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:

Scientific American

....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
PennState

"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

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

Astrobiology 1

Astrobiology 2

Astrobiology 3

Astrobiology 4

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

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
Six Degrees

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

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

I have no connection to the nuclear power industry.

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

» This is Chicken Little Claptrap Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
4.6 Billion years ago, the sun was 30% dimmer than it is now.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 4, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[That does NOT mean that global warming NOW was caused by
the sun. It wasn't. The global warming we are dealing with was
caused by Humans. But in another 1 or 2 Billion years, the
increased solar heat will indeed be the cause of global warming.
Notice the "B" in Billion.]

4.6 Billion years ago, the earth NEEDED a lot more CO2 in its
atmosphere to keep from freezing because the sun was 30%
dimmer than it is now. NOW, we need to leave the coal in the
ground because the sun is 30% brighter than it was 4.6 Billion
years ago.

If plants had not sequestered CO2 as coal a few hundred million
years ago, we would not be here because the earth would be too
hot to support human life.

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

» You Make Up Whoppers out of Nothing. Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» RE: You Make Up Whoppers out of Nothing. Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
» RE: You Make Up Whoppers out of Nothing. Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
Monbiot Can't Even Analyse The Physics of 9/11 and Work Out What Happenned
Posted by: opmoc on Dec 4, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet clowns such as him are radically influencing World Government energy policy and stifling fundamental scientific debate.

Not only is the World Financial system being deliberately crashed - but so are the World Energy Supplies - ALL on the assumption that increased levels of CO2 are harmful to life.

A totally objective analysis results in the inevitable conclusion that it is people like Monbiot that are harmful to life.

Switch off all the Energy - and you will Kill 6 Billion People.

Not only is the Cure worse than the Disease, but the Disease itself han't even been analysed correctly.

Environmentalists are convinced the Disease is the human race and that the human race must be culled by over 90%. They just haven't the courage to say what they think.

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

» conspiracy Posted by: jon B
» RE: conspiracy Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: conspiracy Posted by: opmoc
» The flaw in your logic is .... Posted by: bornxeyed
» more logical flaws Posted by: jon B
CLIMATE, NOT WEATHER
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 4, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anthropic [human caused] Global Warming [AGW] began 250 years ago. We are
talking about CLIMATE, NOT WEATHER. In the 1950s and 1960s in my
home town in western New York state, it snowed 450 inches per year. Now it
snows only 96 inches per year. That is an average over at least a decade. In the
mid 19th century, the Mississippi river froze over in the winter so you could drive
on it at St. Louis. That's how St Louis became known as the gateway to the west.
Now the Mississippi river is ice-free at Davenport, Iowa, in most years. Hurricane
season starts in spring now. Hurricane season used to start in the fall. The
hurricanes are bigger now than ever before.

Great damage has been done, but we still have 8 years before natural positive
feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea level will continue to rise even if we
disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared to poison gas bubbling out of
the ocean and killing almost everything including all of the people.
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years.

If we don't follow the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive
feedbacks which will take the control of the climate out of our hands.
Preventing the fall of civilization is a daunting task, but not yet impossible. We
have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a 75% chance of
avoiding the positive feedbacks. The natural positive feedbacks are explained in
Six Degrees. We have to deal with enormous changes in where agriculture works
because of climate changes that are already unavoidable.

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

forget polar bears?
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Dec 4, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
forget polar bears? how speciesist! at this point, humans deserve whatever we get for wrecking the planet. it's the innocent wildlife for whom we should grieve...

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

» Grieve for the innocent people Posted by: salt-of-the-earth
Several Positive Ways Out
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 4, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know someone who switched off their home heat at night except for an electric blanket. They left the bathroom tap running just a little on January nights so the pipes wouldn't freeze. Call them crazy, but I think it's a good form of individual protest. It changes hearts. That's half the battle. We're rather low-temperature here but that's because we don't want to pay more. So, how much of a battle would you like to win?

There's also a budding "lights out night" movement one day a year, from 8 to 9, in springtime. Catch it early to set it up in your town.

Now, there are extraordinary inventions all over the place, scattered among thousands of inventors. Because none of them have money for patents, they're all keeping secrets, so that makes them hard to find. Nor do they have cash for prototyping their inventions. If you want to win this battle against global warming, you need houses that pretty much heat themselves, really cheap electricity most or preferably all of the time, transportation that runs on said electricity, and greener industrial processes. What's needed is to remove two barriers, outrageous patent costs (combined with the wholesale theft of inventors' ideas by large international corps) and high development costs. This victory doesn't cost much!

Repeat, this victory doesn't cost much!

The government can win the battle against global warming, and the battle to make America more productive and pay off those awful debts, and it doesn't cost much! All it has to do is find 1000 good inventions already out here, develop them, give inventors the same civil rights that, say, songwriters and authors have in America, pay inventors for merit, and see the energy-saving inventions go into production. Then all of a sudden wasting energy seems both expensive and unpatriotic in every country, and worldwide use of coal, oil and nuclear plummets (except in many countries nuclear energy is usually a cover for building A-bombs).

Now, is America going to win? We elect smart people who don't get it sometimes.

That's where changing hearts comes in. Only you can change hearts. Then the government changes.

So in the end it comes down to you.

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

» Wow! Posted by: jon B
Kill mechanism
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 4, 2008 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carbon dioxide [CO2] is NOT poisonous. Therefore, CO2 is
NOT the killer. I never said CO2 was the kill mechanism.
Anyone who reads carefully knows that I never said that CO2 is
poisonous. CO2 is NOT poisonous, but in large amounts it can
prevent exhalation of CO2 from your body. This is NOT a
climate issue since in the worst case we are talking about parts per
million of CO2. BUT 1000 parts per million CO2 in the
atmosphere, or the equivalent, has lethal environmental
consequences.

Methane is NOT poisonous. Therefore, methane is NOT the
killer. Methane is a greenhouse gas, not a poison gas. Anyone
who reads carefully knows that I never said that CH4 is
poisonous. BUT CH4 is a greenhouse gas that has to be counted
along with CO2.

Hydrogen sulfide [H2S] combines with oxygen to make water
and sulfur dioxide SO2:

2H2S + 3O2 = 2H2O + 2SO2

Sulfur dioxide combines with moisture and oxygen in your lungs,
becoming sulfuric acid:

SO2 + H2O = H2SO3

2H2SO3 + O2 = 2H2SO4

Your lungs dissolve in battery acid. This is NOT a pleasant
way to die.

Methane is NOT poisonous. Methane is a greenhouse gas, not a
poison gas. Methane could kill you by being the fuel part of a
fuel-air explosive. This would be no worse than an all-out
nuclear war between the old Soviet Union and the old USA. It
wouldn't make us extinct. It is H2S that becomes H2SO4 that
would make us extinct.

Reading comprehension is required. Please read carefully enough
to understand what you are reading.

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

Nuclear power plants have NOTHING to do with proliferation of nuclear bombs.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 4, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about
nuclear power.

Page 50: Power reactors make Plutonium 240 [Pu240]. Pu240 is
useless for making bombs. Plutonium bombs require Pu239.
Pu239 is made in reactors that are specialized for making Pu239.
Governments own Pu239 makers, not power companies.

Page 180: ""In 2006, more than 435 reactors in thirty two
countries supplied 16 percent of the world's electricity with a safety
record far superior to that of fossil fuel or hydroelectric generation --
and that's including the Chernobyl fatalities."

Page 153: "By 2013 a total of 500 metric tons, or the equivalent of
20,000 warheads, will be turned into low-enriched fuel with the
energy equivalent of three billion tons of coal (thirty million coal
cars)." Old Soviet uranium bombs are being converted into reactor
fuel by oxidizing the pure metallic U235 [burning it] and mixing the
uranium rust with non-fissionable U238. Bombs require pure shiny
reduced metallic U235. Reactors use very impure [2% to 8%]
U235 oxide mixed with U238 oxide or other non-fissionable
material. Bombs require that pure shiny metal U235 or Plutonium
239 slam into pure shiny metal U235 or pure shiny metal Plutonium
239, respectively. Reactors can use converted bomb material as
fuel, but power reactors are NOT a source of bomb material. Once
you have made Plutonium 240, it is useless for making bombs.
There is no way to make it back into Plutonium 239.
Making plutonium239 for bombs requires a special kind of breeder
reactor [not an ordinary breeder reactor] that only governments
who make bombs own.
Any connection between nuclear power and proliferation is purely
delusional. They are not related.

India, China and Russia have nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs
already. We should give or sell them the latest [and therefore
safest and cleanest] nuclear power plant technology. The
alternative to nuclear power is more coal fired power plants. It is
coal fired power plants that are making 40% of our CO2 and it is
CO2 that is causing global warming. It is global warming that
will surely cause the fall of civilization and perhaps the extinction
of Homo Sapiens. Coal fired plants will have to be replaced
100% with nuclear power plants by 2015 to prevent the fall of
civilization and the extinction of Homo Sapiens. Nuclear power
saves us from 14.7 million tons of CO2 per 1000 megawatts per
year, compared to coal. Remember that coal contains uranium
and a long list of other poisons. The alternatives to nuclear power
are the collapse of civilization and the extinction of Homo Sapiens.

I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry. I
am not being paid to say the above.

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

Scarier and Scarier - Obomba is Bush on steroids
Posted by: salt-of-the-earth on Dec 4, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You'll see. I wish I was wrong.

Bush built the concentration camps and Obomba will fill them up.

Bush started the War on Terror (meaning us) and Obomba will finish it.

Bush bought the plastic coffins (see online) and Obomba will fill them up.

All the things Bush has done were done for Obomba. These people all know each other, are related, know everythign is orchestrated to a final goal of the New World Order. They just play their roles, read their lines, and kick back and enjoy their male prostitutes, drugs, sex slaves, and the rest of what goes with being a scumbag traitorous elite Luciferian monster.

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

Moon Madness
Posted by: writerman on Dec 4, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, what is it about articles like this, that touch on global warming and dwindling resources, that bring out so many loonies?!

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

Dear Salt: Religion is a SCAM.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 4, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a sophomore undergraduate student in Physics, your homework in Probability
and Statistics class may include figuring out when the second coming would be
required, assuming that the bible was 100% true in the year zero. That is, when
would the bible be down to 50% true? The popular and professors' answer in
1965 was the year 500. The true answer: A friend of mine was born and raised in
Budapest, Hungary. As an adult, he came here and stayed. After 25 years, he
visited his home town of Budapest. He was unable to communicate with his high
school classmates because the Hungarian language had changed so much. The
correct answer is less than 25 years. The first gospel was not written down until
50 years after the alleged events and then in a different language. The people who
told the story were at about the same level of civilization as "wild Indians", I mean
Native Americans before Columbus got here. We have all played or seen played
the game called "Telephone" in which a story is passed down a line of re-tellers.
By the Sixth re-telling, the story has no resemblance to the original. The gospel
story had to have been re-told at least 6 times before it was mis-translated the first
time. [Note that whoever wrote it down the first time was free to write whatever
he wanted to. The storytellers were illiterate and unable to check his written text
by reading it. Besides that, he wrote in Greek rather than Aramaic.] Conclusion:
There is no truth anywhere in the bible, and there never was. There is no way to
know what "jesus" or "mohammed" or any other such character actually said or
did.

ALL of the jurisdictions that were formerly in the jurisdiction of religion have
been taken over by Science. There is no longer a need to debate the issue.
Religion is an unfortunate side effect of having evolved from a chimpanzee-like
animal in a very brief 6 or 7 million years. "God" will not save us from the
consequences of global warming or an asteroid impact or a tornado because there
is no such critter as "god.". Ethics and morality are instinctive, not derived from
religion. Female instinct has greater force in morality than male instinct because
the female is in command of the sexual encounter. Look up "Sociobiology". The
origin of the Universe is the subject of Cosmology which is part of astronomy
which is part of the science of physics.
Religion is a SCAM. ANY religion, there are 10,000 to choose from at any one
time. People keep inventing new religions [for the benefit of the "prophet," of
course] and forgetting other religions. ALL preachers, priests, imams, rabbis,
iatolas, etc. belong in jail for "grand theft, bunko type".

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

Dear salt-of-the-earth : Religion is caused by mental illness.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 4, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is caused by any one or more of about half a dozen mental illnesses.
The truth about religion can be found in these books and others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Atheism, A Case Against God" by George Smith

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

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

» TV religion Posted by: jon B
» RE: POLAR BEARS Posted by: Pirate1
Am I recalling correctly?
Posted by: Pirate1 on Dec 5, 2008 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did not Bill Clinton try to secure wilderness areas from oil and gas development, protect old growth forests and other environmental things right before he left and then did not Bush simply cancel them all? Why can't Obama just do as Bush did? Is turn about no longer fair play in this dying world? And if Obama is compromised and won't, why can't we all just rise up like human beings and make it so?

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

It is selfish, self-interest
Posted by: Jeanne on Dec 6, 2008 4:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the environmental movement has been selling its ideology all wrong. It isn't really altruism that motivates us (or at least it shouldn't be sold as altruism), it is the most basic self-interest. We are not saving polar bears, whales, spotted owls, tree frogs, or bees. We're saving our asses (or arses, if your British). The fact is, if we don't cut it out, or at least cut it back, we'll be cut off. We'll be pruned from the planetary tree of life, along with a lot of other innocent branches. But the planet, and life in other forms, will carry on. The only ones who will miss us, is us; and we won't be here anyway. What we are trying to save ourselves from is the misery of the process of extinction. It's that starvation, and social chaos, disease and pestilence process that will be so unpleasant. Yeah, I'd like to avoid that at all cost.

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

Anabolic Pharmaciest
Posted by: anavar on Dec 7, 2008 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
o you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support withlegal steroids...Lingerie from our sexy collection will have your lover feeling like the sexiest woman on earthsexy lingerie

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

Gas
Posted by: mhhensel on Dec 9, 2008 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the temperature of the oceans go up, they quit giving off oxygen and give off hydrogen sulfide, sewer gas. A green haze will suffocate nearly every living thing. Does anyone know what temperature that is? A burst of methane from the melting permafrost is going to get us there sooner than we thought.

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

» RE: Gas Posted by: monkeywrench
Screwing the pooch – BIG time.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 9, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After due consideration of the article and the comments, I can only come to one conclusion: we're screwed. The idea that now, whatever we do will worsen our situation is like each of us sitting on a hand grenade with the pin pulled. Make that a nuclear weapon each; the animal and plant kingdoms may well die along with us.

We are too clever for our own good.

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

10% reduction in energy is NOT 10% reduction in consumption
Posted by: keep_it_real on Dec 9, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are sooo many reasons this analysis is flawed.

First of all, greater energy efficiency means that companies can sell the good for cheaper, relative to no improvement in efficiency. Depending on elasticity of consumer demand, this can even result in an increase in net consumption as efficiency increases. Incidently, this is exactly what`s been happening for the last 100-200 years.

Secondly, energy savings in one industry allow other industries to consume that energy. A sufficiently significant reduction in energy usage across the board (i.e. big enough to create this hypothetical collapse) would reduce prices of energy and create enormous opportunities in businesses that are energy intensive. Another way of stating this is that factor productivity would increase as relative energy prices declined. Incidentally, this has also been happening for throughout the last several generations.

Another thing is that energy costs are only about 6% of production costs, weighted across the economy. Pretending that my first two points were invalid (which they are not) would still yield only a 0.6% reduction in output for the projected 10% improvement in efficiency.

Of course, in reality, that efficiency would enhance the profitability of combining that energy with other factors such as people and resources, and would quite possibly lead to a net increase in resource-use intensity. That, in fact, is the environmental challenge faced by those who see efficiency gains as the path to salvation. The economy gains (in the short term) in all respects other than for sellers of energy when energy efficiency is improved.

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

HEMP will save the planet
Posted by: marsmath on Dec 9, 2008 6:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HEMP has to be part of the solution, if not the total solution.

It was DuPont and the petroleum industry that put us on the road to where we are now, when they had Henp outlawed in the 30's. This crime against humanity has got to end, now.

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

» You're right! Posted by: garry minor
» RE: You're right! Posted by: marsmath
No choice
Posted by: uncleeddie on Dec 10, 2008 7:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a moronic believer in human induced global warming you have to forget about the Polar bears as their numbers are going way up before the recent cooling. That is to be expected as the food supply for these magnificent creatures goes way up when the Arctic seas melt. Now that the warming trend as ended and Al Gore and the rest of the filthy liars have to blame cooling on CO2 the Polar Bears may in fact find food sources drying up. Hansen and the rest of the globalist creeps won't let science stop them however and will continue to deny that the sun and not CO2 is the driving force for temperature on earth. With very little sunspot activity I challenge all you brilliant conservationists to remember that this winter is going to be a bitch no matter what Gore, Hansen and all those other BITCHES tell you.

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

  • AlterNetYour turn

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


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement