Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

McKibben Versus Hedges' Clash of Worldviews: How Do We Solve the Environmental Crisis?

By Chris Hedges and Bill McKibben, Yes! Magazine and TruthDig. Posted October 24, 2009.


Bill McKibben believes we must reduce our carbon emissions immediately, or else face disaster. Chris Hedges says that until we defeat corporate power, we can't address anything.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's Note: The following two articles below by Bill McKibben and Chris Hedges illustrate a key point of debate in thinking about how to solve our environmental crisis. Environmental activist and writer McKibben, in YES! Magazine on October 15, writes that we can't let the atmosphere contain more than 350 million parts per million of carbon dioxide, or else face total environmental catastrophe, problem being that we've already passed this number. He's helped organize a day of action on October 24 to push and make it happen. Chris Hedges' response in TruthDig channels the radical thinking of Derek Jensen and argues that there is no possible way to address the release of carbon dioxide without addressing the way industrial society without addressing corporate power: "The reason the ecosystem is dying is not because we still have a dryer in our basement. It is because corporations look at everything, from human beings to the natural environment, as exploitable commodities. It is because consumption is the engine of corporate profits." A very important debate, arguably on potentially the most important issue of our lives --

350: The Most Important Number in the World

by Bill McKibben, YES! Magazine

From Mt. Everest to the Maldives, people worldwide are turning an arcane number into a movement for a stable climate. Bill McKibben asks: Will you join them?

Let’s say you occasionally despair for the future of the planet. In that case, the place you need to be this week is the website for 350.org.

Every few minutes, something new arrives at our headquarters, where young people hunched over laptops do their best to keep up with the pace. News that activists in Afghanistan—Afghanistan—have organized a rally for our big day of action on October 24. They’ll assemble on a hillside 20 kilometers from Kabul to write a huge message in the sand: “Let Us Live: 350.”

Or news that there’s all of a sudden a 350 website in Farsi to help organize the rallies taking shape across Iran. Or maybe a short story exactly 350 words long from the great writer Barry Lopez. Or the news flash that the World Council of Churches has endorsed the 350 target, and is urging its 650 million members to ring their bells 350 times on October 24. Or…

But wait—what’s 350? It’s the most important number in the world, though no one knew it even 20 months ago. When Arctic ice melted so dramatically in the summer of 2007, scientists realized that global warming was no longer a future threat but a very present crisis. Within months our leading climatologists—especially the NASA team led by James Hansen—were giving us a stark new reality check. Above 350 parts per million carbon dioxide, they wrote, the atmosphere would begin to heat too much for us to have a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.”

That was terrible news. We’re already at 390 parts per million, and rising two parts per million per year. That’s why the Arctic is melting, why deserts are spreading, why the Himalayas are melting. And it’s why we need much faster action than most big governments are currently planning. They’re focused on old, out-of-date targets: 450 ppm, say, which would allow a slower and easier transition to a post fossil-fuel society. But the research is clear that it’s suicidal. Earlier this month, for instance, the journal Science reported on a landmark new study, which showed that when carbon levels got that high in the past, sea levels rose 75 to 120 feet.


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

See more stories tagged with: climate change

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, is a Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute. He writes a regular column for TruthDig every Monday. His latest book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

Bill McKibben is the author of 10 books, most recently Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College in Vermont.

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 »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Both Positions are Woefully Inadequate ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Oct 24, 2009 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll give Hedges the nod as being closer to a working hypothesis but even he does not see the magnitude of our entrenched dystopia.

Corporate power is the symptom of the disease ...of our primary purpose, the glue that binds us all together, the mantra that is our Bible ... Unlimited Growth ...

Given the configuration of our economy, specifically our financial sector, growth is mandatory or death sets in. This cancer that consumes us is fractional reserve banking and the unpayable interest it feeds on.

This leveraged debt is what is now driving us into a depression ... it is now unpayable, we are insolvent! There are not enough natural resources in the world to plunder to pay this debt ... It is debt that forces us through our economic system to ravage the earth on an ever increasing scale.

Our whole civilization must be restructured. Not just the corporations, but governance, society and the economy itself ... Without this restructuring billions of people starve, hundreds of millions or more die in wars, violence and from disease.

We need money without debt and a civilization built on a scarcity economy not on a model of infinite abundance with unchecked growth. Without radical changes to the organization of human kind, its' economy and its' institutions there is no hope.

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

How many?
Posted by: geometeer on Oct 24, 2009 2:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"How many machines are within 10 feet of you and how many wild animals are within a hundred yards?" Well, they say that in New York, indoors, you are never more than six feet from a rat.

Add the smaller fauna that live off you, on you, and in you, and the machines are way outnumbered.

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

» RE: New York fauna Posted by: Sister_Lauren
One might argue that the REAL problem is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Posted by: Plexius2 on Oct 24, 2009 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scientific research has established repeatedly that all species, if not kept in check by natural forces, will tend to overproduce, overrun, and destroy the very environment that supported them for a very long time.

It has always seemed to me that our species is inherently self-destructive, as well as destructive of everything it comes into contact with.

The authors of these two perspectives fail to understand that, homo sapiens sapiens is inherently self-destructive, as well as destructive of most other life on Earth. You can play games with various economic systems: capitalism, socialism, communism, but in the end, if you fail to recognize that all your "isms" mask the fundamental and basic flaw in your species, you are ultimately doomed.

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

» Ahhh, Paul... admit it... Posted by: ChicagoWay
The New Ascetics are Corporate Tools
Posted by: notabilia on Oct 24, 2009 3:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for putting the two leading parsons of the New Ascetics side-by-side - here are two enfranchised minsters of the cloth, ready to disregard all social reality as they don a sackcloth to intone biblical condemnations to please their fathers.
1. Of course there are legitimate social points in each of the Christian worldviews espoused here, but the are accompanied by a resolute lack of self-criticism, a backward-looking traditionalism, and preposterous faithfulness. The left follows these hectoring Puritans and ends up back in folk music singalongs in third grade.
2. Hedges get excited by Jensen's call to bring down the oil infrastructure. Is anybody here seriously contemplating such stupidity? Whether we like it or not, we are enmeshed in a global supersystem that conveys a vast amount of fossil fuels every day across the globe, and we hope to dismantle it immediately?
3. Such pie-in-the-sky fantasy is the hallmark of the New Ascetic movement, which assigns to itself purity and nobility while denying the multitudinous on-going associations that are at the criminal foundation of its existence - for example for these two, the corrupt investments and corporate marauding functions performed by Middlebury College and Harvard University; the greenwashing of the corporate-friendly American environmental elite; the sycophantic lies of the New York Times and its war-happy writers; the profit-engorged, anti-rational degradations of American Christian churches - and we are supposed to sit at the feet of these two?

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

» Phony Gurus Are A Dime A Dozen Posted by: ChicagoWay
McKibben by ten lengths...
Posted by: drosera on Oct 24, 2009 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just look at the harm implicit in Hedge's view: We should only act to bring down corporatism. The environment will have to wait.

Wait? That doesn't make sense, not when we are at C390 and climbing.

Look at the harm in McKibben's view: We can act now to change our behavior (and work to end corporatism at the same time).

I do not see any harm here. Our goal is not just to bring down corporatism but the mindset that constructed such a hurtful system. That takes education and time--generations, in fact. We cannot wait until everybody thinks like Chris Hedges. We have to act now.

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

John Chase
Posted by: johnchase34 on Oct 24, 2009 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations are a symptom, not the cause. The cause is demand for more creature comforts, albeit abetted by corporations whose job is to increase demand by advertising the sale of creature comforts.

While reducing our consumption of creature comforts we should do this:

1.Fund about ten 'manhattan projects' to run in parallel to find the miracles to make solar cost-competitive with fossil. While doing that, build nuclear plants to buy time for the miracles. Better to burn uranium than coal.

2. Don't hobble windpower, because it can compete now with fossilpower if not hobbled with concerns for appearance, noise, bird kills, etc.

3. Increase funding worldwide to educate women.. better late than never. Reduce demand by reducing birthrate.

4. Consider legislation for euthanasia.

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

The fish always stinks from the head
Posted by: daw13 on Oct 24, 2009 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a saying one learns very quickly in the Middle East. The source of the problem is neither corporations nor citizen masses, but the ruling classes of world oligarchies, less and less committed to capitalist competition and more and more committed to the kind of social control spelled out by Orwell in 1984. Current trends will result in the deaths of billions, which those in control think will not include them. They must be disabused of this assumption. Then, perhaps, some headway can be made.

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

environmental reasons to go veg
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 24, 2009 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

environmental reasons to go veg (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 24, 2009 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» respecting life Posted by: vasumurti
Not an either/or situation
Posted by: smendler on Oct 24, 2009 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hedges' and McKibbon's views are not mutually exclusive. There are things individuals and communities can do to address the climate crisis, AND we have to radically rethink the way our economic systems are structured.

Unfortunately, the way things are, we are probably going to have to endure the collapse before the rebuilding can begin. Capital will not relinquish its power until it absolutely has no other choice - and in the meantime it will become increasingly destructive of whoever or whatever tries to stand in its way. My suggestion is that we should plan accordingly.

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

» 350 inches of snow perhaps? Posted by: johnwinthrop
Due Credit to Both Writers
Posted by: PaulK on Oct 24, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill,

You are correct to mobilize the population.

However, please know that vital research is just languishing, sitting on inventors' computers and in files. The Obama Administration is typically funding a bunch of terribly overworked professors who, oddly enough, have few of the best answers. Their grant proposals are "shovel ready", though.

Chris,

You're correct in mobilizing the population against the rape of their government and the theft of their army. This seems to be more or less true in many countries, although the USA wins a dubious gold star (and so do some of the soldiers' parents).

At some point we rebuild our local economies in order to deliberately lock out the plunderers. The bad corporate citizens don't deal with us. If they don't pass an impartial third party certification then their money is no good. Better yet, our locally printed or computer-regulated money is by our regulations canceled and valueless whenever it falls into their hands and that money can't be redeemed back for anything. If we have no choice we will buy their products after paying a hefty tax to our communities, otherwise their products are shunned from our communities.

Be that as it may, we have to work on both problems now. We need good citizen businesses that won't kill the electric car. We ourselves need to take control of the carbon dioxide reduction business and not just the streets. Let's not trust the rapists to stop climate change.

Let's do. What position would you like to play? We need all kinds of normal skills.

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

» Their Racket is Frozen Posted by: johnwinthrop
» Not A Problem... Posted by: ChicagoWay
We have forgotten what is real.
Posted by: stellabloo on Oct 24, 2009 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What purpose to unplugging your cell phone charger when you are still putting your jeans in the dryer and flying to Mexico once a year? Not to mention the unending and ginormous carbon footprint of the GWOT.

The garbage dumps in India have a whole underclass scavengers who search for anything useful: old batteries are taken apart by hand to recycle the cadmium, rotting food scraps are used to brew alcohol - for human consumption.

I would hate to see us reduced to that standard of living.

Maybe we should all try the intelligent approach for once. STOP FEEDING THE BEAST!

A hundred years ago, people bought only what they needed. Now we have Planned Obsolescence which - surprise - was planned.

Century of Self: Episode 1

(... a free site with dozens of other free documentaries)

What we need is a mass reshaping of human consciousness as first seen on a large scale in the 60's. Maybe the time has come when we are finally willing to get off our hamster wheels and quit pressing the reward button and take an active interest in our fellow rats, including the ones in the neigboring cages.

Remember this:

"They" rule by fear. As long as we allow ourselves to be ruled by fear, we will never be free.

The boundaries between you and the physical universe which you inhabit are not as distinct as you think.

"Hemp ethanol" is an existing term for a viable technology that has existed for over a 100 years and was used to power the original Model T. A good first step would be to reintroduce industrial hemp as a multi-purpose sustainable non-GMO crop.

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

» RE: End the GWOT once and for all Posted by: stellabloo
Compassion Over Killing
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 24, 2009 12:24 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A diet that can lead to heart attacks, cancer, and numerous other diseases cannot be a natural diet," writes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook. "A diet that pillages our resources of land, water, forests, and energy cannot be a natural diet. A diet that causes the unnecessary suffering and death of billions of animals each year cannot be a natural diet."

I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism...which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling. Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today. According to a recent United Nations report, "Livestock's Long Shadow," raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined. Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.

A 2007 journal published by the American Dietetic Association found "meat protein production required 26 times more water than vegetable protein on rain-fed lands." The journal further states that dieticians "can encourage eating that is both healthful and conserving of soil, water, and energy by emphasizing plant sources of protein and foods that have been produced with fewer agricultural inputs."

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

---Union Nations' Food and Agriculture Association

A single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day, which is equivalent to that of 20 to 40 humans.

70% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are used by the meat industry. (Audubon Society)

On average 990 liters of water are required to produce one liter of milk. (United Nations)

Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. (Greenpeace)

It takes nearly one gallon of fossil fuel and 5,200 gallons of water to produce just one pound of conventionally fed beef. (Mother Jones)

Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S. Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.

“If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney in a PETA interview, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”

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

Both are dealing with symptoms and not the cause
Posted by: Earthian on Oct 24, 2009 12:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neither Hedges or McKibben deal with the cause of our failure as a society to address our problems. Public opinion is progressive. Public policy is conservative. This is because those who make public policy are bought and paid for by bribes called campaign finance, and because our system has disproportionate representation, favoring small, conservative states in the Senate. The Senate can veto any bill, approves Cabinet seats, judicial appointments, etc. You have to rich and old to get in in most cases. It is only 17% women.

The root causes of our failure to address climate change and other forms of pollution and our failure to address corporate power is a flawed Constitution.

Neither Hedges or McKibben offer any semblance of a political program to address our democracy gap.

The solutions are straightforward and consist of the electoral component of the progressive platform. (GP, Kucinich, Nader)

Here are the major ones:

Public financing of elections only; proportional representation in the House, Senate, and in State and local legislatures; and IRV (or regular runoffs) for executive positions like mayor, governor and president.

Movement actions, though good and necessary, are bandaids. We need major surgery in the form of a second bill of rights as a set of democracy amendments to the national and also state constitutions. We need to fix the vast mismatch between the Preamble and the first six articles. This can be done with amendments.

We've had over 200 state constitutional conventions. It is time for more, and for another national convention as well.

To learn more read Larry Sabato, Sanford Levinson, Dan Lazare, Robert Dahl, and Steven Hill. Their books on progressive electoral reform are clear and easy to understand.

Many other nations have modern constitutions and have solved their democracy gap. So can we. The world depends on it. So do future generations.

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

» Baby It's Cold Outside Posted by: johnwinthrop
Short observation
Posted by: abstractedaway on Oct 24, 2009 1:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the planet is cooling, explain the shrinking ice caps. Would anyone who's trying to ignore the scientific majority just please explain the ice caps?

The science has pointed towards, even predicted local cooling while the planet warmed up on average. No offense, but the narrative you represent here calls to my mind a picture, and it is of a fellow sitting next to a bucket of melting ice and a fan on a hot day, complaining of the cold.

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

» Throw another steak on the barbie Posted by: johnwinthrop
Time To Walk the Talk
Posted by: slavelle on Oct 24, 2009 5:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The meat and dairy industries are one of the biggest contributors of global warming, as well as huge consumers of water and land use, AND an ever-growing threat to our public health with all the associated pathogen outbreaks. Eating a plant-based diet is one thing EVERYONE can do RIGHT NOW and one of the most effective ways to quickly reduce global warming and prevent/reverse chronic disease. Switching to a vegan diet will hit big AG and pharmaceutical corporations right where it hurts and give local small business farmers an opportunity to serve our communities. Why aren't environmental activists speaking up about this? Maybe because they themselves are still eat animal flesh and fluids? It's time to walk the talk, folks! Glad to see other posts that are highlighting this simple solution as well. Support your local organic farmers and go vegan - for our health, the health of the planet and animals!

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

» You Just Have No Sense of Humor Posted by: ChicagoWay
We're taking a totally wrong approach
Posted by: Hans B on Oct 24, 2009 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the beginning, we environmentalists have stressed the sacrifices people would have to make. Abandoning SUVs and riding bikes. Becoming vegetarians. Putting on sweaters instead of heating the home. The result has been that nothing has been done, or will be done. We should have gone for the low-hanging fruit first. Deforestation causes more warming than all transportation put together. And it doesn't benefit many people, in fact it harms the very countries where it takes place: the main reason it happens is corruption. Putting an end to it should have been a no-brainer. Next, coal plants. They're totally unnecessary, infinitely more polluting and destructive than any other alternative; phasing them out should have been a no-brainer too. Just those two changes would have reduced our CO2 emissions by 50%. And it could have been done within a decade.

But we kept stressing those changes which would hurt, especially if done fast, and the result is at best footdragging and at worst denialism.

What I miss in both authors' articles is the HOW. Sure, let's go back to 350. Good idea. But how? Where to start? Sure, let's break the power of corporations. But if people start eating factory-produced chickens straight from the sovchoz, what difference will that make?

So let's start with deforestation, before it's too late. Hell, we could even get the denial crowd on board for that, although there will always be some wingnuts who gripe about them lazy poor countries getting our money. And then, coal. And building standards (who doesn't want a lower electricity bill?). Fast trains to compete with airplanes and cars. Smart grids. The list of things we can do quickly, with little political opposition, is long.

We should admit our mistakes. Cap-and-trade is a disaster; it sometimes actually makes things worse (as in ethanol production). Asking people to bring the most difficult sacrifices immediately, while leaving the bigger causes of global warming for another day, was stupid.

There's lots of low-hanging fruit; let's pick it, now. We'll fight about how to finish the job when our emissions are down 50% or more.

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

» RE: no more nukes Posted by: Sister_Lauren
ZERO is the most important number
Posted by: stilldreaming on Oct 24, 2009 8:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as in Zero Population Growth. Just think of how much easier all our problems could be solved if there were only 3, 50 billion humans on Earth (like it was in the mid-60's).

Yes, we need to curb consumption, use science to monitor the carbon in our atmosphere, and rein-in monopolies & mega-corporations. But nothing is going to solve our environmental problems unless we reach and maintain a sustainable number of humans.

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

Everything is pointing to an ever more quickly deteriorating quality of life for all but the wealthy
Posted by: Paul_C on Oct 24, 2009 9:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We will become a modern version of the Middle Ages when a few noblemen pranced around smartly while "everyone else is covered in shit" as Monty Python would astutely point out.

Only this time the entire planet is going to suffer and there is a very real possibility all higher forms of life will die off in a manner identical to that of the dinosaurs.

A new study was just printed that asserts that the dinosaurs died out due to massive algae blooms in virtually every body of water in the world due to global warming at that time. I have not read the study yet but I read about it in the newspaper.

The implication is that the same thing will happen again. There are others theories regarding feedback loops that also could end life on earth as we know it.

We are playing with fire so that Americans can keep on shopping 'til we all drop.

peace,
Paul

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

» RE: Is THAT a quality life? Posted by: stellabloo
How Do We Solve the Environmental Crisis?
Posted by: themotie on Oct 25, 2009 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't. And won't. The ruts are too deep to get out of in time.

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

We're screwed.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 25, 2009 8:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can argue about the details all we want, but ...

We're screwed ...
If we don't act.

We can rail against nefarious forces all we want, but ...

We're screwed ...
If we don't march on Washington by the millions to counteract the million$ in graft to our "leadership." And stop wasting precikous resources on stupid wars. And put that money into research, and GETTING THE GREEN TECHNOLOGY WE ALREADY HAVE INTO THE MAINSTREAM!

We can complain all we want about rampant consumerism, but ...

We're screwed ...
Unless we stop shopping to feel good, and unless we dump the "bigger/more-is-better" mentality.

We can list, until each of us is blue -in-the-face, all the bad things that global warming (say: "environmental chaos") will bring about, but ...

We're screwed ...
If we're not ready to take the risk of bringing down corporate power by NOT buying what they're currently selling.

Because, if we let Nature take its course – as, apparently, we will – Earth will not be screwed, we will be. Mother Earth will recover from the ravages of Man, but we may not; some scientists are predicting, should current trends continue, a human die-off of between five to seven BILLION of us in the next 100 years or so. (Maybe THAT will get our attention ... when it's too late to avoid human chaos ...)

If we, all of us, do not rethink our whole chosen lifestyle, our reason for existence, our relationship with our only means of support, then we really ARE screwed.

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

Real Difference?
Posted by: wjfaust on Oct 25, 2009 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmm. I'm not sure there is a real difference of opinion here. I don't think one can conclude Bill McKibben doesn't understand the deep problems related to the endless growth paradigm and corporate control of our political process (the corporate state) because of his strong support for the 350.org event. If you read his books "Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age" or "Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future", you know he is well aware of their fundamental role -- as is Derrick Jensen. In fact, the first chapter of "Deep Economy" is titled After Growth and references the work of Kenneth Boulding, Herman Daly and Robert Costanza. He is very much aware of the malignancy of the growth paradigm and corporate domination of our election processes.

Why support (strongly promote) the 350.org event? The real question is: How do you have some impact in the right direction? I suspect that is just the pragmatic McKibben who understands there is almost no purchase on solving the more fundamental problems. Look at how long WILPF has struggled to get anyone to understand that corporate personhood is the linchpin of the corporate state. Solving those problems will probably require a massive collapse from internal rot. That seems to be happening now.

In the mean time, maybe one can make the climate change issue more urgent for more citizens of the world and prepare them for a time when that growth paradigm has to be abandoned and corporations are returned to the box they escaped from.

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

The posts live in a fantasy land
Posted by: leonardfeingold on Oct 26, 2009 11:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate power is the culprit? Well, China is run by dictatorship supposedly of the people and more pollution than in the West; similarily with Russia. Leave it to progressives to live in a fantasy land.

Secondly, climate change or is it man made climate change; man man climate change proposed by Al Gore etc seems to have morphed into climate change. Do Progressives think they are the Gods; climate change is the nature of things since the beginning of univerise.

OF course, we should control pollution which we in the West do pretty well; the argument that CO2 is "pollution" in the sense of artifically warming the universe is not at all proven; if anthing the evidence is negative.

So what is all the fuss; progressives sound like our fanatic moslems.

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

Pat Vaughan
Posted by: pvaughan on Oct 27, 2009 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are both right. We need Bill McKibben for hope and Chris Hedges for truth. Without both we are lost!

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

DrBob
Posted by: ProfBob on Oct 27, 2009 5:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to an article in Science Daily (April 20, 2009), a survey of the faculty at the State University of New York, which has a very strong environmental science department, the planet’s major environmental problem is overpopulation.. Climate change is second. This echoes the theme of the popular free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” –In Search of Utopia—(http://andgulliverreturns.info) As one professor at SUNY said “With ten million or even a hundred million people on the planet there would be no warming problem.” It is both the technology and the number of people using it that create so many of our planetary problems.
There is no question that China's one child policy has helped the world and the Chinese economy. Whenever a country attempts to reduce its population it can expect a two or three generation period of problems while deaths reduce to equal births. I hope that China will recognize this fact and keep its own population on the path to reduction--which should begin by 2050. China's actual fertility rate is not 1.0 per woman, but 1.8--the same as Norway's. But that 400 million fewer births since 1980 (equivalent to the population of the U.S. and Mexico) has been a boon for China and the world.
Business, wanting more customers, religions wanting more souls to save, and politicians wanting more warriors--along with the basic selfishness of people wanting more babies--are all part of the problem.

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

350 Won't Work/ Solving requires Geoengineering
Posted by: jvbronke on Oct 28, 2009 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are well on the way to our icecaps melting and our oceans rising precipitously and our scientists can't nail down just how much our oceans will rise due to that. They just use estimates on ocean expansion due to temperature rise. The other problem is that the existing CO2 will not fall out of our atmosphere overnight. It will take 100 years for that to happen. This, combined with the increased land and ocean area without ice means that the earth will absorb even more of our suns energy. The only soloution in the short term is geoengineering where the amount of the suns energy is reflected in to space before it reaches our planet. There is time now to get this started.

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

stop harming our mother---earth
Posted by: donotworry on Oct 31, 2009 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate about how to solve our environmental crisis id very necessary for us to find more solutions about how to make our life environmental better.
Just as "we can't let the atmosphere contain more than 350 million parts per million of carbon dioxide, or else face total environmental catastrophe, problem being that we've already passed this number."Already it is crucial moment for us to save human beings of ourself .To live longer and health,we should stop harming our homestead. MTS Video Converter

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

Why support
Posted by: nikefilson on Nov 11, 2009 10:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why support (strongly promote) the 350.org event? The real question is: How do you have some impact in the right direction? I suspect that is just the pragmatic McKibben who understands there is almost no purchase on solving the more fundamental problems. Look at how long WILPF has struggled to get anyone to understand that corporate personhood is the linchpin of the corporate state. Solving those problems will probably require a massive collapse from internal rot. That seems to be happening now.

In the mean time, maybe one can make the climate change issue more urgent for more citizens of the world and prepare them for a time when that growth грань (fringe) обои к сериалу what happens in vegas movie wallpapers christmas carol movie wallpapers seropol5 paradigm has to be abandoned and corporations are returned to the box they escaped from.

[« 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