Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

How Many Earth Days Do We Have Left?

By Terrence McNally, AlterNet. Posted April 22, 2008.


Lester Brown, author of Plan B 3.0, shows us how we can change in enough time to save life on earth, as we know it.
Advertisement

Of all the resources needed to build an economy that will sustain economic progress, none is more scarce than time. That is one of the key messages of PLAN-B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, the newest book by Lester Brown -- available as a free download at earthpolicy.org.

Plan A -- the western fossil-fuel-based, auto-centered, throwaway economic model -- is not going to work for China, India, or the 3 billion other people in developing countries, and it will not continue to work for the industrial countries either.

It's time for Plan B -- an all-out response at wartime speed proportionate to the magnitude of threats facing civilization.

The four overriding goals of PLAN B 3.0 are to stabilize climate and population, eradicate poverty, and restore the earth's damaged ecosystems. Failure to reach any one of these goals will likely mean failure to reach the others as well.

"We are crossing natural thresholds that we cannot see and violating deadlines that we do not recognize," says Brown. "These deadlines are set by nature. Nature is the timekeeper, but we cannot see the clock."

Lester Brown has been described by the Washington Post as "one of the world's most influential thinkers." After working with the Department of Agriculture in international agricultural development, Brown helped establish the Overseas Development Council, then founded Worldwatch Institute, publishers of annual State of the World and Vital Signs reports. In 2001, he left Worldwatch, founded Earth Policy Institute, and published Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth.

TERRENCE McNALLY: When you were involved in agriculture in the Kennedy administration, few thought about the environment, unless it was about conservation or wilderness. A bit later, environmentalism was usually local -- a polluting factory or a threatened forest. Yet very early you had a global understanding of environmental issues. How did that happen?

LESTER BROWN: It was probably due to, first, living two and a half years in villages in India in 1956, where I could see the food/population problem beginning to unfold; and second, my training in the sciences, which gave me a feel for how natural systems work.

McNALLY: What has driven you to write Plan B, and then Plan B 2.0 and Plan B 3.0?

BROWN: One of the goals of the Earth Policy Institute is to provide a vision of a kind of world we want and a sense of how we get from here to there. Plan B was the first version of this.

With 3.0, we've changed the subtitle from Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble to simply Mobilizing to Save Civilization. We used to think about saving the planet, and that's still essential, but what's really at stake now is civilization itself.

We have a growing backlog of unresolved problems in the world: deforestation, collapsing fisheries, expanding deserts, falling water tables, eroding soils, you can go down the list. The fallout from these problems is becoming more and more difficult to manage, especially for governments in developing countries.

A number of countries have developed enough to bring down mortality but not enough to bring down fertility. With a rapid rate of population growth, they're caught in what demographers call "the demographic trap." If you can't break out of it, eventually you begin to break down.

17 of the top 20 failing states have rapid rates of population growth. These are the countries where most of the 70 million people added each year are being born. As this list of failing states grows each year, we have to ask how many failing states before we have a failing civilization? No one knows the answer. We haven't been there before.

On top of traditional environmental problems, we now have new stresses like soaring oil prices that put a lot of pressure on low and middle-income oil-importing countries. Then as the United States converts a growing share of our grain into fuel, we drive world grain prices to all-time highs, creating instability in low- and middle-income countries that import grain. We face the risk that the combination of rising oil and food prices will greatly increase the number of failing states. I think the number of failing states in the world is now the key indicator as to whether civilization is going to succeed or fail.

McNALLY: The enormous global inequity in income and wealth breeds inequity in health, in education, and in all phases of life, doesn't it?

BROWN: There is a vast opportunity gap, and those born into societies with few opportunities become recruits for international terrorist groups. In Africa, revolutionaries who want to overthrow governments simply recruit kids -- 10, 12, 14 years old -- give them guns, and let them go. As I look at the world today, terrorism is a problem and a threat, but even bigger threats are the persistence of poverty, continuing population growth, and climate change.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, environment, lester brown, plan b 3.0

Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org). Visit terrencemcnally.net for podcasts of all interviews and more.

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


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
A revenue neutral carbon tax does not add up to 80% emission cuts by 2020
Posted by: Rune on Apr 22, 2008 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The obvious truth about relying on rising prices to cut energy use in a relatively short amount of time is that it does not work because energy is highly price inelastic in the short term and still fairly inelastic in the long term. Thus, even has oil has gone from about $20 a barrel when Bush took office to nearly $120 today, with the price just about doubling in the last two years, demand has continued to grow steadily and is only now showing signs of leveling off--not declining, just leveling off.

Last year, total energy consumption was a little over $300 billion while total tax revenue was about $450 billion. We could theoretically impose a 150% tax on energy and still be revenue neutral, but then what? That level of taxation would get us a small short term drop in quantity of energy used, with some more, modest reductions over time as energy efficient technologies became worthwhile and came online. However, the impact of the tax would be offset by the fact that businesses and individuals would no longer be paying income and other federal taxes, which has the same effect as an offsetting tax credit. Moreover, the Jevon's Paradox holds that as energy efficiency increases and temporary declines in energy demand cause prices to drop, the tendency is to find more ways to use energy (which seems momentarily cheaper and more widely available), which undoes much of the potential conservation benefit of energy efficiency in the first place.

Long story short, just for an example, if we taxed all energy at the equivalent of about $50 per barrel of oil we could expect to see a 2% or 3% drop in consumption. Do that two or three times and you will be hitting the revenue neutral limit. From there, either the carbon tax rates go flat or we start giving back as much money as we raise through carbon taxes. That is neither promising nor practical.

I find the notion of taking extreme and urgent measures mentioned in the earlier part of the article to be more realistic. That will be necessary to meet any realistic goal of zeroing out carbon emissions during or not long after our projected lifetimes. Stern regulation and even non-price rationing is already kicking in for water in some places, and we have used such methods in the great wars the article alludes to.

If we ever get serious about dealing with our energy and climate vulnerabilities, and the related economic consequences (as well as the indirectly related matter of great wealth inequality that makes any economic future bleak for the masses), we will need to come up with more than "market based solution," at least in the short to medium term of the transition. But somewhere along the way, we need to make a major shift in how we live and what we value if we hope to live within the Earth's limits without reaching a new point of equilibrium with the most brutal means of population reduction.

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

» So don't be revenue neutral. Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» Jevon Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Jevon Posted by: Rune
» Long story short! Posted by: donl51
Shortly after the village idiot was
Posted by: bitsfick on Apr 22, 2008 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
appointed president I made the remark to some "friends" that we have to do something about the energy crisis, their answer was "don't worry, when it becomes a problem the government will take care of it" and despite the fact that the "government" has done nothing in the last seven years but make matters worse, they still cling to the view that there is no problem. The majority of Americans don't believe there is a problem, and won't believe it until a category 10 hurricane blows their house into the next state. And then they will blame it on gods hatred of homos

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

» Gullible people Posted by: Cathyc
Oiligarchy, Corporatocracy, Irresponsible Citizenry
Posted by: greentime on Apr 22, 2008 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or is it Irresponsible Citizenry, Corporatocracy, and then Oiligarchy?

Who are we fooling by saying we have time?
We don't. We are already late.

Who are we fooling when we say "the government will take care of it"? Yep. Ourselves.

It is time to place the responsibility squarely where it belongs: on the ones who denied this reality, didn't and still don't listen, and pigged the power for their own fat lives. Yep, you know the ones.

Stop giving them your time. You've given them enough time.

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

some rich and many poor
Posted by: richholland on Apr 22, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the USA problem, some rich families can have it all; and even when the prices go up their companies make more money.

Good news for the world.
The Europe federation with its mixed economical and political system has taken sufficent measurements and is not seeing real problems for the next 100 years.

Maybe the american patriot still convinced the anglo/saxon capitalisme is the best system could read some books and THINK about life before he/she votes for another president.

Realise the communists made large kolchoses and got rid of the small farmers.
Now the big corporations take over from the small farmers and you call that FREEDOM.
But for the men in the street capitalistic or communistic hunger feels the same.

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

Plenty of Earth Days YES but, Human Days is another Question?
Posted by: williameon on Apr 22, 2008 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The jig is up and
The Party is over.

Two thousand and Twelve is the Magic Number.
How absurd?
Water boarded by Mother Nature.

The Planet Earth will shake, rattle and roll
Then turn on the Axis.
Sixty degrees.

In a twinkling of the eye,
Everything will change.

The Poles migrate and in the process
Wash away everything you know.
Cleansing the Planet!

A New World Order will rise from
The debts of this Destruction.
Affirming a new set of positive Goals and Ideals.

Civilizations have come and gone,
More times then we can remember.

Species have vanished without a trace.
What makes us any different?
Vanity?
Our GREED?

Mammoths and Saber Tooth Tigers once
Roamed the Earth.
We are in danger of becoming The Dinosaurs now!
Fossils frozen in Time,
Cemented in the Old Way.

One day we will be looked upon,
As a lower incarnation,
Who never evolved beyond our Differences?

Reptilian Fossils
Who crawled out of the Primordial Ooze
Looked into the reflection and became
Blinded by their own Vanity, Ambition and Greed.

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

the rich and the poor
Posted by: john110 on Apr 22, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the USA problem, some rich families can have it all; and even when the prices go up their companies make more money.but the poor make less money. some people discuss the issue on a famouse site, SUGARMOMMYMEET.COM. it caters to rich women seeking young and charming men.

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

It's all doom and gloom BULLSHIT ! At this rate, no one will care to change their minds !
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 22, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, if you think that giving us this kind of BULLSHIT lecture on being environmentalists and counting down the number of days left on this planet is gonna do jack shit, you're sadly mistaken. You might as well join the "evangelical rapture" scumbags on the "religious right".

For everyone else, I'll tell you the best ways to be environmentalists and actually be proud of it:

1. Stop these wars for oil and end the war on drugs. It's time to overturn the 71 year ban on Cannabis and put its 25000 industrial uses to work. Talk about a biofuel that doesn't cause global warming and is good for a real economy. Since the current "market" is petroleum based all the way, it's RIGGED, not "free".

2. Quit supporting either the Republicans or Democrats. Both parties have been subsidizing Big Oil, Coal, and Nuclear for decades and they don't give a flying fuck about the health and well being of the people let alone the environment. Can you get either party to shift the subsidies away from Big Oil, Coal, and Nuclear and use it to build and maintain an energy infrastructure built on alternative renewables such as solar, wind, geothermal, hemp, etc ...? Not until you allow 3rd party progressive independents such as Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan, etc ... to replace these two corrupt parties in Washington. And again, the lopsided subsidization of fossil and nuclear energy over alternative renewables that have been proven to be both economically and ecologically beneficial also shows that the current market is RIGGED, not "free".

3. I don't see any so-called "liberals" or "progressives" addressing the issues of public transportation gone bad. Instead of taking bribes from Big Auto and Big Oil in the name of keeping oil artificially "cheap", why not make public transportation not only affordable but also better quality? Having travelled to big cities across the country and noticing the OBSCENELY high bus and rail fares despite the infrastructure not improving, don't you think it's time they quit bullshitting about newly painted trash bins and instead focused on repairing their creaking and rusty infrastructure? Raising the fares and yet allowing higher frequencies of mechanical/electrical failures and accidents sure tells me that something's way off. And what about those OBSCENELY high bus fare rates and their purposely limiting their routes thereby forcing more people to drive their autos to work? When you see public buses with fewer than 10 people on it or even a "NOT IN SERVICE" sign on it struggling through thick traffic, you'd be better off joining me in calling for these bus services to get their god damn motherfucking routes reformed so that more customers can come on board and actually be relieved.

4. Why not call for more suggestions to reward people who are frugal? I mean let's face it. Most companies don't give you any trade up program for say your old pc, tv, radio, etc ... so of course more petroleum is being burned to make more of garbage electronics that end up in the land fill the next year every time a slightly better version comes out. And let's talk about recycling and reusing. My wife and I reuse our plastic bottles that we'd save from our bottled juice drinks. I sure as hell don't mind making my own orange juice for example and filling it up in my old small plastic bottle time and again.

Look, for over 50 years, it's been the same doom and gloom talk which does nothing to convince people to save and push for better. All this leaves is the impression of "So what?" It's time to think differently and push for the better just like I've been doing all along so let's cut all this doom and gloom BULLSHIT talk out and cut to the chase, shall we?

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

» It's NOT Doom and Gloom Bullshit ! Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» Oh yes it is ! Posted by: maxpayne
» Oh No It's Not ! Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» My Party? Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: My Party? Posted by: maxpayne
» You're Half Cocked Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» You got it all wrong DUDE. Posted by: maxpayne
The developed world v. the developing
Posted by: skewitall on Apr 22, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enlighten me! Is this what we are talking about? What is your answer to the problem? A massive amount of humans predicted to be born, in the most poverty stricken corners of our world. Our finite resources. What about clean, fresh water that billions already do not have. . If I am wrong about that amount let me know!


Why doesn’t anyone talk about this? I’ll ask again….

Brown states, “We probably cannot stabilize population growth humanely unless we eradicate poverty.” “17 of the top 20 failing states have rapid rates of population growth.”

Well, we already knew that. So, what do we need to impose on them?

Or, should we just change our ways in the USA, and all will be fine?

Who wants a bathroom with a toilet? Who wants a kitchen sink?

Can we all have those two things today, or ever?

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

Earth Day..? It's more like Nuke Day..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Apr 22, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush is planning a nuclear attack upon Iran..and McCain is singing bomb bomb bomb Iran and we're talking Earth Day..?

Hillary Clinton wants to start throwing Nukes around the Middle East like it's the china in the White House..

Oh yeah Happy Earth Day..

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

» RE: I think Americans are REALLY suicidal Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
And just when I was thinking of buying a Humvee
Posted by: donl51 on Apr 22, 2008 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that gets 4 gallons to the mile someboby's gotta come out and write about all this gloom and doom shit!,end of life!etc etc.....gotta save humanity!!.......psshaw!!

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

This is a very serious topic
Posted by: badkitty on Apr 22, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very serious topic, the most serious topic, in fact, and we don't need a lot of facetious comments. I have often thought that we could actually change direction quickly, at least in this country, given how we changed direction at the beginning of WWII, and even when Roosevelt first became president in 1933. I wish I saw national leadership that could do this now, but I don't. I know that where I live, a significant number of people are changing their lives to face the future (Berkeley has to have more Priuses per capita than anywhere else in the world!, and the electric car dealership up the street is selling at least one a week). But although we use much more resources than anyone else in the world, it still comes down to population growth and climate change, especially the melting of glaciers that supply our big rivers. As I said, I hope for leadership, but I am resigned to just changing my lifestyle as much as I can and hoping for the best. I really don't have much hope for my son's future.

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

Taxes & Subsidies
Posted by: Geonomist on Apr 22, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! Out of 1000s of words, finally a tad of common sense on public revenue reform. Not only must we lose subsidies to oil and sprawl, we must lose _all_ subsidies and instead pay ourselves a Citizens Dividend. And instead of just shifting taxes off earnings, onto pollution, we must also shift taxes off sales and sustainable business, onto extraction and depletion, and off buildings and improvement, onto land and locations. The last shift is the least transparent but it would motivate owners to in-fill cities and compact cities, letting people switch from driving to riding and walking, is the most potent step we can take to stabilize then reverse climate change. And telling the public they're owed a green dividend, a la Alaska's oil dividend, gets us there.

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

Step #1: Halt all fossil fuel imports to the United States.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 22, 2008 11:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the very least, this is what we will have to do to slow the rate of greenhouse emissions - no more oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc. Zip, zero. No imported natural gas, no imported coal-powered electricity - we need energy self-reliance.

That's the only possible step that will start to end the current accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - but it is not enough for us to take that step. The whole world must drastically cut back their use of fossil fuels.

What we need, then, is the world's biggest ever infrastructure manufacturing plan - and the only time people ever seem to get motivated to do that is during wartime, such as WWII, when people rushed to build ships and bombs as fast as they could, day and night, around the clock. Unfortunately, that's what seems to get people motivated.

What we have instead in the U.S. is massive propaganda pumped out by fossil fuel PR lobbyists 24-7 - the latest being the large "clean coal" marketing campaign that is blanketing the airwaves. Another large PR campaign is "don't make biofuels - make food!" - also run by the likes of BP and Exxon, behind the scenes of course.

I don't think you'll see Lester Brown on FOX News discussing the climate and pollution crisis, right?

There are people who are perfectly happy watching the planet burn in air-conditioned comfort, surrounded by armed guards. Burnt Planet? No problem, as long as the dividends from BP keep rolling in.

I appreciate Lester Brown's positivity and clear explanations, but let's also point to the forces of destruction that are set loose on the world by Wall Street financial interests - and also note that those very same forces now largely control our media, our schools, and our government.

Really - the U.S. is the worst country in the world on the issue of climate change. The worst of the worst - the bottom of the pile - the #1 force for global destruction in the world today - and that's because the corporations have taken this country over. Indeed, one cannot even point to any specific people, because the corporations have become like giant, self-sustaining machines where people are nothing but the working gears - easily molded, easily replaced. The machine itself is driven on by the goal of ever-increasing profits - and so it becomes a world-destroyer, which is what we are now seeing.

There are a number of solutions that have to be implemented to make progress. One is to ban holding companies and pass laws requiring direct ownership of shares by individual people. No more networks of shell companies to hide the real nature of transactions. The other is to repeal any notion of "the corporation as a person".

Then, you will see clearly how the world really works, and how a few billionaires have been raking in obscene profits for years while the planet is slowly degraded by their mindless corporate machines.

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

» Be careful what you wish for Posted by: suprmark
What Environmentalists Forget ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Apr 22, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or maybe haven't considered.

We will need a whole new financial system. Our current debt based leveraged banking is entirely based on ever increasing growth to create our money. Without ever increasing growth the money supply stagnates then contracts. A contracting money supply means recession then depression while somewhere along the way a financial panic ensues throwing the whole economy into turmoil without a way out.

In order for a smooth transition from a growth economy to a sustainable economy money must be created without borrowing. This is very doable, it is already authorized in our Constitution.

The real battle will be to bring the banking industry into line. Currently they enjoy the biggest welfare program the United States ever granted, fractional reserve banking, whereby they can loan by leverage many multiples of their real worth. They will fight tooth and nail to keep this massive subsidy with the massive amounts of money they can create.

Without reforming our monetary system a sustainable economy is doomed to bankruptcy. The wrath of the populace that doesn't understand how their money is created will revolt and blame the concept of a sustainable economy for the problems that fractional banking causes.

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

What are all of you
Posted by: Knobby on Apr 22, 2008 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
trying to save?

Another 50 years of beating and killing each other on a cleaner planet?

Another 50 years of sexual abuse to kids and women in a cleaner environment?

Another 50 years of who has the biggest bomb displayed in cleaner air?

Maybe you want another 50 years of being lead by leaders who will lie to and cheat all other humans for pieces of paper with green ink on them? Or maybe you want to see what else Monsanto can come up with in another 50 years of experimenting with humans and food?

But you Christians in particular, what are you trying to save? Isn't the ultimate goal of your belief to die and spend enternity up in the clouds with god and his son? So what does it matter what happens here, the sooner your gone the better you'll be,isn't that whats preach?

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

» Missing you already Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Missing you already Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
success depends on: root problem FIRST
Posted by: nigelbest on Apr 22, 2008 3:13 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the things lester brown talks about are certainly limbs or branches of the tree of problems but they are not the trunk

henry thoreau: there are 1000 hacking at he branches of the tree of problems for every one striking at the root

in other words, human nature goes the wrong way about solving problems - the inefficient way, the failure way

apparently no one wants to think about inequality - of wealth and power

you can't solve problems without power

DRAW the graph of power: 90% of ppl on between 10,000th and 100th of world-average pay/hr - 99% below average power - 1% up to ***100,000 TIMES*** average power - 1% taking 98% of world wealth - 1% of 1% taking 98% of 98%

how can your greatest efforts solve anything while you have giants of wealthpower 100,000 times average human size? - how much can you care about the fate of beings 100,000th the size?

unite your will to greatly increase equality or you cannot win - you can only work your butt off and fail if you dont face the root cause

if you solved all the branch problems, you wd still be left with the trunk problem - super-extreme inequality producing proportional violence producing prop. misery and problems

you're trying to cook a meal while the house is full to the roof with junk and fights - strike at the root and all the branch problems come down automatically

there is enough sanity and will in the world IF you obtain equality - if you dont, there isnt 1,000,000th enough

happinessfinneganswake.blogspot.com - you don't want to go to some nobody nowhere blogspot? - use yr sanity to judge sanity - worldly status is no gauge of quality in a world gone mad - sanity is on the periphery of an anarchic [ie, super-unequal] society

unite the people-will to move the wealth back to the earners of it and consumers - equality is democracy freedom order peace sanity intelligent governance survival

for one thing, you'll have 100 times as many brains able to contribute - 90% not too poor to contribute, 90% of educated brains not tied up in the catastrophic effects of super-inequality

you must change yr mindset to: root problem first - then help others to do the same - culture is ideas - human ideas are obviously wrong: look at the mess

WORLD-average pay is $40/hr - paying housewives and students too - yes, they are stealing that much

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

I guess we'll have to remain "environmental extremists!"
Posted by: peoplepowergranny on Apr 22, 2008 7:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People Power Granny is tired of being called an ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST. Are there any others of you out there, or do you think if we just ignore environmental threats, they'll just go away, like stars with the sunrise? No, I think I'll continue to wear my ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST badge with pride, especially on EARTH DAY. How would you folks describe such an animal these days?

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

Their are 6.5 billion environment destroyers-
Posted by: leemiller38 on Apr 22, 2008 8:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tonight I read an article about the birth rate going up in the U.S.A. in particular the writer was talking about the Lehigh Valley where 3 and 4 children per family is getting to be common again. Apparently those early earth days when Paul Ehrlich was talking about the population bomb are lost to the present generation. It's the population that is the problem and since we can't seem to deal with it the rational birth control way-let nature do it for us. I'm sure that interesting times are a coming when we exceed earthly limits of energy, water and other resources. I just hope we don't take every other species out with us.

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

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Apr 23, 2008 12:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Over population is the common denominator"


Direct Democracy

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

This is delusion
Posted by: ljarvi on Apr 25, 2008 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is NOT going to be possible to retain our culture's consumption-oriented mythology through the transition we are now entering. This author obviously has NO clue what humanity is actually facing - which is the challenge of making a radical transformation of our dominant cultural belief system. This challenge is appearing courtesy of resource depletion, but it is not entirely about resource depletion. It is about a fundamental change in orientation to the meaning of life. It will be a very difficult and chaotic transition in the best of scenarios - belief systems die hard - but "solutions" such as this author proposes will only provide distraction, prop up massive centralized economic units for awhile longer, use more precious resources, and actually increase the human costs of the transition.

Decentralized, complex economic systems must be created. Consumption must be decreased dramatically and life relocalized. Large-scale, centralized political and economic entities - and that includes national-level government, which is hopelessly corrupted - must be eliminated.

In light of this, for example, we don't need to encourage Toyota to build plug-in Prius' (at huge energy and resource expense) so people can continue to toodle down the paved-over earth from the exurbs to their mindless, remote-controlled, debt-enforced daily routines. A transformation of our social and economic orientation AWAY from the numbed, distracted, unconnected, spiritually-deadened consumptive ILLNESS that is our modern way of life is what is called for. This author's "solutions" amount to avoidance of this challenge, and should be repudiated by any person seriously interested in helping to facilitate humanity's journey through the unprecedented crisis we are facing.

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

Radioactive carbon dating of Egyptian mummies
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 28, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Background radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

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

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

Natural background radiation

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

Cosmic radiation

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

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

Terrestrial sources

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

Radon

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

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

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

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

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

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