Climate Destruction Will Produce Millions of 'Envirogees'

It's a stupid and unnecessary neologism.

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

it sure feels at times like sitting at the top deck - nice breeze,great(over)view, everything's fine except that the ship's name could be Titanic. there's still plenty of food and drinks - at least for those who are on the top deck too. the band is playing so loud, that we don't hear that the engines have stopped.
inspired by the whole Gaia hypothesis and with a little help from my friends and sacred substances, I have given up eating meat some 30 years ago, ownership of a car more then ten years ago, never joined an army and so on... but I can't get rid of the feeling that all this is not enough. there seem to be more global problems then there are answers.
let's hope for the best possible outcome of this collective mess that we got ourselves into.

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

But moving north only helps a little and temporarily.
Move to Mars.
Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

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

October 2006 Scientific American

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

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

Plan B is Move to Mars and wait it out. I joined a group called
"Lifeboat" at http://lifeboat.com.
See also:
www.liftport.com
www.spacedev.com
LiftPort needs the world's greatest synthetic chemist
to synthesize long strong carbon nanotubes or diamond
nanowire for the 62,000 mile long cable. Do you know
any candidates?

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

Remember that? It was primarily a result of a catastrophic stripping of the topsoil layer in the Great Plains, brought on by a couple of decades of higher-than-average rainfall. Farming flourished for a while. Then the rains slowed 'way down, and farms failed. Then the land was no longer protected by the grass, and hence... dust. Almost everyone left. Small farmers, in financial trouble since WWI because of depressed commodity prices, never saw the financial boom that the urban society did in the '20's, and were so deep in debt that the Dust Bowl era was the last straw.

Thousands of years of forced migrations are correctly mentioned in the article. We have had a few of our own. It's as much economics at fault, though, as environmental causes.

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

We moved to lush East Texas from the middle of Arizona last fall. A good move, not only because my husband and I are both Texans, but also because of our Arabian horses. I will have transportation one way or another! And there's plenty of grass and water here. Not like where we came from...

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

Just in case the republicans/religionists win, we need a backup
plan to avoid extinction. [NO this DOES NOT mean a plan to
save YOU.] 6.5 Billion people will not be saved by any possible
species saving plan. By species saving plan, I mean a plan to
avoid extinction, not a plan to avoid death. To save the species,
in principle, one pregnant teenager has a 50/50 chance of being a
sufficient number of people to save. This plan will not save the
elite or the rich or any one individual. It will save whoever
happens to be doing research somewhere in space where there
exists the ability to sustain at least one human life without re-
supply from earth. This plan is called "LifeBoat."

The space station we have now is too small to be a self sustaining
colony. The space station we have now does not count because it
relies on supplies from earth. We really need self-sustaining
colonies for the LifeBoat plan to work. That could be a city-size
space station in its own orbit. A colony could be an airtight space
station-like structure on or underground in Mars or the moon or an
asteroid. A colony could mean Mars modified to be like Earth.
See "New Earths" by Jim Oberg. Terraforming modifies the
climate and atmosphere of another planet to allow earth-life to
live there in the open. Anything in between also counts. The
self-sustaining colony has to be just big enough to survive without
contact with earth and has to have enough people to breed more
people. In other words, it has to have at least 1 woman and stored
sperms or 1 very young woman pregnant with a boy.

At first, the entire group could be 3 astronauts who happen to be
drilling a hole on Mars at the time. They will be "chosen" by the
fact that H2S gas has killed everybody on earth, cutting off their
return to earth. What LifeBoat has to do is get NASA to put
more money into research like growing vegetables on the space
station, moon base or wherever. That way, whenever the disaster
happens, survival in space will be more likely. There are no
guarantees. As time goes on, the LifeBoat gets bigger. Larger
numbers of researchers will be on the moon, Mars and asteroids.
Bigger space stations will be built in free space. Eventually,
there will be some space habitat that will be able to support
several people independently. Life will not be good, just
survivable. For example, their only food might be nutritious
pond scum. There is a race between the disaster [H2S] and the
space program. The race decides whether Homo Sap lives or
dies.

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

Why has CO2 increased so dramatically? One reason
and only one reason. Population growth. This mad theory that we must produce more and more of everything, that only increasing population, bigger markets, more profits can sustain growth
has to end or the world will.

Two of the poorest countries in the world, Afghanistan and Yemen, have birth rates of about 7 children per women.There will never be enough to feed them or to find them jobs, they have to emigrate or starve. In 1980 China introduced the most draconian family planning in the world, just look what happened to the economy since.That same result would happen in any other part of the developing world, in the west it would give us a chance to stop and smell the roses.

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

Plant a tree. (No Joke) With a little science and a lot of people power desertification can be stopped.
Simple solutions usually work very well.

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

What rubbish. No proof just scare mongering by the people who run the UN. You know the same ones who own most of the worlds assets. CO2 has been increasing but those damn temperatures won't cooperate and have actually decreased since Bilderberg 95 Al Gores film came out. These genius scientists now say that the CO2 induced global warming won't kick in until 2014 or so. Don't worry though by then all us chicken littles will be paying a global carbon tax to the owners of the world. It's necessary for us to pay this because we have been so bad and our decadence has led to the destruction of our dear blue planet through that killer gas CO2. Similar to that killer drug depicted in that classic 50's movie REEFER MADNESS.

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

The main block to sustainability is the exclusive ownership of all the land. If ordinary people had more access to land for growing things, many more of them would grow their own food. As it is now, you must own the land in order to use it for anything. Bad for all animals, including us.

ps/ Gravity is nothing more than major static cling!

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

Are we in the atomic or space age? An evirogee age? Give anyone a pen and paper and someone will try to sell you something with it.

Nukes are clean. Brought to you by the world atomic agency. Secrecy is just another motto.

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

What I usually say is: just go back to sleep. But this article actually sounds plausible to me. So I'll say this: in a century, I'll be dead, so what do I care?

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

to this day i wont eat food from uropa any where..if you think gm crops are bad..eat fall out food..fish/fowl..grain/prouduce..that radiation didnt just blow away..it lasts a thousand years..

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

No scientific body has ever linked Katrina to 'climate change'.

Hear What a Scientist has to say

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

The IPCC is a POLITICAL body, not scientific. The debate is not over.

educate yourself.

More on Climate Change Propaganda

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

There is as much scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for Climate Change - as there is that Jesus Christ ever existed as a real live human being.

Which is zero.

Yet Billions of people believe that Jesus Christ existed - and that belief has seriously fucked up the human race.

Of course there is no scientific proof that Jesus Christ never existed as a real live human being.

And there is no scientific proof that CO2 is not responsible for climate change

There is however an enormous amount of scientific evidence that other factors cause climate change - and that climate change is perfectly normal

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

A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory wrote to
me: "The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-
of-date (1st generation) design that has to be precisely controlled
to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away heat
and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in
water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused
Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly
going to high pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion.
Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the
walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped
the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently
igniting a carbon fire." The United States and other Western
countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate
ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow
containment buildings to have easily removable tops.
Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to
be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of
radioactive material, as much as a coal-fired power plant would
release in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl accident had a
shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The radioactive
material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why
the Chernobyl accident had impact. The Three Mile Island
incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its
neighborhood because it had a good containment building and
because it was a more modern design.
The reason is that the Soviet Union didn't spend money on R&D
for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years, American
reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have way
overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of
electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric
power plants kill 24,000 people per year in the US according to
Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in 2008 are nothing
like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in 1944. Soviet
built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor.
The book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
has more truthful information on this if you are interested. Don't
believe the urban legends that were started by coal companies.
Order the book from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
See: http://www.ecolo.org for more information on the book.
Most books on the subject in most libraries may be there because
of coal industry pressure.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is
paying me to post this. I have never worked for the nuclear
power industry.

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

Odds of Dying from X according to the 2003 National Safety council

1 heart disease 1 in 5
2 cancer 1 in 7
3 stroke 1 in 24
4 motor vehicle accident 1 in 84
5 suicide 1 in 119
6 falling 1 in 218
7 firearm assault 1 in 314
8 pedestrian accident 1 in 626
9 drowning 1 in 1008
10 motorcycle accident 1 in 1020
11 fire or smoke 1 in 1113
12 bicycle accident 1 in 4919
13 air/space accident 1 in 5051
14 accidental firearm 1 in 5134
15 accidental electrocution 1 in 9969
16 alcohol poisoning 1 in 10048
17 hot weather 1 in 13729
18 hornet, wasp or bee sting 1 in 56789
19 legal execution 1 in 62468
20 lightning 1 in 79746
21 earthquake 1 in 117127
22 flood 1 in 144156
23 fireworks 1 in 340733

Causes that are missing from the above:
nuclear power plant accident
medical mistake
meteor impact
cold weather
starvation [In the US]
dehydration
smallpox
war
terrorist strike
boredom

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

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]

I know I might be being a little paranoid here, but is it possible that the American government (and it's corporate backers) is deliberately ignoring climate change and sabotaging any moves to combat it?

Europe (with a re-awakened behemoth in Russia) and Asia have both been seen as areas that will be able to challenge American global hegemony in the future - not only militarily, but also economically. But they are all also very vulnerable to the growing movements of people due to environmental degradation, and/or to such worsening conditions themselves. With all the instability these bring. It seems strange that the USA is deliberately trying to make matters worse because I don't buy that the people in charge (and I don't mean Bush) are so ignorant that they really disbelieve Climate Change - or at least take it so lightly they wouldn't come up with "just in case" strategies.

Could these rejections of anything that could help alleviate the suffering of people world-wide really be a move in an "environmental war" that the USA is waging on the rest of the world - a calculated move to sabotage any threat to, and protect, their dominance in the American "Thousand Year Reich"?

As I say, maybe I'm being paranoid, but I wouldn't put it past them.

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

This article brought out most of the known AlterNet moonbats for some reason -- perhaps they are "Blatherees" from another blogosphere.

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