Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Three Things Obama Should Do First

By Van Jones, AlterNet. Posted November 6, 2008.


If he wants to save our economy and create jobs, he's got to start right away with this three-point plan.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena Hincapié

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Van Jones

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is adapted from Van Jones' new book The Green Collar Economy.

There are precedents -- FDR's Civilian Conservation Corp and JFK's Apollo Project, to name a couple -- for government support of paradigm shifts and massive world-changing projects. And so, today, the U.S. government must again make a fundamental shift. Right now, the government is spending tens of billions of dollars supporting the problem makers in the U.S. economy -- the polluters, despoilers, incarcerators, and warmongers. The time has come for the nation to give greater support to the problem solvers -- the clean-energy producers, green builders, eco-entrepreneurs, community educators, green-collar workers, and green consumers.

***


In fact, at the very beginning of his inaugural address, the new president would be wise to fully embrace the agenda of the climate solutions group 1Sky. That organization has fashioned an ambitious set of goals based strictly on what the world's scientists say is minimally necessary to avert a global climate catastrophe.

Following 1Sky's lead, the forty-fourth U.S. president should stand before the American people vowing to enact policies that will: (1) create five million green jobs as a part of a plan to conserve 20 percent of our energy by 2015; (2) freeze climate pollution levels now, then cut them to at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050; and (3) ban the construction of new coal plants that emit global-warming pollution, promoting renewable energy instead. Better yet, the new president should publicly pledge to meet Al Gore's challenge of making the United States 100 percent free of fossil fuels by 2018. Such bold proposals would immediately signal the end of the status quo, stun the pro-pollution contingent, and begin to rally the nation to meet our crises head-on.

To begin making good on those commitments, the administration would then need to implement multiple policies aggressively, immediately, and at various levels. The task of meeting these challenges would do more than determine the administration's environmental policy. It would also shape America's core economic program, foreign policy agenda, urban and rural policy, and manufacturing agendas as well.

With Bracken Hendricks of the Center for American Progress, I have outlined three policy tracks the new administration must pursue simultaneously to make dramatic, politically sustainable progress on the climate, energy, and jobs policy. The first track involves exerting immediate leadership within the executive branch, taking measures to coordinate U.S. climate and energy policy across all federal agencies and using executive orders, public communications, and other presidential prerogatives to manage carbon, capture energy savings, and promote renewable technologies.

Second, the White House must engage Congress to pass a suite of global-warming and energy legislation, including both a cap-and trade bill that limits emissions and complementary policies that strengthen standards and drive investment in clean energy. The third track will entail a vigorous diplomatic effort to reclaim U.S. moral leadership abroad through progress on international climate negotiations, clean development, and addressing adaptation and energy poverty.

1) The next president should take bold and immediate action.

He should use climate solutions to frame a positive domestic economic agenda. He must place the issue at the center of his agenda for economic opportunity and reconstruction and link it to job creation, rebuilding cities and rural economies, and restoring global competitiveness. He can use the pulpit of the presidency to signal serious commitment to climate solutions, then build a leadership structure within the White House to sustain this focus. This leadership structure should have strong links to economic and national security advisers and clear pathways of communication with all agencies and White House offices to ensure that a unified strategy is employed across the executive branch.

In the spirit of comprehensive action, the president should enlist all federal agencies in building climate solutions, utilizing the power of executive orders and presidential leadership. The president can show immediate leadership by instructing agencies to reduce their carbon footprint through improved purchasing and acquisitions, vehicle fleet management, and facilities management.

If the president launches a signature initiative, the Clean Energy Corps, he will distinguish himself as a true leader in the footsteps of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. A national Clean Energy Corps would combine service, training, and employment efforts, with a special focus on cities and neglected rural communities, to combat climate disruption. The work would focus on retrofitting homes, small businesses, schoolhouses, and public buildings; preserving and enlarging green public spaces; applying distributed renewable energy production technology to underserved communities; strengthening community defenses against climate disruption; upgrading infrastructure; and educating children and communities on how they can contribute to ending global warming. These efforts could pay for themselves through energy savings, making the CEC program largely self-financing, while generating enormous demand for new jobs in communities that need them.

2) The next president should have a comprehensive legislative agenda.

Capping carbon emissions, collecting taxes/profit from permits, and investing in our clean-energy future should be an immediate goal. An indispensable component of cap-and-trade policy is the auction of a substantial portion of emissions permits available to greenhouse-gas emitters. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the monetary value of these permits would range from $50 billion to $300 billion each and every year (in 2007 dollars) by 2020. This money can be invested in the public interest -- to equitably transition the country to a low-carbon economy.

The president should help America's infrastructure mirror its clean energy goals. Establishing a clean-energy smart grid would network a series of smart devices, all communicating with each other, to do real-time balancing of energy need and production. As waste is greatly reduced, carbon reduction and cost savings would follow. Investing in worker training, supportive employment ser vices, manufacturing extension, and community development will be essential to ensure we meet our climate goals.

Carbon caps and green economy infrastructure work best with high-energy efficiency. To achieve immediate efficiency gains, the next administration should implement a National Energy Efficiency Resource Standard to require utilities to cut energy use 10 percent by 2020. A number of simple tasks would also have an enormous impact: increase production of renewable electricity, invest in low-carbon mass transportation and rail infrastructure, increase vehicle fuel economy, block new coal plants that can't safely capture and store emissions, provide sustainable/low-carbon fuels, and eliminate federal tax breaks and subsidies for oil and gas. The combined impact of these measures would speed the United States toward an energy efficient future.

3) The next president should show leadership in international negotiations.

Rebuild international credibility through strong domestic action -- allow the US to reengage international climate negotiations. Connect global warming and trade policy. Climate provisions should be given significant weight in international trade policy. Promote adaptation and confront energy poverty. The goal of international development assistance should be to alleviate the crippling energy poverty that denies much of the world's population basic energy ser vices, without increasing carbon emissions.

***


Whatever the next president does, he must act quickly. Diplomatic, scientific, and economic timetables are all running out. The next president must hit the ground running. On energy and climate policy, it is critical that significant efforts be undertaken in the early days of the administration. A hundred-day strategy is key to making real domestic commitments and advancing stalled international climate talks that will result in meaningful global reductions.

The full power of the presidency, both its political leadership and moral authority, is needed to build deep public support to sustain smart climate policies over a generation. Climate solutions must be at the center of the agenda for the entire administration. This effort will also require broader constituencies in support of action and new strategies for public education. Solving global warming should become a centerpiece and organizing principle for the next administration's program for economic revival.

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

See more stories tagged with: wind, green economy, van jones, green jobs, green for all, solar, 1sky

Van Jones is executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, California.

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


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A Contradiction In Terms --
Posted by: Last Chance on Nov 6, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cannot grow the economy AND save the environment. An ever-expanding industrial complex destroys the forests and pollutes the oceans. To save ourselves we must reduce our human population and shrink our economy. Otherwise, our burgeoning tons of waste and garbage will poison the Earth beyond recovery and we will go extinct.

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

» Last Chance you are a pessimist! Posted by: Bliss Doubt
The infinite economy conundrum
Posted by: Andrew_S on Nov 6, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Lastchance~To save ourselves we must reduce our human population and shrink our economy. Otherwise, our burgeoning tons of waste and garbage will poison the Earth beyond recovery and we will go extinct."
While your statement is logical and stops short of eluding to what is and has been effectively intended policy since the end of wwII. Population decimation is one agenda that none have been brave enough to complete, yet remain complicit on the intent. It is a humanists political conundrum, perhaps your reading of the text on the 'Georgia stones' is your moniker of the day. The great think tanks are I believe way ahead of you on these issues. From the simple social engineering of sexual polarization, war and some pretty nasty false flag doctrines of necessity disguised as political higher ground. It would appear to some of the more radical that the issue of fertility and reproduction are not being arrested. The female human has been an easily coerced catalyst to socially attempt population reversal, perhaps not radical enough.

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

Green Manhattan Project
Posted by: Gaubladt on Nov 6, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A proactive offensive on climatic-CO2/oceanic-PH change would revitalize our economy.
We need to create a dynamic mechanism that generates and distributes alternative non-nuclear energy at low cost. Then we need to dump the energy on the open market and destroy all the fossil fuel competition all over the globe!

Coal & oil workers could be retrained.

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

Growth is the Enemy ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 6, 2008 2:26 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Growth can mean only one thing ... more pollution.

The plan we need is to implement renewable energy while easing the economy to a sustainable level. Of course no one will say this because to do so is to be banished from all economic discussion.

The problem is that our monetary system, fractional reserve banking, can not exist in a sustainable economy because its' survival depends on the geometric growth of resource extraction, energy usage and consumer consumption.In other words more and more pollution and environmental pillage.

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

What the coal companies know that most people don't:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 6, 2008 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as you keep messing around with wind, solar, geothermal and wave
power, the coal industry is safe. There is no way wind, solar, geothermal and
wave power can replace coal, and they know it. If you quit being afraid of
nuclear, the coal industry is doomed. Every time you argue in favor of wind,
solar, geothermal and wave power, or against nuclear, King Coal is happy.
ONLY nuclear power can put coal out of business. Nuclear power HAS put coal
out of business in France. France uses 30 year old American technology. So
here is the deal: Keep being afraid of all things nuclear and die either when [not
if] civilization collapses or when H2S comes out of the ocean and Homo
"Sapiens" goes extinct. OR: Get over your paranoia and kick the coal habit and
live. Which do you choose? I put quotation marks around "Sapiens" because it
is not clear that most of us have enough brains to avoid extinction when it is
clearly predicted and the safe path has been pointed out. Nuclear is the safe path.

PS: Nuclear is the cheapest and safest source of electricity. Nuclear life cycle
CO2 output is the lowest per kilowatt hour because it takes a huge number of
windmills or solar collectors or wave machines or whatever to produce the same
power as a nuclear power plant. All of those windmills or whatever have
manufacturing processes that make CO2. Hydro power requires an enormous
amount of concrete. The first step in making concrete is heating limestone to
drive off the CO2. That is one of the sources of CO2 from hydro power. The
price for electricity for the various sources of power include the total life cycle
costs. The cost to build the reactor is not much different from the cost to build a
coal fired power plant and the money comes from the same source. See the next
post of mine. Whoever would pay for the reactor is the same person who would
pay for the coal burner. LOOK at the price for the electricity. It is the total life
cycle cost. Nuclear is the cheapest and the only full time replacement for coal.
Nuclear power would be much cheaper than it is if nuclear were allowed to be as
unsafe as the other sources of power. Nuclear power plants are self-insured.
Tax money is NOT involved and would not be mentioned if it were not for the
civil disturbances caused by coal company shills, alias protesters. The nuclear
industry needs and deserves protection from people who are obviously either
mentally ill or very misinformed. When tax money is mentioned with respect to
nuclear power, the money is the extra money that is wasted because of pointless
protests.

I DO NOT work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am a retired
Department of the Army scientist and engineer. I have never worked for the
nuclear power industry.

There is NO SUCH THING as nuclear waste. There is fuel that is being wasted
for political reasons and because the coal industry has driven you paranoid. The
coal industry's reason for doing so is the $100 Billion per year cash flow they
receive as long as you remain in your present mental state. If you remain in your
present paranoid state and prevent the conversion from coal to nuclear, we all die,
as I said before. The cure for your present mental state is for you to go to
college and get a 4 year degree in a hard science [physics or chemistry] or
engineering, or for Americans to start acting like the French with respect to
nuclear power.

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

Nuclear power is the greenest of all sources of electricity.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 6, 2008 6:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind power never works on calm days and solar never works at night.
Nuclear power is cheapest in spite of coal company propaganda.
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest. This is the full life cycle CO2 output. There are no hidden CO2 outputs.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output. The refereed scenarios from the IPCC
failed to hold the CO2 down to 450 parts per million. You can't without building
something like 10,000 new nuclear power plants world wide to replace every coal
fired power plant on the planet. The 10,000 includes replacing all Generation 1
[Chernobyl style] power plants with safe American Generation 4 technology.
Let's get it done.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.00 times nuclear's
price. This is the full and total price. There are no hidden costs. There are no
subsidies. There are no tricks. 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour is all of it.
[Supposed subsidies cover the cost caused by irrational protesters. That is a cost
of civil order, not a cost of nuclear power. The price would be lower if the safety
level were lowered to equal other sources of electricity.]

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.28 times nuclear's price

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.36 times nuclear's price

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.7 times nuclear's price

Wind fits in here.

solar in a sunny place 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.79 to 23.26 times
nuclear's price

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[Batteries not included but required for wind and solar. Why did wind and solar
operate so far below capacity? Simple: Wind power never works when the
wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at maximum during the noon hour.]

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

YES WE CAN replace every coal burner on earth with a nuclear reactor in 8 years
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 6, 2008 6:19 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear reactors can be FACTORY made fast. Nuclear power
will LOWER the price of electricity by 30%. Standardized,
assembly line manufacture of nuclear reactors to replace coal
burners will lower the price of electricity even more.

YES WE CAN replace every coal burner on earth with a nuclear
reactor in 8 years, AND WE CAN MAKE A PROFIT ON THEM.
We can provide electricity to the Chinese peasants for AT LEAST
30% LESS than what they would pay for electricity from coal.
Want a high paying green job? Work at the nuclear reactor
factory that we have to build, or at a Canadian nuclear reactor
factory.

Of course, a much nicer scenario should have happened:
Americans should have replaced all coal fired power plants with
nuclear reactors long ago. That would require that Americans
had been educated properly. ALL high school students should
have taken 4 years of physics, 4 years of chemistry, 4 years of
biology and 8 years of math, starting in 1930. If that had
happened, the coal industry would have had no hope of driving
Americans paranoid of all things nuclear.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. I have
never had any connection with the nuclear power industry. I am
not being paid by anyone to post on Alternet. My sole motive is
to avoid death in the collapse of civilization and to avoid
extinction due to global warming.

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

Nuclear power is the safest.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 6, 2008 6:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Deaths per terrawatt year [twy] for energy industries, including
Chernobyl. terra=mega mega

fuel......... ........fatalities... .....who......... .......deaths per twy
coal......... .........6400...... ......workers........... .........342
natural gas..... ..1200...... .....workers and public... ...85
hydro........ .......4000..... .......public............ ............883
nuclear........ .........31...... ......workers............ .............8

Nuclear power is proven to be the safest. Source: "The Revenge
of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. I have
never had any connection with the nuclear power industry. I am
not being paid by anyone to post on Alternet. My sole motive is
to avoid death in the collapse of civilization and to avoid
extinction due to global warming.

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

You can have either religion or a good job, but not both.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 6, 2008 7:18 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The good job depends on Science in the US. The US was the
world's laboratory before the Republicans and religionists declared
war on science. The Bush economic meltdown was caused by
the Republican war on science and by GWB's contracting out of
the government. Perhaps the message got through: Science has
to be taught in science classes in schools if you want a good
economy. Religion is nonsense and a scam. To get the
economy going, government employees have to be allowed to do
their jobs and research has to be fully funded.

Reference: "The Republican War on Science" by Chris
Mooney, 2005, Basic Books.

It has the following URLs:
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
http://www.chriscmooney.com/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05268/576883.stm

See also:
"Undermining Science, suppression and distortion in the
Bush Administration" by Seth Shulman, 2006
www,ropercenter.uconn.edu

"The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney says:

Because Trofim Lysenko convinced Josef Stalin that
genetics is wrong, 12 million people died of starvation.
The coal companies convinced President George W. Bush
[and Senator Inohe] that global warming hasn't happened
and 12 hundred people died in hurricanes in 2005. For the
same reason, people died in the wildfires in Oklahoma. 12
hundred is less than 12 million, but GWB is still comparable
to Stalin. Both adopted anti-science policies for ideological
reasons and thereby murdered large numbers of their own
citizens.

The US economy has been devastated by George W.
Bush's war on science. Sarah Palin would make a full-
blown depression a lot worse.

There is something that needs to be made explicit: Truth
is not determined by a vote of scientists. Scientists are not
authorities. Nature is the Only authority. There is only
one vote that counts, and Nature casts it. It isn't just "not
nice" to fool Mother Nature, it is impossible. Scientists
understand and believe this so innately that they never say
it, but other people may think that scientists wield power or
authority.
Reference: book: "Science and Immortality" by Charles B.
Paul 1980 University of California Press:
The Eloges of the Paris Academy of Sciences (1699-1791)
page 99: "Science is not so much a natural as a moral
philosophy".
page 106: Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the
Only authority. When you try to disobey Nature [In
older language: "When you try to tell God how to run the
Universe".], the result is less subtle than a train wreck: The
rocket explodes on the launch pad. Oklahomans die in
wild fires when it should be winter. The Gulf coast suffers
the worst hurricane season ever. Tornado season extends
into January.

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

The economy and the population can continue to expand, but not on earth.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 6, 2008 7:29 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Disclaimer: I own stock in Liftport, the space elevator company
[www.liftport.com] and in Spacedev [www.spacedev.com], which was intended to
be an asteroid mining company.

Our solar system as a whole can support at least 10 times as many of us as the
earth alone can. It is just that at least 90% of them have to be someplace other
that Earth. As soon as we invent a way to make carbon nanotubes both long and
strong, we will be able to build the space elevator. A space elevator is like a
vertical railroad. Once we have space elevators, we can spread out into wide open
Space. The only sources of energy out there are solar and nuclear. Solar doesn't
work when you get as far from the sun as Jupiter is.

The Club of Romeand Thomas Malthus are "inside the 'box'", or
stuck on earth, thinkers. See http://www.liftport.com. The Space Elevator will
allow us to move into space in a big way. We might have to have a rule like: "If
you want to have more than one child, you have to move to Mars first". We need
colonies in space as a hedge against disasters on earth, such as giant asteroid
impacts, ecological collapse, super-wars, etc. anyway.

Space and the resources in space may as well be infinite. The sun always shines
on structures orbiting the sun. There are billions of other solar systems in this
galaxy alone that we could inhabit or infect. Let's have a positive attitude and
some creativity!

Space, the high and infinite frontier, is a new frontier and we HAVE to go there.
We can expand almost forever, or at least for millions of years, if we colonize our
whole galaxy. There is no moral dilemma and no environmental dilemma in
expanding into space. Take a look at the "Cosmological Forecast" at
jetpress.org/volume12/CosmologicalForecast.htm.
According to the Cosmological Forecast, for every century we delay the onset of
Galactic colonization, there will be 5 times 10 exponent 46 fewer human lifetimes
between now and the time the galaxy dies. That is 5 followed by 46 "0"s. Our
population explosion may be allowed to continue as long as it happens in space,
not on earth. [If we build a Dyson Sphere, the multiple for the solar system alone
is much larger.] Once we have filled the solar system, we can move on to the
Centauri Cluster. We should even take enough people off of the earth to reduce
the population of earth. Note that evolution will occur. Space is a harsh place
where stupidity will be rewarded with instant death.

Check out http://lifeboat.com. Some of us are working on surviving in space
while the rest of you undergo your ecological disaster. We can repopulate earth
much later.

We have to colonize space for another reason. In only 33,000 years, Proxima
Centauri, a red dwarf star, will enter our Oort Cloud, causing a period of "Heavy
Bombardment." Earth will be struck by giant impactors like the one that killed the
dinosaurs unless we humans are out there preventing it. We are the only possible
defenders Mother Earth can hope for. We have to do it.

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

The economy and the population ..........but not on earth.
Posted by: Andrew_S on Nov 7, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a terrestrial and also speaking for the planet ur~anus. I believe you have certain logistical issues. 1. Exiting terra firma with a game plan and good science. 2. A time frame that you can outrun lineal time on. 3. An escapist mentality that doesn't deal well with reality.

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

The first hour of the first day...Obama should
Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson on Nov 9, 2008 9:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
do like Thomas Jefferson when he defeated Adams for President. He negated the Sedition Acts and agenda to go to war with France. Obama should negate the Patriot Acts, the Military Commissions Act, and FEMA over reach of powers for secret government, etc.

Obama should bring back our rights and Constitution...as law of the land. We are fighting for democracy and we should enjoy it. It is after all a contract for our government that no Congress person or President is allowed to change without ratification by 2/3rds of the states. To do so is treason.

We don't need these laws or policies to protect ourselves, enforce our terrorism laws (they are criminal), or for security. We had the right to go after any illegal action or crime since the formation of the country. During WWI, WWII, and Vietnam we didn't need them. We had spies on our soil, etc. then also.

Unlike President Bush, President Clinton found and tried the attackers (terrorists) of the WTC with our present laws and agency action. They had a trial by jury since it was a crime.

Please Obama listen to the ABA, Constitution Party, many law professors, etc. to push for this action in the first hours after you swear an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. If Obama can't do that then he is the same as they before him who negated our rights, laws, and Constitution.

The American people have been in the streets since Bush one after another negated our freedoms. We want "change" from Fascism and our police state since we are after all a democracy.

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

Why is Van Jones recommended by Bill McKibben
Posted by: mutualaid on Nov 10, 2008 7:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for Obama to listen to?

McKibben calls for 350ppm reduction in atmospheric carbon;

Van Jones calls for obama, 'following 1Sky's lead, the forty-fourth U.S. president should stand before the American people vowing to enact policies that will: (1) create five million green jobs as a part of a plan to conserve 20 percent of our energy by 2015; (2) freeze climate pollution levels now, then cut them to at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050; and (3) ban the construction of new coal plants that emit global-warming pollution, promoting renewable energy instead.'

are these not much different in the time frame and targets they propose? Is Van Jones' proposal not much more politically expedient rather than scientifically grounded (as per James Hansen's prognosis)?

I will repost this question to Bill McKibben on his article comments.

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

Funny
Posted by: hilly7 on Nov 11, 2008 6:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1 - Obama should stop hand-outs to corporations and consider any corporation that goes overseas foreign. IE: Bring back jobs. Why are Ford and GM going broke? They're not, Google either name with Russia where American jobs are going to, but taxpayers are paying it.

2 - Alternative energy. Using Tesla's inventions and maybe adding a new twist, all the other stuff mentioned would be obsolete.

3 - Fix the medical problem. Straighten out big Pharma, Fired the FDA, close down Corporate Agri Business, work on insurance companies, monitor charges from providers.

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

Professional Educator of 40 years
Posted by: pana on Nov 11, 2008 7:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about just scrapping the horrid NCLB Act and high stakes testing, which don't add value. Tons of money goes into high stakes testing, standards by committee. Guess who is getting rich? Right, the testing and publishing companies, which are the Halliburtons of education.

What we need for the 21st century is to question authority and the status quo, and not limit thinking by filling in bubbles, and teaching to the test.

[« 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