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
  • 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.

How to Stop the Planet From Burning

By George Monbiot, South End Press. Posted May 2, 2007.


We know that climate change is happening. But can it be stopped? George Monbiot's book "Heat" shows how it can.
05022007story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by George Monbiot

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The following is an excerpt from George Monbiot's Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning (South End Press, 2007).

All over Washington, you can hear the giant scraping sound of officials and legislators frantically back-tracking. After years of obfuscation, denial, and lies about climate change, all but the most hardened recidivists are rebranding themselves as friends of the earth.

In February, two senior White House officials published an open letter seeking to correct inaccurate stories in the press "that the President's concern about climate change is new. In fact," they reported, "climate change has been a top priority since the President's first year in office." To prove it, they had found 37 words Bush said about the subject in 2001; 46 words in 2002; and 32 words in January 2007. In January 2007 he had even managed to say "climate change." This demonstrated, they claimed, that he has shown "continued leadership on the issue."

Both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are falling over themselves to show how they have sought to save the world. The Senate's vote in 1997-95 to zero-to sink the Kyoto Protocol before it was signed has been forgotten. Joe Barton's congressional Inquisition, in which scientists who refused to alter their results to suit the oil companies were questioned as if they were members of Al Qaeda, never happened. Even Larry Craig, once one of the Senate's most outspoken climate change deniers, now claims that he has been helping to lead the world "toward cleaner technologies." Only Senator James Inhofe, last of the dinosaurs, still maintains that efforts to prevent climate change amount to nothing more than "profiteering" and "chicanery." After the war, almost everyone becomes a member of the Resistance.

George Bush's government has sought to sabotage every effective international effort to prevent global warming. It recruited China and India to an "alternative Kyoto" (the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development), without targets or sanctions, in order to prevent them from signing a binding treaty.

Then it has announced that as India and China haven't signed a binding treaty, neither can the United States. It has all but wrecked the talks attempting to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012. But the inconvenient truth we seek to forget is that the Clinton-Gore administration did even greater damage.

Bush might have pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol, but the Clinton administration destroyed the Protocol as an effective instrument-for everyone. It insisted on measures which allow countries to trade hot air and launder fake cuts. It encouraged other countries to reduce their targets (and thereby allow a higher level of emissions).

In his speech to the Kyoto conference in December 1997, Al Gore used the same mendacious formula George Bush now employs, claiming that limiting carbon emissions the US might otherwise have produced in a hypothetical future equates to real cuts in actual emissions. It was one of the most disgraceful moments in the Clinton presidency, and is impossible to reconcile with the subsequent career of the former next president of the United States.

Clinton failed to submit the protocol to the Senate, Bush refused to do so. There is little practical difference. Beyond avoiding responsibility, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have argued that the US is actually saving the world by investing billions in developing new, low carbon technologies. It is true that many of the most exciting developments have come from the United States.

But tackling climate change, like dieting, is as much about what you don't do as what you do. Developing low carbon technologies without cutting your emissions is like eating two Big Macs, four donuts and an ice cream sundae and then, to be healthy, also eating a salad. Unless the new technologies replace fossil fuel burning-rather than simply supplementing it-they cannot reduce a nation's emissions.

Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning is both a manifesto for action and a thought experiment. Its experimental subject is a medium-sized industrial nation: the United Kingdom. It seeks to show how a modern economy can be de-carbonized while remaining a modern economy.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: heat, global warming, climate change

George Monbiot is also the author of "Poisoned Arrows' and 'No Man's Land" (Green Books). Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com.

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


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 bunch of RUBBISH!
Posted by: Temporary on May 2, 2007 2:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ALL HUMANS consume, and polute to a certain extent! The best way to controll this pollution is to reduce the human population, wich usually happens through war WAR! So THIS is the answer you are looking for! The answer is in our genes!

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

» War is not the answer Posted by: lessbread
SEE VIDEO INTERVIEW
Posted by: Rshaw on May 2, 2007 2:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check this recent Video Interview of Monbiot from TheRealNews

See it HERE

More people need to see this!

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

Population control good for environment, good for economy
Posted by: Bobsays on May 2, 2007 3:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Population control has many advantages. Not only does it reduce the pressure on the environment, it is in fact good for the economy. It increases the value of human beings and means more must be invested in each one. It means that the current model, lots and lots of growth fueled by dumb, cheap, plentiful labour, is replaced by a model that sees growth in efficiency gains: rapid adoption of new technology and methods, effective use of resources.

At present what the UN and the climate change advocates want for us is appalling. They refuse to address population and instead only offer rationing. This will mean destroying our economies for the sake of shipping a few more bags of rice to the third world. Wasteful and polluting economies and societies are the result of population gone mad. When the population is out of control, communities become slums. Slums belch forth lots of pollution, garbage is dumped anywhere, and resources are plundered.

We could have a world where population growth is in line with population depletion (death). Yes, right now we will see for the next three decades a skew to the old in the western world, but this is just a burp from the baby boom period. If put in place population equilisation policies now, in four decades things will be in balance again. As for all the oldies, well they are healthier and so why not let them work and adapt work practices so that people can work as hard or as soft as they like?

In four decades time we can have a world that has a steady population, a high standard of living and lived in balance with the environment. What Monbiot and his ilk advocate, a sort of war communism where everything is rationed, will in fact do nothing to address ballooning third world populations, and is a dumb solution.

I fear there are bigger agendas at work: this includes the crazy notion of using migration into the western world to address economic growth and also to alleviate third world poverty. As we can see from India and China, poverty alleviation is best done at home, not by getting a plane ticket.

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

» Pop control great for my mood Posted by: fifthworld
» The problem is... Posted by: Bobsays
» Well, keep in mind... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
akai ringo
Posted by: akai ringo on May 2, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read quickly through this piece, thought it was well argued, as George Monbiot's pieces mainly are, but lacked sufficient substance to enable me to form any definitive judgments. But then I read the comments so far and thought I must have missed essential points, so I re-read it. I can find nothing about proposed imposed ratining, population control, etc. He does say that Americans need to change their life style, and perhaps that was what raised the ire or your readers. On this point, it is true that Monbiot might as well have saved his breath.
But on the main point, as I discern it, that drastic political change is needed if the world is to be saved, he is undoubtedly right. It is also true, as Monbiot has said many times before, that dtrastic change of the kind needed will really hurt, and it is likely to hurt American hedonistic lifestyles more than those of some others.
But on population control, I still think that it is too early to worry too much. Read Susan George's book, "The Lugano Report". Published in 1999, but as true now as it ever was. Most of the agents she cites as being most active in helping to keep population down, e.g. war, famine, AIDS, desertification etc, are still hard at work. Many African countries are likely to experience very severe population drops as the present infected children grow up and die prematurely. Pollution and dessrtification are rampant in China, etc, etc. For the best chance of survival, my only advice is to try and get a mountain cabin somwehre with enough land to grow subsistence crops for yourself and your family, and try and survive for as long as you can.

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

This book is excellent
Posted by: HeroesAll on May 2, 2007 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd strongly advise that everyone hold off on the knee-jerk responses (or just the jerk responses) until after reading the book.

Monbiot does meticulous research into a variety of ways of drastically reducing emissions without drastically altering our way of life. That point is crucial. Monbiot knew that any solution that looked too drastic wouldn't be accepted: people would rather condemn their children to a world of catastrophic climate change than change their lifestyles too much. So he factored that in.

For anyone who can read it with an open mind, the book is fascinating and inspiring. I interviewed Monbiot a few months ago for our radio show, and had a wonderful discussion with him in which he talked about all sorts of ideas that we could use in Australia. Some of those ideas could also be used in the US.

Of course, all the rest of you, feel free to whinge about "they" want this and "they" want that, and "they" want to take away your car and make you all eat cardboard and wear hessian sacks. But you'll only be making yourselves look stupid, if you have no idea of what Monbiot says.

Really, really, very stupid.

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

» RE: This book is excellent Posted by: oregoncharles
sightsee
Posted by: kick on May 2, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Red necks with hemi engines
Nascar inspired new muscle cars
Fast and Furious 10 second cars
Giant SUV's with one occupant
Drive thru Micky D lifestyle
Ginger bread style, fake tudor houses
7000 jet flights daily
ATV,s, Jet Ski's,Dirt Bikes every where
In our National Parks
At our beaches and lakes
4x4 vehicle presence in the deep woods
Minimum recyling efforts
Most poorly educated generation to date
80% not knowing what Kyoto means
Old growth trees and eco systems being destroyed
Apathy, Apathy,Apathy

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

» RE: sightsee Posted by: willymack
Going "green" will provide good jobs, too!
Posted by: CrystalD on May 2, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read Monbiot's book, though it looks interesting. I don't know if Monbiot brings this up, but one other compelling reason to go green in fuel, technology, building, etc. is that it will provide lots of jobs - good jobs, for scientists, engineers, construction workers and so on; good, well-paying, skilled jobs. Going green will help reduce the underemployment problem; besides, I can think of a lot of professionals who would jump at the opportunity to use their brainpower to do good for the planet.

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

Take India's example
Posted by: Benjaminsjw on May 2, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just read this article, about how India is discovering the benefits of wind power. That's a good development, I would say.

On a different note (and slightly tongue-in-cheek): I was watching a program about the production of Whiskey the other day when it occurred to me that we are wasting an awful amount of perfectly good grain on the production of beer and liquor. We would better use these crops to either a) feed the world, or b) produce biofuel.

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

» RE: Take India's example Posted by: bornxeyed
» biofuel on the rocks Posted by: edith
» RE: biofuel on the rocks Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: biofuel on the rocks Posted by: willymack
» RE: Take India's example Posted by: jmp3954
One sided
Posted by: pingoo on May 2, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no real decisive evidence that it is man made carbon emission that is creating climate change. In fact, much evidence seems to suggest that the carbon levels trail the levels of temperature which is a clear indication that carbon emissions are not actually driving up the temperature but the other way around.

read the following article by Counterpunch's own Alexander Cockburn.

Even Dr. Martin Hertzberg, the man who drew the famous graph used in Al Gore's movie 'An Inconvenient Truth', claims that climate change scientists have misunderstood his work.

Its most likely that the rise in Carbon in the atmosphere and the increase of global warming is mainly affected by many other natural greenhouse gasses, which are predominant in the Earths atmosphere in comparison to man made carbon emissions, and that the temperature is rising because the Earth has just come out of a mini ice age. Patterns like this have been recorded from times before industrialisation.

Yet I am still of the opinion that humans should clean up their act. What worries me though is the scaremongering and the focus on the planetary demise. I would feel much more comfortable if the focus was kept on the real issue that is simply that getting rid of pollution and living a more earth friendly lifestyle would benefit human health.

Weather patterns are one of the most difficult and puzzling aspects of natural science. Humans can just barely produce a 5 day weather forecast yet we are being told of our near imminent demise with a frightning degree of certainty which makes me very uncomfortable. Its not that I disagree with being proactive about climate change (should the human carbon emission theory be true) but I would like if the problem could be dealt with a more objective method, rather than the usual Hollywood doomsday scenario we have become so used to.

Besides that, many other theories on the reason for climate change (i.e. possibly sun spot behaviour) have rarely been explored by the mainstream media - leaving the subject totally one sided with a public completely disinformed about the complexity of nature.

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

» Well, the fact is that... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Well, the fact is that... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: One sided Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: One sided Posted by: pingoo
» RE: One sided Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: One sided Posted by: pingoo
» RE: One sided Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: One sided - source info Posted by: lessbread
» RE: One sided Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: One sided Posted by: pingoo
» RE: One sided Posted by: bornxeyed
» this kind of... Posted by: lonpine
» RE: this kind of... Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: One sided Posted by: godsouza
» RE: One sided Posted by: pingoo
» bornxeyed: not bad for a stoner Posted by: grim ripper
» RE: Not a chance we can take, is it? Posted by: oregoncharles
Plant Hemp!
Posted by: davesilvan on May 2, 2007 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If hemp weren't made illegal so corporate companies could crush their natural competition, it would save the planet.

Order the book 'The Emperor Wears No Clothes' by Jack Herer at half.com, or you could even read it for free at www.jackherer.com

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

HAH HAH!
Posted by: Temporary on May 2, 2007 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can forget about any "global deal" on cutting emissions! It WONT WORK! We have a MUCH MORE easier way to handle human population growth and comsumption;WAR! There is NO BETTER WAY to share the ENORMOUS resources the earth contains, TURST MY!

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

» RE: HAH HAH! Posted by: jmp3954
The doctrine of man-made global warming
Posted by: rwa on May 2, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg:

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

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

» RE: Except Exxon... Posted by: EagleMB
» Bait and Switch Posted by: rwa
» RE: Bait and Switch Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Bait and Switch Posted by: rwa
» What a load of BS. Posted by: MartianBachelor
Deniers
Posted by: lonpine on May 2, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is that there is overwhelming scientific consensus that global climate change is anthropogenic, and mostly likely due to CO2 emissions. Science is a sociological enterprise, but it's the best way we have at predicting and understanding natural behavior. If there are deniers out there, I would trust this sociological system of peer review to bring their arguments to the fore and be tested. As anyone who's worked in academia knows, there are more than a few scientists who love to pop the bubble of conventional wisdwom- any chance they get, they will. That's how they make a name for themselves, and that's how Thomas Kuhn's shifts in a scientific paradigm happen.

Now, there have been thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that have drawn the line in the sand with their claims about global warming, and yet there appear to be few papers that have been able to refute them. You may call it a conspiracy, but there is little reason to believe that the system of peer review, which is highly decentralized, would be able to stifle debate. If it did, then it would mean that we have witnessed a fundamental shift in the way science is done, and in fact, the rate of innovation would start slowing, b/c unpopular ideas (like special relatively or quantum physics once were), would never see the light of day. And yet, in the field of biomedical research, in oncology for example, we see medical texts being rewritten b/c of the innovative therapies being pioneered. Again, vested interests that are able to present only one view and prohibit unpopular ones from appearing would have stopped this as well.

Perhaps we may not agree exactly on the magnitude of the problem- but if we all believe in the sign (does current human activity, in general, improve or worsen the situation), and we agree on the general range of probable ramifications, then do we need to spend time quibbling on exactly which side of the Titanic will hit the iceberg?

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

Christine Todd Whitman is heading a public relations blitz...
Posted by: rwa on May 2, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to convince the nation "how nuclear power can contribute to America's energy security" according to its Web site. The goal, Whitman said, is "getting people to start to talk about this and think about this ... try to build the public support for this kind of power."

"if you care about climate change and you care about air quality, nuclear power is really the only form of base power that doesn't produce some of the regulated emissions and doesn't contribute to global climate change."

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

Repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
Posted by: Jarmadi on May 2, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whereas before congress passed this act by unethical means, a fellow could play a little blackjack in the privacy of his own home on his computer. Now he must get in his car and drive hundreds of miles for his gaming pleasure. Repealing this act will save millions of gallons of gasoline, and help to abate the warming of our planet.

The internet helps in many ways to conserve our resources and limits our polution of the environment, and I think that repealing the UIGEA, and getting gambling back on my computer where it belongs would be great for everyone except the clients of Jack Abramoff.

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

Someone wrote
Posted by: fifthworld on May 2, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(I forget where on this whole section) that we might not need to change our way of life in order to SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT. How incredibly stupid - "the American way of life is non-negotiable" (Dickless Cheney). And cowardly. You want your baby comforts, don't want to sacrifice anything. But you'll be humbled by what's coming.

This whole ecological crisis is going to be far bigger than public strategiziing - it's damage control, and more often it's just rhetorical pissing in the wind. Sure we can do-the-right-things as far as shifting energy modes, changing priorities, killing the consumer mindset fundamentally, but the heat is on and will be for many years. That's already proven, and no HEROIC efforts will spare us from the guilt at what we've done. (IF it is 100% human doing, which is entirely debateable.)

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

do something even if it is wrong
Posted by: solrev on May 2, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is really scary is the prediction of the effect on global warming. Scientists look at past data and extrapolate to predict the future. Extrapolating data out side the data range is a risky business because, it assumes all conditions will remain constant in the future. We had the little ice age and solar output is probably less predictable than co2 effects. If the sun belches the wrong way in the next twenty years, we could be underestimating the total effect. If it belches the other way, we still are just buying time. That green house gases will produce global warming, is a scientific fact and not in dispute. Look at any grade school science book from 40 years ago and it will state that the surface temperature of Venus is so hot because of green house gases not because it is closer to the sun.

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

The solution? Ban coal, ban foreign oil imports, and support renewables.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 2, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Point 1: The science behind the human effects on climate is now well-understood. The evidence for anthropogenic global warming caused mainly by fossil fuels, but also by deforestation, is overwhelming. The poles are melting, as are the high altitude glaciers. Continental interiors are drying out and coastal regions are experiencing more and more flooding. Surface temperatures continue to rise, with no end in sight.

Point#2: To slow global warming, we need to stop using fossil fuels as energy sources, and that means phasing out coal first, oil second, and natural gas third. Bush&Co. claim this will lead to 'economic disaster' but that only applies to their billionaire cronies who control the global fossil fuel trade.

Point#3: Clean energy programs will produce huge economic benefits for countries that have the wisdom to pursue them. Oil imports are often a countries greatest expenditure - and if solar manufacturing, wind manufacturing, and sustainable biofuel development will create many good jobs if responsibly managed. As a case in point, look at gasoline prices all across the US right now.

This article beats around the bush - so let's state it clearly: ban coal fired electricity and ban foreign oil imports, period. At the same time, give massive, Marshall-plan scale support for renewable energy research, development and implementation. That's the only solution - and it will lead to economic revitalization, and will also strenghten democratic institutions as people will no longer have to get their energy from massive protofascist corporate organizations - which are the very same groups that are behind the oil wars in the Middle East and Africa.

Incidentally, while I have the greatest respect for most of Mr. Monbiot's reporting, he is off base in his call for a 'five-year ban on biofuels', though if he had said "as currently implemented by Cargill and ADM" he would have been right. The future of biofuels is in non-food sources, for example cellulosic ethanol from rice, corn and wheat straw, or from algal ponds. In particular, he completely misunderstands the reasons behind the rise in corn prices in Mexico: free trade policy as carried out by NAFTA, not a 'battle between food and fuel'.

As far as agriculture goes, we need to get fossil fuels out of agricultural and create sustainable food production systems - and this is very doable. The current agricultural system, in which over 55% of US corn is fed into factory farms and feedlots for cattle, hogs and poultry, is a disaster on all fronts. A five-year ban on factory farming and a five year ban on coal would do more to slow global warming than a five-year ban on biofuels would.

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

Well, use the grain for beer and the wheat straw for ethanol
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 2, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a win-win solution: cellulosic ethanol production.

Creating Cellulosic Ethanol: Spinning Straw into Fuel

by Diane Greer
April, 2005

In the Grimm Brother's fairy tale, Rumpelstiltskin spins straw into gold. Thanks to advances in biotechnology, researchers can now transform straw, and other plant wastes, into "green" gold - cellulosic ethanol. While chemically identical to ethanol produced from corn or soybeans, cellulose ethanol exhibits a net energy content three times higher than corn ethanol and emits a low net level of greenhouse gases. Recent technological developments are not only improving yields but also driving down production cost, bringing us nearer to the day when cellulosic ethanol could replace expensive, imported "black gold" with a sustainable, domestically produced biofuel.

Cellulosic ethanol has the potential to substantially reduce our consumption of gasoline. "It is at least as likely as hydrogen to be an energy carrier of choice for a sustainable transportation sector," say the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Union of Concerned Scientists in a joint statement. Major companies and research organizations are also realizing the potential. Shell Oil has predicted "the global market for biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol will grow to exceed $10 billion by 2012." A recent study funded by the Energy Foundation and the National Commission on Energy Policy, entitled "Growing Energy: How Biofuels Can Help End America's Oil Dependence", concluded "biofuels coupled with vehicle efficiency and smart growth could reduce the oil dependency of our transportation sector by two-thirds by 2050 in a sustainable way."

ISN'T ALL ETHANOL THE SAME?

Conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are the same product, but are produced utilizing different feedstocks and processes. Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans. Corn, the predominant feedstock, is converted to ethanol in either a dry or wet milling process. In dry milling operations, liquefied corn starch is produced by heating corn meal with water and enzymes. A second enzyme converts the liquefied starch to sugars, which are fermented by yeast into ethanol and carbon dioxide. Wet milling operations separate the fiber, germ (oil), and protein from the starch before it is fermented into ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks including agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. Cellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, with smaller amounts of proteins, lipids (fats, waxes and oils) and ash. Roughly, two-thirds of the dry mass of cellulosic materials are present as cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin makes up the bulk of the remaining dry mass...

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

» RE: not a solution for polution Posted by: Logic's Edge
The Warming Globe and Us (and the solution of vegetarianism)
Posted by: CyberBrook on May 2, 2007 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]


The Warming Globe and Us
It's More Than CO2

by Dan Brook and Richard H. Schwartz
May 1st, 2007 / Dissident Voice

Global warming goes way beyond “an inconvenient truth”. We are overheating our planet to alarming levels with potentially catastrophic consequences. 2006 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. and the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1994. Think of an overheated car, an overcooked dinner, or being sick with a fever. Now imagine that on a planetary scale. ...

The Warming Globe and Us
www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/the-warming-globe-and-us

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

How to Stop the Planet From Burning
Posted by: pfm on May 2, 2007 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I for one do not believe that phrases likes ... how to stop the planet from burning ... encourage useful dialogue. Rather it has the overtones of one who has an agenda he is pushing. While there may well be supportive evidence for this position the mere wording is sufficient in many cases to essentially turn folks off and cause them to automatically reject the concept being postulated.

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

Reflective beads
Posted by: Logic's Edge on May 2, 2007 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a wacko idea I can't recall having been proposed anywhere... a vast floating field of beads that reflect infrared well.

Put them out in the ocean and reduce the Earth's albido, just like ice does. Reflect heat back into space.

Comments, anyone?

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

» RE: eflective beads Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: eflective beads Posted by: kick
» RE: eflective beads Posted by: MartianBachelor
Models used to analyse climate change are incoherent & invalid from a scientific point of view
Posted by: rwa on May 2, 2007 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
APRIL 27, 2007.- Scientists might not have human behavior to blame for global warming, according to the president of the World Federation of Scientists.

Antonio Zichichi, who is also a retired professor of advanced physics at the University of Bologna, made this assertion today in an address delivered to an international congress sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

The conference, which ends today, is examining "Climate Change and Development."

Zichichi pointed out that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment.

He also cited that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view. The U.N. commission was founded in 1988 to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans.

Zichichi, who is also member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, showed that the mathematical models used by the IPCC do not correspond to the criteria of the scientific method.

He said that the IPCC used "the method of 'forcing' to arrive at their conclusions that human activity produces meteorological variations."

The physicist affirmed that on the basis of actual scientific fact "it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes," and that it is plausible that "man is not to blame."

To that end, Zichichi explained how the motor of meteorology depends on natural phenomena. He gave as an example the "energy sent by the sun and volcanic activity that spits out lava and enormous quantities of substances in the atmosphere."

He also reminded those present that 500,000 years ago the Earth lost the North and South Poles four times. The poles disappeared and reformed four times, he said.

Zichichi said that in the end he is not convinced that global warming is caused by the increase of emissions of "greenhouse gases" produced through human activity.

Climate changes, he said, depend in a significant way on the fluctuation of cosmic rays.

globalresearch.ca

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

» Cosmic rays?!! (ROTFL) Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Nonsense piled on nonsense... Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Sick of the hysteria.
Posted by: johndoraemi on May 2, 2007 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believed Al Gore, when I saw his film. I don't anymore.

This man-made warming has never been proven yet. They have never, ever established a baseline: WHAT CAUSES THE NATURAL WARMING AND COOLING EVIDENCED THOUGHOUT ALL OF NATURAL HISTORY? (It ain't us).

They cannot tell us how or why the Earth heated up since the Little Ice Age 1450-1850, and they blame all of it on carbon. As if the earth never heated or cooled before. This is playing upon (preying upon?) people's ignorance of science.

Political forces are lining up to make changes they can capitalize on.

I see Monbiot throwing in "nuclear" as an option. Since he doesn't argue against it in this article, I must conclude that like Al Gore, H. Clinton, Pelosi and Obama, more nuclear plants are "on the table."

The American people have forgotton all about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, of course. So, it's time to strike while the iron's allegedly "hot."

I'm going to have to join the ranks of the skeptics. Al Gore's graph in his movie was misleading. The CO2 doesn't cause the temperature to change; it's vice versa. The temperature changes first, and CO2 changes happen CENTURIES later.

I'm going to need more solid evidence before I accept Stalinistic "central control" which Monbiot rightly tries to defend against, since that's what's coming down the pike.

Most problems are simply overpopulation. Birth control needs to be pushed, marketed, given away everywhere. We do not need another litter. Make this the national slogan: STOP BREEDING LIKE INSECTS.

Peak oil is going to make this discussion academic anyway. Oil use will diminish when they can't extract anymore. Case closed. It's not going to decline before then.

Crimes of the State
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

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

» Peak Oil Posted by: rwa
» Where is the evidence? Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Sick of the hysteria. Posted by: heftysmurf
who let the trolls out?
Posted by: DeAnander on May 2, 2007 5:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
looks like a pretty typical freeper-style dogpile / flash mob. let's have a costume party, and we can all come as Cleopatra Queen of Denial :-)

which is a sure sign that someone, somewhere, is running scared... maybe some someones who are long on coal plants?

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

Irrelevant to Climate Change