You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register
Dave Lindorff
Published: Thursday 29 November 2012
It seems insane that this nation’s leaders, corporate and political, would even now still be deliberately refusing to take action to protect the Earth, which of course they and their children and grandchildren will also have to live on, and yet almost to a one they are on the side of the deniers or the delayers.

Thinking the Unthinkable: What if America’s Leaders Actually Want Catastrophic Climate Change?

Article image

ABOUT Dave Lindorff

Dave Lindorff is an investigative reporter, a columnist for CounterPunch, and a contributor to Businessweek, The Nation, Extra! and He received a Project Censored award in 2004. Dave is also a founding member of the online newspaper ThisCantBeHappening! at

Accepting the foundational

Accepting the foundational belief that the 1%'s greed is limitless, I'll argue that the major impediments to dealing with global warming are 1) humans' infinite capacity for delay and denial; and 2) political cowardice born of a pathological desire to remain in office, which translates into complete inability and unwillingness to do anything that might require the electorate to reject point #1.

If you look at our denial behaviors, e.g., smoking cigarettes despite 50 years worth of unimpeachable data about the disastrous health effects of it; consuming sugar at a rate that has produced the most obese and unhealthy civilization extant; clinging to obsolete, dying industries and remaining in locations that depend on those, among many others. The same American optimism that produces the salutary "can-do" attitude also enables this chronic denial. "Oh, something will work out; it always does."

Actually, so far the North

Actually, so far the North American continent has borne the brunt of the damage, at least in terms of monetary value. The tornadoes, hurricanes, and drought, even before Sandy, had lead to a 5-fold increase in disaster payouts by re-insurers, compared to 3 or 4 times on other continents.

By the way, you understate the extent of loss of coastal land - Delaware disappears at about 20 meters, and the eastern seaboard south of New York, including all of Florida and most of Louisiana and Alabama, disappear to the mountains by the time you get to the 60 meters that results from a complete meltdown of the Antarctic and Greenland ice. I just heard that is accelerating faster than anticipated, and there is in the global record evidence of rapid meltdowns within just a few decades. What there isn't is evidence of a forcing as massive as the one we are doing by digging up carbon deposits and burning them.

Sorry, but the premise is

Sorry, but the premise is ridiculous. Nobody is going to come out 'a winner' as global warming plays out.

What is true is that the future of the fossil fuel industry depends on the assumption that we are going to burn the 2,800 gigatons of CO2 that it holds in 'proven reserves.'

So as Bill McKibben says, the business model of the fossil fuel industry envisions the total destruction of life on earth.

The answer? Divestment. It worked to destroy Apartheid when everyone said it couldn't, it will work in changing the fossil fuel industry's business model.

Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

What's astonishing to me is

What's astonishing to me is not merely that the fossil fuel industry remains unchecked in its destruction, but that US tax policy actually subsidizes it, despite multi-billion-dollar quarterly profits for oil producers. "Sir, may I contribute to the cost of the gun you'll use to kill me?"

Concerning any policies which

Concerning any policies which are the responsibility of a given USA politician - now notably Obama - one may always ask whether the observed and obviously bad results are due more to the guy's foolery/incompetence or to his deliberate knavery/conspiracy/sabotage. Consider the observed results of various Obama (and administration) policies:

*Reward of the parasitic un-entrepreneurial super-rich, along with punishment of struggling workers and home-owners.
*Promotion and support of existing and new extremist Islamo-nazi movements and regimes in the Mideast.
* Persecution of those who possess substances which will at most harm themselves, but no effective limits on acquiring firearms for killing others.

In much the same category, only with perhaps even more catastrophic global effects:

*Promotion of climate change.

Whether or not conspiracy is actually afoot, the results are much the same as if it were.

It would seem that the total

It would seem that the total betrayal of the human race for personal gain is the ultimate in Treason. Down with the Kings!

A very interesting article -

A very interesting article - thanks for this delectable food for thought. Another possible influence with similar results was expressed by Nelson Rockefeller many years ago at a luncheon in New York. He said that the greatest negative in our system is that politicians look no further into the future than to their next election, thus effectively failing to deal with any long-term problems facing the nation...

I'd substitute "refusing" for

I'd substitute "refusing" for "failing."

---It is indeed tempting to

---It is indeed tempting to see our current situation as being just more business as usual for the power brokers who live by the shock doctrine. No matter what they do, they win.
---If they had followed President Carter's lead and taken the world wide initiative in the development of renewable energy, they would have looked like visionaries and made handsome profits.
---If they keep on the present course, their personal fortunes continue to skyrocket, and they please the gods of greed. A pretty scenario in which they cull the human herd. I'm banking on the second of these two scenarios. It is a safe bet that they know exactly what they are doing.
---But, do we know what they are doing? It's pretty obvious that the captains of industry and their political minions aren't about to write off the trillions of dollars of oil, gas and coal reserves which are already on their books awaiting extraction and sales. They have us neatly divided into opposing camps: liberal tree huggers versus right wing capitalists. As long as we are at each others' throats, we'll never gain the organized strength to put a stop to this nightmare.
---There is a social plan to use people power so as to force our "leaders" into acting sanely. Let's begin the hydrogen economy powered by wind and solar. Further reading Copy to clipboard and paste in your browser's address bar. That's the best we can do until NOC fulfills their formatting options promise.

But wait . . . there's even

But wait . . . there's even more to this Ginsu knife set of catstrophe . . . .

The Three Peaks

"As I mentioned in my previous posts, the human species has created something of a doomsday scenario for itself. My catchname for this event is the three peaks, the peaks being Peak Oil, Peak Population and Peak Wealth Apartheid. Peak Oil refers to the point of maximum yield from the planet's oil resources, a point which is happening right now. Peak Population is self explanatory; the human race is now at roughly seven billion individuals and growing. Peak Wealth Apartheid refers to the increasing sequestration of 80% or more of world's wealth by 20% or less of the world's population.

I took these three variables and created a simple spreadsheet using these factors:

We have reached the Peak Oil moment and the general agreement seems to be that total global oil yield will decrease at a rate of 2% per annum as we go into the future.

We are at Peak Population, but still growing. Again, the general agreement seems to be that the human population will grow from the present 7 billion to 8 billion, more or less, by 2025.

Wealth Apartheid figures show that 20% of the world's population owns 80% of the world's wealth, and the remaining 80% of the world's population own only 20% of the wealth.

The dynamic of the spreadsheet is this: I made the assumption that all of the world's wealth is generated using oil - literally - as the fuel which drives the economic engine. If not exactly 100%, I think that my assumption is close enough. I then assigned - by percentage - the amount of wealth owned by each billion people in the 20% bracket and also in the 80% bracket. The result of this calculation showed that in 2012 there were 1.4 billion people in the 20% bracket, and their wealth-per-billion share was 57.14%, for a total of 80% ownership of all wealth. There were 5.6 billion people in the 80% bracket and their wealth-per-billion share was 3.57%, for a total of 20% ownership of all wealth. Then I applied the 2% annual decline of oil yield as a direct decline in the total available wealth. Assuming that this decline was shared equally, my chart showed - predictably - that all the world grew poorer, but at the same 80/20 split. However, due to the fact that - applying population growth to the spreadsheet - the absolute population growth numbers of the wealthy were far less than the absolute population growth numbers of the poor, the poor grew poorer at a much faster rate than the wealthy. The poor simply had to cut the slices of their aggregate wealth thinner than the wealthy. It is important to note here that for the purposes of this exercise, I did not assume any changes in percentage to the 80/20 wealth split, though it is manifestly apparent that the top 20% are purposefully and radically increasing their already bloated share of the world's wealth while at the same time diminishing the "select" group of individuals who benefit from it. I kept this at flatline, for a reason you will see. Finally, I made one more assumption that is actually a reflection of reality rather than assumptive; that despite the overall decline in wealth, the top 20% would maintain ownership of 80% of the wealth available as expressed in 2012 numbers. The obvious result of this would be that their percentage of total global wealth ownership would increase for each year of global wealth decline, and the percentage of ownership held by the bottom 80% would likewise decrease. Which leads me to the ultimate point of this line of reasoning: how long will it take for the top 20% of the population to own 100% of the world's wealth and the bottom 80% to be reduced to 0% ownership? The answer was somewhat surprising to me: the spreadsheet showed 100% wealth ownership by the 20% occurring right at the end of 2018, a mere six years in the future. Before I did this exercise, my estimate was that this finality would occur in perhaps 2050.

Now, admittedly this is meataxe math and, to use one of my favorite sayings "Figures lie and liars figure." But it was the dynamic between the three prime variables I was interested in: the wealth ownership endgame, so to speak. Depending on what other variables you use, we might hit this endgame state in 2016 or 2024, but it is immaterial to my point.

Here is a link to the spreadsheet:

I'll leave it up to you to consider the implications - both for the world and your own life over the next few years."




Was it Twain or Will Rogers

Was it Twain or Will Rogers or someone else who said that it's hard to get a man to understand a thing when his paycheck depends on not understanding it? There have been a few people who argue that more carbon dioxide and a higher temperature will increase food production in Canada, Siberia, etc. But for most thought leaders, I think it's a scenario of the frog in the boiling water. They don't live in a flood plain, they have air conditioning, and a couple of degrees of rise in temperature wouldn't make any difference. For people who live right at sea level, like in Bangladesh or the Netherlands, they confront their vulnerability every day.

I think we passed the point of no return a decade ago. We could have accelerated alternative energy development and created a carbon tax, but our leaders did not want to spend the political capital to educate a reluctant public to do so or actively opposed it. Even now, when the national debt and trade imbalances are supposedly a catastrophe in the making, we can't even discuss raising some money from a carbon tax. I'm afraid our social and political systems are just not up to the tasks of long-term thinking.

I don't even think they are

I don't even think they are up to the task of short term thinking. The so called "fiscal cliff" looks like the grand canyon to them, though it's little more than a speed bump.

We may soon learn the entropy

We may soon learn the entropy limits of the planet.

Sorry but I don't buy the

Sorry but I don't buy the scenarios you describe.
We are all interdependent, what affects one continent affects us all. The "them" versus "us" is no longer a sustainable assumption as we continue to pollute, overpopulate the world, and depend on global economies to move goods from one place to another. The human race will not survive global warming because we have not yet learned how to work together to save the planet.

I don't think corporate

I don't think corporate leaders actually want to cause catastrophic climate change. They are well aware that human induced climate change is a real phenomenon. They are lying when they say otherwise.

But the potential for profit overshadows all other concerns. So they just don't care if fossil fuel use destroys the climate. The plan is, let it happen.

They figure they will be dead when the real bad changes get here. In the meantime they will live better than the kings of old with their unlimited wealth. Those of limited means will suffer unimaginable horrors.

To accomplish their goal of burning all the remaining fossil fuel, the powers that be will need to gain complete control of the electoral/legislative process. That is why they are dismantling our democracy as we speak.

don't ya just love a crazy

don't ya just love a crazy conspiracy? and my dentist owns stock in Hershey's Candy, too.
i believe "they" are quite capable of such duplicity, but i do not believe they are capable of keeping it a secret.
but the real problem with the theory is - it is a huge assumption to make: a wetter, cooler northeast may or may not be good for crops. it depends on the crops. maple syrup, yes. potatoes, not so much.

This is one of the oddest

This is one of the oddest pieces I've ever read and so illogical you couldn't even call it a theory. All the "what ifs" are a selection of incoherent gibberish.

The main reason for inaction is the omnipotent fossil fuel industry et all, not coming to terms with their endangering the planet and shifting their corporate model to the renewables (esp. geo thermal) as continuing profits keep them glued to their monopoly of supplying carbon based fuels. I suggest the author re read the World Bank report again. The WB as an institution of the wealthy, in it's condemnation of one of it's own, the fossils, indicates that even the elites are starting to become alarmed by the predictions of climate science. At a 4 degree celsius increase national institutions (civilization) will begin to break down. At 6 degrees it will become a game of survival around the globe, so what the author is suggesting is that the elites are not only morally defunct ( which they are to some degree) but that they also have a death wish that is overpowering their desire for their continuing possession of mega wealth and power. It is their desire for more, rather than any geo political nonsence that is stalling action being taken to ameliorate the coming heating of the climate.

Sadly I long ago reached more

Sadly I long ago reached more or less the same conclusion.

When "The Limits To Growth" was published (circa 1970) the authors presented two alternative scenarios for the 21st century.

Either we could:

(a) drastically limit both population growth and industrial output immediately (1970) and world population would level out at a sustainable 9-10 billion by midcentury, or

(b) go on overpopulating and living an unsustainable lifestyle and the result would be a massive dieoff starting about now (2nd decade of 21st century) resulting in a sustainable population of maybe 3-4 billion.

Over the last 40 years it has become increasingly clear to me the Powers That Be have chosen scenario (b) - they intend to survive the dieoff in their gated communities with armed guards, private fire fighters, etc, and to hell with the rest of us.

Recall that Carter tried to implement alternative energy, but when Reagan won the White House he had Carter's solar panels removed and basically told Americans to go back to consuming big time.

And the American wars of naked agression of the last decade further confirm this choice of scenario (b). The authors pointed out that as resources become scarce the more powerful will wage wars to corner those resources. Enter GW Bush et al ..

The only other remorely plausible interpretation is that the Powers That Be are completely unaware of the human contribution to climate change - and I simply cannot believe they don't read the CIA's own assessments, which correspond precisely with the conclusions of The Limits To Growth.

They would rather plunge the planet into famine, plague, floods, droughts and wars than cede their (and their progenies') power.

Catastrophic climate change

Catastrophic climate change is good for bidness. Imagine the countless fire trucks, heating equipment, cooling equipment, insulation, water, oil/gas/tar/coal that can be sold to frying people.... What would be best if the climate changes so badly that no one can live on the surface of the earth. People will be forced to live underground and pay for every breath they take in and anything else that maintain lives which will be controlled by those who control the supplies of life-support. That would be an ideal world for the rich in which the controllers would have absolute control over life of everyone who must work for them from birth to death to LIVE!

Even without climate change,

Even without climate change, this sounds like the current 1% vs the 99%.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

Former GOP Strategist Kevin Phillips on Roots of American Revolution, Future of US Politics

Amy Goodman
Democracy Now! / Video Report
Published: Wednesday 28 November 2012
“The United States is not in wonderful shape and it needs to get back some of that spunk that it had when people were willing to talk very bluntly about harsh and tough measures.”

Author pic
ABOUT Amy Goodman

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of "Breaking the Sound Barrier," recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

Always nice to see that lefty

Always nice to see that lefty morons are more stupidly moronic than righty morons, DWD. If you are actually able to read, perhaps you ought to read any of Phillips' books, since they are among the best political analyses of how we ended up in the current swamp written in the past 40 years. You Idiot.

"Phillips helped popularize

"Phillips helped popularize the Southern strategy that helped Republicans win the backing of white Southern voters by appealing to racism against African-Americans."

Why did you let him off the hook when you asked the question if he really did appeal to racism? Fuck him. That sort of thing is unforgivable. And the fact that he is now moving away from a sinking boat, after making his millions, only shows that he is a man of bad character.

I mean he appealed to "racism against African-Americans" for political reasons. Phillips acted like a racists and was part and parcel to a racist movement to gain power in the south, and whether he is truly a racist or not, he sided with racism for political reasons and should be treated accordingly.

A truly morally disgusting person.

If there's anybody

If there's anybody "disgusting" here, it's you, the intellectually disgusting moron. Always nice to see that lefty morons are more stupidly moronic than righty morons, DWD. If you are actually able to read (a fact not in evidence), perhaps you ought to read any of Phillips' books, since they are among the best political analyses of how we ended up in the current swamp written in the past 40 years. You Idiot.

Wow DWD you're another rigid

Wow DWD you're another rigid leftist with a pole up yer @ss. The man is no longer with the Repugnants. People change. If you had read any of his books you'd understand this and if smart enough would see what a brilliant, perceptive political historian and analyst he is. He was one of the shining lights in the Bush era. It was good to hear him again this morning.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

EPA Officials Weigh Sanctions Against BP’s U.S. Operations

Abrahm Lustgarten
Pro Publica / News Analysis
Published: Wednesday 28 November 2012
“Over the past 10 years, BP has paid tens of millions of dollars in fines and been implicated in four separate instances of criminal misconduct that could have prompted this far more serious action.”
Article image

Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency are considering whether to bar BP from receiving government contracts, a move that would ultimately cost the company billions in revenue and could end its drilling in federally controlled oil fields.

Paying the fines for mortally

Paying the fines for mortally damaging the environment and killing people still costs less than actually doing the job right the first time. Billions in record profits again for BP makes that clear. Why do what they have to do when not doing so is more profitable and everyone who can and should do something justs looks the other way to see how well their shares in BP stock are doing. Every executive at BP should be given a 12 oz glass of Prudhoe Bay crude to drink, or be executed by being thrown into a vat of burning boiling crude.

BP should be Barred

BP should be Barred Permanently from US waters for the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

BP should be Barred Permanently from doing business with the US government for its disasterous Texas City, Texas refinery operations.
(The US military can get refined oil products from a different oil company.)

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

Top US Healthcare Giant: GMOs are Devastating Health

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society / News Analysis
Published: Wednesday 28 November 2012
“Explaining how GM ingredients have been linked to tumors and organ damage in rats in the only lifelong rat study available, the newsletter highlighted how the only real long- term research indicates that GMOs are a serious health danger.”
Article image

Just days after a leading genetically modified organism (GMO) researcher spoke out against GMOs and how many pro-GMO ‘scientists’ are in bed with Monsanto or carry their own GMO patents, the largest managed healthcare provider in the United States is now publicly speaking out against GMOs. In a recent newsletter, the Kaiser Permanente company discussed the numerous dangers of GMOs in a recent newsletter and how to avoid them.

Author pic
ABOUT Anthony Gucciardi

Anthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. A health activist and researcher, Anthony’s goal is informing the public as to how they can use natural methods to revolutionize their health, as well as exploring the behind the scenes activity of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.

It is only good that

It is only good that government is making its effort to oust those food and agricultural firm that are using GMO's food. Why they acted so late, and perhaps they need to thoroughly monitor this activities as other may still using it. If the government don't do any action, then it only claims that it helps those company from killing its people. Imagine how many people are into facilities with intensive health monitoring procedure because on the intake of GMO foods.

"works at"

What? Did I actually get here

What? Did I actually get here before Kevin Follet, the resident GMO-Booster?

Would not be in the LEAST surprised if Kevin himself is one of the GMO-invested scientists who is complicit in standing up for his profits, er, Monsanto's planned monopoly on seed production...

At the clear expense of YOUR health, and MY health. Kevin's health? HE thinks it's SAFE to eat this stuff (plus, his PROFITS will "allow" him to beat the cancers when they happen to him too).

If you feel safe believing his tripe, go to it. I just hope YOU are rich too, because the cancer rate is growing as we speak.

Hi. I'm the mom of that

Hi. I'm the mom of that darling boy in your picture. Attribution?

Slowly GMOs are getting the

Slowly GMOs are getting the scrutiny they deserve. I am convinced our health-care costs could be lowered substantially by just eliminating HFCS from our prepared foods. Go to '"" for help switching to organic foods.



Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus
Europe Economy

Europe’s Debt Could be a Greater Threat Than US “Fiscal Cliff”

Article image

A new report warns of economic concerns focused beyond U.S. borders. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Europe’s debt crisis is a far bigger concern threatening the world’s economy, including U.S. recovery, than the “fiscal cliff.” “After five years of crisis, the global economy is weakening again. The risk of a major contraction cannot be ruled out,” OECD chief economist Pier Carlo Padoan said Tuesday in the organization’s semi-annual Economic Outlook report. 

Read it at Salon

comments powered by Disqus
Michael T. Klare
Tom Dispatch / Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 28 November 2012
“North America is at the forefront of a sweeping transformation in oil and gas production that will affect all regions of the world.”

World Energy Report 2012

Article image

Rarely does the release of a data-driven report on energy trends trigger front-page headlines around the world.  That, however, is exactly what happened on November 12th when the prestigious Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) released this year’s edition of its World Energy Outlook.  In the process, just about everyone missed its real news, which should have set off alarm bells across the planet.

ABOUT Michael T. Klare

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and the author, most recently, ofRising Powers, Shrinking Planet. A documentary movie version of his previous book, Blood and Oil, is available from the Media Education Foundation.

Let's hope Ms. Stevens' kids

Let's hope Ms. Stevens' kids pick up wisdom somewhere besides home. It doesn't matter much what one's other responses are "plugging away" when one stokes the Malthusian inferno by selfishly plugging away at popping out three more consumption machines. C'mon, we have known better than that since Paul Erlich in 1967. People like Ms. Stevens are the problem, not part of the solution.

How do we get people to see

How do we get people to see that we must change our energy usuage?

Thank you Professor

Thank you Professor Schwartzman, James Bailey and Jeff Lewis,

I like it that you all used names, thus giving the impression of real people with family, friends and community. It will only be through ending the epidemic of isolation that we can reclaim our collective power and give the feedback that we are all starved of. This feedback is the fuel of evolution.

I am happy that there are no climate change deniers in this comment string, but please don't replace this drivel with hopelessness, fear and doom. This only causes paralysis.

True. The house is burning, and the children are inside. Now is not the time to tell the watching crowd that there is no hope. As a mother of three and community activist I and all my fellow peaceful warriors don't make national news, but know that we wake every morning and keep plugging away. And most of us will continue to do so until our breathing stops.

As we define what we don't want, let us simultaneously create what we do want. Like an inclusive local food system grown by a new generation of farmers who provide for a market that you can ride your bike to. So you can peddle home to cook and wash up afterwards using energy collected from the sun.

I am positively an optimist. Positive that we are heading for disaster (partial collapse) and optimistic that something good will come from it.

I have a responsibility to my children to be honest about the current situation, but they must also be given a model for how to appropriately respond. Otherwise, they will not be able to function. Daily I teach my children healthy limits, and I continue to hope that the rest of Earth's citizens learn to do the same.

The report does not mention

The report does not mention the pseudo-plans to "save energy" by instituting a profitable coal-based set of technologies called "smart-grid". Using global warming as the excuse, the dangerous and insecure smart grid that relies primarily on coal was developed and supported by federal Recovery Act funds. Smart meters are causing millions to become sickened, the grid to be insecure, and our home privacy invaded as never before. In addition, there is not one indication that the new "smart" grid (very dumb, actually) will save any energy - and in fact, it consumes more. To read a recent report explaining the above go to

I am at least glad for the

I am at least glad for the astute comments made so far. There isn't a lot else to be glad about, given the Obama administration's enthusiasm for worldwide fossil fuel dominance. Why else the wars? But, to the point: it will take a surge of grass roots level pressure on all levels of government to get us over the hump into real renewable energy investment. This is the plan ===>>

Well, Muratftasar, as was

Well, Muratftasar, as was said while the Apollo 13 disaster was unfolding, FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. We have our species in a pickle right now (and the other species are along for the death-ride), but we have to do all we can to fix it.

The idea of commercially viable carbon sequestration technologies on a scale to correct for our rampant over-consumption (so we can drive to the redbox DVD machines and stop off at McDonald's for 'coronary infusions') is flat-out ridiculous. Ain't gonna happen. The untamed cedar forest where I live is a great carbon trap, as is the Amazon rainforest (and as was an earlier and wilder North America),. So why is it that in our great country, we do nothing to discourage people from clearing out natural carbon traps and replacing them with asphalt and energy-intensive lawns? Why is fracking even considered on any list of options, when it clearly will add far more carbon to our already overloaded atmosphere and oceans, while also compromising our groundwater supplies? Makes no sense...

We need real leaders to lift us away from the climate change denialism. We need revamped tax laws that put a solid and substantial disincentive on excess energy consumption. We who are old enough and wise enough to understand this need to act responsively, forcefully, to right this mess. And, our descendants need us to do this. Now.

Failure is not an Option. Let's fix this mess.

JEFF, "Makes no sense,"

JEFF, "Makes no sense," you say! Of course it does...dollars and "cents."
That's all that matters to the wheeler dealer's of this profligate world. You're right; "we need" a lot of things. But as the report makes quite clear; we're not going to get them. We're going to get 3.6C instead. And "failure" definitely "is" an option. Mankind has been failing the planet since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And you'll pardon me if I don't see the rationale in stating "our great country." What, exactly, is so goddamned great about a "red state/blue state, powerballing, gas guzzling, myopic bunch of semi-neanderthals who stand accused and convicted of being gun happy yahoos who pray at the alter of the almighty dollar." Like the Titanic, we'll address "messes" after the fact. The new U.S. energy jingle
should be a take on an old one. "It's shake and bake...and I helped." Have a good day...they're numbered.

While I respect Dr

While I respect Dr Schwartzman's opinion, I tend to agree with Dr. Klare's conclusion that the planet is doomed. The push for carbon emission reduction is doomed because there is not enough awareness on the part of the populace in developed countries, and the underdeveloped/developing ones maintain that they have as much right to pollute as the advanced industrial nations to improve their economic situation. At the same time, oil and gas industry and coal mining giants back pseudo-science to deny climate change and fill the airwaves with brain washing, coma inducing platitudes, using their multi billion dollar profits.

So, this old man does not have much hope that catastrophic change that redefines the parameters of human existence on this planet is avoidable. I won't be around to see it (if actuarials are right) but my children will be and that is an unpleasant thought, to put it mildly

I would far prefer to see the

I would far prefer to see the US be the world leader in renewable energy. Fossil fuels are an addiction we must kick. The future will depend on our ability to harness sustainable energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, and small-scale hydro.

Michael Klare claims here

Michael Klare claims here that there is " No Hope for Averting Catastrophic Climate Change". I disagree with this claim which is not even consistent with what the 2012 World Energy Outlook report says.

Klare goes on to say "Of all the findings in the 2012 edition of the World Energy Outlook, the one that merits the greatest international attention is the one that received the least. Even if governments take vigorous steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the report concluded, the continuing increase in fossil fuel consumption will result in “a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees C. ”
I don't have the full report (the cheapest full text, a pdf, costs 130 euros), but this is what the online available Executive Summary of the report says:

"Energy efficiency can keep the door to 2 °C open for just a bit longer Successive editions of this report have shown that the climate goal of limiting warming to 2 °C is becoming more difficult and more costly with each year that passes. Our 450 Scenario examines the actions necessary to achieve this goal and finds that almost four-fifths of the CO2 emissions allowable by 2035 are already locked-in by existing power plants, factories, buildings, etc. If action to reduce CO2 emissions is not taken before 2017, all the allowable CO2 emissions would be locked-in by energy infrastructure existing at that time. Rapid deployment of energy-efficient technologies – as in our Efficient World Scenario – would postpone this complete lock-in to 2022, buying time to secure a much needed global agreement to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.
No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2 °C goal, unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is widely deployed. This finding is based on our assessment of global “carbon
reserves”, measured as the potential CO2 emissions from proven fossil-fuel reserves. Almost two-thirds of these carbon reserves are related to coal, 22% to oil and 15% to gas. Geographically, two-thirds are held by North America, the Middle East, China and Russia.
These findings underline the importance of CCS as a key option to mitigate CO2 emissions, but its pace of deployment remains highly uncertain, with only a handful of commercial scale projects currently in operation."

In other words, if there is any chance left to avoid catastrophic climate change (C3) reduction in global carbon emissions must start very soon, with robust substitution of fossil fuels, starting with coal (and non-conventional petroleum such as tar sands and fracked gas*) by wind and solar energy as well as carbon sequestration from the atmosphere to the soil and crust. Thus, while C3 looms ever closer, it is not inevitable as Klare claims it is, based on this report.

What is most problematic about Klare's pronouncement of inevitability is that it is disempowering to say the least. It is a huge disservice to our children and grandchildren to give up now, accepting the inevitability of C3. Our global challenge is to mount the necessary transnational political power while there is still time to act, even if our chances of success are rapidly diminishing. Readers can find more detail, including quantification of the carbon sequestration technologies mentioned (not so-called 'clean coal') at (homepage). A rapid phaseout of coal and non-conventional petroleum, with a maximum of 40% of conventional petroleum being consumed in a full wind/solar transition (taking 20-30 years) will be compatible with what the IEA says above, namely "No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2 °C goal, unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is widely deployed. " Actually the goal should be 1.5 °C or less. Hansen recently (2011) said that the current official goal of a 2 deg C global temperature increase over pre-industrial (about 1 deg C warmer than now) roughly equivalent to 450 ppm CO2 is a “prescription for disaster”.

*Note that fracked gas may well have a similar carbon footprint to coal, because of leakage of methane to the atmosphere, so the substitution of fracked gas for coal will not likely result in a reduction in greenhouse gas warming impacts. This critical point is not mentioned in Klare's otherwise informative piece, aside from his claim for the inevitability of C3. Rather Klare states inaccurately "One aspect of this energy “revolution” deserves special attention. The growing availability of cheap natural gas, thanks to hydro-fracking, has already reduced the use of coal as a fuel for electrical power plants in the United States. This would seem to be an obvious environmental plus, since gas produces less climate-altering carbon dioxide than does coal."

David Schwartzman
Professor Emeritus (I am a biogeochemist)
Howard University
Washington DC

Actually the goal should be 1.5 °C or less, not 2 °C. Hansen recently (2011)* argued that the current official goal of a 2 deg C global temperature increase over pre-industrial (about 1 deg C warmer than now) roughly equivalent to 450 ppm CO2 is a “prescription for disaster”. Is this technically achievable? Only with near future (within 5 years) peak in carbon emissions, followed by very aggressive reductions coupled with robust wind/solar deployment and carbon sequestration from the atmosphere. Is this politically achievable? This is the immense challenge to our national and transnational climate justice movements. But lets not accept the inevitability of catastrophic climate change yet!

* Hansen et al., 2011, The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future.

Hansen, J.E. and M.Sato, 2012, Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change. arXiv:1105.0968v3 []

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

Massive Fire Kills At Least 118 Factory Workers in Bangladesh at Wal-Mart Supplier

Amy Goodman
Democracy Now! / Video Feature
Published: Tuesday 27 November 2012
The building was a factory operated by Tazreen Fashions, a subsidiary of the Tuba Group, which supplies Wal-Mart, Ikea and other major retailers in the United States and Europe

A clothing factory in Bangladesh that has ties to Wal-Mart suffered a massive fire Saturday that left at least 118 factory workers dead and scores injured. Wal-Mart is the largest buyer of garments from Bangladesh, which has a notoriously poor fire-safety record and has long suppressed worker’s attempts to improve their conditions.

Author pic
ABOUT Amy Goodman

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of "Breaking the Sound Barrier," recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

I am sooooo sick of the

I am sooooo sick of the talk-the-talk-but-never-walk-the-walk routine that's practiced by nearly everyone. Including myself.

Soooo sick of the

Soooo sick of the talk-the-talk-but-never-walk-the-walk routine. What a load of crap.

Is there ANY chance at all of EVER putting an end to the Waltonian strategies that are used to keep the poor poor, such as using the poor themselves - through things like having Black Friday on Thursday - in order to keep everyone exactly where they are? I'm certainly not optimistic.

However, I applaud mightily when people like "Nation of Change" keep trying. Sincere thanks, NoC.

This is the sort of thing

This is the sort of thing capitalism relies on to "grow" itself. I'm not a socialist nor a "commie," but capitalism needs at upgrade of some sort.

For those too thick to understand what I'm saying, Wall Mart could never make it's profit margin unless workers like these were working at or near slave wages in sub-human environments.

So indeed, be proud of your red, white, and blue Wal-mart. With 9 billion people in the world, workers are cheap to replace, much cheaper than increasing wages and working conditions. A good business decision. Feel proud.

Perhaps if Wal-Mart used

Perhaps if Wal-Mart used labor in the USA, not only would much needed revenue go toward our federal budget stream via corporate income taxes paid to our country rather than offshore, but many employees would be earning income which could then be spent in our US economy. This revenue stream to families in the USA and federal and state budgets would help to grow our sluggish economy right here in the USA. Additionally, payroll taxes would be paid to further support our countries' revenue stream and help secure the social security benefits that the Republicans keep belly-aching about not being funded properly...duh have employers and employees pay their fair shares!! Didn't Sam Walton begin Wal-Mart stating that products would be made in the USA and would therefore support the economy of the USA? What happened Walton family? Follow the labor laws in the USA and help unemployed individuals get jobs here in the USA!! Additionally, all local, state, federal safety standards should be followed. Walton family there is no reason not to ignore the US economy, so hire more employees in the USA with products made in the USA and see how much more successful your mega-giant corporate income generating machine for the Walton family would help not only your few family members, but the whole economy of the USA!!

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

Family Forced to Abandon the U.S. in Order to be Together

Beth Caldwell and Joel Medina
New America Media / News Report
Published: Tuesday 27 November 2012
The collateral consequences of rising deportation numbers – the American citizen children and spouses who are forced to choose between living in exile or living apart from their loved ones – are not yet fully understood.
Article image

Rodrigo Ortega, 35, lives in Rosarito, Mexico with his American wife and two American-citizen children. A little over a year ago, Ortega was deported. Since then, his wife and kids have relocated to Mexico in order to be with him. 

He wishes that his kids, now 3 and 7 years old, could attend school in the U.S. He wanted to continue providing them with the kind of life they were accustomed to in California, complete with hot showers and the occasional hamburger.

ABOUT Beth Caldwell and Joel Medina

Beth Caldwell & Joel Medina are part of a reporting team investigating the consequences of U.S. deportation policy in Mexico with support from a Soros Justice Media Fellowship. Their work can be read at

Boris Badenov's picture

Jim Crow Laws prevailing

Jim Crow Laws prevailing again huh?

William Bednarz: If I kidnap

William Bednarz:

If I kidnap your child and you pay the ransom to get him back, you gave that money "by free will" and should stop bitching about it.

Mark Read Pickens

You have a vivid imagination

You have a vivid imagination of free will....coercion - extortion........

William Bednarz: Free will

William Bednarz:

Free will means people can choose. No one else is in their heads, driving.

Coercion is the use of fraud, physical force, or the threat of physical force to manipulate someone into doing something they would not otherwise do.

Coercion can be used to defend individual rights or to violate them.

Extortion is the use of coercion to violate an individual's rights.

This man violated no one's rights by coming to this country and offering to exchange his services with willing participants. His rights, however, were violated when he was imprisoned.

This is not "vivid imagination." It is precise use of terms. You might check out for more information on the ideas behind protection of individual rights.

Mark Read Pickens

Our immigration laws are

Our immigration laws are totally unbiased. If you are an illegal alien, you need to get out. Since they are such a good source of cheap labor, neither democrats or republicans are willing to upset their corporate sponsors by making people stick to the law.
When the wife married an illegal alien, she should've known this was a possibility. It is good they're together, and family is more important than things. The items the man wanted for his kids were bad (fast food toxic stuff) and an education. In this country the education won't help much.
This country is SO out of whack that Obama wants to make illegal aliens hirable. Our laws state: "to aid and abet the hiring of an illegal alien" is a felony offense. There are good reasons for this. It is a shame that workers and fellow Americans @ Walmart get fired for trying to get a decent wage through the legal attempt at collective bargaining, and illegal aliens have a defacto union in the fields where white workers that WANTED to work in the fields were turned away because the illegals refuse to pick the fields of the farmers that don't hire their friends and fellow illegal aliens.
The illegal aliens have a huge vested interest in trying to convince you that you do not want any work that they do. Not true. There are many desperate Americans that would do just about anything for pay.

Brad Roon: You have a right

Brad Roon:

You have a right to make any rule you want as a condition of entering your property; no right to do so for mine.

Immigrants ARE a "good source of cheap labor," which is good for them and good for us. They are doing better than they would back in their home country, otherwise they would have stayed there. We are doing better because cheap labor saves us money.

When immigrants exchange their labor for money, how do they realize value from it unless they exchange that money for goods and services? Does it sit in their wallets unused? How can they purchase those products without creating business and jobs?

The "good reason" for making it illegal to hire undocumented workers is for labor unions to benefit their members at the expense of consumers by suppressing competition.

If "workers and fellow Americans" want higher wages, why don't they find a way to increase their productivity so that they are more valuable to employers? If they are unwilling to improve their education, acquire new skills, or work harder, why do they deserve higher wages?

Your claim that "illegals refuse to work the fields of farmers that don't hire their friends" is laughable. You expect us to believe that people so desperate for work that they risk prison to cross our border, will then turn down paying jobs because farmers want to hire U.S. citizens to work alongside them?

I'm not a farmer, but have hired immigrants I assumed were illegal. (I didn't ask to see a green card and paid cash under the table.) I was highly pleased with the price and quality of their work.

Mark Read Pickens

. . Is either author an

. . Is either author an American Citizen ??? The headline is a lie.....The family was not forced to do anything.....
family is one of a growing number of American families who are "forced" to abandon their lives in the U.S. to stay together. Again with that word - there was no gun pointed at their heads and the decision was theirs voluntarily made.
...THE decisin to knowingly enter the United States illegally - was a consicence decision - and that also was not forced......
A LITTLE MORE TRUTH ?.? N.A.F.T.A. exported jobs to Mexico
Study: Wages rose after immigration raids
Published: March 19, 2009 at 8:11 AM
March 19 (UPI) -- Wages and employment increased for legal workers after raids on six Swift & Co. meat-packing plants in several U.S. states in 2006, a study indicated.
Federal immigration agents arrested 389 illegal-immigrant workers, mostly Guatemalans, in a May 12 raid at the Agriprocessors plant. Most of the arrested workers pleaded guilty within a week and are serving sentences in federal prisons outside Iowa before being deported. Kosher meats giant Agriprocessors cited for dozens of child labor violations at Iowa plant. . . . .
. . . Fear grips immigrants after Miss. plant raid . . . . . Nearly 600 immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally were detained, creating panic among dozens of families in this small southern Mississippi town.
BooHooHoo sob story.......BooHooHoo sob story.....

William Bednarz: You should

William Bednarz:

You should have the right to allow or disallow anyone you want from entering your property, for any reason. Maybe the reason you want to exclude them is because you dislike their race, gender, place of origin, or because they're Jewish, but it's your property and should be your choice.

However, you want more than that. You want the right to prevent those you dislike from entering my property. In other words, I believe our rights should be equal; neither of us should be allowed to dictate what the other does on his property. You, on the other hand, believe our rights should not be equal; that you should be able to dictate who enters my property, but I should not have the same right regarding your property.

You claim "N.A.F.T.A. exported jobs to Mexico." Can you explain what Mexican laborers did with the money they earned? They exchanged their labor for dollars. How do they realize value from those dollars without exchanging them for U.S. products? How do they spend those dollars without creating jobs in the U.S.?

You mention wages rising after immigration raids. Prices (whether of goods or labor) always rise if competition can be suppressed. If wages rose, doesn't it follow that prices of products made with that labor also rose?

In other words, we're all a little worse off so that a few can be better off.

Mark Read Pickens


This is NOT an AMERICAN family! Why do parents do this to their families? They know they are criminally living here, they have children thinking this is the trick, and then they cry about being separated when the criminal is deported. These children are NOT Americans just because they were born here. If you want to come to the USA there are legal ways to do so. Others have done it, why not give THAT a try instead of putting your family through this. America is not hurting you, YOU hurt your family by breaking the law.

CoachRed: The people hiding


The people hiding Anne Frank's family from the Nazis were clearly criminals. They knew perfectly well that what they were doing was against the law. What is "legal" and what is moral are not necessarily the same thing.

Contrary to your assertion, according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, people born in the United States ARE U.S. citizens: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. " (Section One, first sentence)

I find it disingenuous to suggest people follow the law in coming to the U.S., given the extreme difficulty of doing so in recent years (even for white people).

I have hired immigrants a number of times over the years and was quite pleased with the price and quality of their work. I never asked to see green cards, and paid cash under the table.

As I see it, they have a right to offer their services and I have a right to accept or reject that offer; outsiders have no right to interfere.

Mark Read Pickens

It is so nice to hear about

It is so nice to hear about parents who are decent and law abiding, except for the small fact that this guy is a convicted criminal. Still, they are doing the right thing now. My cousin, his wife, and children are in his wife's home country because she cannot get permission to stay here and they will NOT break the law.

This guy's children will be much better off in Mexico with both mom and dad. There is much more to life than a Whopper. When the kids are 18 they can come back to the US if they wish. If they end up being like my cousin's kids, they will visit, but that is it. The family is much happier and feel much safer. They also feel their quality of life has greatly improved. Life is what you make of it. Be happy dad that you cannot poison your kids with American junk food, this is a good thing. You are smart enough to be doing the right thing for your family, you are smart enough to not have wasted your money on junk food when you were in America.

Jeltez42: I agree with you


I agree with you about their kids being better off without "American junk food," but neither you nor I should have the right to dictate that choice for other people's children.

This man was convicted of violating an unjust law. If I were on his jury, I would have voted "not guilty," even if I knew what he did was against the law.

Mark Read Pickens

. . in the old days ????

. . in the old days ???? didn't the wife go with the husband ???
DUH. . . . for better - or - worse......... again by free will......

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

Older, Wiser and Living with HIV/AIDS

Matthew Cardinale
Inter Press Service / News Analysis
Published: Tuesday 27 November 2012
Many older people in the U.S. also lack the financial resources to cope well with the disease, living on Social Security with little or no savings.
Article image

Boris Badenov's picture

Where's the cure!!!

Where's the cure!!!

Peter Duesberg (sp?) proved

Peter Duesberg (sp?) proved that HIV is not AIDS in the 80's. Get with it folks.

People with HIV have none of the AIDS symptoms, people with AIDS symptoms lack HIV at times. Not related. In the 80's the triggers seemed to be combinations of immune insulty by multiple cases of gonorrhea/syphilis, candida albicans imbalances, recreational drug usage - the huge majority being gay men taking "poppers" whatever they were. Other than hell on the immune system.
With the additional chemical soup we now ingest, breathe, and live in, who knows what the triggers are/will be now? Since the first known case of AIDS like symptoms dates from a bisexual male in France in the 1930's the immune imbalance apparently can be widespread. Now we have CAIDS which is Chemically Aequired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in which mostly field workers have their immune systems destroyed by the poisons put onto the foods we eat.
Sensitives in society may experience similar symptoms through second hand contact in their diets alone. These are toxins after all - remember over 60% of all field worker illnesses are caused by Roundup.

Deconstructing the MYTH of

Deconstructing the MYTH of AIDS by Gary Null

House of Numbers

Get real

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus
Article image
Chris Hedges
Truthdig / Truthdig Op-Ed
Published: Tuesday 27 November 2012
The political and corporate elites in the industrialized world continue, in spite of overwhelming scientific data, to place short-term corporate profit and expediency before the protection of human life and the ecosystem.

Stand Still for the Apocalypse

Article image

Author pic
ABOUT Chris Hedges
Chris Hedges is a weekly Truthdig columnist and a fellow at The Nation Institute. His newest book is “The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress.”

Population growth, a

Population growth, a house-of-cards economy predicated on constant growth, our worldwide addiction to finite and ecologically harmful fuels...each of these will be reaching their limits in the next couple of decades, forget about what will be the case 100 years from now. We will continue to lack the political will to make significant changes until events much more serious than Sandy truly leave us bruised and shaken. Of course by then it may well be too late, but the optimist in me observes that beneficial technologies are also improving at an exponential pace. So no, not just new and (*cough cough*) exciting ways to extract those fossil fuels, but advancements that will turn our current approach to essentially everything on its end. Hang on as best you can, and continue to be a force for progress; we may yet get through this without going extinct. If we do, we will have consumed the requisite amount of humble pie needed to approach life- as individuals and as a species- in the truly holistic way that nature ultimately requires of us.

Mothers are wired to protect

Mothers are wired to protect their children from harm by all means necessary. I have three children, I can not have more, and I can not have less.
I accept reality and daily I awake to alter its course.
I live in a quasi-rural community that is currently dependent on neighboring cities. I work daily to create a neighborly economic network that my children can inherit. With four other women, I created a neighborhood farmers market. We host free classes on lost skills like canning and winter gardening. This not only reskills our population but gathers folks around common interest and encourages collaboration. We have been growing a list of people who wish to recreate a vibrant rural community and connect them via events, buying groups, newsletters and website. These folks have a variety of backgrounds and levels of concern when it comes to climate change and economic inequality.
It is my hope that when pressures mount and reality gets harder to ignore that these folks will net together to keep this area stabilized and will take the political and personal measures necessary to lower CO2 levels.
Yes, it is necessary to critically address the power structure, corporate greed and population growth. But let us remember, it is not enough to say what we don't want - we must systematically create what we DO want.
I will not give in to fear, and I am not willing to hand over our fate to the dark side of humanity. As a mother, I do not have this option. My boys must have hope, and they must be shown an alternative. I beg that you all do the same.

Yes, everyday more data

Yes, everyday more data arrives confirming the obvious. Humans have shown through time that we are trivial, selfish and extremely short sighted. We cannot borrow our way out of what's coming and it seems foolish to think we can kick this looming disaster down the alley. What is too often missed in all of this is that even if we were to be able to shut down our burning of fossils, our greatest asset, our brain and ability to industrialize our world, is our true reckoning and one that is not too often mentioned. All the technological, agricultural and industrial advances we have made are what will eventually bring about our demise. There will soon be too many people on the earth and these numbers are exponentially expanding. Most likely before it gets too hot, it'll get too crowded to support life in any sustaining way. The demise of the great dinosaurs is simply a metaphor for our future.

You know what? I've tried my

You know what? I've tried my best. I'm 51 and have no kids. I'll be dead before this really kicks in.

What I have to say is directed at those who side with such fossil thinkers as the Koch Brothers. One recently said that Global warming will be good for the environment since the growing seasons will be longer and, thus, we can increase the population of the world.

For those of the new generation who support this type of invalid reasoning, to you I say RIGHT ON! You get what you deserve, and everything that comes with it.

Why fight it? Because some of

Why fight it? Because some of us have come to believe that Ayn Rand and her acolyte paul ryan are full of shit. That there is no such thing as "social Darwinism", there is only Darwin, and Darwin does not make the case that the planet belongs to the apex predator, or that life is reducible to a simple calculus of eating or being eaten. Darwin leads us to the inevitable conclusion that altruism and mutually beneficial cooperation are essential tools in the human enterprise. We are primates, not insects. Addressing the slow destruction of our only livable environment will take something remarkable in terms of global human cooperation, but it must be made to happen because the planet I leave is as important to me as the one I live on,......... because I am a human being and that's just the way we roll.

Most of us who read this

Most of us who read this article are not surprised by the content, I am sure. But where is the media? Don't they have a responsibility to present that which is of the most vital interest to everyone on the planet in a fashion which reflects that importance? This article should have Front-Page, Headline coverage in every major newspaper in the country.
Only by increasing the public's concern (FEAR) about this unprecedented crisis can we hope for a meaningful response. Our society needs the legitimate, unbiased power of journalism and a brave media so that we have a chance to make the proper decisions.

I think the great majority of

I think the great majority of us are aware of the global warming problem, but people are inherently bad at solving any problem that isn't hitting them across the face. Regrettably by the time that happens it's too late. So as its been mentioned, the real issue is our population. We know the earth can sustain 1-2 B and previous to our discovery and use of fossil fuels it had never exceeded that. Now throw in some medical science discoveries that drastically extend lifespans and we will outgrow this earth WELL before the end of the century. Population control should be the priority, solve that and the rest falls into place. I am not hopeful and by mid century we should see the beginnings of a self induced mass extinction.

What makes this warning extra

What makes this warning extra relevant is that it was published at the behest of the wealthy elite's World Bank in which it condemns one of it's own, the fossil fuel industry. No need to say anything more. And the science is in for God sake so where in hell are our electric mini vans and geo thermal electrical power plants in order to start replacing oil and coal?

We can either respond to this

We can either respond to this unprecedented call for action, a global call that supersedes things like Pearl Harbor or the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, or we can cease to exist. Its that simple. Jim Hansen's STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN: the TRUTH ABOUT THE COMING CLIMATE CATASTROPHE AND OUR LAST CHANCE TO SAVE HUMANITY issued a very similar warning. Now, our chance to continue is evaporating away. Every other challenge we face pales in comparison.

Of course the FUNDAMENTAL

Of course the FUNDAMENTAL mover towards catastrophe is the Exponential Growth of the Human Population. Anyone tell that to the Vatican?
Anyone care to explain to Pat Robertson that the coming upheavals in civilization aren't due to any "Second Coming"....but to Ignorance!

The Earth and its Resources are Finite!

Ever watch "Soylent Green?"

Ever watch "Soylent Green?" Pat and the Vat...deliciously served!

The good thing about climate

The good thing about climate change is that the disaster does not distinguish between the .0005% who chooses to keep the money, avoid seeking solutions and the rest of us who have little choice in seeking alternative to what is poured down the pipeline of economic structures. Natural disasters are great equalizers and forces those in charge of structures to not fool too much with mother nature. Expect spaceship earth to force those standing in the way to change, to come to their senses. Already, Mr. O. as representative of the the .0005% energy gods is singing a different tune for the upcoming climate meeting. EWA is taking sides: it brings its natural fury upon all if the .0005% is not forced to clean up their acts.

I don't believe humankind is

I don't believe humankind is adaptable for the wholesale changes that are recommended in this article. The allure of wealth and power are too great
and they always have been. We simply didn't possess the technology to
destroy our environment 500years ago. Now we do...and we will. I somehow
find great solace in the concept of a planet shedding its most pernicious
dwellers and re-generating after many thousands,perhaps millions of years.
The Earth, as the Sun begins to expend the last resources of its fuel, may indeed
look much like the Earth "before" one particular bi-ped species took a jewel
suspended in illimitable dark matter and besmirched it. Time will do what man
cannot. Heal the grievous wounds inflicted by an inherently flawed species and
return the planet to those creatures that live to perpetuate their species...not
simply to perpetuate their power and wealth. The wolf and the polar bear...
regenerated anew...may indeed watch the last sunrise before cosmological fate
deals it's final hand.

Trish House's picture

WoeToPoe, I think you have

WoeToPoe, I think you have your equation wrong on the subject of the human species all directed at accumulating wealth & power. You may have that viewpoint because of your cultural orientation. Most indigenous populations believe/d they are part of a system that works harmoniously together to sustain life. Occasionally a virus enters the equation that also seeks to survive on a path that causes more harm to the whole than it can sustain. What I foresee happening is the hoarders of wealth using their stored resources to keep their particular species of "virus" alive. And then there will exist also the model of humans that survive through living cooperatively and in harmony with the rest of the world's species. As the world turns through its cycles of destruction & regeneration the survivors of these two groups will once again meet & clash in the age old dichotomy of hoarded wealth vs. shared wealth.

A 4 4 degree C rise in global

A 4 4 degree C rise in global temperatures means bigger profits for the money changers on wallstreet. Especially on the the commodities of food, water and medicine and air conditioners. The rich will get richer from global warming and see no need but to hasten its arrival. Global warming is good for wall street. What's good for wall street and the moneychangers is good for the world! Why fight it?

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus