Countdown to global catastrophe

[cal04]

The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already. The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached.

The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every country, from national leaders down. It has been timed to coincide with Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union.

And it breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.


The report urges all the G8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to double their research spending on low-carbon energy technologies by 2010. It also calls on the G8 to form a climate group with leading developing nations such as India and China, which have big and growing CO2 emissions.

more
Countdown to global catastrophe

[Journeyman]

1. And George W. Bush had the opportunity. . .

in the wake of the September 11 attacks to call us to be something greater than we are . . . and he chose war and national dissolution instead. We were at a fork in the road where energy independence and national sanity diverged from impotent rage and short-sighted self-interest, and the Pretzeldunce chose a path of death and destruction over reasoned improvement. It will prove his greatest failure, though unfortunately we will be the ones who pay for it.

[Eloriel]

10. Yeah -- but what I want to know is

WHERE WAS CLINTON?????

[Journeyman]

12. As your question has nothing to do with what I wrote. . .

I have no answer for you. Maybe you meant to reply to another post.

[Art_from_Ark]

14. She was being sarcastic

Translation (I think): "Clinton blamed for exerything bad (especially in those days); in the future, the RW will blame Clinton for not taking action on this matter (even though Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol)."

Meanwhile, bu$h is in no way, shape or form the kind of man who can take an altrusitic position on anything. He certainly would never have led the world on a campaign against global warming, since this would have cut into his puppeteers' profits.

[Minstrel Boy]

2. Gaiacide.

From The Guardian, 1998:

Super-Computer Predicts Runaway Greenhouse Effect

Findings from Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Change presented to 170 countries in Buenos Aires show that parts of the Amazon rain forest will turn into desert by 2050, threatening the world with an unstoppable greenhouse effect.

The startling findings are the result of billions of calculations made by the world's biggest super-computer, installed at the Hadley Centre in Berkshire. The latest figures show the earth is heating up fast, with 1998 already the hottest year since reliable records began 140 years ago.

...

Perhaps the most startling finding is the prospect of a runaway greenhouse effect after 2050. It has been thought that the speed of global warming would be moderated by the extra growth in plants and trees made possible because of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide fertiliser effect stimulates plants to grow faster.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/glowarm4.htm

What would that be like? Maybe something like this:

Within a few years, the situation goes totally out of hand. Temperatures just keep on rising. And as they do, more and more water on Earth begins to evaporate. The sea level starts to drop again. If you’re one of those poor souls who had his country or city flooded when the ice caps melted, you might be glad to find the sea retreating again. But don’t put that flag out yet. What you’re witnessing, is the end of the world. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here’s how it goes. As the temperatures rise, more water evaporates. But as more water evaporates, our atmosphere gets thicker -- causing the temperatures to rise even more. And as the temperatures rise even more, even more water evaporates. And as even more water evaporates... You got it: there’s a chain reaction going on. The dreaded ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ has just kicked in.

Governments and scientists will desperately look for a way to turn the tide. But they won’t find one. There’s just no way you can stop something as mighty as the Earth’s climate. Although our politicians might still mumble some reassuring words to prevent a general panic, deep within they will realise how bad the situation really is. A few years more, and our planet will no longer be habitable. All life is about to vanish from the planet formerly known as Earth. There is no escape, not even a remote possibility things will improve.

You can see the best evidence for that hovering in the night sky: the planet Venus. For many years, scientists wondered why Venus has an atmosphere so hot that lead and tin actually melt in it. Only in the late 1990s they realised that Venus too has undergone the runaway greenhouse effect. Its atmosphere is so dense, incoming solar heat cannot escape from it.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/Runaway_greenhouse.htm

[sleipnir]

3. Yikes!

Good thing I bought some land on the Moon last year.

[signmike]

4. Awww - these computer projections - no more reliable than

exit polls.

[indigobusiness]

5. Yeah, chances are

they're too conservative.

[Old Mouse]

19. I'm afraid you are correct

the single constant fact of climate study has been it's underestimation of the problem. It takes no understanding of the underlying science to recognize the trend of constant revision to gloomier and gloomier projections.

[indigobusiness]

25. 5 years ago, when I said the handwriting was on the wall

and things would soon go down-hill fast, people called me Chicken Little. Those people owe me an apology. It couldn't be clearer: we are in the shit, and sinking.

[warphead]

27. Absolutly!

Thanks for this post. I notice it's getting a little harder to find info these days on this subject. Question: Does anybody remember the speeches made by Bill Clinton and then George Bush (Bush's right after he refused to sign the Kyoto Agreement) where they said in the next few years Americans would have to move south because the northern states would be uninhabitable? In the Bush speech he said we would begin to see the first of major changes in 5-6 years. That was four years ago. I know I'm not crazy, I heard this and I think it was on both CNN as well as MSNBC during news briefs.

[Hephaistos]

43. A little birdie whispered to me

that within the next few weeks, a major new study with the latest climate modelling projections will appear in a top science journal, and the result are not very encouraging.

It appears that the scenarios that have been considered the most pessimistic so far now move into the optimistic range of the spectrum.

Expect up to 10 degrees warming in the next century...

:scared:

[FlemingsGhost]

6. Pfffttt .... Science! Jesus will save us.

These intellectual elitists need to stop thinking and start believing.

"Now, watch this drive ..."

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Watched an incredible show on polar bears and the lack of ice patches

on the I wanna say Discovery Channel today... what it amounted to was, no ice, no hunting for bears = no bears. They explained that the ice was forming on the ocean later and later each year... didn't look good for the bears.

[DemoTex]

8. A Bu$h-type regime (GWB or JEB) will be taken on by a world-war ...

That time is near. Bu$h has the world ready. Totaly frothed up. It will not take long. The world hates Bu$h. I am with the world.

[Psephos]

9. It's hard for politically biased organizations to produce neutral science

This report is the product of organizations that have a political interest in the conclusions. I happen to share those politics, but there is a time to set politics aside, and take a disinterested approach to evaluating the data. Unfortunately, because of its politics, this report makes it easier for people who dislike its conclusions to dismiss it with a wave of the hand. That makes the job of those who are trying to get something done just that much harder. Does this report contain good science? Whether it does or doesn't will not be debated on the merits of its conclusions, but on the politics of its readers. This helps no one, including progressives.

This subject is too important to be drowned out in political shreiking. In real science, no one gets angry about conclusions; it's like getting angry that there are nine major planets or that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.

Global warming is an extraordinarily complex subject, dependent upon the interactions of global energy-transport systems, and influences between the ocean, the atmosphere, the motions of the Earth, and the output of the sun. No scientist has yet proposed a theory of global climate that can accurately predict climate shifts of the past, which is only the first test for being able to predict the future. The oversimplification of the problem to one of C02 emissions is laughably dumbed-down. It's pop science at its worst. As usual, it seems that many of the people yakking loudest about this stuff are the ones who understand it least.

Is the globe warming? Yes. Do we understand the causes? Only in bits and pieces. Can we, or should we, do anything? Yes, absolutely. But let's use the test of scientific, rather than political, validity to decide what.

[rooboy]

16. You will never get a non-political conclusion...

because the conservative side of politics is so comprehensively brainwashed into disbelieving ANY science. The stuff that is predicted is written off as leftist propaganda, and current events are described as God's will. What can you do?

[Psephos]

20. Good point n/t

[Tyrone Slothrop]

53. A friend and I discussed this after the election

The fact that the election of 2004 was, as much as anything else, a referendum on intellectualism.

People don't want facts or the opinions of the educated anymore. They want mysticism and hocus-pocus.

We never could come to a consensus on exactly how we got here, except to speculate that there is so little hope when one honestly looks at the facts and the obstacles in the way of progress.

[Old Mouse]

21. Unfortunately that is not possible

It is obvious the changes are now occurring at a speed that conventional science is inadequate to measure. There are so many studies floating around now you can literally pick the one with the ending you desire. That doesn't change he fact that the glaciers are gone, hurricane winds shut down Paris, the Arctic is melting, and tornadoes of fire ran amok though Central California. It is prudent to therefore adopt measures to avoid the worst case scenario, and work backward from there to more carefully determine our true situation.

The disaster that was Kyoto shows the impossibility of separating science and politics. Every nation on earth is already involved, politically and economically, in a giant game of chicken about invoking environmental protections. Whoever goes the longest without passing harsh emission standards will be in a position of extreme financial benefit... or will be obliterated by other nations seeking survival.

[idealista]

11. I believe we're screwing up, but I find this scenario difficult to....

Doesn't the geological record indicate that there have been huge climatic swings in the past on Earth (not human caused), and it seems to have swung back and forth alot...

I believe we are capable of doing great damage to ourselves and other species, but.... I don't know if I believe our little automobiles and such are really so important in the long term scheme of things.

I MEAN, IF WE CAN DESTROY THE PLANET AND MAKE IT LIKE VENUS (A HOPELESS HOTHOUSE) IT SEEMS ODD THAT IN ALL THE CLIMATE CHANGES OF THE PAST EONS, THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED ON EARTH BEFORE?

Maybe be could kill all life with enough radiation from nuclear bombs. Even so, after a few million (?) years, the radiation would decay. Venus is so much closer to the sun, of course its hotter.

[Old Mouse]

22. The dinosaurs didn't have SUVs

[hatrack]

34. But it has happened before

There have been a number of ELEs since life first crawled out of the ooze. The biggie was the Permian event, which scientists now estimate wiped out more than 90% of all life forms then living on the planet. Considering that it took millions of years for life to regain anything the complexity and variety extant before the event.

[Amigust]

13. 10 Years? It's already like the Titanic:

Even with full reverse throttle, there's no plausible way to miss the berg now.

And right now, they're not even thinking about reverse throttle, only about cutting down to a tad below full speed ahead.

IMO

[struggle4progress]

15. kick

[mordarlar]

17. With the sun weakening and the planet warming they have been cancelling...

each other out. The rate of warming i heard very recently is inaccurate due to the fact that the suns rays are being blocked by the atmosphere. This cooling is countering the rate of warming but... if the fail in continuing to strike a balance we will see the real damage. There is speculation that the dating of the warming process is all off. We may be in worse than we think.

[hatrack]

35. The sun is weakening?

:wtf:

I'm not sure what you're referring to . . .

[old blue]

37. Lots of inaccuracies in your post

I'm an astronomer. The long-term trend of the sun is to gradually become stronger (in terms of brightness and energy emitted) over its lifetime (utnil it balloons into a red giant), though there is an eleven-year cycle marked by minor variations in emission.

Atmospheric absorption of sunlight is well understood and calculable. I'm sure this is not a large source of error in computer models.

The balance is not between the sun's cooling and the greenhouse warming. It's between the mechanisms that introduce and remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. Right now human activity is introducing an ever-growing amount of GHGs. Can the system find a way to counterbalance this? Well, I sure hope so, because we humans sure as hell aren't going to figure it out on our own any other way but the hard way.

[mordarlar]

55. LINK to the story BBC report

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

[reprobate]

38. Huh?

"suns rays are being blocked"

Please provide link.

"cooling is countering the rate of warming"

Please provide link.

"the dating of the warming process is all off"

Please provide link.


'We may be in worse than we think."

There you make an understatement. Speaking non-religiously, the worst case predictions are too conservative.

[mordarlar]

56. link above

[alexisfree]

18. this is alarming..

"Above the 2 degrees level, can influence in the transformation of the planet's forests and soils ....

[xxqqqzme]

23. interestin word choices

'climate change' is what the neo-cons want the frame 2 B - global warming is a little 2 graphic 4 them. Interesting that the title of this is Climate Challenge - the neo-cons must B thrilled.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Press release: G8-Plus Group needed to tackle climate change (1/24/05)

Here is the full press release from the Institute for Public Policy Research:

G8-Plus Group needed to tackle climate change
24th January
Embargo: 00:01 Monday 24 January 2005

Download Meeting the climate challenge: recommendations of the International Climate Change Taskforce

As chair of the G8, the Prime Minister should seek agreement to create a G8-Plus Climate Group to engage the US and major developing countries in action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a high-level taskforce established by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr), the Centre for American Progress and the Australia Institute.

In its report out tomorrow (Tuesday), the International Climate Change Taskforce concludes such a group would provide a way for G8 countries and other major economies - including India and China - to take action that would lead to large-scale reductions in emissions. The G8-Plus Climate Group would pursue partnerships to achieve immediate deployment of existing low-carbon energy technologies, including agreements to shift agricultural subsidies from food crops to biofuels and promote sales of highly efficient cars.

The report also argues that all G8 countries should set a lead by adopting national targets to generate at least 25 per cent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025 and mandatory cap-and-trade schemes for emissions, like the EU scheme. In the US, this could happen through the Climate Stewardship Act, proposed by Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman, and could provide a path for US re-entry into a global climate change agreement after the Kyoto Protocol's first phase ends in 2012.

The Taskforce also calls on governments to agree to a long-term objective of preventing global temperature from rising by more than 2 C above pre-industrial levels. Other key recommendations include:

The need for a step-change in financial and technical assistance for developing countries to adapt to climate change.

The creation of a leadership coalition of countries to move ahead with reforms to boost investment in climate-friendly energy technologies worldwide.

Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP, co-chair of the Taskforce with US Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, said:

"Our planet is at risk. With climate change, there is an ecological time-bomb ticking away, and people are becoming increasingly concerned by the changes and extreme weather events they are already seeing. Urgent action is required if we are to win the battle against this problem. That can only happen with strong political leadership.

"I appreciate that tackling climate change is politically difficult. First, there is a mismatch between the potentially unpopular decisions that need to be taken now and the benefits that will come in the medium and long term. Secondly, no country acting on its own can resolve the issue. Strong international action is vital.

"The Taskforce with its diverse membership has been able to find common ground. Our recommendations are practical, realistic but also challenging. World leaders need to recognise that climate change is the single most important long term issue that the planet faces and to discharge their responsibilities to the people they represent by agreeing to concerted international action to tackle climate change."

Key recommendations of the Taskforce include:

The G8 and other major economies, including from the developing world, form a G8+ Climate Group, to pursue technology agreements and related initiatives that will lead to large emissions reductions.

The G8-Plus Climate Group agree to shift their agricultural subsidies from food crops to biofuels, especially those derived from cellulosic materials, while implementing appropriate safeguards to ensure sustainable farming methods are encouraged, culturally and ecologically sensitive land preserved, and biodiversity protected.

G8 governments establish national renewable portfolio standards to generate at least 25% of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025, with higher targets needed for some G8 governments.

G8 governments increase their spending on research, development, and demonstration of advanced technologies for energy-efficiency and low- and zero-carbon energy supply by two-fold or more by 2010, at the same time as adopting strategies for the large-scale deployment of existing low- and zero-carbon technologies.

All industrialised countries introduce national mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions, and construct them to allow for their future integration into a single global market.

A global framework be adopted that builds on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, and enables all countries to be part of concerted action on climate change at the global level in the post-2012 period, on the basis of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

A long-term objective be established of preventing global average temperature from rising more than 2 C (3.6 F) above the pre-industrial level, to limit the extent and magnitude of climate-change impacts.

Governments remove barriers to and increase investment in renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and practices by taking steps including the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and requiring Export Credit Agencies and Multilateral Development Banks to adopt minimum efficiency or carbon intensity standards for projects they support.

Developed countries honour existing commitments to provide greater financial and technical assistance to help vulnerable countries adapt to climate change, including the commitments made at the seventh conference of the parties to the UNFCCC in 2001, and pursue the establishment of an international compensation fund to support disaster mitigation and preparedness.

Governments committed to action on climate change raise public awareness of the problem and build public support for climate policies by pledging to provide substantial long-term investment in effective climate communication activities.

All of the Taskforce's recommendations are designed to build on the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol to help ensure that climate change is addressed effectively over the long term.

Jonathon Porritt Taskforce member and Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission said:

"As the news about climate change goes on getting worse, political inertia all around the world remains the biggest barrier to finalising an appropriate response. It's now critically important to inject some creative new thinking into today's climate change negotiations, and the Taskforce has an important contribution to make to that process."

Notes to editors:

The International Taskforce was established in March 2004 by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr), the Centre for American Progress and the Australia Institute. The Taskforce is co-chaired by Labour MP Stephen Byers and Republican Senator Olympia Snowe. Its 14-strong membership - listed below - includes eminent people from politics, business and civil society from both developed and developing countries.

The report 'Meeting the climate challenge: recommendations of the International Climate Change Taskforce" will be launched on Tuesday 25 Jan 2005, in the UK by the Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP, Taskforce Co-Chair, Adair Turner: Vice-President of Merrill Lynch Europe and former Director General of the Confederation of British Industry and Jonathon Porritt: Chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission.

Taskforce co-chair Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP will be presenting evidence on the Taskforce recommendations to the House of Commons Environment Select Committee at 4.30pm on Wednesday 26 January.

The Prime Minister will be delivering a speech on climate change and development to the World Economic Forum in Davos on 27 January.

The International Science conference at the Hadley Centre will debate the long-term implications of climate change from 1-3 February.

Taskforce members are:

Rt. Hon. Stephen Byers MP: former Secretary of State for Trade & Industry and for Transport, Local Government & the Regions (UK). (Co-Chair)

Senator Olympia Snowe: Two-term Republican Senator from the State of Maine and Member of the Senate Committees on Finance, Intelligence, and on Commerce, Science and Transportation (USA). (Co-Chair)

Hon. Bob Carr MP (Labor): Premier of New South Wales (Australia).

Professor John Holdren, Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (USA).

Dr Martin Khor, Director of the Third World Network (Malaysia).

Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet: Member of the National Assembly, President of the the governing UMP' health & environment Committee, and former environment advisor to Prime Minister Raffarin and President Chirac (France).

Dr Claude Martin, Director General of WWF International (Switzerland).

Professor Tony McMichael: Director of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH) at the Australian National University (Australia).

Jonathon Porritt: Chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission and Co-Founder and Programme Director of Forum for the Future (UK).

Adair Turner: Vice-President of Merrill Lynch Europe and former Director General of the Confederation of British Industry (UK).

Professor Ni Weidou, Director of the Clean Energy Centre at Tsinghua University, Beijing (China).

Dr Ernst von Weizsäcker: member of the German Bundestag (for the governing Social Democratic Party). Chairman of the Bundestag's Environment Committee. Former President of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (Germany).

Hon. Timothy E. Wirth: President of the UN Foundation, former Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs under President Clinton, former Senator (Democrat). (USA).

Cathy Zoi: Group Executive Director of Bayard Capital, former Executive Director of the Sustainable Development Energy Authority of New South Wales (Australia).

Expert scientific adviser to the Taskforce:

Dr Rajendra Pachauri: Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Director General of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI, India

http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=352

[Delphinus]

28. Sounds like

even these recommendations are going to be too little, too late.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Even Kyoto was too modest, and as you said...

too little, too late.

[indigobusiness]

26. more bad news

Next Generation May Be Doomed To 'Global Somalia'



By Steve Connor
Science Editor
The Independent - UK
1-22-5


An environmental collapse that would transform the world into a "global Somalia" could begin in 50 years if we fail to do anything about it, a world authority on the rise and fall of civilisations warned yesterday. Professor Jared Diamond, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said society was on the brink of irreversible decline unless 12 major environmental problems were tackled.

Professor Diamond, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, has spent many years studying the reasons why some societies in history thrived and others slipped into decline. He cited present-day Somalia as among several places where environmental degradation has already helped to trigger a collapse of government and the rule of law.

"Conditions of Somalia will spread," he said. "Somalia is an example of a worst-case scenario. State government has collapsed; it is a dry landscape, difficult to manage and, not surprisingly, it has problems of environmental degradation.

"There are plenty of countries where state government is moving towards collapse ... We will be living in a global Somalia if we don't do anything about it. My children, who are 17 years old, will be living in a global Somalia unless we solve our problems."

snip

"If we continue doing the things we are doing now the outcome, which is not the worst-case scenario but the actual outcome, would be that we don't arrive at the end of the century," Professor Diamond said. "Most of our problems are ones with 30- to 50-year time fuses. That is the rate at which we are exploiting the world ... So if we carry on we do not arrive at the end of the century with a First-World lifestyle."

snip


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=603040

[Beaverhausen]

30. another story- this one on CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/24/climate.change.ap/index.html

[Massachusetts]

31. There is no LEADERSHIP...

so most of the lemmings DON'T CARE.

Robert Kennedy Jr. could likely be in the National spot light (front and center), in a few years. We need that kind of leadership at the Federal level.IMO

[Lorien]

42. Most Dems don't care either

look at all the cutesy, flippant remarks on this thread. There isn't any real alarm on the right OR left, and there should be. Are we more outraged but how much the coronation cost us, or does losing our lives and the lives of everyone else on the planet spark even a bit of the same outrage? We march against war, but how about a march against our total annihilation at the hands of greedy corporations? Will we inconvenience ourselves with boycotts against big polluters, or buy thoughtlessly to lead ourselves ever more swiftly into that long goodnight?

We've been warned. Now what?

[Redstone]

32. Why the hell would bushboy care?

It's "just another focus group" to him.

Redstone

[G_j]

33. Press Releases: Friends Of The Earth

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/stark_global_warning_over_24012005.html

STARK GLOBAL WARNING OVER CLIMATE CHANGE THREAT
Jan 24 2005

[RedCloud]

36. Smart money is on an ICE AGE!

Thermohalinists have told us that the fresh water from the ice melt could even shut down the Ocean Conveyor belts trapping cold water in the north and freezing much of Europe and North America while the trapped hot water begins to reach incredible record highs around the equator.

Sometimes it takes thousands of years for the belts to fix themselves. Since it costs so much to heat a home in these energy inefficient home building periods, which side do you think the BFEE is on?

But they play with ice. Once ice reached the equator to a depth of 8 feet. Result: Death for organisms who live on land.

[Baclava]

39. Snowball Earth

Somebody should make a movie...............nah.

[gasperc]

51. Global warming causes North continents to freeze

I've heard some of these theories and they are quite plausible, it's totally counter intuitive but once such dramatic changes like the gulf stream switched off or Greenland defrosting, God only knows the final result.

[Blue_Tires]

40. Bush response:

"Just more bad science and fuzzy math"

[Karenina]

41. Karenina to Mother Earth

It's your thing
Do whatchoo wanna do
I can't tell you
Who to sock it to...

[Lorien]

44. Environmental collapse vs. the right to smoke

which one will get DU fired up? My bet is on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1179950

I hope I'll be proven wrong.

[Lorien]

47. I HATE being right sometimes

over twice as many posts now on the smoking issue. WTF DU? Why are cancer sticks more important to most of you than the survival of the planet? Did the RW win with the "global warming is a myth" memes? Do younger DUers have any idea how miserable their lives are going to be if THEY don't take action RIGHT NOW?? This makes terrorism and peak oil look like a day in the park, people.

[gulfcoastliberal]

45. This is why I won't reproduce

Why bring kids into such a hellhole world, that we are actively fucking up as badly as possible by empowering those who seek its destruction for short-sighted gain. It's like the forces of Mordor from LOTR - they remind me of the repugs, slashing and burning forests, enslaving hobbits, and all that.

It's a tragedy, all the more so since it could've been prevented.

[Mojorabbit]

46. Have you seen this on the MSM? I have not.

I would have thought it would be a blaring headline. Instead I have seen tributes to Johnny Carson...

[MARALE]

48. We won $200!

What does this have to do with Global Warming? Well, our electric company offered a program in which you can pay a few pennies more per KW/hr and they would put the money toward wind generation. My husband and I thought it was a good idea and since we have a geothermal heating system, we decided to contribute. I guess they had a drawing and the winners got $200 off of their electric bills. Should last us a couple of months since our highest heating bill was $37.

[Lorien]

49. I wish our electric company were as progressive

I live on the flat, sunny peninsula of Florida, and wind and solar is virtually unheard of down here.

[MARALE]

50. Ours is a cooperative

I think that is why they are so progressive. I think all electric companies should be coops.

[Lorien]

52. Kick

please people-WAKE UP!!

[pscot]

54. Kick

This thread is too urgent to die quietly.