Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink (The Guardian exclusive)

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.

The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" – is likely to be just "a nice Utopia", according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.

Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data.

"I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. ALERT: The centralized interventionist model has TOTALLY FAILED.

It was blocked on all fronts. That means people who are looking for the government for some kind of salvation on this are jerking themselves around. What hope is left lies in different approaches.

I saw Ron Paul on Elliot Spitzer, they were talking about one of Spitzer's early court cases. Paul stated that his environmental model was for people to sue for dumping "garbage in their yards", which is to say entities take personal charge of aspects of the environment and seek damages when they are damaged by polluters. Spitzer argued this was too complex, because they can build "higher smokestacks" so the pollution goes far enough away that the victims aren't aware they are victims, the damage is distributed so government intervention is the preferred method of environmental protection.

Spitzer may be right about having the better method if the governments of the world actually did that, but the real point right now is they don't. They won't. And the forces trying to make it happen discredited themselves by lining their pockets. The point is they are totally failing and that leaves us with something like Paul's methods.

If individuals and local communities would take responsibility for the following:
1) Producing their food locally
2) Managing their waste locally
3) Producing their energy locally (note this suggests clean energy in most locales)
4) Protecting other aspects of their means of survival locally (this means plants for oxygen, biodiversity for sustainable game populations and timber, etc)
In other words, if people were able to see all their survival depends on and have it nearby they would fight to defend it. That's not a beautiful answer, but its a start...And honestly that's way more than we've seen from world governments on this.

We've got to find a way to bring this fight to the hands of the people, and stop depending on shadowy distant forces for the very means of our survival. In time here I truly believe this will be a life or death matter.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

9. Thanks, I agree, but I think there is going to be quite a bit more death and destruction before

enough people are forced to act to make a difference. IOW, we are so screwed.

[napoleon_in_rags]

69. What bothers me is the sense of getting screwed by distant forces.

That feeling that my destiny with this is not in my own hands, but in the hands of other people far away. You may be right that we are screwed, but at least give us a good fight. Give us a chance to do some of the changes we need ourselves and stop this spectator game. If nothing else, I would like future generations...or the survivors (if it is that bad) to see that we tried to do something.

[patrice]

16. Right on! nt

[Faygo Kid]

29. This is - not will be - a life and death matter.

I truly believe we are in for far worse than even predicted.

[EC]

39. Well, here in WI

Walker just made it harder for anyone to sue for any environmental damage. I'm convinced this means he's selling out to fraking and drilling in Lake Michigan.

[napoleon_in_rags]

72. What we need to do is smash the idea that they are "for business"

We need to reveal the fact that they are actually for certain business, at the expense of other ones: corrupt middle east style nepotism. Once people and businesses see the stake they have in the resources around them, that they literally have a stake, then they'll see these environmentally destructive actions as the robbery that they are.

[defendandprotect]

41. We are depending on elites in government -- millionaires and multi-millionairs to correct

the insanities of capitalism -- which in fact they are pushing those very

insanities -- i.e., wars for profit/imperialism -- and exploittion of nature and

humanity.

[napoleon_in_rags]

71. EXACTLY! And the thing is that fostering dependence empowers the elite.

Energy sources and economic models which foster dependence of communities on distant places for the very means of their survival remove autonomy from those communities, period. The way to recover that autonomy is to have a means of local production for the means of survival, including energy. The fact that energy produced locally will generally be green is a side effect of resistance to elite control. Resistance to one bad thing is resistance to many others.

[defendandprotect]

86. Exactly -- and well said -- !!

Enron couldn't have been engaged in more obvious -- and chilish -- game-playing which

destroyed state budgets and stole from citizens -- California had huge amounts of state

money from pensions, etal invested in Enron -- though damned if I can figure out why?

Dragging energy across the states so that ONE company can profit from monopoly doesn't

serve the public interest in any way -- and it is only the corruption of government and

elected officials which permitted this to happen.


Also when things are happening locally you have a better chance of citizen involvement

and discovery -- and thereby more understanding and recognition of what is needed and why.

I have no doubt that alternative/green energy research and development has been tossed aside

by those private interests who control our natural resources.

We should have nationalized the oil industry 50 years ago -- but it's never too late to do it!!


Worse yet -- we're continuing to enrich our enemies -- ExxonMobil is the wealthiest corporation

ever -- !!


Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --



:) :)

[wordpix]

73. +1 I've already seen that only decentralized clean energy & food production will work.

After all, if you're going to depend on solar in northern climes, you'll be waiting a long time for electricity during winter months. So wind or biomass is better there, with some solar panels for summer. And by now, the entire Southwest and Southeast US should be running on solar electricity.

Good point about managing waste locally, too.

[napoleon_in_rags]

80. Absolutely, there are clearly different solutions for different areas.

Even beyond energy: Here on the west coast, I advocate bicycling to all, because we can do it much of the year. On the other hand, that farmer up in North Dakota needs that big truck to get supplies to and from his farm in the middle of nowhwere, especially during the winter months. The playboy businessman who wants to drive a truck around northern California to look cool shouldn't be raising gas prices for that North Dakota farmer who produces our food. It just doesn't make sense.

[defendandprotect]

2. Everyone has to begin to understand there was a 50 year delay in our feeling the effects

of Global Warming --

This provided the opportunity for oil industry/ExxonMobil to spend tens of billions of

dollars pushing anti-GW propaganda which lied to the public, confused the public and

deceived the public -- but especially kept anyone from stopping the burning of fossil

fuels -- or nationalizing the oil industry.

What the gap means is that we are only now feeling the effects of Global Warming based

on our activities up to about 1960 -- !!!

That's why the HEAT in the atmosphere will continue to increase -- in fact it will increase

ever faster and faster based on human activity during the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and

2000 -- 50 years of destruction of nature and the planet and the environment which didn't

have to happen --

and which only happened because oil industry and capitalists were permitted by our elected

officials to deceive the public!!

[theophilus]

20. I don't buy it. The earth is more resilient than this if we will seriously

change our ways....quickly. If your scenario is true then we're doomed. Doomed people don't DO anything except wait for death. The 50 year lag message is a losing message, IMO.

[defendandprotect]

40. Unfortunately, it is true --

and it was this gap which gave the oil industry it's chance to misinform and

disinform the public -- ExxonMobil led the way with other oil companies in

spending tens of billions of dollars to lie about Global Warming and they've

been highly successful at it.

You might try "The Heat is On" by Ross Gelbspan which most libraries have


And/or the World Scientists Warning to Humanity from 1992

which was met with silence by the corporate press

http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html


Nothing is indestructible --

The earth was just moved another 4" off its axis by this last earthquake --

More than 20 years ago NY Times reported that the dams and reservoirs built by

our engineers over 50 years prior were impacting the rotation of the earth.

No one can say for sure that the planet will keep turning, but we do know that

what we have been doing in exploiting nature is destroying animal species --

and making us all ill.

[0rganism]

67. not so resilient as you'd like to believe

We could cut carbon emissions by 95% tomorrow and the effects would persist for another 100 years before returning to prior norms of carbon levels.

It may be a losing message, but the truth is we're out of time to avoid disaster by changing our atmospheric emission habits. We have to start planning for survival and mitigation.

[Crunchy Frog]

77. The Earth is plenty resilient. The things living on it, not necessarily so much.

And this doesn't mean that we're doomed (at least not all of us). It probably does mean that we are going to have to adapt really rapidly to some very dramatic changes. Humans are very adaptable creatures, and at least some of them will manage to make it through the coming period of massive climate change. Alot of them won't, but the species won't be going extinct (unlike lots of other species).

[The Doctor.]

85. Exactly correct.

I believe it's called a 'keyhole' event in some circles.

[defendandprotect]

88. Global Warming has changed weather patterns, wind patterns ...

Look at Japan -- Look at NO/Katrina -- Look at Joplin, Missouri --

All conditions where chaotic events are increasing in numbers and severity --

and Japanese scientists well knew from increasing seismic activity that the plants

should have been closed down because they were only built to withstand 7.0 quakes.

Only political intervention by US seems to have stopped that from happening.


As I've pointed out above, the oil industry and their corrupt government officials

were able to deceive and disinform the public re GW because of the 50 year delay in

the effects being felt --

the other side of their propaganda was to cement in the public's mind that even if

Global Warming existed it was way, way, way, far in the distance. It's not.


We here in NJ already have increases in temps over the norm by more than 25 degrees.


Keep in mind the glaciers are still melting -- as one scientist explained it, this

is like having your freezer door open.




An excellent book on this subject is "The Heat Is On!" by Ross Gelbspan --

most libraries have it --

If you want to understand how long we've known that industrialization and human activity

have been harming nature -- and ergo humans -- another excellent book is

"The Dying of the Trees" by Chas. Little

[defendandprotect]

87. No one can say that the earth will keep turning --

it's an open question --

Earth is a living organism -- and imagine what condition we'd be in if what has been

done to this planet was done to any of us!!

The time to have adapted and changed our ways was more than 50 yeas ago -- we could

have begun a 100 years given the scientific evidence that we were negatively impacting

nature --


Capitalism is suicidal --

We have to stop judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill.

[bhikkhu]

3. Put simply - economic growth correlates to energy use

and the energy that is used is disproportionately fossil fuels.

Something to keep in mind when pushing for "economic growth" on the one hand, and reductions in carbon emissions on the other.

[salib]

66. I call BS on that one

Drop that old canard. Read Amory Lovins "Soft EnergyPaths" (late 70s). "Simply put", there is no requirement of energy consumption to ensure economic growth. Way to repeat the conservative matra.

[psychopomp]

81. Why don't you educate us by providing the gist of the book that you recommend

rather than expecting us all to run out and read a thirty year-old book.

Our tremendous growth over the last hundred years has been fueled by an equally tremendous exploitation and use of fossil fuels.

[Scruffy1]

5. It's past time for action.

It should be obvious that the Republicans will block any meaningful climate change legislation after they voted to deny it. It should be equally obvious that the Democrats are way to influenced by Big Oil, Wall Street and the like.
Perhaps our personality based electoral system is simply unable to deal with long term problems when looking at an election every two years.
Any way you slice it its going to take massive public effort and support to put this issue out front where it belongs.

[JDPriestly]

22. Meanwhile Sarah Palin screams "Drill, Baby, Drill."

If you want to talk about God (and Sarah Palin does), what stronger message could God send us than the BP oil spill, the Exxon Valdez spill and Fukushima.

We are headed in the wrong, wrong, wrong direction, and we need to turn around now before we fall straight over the cliff.

[Amonester]

32. Yes, but 'they' (still) believe in 'their' Rapture.

So why would 'they' have to "worry 'their' beautiful minds" about any cliff thingy?

They.Don't.(And.Won't).Care.

[destes]

6. there is an inexorable ratio between ........

the global concentration of atmospheric carbon and human population. The forces who aligned themselves against the reality of GW science are aligned themselves with the denial of the critical mass we have, as a species, reached due to overpopulation.

People could pollute about all they want if they totaled only 10% of the current number. I think probably the top 10% of 50 years ago thought, like the top 10%'ers today, that they could buy their way into survival. It's the same sort of logic that makes people believe that gated communities, tangible evidence of fantasy spawned in insulation, offer protection from burglary, down turns in the economy and lowbrow neighbors.

[endless october]

7. meanwhile, another country runs from nuclear:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110530/ts_afp/germanypoliticsnuclear

looks like electricity is about to get damned expensive in Germany.

[trud]

13. Germany, a disaster

Doing away with nuclear is a stupid, stupid decision. Nuclear is the only hope of holding off full global warming catastrophe. BP and its ilk must be thrilled, though.

[bananas]

18. Germany is doing the right thing - it's time to phase out nuclear and coal, and phase in renewables.

These old reactors won't last forever,
and as they age they become more likely to have catastrophic failures.
Trying to keep them running is dangerous and irresponsible.

[truth2power]

27. Nuclear is subsidized by the taxpayer at EVERY STAGE of the process...

Nuclear is not renewable, safe or cheap. If we had the will, and the nuclear industry wasn't pounding people over the head with their execrable propaganda we could have clean renewable energy.

[Taft_Bathtub]

51. Please tell me what energy source isn't subsidized

Thanks in advance!

[liberation]

53. Please let us know what energy source produces radioactive waste storage

thanks in advance!

[Taft_Bathtub]

55. Thorium runs on waste

Hope that helps, India is already doing it :)

[liberation]

62. The thorium fuel cycle still generates radioactive waste

BTW, India's thorium reactors require a plutonium core to kickstart the reaction.

You gotta tap dance harder than that, some people here... *wasp* actually studied physics. LOL.

[Taft_Bathtub]

64. Keep moving them goal posts!

You can't tell me what energy source isn't subsidized, so you start asking about radioactivity.

I give you a reactor that actually consumes weapons-grade material and you complain that it uses it? (also the waste produced by Thorium is very very miniscule and only lasts 300 years, not tens of thousands like other reactors -- very manageable by mankind)

You clearly have nothing to offer to any discussion besides "nuclear is bad".

[liberation]

68. Projection is funny, but in this case it is hilarious.

"I give you a reactor that actually consumes weapons-grade material and you complain that it uses it? "

Besides the strawman that you tried to push, the thorium cycle still produces waste, which was my original point.

Anyhow, have a wonderful day. I hope you get better talking points soon, these ones are sooo worn out (even with your relative low post count).

PS. Thorium is only an "answer" for countries like India which happen to have large reserves of it. It is most definitively not the "environmentally" driven solution you're trying to pass it as.

[Taft_Bathtub]

Ok it's clear you don't want to discuss anything honestly

Since you know Thorium produces so little waste, yet you bring it up like it's a negative. And America has a large stockpile of Thorium from the Cold War, again, something you could have googled and taken ten seconds to see if you were honest about the discussion.

[psychopomp]

82. You have conceded victory in this argument

Even before you resorted to checking "post count" status.

[fascisthunter]

83. lol...okeedokee

[wordpix]

75. +1 Even Pres. O has swallowed the Koolaid, proposing $36 billion in taxpayer guaranteed loans

This nuke industry cannot even afford to build its own plants and we're supposed to bail them out----ahead of any economic disaster.

[liberation]

52. Yeah, because Germany could not possibly be investing heavily on renewables and energy conservation

Funny to see the association of "clean environment" with "disaster" LOL.

I wonder if the pro-nuke PR squad gets over time for posting talking points on holidays...

[Taft_Bathtub]

56. They're also investing heavily in Coal

Which sadly release more radioactivity than nuclear :(

[liberation]

61. Well sure, except they are not

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/09/30/northern-ireland-scotland-germany-announce-big-renewable-energy-targets/

BTW: Coal releases more POLLUTION than nuclear. If you're going to speak in talking points, at least get your memes correct.

I am surprised that you guys are not going for gold today and bring out Germany's double plus secret plan to derive their energy production from juicing kittens (a devious plan from the nazis obviously). So double over time, then.

[Taft_Bathtub]

63. How can you post so many wrong things

It's staggering, you're always wrong.

Germany building 26 new coal power plants, YAY GREEN ENERGY!:http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2007/gb20070321_923592.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

Coal Power is more radioactive than Nuclear: "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

[liberation]

70. Pssst your link about Germany's coal plants is from 2007

Policy has changed "a bit" in over 4 years.

Here is an example of newer official releases regarding renewable energy policy in Germany:

http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/broschuere_ee_zahlen_en_bf.pdf

Your claim that Germany is trading nuclear generation for increased investments in coal or other fossil fuels is dishonest to say the least.

BTW, a cursory read of your scientific american link produces a few issues:

The study is hardly reputable since it compares measured with estimated exposure, but most importantly the article says nothing about the release of radiation of burning coal vs. that of nuclear waste on an adjusted basis. The article also does nothing to address the issue of nuclear waste being more radioactive,gram per gram, than coal ash. Thus the title of the article is misleading to say the least. I know you were desperately googling for something, anything, but LOL


You should be more careful when trying to sneak PR talking points on people who actually have an academic background in the subject. You look foolish.

Cheers.

[Taft_Bathtub]

78. Again, more lies

The link's date doesn't refute that they're building plants, since anyone knows they take years, sometimes decades to construct. Here's the power plants:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_power_plant_proposals_in_Germany

And no I wasn't desperately googling anything, it's a well-known fact that coal power plants pollute more than nuclear. You take issue with nuclear plants capturing their waste and storing it in casks, because you're overwhelmingly anti-nuclear to the point that it shows a clear bias. I suppose you'd prefer they just emitted it into the atmosphere like the coal industry?

Thanks for the insults, they add so much to the discussion!

[Taft_Bathtub]

79. Also here's a current link that says the same things

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/germany-coalplants-idUSLDE7290OR20110310

Not that it really matters.

[wordpix]

74. oh, yeah, we've seen how great nukes work at Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI

and all those waste storage pools at double and triple capacity, with nowhere to go with the waste so the storage is onsite, just waiting for a hurricane, tsunami, or tornado to rip through... then there is the cost---new nukes can only be built if we subsidize the nuke industry to the tune of $36 billion or more with taxpayer guaranteed loans, as proposed by Pres. O. :grr:

Yeah, nukes are totally the answer. :sarcasm:

[Kurmudgeon]

15. Well, after the problems with Fukushima In Japan , it is understandable.

Sad, but nuclear isn't the solution people thought it could be, at least at today's technological and business levels.

[theophilus]

21. Nuclear is NOT the answer. Fukushima should make the point. We

are too stupid and slow to operate nuclear facilities. The planet (organisms) will go on without us after global warming subsides. A radiated hellscape would be much harder for earth to overcome.

[JDPriestly]

23. Germany is leading the way. Note that both conservatives

and liberals in Germany are on the same side in this.

They have had a Green Party and heard a green voice since the 1970s. They are way ahead of us.

[mwb970]

8. But, but, Michele Bachmann says that CO2 is a "harmless gas"!

It turns out that it is a natural byproduct of nature, so there is no need to worry about it. I'm so relieved!

[Mosaic]

11. I'm not fond of this type of 'Colbert' sarcasm.

Smart people are amused, but the vast dummies of this country believe you and it makes them very happy. Sarcasm is weak and ineffective in a dumb America.

[mwb970]

17. Sorry, what?

I'm not talking to "America", I'm talking to DUers, who recognize sarcasm when they see it with no problem. I am very sorry that you are "not fond of" political satire, but I don't see what that has to do with me.

:shrug:

[liberation]

54. Don't worry..

the "concerned" gonna "concern."

The oceans are exhausted as it is, thus the slim pickings when fishing for red herring...

[patrice]

19. It also doesn't work if it's not authentic, rather than robotic repetition of a pattern . . .

:eyes:

[Joey Liberal]

28. Get a life, Mosiac. NT

[Auggie]

30. Neither am I

It's not amusing anymore, particularly in a thread topic such as this.

[blm]

10. Bush-Cheney presents...How to Succeed at Planet Destruction Without Even Trying

Without even trying to save it. Let all the energy companies and a corrupt Republican congress do your dirty work for you.

[The Green Manalishi]

12. How much can we, as American citizens, really do?

India, China, and other rapidly developing countries can just tell us to kiss their asses- and can I really blame somebody in one of those countries who can finally afford a car and central AC from having what a lot of us grew up with as our normal standard of living (never had AC, but the main topic of discussion of every one of my friends from the age of 8 on was what kind of car *ARE* you going to get when you can drive).

I mean even if 300 million Americans went 'back to the land' (doing everything feasible to reduce our carbon output and pollution in general), would it offset 500 - 800 million Indoans and Chinese buying cars and SUV's?

We (wife and I) don't pollute much (compared to most dual income americans of our age) due to frugality (carpooling, recycling, general cheapness) rather than morality; but a billion folks "rising" to our level of consumption, not sure how we can offset that even if we nationalized Exxon and hung everyone driving a Hummer.

[theophilus]

24. If America would just lead the way, in the right direction, for a change we could

make a huge difference. The developing countries will be the first to suffer with massive human die offs. We need to make green solutions and share them, yes SHARE them, with the world. If humans don't wise up and get off the "bottom line" on this we are going to see suffering and death on a astronomical scale.

[patrice]

25. We can insist on an end of these DAMNED wars.The carbon footprint of war as bigger than anything

else, practically. At least 9 years of War Spending AND Wars' carbon footprints.

......................................

There have been recent moves in House committees to auto-fund Un-ending Wars without Congressional review, also changes in command structures between regular military and National Guard . . . all to make good on Cheney's et al investments, including their/our own slavery to FOREIGN credit/currency which threatens so strongly ever since Bushs' Derivative Crash.

:hi:

[phasma ex machina]

34. +1 Let's stop the war machine first. nt

[Harmony Blue]

44. Absolutely

The MIC is indeed the problem we must first overcome. Then the lobbyists behind fossil fuels, and finally educating the public on scientific data, which I think will be the hardest to do.

[wordpix]

76. yeah, how many mpg do the giant tanks and bombers get?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Yes, from what I understand and hear from current travelers

the China that I knew in 1990, where nearly everyone cycled or took public transit has been replaced by the world's largest market for cars. That's one reason why gasoline prices are up. But more importantly, it's why carbon emissions increased.

If both corporations and the governments they own had been RESPONSIBLE, they would have reversed the PR they've used for the past eighty years to convince people that cars are wonderful and applied it to pushing and facilitating alternative transportation. They would have told you how cool it was to use electric cars and bicycles for in-town trips and how you should lobby Congress for better rail transit. They would have planned new suburban development around transit and bikepaths instead of around freeways. They would have retrofitted existing communities to facilitate walking, biking, and transit.

Americans drive because in many cases, they have no alternative--or think they don't.

But China has no such excuse. With hardly anyone driving 20 years ago, they could have built the first green national transportation network. Instead, the auto companies must have bribed them to do things like building freeways in Beijing. Now a city that already had bad air due to coal dust and sandstorms (it's within a couple of hours of the Gobi Desert) has even worse air quality.

Way to go, government-industrial complexes of the world!

[Amonester]

33. But. but, but, the billionaires of the oil & car industries want more billions

NOW (or before the end of the next quarter). So they'll BUY every 'cheap' politician they can find to make sure they'll get those billions more.

They keep doing it because.... it works (for them).

And if you think this is going to change without at least 800 million people in the streets of the world, staling the WORLD economy in its track for weeks before they'll accept to talk about them making concessions, think again.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. There are advantages to being older and not having children

It means that I won't be around when things REALLY get bad.

But I feel sorry for the young people who will have to live with the consequences of the contemporary elites' greed.

[Amonester]

37. Same here.

At least we tried, and we still hope most of the brightest young people of the WORLD will figure it out.

They can do it. They have the communication networks to do it.

[defendandprotect]

47. Don't be too sure about that --

the effects of Global Warming are speeding up rapidly now --

Look at Katrina -- Joplin -- Japan -- and the continuing weather damage that has

been building around the world for decades now.

[The Green Manalishi]

91. Yep

I recall a Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert quotes "we don't inherit the planet from our parents we borrow it from our children"

to which Dogbert replies "It's even be3tter than that; we don't have any kids, so I can drive a Hummer, pollute all I want and leave a smoking, ruined wreck to a bunch of total strangers".

[defendandprotect]

46. Capitalism is suicidal --

and evidently there are a lot of people even here on DU who still think that

the earth is indestructible!!

Global Warming is the biggest secret that the elites are keeping --

the second biggest secret is that there is no way to hold them accountable for any

of their destructiveness -- not to the planet, not to animal-life, not to humanity.

When citizens figure it out, the true corruption of capitalism, it will be shock

beyond belief.

[Moostache]

14. Color me unsurprised.

Just look at the global response to the "financial meltdown" as an example of culpability and consequences...

Those who make the messes on this planet are NEVER the ones who are forced to bear the brunt of the resultant chaos.
MILLIONS of people across the globe have STILL not recovered or found new jobs after the banksters broke the bank on their casino capitalism and stuck the public with the bill. Industrial polluters are absolutely no different. They view the projected consequences of climate change as something that they will be inconvenienced by but not something that will threaten their overly self-absorbed lives on the this Earth.

The REALLY sad thing?

They are probably right. The poor and the disenfranchised of the world will become climate migrants and eke out a living day by day while the so-called "titans of industry" and "the banksters" will remain in gated and guarded communities, more and more isolated and detached from reality every year. There is no happy ending coming in this story, but unlike a bad slasher film that you already know the ending to, I cannot simply get up and leave this horror show.

It makes me sick and all I can say is that I apologize to future generations of humanity for the plight we left you in and for my inability to make more important people listen and understand and act. I am truly sorry.

[Hubert Flottz]

31. K&R

Al Gore wasn't lying.

[tranche]

35. This is really surprising. We're going to hate seeing the numbers if/when the world economy picks up

I would have thought we'd continue to see somewhat depressed numbers.

[swilton]

38. Rome is Burning

:grr:

[uberblonde]

42. But the DEFICIT!!!!

It can't be that important, or our president would be screaming it from the rooftops!

[sulphurdunn]

43. If you read the professional journals

of the gas, coal, oil and nuclear industries you will discover that they anticipate a doubling of the use of their products by the middle of the century and ever increasing profits. Their only concern for the future of the planet is that some pesky regulation may slow down their rate of return on investment. Welcome to the asylum! :crazy:

[Love Bug]

45. Congress responds to report: *crickets*

[defendandprotect]

48. Btw, we here in NJ have temps approaching 90 or over in late May--!!

We are even more than 25 degrees above normal now --

Spring and Fall are disappearing --

We are moving to two extreme seasons -- winter and summer --

[Taverner]

49. Waiting for the anti-cap and traders in 3,2,1...

Seriously, I don't get why so many on DU are against Cap and Trade Legislation

Sure, the policy has flaws, but they are not fatal flaws and can be changed

[dogmoma56]

50. i don't know what all the fuss is about, the Earth will fix itself in about 4000 years, but in about...

100 years the population will probably drop to below 1 billion. how many of those survive the water wars is a toss up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

the last time the gulf stream stopped, the archaeological record shows that mega-hurricanes 1600 miles in diameter were created by the equatorial heating. the Gulf Stream travels about 5.6 mph, it literally drags the heat out of the equator. no ice in the Arctic means the Gulf Stream stops, it heats the water WAY UP. so hurricanes will move the heat out as Weather, bad ass'd weather. the last time the Gulf Stream stopped, 350 to 400 feet of Sea Level was evaporated by equatorial heating. the ice was up to nearly 2 miles high, it takes 5 pounds of red hot cast iron to evaporate a pound of water.. you do the math.

the water carried to the poles will create glaciers that will eventually replace the melted ones restarting the Gulf Stream. the one big Variable is that the earth has been in an ice age for 120,000,000 years. we are, were in a relatively warm bump, that may or may not re-appear.

we are screwed. and the rich wall street gambling addict OCD wealth/power hoarders will continue to screw us to the very end. they are mentally ill and out of control. they will probably freeze to death after burning all their money to stay warm long after we are dead.

[Delphinus]

92. Has the Gulf Stream stopped?

I'm not seeing that it has ... yet.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Vattel]

57. Neither party is taking this seriously.

The Republicans are in denial and the Democrats are afraid of losing votes.

[moblsv]

58. I'm sure something this important will dominate the front pages

of all the Main Stream Media outlets. Let's see.... nope, not CNN. Maybe MSNBC... nope, not there either. Fox... yeah, right.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. I flipped plast CNN this morning while turning on my TV to see

if the threatened thunderstorms were heading toward the Twin Cities (they mostly passed north of us).

What was the lead story, being hashed over endlessly and being treated as a major headline? Some college football coach quitting.

America is deliberately being dumbed down.

[gauguin57]

59. To quote Country Joe and the Fish ...

... "Well, there ain't no time to wonder why, WHOOPEE!, we're all gonna die"!

[Corruption Winz]

65. So.... maybe we get into other forms of fuel now........... n/t

[blank space]

84. Have studied this for 25 years

If we do not turn to nuclear immediately we are let with two options -

almost total annihilation of modern civilization through continued carbon use,

a return to pre industrial agrarian life style, requiring massive population decline,
global civilization collapse.

There is absolutely no alternative to nuclear if we wish to retain any remote resemblance of our current civilization - that is a stone cold fact.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is operating in one of two realms - profound ignorance, profound denial.


Have studied this across the planet, across universities for 25 years - your very best scientists are all in absolute agreement on this - nuclear or nothing. Its not a choice.

The option of going Renewables was possibly available to us if we had have acted with full war time footing beginning two decades ago - but we did not and now have absolutely ZERO choice.

Even the IPCC completely acknowledges this fact.

It is sad, it is unfortunate, regrettable and undesirable - but the facts often are.

If we sit around arguing about this, like we did trying to convince people of the reality of global warming, we will miss our only opportunity, nuclear, to those who stand in the way of nuclear - you now pose a greater threat to civilization than those who originally denied the science of global warming.

I have been listening to the science of the Nuclear only option from world leading scientist for almost 5 years now. I have sat in rooms with luminaries like Lovelock and many more -

Before 2015 you will be seeing devastation you can not imagine, and by 2020 the world will absolutely no longer exist as you see it today (structurally, sociologically, institutionally etc).

The sad thing is you were all warned this day was coming starting in 1992 - you have been screamed at by scientists for almost 20 years - and not it comes as a shock.

[wordpix]

89. OK, Mr. Studious, solve the waste storage, financial & safety problems FIRST

and then get back to me on how nukes are the solution. :puke: It's just NOT TRUE.

The nuke industry cannot even afford to build their own new plants in the US and want gov. subsidies via guaranteed taxpayer loans. Do you support Pres. O's proposal for US taxpayers to back the nuke industry with $36 billion for this?

This is nothing more than a bailout BEFORE any financial or other disaster hits. It's unprecedented. And if you've ever followed the money for a large construction project (I have), the costs tend to spiral AFTER construction starts, and not before. So we could be on the hook for much more than $36 billion in bailouts.

[KurtNYC]

90. the PTB seem to be betting on "massive population decline"

No jobs programs, no rebuilding of infrastructure, limited building of new power plants (and the push for lower energy consumption by the peasants, eg. CFLs), repeal of abortion rights, decimation of health care, phase out of soc sec, elimination of public education, etc..

The wealthy are well into development of ways to grow food indoors, regardless of climate. And they like Montana/Alberta -- away from oceans, out of tornado alley, away from large population centers and poised to improve with a 10 degree farenheit rise.

Indoor seafood:
http://www.hvmag.com/Hudson-Valley-Magazine/October-2010/Fish-Farming-in-a-Local-Ocean/