Advertisement

Climate Change, Water Shortages: Who Knew?

topic posted Thu, May 10, 2012 - 6:59 AM by  offlineD
Share/Save/Bookmark
www.guardian.co.uk/environm...-dilemmas

the ones running the world knew this would happen long before the industrial revolution, I now believe

used to blame it on "human greed" like everything else that made no sense at all?

assuming here that the goal is one world government and dramatic population reduction
posted by:
D
online D
Washington, D.C.
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Climate Change, Water Shortages: Who Knew?

    Thu, May 10, 2012 - 12:22 PM
    Who knew? Reagan KNEW, so did all the oil and coal wealthy psychopathic motherfuckers running the country...

    in 1981 when Dr. James Hansen et al came out with this:

    pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

    www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

    They knew, they wanted money more than a healthy planet, and that's what they continue to want. Now, THIRTY GODDAM YEARS LATER, Hansen says this:

    Published on Thursday, May 10, 2012 by The New York Times
    Game Over for the Climate

    The science of the situation is clear — it’s time for the politics to follow
    by James Hansen

    Global warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”

    If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.

    Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

    That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

    If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.

    The global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted would happen by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change.

    We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and temperatures will inevitably rise too high. This is not the result of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in the part of its long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would normally be cooling. But they are rising — and it’s because we are forcing them higher with fossil fuel emissions.



    The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

    We need to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new ways to increase them. We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny. This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices. Not only that, the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from the proposed pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline superfluous, according to economic models driven by a slowly rising carbon price.

    But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true costs, leveling the energy playing field, the world’s governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels with hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This encourages a frantic stampede to extract every fossil fuel through mountaintop removal, longwall mining, hydraulic fracturing, tar sands and tar shale extraction, and deep ocean and Arctic drilling.

    President Obama speaks of a “planet in peril,” but he does not provide the leadership needed to change the world’s course. Our leaders must speak candidly to the public — which yearns for open, honest discussion — explaining that our continued technological leadership and economic well-being demand a reasoned change of our energy course. History has shown that the American public can rise to the challenge, but leadership is essential.

    The science of the situation is clear — it’s time for the politics to follow. This is a plan that can unify conservatives and liberals, environmentalists and business. Every major national science academy in the world has reported that global warming is real, caused mostly by humans, and requires urgent action. The cost of acting goes far higher the longer we wait — we can’t wait any longer to avoid the worst and be judged immoral by coming generations.

    NY Times 2012

    ***If there was actually a justice system there would be a lot of people dragged out of their private helicopters and Lear jets and limos dangling from ropes thrown over the nearest tree all over their private country clubs and golf courses... but of course that's a terrible thing to say and it isn't going to happen anyway because...who has the guns and private armies and runs the government owns the judges and the 'just-us' system and can direct the military to get all 'belligerents' according to the newest Mussolini corporatist NDAA law? The chains are growing obviously tighter...and the box is getting a wee might cramped...and we've plumb run out of time...
    • D
      D
      online 136
      that part is straight up (mostly ignored) history so agreed and Reagan I recall well the first time I became really conscious of my country losing its mind - why? had to be greed maybe lust for power, addiction to power? But right off kind of obvious with Reagan this sucking of wealth - truly blood or life blood at some level? quickly into the upper classes - class something less talked about than race and personal finances in America, anyway? We saw the taxes go up talking out of one end acting out of the other, debt goes up, military sucks the wealth out of us all and I sort of almost got it but now I understand that we were mined, Americans all, by a system set in place to build up a vast military infrastructure and now in 2011 look at it - lost a couple trillion - O well? - so i see America as a tool meant to primarily provide a military and security infrastructure which by design will be taken by these one worlders thereby becoming a significant one world ready made army potentially almost overnight?

      or even that is only a part of it?

      (just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone is not out to get you)


      • I didn't see general acidification mentioned. Feel your eyes sting, when you sweat? It's here.

        Bees are dying, from a combination of petroleum-based pesticides and acidification. The oceans are acidifying which will kill plankton, eggs, and little fish. The oceanic food chain is in real jeopardy.

        Also, from carbon comes the usual cyclonic storm rampage and rising oceans.
        • Unsu...
           
          Yep, and there's so much going critical at this point that it's almost impossible to keep up on it all. And, if you could possibly absorb that much bad fucking news you're head would explode.

          There are times when I feel that mine will....

          I've got a neighbor, retired biology teacher and librarian who's fought the FS over logging, very active on environmental issues for decades in these mountains (they built their own house from logs taken off their property) and he has literally stopped reading much at this point. I send him critical articles (I think) but they've realized that after decades of activism there isn't ANYTHING that they made better; not one damn thing. Everything is so inter-related that the cascade effect from disparate, seemingly unconnected events that even if they 'saved' a local habitat from the Forest Service and their owners the corporate loggers (Boise/Cascade, now the investment East Coast firm of Forest Capital Partners that bought them out) that other extremely harmful human-caused....ummmm.... problems upstream pretty much fucked it all up anyway. Save a forested area and the damn pine bark beetles who are doing so well with the climate heating up that they are now having two births a summer, kill it anyway. And then the loggers bitch because 'look at what the enviros did' because they lost all that profit.

          Profit is all that matters.

          I'm still reading, probably 5,000 words a day average I've guessed (speed reader, very high comprehension and retention rate) and there are days when I'm just goddam overwhelmed with it all, too. I can see why he's backed off. They're doing their early garden planting and working this year's project list around their property and trying not to think of the incredible threat that is Fukushima (read my posts on Raw Wisdom about that), the growing United Soviet States of America police state (Mussolini fascism is probably close to the reality), the ocean, the polar regions, the phyto and zoo plankton dying off, the methane releasing that has been getting large from Siberia and the Arctic Ocean; there is just too damn much scary shit going on and people are just WATCHING TELEVISION and eating handfuls of anti-depressants or anti-anxiety pills or stuffing their faces with all the shit food they can possibly ingest (didn't anybody else see Supersize Me?)....

          Right now I'm 12 feet above sea level in Aberdeen Washington instead of 2016 feet in the Selkirk Mountain Range in the NE corner of the state. Tomorrow I go surfing up on the Olympic Peninsula for the first time in five years, camping right on the beach for a few days at the La Push Rez campground, then back south to Westport for the longest running surf contest in the state and waves around this area. I'm think I really need an information de-toxing at this point, and since it's my 50th summer paddling out on a surfboard I couldn't think of a better place to be. Read ya all next week!
          • Re: Climate Change, Water Shortages: Who Knew?

            Fri, May 18, 2012 - 12:24 PM
            Then I'll keep it succinct: we need C)2-neutral biomass, industrial hemp and switchgrass, at least. I'll read you when you get back.
            • Re: Climate Change, Water Shortages: Who Knew?

              Thu, June 7, 2012 - 12:18 PM
              My Senator:

              Senator Introduces Industrial Hemp Amendment

              Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) on Thursday introduced an amendment to the farm bill that would allow farmers to grow industrial hemp.

              The amendment, S.3240, would exclude industrial hemp from the definition of "marihuana," thereby allowing hemp farming to be regulated by state permitting programs, bypassing the federal government's long-standing prohibition of marijuana. A sister bill, H.R. 1831, was introduced in the House earlier this session by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

              "The federal prohibition on growing industrial hemp has forced companies to needlessly import raw materials from other countries," said Wyden in a statement on Thursday. "My amendment to the Farm Bill will change federal policy to allow U.S. farmers to produce hemp for these safe and legitimate products right here, helping both producers and suppliers to grow and improve Oregon's economy in the process."

              Seventeen states have passed pro-hemp legislation, while eight have removed barriers to its production. Still, farmers in these states are at risk of being raided by federal agents and losing their crops.

              Vote Hemp, a national nonprofit dedicated to promoting the crop, is encouraging people to write and call their senators in support of the amendment and has received hundreds of supporter emails, according to National Outreach Coordinator Tom Murphy.

              The organization's president, Eric Steenstra, said he thinks current hemp prohibitions stem largely from the failure of federal policy to distinguish between oilseed and fiber varieties of cannabis.

              "Senator Wyden's effort is unprecedented and totally commendable, but in my view the existing prohibition of hemp farming stems less from current law, but rather the misinterpretation of existing law by the Obama administration," he said.

              www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...05.html