-
-
Al Gore's Ten Year Energy Challenge
A momentous challenge calling upon us to have the same spirit that birthed this nation and make no mistake about it, this is just as much an issue of Democracy as it is an economic, environmental, or national security issue. However, as usual, all we see on blogs and in the media by the usuals is bickering about whether climate change is "natural" or not when we already know that most of the effects on our planet we are seeing are a result of human behavior.That has been debated ad nauseum, and is why this country will wind up at the back of the pack when other countries pass us up regarding coming into the 21st Century. We are stuck in first gear still while the rest of the world is in drive.
We have been getting our oil from the Middle East and now will we get our solar panels from there too because we in this country are so myopic and politically polarized to the point that we cannot even concede one damn point? The alternate energy market is just waiting for a boom in this country. Employment in this country would soar and with investment, we would get the economic shot in the arm we need to avoid economic collapse while saving ourselves. Many say (even people in his own party) that Mr. Gore made this proposal at the wrong time with gas prices being so high... to that I say, WHAT?
This was the absolute right time to come out and tell people the truth that they are being lied to and duped by big oil and coal. This was exactly the right time to come out and tell people that they have a CHOICE and that they have the power in this next decade to put those choices into motion. That they have other options for energy that can be cheaper than what they are using now. Of course the oil and coal companies and special interests and their minions are not too happy about that, but I say, screw them. They have done more harm to this planet and economy with their pollution and wars than any alternate energy being instituted could do. It is time for them to see that their way is not the best way for the continued sustainability of this planet and work to make amends for what they have done.
The Earth as it stands now is going through changes in climate that are too exacerbated to just be natural and the cost of ignoring it far exceeds the cost of implementing changes to avoid it. What price do you put on a human life? That has been confirmed by the IPCC, NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, and thousands of other studies and scientists' reports from around the globe. It is a known fact also that for YEARS scientists in possession of these facts have been gagged by our government to keep quiet about it, because the very thing Mr. Gore stated must be done is something they don't want to do because they believe it will ground their gravy train.
More at the link. A momentous challenge calling upon us to have the same spirit that birthed this nation and make no mistake about it, this is just as m... more -
Real Talk Poets
Poets from every where feature. Go Hard Entertainment
-
Global report card of green countries/US falls short
A global report card on nations doing the most, and least, to clean up the environment.
...the EPI is the best measure we have of how nations are faring in the battle to save the environment, and the findings are striking. As one might expect, the overall rankings place small, wealthy Scandinavian societies at the top, and poor, war-torn African nations at the bottom. But one big surprise is that size is no excuse for poor performance; big and small nations occupy both the top and bottom ranks. And bigger surprises come when you compare nations with peers of similar income, or with neighbors. In the following pages, you'll find chapters on the best—and worst—nations in every income group: the rich, the middle class and the poor.
China in particular has long argued that it is too poor to afford the Western luxury of environmental awareness. The EPI exposes this claim to be bogus. China ranks last among 15 nations in its income group (the fifth decile), behind Vietnam. If Colombia, the group's leader, can afford environmental concern, why can't China?
snip:
In its environmental priorities, the United States is in some ways remarkably similar to China, the EPI reveals. Like China, the United States scores poorly among countries in its income class (the top 10 percent), ranking third from the bottom, due in large part to terrible scores for emissions, which are heavily weighted in the index because of their contribution to global warming. And like China, the weak U.S. emissions scores are due in part to reliance on coal. In the EPI, the United States scores 38 on carbon emissions from electricity generation, compared with an average of 68 for countries of similar wealth. That statistic lowers the U.S. score in emissions per capita, which Yale puts at 56, far below the peer-group average of 74.
~~~~~~~~
Again, it comes down to moral and political will. Trying to excuse the lack of it by stating anything else is simply bogus. Even in Kenya people are turning to solar and they hardly have an economy to speak of. So the US, China, and other rich countries will be exposed for the morally bankrupt leadership they have all at the expense of this planet and its people just to make gold bars that will serve no purpose without a planet. A global report card on nations doing the most, and least, to clean up the environment. ... more -
Living with water scarcity: world must act now
Only if we act to improve water use in agriculture now will we meet the acute water-environment-poverty challenges facing humankind over the next 50 years. "With earth's water, land and human resources it is possible to produce enough food for the future - but it is probable that today's food production and environmental trends will lead to crises in many parts of the world" says David Molden Deputy Director General of the International Water Management Institute.
This is the opening prognosis given in the Earthscan publication Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. The Assessment, the first of its kind, brings together the work of over 700 specialists from hundreds of institutes around the world into the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment of water and food ever written, critically examining policies and practices of water use and development in the agricultural sector over the last 50 years.
Spearheaded by International Water Management Institute (IWMI), one of 15 CGIAR agricultural research centres striving to increase food production, increase rural incomes, and safeguard the environment, the report is co-sponsored by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), FAO, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention on Biological Diversity in a bid to find solutions to the challenge of balancing the water-food-environment needs.
The assessment finds that 1/3 of the world's population live in areas where water scarcity must be reckoned with. While much of this water scarcity cannot be avoided, water problems can be averted through better water management.
Growing cities take more water, and environmental concerns are rising. A water-food-environment dilemma. Water use in agriculture is recognized as one of the major drivers of ecosystem degradation, causing habitat loss, drying up of rivers, and reduction in groundwater levels. Flows in the Colorado River in USA, the Yellow River in China, the Indus in India and Pakistan - all important food producing areas - dry up because of the water needed for irrigated agriculture. Clearly limiting agricultural water use is key for environmental sustainability. Therein lies the dilemma. More people require more water for more food; more water is essential in the fight against poverty; yet we should limit the amount of water taken from ecosystems.
snip
Since climate change is expected to hit these areas hard, better water systems will be a key to helping people cope with dry spells. Poverty, hunger, gender inequality, and environmental degradation continue to afflict developing countries not because of technical failings but because of political and institutional failings. There is need for drastic reform in the water sector. Governments must lead the reform process, but ironically state institutions themselves are in greatest need of reform. While water scarcity is here to stay, many of the problems associated with water scarcity can be avoided.
This will require that we deal with difficult choices and tradeoffs. Reconciling competing demands on water requires informed negotiations by the many stakeholders involved in water with transparent sharing of information. "The hope is in realizing the unexplored potential that lies in better water management along with non-miraculous changes in policy and production techniques" says Margaret Catley Carleson, Chair of the Global Water Partnership, "but world leaders must take action now." As Sunita Narain, 2005 Stockholm Water Prize Winner says, "this issue must become the world's obsession." Only if we act to improve water use in agriculture now will we meet the acute water-environment-poverty challenges facing humankind ov... more -
2050 greenhouse goals will be too late: EPI head
Pitches to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 are too leisurely and must be brought forward by decades, Lester Brown, president and founder of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, said Friday at a symposium in Tokyo.
"We are going to have to move much, much faster. I think the game will be over long before 2050," the environment expert said at Sophia University.
Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is expected to release a new initiative on environmental preservation Monday in which Japan will propose reducing long-term its own greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent from current levels by 2050. The initiative will not touch on medium-term goals.
But with the pace of global warming and its link to food prices rising worldwide, the world must "cut carbon emission by 80 percent by 2020," Brown said. The environmentalist, who has headed the nonprofit group EPI since 2001, providing reports and visions for a sustainable economy and environmental preservation, was in Tokyo to speak at the Sophia symposium.
Brown said that while past rises in grain prices were driven by particular events, including droughts and extreme weather, today's food crisis was trend-driven and induced by multiple factors, including population growth and grain being used to make fuel.
In such circumstance each country must work to reconstruct its energy resources, he said, urging Japan to develop its solar- and wind-power technologies and become less dependent on fossil fuels.
Pitches to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 are too leisurely and must be brought forward by decades, Lest... more -
Nuclear subsidies in Lieberman/Warner bill draw criticism
The leaders of six national environmental and public interest groups warned today that the impending Lieberman-Warner climate change bill could contain at least $544 billion in taxpayer subsidies for nuclear energy. This would represent the biggest federal handout in history for the nuclear industry, already the most heavily subsidized energy sector over the past 50 years.
The Lieberman-Warner bill is expected to be on the Senate floor in early June. According to an analysis conducted by Friends of the Earth, the bill contains close to half a trillion dollars that can be accessed by the nuclear energy industry under a vaguely entitled category for “zero and low carbon energy technologies.” Nuclear is the only energy industry that could fall under this category that does not have a specific carve elsewhere; funding for renewable energy is identified separately in the bill.
“Although the word ‘nuclear’ has been carefully omitted from the bill, it is clear that this is a covert attempt to bolster a failing nuclear power industry in the name of addressing climate change,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth. “It’s time to focus on real global warming solutions like solar, wind and energy efficiency, not to further fatten the moribund nuclear calf.”
The environmental and public interest group leaders decried the bill’s record-breaking giveaway to nuclear power which would encourage new construction of nuclear plants, the least-effective way of reducing carbon emissions because of their long construction times and high costs.
"After 50 years of unresolved safety and waste disposal issues, it perplexes many Americans why Congress would support massive subsidies for the nuclear industry," said John Passacantando, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA. "Nuclear power is a dirty and dangerous distraction from real global warming solutions," said Passacantando. "When both Wall Street and Warren Buffet think nuclear is a risky investment, Congress should not waste American tax dollars to further subsidize this 1950s technology."
~~~~
So not only does this bill disguised as a climate change bill when it is nothing more than a pork bill to polluters call for investment in CSS systems for the coal industry to allow themmore time to pollute, but the biggest subsidies for the nuclear industry. And this is the best we can do?
The leaders of six national environmental and public interest groups warned today that the impending Lieberman-Warner climate change b... more -
An Inconvenient Truth: Two years later
It has been two years since An Inconvenient Truth was released. These were my thoughts on it after seeing it for the first time:
I had a front row seat in a packed theatre to see Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth last night. I can describe it in two words: a journey. It is Al Gore's journey of heart, soul, spirit, and mind through a lifetime of stewardship and also growth. For as much as this movie is a clarion call to all of us to now take our own journey for our planet, ourselves, and our children, it is also Al Gore's reckoning with himself. He lays his soul bare to warn us of the consequences of our inaction now regarding this crisis, because it relays to the events in his own life in the past that brought him to this point as well.
The scenes showing his early years in Congress, his son's car accident, the 2000 election (yes, I cried here,) and the very poignant scenes of him with his sister Nancy who died of lung cancer revealed to me a man not doing this out of any selfish political intent, but of a man who is telling you, the viewer, that even he has had to experience loss and near loss in his life in order to realize what he lost and how much of a part he played in it. I think those scenes were shown in direct correlation to this climate crisis and his message that we must not make the same mistake now with our planet.
Will we look back years from now regretting that we continued the very behavior that is contributing to this crisis even knowing what it is doing to our planet? Or will we take the necessary steps to change our ways and heed the warnings before it is too late? That is the question of this movie and there is no alarmism whatsoever in the presentation of the solutions we have at our disposal. Mr. Gore relays the facts starkly, calmly, and at times humorously, and clearly lays out what we can do to mitigate this crisis. And the scientific consensus cannot be denied that we as a species are contributing to it and it is having a definite effect on our world.
His statistics on Co2, invasive species, species loss, ice cap melting, population growth, etc., intertwined with footage from around the world showing the effects of the statistics he showed was all very well presented and backed up. I also never got the impression that any of this is about him in any other sense than him using himself as an example of someone who had to reach the bottom in order to reach for the top.
I laughed, I cried, and I saw before me on the screen a man who has surely come full circle with who he is and what his mission is, and that is handing that mission and truth to us. He says he is not a hero, and frankly, I didn't see a hero in this movie and that is a good thing. Heroes have a tendency to be placed on pedestals and forgotten. I saw something much more. I saw a prophet, a missive, and a trailblazer who has full faith in our abilty to save our planet. And we must not let our planet down, and that also includes those in government and the corporate world whose indifference to this issue can no longer be tolerated.
more at the link It has been two years since An Inconvenient Truth was released. These were my thoughts on it after seeing it for the first time: ... more -
Arctic Meltdown: Newsweek Interview With Robert Corell
Robert Corell was the lead scientist of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report regarding climate change in the Arctic. I recommend reading this interview with him as he basically corroborates what Al Gore has also been stating, and explains why sea level rise may well be greater than reported by the IPCC, as they only considered water expansion from warming oceans not including addiitonal melt water from glaciers that would be added to it. With Greenland melting at such a rapid pace that must be considered. As he stated, we must now build a "climate cathedral." Robert Corell was the lead scientist of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report regarding climate change in the Arctic. I recommen... more
-
related topics
Political Will
Contributors (41)
Political Will
