Burn, Melt, Repeat

What's the upside of global warming?  Why, once the ice is gone from Greenland, it will open up whole new regions for oil exploration.  

Joern Skov Nielsen, deputy director of Greenland’s Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum, said Thursday that there might be more oil in his country than the entire past production of the North Sea. That would be about 50 billion barrels. Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Husky Energy last year received licenses for exploration, which will be made easier by the melting of Greenland’s ice.

By the time we've burned all the oil in Greenland, Antarctica is bound to be ice-free.  Just imagine all the resources we'll find down there!

Please remind the presidential candidate of your choice that changing the sources of energy in the United States isn't a nice option at the end of a long list of "gotta haves."  Energy -- the source of which will determine everything from our foreign policy to our economy -- needs to be first.

•  Shameless

  They take all our money, destroy our world, and keep asking for more More MORE!

  by benthos on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:50:23 PM PDT

  •  I knew this was coming

    It just came faster than I thought it would. And thars gold in them thar glaciers. Just wait until the Greenland gold rush.

    I hope I'm dead and buried by the time that happens.

    by oklacoma dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:38:43 PM PDT

  •  Why Not?

    We've known for generations they do that, even before the stakes raised this high. And they've never gotten anything in return but more money and power. Why wouldn't they keep at it, more voracious every time?

    by DocGonzo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:06:01 PM PDT

  •  They take all our money, destroy our world, and k

    Don'tcha just hate when the Dems do that..?

    by Proud NeoCon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:14:57 AM PDT

•  Not to mention......

  that it might even save our lives, by converting to alternative energy sources.

  by rickeagle on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:52:07 PM PDT

•  We give up Florida and all seaside property

  in return for the fuels to warm the earth even more!

  Heckuva job, Oily.

  - Albert Einstein

  by Walt starr on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:52:28 PM PDT

  •  Wanted Florida to be National Park for

    long time now. Give it back to the alligators!

    by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:57:21 PM PDT

    •  You mean the sharks!

      By the time the oil companies see the Greenland ice melt and start selling that supposed Greenland crude, most of Florida will be under water, as well as anything else near sea level around the world (including some fancy oceanfront homes of oil execs, as well as many of the facilities now used in the transmission of oil from the Middle East, which lie quite close to sea level).

      by Randall Sherman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:31:33 PM PDT

  •  More point breaks in Greenland - none in FLA

    That's all beach breaks and inlets. A few reefs. Point breaks are so much nicer. And just think - no more pesky polar bears in the line up. Think positive. Probably more overall oceanfront property in Greenland, too.

    by RUKind on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:25:44 PM PDT

    •  oceanfront property in Atlanta

      after all that ice melts.  We'll need the oil for our powerboats.

      by CParis on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:03:57 PM PDT

      •  Not to mention

        the real estate boom for Canada.

        by bythesea on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:17:01 AM PDT

  •  maybe it'll flush rush limbaugh out n/t

    by timbuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:40:26 PM PDT

  •  Peak oil

    This is a perfect example of why Peak Oil is a faith-based approach to global warming.  It's completely unscientific, but it's got a lot of people convinced that hey, this problem with greenhouse gasses will be over any day now, so we don't need to worry about it.

    It distinctly will not.

    The Bakken horizontal drilling recovery.  CO2 injection recovery.  Athabasca bitumen.  Orinoco ultra-heavy crude.  Rockies shale.  GTL.  Coal liquefaction, including in-situ from otherwise "unrecoverable" reserves.  The well over a dozen supergiants found in the past decade, a number of which are among the largest fields ever found (such as Carioca-Sugarloaf and Ferdows/Mounds/Zagdeh), and some of which are found in regions with monstrous oil producing potential completely unknown previously (such as Bohai Bay).  And on, and on, and on.  Probably worst of all, the continuing, relentless advance of technology that makes "unrecoverable" reserves recoverable -- tech that's lowered shale recovery prices, for example, from "70-90 dollars per barrel" to "20-40 dollars per barrel" in just three decades.

    Oil Is Going Nowhere Unless We Stop Using It.  Sitting and hoping the carbon economy will just go away on it's own isn't a solution.

    by Rei on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:49:55 PM PDT

  •  So much more than seaside

    We lost most arable (aka farmable) land on the planet. Heck, if it gets hot enough, there will be no breathable air and most water will be acid. But don't worry your little heads about it. Just burn more fossils, OK?

    by mataliandy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:54:26 PM PDT

    •  We'll HAVE lost.

      I hate it when I do that...

      by mataliandy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM PDT

•  Sure, but...

  ...by the time Antarctica is free for oil exploration, the average January temperature in America's heartland will be 200 degrees.

  Anyone know the temperature at which the human body actually begins to melt? That's the temperature we'll have to be at before Republicans take climate change seriously.

  by wiscmass on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:52:58 PM PDT

  •  I cannot answer that question by order of

    law for fear of incriminating myself.

    by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:59:01 PM PDT

    •  Didn't you hear?

      The Fifth Amendment no longer applies. It was deemed too "quaint" and therefore tossed by the wayside.

      by wiscmass on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:00:15 PM PDT

      •  Tell you this much...

        with the torture memos released yesterday finally, I really should have been overseas working for the executive branch.

        by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:09:03 PM PDT

      •  It's a boutique amendment (n/t)

        by AndersOSU on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:24:38 AM PDT

  •  It may sound silly, but...

    Even with most of the continent buried in ice and only minimally explored, we already know that there are vast amounts of coal in Antarctica.  It used to be quite a temperature continent.  There's every reason to believe that the continent and its coastal waters are no less swamped in fossil fuel reserves than every other continent.

    Thankfully, there's currently a treaty banning Antarctic resource exploitation.  For now, at least.

    Note that you don't need it to be "200 degrees" in the US for Antarctica to be exploitable.  Parts of it are already so temperate that grasses can grow (and this historically tiny biome is rapidly expanding).  Antarctica has largely been shielded from heat exchange with the rest of the world by a circumpolar vortex that strengthened over the past several decades (there's some suggestion that it has to do with stratospheric ozone levels, since the vortex extends that high).  Either way, the vortex is weakening now, and temperatures are finally starting to rise across most of the continent.

    by Rei on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:55:19 PM PDT

    •  Er, temperate, not temperature :P

      I shuold porff raed mroe.  ;)

      by Rei on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:57:36 PM PDT

    •  Of course some treaties aren't worth the

      paper they're written on, just ask Scalia.

      by Sacramento Dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:49:34 PM PDT

•  It's all connected

  to energy.

  The issue of illegal immigration from Mexico.

  Our future competitiveness with China and India.

  The re-establishment of the middle class, and thus, our future ability to pay for health care and retirement benefits.

  The "war on terrah"--what if we had no strategic interest in the Persian Gulf?

  And yet, it doesn't appear anyone seems to get this outside of Devilstower, A Siegel, Jerome a Paris and other talents of this blog.

  by ReEnergizer on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:53:32 PM PDT

  •  I would suggest....

    that there are millions of people that "get it", but there are only a few that can make the issues understandable so that many millions more can "get it".

    by rickeagle on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:38 PM PDT

  •  people get it, but can't touch it

     Let me assure, based on strange phone calls I get from people who can't leave their names but who fill my ears full of all sorts of juicy tidbits - people get it, all over. The thing is that only Kossacks are crass enough to notice that the emperor has no clothing and then start speculating out loud about dingleberry removal procedures based on observed body hair.

     It isn't hopeless, just real annoying right now, and people are so excited that Bush is almost done the renewable energy field is bursting with opportunity. Forces are building, RE, even as we speak ...

    by Stranded Wind on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM PDT

  •  And more!

    Desalinzation of sea water or removal of mineral deposits from downstream rivers so that it has value for farming can be kickstarted by cheap renewable energy.

    We used to be a country that poured money on a problem to fix it. Often that meant pouring energy on it. If we could go right to cheap non-polluting energy, we could pour that on the monetary problem to fix it. The devices that produce (well, technically capture) that energy could be an export that would even rival Mickey Mouse and Girls Gone Wild!

    by PBCliberal on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:59:29 PM PDT

  •  The insurance industry "gets it"

    but has trouble connecting the dots because their leaders are telling them otherwise. The problem is not so much rising waters as it is increasing climate variability. So when crops go bad, and more dangerous hurricanes slam the coasts and flooding, drought and tornado's increase they see it (in their bottom line) and some of them probably understand it. For lack of good leadership, most of them don't.

    by Uncle Bob on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:05:23 PM PDT

    •  Agreed, crop failure is the key.

      we haven't had weather that can ruin a whole year's corn crop, but I'm sure it's possible.

      by dnamj on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:16:50 PM PDT

      •  We have!

        Just not over widespread areas. That's probably coming with separate consecutive storms and floods.

        by oklacoma dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:46:54 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, a crop failure could...

        ...cause corn prices to rise dramatically. Oops, they already have. The idiocy of ethanol and the Iowa caucuses.

        by wishbone on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:47:30 PM PDT

    •  We had a thunder storm last night

      In March.

      In Vermont.

      With 40 - 50 MPH wind gusts.

      It was 50 degrees out ... then it was 20 degrees out.

      While it's not unusual to have warm days and cold nights, it's VERY odd to have the temperature drop like a stone while accompanied by an inverter-frying thunderstorm in March.

      by mataliandy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:16:32 PM PDT

      •  Perfect example

        of climate change type weather.

        Despite the "we can't blame an individual storm on climate change" party line, I actually think you can.

        by rini6 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:27:53 PM PDT

  •  People get it, but don't care.

    I'm sure everyone understands, at least to some degree what is at stake. You need a stable climate to do large scale agriculture, and we depend on that for our industrial food chain.

    The problem is, people don't really care about it until their personal health and safety is directly on the line.

    They don't even care for their kids' sakes.

    by dnamj on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:15:34 PM PDT

  •  I get it.

    I don't consider myself a talent, but I have gotten that one for a long time now.

    Remember Jimmy Carter? I was cheering his alternative energy programs. Let the arabs drink their damned oil, I said. Then came Reagan, and Exxon-Mobil.

    by oklacoma dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:43:40 PM PDT

•  my car won't work underwater...

  pitty there will be all that nice gasoline to burn, my car will be flooded down here on the texas coastline

  by Steven R on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:54:00 PM PDT

  •  inflate those air bags

    it'll float

    by parryander on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:23 PM PDT

    •  Volkswagon Beatles floated

      One was my first car I bought when I came back from overseas in the Navy.  $3,200 new, as I recall.

      by Navy Vet Terp on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:12:43 PM PDT

      •  Volkswagon Beetles floated

        Volkswagon Beatles dropped acid with the Maharishi

        by schroeder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:31:37 PM PDT

      •  you have to check out

        the Amphicar
        There's a club of them in town - hysterical when they all drive down to the lake and then keep going!

        by parryander on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:15:37 PM PDT

  •  Get a boat. n/t

    by dnamj on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:17:06 PM PDT

  •  You can drive it to Oklahoma

    I'll leave room for you, movin' to Montana.

    by oklacoma dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:48:29 PM PDT

•  Hey, Devilstower...FYI

  Your reco'd diary on Mugabe is mistitled.  Zanu-PF lost parliamentary control, but Mugabe has not yet conceded defeat to Tsvangirai.

  The opposition MDC says its leader has won the presidential election. Zanu-PF says this is "wishful thinking".

  The official presidential election results have not yet been declared.

  'Anxiety and disappointment'

  The BBC's Grant Ferrett in Johannesburg says that although the release of parliamentary results by the Zimbabwe Election Commission is significant, the main power in Zimbabwe lies with the president

  Mugabe has not yet conceded defeat

  by Mogolori on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:54:23 PM PDT

•  ugh.

  by parryander on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:54:34 PM PDT

•  maybe... just maybe...

  Kevin Costner saw the future, and Waterworld will turn out to be a documentary!

  by bubbanomics on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:54:58 PM PDT

  •  Here I thought I'd just cut myself shaving. n/t

    by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:00:52 PM PDT

  •  yeah, but even in Waterworld...

    there was still an oil industry.  Who knows where the hell they got gas to put in their jet skis, but the oil was flowing from somewhere...

    by schroeder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:33:03 PM PDT

    •  One of the stupidest movies

      I have ever seen. Not only where the hell did they get gas, but where the hell did they get cigarettes??

      by Night Train on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:36:25 PM PDT

      •  Well

        it's not hard to drill for oil under water, but the cigarettes are much harder to explain.  Hydroponics?

        by bythesea on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:20:55 AM PDT

•  Hey, blowing up nuclear weapons near uranium

  mines would make the uranium much more accessible. I suggest we tell oil company executives about this. We could also tell them that becoming a pedophile makes arresting pedophiles much easier.

  by Little on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:07 PM PDT

•  Sure

  They can explore for oil while we are building massive flood walls on our coasts and recovering from numerous natural disasters in the wake of the melting icecaps.

  by pkohan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:09 PM PDT

•  Boat business will boom too then.

  At least you can paddle or use wind power on a boat.
  Sometimes.

  by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:20 PM PDT

  •  New cash crops for the United States

    Oranges growing in New Jersey, banannas in Oregon.

    by Navy Vet Terp on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM PDT

  •  tourism business will get boost

    some governments are planning for boat tours in waters that have never been accessible, and environments that were too cold for tourists, now see money on horizon.

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:14:25 PM PDT

    •  Russia to Thule direct route. n/t

      by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:05:22 PM PDT

•  Coming soon to a planet near you

  Exxon Waterworld ®

  There's no way to explain this kind of thought processes other than insanity.

  by SecondComing on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:37 PM PDT

  •  I think that was why

    The Valdez played a prominent role in that movie.

    by oklacoma dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:51:15 PM PDT

•  Flood the Earth's coastlines...

  ...and save a few cents on gas.  A can't-lose proposition!

  by DH from MD on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:51 PM PDT

•  Don't think of it as an oil spill...

  Think of it as lubricating Nature!  Wouldn't Alaska be better with a thin coat of petroleum?

  It's insane, isn't it?  Some people are all about raping our natural resources, until they're gone.  Then I guess they'll live in plastic domes on the surface, eating Twinkies and drinking Diet Coke until they all die of malnutrition.  That is, if there's enough petroleum left to make a plastic dome.

  by Jensequitur on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:04 PM PDT

•  Like I've been saying all along...

  (see my sig line)

  ... our actions, if taken appropriately, should not be economically destructive, but rather economically profitable and politically empowering.  These actions may also help avert a potential catastrophe.  So my question is, why the staunch opposition to taking these actions?  Most of the support for this opposition comes from large corporations that historically have made huge profits at the expense of the environment.  So why should we remain beholden to them and their wishes, when we can create new industries, new jobs, and new technology, that will increase our political strength in the world, crush our Middle Eastern foes financially, and most importantly for some (and least importantly for others), lessen the environmental impact of human beings on the planet to help ensure a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.

  It makes no sense for the long-term stability of our world to be beholden to oil and other fossil fuels.

  by BruinKid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM PDT

  •  As much as I despise NIMBYs, I wouldn't

    want a "nukular" power plant in my backyard, either.

    by Champurrado on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:01:37 PM PDT

  •  well said

    The answer to the question is they have more money and power than we do. And we have to keep giving them our money.

    by oklacoma dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:53:49 PM PDT

•  watching the truckers strike last night

  I thought its time to call that electric truck company from the uk that opened a factory in California was it Modek or Smith and see what their plans are...

  

  by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:56 PM PDT

  •  uhh, the automobile is dead

    Finances are wrecked - who can get a new car? Far fewer than before.

    Finances are wrecked - people are losing jobs and this is going to get to be a real race - they can't afford to go anywhere anyway.

    Housing prices are crashing, property tax revenues are dropping, and roads are the first thing to slide.

    We'll do the wrong thing - mistake the end of the oil age for a transient "business cycle" event ... and each time we try to get back up oil supply issues will knock us back down. The sooner we get to a president who can deal with a post fossil fuel future the safer we are.

    by Stranded Wind on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:03:20 PM PDT

    •  Hey, give me a call...

      I saw your note in the other thread - call me, I'm watching Olbermann

      by AnotherMassachusettsLiberal on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:04:12 PM PDT

    •  thats why we must defeat McCain

      The sooner we get to a president who can deal with a post fossil fuel future the safer we are.

      So many think he is a maverick on global warming, but he is already vetoing every clean energy bill we tried to pass by not showing up to vote.

      by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:06:20 PM PDT

•  Save this diary, before it sinks without a trace!

  Someone posted a new music wednesday thread, and it's a lot of fun. It's scrolled off the list, so I thought I'd attempt to give it a plug. A great break from campaign diaries and torture memos--fun as those are.

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by DJ Adequate on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:59:05 PM PDT

•  I thought making sure gays can't marry was

  our first priority, given that it's the number one threat to the Republic.

  /snark

  by Champurrado on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:00:27 PM PDT

  •  it IS

    because if they get married it'll help support the "global warming industry"

    by RumsfeldResign on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:16:23 PM PDT

•  Ah, but the joke's on them in Alaska!

  Alaskan oil exploration is dependent on roads built over frozen tundra.

  As the tundra melts and turns to mush, the roads become useless.

  The ice-road season has dropped from 200 days a year in 1970 to 103 days in 2002, according to Alaska state documents.

  "It is unlikely the oil industry can implement successful exploration and development plans with a winter work season consistently less than 120 days," an Alaska Department of Natural Resources budget document said in March.

  So much for ANWR.

  by CA Libertarian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:01:59 PM PDT

  •  Throw money at it anyways as usual.

    What do they care? We'll pay for it. And our kids. And the wildlife.

    by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:05:25 PM PDT

    •  Indeed, later articles seem to confirm...

      ...that the industry's short-term response has been to compromise environmental restrictions on how long the ice roads could be operated.  This may buy them a couple more decades, enough time to inflict plenty of damage.

      by CA Libertarian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:26:59 PM PDT

  •  Roads

    Yeah, I mean, it's not like anyone in the world knows how to build a normal road  :P

    I think they'd gladly welcome warmer temperatures.  Ice and snow raise operating costs.

    by Rei on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM PDT

•  the right must repute ecosystem theory much like

  the right's creationist wing must repute evolution theory...if these "just theories" are to be taken seriously the only way one could not take them into account in educating kids or in figuring out how to avoid destroying the intricate web of life that we depend on...would be to be amoral or evil or demonic or greedy beyond caring about the future or one's own progeny.

  a sudden change like glaciation which might take thousands of years is hard on ecosystems...changes that occur in hundreds or tens of years are impossible for living systems to adapt to in healthy ways. it always results in them becoming more simple and vulnerable to the next insult.

  by singe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:02:04 PM PDT

•  Why am I not reading any discussion on DK...

  ...about Peak Oil?

  by mftalbot on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:03:03 PM PDT

  •  join our eco diary group

    and get pre-notifications when one of our eco diaries are about to sink tracelessly into the void...

    dailykos environmentalists

    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:08:40 PM PDT

    •  Awesome - Thanks n/t :)

      by mftalbot on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:42:54 PM PDT

    •  So, environmentalist = conspiracy theorist?

      Since when does "environmentalist" equate to "believing there's a secret conspiracy between oil companies and governments to hide the fact that civilization is imminently about to collapse and the majority of the world's population die"?

      by Rei on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:00:09 PM PDT

  •  Because you're not clicking on Jerome a Paris'...

    ...diaries when they are on the recommended list, that's why.

    by Neon Vincent on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:46:00 PM PDT

•  We may have to accept it's too late.

  How are we going to reign in China?

  We are probably past the tipping point, short of abandoning oil and coal immediately, and that's not gonna happen. The other day I read a probe had found yet another planet, this one covered in methane. I got a cold chill. I think I saw our future.

  Only the billionaires are going to make it off this rock, ironically including the oil billionaires. Will they find a thriving healthy planet with a population that made better choices than we did, and used carbon neutral energy from the beginning?

  by Village expects idiot home soon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:06:29 PM PDT

  •  even if that comes to pass

    They'll just destroy the new planet too.  If they haven't learned their lessons by now, they never will.

    by schroeder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:38:51 PM PDT

  •  We can't accept that it's too late

    We just can't.  We may not have the answer at this moment regarding how to reign in China (or ourselves for that matter), but there are billions of people who depend on us not giving up.

    Human beings are the most creative and intelligent creatures on the planet. We have trillions of brain cells to put to the task of solving this problem. We CAN solve it, unless we give up.

    by mataliandy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:33:09 PM PDT

  •  No...

    ...if we couldn't get started 1o years ago with solar power satellites, we ain't gonna have anything for the fat cats to fly away on. No Shuttles, no Jupiter 2, no nothing. We go, they go with us...

    by JeffW on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:13:39 PM PDT

•  There's nothing inherently wrong with this.

  It's the nature of Humans to exploit anything they find.

  Examining the Meta-Human nature to "hold off" is endlessly exciting. You can easily enjoy this by watching the Goopers drool after ANWR, year after year.

  by revenant on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:06:54 PM PDT

•  We planned ahead, for once

  Our front yard in Delaware sits at an elevation of 48 feet above sea level.
  After the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt, we'll have beachfront property!

  by willie horton on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM PDT

•  Our Global Warming Strategery...

  I keep thinking...if you're driving at 60mph towards a cliff -- you'd expect someone in the car to yell "STOP -- we're headed towards a cliff!!!!"

  but our current strategery seems to be more like "DANGER!!! we must reduce our rate of acceleration!!!"

  so we hit the cliff at 80mph instead of 83 mph

  by RumsfeldResign on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:10:03 PM PDT

  •  I got really depressed the other day

    Reading about the hole in the ozone layer.  I had believed, for the past 10 years, that we made a concerted global effort, cut CFC production, and now the hole was shrinking.  But in fact we just reduced the rate of growth.  So it's in fact still getting worse.

    Between that, and the garbage pile in the Pacific that's twice the size of the U.S., I'm really not that optimistic that we're going to fix global warming, or even survive as a species in significant numbers.

    by schroeder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:49:13 PM PDT

•  People are idiots.

  Evolution required that we be just smart enough to be mean, and not any smarter.

  Although the natural variation in intelligence means that a minority of us will reach enlightenment, the majority will not, and will choose only short term goals designed to maximize their personal well being, even at the expense of the species as a whole, even if it means extinction.

  As long as there is oil, we will wastefully burn it, and after that, we'll gamble on nuclear power. And on both scores, we will do it as cheaply as possible, with out health and safety being secondary concerns.

  That's how I see it anyway.

  by dnamj on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:12:47 PM PDT

  •  Vonnegut except from Galapagos

    So I raise this question, although there is nobody around to answer it: Can it be doubted thatthree-kilogram brains were once nearly fatal defects in the evolution of the human race?

    Smart enough to destroy ourselves.

    by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:56:39 PM PDT

•  It'll be interesting...

  to see what's under that ice...geologosts, archaeologists, etc will have interesting things to study..

  sad, but true

  the scary thing is..I can see wingnuts saying melting ice helps "sound science"...and if you're working against global warming they'll ask "why do you hate Danish Geology?"

  by RumsfeldResign on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:15:09 PM PDT

•  Someone alert the white house, I now know

  where the weapons were hid. . . Greenland.  We must make sure that our only warning isn't in the form of a mushroom cloud. We will liberate the Greenlandians from this tyrant Joern Skov Nielsen . . . . . ..  .

  by Nailbanger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:16:55 PM PDT

  •  Time to bring democracy to Greenland

    1. Invade.

    2. Bomb existing infrastructure to pieces.

    3. Root out Greenland terrorists from their lairs using bunker-busters.

    4. Build a gigantic embassy.

    5. Call in Blackwater to pacify the insurgents and serve as bodyguards to the oil exploration teams.

    6. Encourage the good people of Greenland to pay KBR to rebuild the country.  They can use the revenues from their share of the oil we find.

    7. Hold an election so that Greenlanders can learn about how wonderful democracy is.

    by Plan9 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM PDT

•  Operation Polar Freedom

  This discovery means that we must invade Greenland to establish democracy and free it from the yoke of Danish imperialism.

  by jarotra on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:21:48 PM PDT

•  The problem with that stategy

  is that Florida will be underwater.

  Of course not everyone sees that as a drawback.

  by Dragon5616 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:26:19 PM PDT

•  Poll: Lex Luthor or Dr. Evil

  Who would have been more likely to come up with such a diabolical plan?
  That such a sinister cause and effect can't simply be dismissed out of hand as ridiculous (and it can't, from where I sit!) is just unconscionable... how many Neros will fiddle while the planet burns??? Wow....

  by New Paradigm on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:30:08 PM PDT

  •  Luthor/Evil '08, the GOP dream ticket /nt

    by schroeder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:40:32 PM PDT

  •  Isn't one of them our vice president now?

    I mean, come on, you couldn't design a better villain. All he needs is a hairless cat and a big chair to sit in.

    by rini6 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:45:04 PM PDT

•  Surf's up in Crawford, TX !

  by Cartoon Peril on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:31:32 PM PDT

•  The companies

  looking for oil in Greenland are like junkies with collapsed veins, bodies covered in sores, desperately searching for someplace to stick in the needle.

  by Red Bean on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:34:57 PM PDT

  •  I can't believe

    anybody even is even vaguely serious about this. Greenland is about the least likely place on the face of the Earth to have petroleum deposits.

    Junkies, indeed, and stupid ones.

    by justme on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:54:25 PM PDT

    •  Then don't.

      But it's reality.  Greenland used to be nice and cozy.  I assume you've heard of continental drift.  There are even large coal deposits in Antarctica.  Things change, and mineral deposits are left behind.  On Greenland's west coast, there are even places where oil is seeping to the surface.  And large tracts of bitumen, where oil seeped in the past and its volatile compounds evaporated.  Under Baffin Bay all the way down to the Laborador sea (where large natural gas deposits have been found and are being tapped), the geology is packed full of traps.

      Greenland has one of many vast untapped fossil fuel reserves.  We may not like that there are tons of fossil fuels left, but there are, and we need to deal with that fact.  We can't just wait this one out.

      by Rei on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:29:23 PM PDT

•  Now we know why Inhofe refuses

  to believe in Global Warming, more oil to drill for his buddies at exxon!

  Contribute to his opponent:
  Andrew Rice

  by oriole223 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:38:24 PM PDT

  •  How can people be so dumb

    as to let their greed rule their entire thought process and world view? Doesn't he realize that it's a little bit too convenient that everything he believes in also profits him directly?

    by rini6 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:48:39 PM PDT

•  Just think of the earth as a keg

  Partyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!

  by archer070 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:38:39 PM PDT

•  no candidate is smart enough

  to offset the collective short-sightedness of the human species.

  I give us 50/50 odds to survive the next 100 years.

  by DavidHW on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:39:10 PM PDT

  •  I hope the odds are that good

    When will we realize that we are just adaptive, highly communicative animals that have changed the face of the planet without foresight or planning?

    by rini6 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:46:34 PM PDT

    •  Us and our big brains. n/t

      by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:59:00 PM PDT

•  Yeah,

  but everyone knows that we can burn massive quantities of fossil fuels ad infinitum and the temperature of the earth will not rise because of.....well....

  1. Some frantically manufactured "scientific principle" on a website funded by the oil corporations

  2. God

  3. Magic

  4. Well, the temperature has risen, but it's a coincidence, ...really, that the rise perfectly parallels our increase in fossil fuel usage in the past century.

  5. Well, climate change is man-made  but, hey, it's good. We get to explore the Arctic and we'll have palm trees in Maine,  or maybe we'll have algae in Maine because we'll be underwater. At least everyone will know how to swim!

  by rini6 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:41:32 PM PDT

•  We'll have to invade Greenland now

  I can see the talking points now:

  Those Inuits probably have an Al-Qaida cell developing right under our noses. Bin Laden must be stopped from having a summer cave with an Arctic Ocean view and a winter cave in Pakistan. Terrorists will be able to sneak in more easily via Canada.

  Question - Are Penguins capable of terrorism?

  by OHeyeO on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:49:20 PM PDT

  •  Careful, starting to sound like McCain

    Penguins don't live in the northern hemisphere, except for zoos and the occasional South American types that get lost. ;-)

    by CA Libertarian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:54:52 PM PDT

  •  Worse! Polar bears!!!

    Don't forget the muslim musk oxen or Santa's reindeer. Lots of weasels too.

    by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:04:37 PM PDT

    •  Gotta watch out

      for them polar bears. They're pretty ornery.

      
      
      Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

      by justme on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:40:54 PM PDT

•  No penguins in Greenland

  or in the Arctic.

  All penguins are in the Antarctic and thereabouts.

  But they're still unhappy...

  by AtlantaJan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:52:02 PM PDT

•  Thaw exposes Greenland's oil

   Link

  by uciguy30 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:59:26 PM PDT

  •  Well, that one isn't quite as idiotic...

    ...as the first link I read, as I can believe that the far north of Greenland right around the coast has oil that could become economically viable.  Still, the interior would not likely have any oil-bearing rocks, as the indications are that the rocks become progressively older both into the interior and to the south.

    by Neon Vincent on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:10:37 PM PDT

•  Dem Candidates Shooting Selves in Foot

  Here we go again...The Democratic candidates barely mention global warming or the environment...in the footsteps of John Kerry and Al Gore, both ardent environmentalists, yet they both downplayed the environment when they were presidential candidates...They did this to appease their corporate donors, I assume.

  Now that Al Gore is not a candidate, he is doing great things, of course, on global warming, and I so repsect him for that, but our candidates need to do the same.

  The only candidate who truly mentioned this issue was John Edwards, who mentioned global warming in nearly every speech I heard...he described it as a "crisis" and led the other candidates to adopt their own global warming plans, modeled after his.

  When are we going to "get it?"   We need to get the corporate money out of politics, or our candidates are going to continue to be muzzled on the most important issues of our day.

  by Kakie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:02:32 PM PDT

  •  When New Orleans and the WTC memorial site

    are under water, they'll still deny it.

    by shpilk on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:11:52 PM PDT

•  But the Northern Lights will be beautiful! n/t

  by Skid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:05:56 PM PDT

•  It's a good thing we're all oil billionaires! n/t

  by kezaro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:07:04 PM PDT

•  Here's a cheerful piece to read

  http://www.docudharma.com/...

  And my post there, which I won't you all with here.

  http://www.docudharma.com/...

  In for a penny, in for a ton.

  by shpilk on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:11:06 PM PDT

•  In an upside down world,

  Bizarro World
  

  The campaigns go on and on and McCain gets redefined. Same old crap for us democrats.

  by JugOPunch on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:20:35 PM PDT

•  Solutions to Global Warming are Complicated

  The causes of global warming are not as simple as many people suggest. The biggest cause (at least according to a U.N. report) is cattle. Yet, very rarely is this mentioned as part of a solution. Other solutions (such as making cars that get over 100 MPG) won't make that much difference (unless everyone who is driving a very inefficient car switches to that one).

  The bad news about all of this is that it will be hard for people to grasp the solution. It is much easier to rally for a simple solution ("Let's all use ethanol") then it is push for the dozens of changes that need to happen. The good news is that it will help us in many other ways. For example:

  1. Phase out coal: Cleaner air, nicer hillsides, no deaths from coal mining.

  2. Rebuild our infrastructure to be more efficient: More trains and less trucks make for safer travel and cheaper goods.

  3. Better public transportation: Less time spent commuting (more productive work force)

  4. Less (and healthier) beef: Less grazing on public lands, healthier populace (which lowers health costs that we all share).

  The tricky part is the politics behind managing all of this. If you told people tomorrow that you wanted to start taxing beef, it would be hard to get elected. The same goes for coal. We have to find a way to convert a lot of old, unhealthy jobs (unhealthy for everyone) into jobs rebuilding our infrastructure. It won't be easy, but with Obama as President I think we can.

  by RossBleakney on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:21:48 PM PDT

  •  Cattle are not the cause of global warming.

    The carbon dioxide cattle breathes and flatuates out comes from breaking down molecules of food to get the energy. The food molecules trace back through short food chains to producers or autotrophs that made food by photosynthesis. These producers took carbon dioxide from the air. This is called the short-term carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide comes out of the air into producers, consumers eat the carbon compounds and return the carbon dioxide to the air.

    Think of having a bathtub full almost to the point of spilling over. The short term carbon cycle could be represented by dipping out a cup of water (plants), pouring the water into a bowl (animals eat the plants), and pouring the water back into the tub from the bowl (breathing out carbon dioxide). This does not change the level of water in the tub.

    Burning fossil fuels puts carbon dioxide into the air that was taken out of the air millions of years ago when the atmosphere had a much larger carbon dioxide content. If we go back to our bathtub model, this is like discovering a closet full of jars of water that somebody saved years ago when they had a much larger bathtub. They dipped water out of the bathtub and put it away in the closet. Now we discover the jars and start pouring them into the smaller bathtub. Won't be long before we make it so full that the water runs out. That's the effect of the long-term carbon cycle.

    by beholderseye on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM PDT

    •  actually i think the cow thing

      has to do with the production of methane gas (cow farts), which is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.  To use your analogy, it would be like raising the temperature of the bath water past the boiling point and watching it spill out.

      by don fong on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:30:08 AM PDT

      •  Correct - It is the Methane

        However, i think it is mostly burps (caused by the chewing of the cud) and not farts that is the main cause of the methane. In many ways, beholderseye's comments prove my point. Global warming is not as simple as he suggests (not that the three paragraph comment is simple). He is, in fact, wrong. Cattle do cause global warming. There are numerous reports to back this up. A summary of the U.N. report I mentioned can be found here: http://www.un.org/...

        It doesn't mention the belching as the cause of the problem, but I'm pretty sure that is what causes the bulk of the methane. There are other articles that point the finger at the burps:
        http://abcnews.go.com/...

        I also found this article, which points out that changing livestock habits might be the fastest solution to reducing global warming (since methane causes more warming but doesn't last as long in the atmosphere): http://www.csmonitor.com/...

        I don't want to keep harping on the same point, but the causes of global warming and possible solutions are complicated. It is this complication that makes it easier for nay-sayers to suggest that we don't have enough data. That isn't true, it is just that we are discovering more details all the time. We are also discovering (or thinking of) new ways to cool the planet. I find that the environmental site "Grist" to be a great source of information. For example, here is an article that talks about storing more carbon in soil: http://gristmill.grist.org/... (the first suggestion in the article is snark -- there are some reasonable technological suggestions for cooling the planet).

        by RossBleakney on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM PDT

•  Oil? In precambrian bedrock?

  Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't the ability to extract oil require you to drill in stone that formed after the evolution of life on Earth? Last time I checked, it's a bit difficult to wrest petroleum from four billion year old rock.

  Greenland, IIRC, is known for having some of the oldest exposed rock on Earth. There is no oil in them thar hills. There may well be a wealth of other mineral resources, but how the hell are you going to get oil under all that archean stone?

  I don't know if these people are just dumbasses, if they lie reflexively, or if they actually spend time coming up with shit like this so they can laugh at the rubes who swallow it. I don't suppose it matters. The results are basically the same.

  by justme on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:37:30 PM PDT

  •  6,000 year old rock

    by