Skip to main content

Last week the International Energy Agency issued yet another depressing report about our dire situation.

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this "lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world's foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.

"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

How do we do it? How do we stop climate change from destroying us?
Of course, everyone knows that ending greenhouse gas emissions is what it takes. But how do we do that, given that our world is built on burning fossil fuels?

A historic parallel is World War II. To meet an existential threat, we significantly reorganized how we lived and worked. We were motivated, focused, aware of the consequences, well-led, we sacrificed & spent a lot of money, everyone pitched in, we (along with our allies) beat fascism. Saving our climate, while a longer-term proposition (and even taller order), requires a similar national "good war" mindset.

Four key things we need are leadership from the president, public support for change, a price on carbon, and major spending on energy and conservation.

Yes, we are a long way from there.


1. The president must lead.

The President needs to explain clearly what the problem is, how it works, why we know it's true, what the consequences are, and what we can do about it. Basically, the president needs to scare people. He needs to get our attention. Fear will do that. And he needs to provide a narrative of working together to defeat an existential threat.

The President has always been the one to speak to the nation about such threats. Today it's even more important that he step up, because he can cut through the noise of the deniers. Following the President, leadership from other quarters will be needed. But they can't do it without him. This problem needs to be faced on the national level. Individuals and even organizations cannot do what is necessary by themselves.

People support presidents who are leaders.

2. The public has to understand the problem and commit to fixing it.

This is the most important point. With public support great changes are possible, without it, no.

I believe the American people will accept - even demand - changes in our lifestyle if we understand the need for it. We have before. Americans want a decent life for our kids. But as yet efforts to mobilize public opinion have been weak, which is a shame, because there is a great case to be made that we have to do something. Everyone is noticing the funny weather. That should be highlighted in information campaigns (starting with the president) and connected with global warming.

The public needs to be alarmed. In WWII there was plenty to be alarmed by - Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were frightening, even insane. US domestic propaganda took advantage of these characteristics to get the attention of the people. (See the nearby example - over-the-top for sure, but it got the point across.) Likewise, unchecked global warming is frightening as well. The prospect of famine, floods, unprecedented mega-storms will similarly motivate Americans.

At the same time, the public needs to feel a sense of common purpose, the positive energy of working together. This is a narrative that will be accepted as people are asked to take steps that appear as sacrifices.

It would be best if presidential leadership did not await the building of public opinion. The former can drive the latter quicker than the reverse. However, even if our politicians continue shirking their duty, public opinion can eventually push them to do the right thing. That is why, to me, developing public opinion around climate is the most important thing.

3. There needs to be a high and rising price on fossil fuels.

Moving into policy ... we need a stick and a carrot. The stick is a high and rising price of fossil fuels as a disincentive. This can be accomplished by cap and trade (which we didn't get done in 2010), by a straight carbon tax (which Australia just passed!), or fee and dividend, which is like a tax in that money is collected by the government at point of carbon purchase or development, but, unlike a tax, the money is returned to the people as a "dividend." I like the last option best. But any of them are better than what we have now, nothing. (It is possible to work in an assistance program for those who would be impoverished by carbon fees.)

Knowledge that carbon fuels are scheduled to become more and more expensive will encourage people and businesses to conserve and rely on other forms of energy. That leads us to the carrot:

4. Massive public investment in alternative energy and conservation.

Take what we've done in recent years and multiply it five-fold. This is a war against a force poised to destroy us: this is where we need Department of Defense-level spending. Plenty has been written on what to spend on - solar and wind, better grid, trains, insulating buildings, white roofs, etc., etc. There is no limit here! (Widening the NJ Turnpike doesn't count.) And of course a side benefit is the jobs that will be created.

%

Currently it doesn't look like any of this stuff will happen, unfortunately. Democrats seem committed to ignoring climate, and Republicans to destroying it as fast as possible. The public is overwhelmed with sophisticated denier messages. It sucks.

But there are small positive signs .... 350.org has been doing a good job of pushing the issue back into the public eye. I support them and anyone else in that effort. OWS is shining a floodlight on our broken political process - perhaps they can flush some Democrats out of the bunker.

If we fail here the cost will be unthinkably high.

Poll

Will the US take serious action to arrest climate change within the next five years?

0%0 votes
2%2 votes
11%8 votes
59%41 votes
26%18 votes

| 69 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The U.S. president isn't in control of China . (5+ / 0-)

    http://www.platts.com/...
    "Feeding the dragon:China fires up the coal market"

    China cannot produce enough fuel to feed the 1,000 MW or so of coal-fired capacity it is adding to the grid each and every week.

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:51:41 PM PST

    •  sure (7+ / 0-)

      However, we live in the US - we will stop climate change here or nowhere.

      We produce plenty of greenhouse gases - our per capita rate is among the highest of any nation. We are over three times higher than China.

      China is going great guns with renewables.

      A sufficiently motivated USA may even have some leverage over China via trade, etc.

      And perhaps China (along with the rest of the world) will be more motivated to change policy if they see the US doing so.

      To excuse inaction by pointing at China is not a winning strategy.

      Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

      by mightymouse on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:00:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "we will stop climate change here or nowhere" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, WarrenS, RosyFinch

        We can't stop it here if China double or triples their coal burning by 2030 .

        To excuse inaction by pointing at China is not a winning strategy.
        If we in the U.S. go to zero , that will not fix the problem if China does as it plans to do .
        The country’s swift move to becoming
        a thermal coal importer caught many
        market players by surprise in 2008, but
        by the second half of 2011 even miners
        in the United States were casting their
        eyes over a lucrative market that could
        help breathe life back into their industry.
        If we stop burning coal and ship the coal to be burnt there ...

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:09:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but we don't have jurisdiction over China (5+ / 0-)

          we can stop exporting coal there, along the other things I listed.

          we have plenty here to keep us busy, really.

          China's reduction in emissions is going to have to be done by them.

          I believe that they understand the problem too. However, like we have been for many many years, are now invested in the good things fossil fuels can bring. They too will face a challenge.

          I find it hard to believe they will continue to pollute the world if the other nations actually stop.

          Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

          by mightymouse on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:15:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WarrenS
            The U.S. president isn't in control of China .
            vs
            but we don't have jurisdiction over China
            ...........................................................
            I find it hard to believe they will continue to pollute the world if the other nations actually stop.
            They are going around and buying up coal .

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
            Saturday, 6 February 2010

            Under the deal, the firm will build a new mining complex to give China Power International Development (CPI) 30m tonnes of coal a year for 20 years.

            Analysts say it is further evidence of China's strong demand for resources boosting Australia's economy.

            Most of China's power stations rely on coal - and demand has risen sharply in recent months after a government stimulus programme re-energised its economy.

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:23:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're not wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mightymouse

              but what's your point? America has control over what it does (one would hope), and can cooperate with other nations to whatever degree they can be induced to cooperate, and can change its trade policies to reflect a dissatisfaction with other nations. But it can't just make China do x, y, or z.
              In any event, however bad China may be in regard to fossil fuel consumption, America has been the odd man out in past discussions of mitigating climate change pollution. Why focus on China as though they're the only nay-sayer in the room?
              If America and other nations stopped buying all of China's cheap currency subsidized goods, China would no longer be burning coal as if there were no tomorrow. Beyond that, vulnerable nations aren't waiting for America's leadership.

              "Who loves not woman, wine, and song remains a fool his whole life long." ~ Martin Luther

              by Andhakari on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:44:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  We can't pressure them to stop if we continue (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          too many people

          to do worse than they do.

          Australia just put in a strong system because it is right although they know they will not have a large effect. But they will be leaders. They will show that doing the right thing doesn't a) kill the economic system or b) bring down the government.

          Can a whole country be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

          I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

          by samddobermann on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:55:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  or of India or of Japan or any number of the othe (3+ / 0-)

      180 countries in the world.  That is the role diplomacy plays.  however no one is going to negotiate with a world power that refuses to institute any sorts of changes in its own practices

  •  Climate CoLab Contest (7+ / 0-)

    There is currently a Climate Change solutions contest running at MIT's Center for Collective Intelligence:  http://climatecolab.org/

    Beachbabeinfl and gmoke (who is writing this comment) both have proposals which are finalists.  Mine is in the national competition and beachbabeinfl's in the international.  You can vote for either, both, neither until November 15 but you have to join the site and log in.

    The other proposals are worth scanning as well.

    Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at solarray.

    by gmoke on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:55:23 PM PST

  •  I still like my idea (6+ / 0-)

    of getting Congress to take a field trip

    to the arctic,

    at the height of permafrost melting season.


    What is necessary to change a person is to change his awareness of himself.
    -- Maslow ...... my list.

    by jamess on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:55:37 PM PST

  •  Yes But Here's the Problem. (7+ / 0-)

    1. The Constitution was developed in a territory of astronomical per capita surpluses of resources, territory and waste capacity. Its nation was located 3 light-months away from its nearest existential threat. Accordingly it defaults to liberty in all matters until harm from pursuit of happiness can be proven to a politically actionable degree.

    2. Climate change is happening because the entire planet has hit its first absolute hard barrier in human history. The planet cannot accept one single new net molecule of waste gas, without increasing injury to life,  health and property everywhere in the world.

    Climate change means that government has an interest --an existential national security interest-- in absolutely every human activity, because every imaginable act, even merely opening your eyes in the morning, dumps more waste gas into the air than you were doing while sleeping.

    We're in a time when almost every village idiot can think of something our society could do better than what it's presently doing.

    The challenge is how can we force, trick or cajole our system of government into doing them? On all the major questions, the answer appears to be that nobody has discovered a way.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:04:53 PM PST

    •  The planet will be accepting more molecules (5+ / 0-)

      of greenhouse gases, that is for sure. The question is how many. Global warming is bad (will be quite bad), but it can always get worse. There is no time like the present to get going on improvements.

      As to your challenge, I confess I do not know the answer. It needs to be answered if we are to avoid a very bad end. Sometimes unexpected things happen.

      Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

      by mightymouse on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:19:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  problem to this concept of global problems (3+ / 0-)

      is the current isolationist push among the wingers so they are now incensed over what they call globalization.  The idea that we are on this earth together and have no where else to go eludes them.

    •  Gooserock, you seem to think (0+ / 0-)

      everyone thinks as you do.

      We're in a time when almost every village idiot can think of something our society could do better than what it's presently doing.

      We have a whole bunch of the various villagers idiots in Congress now.  Their ideas should NOT prevail.

      I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

      by samddobermann on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 02:50:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Exactly What Specific Changes Do You... (4+ / 0-)

    anticipate the average American to demand?

    I can imagine that the average American would demand that "someone else" make sacrifices, but not themselves.

    Unfortunaely, none opf their role models are making any sacrifices.  Can you name a few people that are in the public eye that are making real sacrifices?  The only one I know is Ed Begly, who rides a bike to run his toaster.  

    •  I guess I see an untapped spirit of community (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DawnN

      Americans have been trained for the past 90+ years to become consumers first and foremost. It doesn't have to be that way.

      I believe that if people grasped with the intensity of a Jim Hansen the danger we face they would demand that we use less fossil fuels, regardless of whether that meant smaller, fewer cars, less freedom of movement, or whatever. The role of leadership is to transmit the danger.

      Right now sacrifice is kind of pointless re AGW - sure, you can live closer to the earth, and that is good, but it will have no impact on how global warming plays out, because it's an individual thing. So the role models who sacrifice now, such as they are, tend to be the oddball early adopter types.

      IOW until we get to the point where sacrifice is clearly asked of all and the reasons for doing so are made clear it is difficult to assess how Americans will act.

      Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

      by mightymouse on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 09:33:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Also we can lead by example (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WarrenS, mightymouse, DawnN

    Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

    by Lefty Coaster on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:25:16 PM PST

  •  Beneath the grey, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, DawnN

    and the fangs, there is a horrifying racial caricature on one of that monster's heads.

    That aside... I'm currently reading Eaarth by Bill McKibben.  I'd read his diaries here, and a bunch of other stuff about global warming (including, most recently, The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism by Barry Sanders), so I thought the "here's where we are" section might provide few surprises.  Wow, was I wrong.

    Some of it was known to me, but a lot was new.  Most relevantly here, he makes a damn persuasive case that while we must act, we can't stop or undo what is already intractably set in motion; and, green tech will not save us.

    [F]or the record, I support a green Manhattan Project, an ecological New Deal, a clean-tech Apollo mission. ... The next decade will see huge increases in renewable power; we'll adopt electric cars faster than most analysts imagine.  Windmills will sprout across the prairies.  It will be exciting.

    But it's not going to happen fast enough to war off enormous change.  I don't think the growth paradigm can rise to the occasion; I think the system has met its match.  We no longer possess the margin we'd require for another huge leap forward, certainly not fast enough to preserve the planet we used to live on.


    -- Eaarth, Bill McKibben, pp. 52-53 [italics in original]

    I mention all this not to contradict anything you've said, but to share what I am learning, what I have missed, and to encourage people to go read this book ASAP.

    •  Regarding 2.-3.: (4+ / 0-)

      I think we need people to lead.  Because, frankly, Exxon-Mobile is the biggest fucking company on the planet.  The fossil fuel companies are some of the most powerful forces on the planet.  (Again, hat tip to McKibben.)  

      I don't see that any politician will be able to stand against them, make them even a smidgen less profitable, without a loud, overwhelming, and continuing clamor of protest.

      (Sounds like a job for Occupy... and about fifty million more Americans.)

      •  I think we are stuck with people leading (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DawnN, cai, Andhakari, too many people

        given the total failure of political leadership ....

        but it is not nearly as time-efficient as elected leaders leading .... it may turn out that some vocal non-governmental leader later comes into an elected role.

        Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

        by mightymouse on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 09:37:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  no, we can stand up (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        entlord, Andhakari, mightymouse

        we did it here in Germany. (well, "here" is nostalgic for me as I´m no longer there.) In any case, nucelar power was stopped in Germany solely due to the rejection by the people, and in the face of business and government embracing it. To do that however, required decades and it required massive demonstrations by the people, which started out like your OWS now but which developed a well understood violent side in due course, -- I myself remember the battles we fought at Brokdorf and other places -- and it incuded public opposition refusing to be split into factions, it included a number of accidents making the point of the resistance very obvious, and it included the founding of an entirely new party in our multiparty system - the Greens - that rose and rose in numbes and power. Even so it took until 1998 = thirty yeras from the beginning of the movement before the Greens first came to power and first officially stopped the nukes, and then fifteen more years up until today for even the business and conservative establishment to accept giving up nukes.

        The irony being of course that many of us nowadays would even accept running the existing nukes for a while longer as tool to help in transition because we recognize the climate destruction as the bigger danger.

        But the point of this is that illustrates what it takes to change the course of a society like ours on a point thats so central to the business/power establishment, and the current fossil fuel interests are even more entrenched - in te US - than the nuke industry ever was. It is possible. But it requires a full blown public revolt and resistance, including not shrinking from support for things that will be decried as violent. This needs to grow in the US. I´m convinced that it can grow, as unthinkable as it may appear. But it will take fifty years, And in all that time the carbon of those fifty yeras will be added to whats already out there and therefore, we´ll not be able to avoid a large amount of ecological degradation. It still is necessary because doing nothing makes everything still worse. But all people should realize that there´s no option anymore to avoid significant damage and hurt.  

    •  that image is I believe std-issue propaganda (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DawnN, cai

      version of Tojo. The propaganda artists definitely used racist portrayals to heighten American antipathy toward Japan ... I included it not to show support for that piece but to illustrate how fear was used to motivate Americans then.

      I agree green tech won't save us - however - going boldly down that path now will lead to a better future than screwing around as we've been doing.

      Thanks for the rec for EAARTH ... I keep meaning to read it ....

      Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

      by mightymouse on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 09:44:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wasn't saying you were, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse

        I just don't like to let that kind of thing pass without comment.  (I was aware that it was pretty standard.)

        I'd kept meaning to read it too.  I think I was a bit putt off by of the title (a new planet needs a new name), because I found it slightly glib/gimmicky.  But whether you agree with the necessity of new nomenclature or not, McKibben makes a pretty persuasive case in chapter 1 that we have instituted massive changes to the planet we've had for a hundred centuries.  (And there's some quality mocking of Thomas Friedman and the "for the grandchildren" conceit, as well.)

        •  McKibben seems to have a very grounded view (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cai, too many people

          sober ... it's hard to argue with that conclusion.

          I saw a talk last year saying that elevated CO2 from our time would still be with us thousands of years from now. It's hard to wrap one's head around it, really ... it's almost too much for people.

          Causes cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, we are getting the kids ready for school, making dinner, whatever, while on the other we know mankind has altered the history of the earth on a deep time scale that is foreign to us.

          It's weird. I can't get used to it. Partly that oddness led to writing this diary.

          Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

          by mightymouse on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 10:05:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes! I find I can't make Eaarth the last thing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Andhakari, mightymouse

            I read in the evening -- even reports of police brutality and economic woes on DKos are less unsettling.

            I'm still in chapter 2, but much of the book is to focus on productive responses.  Good thing, too, because my instinctive reaction to the early going is to yell, "WE'RE ALL TOTALLY FUCKED!"

            Oh, wait, I know this... I'm having an adjustment reaction.

            Except... Sandman and Lanard write about risk communication of risks.  Things that might happen.  Part of McKibben's point is that this is happening, has happened, and will continue no matter what we do.

            Augh!

      •  that fear is still here; over at Forbes I think (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Andhakari, mightymouse

        one of the commenters who opposed Muslims being allowed to own firearms or serve in the military, trenchantly observed that you do not train a person how to kill who wishes to kill you and cites the historical precedent of the interment of the Japanese during WWII "instead of arming and training them"  Unfortunately he evidently does not know of the "Nisei" units such as the 442nd, 100 Battalion, which not only participated in combat but was one of the more highly decorated units in the war.  Old prejudices run deep and run long

  •  meanwhile Forbes prints an article accusing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Andhakari, mightymouse

    Obama's top science adviser of violating US law regarding information exchange with China.  Forbes is incensed that the science guy said it was no big deal and such exchanges happen all the time.
    Check the comments and you will find the science guy is a climate change guy so this is why we get screamer headlines about malfeasance in office.  It appears the upper management of fossil fuel companies assume whatever consequences we suffer from continuing our present course will not affect them  

    •  Tangential and personal attacks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      are SOP in such instances. First, change the subject. Second, challenge the moral standing and credibility of your opponent (even if your allegations are purely fictional, the public will assume the truth lies somewhere in the middle). Third, pressure your victim's funders and supporters to distance themselves.
      Works like a charm.

      "Who loves not woman, wine, and song remains a fool his whole life long." ~ Martin Luther

      by Andhakari on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:01:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Corruption in politics and End of First Amendment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    Politicians have not tackled the hard problems of governance for 30 years or more.

    We have what Sheldon Wolin has called a "managed democracy."

    OWS is the only hope to change the national dialog.

    OWS relies on the foundations of our system to keep it going. The events in NYC last night are what Juan Cole calls the end of the first amendment.

    http://www.juancole.com/...

    Check out Glenn Greenwald's new book on how the law has been used to protect the 1%. Excellent video on YouTube. And his speech a few months ago at Brown University on Civil Liberties in the Age of Obama.

    Then there is the last diary of mightymouse with a link to Naomi Klein's new piece in The Nation on how the environmental issue is the maximal challenge to capitalism.

    The philosopher Whitehead said that "mankind is not wholly dumb."

    Time is running out to face up to reality!!!

  •  Four Things noted by mightmouse (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    Excellent post.

    If any political party stood up for the earth, there would be action on your 4 things.

    The fact that they are so far outside the range of current possibilities yet again shows the corruption of the political system.

    If Obama even hints that he will reconsider the tar sands pipeline, it is taken as a big deal.

    Come on. The end of the earth as we know it is already happening. Obama is being pushed a little bit into reality. He is a tool of the 1%.

    The streets is where the action is. Confront the power structure which not only is out to destroy the middle class, but the earth.

  •  YOU MISSED THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    Every single person is a contributor to greenhouse gasses. The population continues to rise unabated and every single new person being born (at an EXPONENTIAL rate!) is another big piece of the problem. We simply must, AS A PLANET, embrace the use of birth control and must seek a major decline in our populations. This vital fact must be taught and understood by the masses.

    The idiotic days of the Duggars must end.

    •  population not exponential anymore (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RunawayRose

      You are right that there a too many people.

      But - in most places the fertility rate is falling - even countries like Brazil, Mexico, India .... eventually this leads to no growth.

      There are some desperate countries where this has not happened, of course.

      An interesting resource is http://populationpyramid.net/

      Basically the key is education for women.

      Beyond reducing fertility, population can be checked by war, disease, or famine ... that may well happen, but it's not something to advocate.

      The other point is that per capita greenhouse emissions vary widely. Even if population growth is capped we need to reduce, especially in countries like ours.

      Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

      by mightymouse on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:35:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  #2 and #3 are contradictory (0+ / 0-)

    You aren't going to get public support by making people pay higher energy prices. Quite the opposite.

    In fact, I'll go even further and say until the message becomes: "Here's how to use just as much energy, if not more than you're using now- without harming the planet, and hey- it may even save you money!" You're not going to get public support at all.

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:06:21 AM PST

  •  we'll adapt (0+ / 0-)

    as usual.

    we'll survive as a species but many will die as a result of a warming climate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site