Skip to main content

So, planet erf is in danger.  We have recently produced too much carbon, and that has chocked out how the planet was able to maintain habitable conditions.  The idea that this crisis is of our own making can't be denied by any sane person with the ability to review the statistics that scientists from all of the world have provided.  It's from us.
We can still reverse the man made error.  We can.    

We could, if we were to fully understand how serious the damage will be, and followed the recommendations from scientists, to either drastically reduce the damage we continue to cause, or to go even further, and pull out all the stops to reverse the damage, and allow the planet time to repair itself.  

Here is why we won't.  Here is why our planet is pretty much going to continue to slide from what we now have to what scientists have predicted will happen with warmer oceans, and melted ice caps, flooded contents, cities flooded, populations forced to relocate, reduced capability to produce needed agriculture, way hot summers, cold, cold winters, more radical hurricanes, bigger tornadoes, and so on.  

We are getting a pretty good taste of climate change now.  We are ahead of schedule from what the scientists have originally predicted.  It's bad news.  It's bad, and we have decided not to do anything about it.  Why?  Who is stopping this ?

There are several theories.  One being the largest corporations on the planet, are also part of the problem, and they don't want to end their party, no matter what.  They have unlimited influence on those we elect, and they can and do choose what these elected officials can support, and can't support.   There are so many examples.  Who / What corporation

WE could have done something huge 20 years ago, but one large corporation felt their revenue was threatened, and their influence, reached out to anybody connected with the production of electric cars, and ended what could have been a major step in reversing the damage. The EV-1 was the Prius of the 90's.  The oil companies forced GM to not only stop production, but to destroy every single car they produced. ( about 25 are still around.)  Can you begin to imagine what could have been if large cities all over the planet were using 35% to 55 % Gas free cars ?  That alone could have been enough to slow down the damage that we are seeing today.  

The elected people are safe from any consequences that matter, period.  The people that sit on the upper levels of the biggest causes of climate change will continue to put profit over reducing climate change, and they will continue to live like kings, free from any consequences, for what we all understand to be of epic disaster to the future generations.  We allow it.  We allow those in all governments to do as told, not to do whats so urgently needed.  We allow Religion to be used as a tool, to basically  brainwash people into thinking climate change isn't man made, and we don't need to reverse the damage, God will be there.

Why do we allow so few people, who have the ability to save the planet so millions of people can continue to survive and live as we know it today at least.  We know at least locally, who the Republicans are, that have for the past 10 years, 20 years denied any truth to climate change, being real, being man made, and the need to do something drastic, even though they know that will cost billions of dollars, lower revenue for petroleum companies, and upset a lot of people.  They continue to deny climate change, and refuse any substantial legislation that could make a difference, and possibly save the planet.  But they don't.  Some have finally taken that first step to admit we are living with climate change.  Wow.  How big of them.

Here is the reason so few people on this planet, can continue to ignore the crisis, live like kings, and pretend there isn't a crisis.   We are pussy's.

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

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 06:57:57 AM PST

  •  Not the planet, just civilization, most species. (6+ / 0-)

    It's a terminology nitpick, but the planet isn't in danger at all. We aren't in a position to threaten it, at least not yet.

    What is threatened is most species of plants/animals, we're facing a mass-extinction event here. Humans probably won't go extinct, our intelligence gives us great adaptability, but our civilization is at risk if agricultural output drops significantly. And of course, any environmental disruption that causes a worldwide mass extinction is almost certain to drop agricultural output.

    I no longer tell people I'm interested in saving the planet, I always say I'm interested in saving our agricultural system. People get more worried when they start thinking about their food supply instead of polar bears.

    •  That is brilliant. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action, Ashaman

      Simply brilliant.  Well done.

      That sure hits home, and could be what even gets a brainwashed religious fanatic to snap out of it.

      "Saving our agricultural system"  

      " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

      by EarTo44 on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 07:23:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree - it's not the planet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We should stop using the phrase "save the planet", which is too easy to stereotype as a hippie-dippie new-agey thing.  When people hear that phrase they think of whales, pandas, and rainforests.  

      The planet will still be here no matter what we do to it.   The planet doesn't care.  If the planet could think, it would probably be just as glad to see us gone.  

      Life forms will still be here.   After we are finished, maybe the cockroach will rule.

      The point about the immediate crisis isn't saving the planet,  It's saving us.    More specifically, it's about saving our comfortable, affluent 21st century lifestyle and preventing potential suffering and/or death for hundreds of millions of people.   Human extinction is a long-shot scenario, but can't be ruled out.   The point is, this is not about saving the planet, it's about saving us, human beings living in our civilization during the 21st century and beyond.  

  •  Our uncontrolled use (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of fossil fuels has become a progress trap. We are now so completely dependent upon our fossil fuel energy slaves to support our lifestyles that we are now trapped in an increasingly imperiled future, every bit as much as southern slave owners became dependent upon and enslaved to their own slave culture. In both cases, we have been willing to fight and kill to keep the slave culture alive. 150 years ago, however, one side was large and willing enough to fight to stop it. Today, not so much.

    Trust, but verify. - Reagan
    Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

    When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

    by Words In Action on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 07:45:01 AM PST

    •  I drive a volt. (0+ / 0-)

      If I were king, I would start up hundreds of auto manufacturing plants , in the most economically depressed cities in the country, and these auto plants would build plug in hybrid cars that any citizen could buy at below cost.

      This isn't "magic"  it's called smart spending.  

      That's what I would do if I were king.  

      " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

      by EarTo44 on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 08:03:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's a bit of irony for you: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SlightKC, oddmike
    An ongoing US Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 - 84 years ahead of conventional model projections.

    The U.S. Navy leading the way and concluding it's worse than people thought.

    Now that's frightening.

    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandies

    by Pescadero Bill on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 09:01:00 AM PST

    •  Only to those like us... (0+ / 0-)

      who see survival of future generations as important.

      For those who seek faster sea routes to maximize profits by "x-amount" for themselves...

      For those whose greed is so overwhelming that they can't ever foresee having "enough" money...

      For those who are even now marking "territory" among the newly ice-free zones for drilling and "exploration"...

      For all those countries now sowing the seeds of future wars over a very limited amount of resource territory...

      For all the high mukety-muks in the MICs who are salivating at the thoughts of those countries' soon-to-be-real wars...

      For all these and many more of the "sovereign-based" my-profit-first'ers who are soon to learn that the only REAL power is corporate in nature thanks to the Trans-Pacific and all the new treaties of the future that strip countries of sovereign rights in favor of corporate rights...

      For those corporations now deemed as "persons" whose rights outrank all currently living, breathing,  fragile people...

      For all those, this is a win-win situation.

      And more's the pity for us.

  •  Tags are comma separated (0+ / 0-)

    and the string is not a sentence requiring a period at the end. I removed it.

  •  "Climate Change" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is the Frank Luntz Newspeak framing because Global Warming is too scary and might get people to do something. I added it as a tag.

    There is good news and bad news. The bad news, as noted in the Diary, is that the reality is worse than any of the models predicted. The good news is that coal is being hammered by market forces, and that technology is addressing all of the other elements of the problem. It is not only that wind power is cheaper than fossil carbon power in many places, and moving ahead fast, or that rooftop solar is such a good investment that Republicans are trying to pass laws to stop it, for example by requiring fees to hook up to the grid, and forbidding selling electricity back to the power company.

    The investment banking firms and some in the financial press are trying to get the word out not to invest in coal for generating electricity, and not to invest in coal export terminals. Electric and hybrid cars get better every year. There are possibilities for biofuels for trucking, trains, and jet aircraft. Conservation and efficiency improvements are equally important.

    We are also discussing the vexed complexities of geoengineering to cool the planet and extract CO2 from the atmosphere. All techniques so far suggested have obvious environmental side effects, and undoubtedly others that are much less obvious but equally important.

    Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

    by Mokurai on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 09:51:46 AM PST

    •  Vexed complexities? (0+ / 0-)

      What is so vexing about putting a seed in the ground?

      How complex is it to plant a tree seedling?

      Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere does not require "geoengineering", it requires simple biology.

      Think about it, how did all the CO2 in the atmosphere of paleoclimates end up getting scrubbed out of the atmosphere until only 180 ppm remained during the Ice Ages? Plants did it.  They took the CO2 out of the atmosphere and put it into the ground -- even without man around to help.

      •  You are being remarkably obtuse, even silly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        We are burning carbon at a significant multiple of the rate that we can take it out by planting more trees or any other terrestrial plant life. We burn more than 9 Gton of carbon annually. Agricultural sequestration, if practiced on all land used for farming, could possible remove a quarter of that. Deforestation might be producing a fifth of carbon emissions.

        Seeding plankton blooms in the ocean is one of the least problematic suggestions I have seen. It would nevertheless have huge impacts on the ecology of any area of ocean where it was applied.

        The paleoclimate scrubbing took hundreds of thousands of years each time the atmosphere went down by 100 ppm of CO2, the amount we have gone up since the Industrial Revolution began. That was due to carbonate buildup on the ocean bottoms and variations in CO2 from volcanoes much more than plants being buried. You can see it in the second chart on this page at Wikipedia.

        Vostok Petit data

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 03:19:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site