The first thing we should do to deal with global warming is "kill the cows". This was a flippant response I heard on CNN's "The Next President: A World of Challenges" this weekend. I can't think of a better source than this former secretary of state, except possibly George "duh-bu" Bush, to explain the effect of bullshit on global climate change than James Baker the Turd.
Lets get real. Cows and other ruminants have been around for millions of years producing gases in the same way for that whole time. So how are they responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases over the last two centuries. What changed? Are there more of them now? Cows, yes. Ruminants, no. Remember history class in elementary and high school? Remember studying about the great plains? The herds of hundreds of millions of bison? Add in all the deer, antelopes, shee, and goats. Do we have more cattle now than the total number in the 17th, 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries?
I am sick and tired of these red herrings being used to delay the implementation of changes in the way we power our economy and produce the goods and services we need to maintain and advance our well being. The sole purpose of their delaying tactics is to allow the to reap the greatest amount of profit by raping the environment and the bulk of the peoples of the country and world. They don't care about the well being of their fellow human as long as they can make a profit. And they call them selves CHRISTIAN. The only thing christian about them is that they think if they say they believe christ is god they will go to heaven when they die. I have yet to see in their actions where they try to emulate Christ in their treament of their fellow humans or life in general. Even with abortion their actions say they believe life starts at conception and ends at birth.
If they were true christians they would be striving to implement policies that promoted that all humans had EQUAL access to the necessities of life with minimal impact on the planet for the most sustainable existance as possible for ALL lifeforms. Instead they scapegoat societies struggling with famine , disease, and poverty and cattle. They deny that their activities over the past few centuries of burning fossil fuels and poisoning the biosphere with dirty manufacturing and mining practices have anything to do with the detiorization of the same biosphere over that same time period. AND SHAME ON US! We have gone along with them. WE keep them in power. WE don't do anything to change. WE LET THEM! It is time we said ENOUGH.
Why are we talking about replacing big oil with big alternative? By big alternative, I am refering to large corporations that are in control of the production and distribution of energy produced from solar, wind, and geothermal. The current energy legislation gives incentives to the same corporations that controll energy today, i.e. BP - Beyond Petroleu. Why should we trust them now? What have they done that demonstrates that they have our interest at heart? It is time to take control of the life blood of modern society out of the hands of the few and give back to the many. Solar, wind and geothermal are present every where on the globe. Above all our heads, beneath all our feet and blowing on all our faces. According to big energy, these source of energy can only supply a limited percentage of our energy needs. From their pespective they are right. The cost of obtaining the land necessary to harvest solar, wind,and geothermal in the regions of highest demand is prohibitive. Transmission of the power over the thousands miles from areas of cheap land to areas of use is inefficient. So it is not feasible for large, centralized use.
The flaw in their thinking and what they don''t publisize, is that solar, wind, and geothermal energy are effective if democratized. If every home and commercial building were equipped some combination of these thre, they could supply over 876000% of the worlds annual energy needs and will only increase as our technology improves the efficiency of colloection nd conversion. That is a far cry from the 10% to 50% espoused by big energy. With this kind of energy supply, does it really matter if production of hydrogen from electricity is inefficient at the present time. At current costs the $10 billion / month we are spending to forcibly "democratize" our oil supply under Bush could generate 1,111 Mwatts of electricity based on the current cost of $9/ watt for residential photovltaic systems. We are all familiar with the effects of mass production on costs when a technology takes off, look at computers. What could that $10 billionproduce in 5 or 10 years if we start now. What breakthroughs are on the horizon just waiting for the capital to develop them? See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731143345.htm for just one example.
We need to stop letting those with vested interest in the good old days of wild price swings, shortages, pollution, and wars advise our policy makers and exert our will for an energy sector that will be stable for about the nest 5 billion years.
Comments are closed for this post.
