Posts with the tag Global Warming

Republican Global Financial Climate Change Gate - Plankton and Oxygen

Unknown user — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:57:14 EST

Like the economic crisis that had been collapsing but ended on a more violent note, global change is going to happen the same way with more violent weather changes, crop failures, and other unpleasant results.

Like the U.S. economy that was run off a cliff by the Bush administration and people "didn't know" until the economic collapse, the oil industry has run the health of our planet off a cliff and taken the human race with it too, we just "don't know" or see it yet.

Like, here’s a past and future Republican pattern with the economic crisis and climate change.

Republican Denial of Global Warming Contradiction

Unknown user — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:18:13 EST

During the Bush administration terms tensions escalated between the U.S. and Canada over territory claims and the Northern sea passages given the fact that the Northern sea passages are melting.

Election Lesson: It's right -- not Right -- to be Democrats.

Douglas from South Gate, CA — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:46:15 EST

Given the mixed results in this off-off-year election -- Republicans win governorships in traditionally Democratic New Jersey as well as in traditionally Republican Virginia; Democrats win House seats in a traditionally Republican New York district as well as in a traditionally Democratic California district -- there is more spin being spun by pundits on the Left and the Right than by Kobe Bryant goin' to the hoop. So what's the real deal?

Nuclear Energy

Inertially Phased — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:25:50 EST

I would like to stress the importance of nuclear energy. We need energy to drive innovations. We need energy to drive the economy. We simply need energy in order to reach our full potential as human beings.

1. Nuclear Energy is clean and safe.

There is currently only 70,000 tons of waste to deal with. Imagine that! I am being serious, because even though this sounds like a lot of waste, this pretty much makes up all of the waste that has ever been generated in the course of say 40 to 70 years of using it. Coal plants might burn that much coal in a month. There is definately more waste in coal waste than in nuclear by far. Also coal is like a big filter in the ground that catches toxic metals such as murcury and gallium. This makes it kind of hazardous.

2. Nuclear energy is abundant and limitless for at least a good billion years or so.

There is an unimaginably enormous amount of energy locked into nuclear isotopes. We can make these give us energy and keep doing it forever!

3. Nuclear waste can be recycled.

Now here is a recycling plan that makes a difference. I couldn't care less about recycling materials, unless they are very rare or valuable. The way I see it, the land fill is an opportunity to recycle later. Nuclear material can be recycled to give us our most valuable asset. Energy. This means that the 70,000 tons that was thought to be waste really is not waste, but an opportunity to recycle and obtain more energy.

I say that in order for something to have the greatest benefit there should be an inverse relationship between its value and its cost. As an example, water is the most valueable resource in the world if you've been without it for 2 days. But it has the greatest benefit to us because its cost is negligable. Energy should be the same way. Quality food as well... etc.

4. Cap and Trade is just a tax by any other name. There is a definite relationship in how much profit a corporation can make and how much they are going to charge for their services. All things being equal there will be a price set that will reflect all the input cost plus the profit margin. A carbon cap and trade will force the coporations to have a higher input cost and they will pass this on to us. There is no way around that. The only thing that will happen is higher prices and possibly a sqeeze on the profit margins of corporations as they find that they can not sell at quite the same amount they would have to raise prices in order to completely offset their carbon tax. Nuclear Energy is the solution to a zero carbon energy economy. And there is no limit to the amount of energy that can be produced. Solar and wind are limited in nature. Nuclear is 24/7 and produces energy all the time wether we are collecting it and using it or not.

5. We have all these spare nuclear weapons around. I would imagine that there is a highly refined stockpile ready to be all blown up. We could certainly borrow some of the material from there. After all what are we going to do with the nuclear material stockpile if we don't ever blow it up, god forbid we ever do. That material would be considered nuclear "waste" and is so highly refined that we would have to "dirty-it-up" a little in order to actually use it in a conventional nuclear power plant.

Nuclear material comes from nature. Ever thought about mixing it down and diluting it until it has a lower radiation level and then storing it maybe somewhere that it came from in the first place. Of course if we ever plan on recycling it that would just add an extra step to get it all back.

6. If we were to subsidize our own power we'd save a whole lot of money more than likely. I'm thinking trillions unless someone figures out how to keep making it more expensive. In reality nuclear power would be as simple as throwing some nuclear "logs" on the proverbial fire. I'm pretty sure that the first experiments were probably not far off as different enrichment levels were experimented. It could be practically free if we made no effort to put up any safeguards or use technology to get much better results. What keeps nuclear power expensive is regulation. The regulations that keep armed guard and massive facilities over top of this otherwise pretty simple powerplant. I am not saying that regulation is a bad thing. I am only saying that it is as expensive as we make it.

7. Nuclear Energy = Infinite Energy = Everything (quite literally). But as a practical example, Electrolosys on sea water produces Oxygen, Hydrogen and a few other things. Oxygen is nice for breathing and a lot of other good purposes. Hydrogen can power vehicles. Since we could make as much Hydrogen as we ever needed we now have all the transportation fuel we will ever need. This incudes the fuel to take us to the moon and mars, which is also based largely on Hydrogen. Burning hydrogen produces fresh water. There are many other necessities that can be generated from energy and electricity on which we could thrive.

8. Arguements that Nuclear Energy is somehow worse in mining that ore than coal mining are illogical. Mining Coal and Mining Nuclear ore are pretty much the same thing and there are many of the same heavy metal by-products. The major difference I see is that with nuclear power the bedding structure can be set so that it is self-maintaining and produces its own fuel. Mining would at that point be unnecessary. Let me reitterate that there would be NO MORE MINING! Only isolated reprocessing. Coal will be mined forever. Once coal is burned there are more byproducts to deal with. Tenessee recently had a wall collapse where thousands of tons of coal ash byproduct are stored. Carbon sequestration reduces the useable power from coal so that would ultimately increase the amount of coal that was burned with some being used just to store the byproduct of the rest.

9. There is an enormous amount of energy in nuclear material. One pound of enriched Uranium can produce as much as 2.2 MILLION pounds of coal. That is only in one cycle which last about 18 months. There are currently a little over 100 nuclear powerplants in the United States. Those few power plants produce nearly 20% of our electricity demand. Wouldn't that mean that 500 powerplants would produce 100% of our electricity demand in the United States. We could build more and export electricity while fully powering our country at whatever level we feel like. Not a level that has been limited by how much carbon is emitted.

Nuclear energy is not the demon that it is made out to be. I could go on forever about how one can use the enormous amount of energy that is available in Nuclear Energy. The "not in my backyard" slogan is misleading and outdated. There are far worse things in your backyard. I guarantee it! But, since we live in the days of sloganism I'll close with this. There are six billion reasons to choose nuclear energy. What's yours?

Climate Change Initiatives

Russell Wyllie — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:01:06 EDT

More money needs to be allocated by Governments toward PROMOTION of climate change evidence. Plenty of television programmes have been produced to underline the impact on the planet of global warming, the melting of sea ice, rising sea levels, the knock-on effect of weather patterns from melting ice, destruction of habitat and wildlife such as in the Amazon rainforest and the impact on human life etc.

With more funding various top networks could be utilized to broadcast these programmes on a dedicated climate change television and internet channel. Many networks only show programmes which get high ratings, so the creation of climate/environmental television and internet channel must be created to get more support, to generate more investment in alternative energy industry, and to broadcast energy saving initiatives to the public.

Government could easily find more money for a climate-only television channel. For example, the amount of money spent on defense spending could be reduced by a mere 1 or 2 percent to make funds available to get a climate channel going. The World Bank could be used for the creation of a dedicated climate channel in many countries, and to have it broadcasted via the web. A proportion of alcohol and cigarette tax could be allocated for a climate fund, to assist in the initial stage of the creation of a climate change channel.

The public needs to be educated more on these issues, and investors will follow the trend of alternative energy creation very quickly if the climate issue is promoted more and more.

Russell S.Wyllie of http://www.Youtube.com/RealClimateNews

Nuclear Power leads to Nuclear weapons

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:59:40 EDT

The weapon design and arms control communities agree that it is not the capability to design a nuclear device that determines the pace of a country’s acquisition of a first weapon, but, rather, the availability of nuclear weapons materials that can be turned to weapons purposes. For a nation-state, the material for weapons can come from uranium enrichment plants (highly enriched uranium), or reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants (plutonium), or both.

Regardless of its isotopic composition, the minimum amount of plutonium required to make a pure fission nuclear explosive, with a yield equivalent to one to 25 kilotons of chemical high explosives, is quite small, on the order of 1 to 3 kilograms (kg), with the exact amount depending on the level of design expertise and the desired nuclear explosive yield. The minimum amount of highly enriched uranium required is a few times larger—5 to 10kg.

While far from ideal for military applications, the isotopic composition of the plutonium typically produced in civil power reactors does not pose a serious obstacle to fabricating efficient and powerful weapons, as well as crude terrorist devices.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inextricably linked to nuclear power by a shared need for enriched uranium, and through the generation of plutonium as a by-product of spent nuclear fuel. The two industries have been linked since the very beginning and a nuclear weapons free world requires a non-nuclear energy policy. http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/information/info-sheets/briefings.html#nuclearpower

The Economics of Nuclear Reactors

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:42:34 EDT

HOPE AND HYPE VS. REALITY IN NUCLEAR REACTOR COST

THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

Global Warming, Cap and Trade and the EPA

Michael from San Leandro, CA — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:00:36 EDT

Global warming, also referred to as "global climate change", is getting a lot of attention in the news and on Capital Hill these days. It should be.

On March 12, 2009 the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change concluded that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized". [Note: the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]

Now, Congress is considering passing the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Many environmental advocates have come out against the bill citing a so called "poison pill" or "Trojan horse" provision that prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm an environmental engineer and graduate of the Presidio School of Management Executive Program for Sustainable Management. I compost, drive a Prius, ride my bike to the bank, and try to substitute tofu for red meat when I can. You would think I would parrot this complaint, right?

I don't.

I believe that the only way to solve the climate change problem is to enroll private industry in the solution. That is the philosophical basis for Cap & Trade. This isn't just my opinion, it is why we were able to successfully reduce acid rain in the 1990's with a NOx Cap & Trade. Now, we need a similar solution for a much bigger problem; climate change.

The one thing that all successful markets need to function well is clarity. If you were a business, would you wholeheartedly participate in a Cap & Trade program if you thought a regulatory agency might step in a rewrite the rules at any time? You wouldn't would you?

For us to pivot our economy to a post-industrial, low-carbon future, we need the private sector to buy-in. That buy-in will generate engagement and entrepreneurialism, and solutions we can't even imagine today. We cannot be dragged kicking and screaming into a low-carbon future. But we can get there if we harness the same forces that gave us the industrial revolution in the first place.

World’s Biggest Polluters Can’t Hide from Space imaging

Peter from Carrollton, TX — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:36:25 EDT

World’s Biggest Polluters Can’t Hide from Space imaging

The map, based on 18 months’ worth of satellite data, shows very high levels of NO2 above major European and North American cities and across much of north-east China. South-east Asia and Africa also have raised concentrations of the gas due to their burning of vegetation. “Ship tracks are visible in some locations,” says Steffen Beirle, one of the research team at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. “Look at the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean between the southern tip of India and Indonesia.” Although NO2 is formed naturally by lightning and by microbes in the ground, it is also released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels by power plants, heavy industry and vehicles. Large quantities of the gas can cause respiratory problems and lung damage, and can also contribute to harmful ozone forming near ground level.

Obama has commented on helping poor nations to develop clean technologies but as you can see, it is not the poor countries that harm the planet the most. It is the rich large countries doing all of the damage. We first need to look at home and prevent the devastation that has been ongoing. United States, China, and Europe need to change the way they live first before they can start criticizing other poorer nations that only amount to about 11% of emissions around the world. Our polar ice caps have lost nearly a third of its size from 1981 to 2003(NASA Data). Your plan is to reduce amounts of emissions by the year 2050. By your logic, we won’t have a polar ice cap left. There won’t be anything to save. The climates around the world are already beginning to shift. Melting glacial water changes the composition of the ocean and changes the weather patterns around the world. Yearly Warming Temperatures from NASA

http://politicalpete.com/

Earth Day

Esam Omeish — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:43:24 EDT

Today, as Virginians and residents of the 35th District celebrate Earth Day, it’s a great opportunity to take this time and reflect where we are and where we are going in terms of responsible, renewable green energy that both protects our environment and provides jobs for the Commonwealth. As we look to the future of our families, community and Commonwealth, we can all agree that strengthening Virginia’s economy, protecting our precious natural resources and building an exciting, renewable energy future will be the key to ensuring a healthier community in which to live and work.

The future of our environment is an issue which transcends politics. However, as delegate it would be my responsibility to fight for policies which protect our environment, strengthen our economy and compliments the efforts people make on a daily basis to make Virginia a better place. According to a recent poll, 76% of Virginians think that global warming is real and will adversely affect our environment. Capitalizing on alternative energy sources and investing in smart, green technology that taps into local talents and resources will help ensure Virginia becomes and remains a leader in the stewardship for a better community for us all.

The campaign could use your help so please sign up today to volunteer! Any amount of time will help us reach our goal.

After all, TOGETHER WE CAN!

Esam

Click here to sign up with Esam Omeish For Delegate

Click here to contribute.

Deforestation

Southern Cross — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:42:16 EDT

Between May 2000 and August 2006, Brazil lost nearly 150,000 square kilometres of forest?an area larger than Greece?and since 1970, over 600,000 square kilometres (232,000 square miles) of Amazon rainforest have been destroyed.

Deforestation practices around the world are NOT going to stop no matter how bad the figures look. The truth is we need the timber for houses, furniture paper etc. The only thing that's going to slow the deforestation of the Amazon forest is the Y3000 Plan.

Continue reading Deforestation

Cap & trade, or Cap & tax? Who's spinning, and why?

Tom Hayes, working for change — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:09:51 EDT

The way for the U.S. to secure a leadership role in the 21st century is by leading on all the issues that confront the world, to exhibit thoughtful strength and realistic ideas. It will require more than military strength, diplomacy, reversing the current economic chaos, and strong alliances. Our place in the world, our rights, and our freedom depend on leading based on principles we don't just preach, but practice.

In the case of our reckless, decades-long descent into a position where we are addicted to fossil fuels mostly coming from abroad, the time for new ideas is past due. Clean new energy sources aren't just good for our children and the environment, they're a key to our national security. Now more than ever our leaders must partner with innovative businesses and entrepreneurs to make the United States more self-reliant again. The President and the Congress must resist the insidious temptation to do nothing about energy while dealing with the various other domestic and global challenges.

Of course, no matter if the business is banking or big oil, well-funded special interests don't want to give up the loopholes they've lobbied for over the years. They work to preserve their special deals with Congress, while lobbying the media into misleading Americans with catch phrases such as "Cap & tax" to keep us from thinking about what's at stake.

While most Americans support a cap on carbon pollution there's now a flood of "talking points" and sound-bites circulating about the supposed short-comings and dangers of any new plan. The real threat of cap-and-trade is that it doesn't favor the mega-corporations, and the ultra-rich energy barons. Changing to new and cleaner energy sources changes where the money goes - more of it stays in the U.S., in smaller, newer companies; it creates jobs that we desperately need to recover from the fiasco of letting the financial giants "self-regulate."

"It looks like green jobs are real. Recently, two solar energy companies — Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. and Wacker Chemie AG — announced billion-dollar investment plans to build plants near Clarksville and Chattanooga."
U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN)

In fact, a cap and trade system simply uses pure capitalism to reward efficient, innovative businesses while it effectively penalizes out-moded industries. Used world-wide it plays to American strengths, conveying tremendous economic advantage to industries and countries ready to innovate, and results in domestic job growth. Only somebody making lots of money off the existing rules could possibly deny the benefits of a global cap and trade system.

Don't let D.C. insiders off the hook.

Many members of Congress benefit from huge campaign donations from energy companies. They'd be happy if we'd all stop paying such close attention to how energy policy intertwines with national security. They smile and want you to "trust" them to get it right, and the longer they've been there the more they want you to just trust, and not verify, that they're working for you. Uh huh.

Stephen Views the News April 15, 2009

Stephen from Elkins Park, PA — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:06:04 EDT

Stephen Views the News April 15, 2009

http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/

* Derriere Orifice of the Week - Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) announced that he has compiled a secret list of 17 members of the House of Representatives who are SOCIALISTS. He would not reveal their names because, “they are a secret.” Responding to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request I admit that I also have compiled a secret list of members of Congress. It is made up of those legislators entitled to be called ASSHOLES. Through threat of waterboarding I have reluctantly agreed to admit that Mr. Bachus is on the list.

* Speaking of secrets – “The CIA no longer operates any secret overseas prisons, Director Leon Panetta said yesterday, and has not detained anyone since he became chief in February.” Under Bush the claim was made that the prisons or “black ops sites” as they were called, did not exist and even if they did exist the torture of detainees in these non-existent prisons did not take place. The apparent existential contradiction can be easily explained by, “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” It also makes a joke of any oversight Congress pretends to have over the spy agencies and the Executive branch of our government.

* Speaking of more secrets ~ The Hypocrite Oath - “Medical professionals working for the CIA played a central role in the "ill-treatment" of terror suspects in U.S. custody overseas, according to a previously confidential report by the International Committee of the Red Cross” (conducted in 2007). One may ask why a person trained and sworn to protect life would willingly participate in the torture of another human being. The Nazis were infamous for their medical experimentation on concentration camp prisoners and eventually answered for their despicable inhumanity at the Nuremberg trials. But here we are talking about Americans – the good guys in war movies, the standard for international behavior. We are accustomed to instances of having scumbag politicians, spies, businessmen, religious leaders, teachers, police and bloggers. Scumbag medical professionals assisting in torture breaks new ground in the demise of the American dream that has led to this American nightmare.

* No secret – To be a Republican politician requires having the common sense of overcooked white rice. Texas State Rep. Betty Brown (R) said that Asian-Americans should change their names because they’re too hard to pronounce. “Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” I have an idea! Asian Americans males should begin changing their names to George Bush 1, George Bush 2, George Bush 3 and so on. Females can be Betty Brown 1, Betty Brown 2 and so on. I cannot wait to pick up my Chinese takeout tonight and greet the young lady behind the counter with “Hello Betty Brown 324,119.” I intend to convince Ms. Brown 324,119 to change the name of Chow Mein to Texas Chile and Sumei Dumplings to Turd Blossoms.

* Feel better about yourself ~ you are worth more than you think – The company Innovative Research’s website says it provides the research community with quality biomedical products. I was stunned at the breadth and price of their products. For example, 50 ml of Human Saliva is priced at $275, Human Breast Milk $275, Human Semen $375 and Human Urine $75. This will certainly bring about a change in my behavior. No more will I sell a pint of my blood for a mere $25 and a jelly donut.

* The wrong defense – On FOX News last Sunday Brit Hume attempted to defend former president George W. Bush. Hume said that Bush did indeed believe in Global Warming. If that is the truth, how much more egregious is the Bush administration’s complete lack of action relative to Global Warming? It opposed higher gas mileage standards, did little to nothing to encourage green technology and ignored the Kyoto agreement of world powers to address warming. I had concluded that President Bush just did not get it – remember, science was involved. If Hume is correct, Bush is even more culpable than previously thought. We lost eight years in addressing potential disasters that may result from the warming of our planet - world-wide flooding and famine that could lead to world-wide war.

* The wrong war ~ a time to mourn – James Dobson is stepping down as leader of the religious right organization Focus on the Family. “Dobson conceded that evangelical conservatives had lost most of the recent so-called “culture war” battles… Humanly speaking, we can say that we have lost… the nation is now “absolutely awash in evil.”

On what is a rare occasion I agree with Mr. Dobson that the culture wars of the religious right are being lost and evil permeates our society. I would suggest, however, that the wrong battles were being fought and to some extent contributed to the greed that is at the core of our current economic travails. In an attempt to foist their “religious” agenda on our non-sectarian society the religious right forged an alliance with the Republican Party. In convincing their members to support Republicans, Dobson, Jerry Falwell and their brethren helped elect Republican legislators that were pro-business and anti-regulation, pro-deficit spending while reducing taxes for the wealthy. The Republican allies of the religious right, Bush and company, swept us into an unprovoked war leading to the loss of over 100,000 lives and the displacement of millions of Iraqis. Imagine if their broad influence had been directed to the business and political segments of our society to promote integrity, fairness, workers rights and protection of the environment. The religious right lost a generation of meaningful influence while being used as pawns by the GOP. It is indeed a sad eulogy.

* Love is a Many Splendored Thing – “A Saudi judge has refused for a second time to annul a marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 47-year-old man.” Anyone in our culture would be appalled at this nuptial pedophilia. However, the judge was not as radical as it would appear on the surface. He granted that the child could apply for a divorce when she reaches puberty. And isn’t it almost always about money? “The girl's father, according to the attorney, arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man, who is ‘a close friend’ of his.” On a social note, the wedding festivities will be held at Chucky Cheese and then the newlyweds will leave immediately for Disney World.

* On the lighter side ~ of heavy – All is “normal” in the land of Governor Sarah Palin. Her pick for Alaska Attorney General, Anthony Ross, is a racist, a writer of several manifestoes attacking Martin Luther King, Jr. as a communist subversive, a homophobe and anti-environmentalist. And to think that we almost had the opportunity to call her Madam Vice-President. The backlash to this nomination may result in Palin withdrawing the Ross nomination. As if Sarah did not have enough on her plate with the backbiting between her and former almost son-in-law Levi Johnston, her sister-in-law Diana Palin was arrested for twice burglarizing a house, during which she was accompanied by her 4-year old daughter. They will not be going to Disney World any time soon.

* Today is U.S. Tax Day – two views:

“I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

“What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue.” Thomas Paine

Getting Started - An introduction.

Educationforall — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:39:47 EDT

I have just moved to Fulshear, Texas. Texas is my home state, and I am glad to be back home. I was born in Corpus Christi, but I have lived in several places in Texas: El Paso, San Antonio, Blanco, Abilene, and Twin Sisters. I have also lived in Louisiana; Indiana, where my first child was born; Georgia, where I graduated from Valdosta State University; and Florida, where we helped carry Barack Obama on to the White House.

I am so happy to be back home, but we have a lot of work to do in Texas.

Many issues concern me, but I must focus on only a few.

I am concerned about the high school drop out rate. While I lived in Florida, I taught ABE (Adult Basic Education)/GED to adult females at a county jail for two years.

This opened my eyes to a common thread running through most high school drop out's which I will discuss in later posts.

I am concerned about Global Warming. The laissez faire attitude some people hold toward this issue informs me of the need for community education.

This will, hopefully, also be a topic blogged here.

Hope to be back with you soon.

The Newest and largest man made structure in the world

Southern Cross — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:59:42 EDT

The prospectus of the Y3000 forest boasts multiple positive scientifically proven side effects not just for its immediate region but for thousands of kilometres outside of the region. The best part is The Y3000 Desert can be duplicated anywhere in the world.

Global warming solutions and accurate research is being outdated just as rapidly as house hold computers were in the 90?s. Research up until now can show the statistics of the current Amazonian forest climate yet information directly related to what the world would be like without the Amazon is scarce.

Continue Reading FULL article

Save The Environment

Southern Cross — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:47:38 EDT

Saving the environment against global warming needs action now and it involves you more then you think. You don't need to spend thousands of hours creating something new. We have done all the work for you. All you need to do is support us and the Y3000 Plan we have designed. Our philosophy is "if we get enough people to join our site or leave a comment, Governments will have to listen ".

In the Y3000 Plan we have already established:

What a trillion dollar stimulus package buys.
How Waste Water treatment plant can be energy self-sufficient.
How much you are costing the environment.
How clean energy can make more money.
How many types of taxes your paying and what you get for your dollars.

Continue Reading Part 3B Save the environment

From Dust to Gold

Southern Cross — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:57:17 EDT

Suggestions to saving the planet and creating millions of jobs are everywhere. But if you think it doesn't involve you think again. There's has never been a better time in history to have your thoughts heard. If its positive action your looking for then you must read this free info article.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist or invent anything, simply adding your name can be enough to bring around change. It's called the Y3000 Plan. The Y3000 plan is designed to burn human waste (methane gas, for energy) in sewage plants, sending the left over waste into deserts and reducing Green House emissions by 20,000 tons a year. Why would we move it to the desert?

Continue Reading Part 3A

Building Another Amazon Forest - Y3000 Plan Part 3

Southern Cross — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:35:42 EDT

Building a new man made Amazon forest may not be as far fetched or difficult as some would have us believe. With global warming and co2 emissions on the rise the world is screaming for ACTION and Australia has the answer.

In a land bound by sea Australia boasts desert lands of 1,317,000 sq kilometres which occupy 18% of the continent which are comprised of ten separate deserts sharing median rain falls of 150mm per year.

Continue Reading Complete Article

Making Treatment Plants Energy Self Sufficient - Y3000 Plan Part 2C

Southern Cross — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:32:40 EDT

The high proportion of methane dissolved in the effluent represents a substantial loss of biogas for energy production, as well as representing a serious greenhouse risk should the methane subsequently escape to the atmosphere (since methane has twenty one times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide).

One possible avenue to reduce methane loss suggested by the pilot plant results is to add a controlled amount of air to the biogas used for mixing the reactor. The experimental results also showed that air in the biogas suppresses the formation of hydrogen sulfide, possibly avoiding the need to scrub this corrosive compound before using the biogas as a fuel. However, too much air would be toxic to anaerobic bacteria and would reduce biogas production. Further research is needed to determine the optimal amount of air to be used in mixing the reactor.

Some methane remaining in the effluent could prove beneficial in enhancing nitrogen removal by "denitrification" in the downstream process, and research is currently being conducted at the University of Queensland to study denitrification using methane.

Continue Reading Complete Article

Making Treatment Plants Energy Self Sufficient - Y3000 Plan Part 2B

Southern Cross — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:30:22 EDT

The plant utilised an "anaerobic migrating bed reactor" which was subdivided into four reaction cells in a series. The contents of the first three cells were mixed intermittently by injecting bubbles of recirculated biogas, and the sludge was allowed to settle in the unmixed last cell.

To maintain a uniform distribution of sludge through the four cells, the flow direction was reversed automatically over a 24-hour cycle. The sludge settling characteristics are therefore critical in governing the sludge concentration and reactor volume required. (See figure 2).

Continue Reading Complete Article

Making Treatment Plants Energy Self Sufficient - Y3000 Plan Part 2

Southern Cross — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:23:04 EDT

Sewage treatment is a significant user of energy. Operation of pumps, blowers and other equipment at a typical sewage treatment plant requires an annual electrical energy consumption of about 50 kWh per person. Thus,substantial amounts of energy are required to treat sewage from major population areas, and sewage treatment often comprises the largest use of electricity by local governments.

Continue Reading Complete Article

The Price of You - Y3000 Part 1C

Southern Cross — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:16:06 EDT

At the present time around the world, your waste is costing a fortune and costing the environment even more. The Y3000 Plan can be implemented around the world.
However the Y3000 Plan has been designed with Australia in mind because I'm more familiar with the Australian Landscape.

Australia Has invested approx 48 billion dollars to service around 21 million residents. Using the same figures America has invested $694,456,320,000 into servicing 300 million people. Waste Water Management systems around the world are the greatest waste of tax payers money ever.

The estimated combined annual profit estimated for the United States of America and Australia in 2009 is $0.00 until now Waste Water management has been the only resource owned by the government that doesn't make a profit.

Continue Reading Complete Article

Waste Water Big Profits Y3000 Part 1B

Southern Cross — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:13:12 EDT

By now you should be starting to get a bigger picture of how your tax money is spent and how much of your tax dollars are actually working for you and your country. It's the sole principle of the Y3000 Plan to encourage governments to start using our money properly

Your money should be used to partly self-sustain a countries economics. To continue to use tax dollars as the main form of raising money MUST end. When a company only has one, two or three forms of income that customers can't afford the company WILL GO BROKE. The same applies to governments.

History has shown us proof of rich countries fall to a mere rubble and dust in comparison of today's standards. Ethiopia is a prime example. If we wish to keep our great Countries at the top of the food chain, change is inevitable.

Continue Reading Complete Article

Your Tax Dollars Y3000 Plan Part 1A

Southern Cross — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:08:54 EDT

In the midst of one of the worlds worst ever global economic crisis's our hard earned tax dollars are being thrown around like it's a game of monopoly. Words like hundred million, billion and even trillions of dollars seem to be the only words our trusted politicians know in these times

It's estimated the United States of America Australian governments will inject 3.3 trillion dollars into our economies over the next 10years by the guise of stimulus packages. But where does that money come from? And why do we need so much money injected in our economy?

Continue Reading Complete Article

The Y3000 Plan Introduction

Southern Cross — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:02:21 EDT

The Y3000 is a perspective for future development, combining technology, man power and better land use management. The eventual outcome of the Y3000 plan is to dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of approx 7,617,930 sq kilometres, the size of Australia.

It''s predicted that the Y3000 plan will have a multiple effect ranging from reduced unemployment rates, lower social welfare drains on our economy, reduction of the hole in the ozone layer, 60% reduction in the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity, reversal of Antarctic glaciers melting and a cleaner greener planet.

Continue Reading Complete Article

A Winner Never Quits and a Quiter Never Wins

Tom Awtry — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:21:01 EDT

Solar Energy Opportunities

Throughout the world the economy has been the focus of attention, but all is not bad as it seems the way I view it! This of course as had some very unfortunate burdens on Americans and the international community, but perhaps we should consider it a wakeup call when you consider the following:

A new call to Global Warming as taken place via Green Industries
The War in Iraq I believe as influenced our government to end this conflict
A rebirth to our highway infrastructure in badly need of repairs
An increased interest passing a comprehensive Health Care package
Awareness of revised regulation of our banking industry

The aforementioned I feel are just a few of many, which we have known about or even cared about, but never acted upon to address their importance in our daily lives. Perhaps most importantly its brought us back to the realization that we were all living somewhat beyond our means. An article appeared on AP Online News that best illustrates what some individuals are taking to return to appreciating what we have and how we can live cheaper and better. The article is entitled: “Dollars from dirt: Economy spurs home garden boom”.

For others this is a time of opportunity even in the beat-up banking industry; I’m not talking about the big banks or the bonuses received, but again collective individual who have formed “New Banks”, which are just starting up in business. Again, another article, which needs reviewing, is presented by TIME Online, entitled: “While the Giants Reel, Many Small Banks Are Thriving”.

An additional article, also by TIME, which complements both previous mentioned articles entitled: “1. Jobs Are The New Assets” also outlines our changing values and society of how we perceive ourselves “changing” in this newly developing economic environment. The uniqueness of this article reminds us of what we have as mental and physical tools we have developed within ourselves and around us that we sometimes overlook or forget.

OK, so perhaps by now I’ve convinced you we’re in the process of changing or at least the “need for change”. So, based from the list above of the “good things” that are taking place now; what’s my prediction of the best or possible opportunity to go into, if you’re looking for a job or career change? I’d say the Green industry looks the biggest and fastest potentially growing industry and I base this assumption on an article by Gallop, entitled: “Americans on Energy: Promote Both New Sources and Old” and present this chart below:

As you can see I’m also basing my opinion on our government responding with the promises they have committed to during the past election cycle.

Our newly elected President said it was time for “Change”, but I earnestly don’t believe he felt the financial disasters he inherited would lead to the type of change we are experiencing today. So, we make the best of the situation and attempt to seek opportunities, which we know are out there and only need to be developed into new Microsoft’s, Dell’s and Blackberries.

Complementing this posting a video, recommended to me regarding “Green Opportunities”, entitled: “Toxic Chemicals in Products: Financial Risks & Opportunities”, which I feel is capable of expanding in an unlimited number of employment possibilities for the future, perhaps give it a look.

Toxic Chemicals in Products: Financial Risks & Opportunities

Investor Environmental Health Network presents this educational video on chemicals in products and green chemistry opportunities.

How can we cool our feverish planet?

Michael from Sunnyvale, CA — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:11:16 EDT

The buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from the globalization of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation shows no sign of slowing down. Recent climatic changes - the increased pace of Arctic ice meltdown, rising frequency of major hurricanes and killer heat waves, and the accelerating retreat of mountain glaciers - all signal that the global temperature is rising in lockstep with rising CO2, in accordance with predictions based on global climate models. While the atmospheric level of CO2 is still below 400 ppm (parts per million), it could reach 1000 ppm before the end of the next century, a level last seen at the start of the Eocene Period 60 million years ago. That age was characterized by tropical climate from pole to pole. If the past is guide to the future, the world is on the threshold of a mass extinction that should be somewhat similar to at least nine mass extinctions caused by rapid global warming in the last 600 million years, triggered by CO2 released during the lava flows that produced flood basalts (Ref. 1).

Perhaps more alarming than the impending CO2 level is its rate of increase, a geologically unprecedented rate that could overwhelm the capacity of the oceans to absorb and buffer against acidification, making the next mass extinction more deadly than its predecessors. Thus the industrial addition of CO2 to the atmosphere presents the world with two environmental problems: Problem 1 is higher temperatures, Problem 2 is more acidic oceans. In the best of all possible futures, both problems would be addressed by cutting back CO2 emissions to preindustrial levels. But even if this could be achieved instantly, the global temperature would continue to rise until the massive CO2 injection of the 20th Century has worked its way through the ocean-atmosphere system, a process that could take a century or more. In other words, the effects of global warming are upon us already. Instant action to rein in CO2 emissions might avert ocean acidification and mass extinctions, but would not stop global warming in its tracks.

What can humanity do to stop the relentless increase in global temperature?

Could our Country Go Belly-Up

Tom Awtry — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:36:13 EDT

A thought that had never really crossed my mind was: Could the United Sates go broke!

Yes, I guess it could in the international community’s eyes, which is an alarming possibility. I know this is a negative thought to contemplate when President Obama’s Stimulus Package is just beginning to work (see here and here) and we have two straight days of gains on Wall Street, but really who would have ever thought we would be in the economic troubles we are experiencing today.

In an article by TIME online the author presents this possibility, but this same article doesn’t really explore the events that could lead-up and cause our “kiss of death” of financial bankruptcy. Think about it for a moment!

Should we suffer through another conflict, such as what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even worse a full on war with a supper power this could really drain the money reserves our country has nest-egged away. Also, what about an issue we seem to avoid talking about and only rendering token understanding, which is, Global Warming. Suppose the world starts going into a free-fall mode of heating up? Again, our cash reserves would have to come to the rescue.

OK, enough gloom and doom, but I think we had better start watching and voicing our opinions to our politicians, letting them know the days gone by of spend, spend, spend or coming to an end and want to starting seeing where our money is going and for what!

Here’s the article I was referring to in TIME, entitled: “Betting the U.S. Government Won’t Pay Its Debts”

America Going Belly-Up

Betting the U.S. Government Won’t Pay Its Debts
Douglas A. McIntyre
By 24/7 Wall St. Wednesday, Mar. 11, 2009

It is one thing when someone can’t make a mortgage payment or a company cannot cover the interest on capital it borrowed to build a new factory. In a recession, those kinds of events are commonplace. It probably never crosses the mind of the average citizen that the ability of the U.S. government to borrow money for deficits, bailouts, mortgage-assistance programs, and refurbishing the monuments in Washington is not limitless. The term infinite may apply to the cosmos but it does not apply to the debt carried by the U.S. Treasury.

MarketWatch pointed out that the spreads on credit-default swaps for U.S. government debt jumped to 97 basis points Tuesday, nearly seven times higher than a year ago and 60% higher than at the end of last year, to a level roughly in line with those of France, according to data supplied by Markit. Those swaps are gambles that America will renege on its financial obligations. Being on par with France is even more humiliating than if we were compared to Cameroon which had a GDP of only $44 billion last year, less than Bernie Madoff took from his clients.

While it may be hard to imagine, what the market’s response means is that the economic crisis is so serious now that it is believed that the United States Treasury may not have the capacity to keep a net under all of the faltering bits and pieces of the financial and credit systems. Traders are sending a message and have decided not to be subtle about it. America is spreading itself too thin. It has taken on obligations to assist many of its largest financial institutions, aid hundreds of thousands of homeowners, create jobs through an economic stimulus package, and give a large portion of the working population tax cuts. Wealthy citizens and corporations will be required to pay more to offset these obligations. This income will only make a difference if these sources have more to pay. A deep recession can be a great leveler.

As economic data for the first quarter begins to come out in April and then second quarter information is released in July, it will become clear whether the idea that the Treasury can borrow enough money to right our national economic ship is plausible. There is absolutely no reason to believe that if GDP contraction hits 10% for a quarter or two and then unemployment increases to double digits that the government will be able to solve what the free market system cannot.

The most alarming information that the federal government should give up before it gets deeper into debt comes from experts who join business TV news show hosts. Simply stated, they argue that the economy got itself into this mess and it will have to get itself out. This idea destroys the belief that the government has the power to protect the financial interests of its own people and companies. It is a philosophy that will create despair in almost all quarters because it is based on the idea that we are on our own in this economic fight for survival. Our government cannot intercede for us.

If the U.S. government starts to have even a modest amount of trouble raising money, the concept of its citizens becoming self-sufficient will take on an entirely new meaning.

Complementing the TIME article is a YouTube video, which is more or less a tough-in-cheek comical view of how one Newscaster feels about our Federal Reserve (worth a careful watch).

Fat Glenn Shows Us Why America is Going BROKE!

Glenn puts on a great show as he shows us why our money is going in the dumper.

I have the small amount of precious metals and food storage I can afford and I hope you do too.

Here is a little info on the Federal Reserve Bank

The Federal Reserve Bank is NOT actually part of the Federal government. It is no more Federal than Federal Express, or Federated Department Stores. It is a private corporation with a legislated monopoly on currency and credit that is allowed to BUY its paper currency for nothing more than the cost of the paper, the ink and the labor from the Bureau of Printing & Engraving (U.S. Treasury). Originally this added up to about 2.3 cents per note, or $230 of cost to buy one million dollars (10,000 100 dollar bills). Today the cost is apparently still about the same.

The Federal Reserve Bank has never paid a dime in income tax and has never been audited, and a percentage of this private bank is owned (or controlled) by foreigners (or their corporate shells)!!

Can you buy your money for $230 per million ?

What happened to equal opportunity ?

“The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, locally controlled corporations”
[Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F.2d 1239, 1241](1982)

“As we have advised, the Federal Reserve is currently paying the Bureau approximately $23 for each 1,000 notes printed. This does include the cost of printing, paper, ink, labor, etc. Therefore, 10,000 notes of any denomination, including the $100 note would cost the Federal Reserve $230. In addition, the Federal Reserve must secure a pledge of collateral equal to the face value of the notes.”
- William H. Ferkler (Manager Public Affairs, Dept. of Treasury, Bureau of Engraving & Printing, Wash. D.C.

“It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
- Henry Ford, Founder of the Ford Motor Co.

Why are private unelected individuals controlling the American currency system ? Vrtually running the country, the stock market, the banks, the lending rates, nearly everything ? Where is any of this in the Constitution?

Do you really believe they are representing We the People with their policies?

If you do, you aren’t thinking clearly!

Why are private unelected individuals controlling the American currency system ? Vrtually running the country, the stock market, the banks, the lending rates, nearly everything ? Where is any of this in the Constitution?

Do you really believe they are representing We the People with their policies?

If you do, you aren’t thinking clearly!

“AS GOES THE FATE OF THE CURRENCY, SO GOES THE FATE OF THE NATION !”

As this posting eludes to: Our nation is in serious economical trouble, but it’s good hear President Obama is pulling the plug on reckless spending by attempting to put a stop on needless earmarks, as can be seen in his remarks, which I have partially posted.

Remarks by the President on Earmark Reform
from White House.gov Press Office Feed

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I ran for President pledging to change the way business is done in Washington and build a government that works for the people by opening it up to the people. And that means restoring responsibility and transparency and accountability to actions that the government takes. And working with the Congress over my first 50 days in office, we’ve made important progress toward that end.

Working together, we passed an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that’s already putting people back to work doing the work that America needs done. We did it without the customary Congressional earmarks — the practice by which individual legislators insert projects of their choosing. We’re implementing the Recovery Act with an unprecedented level of aggressive oversight and transparency, including a website — recovery.gov — that allows every American to see how their tax dollars are spent and report on cases where the system is breaking down.

It is all about energy, stupid!

James from Madison, WI — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:11:13 EST

Many of us think that the economy is about money. But it isn't. it is about energy.

Obama Budget Plan Links

signsSansSignifieds — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:15:27 EST

The bear has crawled out of his hollow log, looked around and posted another thrilling entry on his blog, this time addressing the Obama budget.

Please feel free to comment, either in Comments on my blog or via e-mail, on any ideas you may have regarding what we can/should do to help get the budget through Congress. It's going to be one hell of a fight.

Florida Energy Problems and Solutions

BernieW — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:33:26 EST

Florida Energy Problems, Options, and Suggested Solutions The following is a brief summary of the main energy related problems and issues to be dealt with over the next few years, and policy options and solutions to deal with the problems and needs. Recent trends in energy use have been unsustainable and have led to major environmental and economic problems including climate change, energy dependency, and export of economic capital and falling value of the dollar. Rapid advances in technology of alternative energy options like thin-film solar PV, concentrators, dye-sensitized solar cells, energy storage equipment, wind turbines, ocean and tidal power, CHP, etc. appear likely to make such options more cost effective, as well as cleaner, than traditional generation technologies within 5 years. Some of these options including energy efficiency options and combined heat and power(CHP) applications are already more cost effective than traditional generation technologies, as well as reducing global warming and pollution effects. Many experts expect some solar PV and concentrator options to be more cost effective than traditional fossil fuel and nuclear options within 5 years, since technology is advancing rapidly and production costs are declining rapidly. Nuclear power and coal plant capital cost have been rapidly increasing in recent years due to rapidly rising costs for steel, concrete, copper, other materials, and specialty labor. Total capital and operating costs for all of the major fossil fuel and nuclear power options are currently of similar magnitude, but fossil fuel plants have significant health and environmental externality cost and nuclear plants have questions about future decommissioning and radioactive waste cost plus proliferation and security issues.

Energy is a major issue in Florida for the next decade. Details:

http://www.flcv.com/flenergy.html

State of the Union - Calling us Forward

David — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:37:48 EST

Barack is set to hit the airwaves in one hour with his first keynote address to both houses of Congress. This is why we elected him, because he knows how to tell everyone what needs to be said, even when the truths are difficult to hear. He knows how to express himself quite well-- so much more clearly and credibly than our recently departed Duuhbya. It's been so long we almost forgot what it could be like to have a President we can believe in. Well, we're finally on the journey now.

I realize the times are tough because of the mess we've inherited from W's 8 long years of ineptitude and slamming the national ship from shoal to reef and back again. It will take time and collective work, some sacrifices and faith in our ability as Americans working together for the common good, to patch the hull and get our ship of state out into the main channel where she belongs. Bailout is a good analogy here... If we work together, we can get this job done!

For those who haven't been there, I encourage you to check out the Recovery.gov website!

http://www.recovery.gov/

A solution to end poverty, solve the economic crisis, stop global warming, and create world peace.

Chris Par — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:52:22 EST

    Nobody was put on this earth to be a waiter. People were not born to work, yet we have no choice. A human's right to be alive is oppressed by money. Without money to buy those necessary to survival, one would die. We are slaves to the dollar; however, freedom is imminent. My critical theory of proper progression and redirection states that certain technological advancements will liberate us from enslavement and as a result, end poverty, solve the economic crisis, stop global warming, and create world peace.
   For the purposes of this essay, I take “green” to mean environmentally friendly. Also, I take “technology which generates basic necessities” to mean a device, which will evolve from manufacturing advancing and getting smaller, that uses nanotechnology to create food, water, medicine, material, etc.
   If we re-landscaped the earth so that every residence, connected by a free green train, was converted into free green skyscraper resorts that provided free access to green technology which generates basic necessities for free, and robots took over the jobs of the working class for free, then money would lose all value and cease to exist.
   Money would no longer be a need nor would it dictate our lives and we would finally, truly be free: free from doing jobs that we don't want to do and free to pursue our passions, free to spend time with the ones we love, free to travel the world for free, free to learn for free, and free to live for free.
   In a world without money, there is no poverty. There is no economic crisis. There is no money-related crime.
   We would see a second renaissance period. The concept of building community would thrive. Exchanging of information over the internet would fluctuate—movies, music, books, lectures on video/audio, and communication would soon all be accessible and spread through the internet; this eliminates the need of physically producing such media and saves natural resources like the trees needed for paper. Innovation and education would continue through schools, universities, and the internet; our focus would be redirected towards research and getting a broader education, rather than a specialized education geared for commercial business.
   Redirection from our dependence on earth's limited natural resources to using green technology in production, housing, and transportation, will stop global warming. Because society will no longer be dependent on oil to run the very transportation that fuels each nation's economy, war for oil would end.
   Furthermore, in this technologically advanced society, war over land, money and resources in general would end. Incidentally, the only war that technology cannot solve is war over religion, but that can be solved with an education in the concept of tolerance because it eliminates hate, and the use of marijuana because it causes amotivation. All things considered, when we reach this evolution of society, we will create world peace.
   With that, I challenge everyone--world leaders, philosophers, scientists, and engineers of all sorts --to take a second to imagine, find flaws in my theory, and build on this outline of a call for action. Together, we can progress towards a brighter tomorrow and make the world a better place.

All You Need Is Love,

Chris Par

Listen to the song which sums up the same message, "I Need The World To Hear This", at www.myspace.com/WhoChrisPa

10 Years is Too Long

Robin Williams — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:25:19 EST

I like some of the details of the Barack Obama 10 year energy plan, but it is too long for us. We need to implement some changes right now. If we don't, this world will not be here too long. This is not a game. We have destroyed the arctic wildlife to the point where the polar bears are becoming extinct. Now to some it would be easier to just ignore it and say that it won't affect us. But don't you understand that one species affects the other? If one dies off, it affects others. If we let the earth die, we die with it. It is not up to us to determine how we are to affect life on this planet. It is up to the man above. How are we to become stewards of the land if we don't care.

We think we have 30 years before the melting of the arctic affects the human race. But how do we know that? Don't you know that the speed at which ice melts increases with time? This means that the arctic is melting at an exponential rate. We must plan to live in a different climate. Some land that is dry will become non-existant.

BAMBOOTHEWALK

Armand from Charles Town, WV — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:15:57 EST

PLEASE CHECK OUT MY UTUBE CHANNEL,(BAMBOOTHEWALK)UTUBE IM WALKING ACROSS AMERICA HELPING THE HOMELESS for every life lost in 911 2001 and our soldgiers lost, lets change some ones life im calling all millionaires/billionaires to walk a mile with me and in that mile help some one so for every life lost is a life gained ARMAND YOUNG(BAMBOOTHEWALK)UTUBE OR MAN WALKS AGROSS AMERICA CALL ME 641-351-1082 GOD BLESS

Notes from our first Change is Coming meeting

Albie from Thomaston, ME — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:53:50 EST

Thomaston is a small town of 4,000 in the midcoast area of Maine. We had a gathering of neighbors and talked discussed three simple questions: What was the most striking aspect of the presidential campaign for you? What are your hopes and concerns for the six months ahead? What might we do singly or together to foster the change we seek?

These notes are long, but you are welcome to join in, let us know your thoughts.

Albie Davis (207-465-8562)

Change is coming! 12/13/08,
home of Albie Davis and John Chandler, Thomaston, Maine

Please look at page eight for a possible next meeting.

1. Warm up: What was the most striking aspect of the presidential campaign for you?

•   Election night! John is working a night shift. I'm sitting on the couch with my dog Gromit. I was so anxious. Then, right at eleven, when the California polls closed, the commentators called California, Oregon and Washington for Obama. I phoned my grown sons in San Francisco, and they were with their families and friends and in tears!

•   Obama appeals to the better part of us. I’m very hopeful even though there are difficult times ahead of us.

•   Obama looks at things holistically; he is seeing the connection between things. It shows in the way he is choosing his cabinet. He’s developing a team that includes all points of view.

•   I was amazed, with all the dirt that was thrown at Obama, he could stay on the high road, keep his eye on the goal, not be distracted.

*   When the election was called for Obama, immediately our phone rang. It was our daughter in Singapore cheering. Then, the phone rang again; it was our daughter in New Delhi. What an exciting night.

*   We have American friends who live in France. They made us aware of the bridge project, with Americans Abroad all over the world meeting at bridges to support Obama, have photos taken. Then, they were so excited as the general election neared; they came to Chicago to be at Grant Park.

*   I started backing Kucinich, later, when he dropped out, Edwards, because he seemed the most liberal. Then, when I watched Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy come out for Obama; that did it.

•   I haven’t campaigned like this since Eugene McCarthy ran. I began as a Hillary supporter. Much to my surprise, I was disappointed when she did well in some states on Super Tuesday. I said to myself, I better find out more about this guy that I should feel this way. I read Dreams of my Father and realized why!

•   The internet was a quantum leap in my sense of feeling connected. There was absolute genius in the way it was run. The information was available, yet we were crucial. We were the “boots on the ground.”

•   The night he won the primary, and come out on stage with his wife and children, I was so profoundly pleased at how far the country has come.   We’ve moved beyond our past; we’re no longer chained to it. I’m so proud of America to have nominated and elected Obama.

•   And, I’m so hopeful internationally!

•   I’ve been a close observer of politics for 40 years. There are things you do not say, you do not touch, you don’t go near them. There’s a subterfuge, a denial. His speech on race was the point where he showed that we can speak about these untouchable subjects. There are a lot of things he could do if he has us with us. When he says, “We want you involved,” he is speaking to me because for some years I have felt that I could not make a difference.

*   The transformative effect was so wonderful. I read his book. Got 5-6 copies to give to friends, who also loved it. There were exceptions. A young man, around 50, said he’s not going to vote. There is no difference between the parties. His wife was excited, however. Another friend had supported Hillary, and she was bitter, felt the media had abused her. These were difficult conversations, but they came to be for Obama.

•   This young man is a transformative figure. He’s smart. His political savvy cannot be denied.   He is going to elevate our discussion; he’s an educator; a listener.

•   We’ve been through 8 years of cronyism; of seeing everything in black and white, good or bad. Obama sees the many nuances.

•   Even the media was educated.

•   Obama has a quality of receiving—he’s open; he will hear you. That’s how he can access the big picture.

•   On election night I heard his speech, and, of course, it was wonderful. But, what I remember most was when the camera panned out in the audience and I saw Jessie Jackson in tears. That got to me. I have not been a fan of Jackson’s, but I could see what this meant to him--all the years of struggle. That was a defining moment.

*   I’m a college teacher; I’ve taught for over 37 years. The last time I’ve seen young people involved in politics was when Bobby Kennedy ran. After that, years of apathy. Now, young people are enthusiastic and active again.
•   Personally, I’ve been a critic of government for many years; I still am. Yet, I recently ran for public office. I was one of the few Dems who didn’t make it. Barack Obama inspired me to get involved, to make this run.

•   My first memory of Obama was when he made his 2004 speech at the Democratic convention. I said to myself, “That guy is going to be president.” I had no idea it would be so soon!

*   The impact of the internet has been great. It’s a medium young people understand. They caught on immediately.

*   The last campaign I recall that had this much interest was in 1932, when FDR ran for president. I was eight. The first time I saw Obama at the beginning of the primaries I immediately had the feeling he would win.

•   The way Obama looks at the world; his interest in diversity is powerful.

*     It would have been great enough if he had only won the primary, but it was even better that he won the election. He fulfilled Martin Luther King’s dream. His win was inspiring for all minorities who have been oppressed. (And the group adds, “and for all of us as well.)

•   We’ve heard a lot of “God bless America,” but now it is, “God bless the whole world.”

•   I started out with Kucinich; I had a hard time when he was shut out of the debates. I couldn’t support Hilliary because she was for mandatory health insurance, and I’m actively supporting the single-payer approach. That left Obama. The more I learned about him, the better I felt.   Eventually, when I heard him speak, I was totally blown away. I still would like him to support the single payer approach to health care and hope he won’t announce his health care plans until June so we will have one more chance to pass 676. (More information on this in future emails.)

•   I hate watching anything competitive—sports, you name it; so I was miserable watching election night. The best moment came when CNN declared Obama winner. Now I didn’t have to move to Greece, for if McCain had won, I was ready to do that.

2.   Your priorities: What are your hopes and concerns for the six months ahead?

•   Health care. The single-payer approach is the answer. We got 3,000 signatures on our single-payer petition in Knox County. We’ve got to get the insurers, who are strictly in it for the money, out the health care business. They even give doctors a bonus for not approving procedures for their patients.

•   Ed Mazuerk has submitted a statement in support of the single payer plan.

•   Chuck Kruger initially supported the single payer plan, but is expressing second thoughts. We need him to support the resolution in the Legislature.

•   Climate change. I’ve just finished reading Tom Friedman’s Hot, Flat and Crowded. You must read it. He talks of global weirdness! We can’t do a little here a little there. We’ve got to do big things; we need to bet the farm on this. If we fail, we are gone! I know Obama and his team are working on this. I want to put my shoulder to that wheel.

A   I wanted to know more about Thomas Friedman's book "Hot Flat and Crowded” and went to Amazon to check it out. There is a great question and answer piece on the page if you scroll down. Thought you'd like to see it, Davene   (Copy and paste entire URL below.)

        http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-RevolutionAmerica/dp/0374166854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229348273&sr=1-1

•   I’m nervous about Obama talking about clean coal. Coal is carbon. We are constantly fooling ourselves that we don’t need to change the way we do things.

•   I think that Obama is really serious about doing something big!

•   Obama is capable of seeing and understanding all the issues as well as their interconnectedness, and acting on them according to his vision. But priority should and must be given to Global Warming as the very foundation of his actions. Further, he must bring to our awareness our responsibility on a global scale. Atmosphere recognizes no boundaries!

•   Environment. In order to do things we need widespread support. We need to build bridges to those who have a different view, fundamental Christians, for example. How does a humanist liberal approach a fundamental Christian?

•   I’m an Episcopal Priest. When it comes to protecting the environment, liberal Christians like me are mostly on board. Yet I know a lot of conservative Christians who are becoming concerned about the environment because the Bible gives human beings stewardship of the earth. There is a lot more room for dialogue than many secular people think.

•   I’m concerned about all the talk about “alternative energy,” as though the goal was to maintain our current way of living. I think we need to simplify. Obama isn’t a rural guy; maybe he doesn’t understand this. E. O. Wilson says that the biological side needs to be solved first, especially species extinction and food.

•   Militarism. I think Robert Gates is a good choice. He sees the need for more diplomacy. I have some reservations about Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but sometimes dramatic changes can only be made by those who are more conservative. Like Nixon going to China. Or LBJ leading the charge on Civil Rights. We must understand the connection between our financial plight and the military budget. I hope the Obama team will look closely at the Military’s five-year plans, not just the immediate requests. These also impact on international relations.

•   Flaws in our basic electoral system. It’s great to have a leader we can look up to, but, let’s remember that Obama is human. Hey, he smokes cigarettes! Furthermore, the system whereby politicians must always be campaigning for their next election, be it 2, 4 or 6 years away, makes it hard to do unpopular things that need a long-term commitment.

•   Human Rights. I know Obama’s election seems a victory for human rights, but we still have a long way to go.   Would the country have elected a Jew? A Gay? A Native American? Right after Obama’s election was announced, California banned gay marriage.

•   Moral issues. I know that people want to “move on,” but isn’t there something we can do about those who have abused the constitution? Why aren’t we going after them! Yes, Bush and Cheney! Maybe we could do something like they did in South Africa after Apartheid, a commission on reconciliation that gave people amnesty, but in return that had to spill the beans, tell what really happened, or they would go to the clinker!

•   I’m surprised I’m saying this, but maybe we ought to move on. Or, why couldn’t we have some international body (like at the Hague) try them?

•   If Obama does what he has said he would do; if he comes on strong and undoes the things that Bush and Cheney have done, that will be what we need.

•   Must we stand by and watch in these final days, while Congress is out and before Obama is in, Bush and his team change thousands of regulations thereby allowing the environment to be further endangered, more arsenic allowed in our water, every kind of health care professional allowed to refuse to give care based upon “moral” grounds, and so on. And, so I hear, because the law for making regulations is very complex and requires the sign off by many groups, these regulations will be in effect for years. Cannot the public let Congress know this must not be allowed to happen?

•   Typically, each administration has done the same thing when leaving office.

•   What could we do to prevent the implementation of these new regulations which seem contrary to what the public has said it wants by electing Obama? This is something I’d like to work on.

•   And, what of all the ways that Bush signed, but altered laws, sometimes saying that he would not implement them?

3.     Actions? What might we do singly or together to foster the change we seek?

•   We’re stronger collectively than singly to deal with our U.S. Senators Snow and Collins. I’ve written letters, but get no satisfaction.

•   Single payer health care I feel strongly about. Environmental issues are certainly important, but they require the whole world to collaborate. As long as the rest of the world grows, what we do to solve environmental issues is nothing compared to what is needed. Single payer health coverage is important, one we could get behind to make a difference. It would be my issue.

•   People in Thomaston should call Chuck Kruger to express their support of single payer health care. Invite him to attend a meeting of this group.

•   Will the Obama office advise us of when legislation is coming up that we need to support?

•   I understand that the Obama administration will make the activities of public bodies “transparent,” even use the internet to carry information. Also, I heard that the transition team/Obama team feels that Maine is an important state because our two senators may be inclined to support some legislation in a non-partisan way. Two full-time workers may be assigned to the state.

•   We need to be informed of Congressional proposed bills, as well as those in the Maine Legislature. Groups that track national and state legislatures on progressive issues include:

   - Midcoast Health Care Reform
       (http://www.MidcoastHealthCareReform.org)
   - MoveOn.org
   - Maine Peoples Alliance (Maine Legislature, especially health insurance
       and fair trade)

   - Peace Action Maine (interested in militarism)
   - FCNL-- Friends Committee on National Legislation (especially militarism
       and human rights. FCNL.org)
   - Maine Power and Light. There is a huge and growing movement for the
       environment in almost all denominations now and Interfaith Power and
       Light is a good one in Maine working on wind energy.
      (http://www.meipl.org/index.html)

•   We need to reach beyond our individual interests. Obama’s message is everyone needs to be involved. As a group, our interests may remain diverse. We can share them via the internet.

•   We need to think of what we can do individually as well as collectively. For example, I want to work on school issues. Obama supports charter schools. Our one similar school in Maine, the Limestone, which specializes in Math and Science, was ranked the 12 best such school in the country. That’s remarkable. We need more schools like that.

•   As a person new to Thomaston, I’m just thrilled to meet you all. I would be happy to come to a meeting where we each shared some of our own experiences. We have a very rich pool to draw from. I’d be happy to hold a meeting in my own (after the holidays and inauguration.)

•   We got to know each other during the Big Box campaign. We didn’t get everything we wanted, but, we also prevented a 350,000 square foot WalMart from coming in. And, I recall, when we were starting to organize, I asked my son, Ben, for some advice, which he gave, and he ended with words to the effect, “And just remember, whether you win or lose this battle, you will never be the same; you will have made connections that will serve you in the future.”

•   So, we were able to elect people to the Board of Selectmen, and such. And, during the Obama campaign those big box connections came into play; we were working together again. During the big box campaign, when I plotted our supporters on our zoning map, 90 percent were on Main Street and downward toward the waterfront. So, we have what might be called “a class division.” However, during the Obama campaign, when I did door to door on “the other side of Main Street,” I found many people who thought Obama “awesome.” That was an important lesson for me. He was able to cross class lines.

•   I’ll write up the notes and send them to everyone. Also, as you have requested, I’ll send them to the Obama campaign so they know what is on our minds. I’ll send you copies of our participant list.

•   People can begin communicating with one another by the internet.

•   A few weeks ago, while remembering how often the metaphor of the family sitting at the kitchen table talking about their financial hardships was used, and at the same time being irritated that the Republican’s had co-opted “family values” to mean denying women access to legal abortions or denying gays the right to marry, I obtained a domain name from Network Solutions: KitchenTableOfAmerica.com for $9.99. I also bought: KitchenTableUSA.com. My thought was to encourage families to sit down at their kitchen tables and talk about what family values they might consider when thinking about how to spend, save, giveaway their money.

•   And, when we meet again, there is one thing I’d like to talk about. Just what is the American Way of Life?

•   The Strand Theater is holding a special inauguration day event and it might be fun to go to that event together.

       Tuesday, January 20 ~ 11:30 am Free and open to the public.
       Presidential Inauguration 2009
       The Strand Theatre invites you to witness the historic    inauguration of President- Elect Barack Obama LIVE on the    BIG SCREEN.

One Love...

James — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:39:31 EST

Let's Get Together and Fell Alright....

The neocon idiots are still out there, make no mistake about it. Here comes the Financial Times' Gideon Rachman, idiot-in-charge of that right wing rag and now trumpeted on The Drudge Report. It is time for one world government, according to him. After all, we have these three global problems: financial, warming and terrorism. That the financial is neither homogeneous (applying to all countries in the same way) nor universal (some countries are doing just fine), the warming issue is still conjecture (as to what is really causing it) and the terrorism thing, well, that is just a matter of semantics, which we all know. Our own terrorism is called National Defense, or First Strike Capability, or Collateral Damage. "They' are always the ones committing the terrorism. And Mr. Dufus Rachman supposes, from his time in Brussels writing for the Economist rag one supposes, that the developing European 'model' is the way to go. What model? They can get together and agree on a uniting constitution and they have been trying for years. They can't arrive at all of them on the Euro, even. Everything, including our own security setup is almost exactly as it was on December 6, 1941.

And did anybody really celebrate or recognize that occasion this year? Even though the anniversary was on a Sunday? Not much. We perform such remembrance because we do not want to repeat the mistakes that lead to them. But, we don't really. Somehow, over time, we convert those vital failures into media hype. We trot out the 'survivors' of Pearl Harbor, in that particular case. Even though ninety percent of all the armed forces personnel on Oahu that day were not in Pearl Harbor until well after it was struck. Over the years the role changed for these people. Anybody there on the island (military only, please) became a 'Pearl Harbor Survivor.' You can even get one of those trick license plates (like the Gold Star thing). More people rewarded for doing nothing at all, except they know people who did, or had them in their family. That this kind of behavior dilutes the role of those who really did suffer and fight, well, no matter. We are a culture driven to make 'stars.' Whether they are dumb drooling sports characters with phony college diplomas, porn film stars from wealthy families, or merely people who were in a certain part of the world at a certain time. P.T. Barnum turns out to be the greatest of all American philosophers.

What amazes me, more than anything, is the bright people, who say damaging and hurtful things for all of us, just to maintain their 'voice' in front of the audience. The Ann Coulter kind of thing. They could care less that this mighty ship of state is slowly slipping under the waves, as long as they have a deluxe cabin with an ocean view. Gideon Rachman is one of those. Sad. His father is an psychiatrist working in abnormal behavior. Could anything be more predictive or apropos?

USA TODAY on $4.50 Gasoline Price Floor

Stephen Lee — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:18:00 EST

I read in The Forum of the December 3rd USA Today a piece by Alan M. Webber titled "Blame and the Big 3". A founding editor of the business magazine Fast Company and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors, he wrote:

"For the automakers, that means a bailout should include a government commitment to a floor on the price of gas at the pump - say $4 per gallon - with the promise of an automatic tax increase of 10 cents per year for five years. If the automakers and consumers knew that five years from now gasoline will be no lower than $4.50 per gallon, that alone would drive auto design, manufacturing and purchase in a smarter direction. Some of that increase would need to be rebated to low-income Americans who need their cars for work - another reason it's a three-way deal."

This is almost exactly what I had written up about the use of the CO2 charge and the public benefits fund to provide a stable financial future for this same challenge of changing the auto industry. But my analysis showed that this CO2 charge of $2 per gallon at today's market gas price of $2 per gallon is a very high $ per ton of CO2. On the other hand, this possible government policy also addresses "energy independence" and "US automakers global competitiveness". Both of these national goals also carry a dollar cost for US residents to pay.

The conclusion is: If Americans are willing to pay and make sacrifices, the policy is workable. But if the policy is not flexible and changeable when it is no longer optimal, then it may create unintended consequences.

How to Achieve "Energy Independence" during a Depression?

Stephen Lee — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:15:34 EST

During this global financial and economic crisis, and possible depression, which will last for at least a year or longer, oil prices will likely remain low. This would mean that hybrid cars, and future plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will not be competitive. Investments in large scale wind and solar projects will stop. Other new energy technologies such as coal gasification or liquefaction will also be even less economical. How much taxpayer subsidy do we want to interfere with free market economics?

Mandatory national Renewable Portfolio Standard is central planning in disguise. Large scale wind power developments forced to be accepted into the nation's fragile transmission grid will likely increase the frequencies of blackouts. These will cause economic disruptions. There are solutions to the problem, but the risk of blackouts will still be higher.

The best idea is to modify the proposal to raise the gasoline tax. A carbon public benefit investment program should be instituted instead. This is not a carbon tax, but is similar. A rough calculation shows that a $1 per gallon add-on price is about $60 per ton of CO2 emission, which is very high. NordPool CO2 market price is around $15/ton. I have done some screening analysis which shows that at about $25-30 per ton, a CO2 charge will make wind or solar power plants firmed up with storage economicly highly competitive without tax subsidies. Nuclear and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants would also be competitive.

If we translate $30/ton of CO2 into gasoline price, that is about $0.50 per gallon.

The automobile industry is highly dependent on the oil price, which has become very volatile. Long term investments prefer stable economic and financial forecasts. The government can intervene to provide a stable gasoline price to the consumers by adding a quickly adjusted variable CO2 public benefit charge, so that the consumer price, no matter what the oil company costs are, will be stable at about $3.50 per gallon.That seems to be the breakpoint when people start to feel the pain and want to switch to more efficient or alternate fuel vehicles. At today's gasoline price around $2 per gallon, this means that the CO2 charge would be $1.50 per gallon now. But if the oil price goes back up to $120/bbl, the CO2 charge would be effectively reduced to zero.

Now, how do we make this CO2 charge work in the midst of this financial crisis? The amount of CO2 charge we pay at the pump, if charged through a credit card, can be traced to the account holder and credited to the consumer/investor. (Those who do not have credit cards can use the receipts to file a credit on their account.) I look at this money as being held in a trust fund by the government in the name of the consumer. It may be treated as a savings account which can be withdrawn by the consumer under some conditions. It may eventually be available like another source of retirement income. So the consumers do not see it as a tax burden, but a savings that also is for the public and global good.

Car companies will see this as providing a forecastable and stable financial future for developing more efficient cars. But actually, with today's oil and gasoline prices, the CO2 adder of $1.50 per gallon is about $90/ton of CO2. That is too high. If CO2 credit is traded between the electricity CO2 market and a car CO2 market, the disparity between the $15/ton in NordPool and the $90/ton to make the new car technologies viable would indicate that the world would be better off to reduce CO2 in power generation rather than in cars. Or that if the $15-30/ton CO2 charge is applied to gasoline, then the economics for electric vehicles may not be so favorable.

The same idea on how to treat a CO2 charge on the cost of electricity would apply, but instead of continously adjusting the CO2 price to maintain a stable electric price, the price schedule of the CO2 charge will be projected into the future with periodic adjustments. In this manner, long term investments in different power plants will have a more stable financial forecast. Electricity consumers will similarly see the charge as their investments held in a public benefit fund. They will have some control and ownership of it, and it may be treated as a savings account or a retirement account.

Magnetic generation of power.

Janiece from Saint Louis, MO — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:25:46 EST

I am wondering why no one is taking this technology serious and why we aren't hearing about this ready to go technology that would provide 100% clean energy to the world in a very short time. Of course it will render all other methods useless but why not do that. They have failed and why waste any more time on them. This is an answer to the auto industry, pollution and affordable energy for everyone. This one technology could turn this ecomomy around in a heart beat. It's the most simple and efficient way to go and we need to implement it before we start with wind, tidal, solar and the rest because it will render the all obsolite before they are finished. If you pick up on this and turn your back on big oil and nuclear and clean coal that doesn't even exist you will be a world hero and go down in history as the one guy who really changed the world for the better. Please investigate this and make it happen. It's a bold move to diss the big guys and it will turn the world on it's ear but it is for the good of the people.

Andy Caffrey’s 1996 Climate Crisis Planetary Bailout Plan

Andy Caffrey the Virtual Candidate — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:17:06 EST

Nobel Prize winner in economics Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes have published "The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost Of The Iraq Conflict." As your Congressman, I will introduce a three trillion dollar conversion program to protect us as much as possible from the effects of a destabilized climate system and to minimize our further aggravation of the climate crisis.

When I founded Climate Action NOW! (originally as WE CAN! aka World Emergency! Climate Action NOW!) on May 1, 1996, and declared a global Climate Crisis emergency, I produced and published this draft of a ten-point plan to engage in a "War Effort" to convert our fundamental economic infrastructure to a decentralized, post-fossil fuels (including "Clean Coal"-sic), post-nuclear power, post globalization society as fast as humanly possible. It was and is the only way to confront the actual order of magnitude and urgency of the Climate Crisis. Like the Asian tsunami teaches us, it can become too little, too late. If you don't evacuate from the beach soon enough and get far enough away from it, you will die even if you are running in the right direction.

A 50% reduction in U.S. fossil fuel emissions by 2050 is not fast enough according to the overwhelming scientific evidence. Our actual task is to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels back to 280 ppm as fast as humanly possible, even if it means corporate capitalism falls by the wayside. Look at New Orleans, the Gulf Coast, and Galveston and you can see that every year it becomes too late for millions of people and places. And what is capitalism doing for those people now? If it can't make the changes fast enough, then we must say goodbye to capitalism or lose everything that any of us care about. And if we don't have capitalism, then we have to design a replacement, in the nick of time, or face the collapse of civilization and omnicide.

So as a contrast to the Republicans and Democrats spending three trillion dollars for a genocidal criminal war of conquest to support our corporations, and another trillion dollars (to begin with!) to bailout capitalism and the profits of the super-rich, and to expand our thinking on these matters, I submit here the planetary bailout plan that I've been promoting for twelve years. I'll be revising it soon and would love your input.

Rockin' in the Tree World,

Andy Caffrey
2010 Candidate for U.S. Congress, CA 1st District

Uncorrected version originally published at
http://www.imaja.com/as/environment/can/mandate.html

U.S. Citizens Mandate for Climate Stabilization and Community Well Being (1996 corrected version)

PREAMBLE: Because we are loving and compassionate creatures, and because the best science available to use at this time suggests the need to reduce U.S. fossil-fuel emissions to 80% below 1990 levels in the next five to ten years; because we must do this in concert with similar, relatively-scaled programs in the rest of the industrialized world in order to prevent the likelihood of catastrophic climate changes that would destroy the conditions necessary to produce our food, clothing and shelter, and which would create monstrous storm and flood conditions that would destroy our coastal and river communities and create weather extremes of snow and drought never before experienced by civilized humans,

We call upon our elected and appointed government servants to declare a national emergency to confront the Climate Crisis and uphold their sworn oaths to protect our national and local security and the well being of their fellow citizens by immediately enacting the following emergency program for national ecological and economic security, this Citizens Mandate for Climate Stabilization and Community Well Being.

1. Divert the U.S. Military Budget into the funding of a true program for national, community and personal security; a program which funds the reconstruction of strong, ecologically-benign, local economies in which no American community is dependent upon exporting to the global economy or the destruction of local natural systems to meet the needs of its people. It should include

a) a Community Reconstruction and Revitalization Jobs Program to convert the infrastructures of all American communities away from a fossil-fuel and nuclear energy-based, consumerist economic foundation and toward a zero-waste economic structure which does not degrade the ability of the earth's natural systems to provide a high quality of life for all future generations as long as they maintain the wisdom to live in balance with these precious natural systems and ecological communities.

b) a Natural Systems Restoration Program: the most important and wisest investment in our children's future that we could possibly make, and the most fundamental source of our social security is a program which removes the toxins with which we have overburdened our natural environment for far too long; a program which rebuilds all of the essential structures of our soils, fields and forests, which reintroduces extirpated species where possible, in an effort to restore the natural species interrelationships in the oceans and upon the continents as close as we possibly can to the original, evolving blueprint, the one we never succeeded in surpassing.

We must commence extensive, bioregionally-based, carrying capacity assessments in order to truly know how much change is essential to restore the balanced involvement of humanity with the rest of nature, and to establish genuinely sustainable communities. Climate stability and long-horizon, community self-sufficiency are inextricably dependent upon our success in this endeavor.

c) a Personal Security Program which includes

* the rapid implementation of a 20-hour work week, with a livable wage and social security, in order to eliminate the need for jobs in the production of superfluous, ecologically-destructive consumer items, wasteful promotion-oriented packaging, and to immediately reduce the need to burn fossil fuels to get people to work.

* a substantial guaranteed income available to all citizens who might lose their jobs or be unable to find private sector work as we shut down the destructive sectors of the economy. This income would, for the most part, be linked to involvement in community-controlled conversion and restoration projects. Social Security benefits guaranteed as a birth right.

* free, convenient and safe public transportation.

* free education of any kind, to advance the intellect, the spirit, the body, or the community.

* low cost health care designed around a system of localized neighborhood health clinics to meet most primary care needs at a modest cost.

* free neighborhood-based day care, and other programs to meet the needs and desires of people by involving the elderly and all other civically-minded people who would now have an abundance of free time to get reinvolved in their community, rebuilding the personal bonds and investments in the welfare of their neighbors that truly generate social security and stability, and create the conditions for the pursuit of happiness to flourish.

* extensive government funding for the arts, to rejuvinate our spirits and compensate for the rapid reduction of our personal acquisitional powers once we have to pay something approaching the real costs for fewer consumer goods. It is time to celebrate and restore the meaning of "Cultured Society". It is time for a new Rennaisance.

2. Establish a Zero-Loss Environmental Accounting System, with resource and energy replacement costs inclusive. No net degradation to the ecological foundations of our human economy. We must eliminate our unconscionable practice of "externalizing" costs and dumping their burdens on poorer countries, future generations, and other species. Externalities hide from consumers the true costs of producing consumer goods, reduce their prices to consumers, thus allowing us to voraciously consume murderous quantities of crap, and accelerate the need for landfills and toxic waste incinerators.

3. Implement a Carbon Tax to discourage production and consumption of fossil fuels, and rebalance the false economics that allows nonrenewable energy sources to outcompete renewables in the marketplace.

4. Rescind the GATT and NAFTA agreements and reverse the direction of America's expanding globalization of the economy. Shift with a war-effort intensity toward the redevelopment of strong, ecologically-balanced, bioregionally-based, community economies.

5. To restrict the corporate control of the economy, eliminate the virtual personhood of corporations, and reestablish community control of corporate charters.

6. Establish public finanancing of federal and state elections. Prohibit the purchasing of deceptive, manipulative, mass media election propaganda.

7. Establish a National Citizen Initiative and Referendum Process. Right now our democratic process is limited to the state initiative process which exists in only a few states.

8. Enforce an immediate, absolute ban on any further industrialized or mechanized intrusions in wildland regions, especially the construction of new roads.

9. Decriminalize hemp, to develop fiber sources for paper production and other essential uses which could substitute for industrialized logging production, and thus prevent any further degradation of forests.

Eliminate prison sentences for marijuana-related crimes and allow the development of a regulated, legalized, marijuana economy. This will allow the elimination of tens of thousands of taxpayer-financed, makework jobs, and reduce a tremendous burden on our prison system, and it will allow us to acknowledge that because so many Americans accepted monstrous government lies, we allowed a system of institutionalized violence to terrorize so many of our friends and neighbors.

Jail the real drug dealers, the nation's automobile and oil industry executives and their public relations consultants. We can not create a humane and decent culture in an environment of sanctioned lies.

10. All military funding (except veteran pension and healthcare funding for past and present members of the armed forces) should be raised solely from voluntary military defense contributions. No mandatory taxes to support the armed forces. Only bake sales and panhandling should be allowed. If America is threatened, Americans will eagerly finance their defense. But we will no longer finance the ststematic, genocidal, demolition of nationalized third world economies, traditional indigenous cultures, and the murdering of millions of innocent people in order to dominate an empire of foreign economies so that multinational corporate profits stay high, resource and foreign labor costs remain low, and American jobs, wages, communities, and so many of our fellow citizens disintegrate.

This we CAN DO. We CAN become lovers of life, and each other, once again.

Climate Action Now | Copyright (c) 1996

Elegant nature: Why election bliss went global

Angel Garet — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:37:20 EST

No matter for whom or if you voted, a new rung in the ladder of human evolution is beneath your feet. For Americans who have lived long enough, election night 2008 may have produced the first palpable change felt in forty years. The monumental sense of loss that seemed to last forever after the passing of Dr. Martin Luther King has suddenly waned, allowing us to reflect on how we changed during a time when changes were too insignificant to feel or we were too numb to feel them.

In the interim, and not by coincidence, science has observed in nature a self-correcting mechanism responsible for the evolution of all that we know. Breakthroughs in cell biology and fractal geometry and mathematics have revealed a universal pattern of branching toward balance and perfection in a nonlinear yet persistent manner. It is present in galaxies as well as the systems of every living thing, and it tells us we are born stewards of the planet, wired to be receptors and processors of nature’s input.

Please Help Stop the Reactor Expansion at Plant Vogtle,et al

Dianne — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:33:35 EST

Greetings Everyone,

Because the agencies whose missions have been to protect us and our interests as citizens of this country have allowed themselves to be dictated to by political interests rather than there assigned duties as directed by their mission statements, we find our health & well-being, our environment, and our federal and local budgets are in jeopardy.

I am not just referring to the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but I am also talking about agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission.

The nuclear power industry has been allowed to tell the American public that it provides safe and clean energy to our country. Though nuclear power is neither safe nor clean, it has been allowed to do this by the FCC and the FTC and SEC when it engages in its advertising and when it engages in its business activities. The nuclear power/energy industry has been allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, the Department Of Energy, and state public service commissions to be heavily involved in setting the standards and regulations that govern it. Those standards and regulations, for the most part, do not protect human health or the environment.

The current as well as previous administrations have allowed these regulatory agencies to be run by, and in most cases rendered impotent by having them run with, political appointments and agendas. This has been unfortunate, because now we have an American public who is working from a well ingrained position of ignorance when it has been led to believe that nuclear power is clean, safe, less expensive, and needs to remain 'on the table' as part of our energy solution.

These agencies that were designed to protect us have allowed the nuclear power/energy industry to get away with false advertising in its commercials and publications, they have been allowed to misinform investors with this same false and incomplete information.

Always keep in mind the massive subsidies given to this mature industry by our government using our tax dollars, most of which are freely given to foreign owned companies in the nuclear power industry. France, Japan, England, and Germany.They are the primary benefactors of our tax dollars assigned to Research & Development in the nuclear industry. These foreign companies are responsible for our safety and our nuclear energy production. In addtion, the heavy manfacturing jobs that our tax dollars subsidize don't take place in this country so those jobs are also off shore (over seas).

A nuclear power reactor/plant is not a stand-alone entity that acts as the sole source provider of nuclear power. It is only one segment of the process of getting nuclear power generated electricity to the public. It is only one link in the fuel chain.

We have to face that we are being led down a path that is false from it beginning. Nuclear energy is one of the most egregious emitters of CO2, toxic heavy metals, and other poisonous emissions and we have to stop being led by the nuclear industry to believe that nuclear power is clean, safe energy.

The electricity produced by nuclear power in and of itself is relatively benign, however the waste, including high levels of CO2, which has been created to get us to the production of that electricity will harm you, your children, your grandchildren, and generations after them.

You should also always keep in mind that CO2 is not the only toxin that we have to deal with or be worried about.

The nuclear industry itself uses enormous amounts of electricity in their gaseous diffusion plants, (created by coal-fired power plants). Enormous amounts of cooling water are needed and used, and the highly corrosive and radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. All have adverse human health and environmental impacts.

The waste is pervasive in its movements through our earth, air, and water. It has proven itself to be more than difficult to contain. It has proven itself deadly. Sometimes it will kill you slowly; sometimes it will kill you quickly. The nuclear power/energy industry has of course chosen to do its damage primarily on Native American lands as well as in poor and minority communities. The people who until now had no voice, no say.

But don't be fooled. Nuclear waste is not just a byproduct created at the end of the nuclear weapons, nuclear fuel, or nuclear energy production cycle. The ugliness begins at the beginning and it's not all radioactive.

The Uranium ore needed to produce nuclear power or nuclear energy has to be mined. Uranium is both radioactive and a chemical toxin. Part of the uranium mining process is milling which consists of chemically separating uranium from other ore.

The waste produced is known as milling tailings. In some cases these highly radioactive tailings are left on and near the land surrounding the mines creating another legacy of dangerous waste.

For typical uranium concentrations, the tailings contain an extremely high percentage of the radioactivity in the original ore, along with toxic chemicals and heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic which adversely affect the environment and human health.

After being converted to uranium hexafluoride it is further enriched through the process of gaseous diffusion. Enrichment is required to increase the percentage of Uranium-235 (half-life of 700 million years). Considered to be the "product", it's the isotope needed for nuclear power and weapons.

Uranium-238, aka depleted uranium, another byproduct of gaseous diffusion, is a heavy metal and radioactive. Uranium-238 can be used to breed plutonium-239.

These radioactive and toxic wastes are process and production outcomes. Remember, all of this and we haven't even gotten to the nuclear reactor for the production of the first nuclear energy generated kilowatt.

We really have to let our representatives know that we are not going to continue to allow this industry to control our conversation on our energy needs and our national security. We can look forward to being carbon free and nuclear free if we make that commitment to ourselves, our families, and our environment.

We have to start now to look toward a new type of future, a future that considers all of us, not just one group of people. We have to stop this unsafe practice of giving quick money more importance than sound judgment and survival.

It is time to change how we live in this world, we have to start somewhere, at some point in time. Now is that time.

Peace,

Dianne

Consider INVESTING, but NOT GIVING to Auto Companies

Scott F. — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:20:39 EST

This country must not even consider giving financial support to U.S. auto companies without MANDATING LARGE STRIDES TOWARD ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND REDUCED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Paradigm changes are needed, not just tweaks to CAFÉ standards.

I feel that the best way to start this is by implementing the PICKENS PLAN -- the first step of which would be to mandate that, in the very near future, all new vehicles be powered by natural gas.

No other technology is ready to implement now, and the investment in wind and solar power needed to free-up the natural gas for use in vehicles would be foundational infrastructure for things like plug-in hybrids or all-electrics, should those technologies become available sooner than expected.

Swing the pendulum. Make history. Vote.

Douglas from South Gate, CA — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:38:12 EST

This is indeed a historic election, and for reasons more significant than its being the longest and costliest in U.S. history. Underlying it all is the almost palpable sense that after decades of abuse, we -- the people of the United States -- are reasserting our fundamental right to power. The pendulum, which swung to the Right -- and shifted the balance of wealth and power to the top -- with the election of Ronald Reagan, has begun to swing in a more liberating direction.

An interesting realization

Christopher from Woodinville, WA — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:23:16 EDT

I was thinking about the fact that Barack Obama will likely become the next president of the United States. Then I thought that he'll probably be a pretty good one too. Then I thought he’ll probably get-in for a second term. I.e., Eight years in office – almost a decade. Then I remembered something I read in that latest edition of Scientific American. Scientists now think they were wrong with their estimates about how much time we have to do whatever we have to do to stop global warming before we reach the "tipping point." That's the point of no return; when enough polar ice melts to trigger an unstoppable cascade of catastrophic events. Just last year, climatologist's estimates for the "worst case" scenario gave us about ten years. They now think we have less time than that. I think that most people can’t actually comprehend the urgency of this situation. Maybe it's human nature, but it’s hard for folks to believe that things could really be that bad. This situation is similar to placing a frog in a pot of boiling water. The frog immediately jumps out and saves himself. But if you put him into a pot of water at room temperature, and then slowly and gently raise the temperature to the boiling point, the frog will just sit there—he’ll actually boil to death because frogs can’t sense gradual changes in temperature. So for Earth's present population, it’s a catch-22. Right now things don’t really seem that bad, so it’s hard for folks to get worked-up about the problem. But by the time the situation gets noticeably and undeniably worse—it‘ll be too late. Could it be that the most important task Barack Obama will face will be getting Americans to pull-together to make a monumental stand to save the planet? It'll mean people will have to make sacrifices like they've never had to; more than folks did back in WWII.

Barack Obama and The Environment

Rsg0569 — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:55:02 EDT

My name is Ruthie. I am a middle schooler and the founder of an organization called Carbon-Free Kids. Carbon-Free Kids is a group of kids, like me, trying to make a difference. We are trying to educate people and raise money for the environment. I am also a strong supporter of Barack Obama. Obama brings hope to my generation, hope that we can fix these problems, hope that we won’t be left with huge mess on our hands! Obama has the answers to the biggest problems of this nation, in particular, the environment which is one of the worst global problems ever. Obama will create jobs by investing in renewable energy such as wind solar and geothermal. Obama will put Hybrid cars, cars that can get up to 150 miles per hour thus saving you money, on the roads everywhere. Right now, we can increase our fuel efficiency to 43 miles per gallon and it would mean that we would have to import no oil from the Middle East. This would take the equivalent of 15 billion cars worth of pollution off the roads, right now. Change can be scary but this change is necessary. We have to save our country and our planet, so I encourage you to learn the facts and make a smart decision this November.

-Ruthie

Founder of Carbon-Free Kids

http://carbonfreekids.net

Drilling Offshore and Nuclear Energy taken with a grain of Salt!

Kyle — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:45:28 EDT

To My Fellow American,

We environmentalist have been fighting long and hard the last eight years to make sure that our environment, the environment we will pass down to our children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren is still a good and healthy environment with nature given a chance to flourish and man right with nature because we are a part of nature.We environmentalist and conservationists are not anti business or industry. We need to work, and we also like to have our cars and other things that businesses and industries make and sell just like anyone else, but we have to sometime just slow down and stop and think, do we need to pollute that river or kill those animals or worsen global warming to help business. There are ways that we can help business and not harm our environment.

John McCain, it seemed like the last few years has seemed to change his attitue concerning the environment. Before 2000, McCain was a very traditional Conservative Republican Senator from Arizona. After losing in two thousand to Bush, he seemed to pull a different attitude especially towards the environment. He and Sen. Lieberman wrote a bill to help combat global warming. Although it was a weak bill it still was a bill to get things started. Lateley he seems to be going back to his old ways. The League of Conservation Voters lifetime score for John McCain is a low 24%. The best score he has recieved from that organiations was from the early 2000"s of 53%, which is not a great score either. McCain's stance on off shore drilling certainly doesn't say that he is a strong environmental advocate. McCain'sstance on nuclear energy is a little worrismoe too. Nuclear does not add any pollution to global warming there is always the concerns of a meltdown is always justified. If you asked anyone at the Department of Energy what are the chances of a meltdown, they might answer not as high as it was in the seventies with three mile island but it certainly isn't zero either. Plus the question of what we do with the spent fuel afterwards id a question that the answer is still being sought out. McCains is against the spent fuel rods from going through Arizona on its way to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. What does that tell you? I have my doubts about Nuclear. I am not against it, I just have my reservation about it.

Several months ago, John McCain, after recieving a big endorsement check from the oil companies, is when John McCain seemed to change his stance on the subject of drilling off shore 180 degrees.Therefore, I am taking everything that McCain says, especially on the subject of the environment, with a grain of salt.

Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:26:51 EDT

Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Nuclear Mutagenesis. Watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4397307903287515932

Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Excessive Cost: "When it comes to nuclear power specifically, every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon, and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower, than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and "micropower" (cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams). Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants!

"These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in "Forget Nuclear," and fully documented in "The Nuclear Illusion," available for download here, which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' journal Ambio. (courtesy of rmi.org)

Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program has said, "Switching from coal to nukes is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."

Here is the Natural Resources Defense Council's position on Nuclear Power: http://nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf.

Make a small statement. Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower

Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option.

The large utilities eager to build nuclear power plants are now suddenly pressing Congress about global warming. Very convenient. But is nuclear power a solution for the problem of global warming? Hmmm, No.

1)Nuclear power plants are too expensive to build. The nuclear power industry refuses to accept responsibility for the unique risks of nuclear power and demands massive federal subsidies so that they can rake in profits on their suspect investments. To quote the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) position on nuclear power: "Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. The power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change." Quoting the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC): "Our national electricity needs could be met, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent or more, through a combination of increased energy efficiency, wind power, solar power, advanced coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and high-efficiency natural gas turbines."

2)Nuclear power is extremely unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged in a reference document "that early containment failure cannot be ruled out with high confidence for any of the plants." Even with the most technologically advanced checks and safeties, eventually some critical part of everything man makes fails. If an explosion occurs at a gas-fired or coal-fired plant, this is not good. But if a nuclear reactor melts down and breaks through its containment vessel, we have at least a regional catastrophe. Large areas of necessary habitable land are rendered uninhabitable, and people die of radiation-caused cancer.

3)To again quote the Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power: "Nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal."

4)Quoting the NRDC: "Plutonium is a normal by-product of electricity production in conventional reactors. Thus, the same reactors and fuel-processing facilities that are used for energy production can also be used for the manufacture of weapons." "Perhaps the most serious of all the problems that would be exacerbated by dramatically increasing global nuclear capacity is the threat of nuclear proliferation."

Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower

BARACK THE FREE WORLD!

BENCHMARX — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:12:51 EDT

BENCHMARX is a ROCK BAND based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia!

Hear our tribute to BARACK from a Muslim Country:

www.myspace.com/thebenchmarx

www.reverbnation.com/benchmarx

BENCHMARX are BARACKIN' THE FREE WORLD!

It's time for a change! Especially from the perspective of foreign policy and countries overseas!

For more information and free copies of BARACKIN' THE FREE WORLD contact BENCHMARX at:

benchmarx@gmail.com

ROCK for a change!

BENCHMARX

It's Official... She's Staying Through the Election!

Brady — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:25:41 EDT

I'm happy to report that Granny Gobama has decided to stay in Ohio through the election. She already sent her request to California for her absentee ballot and has changed her flight home. The project that we launched together - 85andchange.com - has been more popular than we could have imagined and after all our effort, we could not imagine being apart on Election Day. So my grandmother will be moving over to my house to stay for a few weeks.

Together we will focus more energy on her blog, and try to get her out to even more events. This will also allow her to have further face-to-face conversations with some of her older friends here in Ohio and tell them again why she is supporting Barack Obama. Maybe... just maybe... she'll be able to convince another voter, as she was able to convince her Florida voting Son!

Go Obama!!

Debating Climate Change

Nick — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:56:04 EDT

Here's my big question to Sarah Palin:

Why are you for capping Greenhouse gas emissions if you don't think that humans are causing the increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?

I wish that Biden had called her out on this. Was Biden scared that Palin would go after his clean coal comments? I also wish that Biden had called her out on her comment that Alaska is the state that is most impacted by climate change. Tell that to residents of New Orleans and Galveston. The increasing strength and probably of hurricanes is due to increased water temperatures, which are a direct effect of the average global warming of the atmosphere.

I recognize that we have a global problem at hand. One problem with getting the world together to cap greenhouse gas emissions is that some countries will be positively affected and some will be negatively affected by "global warming." It is hard to convince my friends in Alberta that this is a serious problem, but I think that it will be easier if we use Thomas Friedman's term "global weirding." As we have seen, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere does not cause a linear rise in temperature. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere has a strongly non-linear effect. This means that we are less able to predict future weather conditions. In fact, we are making the global climate more and more chaotic.

The tough question remains: What can we do about it?

For example, it doesn't make sense that those countries that voluntarily choose to cap greenhouse gases should pay a penalty for doing so. In this regard, I agree with President Bush on not signing the Kyoto Protocol. India and China emit substantial amount of greenhouse gases and they need to be members of any treaty on capping greenhouse gases. Any treaty that the US signs with respect to greenhouse gases should include ways of protecting US workers if India and China do not sign the treaty.

A Blast from the Past

Leslye J Allen of Atlanta, GA — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:28:21 EDT

This weekend I sat in my car for over half an hour in a line at a local gas station. Why? Well, Hurricanes Gustav and Ike have damaged the coast and hampered oil production in both Texas and Louisiana. Was I thrilled about this turn of events? In a way I was quite thrilled in spite of the fact that I could end up being inconvenienced to the point of only leaving the house for an emergency. Let me explain.

Back in 1973 Republican President Richard Nixon asked Congress to grant him emergency powers to lower fuel consumption and circumvent environmental regulations in order to meet the demand for fuel as the nation faced a natural gas, fuel oil, and gasoline shortage. The Arab-Israeli War, that had begun in October of 1973, had forced oil-producing Arab nations to make the decision to cut oil production and shipments to the United States. In the mid-1970s, after Nixon's fall from grace, Democratic President Jimmy Carter donned heavy sweaters in the Whitehouse and asked Americans to lower their thermostats to conserve a certain finite source called oil. The nation suffered a brief oil shortage back during his administration. President Carter tried to warn a largely disinterested public about the danger of America's dependence on foreign oil. There were public service announcements about how oil was (and remains) a finite resource and that we needed to conserve it and find other means to fuel our cars and warm our homes. Carter was right back then, but I doubt if anyone was really paying attention.

I have been involved in environmental issues for over ten years now as a member of the National Resources Defense Council. I proudly recycle plastic, glass, and all kinds of paper. I buy as many biodegradable products as I can find and take my canvass bags to the grocery store rather than use store-brand petroleum-based plastic bags. I drive a fuel efficient car and pray that when it is time to buy another car that the hydrogen car can be purchased nationwide rather than in a few enclaves of California. I have had numerous debates with an assortment of nitwits who refuse to believe that Global Warming is real. I have often been called a "tree-hugger." I ran into some of those folks at the gas pumps this weekend. I did not gloat. I did not have to.

I watched Barack Obama debate an out-of-touch John McCain on Friday September 26. I watched Barack tie our dependence on foreign oil to our missteps in Iraq. The Bush administration's unwillingness to promote investment in alternative energy solutions is also a problem for our economy. Alternative energy solutions is the way out of oil dependence, further environmental degradation, and a means of jump-starting a sluggish economy. It has taken a while for some folks to catch on, but Jimmy Carter was right. Barack need only continue connecting the dots.

economic crisis & the man at the top

Jonathan — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:54:15 EDT

Not that it means much, but I was very impressed by Obama's composure, security, and body language at yesterday's (9/24) press conference. Bravo!

That said, I just want to add that confidence is a very important psychology at times of crisis. I'm not talking about blind optimism, that is a very different thing. In 1980, Ronald Reagan gave people confidence that the recession would end and things would get better. It worked in the sense that the economy boomed. Of course, as I said then and reiterate now, it was at a big price. It took 25 years for the piper to come around and get paid, but that is what is happening today, in more ways than one. Deregulation that started under Reagan is responsible for much of the economic mess we are in. Add to that his discarding of an energy policy (that Carter had wisely undertaken) has forced us into two wars in Iraq and left us terribly vulnerable to the increasing instability of the fossil fuel-based economy. We have also been irresponsible on the issue of global climate change.

All of these things are very important to consider. On the one hand, we need to have confidence in our leaders and ourselves that we will overcome this economic crisis, and on the other our leaders must take wise policy decisions with the long view to not sacrifice our children's world for the sake of ours.

Palin Wins Rubber Dodo Award!

Irish Musician for Progressive Solutions — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:50:16 EDT

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin Wins 2008 Rubber Dodo Award

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2008/palin-09-17-2008.html

Thinking our way out of current critical messes

Jean Latz from Arlington Heights, IL — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:13:39 EDT

When you stop to think about it, probably no single person on Earth can cut through the tangles of the financial mess we seem to be in.

I have heard it stated that the global economy in all its interconnectedness has become so complex that no one really knows anymore which actions will be helpful and which will trigger a cascade of unintended consequences that lead to disaster.

Like most people, I don't think in terms of short sells and insuring defaults and insuring the insurers of the defaulters. My guess is that few of us even knew what AIG was before we woke up a morning or two ago to discover that if something wasn't done to save keep it from going under, it really could be the end of the world as we know it – and we wouldn't be just fine.

Eve Ensler (The Vagina Monologues) On Sarah Palin

Charley James — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:38:34 EDT

The unfortunate thing about Eve Ensler is that she wrote a famous play about vaginas. That's enough for any Fundamentalist to write her off, but they are not her target. She is trying to reach other, ordinary hockey moms who think Sarah Palin is just like them – not.

Eve Ensler, the American playwright, performer, feminist and activist best known for The Vagina Monologues, wrote this about Palin:

Drill, Drill, Drill

I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe it's their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the Arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the fact that they live so comfortably on ice.

Whatever it is, I need the polar bears.

I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.

But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which, for me, is part of one story connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.

I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity.

Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming is melting of Arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God."

Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not.

She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and thus is a good example of how many babies abstinence makes.

Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library and has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well end up President of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.

Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.

Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be.

I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our hands.

This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S., but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression.

If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent.

I think of pain.

Do we want a future of drilling? More holes in the ozone, in the floor of the sea, more holes in our thinking, in the trust between nations and peoples, more holes in the fabric of this precious thing we call life?

Eve Ensler

"Global Warming" hysteria may be the tip of iceberg

Dougydad — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:34:56 EDT

35 years ago when I was in high school Geology class it had been determined we were in an interglacial period. This means we were getting to the peak mid point between ice ages that have happened about every million years in the past. In the 70's "Global Warming" had not been invented. It was thought though, that Miami, New York and Tokyo could be under water by the year 2000. My point is that although we are making things worse with greenhouse emissions, this is also a naturally occuring process. We need to start thinking ahead to how to combat the rising tides and keep them out of theses cities now. Even if we completely stop letting pollution into the air, Mother Earth will still probably flood our cities before things start to turn around. We need to start thinking sea walls, and how to start setting money aside now for the tremendous task that inevitable lies ahead.

Join the WE Campaign action network for clean fuels!

Irish Musician for Progressive Solutions — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:23 EDT

Together, we can repower America with clean electricity and help solve the climate crisis.

Make a difference today, take action on our campaign to make electricity production carbon free:

http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/291/

Where's John McCain?

Tim — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:44:24 EDT

Where does John McCain's stand on these issues?

$57 Trillion in debt (incl medicare and social security)
Energy (peak oil and its consequences)
Global warming
Trade Imbalance
Education reform
Crumbling national infrastructure
Permanent underclass
Foreign policy challenges; i.e. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, China, North Korea. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. etc.

How about Sarah Palin? Do they agree with each other? I'd like to know. Where's John McCain?

GLOBAL WARMING – LEFT, RIGHT OR REALITY?

Tom from Manhasset, NY — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:42:51 EDT

I would suppose that all the people reading here have and awareness of the debate around global warming. There is so much more to the global warming story than what is talked about. Unfortunately people on both the right and left are using it politically and I fear that it has become something people are not taking seriously because it has become so partisan.

The reality of global warming is that most (if not all) of the conclusions that you may have heard have a small basis of truth, but not more than small. And I mean both the gloom and doom from the left and the “no problem” attitude from the right.

We are not destroying the earth, just a few species, potentially including humans.

Now that I have your attention, read with an open mind. I will draw no conclusions other than humans need to evolve. The two choices for evolving are genetically (as in survival of the fittest) or evolve to a more sustainable lifestyle. Remember that the lifestyle in most developed countries not only promotes conditions for some degree of global warming, but more importantly degrades the quality of air and water. Ever wonder why childhood asthma rates can be correlated with decreased air quality?

I’ll digress a bit for a second and explain a bit about chaos theory so I can make some points. Unlike the name, Chaos Theory is not about the study of chaos, but the study of order and mass interdependencies among competing forces. In a chaotic system a balance is achieved among these competing forces. On earth this balance has created the conditions for life as we know it to exist.

The essence of chaos theory as applied to an ecosystem is that the ecosystem adapts to changes so that a balance is achieved. The balance is an evolved form of the previous balance. That evolution always leads to change that is both destructive and constructive.

Most changes in an ecosystem are small. The evolved ecosystem has little to no impact on living things and these living things will evolve as well in reaction to the small changes in the ecosystem.

If the evolution is brought on too quickly the destructive part is great and swift, with potential extinction among slowly evolving life forms. However, a constructive part will follow and balance will yet again be achieved.

Over the last 400,000 years one can correlate rises in greenhouse gases to rises in Earth's average temperatures (ice core data from Antarctica confirms this), but of course we did not produce greenhouse gases back then.

In reality, the percentage greenhouse gas that we produce is very small in comparison to what occurs in nature.

Its also interesting that the rise and fall in temperatures is a leading indicator for the rise and fall of greenhouse gases (over the last 400,000 years).

400 years ago the earth hit its highest temperature in the past 400,000 years. Since that time greenhouse gases have been on a steady rise highly consistent with normal cycles.

In the past 50 years greenhouse gases have had a 15-20 percent increase over the normal curve (caused by us). Temperatures have followed their normal cycles.

So what does that mean? That's the problem no one really knows.

Given the rules of chaos theory here, in the past our ecosystem has evolved to react to the various cycles and achieved a balance where living things can exist. We have now disrupted that normal cycle and I would challenge any scientist to provide any theory that they would honestly feel more than 50% sure that it is right.

But the point is that dire predictions always cause rebuttal by non-believers. This causes a debate about who has the more accurate theory and not who has the answer to put earth back on its normal cycle.

What is needed here is a more rational dialogue among all sides. There is a significant lack of progress here due to the debate being dominated by people who are either on the extreme left or the extreme right. Both sides will agree that what we are doing is not natural; therefore we need to change our habits to make sure that the earth has a chance to rebalance itself.

This is one important topic that we all can contribute to, without the interference from politicians. Its easy, make conscience decisions to reduce consumption. I am not talking only about reducing driving or turning off lights, consume more locally produced goods, get an extra year out of your car, maintain your home, and reduce impulse buying.

And guess what, you will save yourself money as well.

Election 2008: Hope vs. Fear. Unity vs. Division. Success vs. Failure.

Douglas from South Gate, CA — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:47:03 EDT

A Reflection on 9/11/08 (as cross-posted in OpEdNews.com) ...

The Historic Election of 2008

"In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
"The first is freedom of speech and expression. ...
"The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way. ...
"The third is freedom from want. ...
"The fourth is freedom from fear."

Those Four Freedoms were enshrined in the State of the Union speech by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in January 1941, just months before Pearl Harbor, the most devastating attack on America to that date. Today, seven years after another horrific shock to our collective system, we are embroiled in an election that the entire world recognizes is of truly historic proportions -- and not just because of the amount of pigment in one candidate's skin, or even the centuries of slavery and discrimination with which his race has been burdened. Simply put, the election of 2008 is no less than an epic contest between hope and fear: hope that can set us free, and fear that can be -- and is -- exploited to keep us divided and to some degree conquered, by powers-that-be both foreign and domestic.

Government, Though Imperfect,
Is Not the Enemy. It Is Us!

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
-- Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

Surely unrecognizable to Abraham Lincoln -- who gave his all to preserve the federal government of the United States -- the Republican Party today has as its bottom line the mantra that government is part of the problem, not part of the solution. But government, of course, even as imperfect as it is, is the one and only body constituted for we citizens to secure our liberties, as by reigning in those who would -- intentionally or inadvertently -- oppress us.

That truth has come down through history to our challenging modern times, when corporations exert more control over the lives of ordinary individuals than any government ever did at the time of our revolution. There is nothing inherently evil about a corporation; it is, of course, a truly remarkable creation for turning a profit. But by the same token, there is nothing inherently benevolent about a corporation; it exists in law for the enrichment of its shareholders, not necessarily the benefit of society at large. It is, thus, a legitimate and vital role of government to regulate the commerce of corporations, so that the rights of all are protected.

Indeed, even the security of corporations themselves is enhanced by prudent government action. The severe financial crisis we are experiencing today is a direct result of the deregulation -- not the regulation -- of business in recent years. New Deal reforms saved the banking system -- and thus American capitalism itself -- during the Great Depression; it will take likewise wise and far-reaching action by our government to quell the current crisis and restore confidence in our historically debt-ridden public and private sectors.

For the GOP to continually attack government as the enemy is tantamount to attacking whatever we as a people can and must do together in order to survive and thrive, as it has necessarily been since the dawn of civilization.

"[T]hat the strong may not oppress the weak."
-- From The Code of Hammurabi

Obama: Uniting Our States

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Paraphrasing Jesus Christ

This year, as four years ago, the electoral map of the United States is eerily reminiscent of the Free State / Slave State map of the Civil War. Moreover, that pattern of Blue States and Red States is repeated throughout the country as "blue counties" and "red counties" -- the former more urban, the latter more rural, the swing votes mainly in the suburban and exurban regions.

That divide seems at times to be as unbreachable as it is untenable: No nation can long survive as a nation if its people are permanently balkanized along lines of race, creed, religion, or any other difference. Looking at it another way -- and that is how a democracy is supposed to function, isn't it? -- it is easy to tell a nation's enemies from its allies: Your foes want to divide you; your friends want to unite you.

"[T]he end of the U.S. as united states"
-- The Stated Goal of Usama bin Laden

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Most remarkable to me in the current election -- and emblematic of why this is indeed a historic contest for the spirit of America -- is that when Sen. Barack Obama's poll numbers go up, that divide between Red States and Blue States becomes more "violet": Such swing states as Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida break up the monolith of Red States with patches of blue, representing millions of Americans responding to the senator's inspiring calls for unity and hope, appealing to the better angels of our nature.

But when Sen. John McCain's poll numbers go up, those newly Blue States return to the big Red block, as he and his ruthless running mate play politics with personalities, while calling for more of the same economic and foreign policies that under the current administration have led our nation to the brink of economic and military ruin. And none of that would have been possible without the support of Republican lawmakers, 90% of the time including the hypocritically self-proclaimed "maverick" McCain.

"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Reject Fear, Embrace Hope!

"America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand."
-- President Harry S. Truman

Fear comes easy. Vincent Price, master horror moviemaker, said fear is the most primal emotion. In contrast, hope takes courage. Whether it is taking your first steps alone as an infant, saying wedding vows with your spouse, putting your confidence in others on the job, volunteering with a church or other group in your community, or supporting candidates and initiatives -- yes, by our government -- that will restore our nation to greatness, putting your faith in something that entails real risks as well as potential rewards takes not only courage but also sound judgment.

And it takes cooperation between great numbers of us "little people" to stand up as necessary to the powers-that-be, both foreign and domestic, who profit by purveying terror and other forms of fear or hatred and other forms of divisiveness.

"The great constitutional corrective in the hands of the people against usurpation of power, or corruption by their agents is the right of suffrage; and this when used with calmness and deliberation will prove strong enough."
-- President Andrew Jackson

The greatest things this nation has ever accomplished -- from winning world wars and establishing Social Security and Medicare to putting men on the moon -- have come about only through teamwork: popular movements supporting and led by bold, bright leaders.

Likewise, the greatest things this nation will next achieve -- re-establishing stability in the financial markets, restoring equity to our tax system and fiscal responsibility to our budgets, fixing the broken health care system, inventing new Green technologies and American jobs to counter Global Warming, and yes, even bringing justice to those who actually did attack us seven years ago today and who are still undoubtedly plotting against us in regions where Bush and McCain have not concentrated our forces -- will require vast efforts and inevitably some sacrifices from our citizenry as well as intelligent, ethical, effective action from our leaders.

America has succeeded. America can succeed. And America will succeed, but only if we work with each other, not against ourselves, through the much-maligned auspices of the government of the United States -- the duly constituted power of the people.

"Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of 'anything goes.' Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America."
-- Sen. Barack Obama, From "The Audacity of Hope," His Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

White Roofs Could Combat Global Warming

EyeDfy — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:01:20 EDT

An interesting article in the CSmonitor that I am SURE to forward to my Architecture buddies.

"If the world’s 100 biggest cities were to whiten the roofs of all of their buildings and use more reflective pavement, the global cooling effect would be huge, a new study has concluded..."

My Top 10 Reasons for Voting Obama (and not McCain)

Travis Cook — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:26:34 EDT

I have been rabidly obsessed with this election since the very start of the primaries a year and a half ago. Watching news coverage more obsessed with silly rhetoric and stories about flag pins and pregnant teenagers is driving me crazy. To do my best to fight this insanity, I'm sharing my top ten issues-based reasons for voting for Senator Barack Obama and not Senator John McCain:

10) Sarah Palin - Given that there is a one in three chance that John McCain will not survive a maximum presidential term, I do not want a president who favors banning books (seriously).

9) Transparency - John McCain's campaign is staffed by lobbyists (just like most of Bush's administration). Barack Obama moved the Democratic National Committee headquarters out of Washington to Chicago in order to curtail the influence of lobbyists and corruption. John McCain is trying to shut down a non-partisan investigation looking into Sarah Palin's firing of Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner. Obama will open up all Washington business to create a Google-like search where anyone can keep track of federal money. Bush has shrouded our government in so much conspiracy and cronyism, and Obama will bring about something that's been missing for the last eight years: accountability.

8) Torture - Considering the man was tortured for five and a half years, you would think this would be an issue in which McCain would not flip-flop. You would be mistaken. He voted against the Feingold amendment (he originally supported it), which would have prohibited much of the same torture that McCain endured. Life is not an episode of "24." Waterboarding, stress positions, hypothermia, severe sleep and sensory deprivation - this is not "robust interrogation." It is torture that violates the Geneva Conventions. John McCain should know that America is better than that.

7) Look at the Campaigns - It is an obvious thought. If you want to know what kind of president someone will be, look at how they run their campaigns. Barack Obama's campaign is funded mostly by over 2 million contributors who usually give less than 50 bucks. It is an immense grassroots movement. There have been no major staff shake-ups, and the highly disciplined campaign's motto is "No Drama." The bulk of McCain's war chest comes from the Republican Party, which is dominated by big-money donors. His campaign manager is Steve Schmidt, who is a former lobbyist and a member of the exclusive "Breakfast Club," the group of advisers, led by Karl Rove, who ran Bush's 2004 re-election campaign against John Kerry.

6) Gay rights - Future generations will look at our inability to grant basic civil rights to gays and lesbians at the federal level with disbelief. We must repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and give all capable Americans who want to valiantly serve our country the freedom to do so. We must ensure that gays and lesbians have the right to visit their partners in the hospital. We must let gay couples be judged on the same criteria as straight people when adopting. We must allow committed gay couples to be included on their partner's health insurance policy. If you agree in these basic human rights, Obama must get your vote.

5) The Earth - Someone should really tell John McCain that oil is something called a FINITE resource. The answer to our energy woes is not "Drill, Baby, Drill." Anyone who tells you that drilling for more oil will fix the energy crisis is an idiot. The reason we invaded Iraq? We did not like buying oil from Saudi Arabia. A big reason Russia invaded South Ossetia, Georgia? Oil pipelines . Oil is at the root of our biggest national security crises. We should have started investing in renewable energy decades ago, and if we don't start now, we will pay for it dearly later.

4) The Earth (Part II) - Hey, did you know that all this oil we consume is destroying our environment? You see, there is this thing called Global Warming and - oh, you've heard of it? Okay, in all seriousness, it's estimated that sea levels will rise about 1-2 feet worldwide by century's end. This is catastrophic. Hundreds of millions of people may die. And still, McCain's excited message: "Drill, Baby, Drill." Unconscionable.

3) Health Care - America is way behind in Health Care. When health care companies suggest assisted suicide instead of treatment, the system is fundamentally flawed. Health care is not about a company's profit margin. It is evil for companies to deny their clients medical coverage because of insurance contract loopholes and BS about "pre-existing conditions." The US needs to move toward Universal Health Care. We are the only developed nation that does not have it. The total financial burden of 45 million uninsured Americans far outweighs the possible cost of insuring everyone. Obama wants to fix Health Care. McCain wants to give you tax credits so you can buy into a broken system. Your call.

2) War - A mere month after 9/11, McCain was leading a drumbeat to war with Iraq by openly speculating Iraq was behind the Anthrax letters being sent to Congress (there has never been evidence of this, just as there is still no evidence Iraq was behind 9/11). The Iraq War will be remembered as one of this country's biggest mistakes, marked by falsified intelligence and incredible military mismanagement. McCain goes against Iraq's President (as well as the will of the American people) in resisting to allow our troops to begin returning home. He speaks openly about the possibility of initiating military conflict with Russia and Iran. Our military is stretched too thin and cannot afford a McCain presidency.

1) The Supreme Court - Given that one of the most liberal justices, Justice Souter, was appointed by the first President Bush, it's amazing (and really lucky) the Supreme Court is not as radically conservative as it could be. With John Paul Stevens and/or Ruth Bader Ginsberg (both currently in the Liberal minority) set to probably retire within the next four years, the highest court in the land could skew dangerously right wing, and it will most likely last for a generation. If your daughter or granddaughter is raped, do you believe they should be required by law to give birth to that child? If Roe v. Wade is overturned (which will happen under McCain), kiss your right to privacy and choice goodbye.

Feel free to pass this on.

qualifications to lead: belief in science

Jonathan — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:39:19 EDT

From my unfortunate vantage point as an unenfranchised voter, it is incredible to me that people in the US can consider as qualified for high office someone who has no respect for science. Especially after 8 years of such leadership. There is an element of the "right" that considers science to be "opinion". This element threatens the future of the US as a scientific, technological, and, in fact, intellectual leader in the world. If they have their way, the US will be a nuclear armed country populated by ignoramuses. This is extraordinarily dangerous and threatening to our future.

Denial of such well-established scientific theories (in the scientific sense) as evolution would leave our children ignorant of the processes by which biological systems form. It threatens our ability to cultivate the eager minds of our youth to become the discoverers of cures for terrible diseases.

Denial of the profound evidence for global climate change is not simply stupid, it is colossally dangerous. The implications of climate change are terrible to contemplate, and such denial asks to leave our children with a world that spirals into the worst of all possible scenarios. These are not just environmental, but geopolitical and economic as well.

Isnt it ironic

Colorado "Hussein" Mamma for Obama — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:10:30 EDT

Ironically, a huge ice shelf broke free in the Canadian Arctic today. The day that Ms. Palin, who has not been to Canada (even though Alaska borders Canada) and who does not believe that there is evidence of Global Warming, or the imminent threat to the Polar Baers, gives "the speech of her career." Its like the globe, and specifically North America, is trying to get our attention because she is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear.

Courage is the key to renewable energy change

Andrew Duggan — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:25:20 EDT

The world we live in today has been structured in a way that favors the safe and predictable path. Risk taking is avoided, or worse, shunned. Security and certainty drive the very core of day-to-day decision-making. When risks are taken, they are taken with a tenacious measurability, to ensure a soft landing should the tides turn in an unwanted direction.

In this way, the foundation of our world, both social and economic, is maintained…With this in mind, how can a Renewable Energy Revolution unfold?

Solving this puzzle is the key to unlocking a bright future for America and the world. I believe that the millions of us who have come together under Senator Obama's banner of Change are the ones to make this a reality.

Is your vote still undecided?

Ethel — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:12:32 EDT

My decision on who to vote for in this year’s presidential election has been teetering back forth until this past weekend. The minute I heard who John McCain had selected for his VP running mate I knew I would be voting for Obama. I love the wild animals and areas of America. Sarah Palin supports the aerial killing of wolves and bears in Alaska, even though Alaskan voters have twice petitioned and won a place on the state ballots to permanently stop this cruel slaughter. Palin has clearly demonstrated that once she is elected she is a whore to the special interest groups, the big boys, the oil sheiks of America. Her political stand is to screw the earth and all creatures that live on it. She doesn't believe in global warming, she must be blind because the Arctic icepack is melting right in her own backyard. She support's arctic oil drilling. Her favorite activity is probably clubbing baby seals each spring. In fact, I bet she personally sends out the invites to her 'special' friends and passes out the clubs.

Obama’s got my vote.

The Exxon-Mobil Candidate

Bud — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:23:35 EDT

In 2000 and 2004, the Republican Party's ticket consisted of two Texas oil men: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

In 2008, the Republican Party's vice-presidential nominee will be Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Alaska's most inportant product is crude oil. Governor Palin supports drilling in ANWR. Her husband works for BP (formerly called British Petroleum).

Before Palin was selected, John McCain had met her only once or twice. This raises the question--who chose Palin to be McCain's running mate? Was the choice made by McCain, or by the oil companies?

The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund opposes Palin, because she supports drilling in ANWR, she opposes the listing of polar bears on the Endangered Species list, and she supports the aerial hunting of wolves.

Palin also does not believe that global warming is caused by human activity.

Palin Discrimination

Steve Sulkin — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:54:14 EDT

Discrimination, the word evokes such unfairness, clearly the wrong thing to do. Most commonly we use the word discrimination to describe when a group of people are excluded. But a more insidious form of discrimination is the inclusive form, choosing people based on their gender or race. Discrimination, “the unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender” is what the Sarah Palin pick is all about. Discrimination is now "ok" if used inclusively.

You are being asked to vote for Sarah Palin because she is a woman. That is insulting to men and women. It insults us and it insults Governer Palin. Are we treating Governer Palin unfairly choosing her simply because she is a woman? Are we treating the voters unfairly giving them this choice simply because she is a women? The answer is yes. She should have been selected based on her qualifications and her viewpoint, both of which are, in the first case, barely existent and in the second case, at odds with John McCain. So why was she chosen? The obvious reasons that are certainly not my singular observations:

A. To do something “historic”

B. To pander to the “disaffected Hillary voters” (who are few and far in between and typically pro-choice and anti-gun and therefore would never vote for Sarah Palin)

C. To appeal to the far right (pro-gun, pro-life, anti-environment, pro-big oil).

When I first heard on MSNBC that Sarah Palin was chosen I literally thought it was a joke. It sounded like a Saturday Night Live parody. “McCain chooses former Mayor of 6,000 person town in Alaska, Moose Eating Right Winger Sarah Palin, Who Will Be Heartbeat Away from the Presidency.” It reads like an article from the satirical newspaper “The Onion.” If it was a joke, it might be funny. But the fact that it’s true, is terrifying, because it speaks to the poor judgment of John McCain and what can only be described as irresponsible to the safety and future of the United States.

The arguments that the Republicans, who seem to have an unlimited reservoir of blatant nerve, make are:

1. FALSEHOOD: Sarah Palin is no less qualified then Barack Obama.

FACT: Sarah Palin’s been a Governor for 20 months (taking office in December of 2006) and Barack Obama has been a State Senator for 8 years and a U.S. Senator for 3 years, that is 11 years of being an elected official for one of the most populous States in the union. Prior to becoming Governor of Alaska (smaller in population then Canton, Ohio), Sarah Palin was the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a 6,000 person suburb whose two industries, gravel pits and a Wal-Mart essentially make up the economy. Barack Obama, in contrast, prior to becoming a State Senator taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years, went to Harvard Law School and became the President of the Harvard Law Review. Then, instead of taking a job in a large wealthy law firm (which he was offered) spent time helping people on the South side of Chicago who lost their jobs when the steel mills closed. Barack is an attorney and a scholar (written numerous books and countless papers to great acclaim). Obama has sponsored over 100 bills, is an expert on foreign affairs (contrary to what the press says) and has spent nearly his entire adult life in public service of one sort or the other. Sarah Palin, in contrast, was a beauty queen and a sports reporter prior to becoming Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. And the above are simply highlights of two very different people with very different careers. On one hand, Barack Obama, a brilliant individual who has thought out positions and experience on virtually every important subject matter important to America and on the other hand, a radical right wing conservative who has never written a book in her life let alone formed a public opinion on any foreign policy issue or for that matter, very few national issues.

But the oddest thing about the statement that Sarah Palin is no less qualified then Barack Obama is, does that mean that the Republicans are saying now that it’s ok to be unqualified? That undercuts their argument against Barack Obama. It clearly doesn’t even make sense from their viewpoint.

2. FALSEHOOD: Sarah Palin is Like John McCain, an Independant Maverick

FACT: Sarah Palin is far to the right of John McCain (even the current John McCain and very far from the year 2000 John McCain). Most concerning about Sarah Palin is that she is so radical as to be out of touch and out of sync even with John McCain. She believes that global warming has nothing to do with “man”, that it’s natural and we need not to worry about it (yes, true she believes this), believes that Polar Bears should be taken OFF the endangered species list, is an avid hunter and lifelong member of the NRA (against all gun control of course) and wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade outlawing abortion (of any type for any reason).

I cannot imagine Sarah Palin negotiating with the President of Iran or Putin of Russia. She has no experience. And if for some reason she gained the experience on the job, I cannot imagine her viewpoint becoming U.S. policy and the firestorm it could cause throughout the world. She is like Bush, fight first, ask questions later. That is her personality, a neo-con to the core, more similar to Dick Cheney then John McCain. And interestingly she would be Dick Cheney if McCain is elected, influencing McCain, possibly running the government. Why? Because John McCain, like George W. Bush is vacuous, clearly not able to make his own decisions and lead with independence and guts. He leads through fear (currently the fear of not getting elected which is why he made this hail Mary pass of selecting Palin) and fear of other societies (that’s why he wants to confront and go to war with Iran as well as stay in Iraq for “100 years” and have permanent bases in Iraq).

Yes, there is much to be afraid of in this world, but that is why Barack Obama picked Joe Biden, who could face and solve those fears as carefully as Barack Obama will. I would not be concerned about Joe Biden becoming President. But I’m deeply concerned about Sarah Palin becoming President. We must realize that when we pull that lever we are deciding on who will take over for the President as much as who will become the President.

We all have a simple choice: Elect intelligence or elect ignorance. I choose intelligence. And if you too choose this, you must get out there, canvas, help the Barack Obama campaign in every way possible. Because if history as is often the case, becomes the predictor of the future, we will choose ignorance as we have done in virtually every case in the last 40 years, a time span that has netted us only two Democratic presidents.

John McCain says Country First. What he is really saying is People Second. Vote for Change. Vote for Us. Vote for Barack Obama.

Sarah Palin is George W. Bush in a Dress

Victoria Mac — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:32:18 EDT

If there was ever any doubt as to whether John McCain will give us 4 more years of the failed Bush aganda, look at who McCain chose for a running mate!! It's George W. Bush in Drag!

If you don't believe it, read this:

Obama and Gore must go after Sarah Palin for not believing in global warming!

Michael from Toronto, OH — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:22:37 EDT

Since McCain believes in global warming, and has a platform, which includes ways to curb carbon emissions, and investing in renewable energy resources, global warming hasn’t been much of an issue this election. Of course Obama would do more to curtail global warming, stricter standards, and McCain is only pledging 1/5 of what Obama plans on spending in renewable resources, but with that said, McCain’s VP, which will only be one heartbeat away from the presidency, doesn’t believe global warming is manmade.

Palin disagrees with McCain, and the world’s top scientists, that global warming is caused by humans: “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made," she told Newsmax in September.

Basically, Palin thinks 2+2=5. She doesn’t believe in the scientific fact that man is warming the planet. Why aren’t the democrats going after her on this? I’ve only seen the democrats talking points regarding her experience, however, since Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ and the mainstreaming of the ‘going green’ movement, and ‘we can solve it,’ campaigns, I think middle America, and common folks out there would like to know that Palin doesn’t believe in global warming,

The Obama campaign needs to put out a campaign ad out yesterday that basically shows Obama, “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message…” Cut to Al Gore, “A few years ago I made the documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ my motivations were to educate folks out there that the globe is warming at an alarming rate, all the world’s top scientists agree on this, and believe we must act now to curtail carbon emissions, in order to stop global warming. We’ve made a lot of progress with the WeCanSolve it campaign. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents came together pledging to do their part in saving our precious planet.

With that said, Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sara Palin, doesn’t believe in this simple scientific fact, that humans are causing the planet to warm, and humans will be responsible for saving it. Palin not only disagrees with over world’s top scientists that global warming is caused by man, but she even disagrees with John McCain. To think, that someone such as Palin, as VP, would be so close to the presidency, and doesn’t believe in science, is a scary thought. All we have fought for in the environmental movement will be shattered if Palin gets into power.

That’s why I’m supporting Barack Obama, he not only believes in global warming, but he proposes more solutions, and will provide more funding than any other president in history, to curb our carbon emissions, and invest in renewable energy resources. Our planet is peril, and Barack Obama understands that. With Sarah Palin, you get more of the same Bush type polices that threaten our environment…”

And AD featuring Gore making the case against Palin on global warming would be very effective. This should have been done yesterday.

Gustav would like to remind you why we shouldn't do offshore drilling.

Jason — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:35:24 EDT

Meet Gustav, 24 hours old.

In three days he will damage several offshore drilling platforms off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

The logic behind building more offshore drilling platforms is senseless.

As global warming continues, so will the potential for more violent and destructive hurricanes in the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic. But this isn't a problem people in the South and East coast face. California has the potential to be hit by hurricanes too, though most of the time it is the remenance of an East Pacific hurricane. (As if the earthquakes and the fires are not bad enough!)

So continuing our dependence on oil, foreign or domestic will continue to increase greenhouse gasses. And the continued dependence on oil will cause economic strain as the oil industry will collect millions on insurance (something that people on dry land can't get because the insurance industry serves those with the most income in the first place) for repairs and drive the price of oil up every time a Gustav or a Katrina, Rita, Hugo, or Andrew like storm occurs.

The price of food will not decrease until farmers recieve alternative energy support first.

Some farmers do not like the idea of wind energy although the amout of space a single wind turbine occupies is very minimal. If they chose, they could use biomass as a source of energy. The oil, gas, and nuclear energy industry continues to push old number showing the flaws of wind, solar, and biomass and spreading lies about alternative energy and recalling the old problems earlier forms of alternative energy had but are now reduced or solved due to newer alternative energy technolgy.

Farmers need alternative energy support first as they produce the food that America and the world needs. We learned this summer that biodesil and ethanol are not the best choices for alternative energy, in fact they still rely on the use of crude oil and waste pleanty of resources (i.e. corn or sunflower stalks that can also be processed). Then there is the fact that ethanol is poisonous to bees that need to polinate food crops. It is more than likely that excessive ethanol usage may be a factor in Coloney Collapse Disorder (CCD) which threatens to decimate the bee population and in turn cause poor crop yeilds.

Worse yet, continued usage of ethanol drives up food prices as our energy demands are gluttonous. The more we spend on energy, the more we buy foods that are not as healthy as the foods that are healthy become more expensive. Why should America continue to suffer an obesity epidemic if healthy food is not as affordable as junk food?

The price of oil has been down the past couple of weeks, but DO NOT BE DECIEVED! Everytime we have a hurricane in the gulf, oil prices will spike, and with more offshore platforms being damaged the more likely we will pay at the pump and at the diner table.

What's the National Taxpayers' Union?

Chris Roesel — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:49:14 EDT

Being unemployed, the rise of gasoline prices especially hits me. So, when the National Taxpayers' Union (NTU) called me today urging I contact my representative, I was interested. What I understood from the call is that the NTU, whoever that is, wants more drilling in the USA. From my understanding of economics, that will displace my paying of high prices to foreigners and make it so I pay more of my high prices to USA suppliers. Prices may also go down some if worldwide demand decreases. That’s good re our foreign debt, 50% of which is due to buying petroleum from other countries. But I've also heard about global warming. A Pentagon study found global warming would produce more of a crisis by 2025 than terrorism. What’s the plan about that? Why not urge Congress to re-set CAFÉ 2020 (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiencey) to 50 MPG rather than 35, which was the target they set in August? It's presently 44 MPG in France but only 27 in the USA. Wouldn’t that kill two birds with one stone, so to speak? I’d really appreciate guidance on this one. I really hate to urge things that aggravate some problems while easing others, don’t you?

Florida for grab - Tropical Storm Fay - Offshore Drilling

Obamanizer — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:02:50 EDT

Once Fay is gone, just wait for the McCain campaign to flood into Florida while the Democrats will be bound to their convention.

Instead this would be a great chance to point out the failings of this administration again. The dangers of global warming in connection with the dangers of offshore drilling.

Yes We Can Grow Our Way Out Of The Energy Crisis

Nayer — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:36:05 EDT

One of the many reasons I'm voting for Barack Obama is his wisdom regarding alternative energy like hemp biofuel. Senator Obama supported an industrial hemp bill when in Illinois, and does not seem afraid to actually solve problems. If the Industrial Hemp Farming Act ever gets out of congress, I suspect he'd take a leadership role in using nature to solve our problems of energy and global waming.

Yes we can use hemp to grow our way out of our energy crisis.

Hemp 4 Fuel - a roll-in from 'Time 4 Hemp'

"According to World War II production rates of hemp per acre, we can produce the equivalent of 10 - 15 barrels of oil from one acre of hemp.

If we use the production rates that are in evidence in countries currently producing hemp, we could produce the equivalents of 20-30 barrels of oil per acre of hemp.

Can we fuel the nation with hemp?

The answer is YES!

According to United States Agricultural statistics, in the United States we have an excess of 950 million acres of farm land.

Of that land we planted in 1987 some 450 million acres.

This leaves some 450 to 500 million acres un-planted."

Though the piece above was from the early to mid 90's and the size of the nation has grown, we still have enough unused land to grow the hemp needed to both scrub the air of excess CO2 and provide a clean, easily renewable energy source.

Oil, nuclear and coal make no sense with hemp biofuel, magnetic, solar, hydro, wind and other safe, clean energy sources. Toxic and dangerous energies are not effective strategies as they leave horrors for future generations to deal with. What good is a strong economy if we're all dead from global warming drama.

Hemp is nature's way to remove the oil from the land and change it into useful items like energy. Our greed got the best of us and we pulled the oil at a rate faster than natural. The result, global warming.

Hemp is a biomass champion that is 4 times more efficient than corn as biofuel.

Hemp energy pellets burn clean as biomass to fuel the nation's electric plants.

For more information from the film THE BILLION DOLLAR CROP

Hemp 4 Fuel - a roll-in from 'Time 4 Hemp'

Artist Statement From Youtube:

Added: October 11, 2006 (Less info)

"This is a segment from the film, 'The Billion Dollar Crop' created by John Birrenbach. It was used as a roll-in on the television series, 'Time 4 Hemp' hosted by Casper Leitch. To find out more about the first television series to ever focus on the topic of marijuana, check out http://www.time4hemp.com/ where you can find over 80 free video and 100 free audio downloads. Time 4 Hempcable access © Casper Leitch - 1991 "

Text of webeo:

"Fuel. Hemp can also be used for the production of methanol.

According to World War II production rates of hemp per acre, we can produce the equivalent of 10 - 15 barrels of oil from one acre of hemp.

If we use the production rates that are in evidence in countries currently producing hemp, we could produce the equivalents of 20-30 barrels of oil per acre of hemp.

Can we fuel the nation with hemp?

The answer is YES!

According to United States Agricultural statistics, in the United States we have an excess of 950 million acres of farm land.

Of that land we planted in 1987 some 450 million acres.

This leaves some 450 to 500 million acres un-planted.

In order to produce the amount of methanol to fuel all of our transportation needs, we would need to plant some 12-34 million acres of hemp.

This would produce the biomass necessary to fuel our country."

For more information on hemp please visit the USA Hemp Museum, http://www.hempmuseum.org/, a private museum with a virtual wing. Richard M. Davis is the museum's founder and curator and he has a book called HEMP FOR VICTORY: A GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTION.

To restore wisdom to the White House, I'm voting for the person who wants to help us solve our problems without creating new problems for future generations, like nuclear waste under a mountain on a fault line (Yukka Mountain, Nevada).

Gobama. Gobama. Obama '08.

Global Warming

No One Of Consequence — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:45:14 EDT

My state representative, Cynthia Davis has a new title. Hence forth she will be known as the psycho whack job anti-science global warming denialist young earth creationist nutcase™ or pwjagwdyecn for short. I know I shouldn't be surprised that she is a global warming denialist, it fits perfectly with everything else I know about her.

Are you hot? It seems like most of the global warning stories push harder when it is hot outside. The stories don’t seem to have the same effect when it is freezing. Let’s face it. Very few of us are scientists.

Some of us are obviously less scientists than others. The temperature here, in Ofallon, today, has very little impact on the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE over the course of A YEAR. This may come as a surprise to you, but global warming has to do with, ya know, the whole Earth, which is actually bigger than St. Charles County. In fact, it's even bigger than all of Missouri.

It is a little bit intimidating for non-scientists to understand all of the basic science, numbers, and assumptions that form the many theories about global warming.

Here Cynthia, lets see if you can see the correlation between these graphs:

Notice how the temperature is going UP and the amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is going UP at the same time. Do you think they might be somehow related. Now, we are pretty certain that increased temperature doesn't cause more CO2 in the atmosphere, so do you think maybe CO2 in the atmosphere might be affecting the temperature instead.

How many of you remember the last half of 1999 when we were told that computers may stop working because they were not programmed with the ability to be Y2K compatible? That is very similar to what we are being told about “Global Warming.”

Cynthia you moron, the reason Y2K was basically a non event, was NOT because the threat wasn't real, it was because a whole bunch of people who understood the problem spent thousands of man hours digging through millions of lines of computer code to make sure that all of the date functions were switched to using the full date instead of a 2 digit date. The only similarities to global warming is that the people who understand the problem can't can't solve it by themselves. They need to convince incompetent politicians like yourself to enact the legislation necessary to prevent the problem from worsening.

As for the science itself, the debate is far from finished.

Cynthia, you seem to be a little confused about how science works. It isn't actually a debate. Science is about interpreting data and creating theories that explain that data. The theories allow us to make predictions, and if the predictions don't hold, the theories are adjusted to make sure they explain the available data.

Now Cynthia, I know this doesn't fit with your warped political and religious views, but Global Warming IS happening. Evolution IS happening. There is no debate in the scientific community about this. There are discussions about some of the finer points about what contributes to Global Warming and to what effect and there are intricacies of evolution that are being investigated, but there is no debate that these things ARE happening. Look at the charts again -- global warming IS happening.

Cynthia goes on to give links to denialists websites and videos, including "Action Institute: Christians and Global Warming". WTF does Christianity have to do with Global Warming?

I prefer to get my science from, you know, scientists. I find the National Science Foundation to be a good place to look for Science information. They have over 2500 articles on Global Warming, in case you are interested.

[[mirror]]

Do you remember when the environment was a going concern?

Jedidiah Palosaari — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:06:04 EDT

Ah, halcyon days. When we cared about the environment. When we were concerned about Global Warming. When we didn't want another Hurricane Katrina, and we cared about New Orleans.

Now it would seem that the majority of Americans are in favor of off-shore oil drilling. We are in favor of it, evidently, so that we can fix the energy crisis by becoming energy independent. These are the buzz words these days.

Evidently, it is a good thing to be energy independent- to not rely on other countries for energy. This way, we will become more isolated from the rest of the world. We can become more elitist, more parochial, more isolationist. This will likely help the rest of the world like us more. It will also keep more of our money in our hands, and continue the unfavorable trade imbalance begun in the early 1800s, where the wealthiest countries take from the poorest countries of the world. For Venezuela and Yemen should be put to shame for hoping that their oil reserves might help the general populace.

We need to drill because we need oil. We need the psychological support of pretending that oil reserves are going to last forever. We need to be able to pretend that the reserves that are present on America's coasts are more than a drop in the bucket. We need to be able to pretend that that oil is a renewable resource. (Of course, it is. Just over the course of 100s of millions of years, when a lot more animals and plants die and decompose and become oil. And our current environmental policy is actually well structured to increase oil supplies dramatically in 300 million years, at the rate that we are killing off other species.)

We need a way out of this mess. We need to pretend that new oil drilling will produce a drop in prices now, or at least ten years from now. We need to pretend that that future drop in prices will be more than a few cents, more than offset by the increase in inflation. We need to pretend that oil companies aren't using all of their allotted prospecting areas, and need another bailout from the federal government.

But the greatest make-believe that we require is that there is no environmental crisis. That there is no Global Warming. That Katrina never happened. All we have to do is say it three times and click our hands, and the world is black and liquid again, without giant killer storms, intense heat and permanent dust bowls, rising sea levels and countries disappearing, and 100s of millions of people made refugees.

In all the talk about how Americans want oil drilling, no one- not the press, not McCain, not Obama- is talking about how dangerous it is to continue oil drilling at all. Yes, we need oil to run cars and make plastics. But our goal should be the removal of any need for it at all. Practically, we will be forced into this in about twenty years, as oil reserves dwindle completely. Environmentally, we can't wait that long, because Global Warming's tipping point is now. This isn't some left-wing-environmental-freak thing. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) It's the issue that people are dying, and will die, in dramatic, horrifying numbers, if we do not stop Global Warming now.

That's incorrect. They will die, in horrifying numbers, no matter what we do. We have a choice, however, of stopping a logarithmic escalation of those numbers. Good on you, Obama, for rejecting the failed policies of oil drilling, and offering a $7,000 rebate to new hybrid purchasers. But let us remind the voters, America, and the world that this is this is a matter of stopping the failed policies of the last 100 years, destroying our home. This is a matter of life and death, without hyperbole.

Rectifying Bush's Failures: Global Warming & Katrina

David in Toronto by way of New Orleans — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:15:44 EDT

Yesterday, Obama gave a speech describing his energy plan; here's how we can work toward those goals now. A project called, Geothermal Power for Low-Income Home Owners, is up for consideration at American Express' Members Project. You can see it here: http://www.membersproject.com/project/view/CJSUUF.

Al Gore's 10 year Plan. We should support it

Hamilton from Arroyo Seco, NM — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:40:13 EDT

Talk about leadership. Al Gore has proposed a 10 year plan modeled (sort of) after Kennedy's 10 year plan to put a man on the moon to get all of our electricity from renewable resources. He says we can do it! It would go a long way towards solving the energy crisis, combatting global warming, and would put thousands of people at work rebuilding our electricity grid and installing windmills and solar equipment etc, etc.

Here is his web site: http://www.wecansolveit.org/

I think we should all join this effort. It is a clearly thought out strategy for right now. We should encourage Barack to join as well and make it part of his environment, job, and energy plans.

Ham in Taos

The On-Going Trash Talk....

Mike P — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:49:17 EDT

I wrote about this in my blog, http://www.outsiderviews.com, that I wanted to pass on for the community to review:

I just had the misfortune to catch Hannity and Colmes, whereby the discussion centered on Senator Obama's discussion on the race issue. Such discussions, to me, totally divert from the main issue. To me, the overriding issue is to save our planet and plan for the future. End of story. Andrew Simms of the new economics foundation has put out the warning. He wrote about it in the Guardian today

Andrews Simms has told us that we have 100 months left. I mean the signs are already here. Look at the fires in California, in Greece, the floods and thunderstorms in the U.S. Midwest, the continued desertification in Africa, etc. etc. We have to launch a New Deal now. We're running out of time. When will the world wake up? While the world continues to edge towards the abyss, we have to be subjected to discussions on Senator Obama being accused of being arrogant and Senator McCain being a Saint.

Now, I am absolutely frusturated by how low the right wing and the mainstream media the campaign has evolved into. Our planet is in peril, we're fighting two major wars and yet we are talking about things that truly have no value. I guess when they have nothing to talk about, they smear..that I understand. But, we were fooled in 2000 and 2004...not again though.....not again!!!

On a side note, guess who called Senator Obama arrogant: the most arrogant, rightwing of them all, Rick Santorum.....

the wrong kind of balance

Mikeystyle — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:44:58 EDT

Make urban public transit free!

Bill - WW4 — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:50:32 EDT

Just as public education benefits all, so does public transportation. Even if you live nowhere near town, you benefit from public transportation. The taxpayer has to pay to support the auto-and-sprawl system that we have, while the oil, coal, and auto companies profit. That is a subsidy. The auto and sprawl have been subsidized enough. Making public transit free will start a reversal of that subsidy.

Here are two sites where you can read more...

http://freepublictransit.org

http://frepubtra.blogspot.com

Obama's Leadership on Climate

marguerite manteau-rao — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:52:46 EDT

In case you missed it, Obama was featured three times on my environment blog, over the last week. Here are the links:

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/obama-says-us-needs-to-take-the-lead-on-climate/

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/barack-in-berlin-a-new-chapter-in-environmental-history/

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/climate-high-on-obamas-list-during-berlin-speech/

Besides the posts, you may also enjoy reading some of the comments from readers.

Can Climate Change Sell Candy? Should It?

Charley James — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:08:17 EDT

It seems that ad agencies are glomming on to global warming as a cool new way to sell products.

I’m not talking about the oil company ads that want us to believe that ExxonMobil or BP or Shell are environmentally conscious and seeking non-fossil fuel energy sources even as they continue to pump out millions and millions of gallons of products that continue to pollute the planet each year, and generate record profits in the process.

Nope. I am talking about something completely different: Selling candy to babies (regardless of their age).

Imagine my surprise last night while watching the Red Sox-Angels game to see my screen suddenly turn a bright, glowing orange during a commercial break. Framed in a deep yellow, up came the words “Stop Global Warming Now” followed by a dissolve to a second screen in the same colors with the words “Or All The Reese’s Pieces Will Melt” appearing along with a shot of candy with the chocolate turning all runny and gooey.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before some 23 year old creative director earning a half-million dollars a year said to a client, “Hey! Let’s show the real impact of global warming. All the chocolate will melt!” And the idiot client clapped their hands together and shouted “Great idea! Finally something positive to come from climate change!”

Next thing you know, George Bush and John McCain will protest the spot claiming that there is no proof climate change will cause chocolate candy to melt.

Madison Avenue has never been loathe taking the low road to sell anything. All you need as proof is seeing McCain's latest TV spot to realize this. But the destruction of the planet probably is going too far, even for the vast bulk of the advertising industry.

Sen. Obama, Are you worth voting for? A Test.

Tom Canavan — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:17:14 EDT

Dear Senator Obama,

I have posted a Presidential test for you on YouTube. It could cure poverty for millions. Type in search word 'anonbene' and watch the video. Give us your answer.

Tom Canavan

The Benefactor Project.com

Values, Statesmanship, Competency, Infrastructure - A Shared Vision for a New America

Doug Robinson — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:29:47 EDT

Values, Statesmanship, Competency, Infrastructure: These four principals highlighted tonight’s Grass Roots Democratic Platform forum in Great Falls. Eight people, assisted by an able moderator, Chuck Tyler wove together an effective tapestry of issues in their discussion of primary concerns they would like to see addressed by the Democratic Party and its Presidential Nominee during the next four years. Though the overall discussion centered on domestic policy, the group was unanimous that foreign policy was of equal importance, one of its members pointing out that a balanced concern between domestic and foreign policy was indicative of a truly successful and responsible nation.

The Story of Stuff: YES WE DO affect the planet

Wayne Stevenson Thomas — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:45:57 EDT

The Story of Stuff, a 20 minute web presentation by Annie Leonard takes us through the consumption cycle, which is largely invisible to us, even as our actions drive it. It is a classic complex system harm situation. Our actions indirectly harm others, but because the harm is indirect many people refuse to accept responsibility.

Even our Democratic politicians (including Barack) are too tied to the belief that growth in consumption is the only solution to our problems. But, I don't know how they could be elected otherwise. There isn't a majority constituency in favor of simple living. We all remember Jimmy Carter getting ridiculed for suggesting we wear a sweater instead of turning the heat up.

I highly recommend this entertaining and thought provoking presentation.

Click Here For The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard

How global warming may destroy the earth sooner than we think.

Laura Schneider — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:43:08 EDT

The polar ice caps are what cool the earth's atmosphere for the entire planet. They are composed of ice and permafrost. Because melted water is actually darker than ice, it absorbs more heat, raising the temperature of the water, compounding the warming exponentially.

Permafrost is actually more than just pure ice. It contains plant and animal material that, when warmed decompose and emit methane gas. This melting process is exponential. The warmer the atmosphere is, the more permafrost we lose. The more permafrost we lose, the warmer the atmosphere becomes. It becomes a vicious cycle that is not easily reversed and that has catastrophic consequences to our planet.

Once we lose the permafrost, we will lose the majority of the polar ice caps and the earth's air conditioning.

Link

"The scientists found the expansion of the lakes between 1974 and 2000, fueled by a period of regional warming, increased methane emissions by 58 percent.

The melting permafrost releases carbon-rich remains of plants and animals. These remains sink to the bottom of the lakes, decompose and produce methane that bubbles up to the surface and into the atmosphere.

Although nowhere near as prevalent or long-lasting as carbon dioxide, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas, with more than 20 times the heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide.

Methane is released by humans through burning of grasslands, forest and wood fuel as well as by intense livestock activity, rice cultivation, and industrial sources - and there is little doubt these activities have boosted methane levels in the atmosphere.

A study released Monday by the British Antarctic Survey found that in the past 800,000 years methane had never tipped 750 parts per billion (ppb), but is now 1,780 ppb."

--------------------

We always thought that Armageddon (the earth on fire) would be the result of global thermonuclear war. It may very well end up being caused by the buildup of methane gas in the atmosphere ignited by a lightning storm that finally burns the earth's atmosphere into hell fire. Scientists have theorized that the initial blast could be greater than a combination of the strongest nuclear warheads or as devastating as a large meteor hitting the earth.

I have seen two specials on this problem. This is not something to take lightly.

Bush's approach to global warming

Mikeystyle — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:17:15 EDT

Bush the Short-sighted

Cherie — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:17:54 EDT

I suppose nothing should surprise me when it comes to the audacious disregard for the environment by George W Bush and his adminstration but somehow he manages to appall me almost every day. Today he announced that the administration would oppose regulating greenhouse gases on the grounds that it would destroy our economy. Does he not realize that doing nothing will ALSO destroy our economy - and far more permanently? How short-sighted can one man be? What scares me is that Senator McCain is not all that much different. It frankly scares me to think that perhaps NO American politician has the moral or political will to do what must be done with regard to global warming. Maybe not even Barack Obama. I hope I am wrong about that but I fear that corporate interests control the politicians in this country to such an extent that no one dares defy them. My hope is that Barack Obama can rise to that challenge.

Bush NASA press appointees suppress warming info

Marcia Riquelme — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:24:32 EDT

News
Climate Findings Were Diluted, Suppressed, Distorted, Probe Finds

Tuesday 03 June 2008

»

by: Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post

Bush Political Appointees in NASA press office blamed.

An investigation by the NASA inspector general found that political appointees in the space agency's public affairs office worked to control and distort public accounts of its researchers' findings about climate change for at least two years, the inspector general's office said yesterday.

The probe came at the request of 14 senators after The Washington Post and other news outlets reported in 2006 that Bushadministration officials had monitored and impeded communications between NASA climate scientists and reporters.

James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and has campaigned publicly for more stringent limits on greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, told The Post and the New York Times in September 2006 that he had been censored by NASA press officers, and several other agency climate scientists reported similar experiences. NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are two of the government's lead agencies on climate change issues.

From the fall of 2004 through 2006, the report said, NASA's public affairs office "managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." It noted elsewhere that "news releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution."

Officials of the Office of Public Affairs told investigators that they regulated communication by NASA scientists for technical rather than political reasons, but the report found "by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claims of inappropriate political interference made by the climate change scientists and career public affairs officers were more persuasive than the arguments of the senior public affairs officials that their actions were due to the volume and poor quality of the draft news releases."

The political interference did not extend to the research itself or its dissemination through scientific journals and conferences, the investigators said. "We found no evidence indicating NASA blocked or interfered with the actual research activities of its climate scientists," the report said, but as a result of the actions of the political appointees, "trust was lost, at least temporarily, between the agency and some of its key employees and perhaps the public it serves."

Kristin Scuderi, a spokeswoman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in an e-mail that director John H. Marburger III "would not comment until he's reviewed the report, and he has not yet done so yet. Therefore, OSTP has no comment at this time."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the senators who pressed for the investigation, said in a statement that the report showed that citizens had been denied access to critical scientific information that should inform public policy.

"Global warming is the most serious environmental threat we face - but this report is more evidence that the Bush Administration's appointees have put political ideology ahead of science," Lautenberg said. "Our government's response to global warming must be based on science, and the Bush Administration's manipulation of that information violates the public trust."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And a comment:

Wed, 06/04/2008 - 10:26 -- BJ Major (not verified)
Unfortunately, this is not news. Two years ago, Al Gore's movie mentioned James Hansen and this deliberate coverup by the Bush administration and how scientists were being silenced. My question is, WHY is nothing being done about it and why aren't the people responsible for this coverup being prosecuted and punished for doing so???!
m

Greenhouse Gas from Flatscreen TV Taken to Task!

Nick Danger — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:22:50 EDT

A synthetic chemical widely used in the manufacture of computers and flat-screen televisions is a potent greenhouse gas, with 17,000 times the global warming effect of carbon dioxide, but its measure in the atmosphere has never been taken, nor is it regulated by international treaty. As reported by the Los Angeles Times in an article appearing in today's edition.

The chemical, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), could be considered the "missing greenhouse gas," atmospheric chemists Michael J. Prather and Juno Hsu of UC Irvine wrote in a paper released June 26 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "With the surge in flat-panel displays, the market for NF3 has exploded."

Alarm bells have begun to ring in climate scientest quarters with the increased production. According to calculations by Chemists Proather and Hsu it has a life of 550 yeaers.
When the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international global warming treaty, was negotiated to control the rapid rise of planet-warming gases, NF3 was a niche product used in modest amounts in the semiconductor industry.

At the time, computer chip manufacturers used perfluorocarbons to clean the vacuum chambers where integrated circuits were made. But about two-thirds of the PFCs escaped into the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect, a warming of the Earth's surface.

Reacting to environmental concerns, the industry sought a substitute -- and estimated that NF3, was less likely to escape into the air though it had much greater potential for causing global warming. "The world's leading producer is air products in Allentown, PA stating they moved into the production of NF3 for environmental reasons. The company received a 2002 Climate Protection Award from the Environmental Protection Agency for its transition.

Last year, Air Products announced a major production expansion at its U.S. and Korean plants. About three-quarters of the chemical is now used to manufacture computer microchips; the rest is used to make liquid crystal display panels on flat-screen televisions, Painter said.

Overall, world production of NF3 is likely to reach 8,000 tons a year by 2010 as stated by an executive at AIr Products. That is the equivalent of more than 130 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. By comparison, according to the UC Irvine paper, a major coal-fired power plant producing 3,600 megawatts of electricity emits as much as 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year.
Prather stated that about 2% of NF3 is emitted during manufacturing and that much of that is burned off before reaching the atmosphere. "a slippery gas" such as NF3 could easily leak out undetected during manufacture, transport, application or disposal. "We don't know if 1% is getting out or 20% is getting out. . . . But once you let the genie out of the bottle, you can't get it back in."

Prather also said UC Irvine researchers were working on a method to measure concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere so that industry emissions estimates would not be the only source of information.

Atmospheric scientists not connected with the paper said the authors had raised a significant issue for future climate negotiations.

"NF3 lives a very long time in the atmosphere," said Charles E. Kolb Jr., an IPCC scientist with Massachusetts-based Aerodyne Research Inc.

"We are having a hard enough time controlling carbon dioxide and methane -- we shouldn't be creating a new problem."
We need to know how much of these super-greenhouse gases are up there."

The Kyoto Protocol covered six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride. Shouldn't the government be looking into this? Would this be an issue Barack Obama and the Democrats might sieze and take the lead on? Is it worth mentioning at all at this stage? And lastly, are there even any real answers for the public to discuss and consider? -Nick Danger

Party Platform

Lorne Runge — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:05:49 EDT

Our party platform should address global, national, and local concerns.
Globally, terrorism and climate warming should take center stage. Terrorism should be addressed through building strong alliances with foreign nations and funding proven policing methods and sanctions. War, especially guerrilla war should be specifically disavowed. Warming adaptations especially energy conservation should come before expanding oil availability especially when burning oil aggravates global warming.
Nationally we should address our racist past by admitting that our genetic gifts are equal and race does not help in identifying who needs special help. Obviously economic disadvantage is important and the poor do need extra help. Our educational and housing programs should use a common, accurate sliding scale when charging for services.

BIOFUELS WITH A NEGATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT

John from Dayton, OH — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:34:56 EDT

Ethanol can play a significant part not just as a carbon neutral transportation fuel but also as a means of removing large quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Biofuels play a major role in energy policy as defined by recent U.S. legislation; legislation designed to reduce dependence on petroleum and mitigate global warming. The intent is to produce a domestic transportation fuel derived from non-fossil sources. A fuel derived from alcoholic fermentation of cellulosic starches is recognized as a significant contributor in this effort (1). Alcohol produced by photosynthesis and fermentation is recognized as a carbon neutral fuel; a fuel whose combustion exhaust products, primarily carbon dioxide and water, will be again processed into various alcohols. Alcohol produced and used in this way is known as having a zero carbon footprint toward global warming. Alcohol fuels can have a significantly greater effect on mitigation of global warming by the simple expedient of sequestration of the carbon dioxide produced in the fermentation process. The added sequestration step yields a fuel with a very negative carbon footprint. Approximately equal quantities of alcohol and carbon dioxide are produced in the fermentation process. One third of the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere is available for sequestration while two thirds is converted to alcohols. This is valid in the production of ethanol as well as for other alcohol species. This combination of several processes, not new but current technology, holds promise for significant removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
For the purpose of definition, the carbon footprint of a fossil fuel is 100 % since all of the carbon of the fuel increases the atmospheric carbon dioxide load upon combustion. Combustion of alcohol produced through photosynthesis and fermentation adds no new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere; it simply returns CO2 of combustion to the atmosphere and the carbon footprint remains 0 %. Sequestration of the carbon dioxide of fermentation, one CO2 produced for each two-carbon alcohol, yields a carbon footprint of negative 33.3 % since a third of the fermentation carbon is sequestered. Using a portion of produced alcohol for all energy requirements for further production, including transportation and agricultural energy, the carbon footprint will remain negative 33.3% for the overall process.
The recent publication of the "Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" has concentrated the attention of much of the world on global warming, for the present. The governments of the industrialized and developing countries have expressed intent to reduce global warming, primarily by reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by fossil fuels. Indeed various levels of effort have been initiated among various nations of the world.
Much work has been done in an effort to understand global warming and much is known about causes and the natural variation of temperature over great time spans. Although we do not know with great certainty the proportion of natural to man made warming we do know that man can have a large effect on temperature by burning fossil fuels. Whatever nature contributes we enhance. If our contribution is large, our efforts to reduce global warming by reducing use of fossil fuels become imperative. If our contribution to global warming is overwhelming our environment it can be useful to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; it may, even now, be imperative that we do so.
We are seeing increasing inflation in world food prices caused, in part, by production of bio-fuels from food grains. These inflated food prices are affecting the support for the production of alcoholic fuels. The vast western prairies of the United States once covered by prairie grass or switch grass could again produce grass for cellulose in very large quantities. A significant fraction of U.S. prairie land over the years has been converted to agricultural use, but largely because of water climate conditions, farming of food crops is proving marginal over much of the area. Converting the marginal prairie area again to its natural grass production can provide a large source of feedstock for cellulosic alcohol production without significant loss of agricultural land for food production. This source of alcohol as fuel can, if utilized, greatly reduce dependence on petroleum for transportation fuel sources. Many other sources of cellulose exist over the world; willow and honeysuckle among others can be grown on marginal land including land such as recovered strip mining sites. Cleaning forests of damaged timber to produce alcohol rather than allowing the wood to rot and release methane to the atmosphere can help to mitigate global warming. Many waste products, including industrial, agricultural and domestic, can be converted to alcohol by fermentation rather than release methane to the atmosphere. Of course collecting the methane for fuel can be advantageous where practical. Any of these sources are far superior from a social point of view than fermentation sources derived from agricultural food products. U.S. governmental agencies have shown that alcohol produced from prairie grass can be a viable motor fuel at the current petroleum prices. U.S. policy encourages use of food -stock for alcohol production; these policies should be modified.
Climate change may force large agricultural modifications. Growing seasons are changing over the world along with temperature and rainfall zones. Monsoon seasons and areas are changing, as are desert areas. These changes can affect food supply. If these changes reduce areas suitable for growth of cellulosic crops for alcohol production we may loose a means to effectively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The sequestration of CO2 is an added cost in alcohol production, as in any process, that a producer will not want to take on without compensation. When sequestration costs are factored into the cost of production, a fuel may become non-competitive. A corporation set up to produce and market fuel is set up to produce a profit; it is not set up to reduce global warming. To reduce global warming, or not, is therefore a political question and must be dealt with as such; it must be dealt with by politicians and those voting citizens directing the politicians decisions. Sequestration costs may be handled by direct subsidy, by taxes on exhausted CO2 or by direct taxes on fossil carbon fuels. And there are certainly other schemes that can be imagined. Cap and trade schemes are politically popular but can be economically and socially problematic.
From a political point of view it should be noted that sequestration of CO2 from a coal gasification plant is not equivalent to that produced by the alcoholic fermentation process; it should not be regulated as equivalent. Sequestration of CO2 from fermentation reduces atmospheric CO2 while CO2 from coal gasification merely limits the increase. Any future laws or regulations should take this into account.
Production of agricultural cellulosic alcohols has the potential of replacing a significant fraction of our petroleum derived transportation fuels while removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere. Domestic motor fuel sources, as opposed to imports, have many advantages; economic and strategic advantages for both advanced and developing nations.
Little or nothing has been reported to the public concerning the disposal of CO2 derived from alcohol production. The permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, if it is taking place, is certainly a matter of interest to the general public. If it is not being done than that fact should also be of considerable interest. Certainly the possibility and practicality of the removal of atmospheric CO2 should be a matter of public knowledge.
If we have the will we have a means of mitigating global warming while we significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum as a motor fuel; we need only persuade our political system to promote the effort. Since alcoholic fermentation derived motor fuel has the potential of a negative carbon footprint it should be among the highest priority processes for mitigation of global warming.
We have limited practical processes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. We should take advantage of all realistic means available.
More information with much greater detail is available if desired. Please contact
John W. Reed.
e-mail: reedjw16363@woh.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________

The Elephant's Extinction

John HG — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:00:32 EDT

I believe in giving anyone a fair chance at my support. That's why, over the course of this election, I have visited both BarackObama.com and JohnMcCain.com to look at each candidate's stance on important issues. I have found many things that have encouraged me to stay behind Obama. This is a revolutionary time in America and in the world. We are smarter than ever, yet are making so many terrible mistakes. One of those mistakes is overlooking the problem of climate change. If my support were based on only one category in this election, it would be the issue of environmental protection, and in that case, I would still choose to support Senator Obama. We have put this problem off far too long. We have known about this issue since the early 1970s - when the Hippie movement, LSD and political music were still making their way into American households other than those in the Haight-Ashbury district. Why did what little good that was in that movement fail? In nearly four decades, why hasn't change yet come about? Well, it would be false to say that we haven't made any improvements. Cars no longer burn lead fuel, no longer take as much fuel to run, and put out fewer emissions per unit. But we are still a long way from back at home. Cars have gotten bigger. More people are owning more cars, and driving short distances rather than walking. Cars aren't alone, though. Air travel produces huge amounts of pollution - just look at how desperate the airlines are for cheap fuel - and water travel isn't entirely clean, either. It's unfortunate to think that the American public can't care enough to do anything until it affects their wallets, but sadly, to a certain extent it is true. Could it be a blessing that gas prices are at an all-time high? Perhaps Americans are too used to doing without thinking. Listen up, We the People. It's time that we start making change. You can be a good citizen of the earth on your own. But we also need to get bills into Congress that limit pollution. We need a cap and trade system, and one that works. John McCain wants to reduce emissions to 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. Barack Obama hopes to get them at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Until we can be a truly clean country, we need to be a cleaner country. The earth is not at the disposal of the human race. It is in the care of the human race. There are two kinds of elephants on this planet. By this, I do not mean the African elephant and the Asian elephant. I mean the magnificent, helpless, overhunted animal, and the Republican Party. If one is extinct, the earth continues to fall apart. If the other is, the earth makes progress. But instead of hunting to kill, we must hunt to change. We must band together as a national and global community to fight our climate crisis. It's our responsibility to leave a better world for our children than our parents left for us, and we cannot wait to accomplish that goal. We have to stand behind Barack Obama, and we have to campaign for change. In one of the most revolutionary elections in our country's history, this issue is as important as any other, if not more so. We must stop climate change now. There is no other way.

I encourage you to visit the following page to find out more: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Thank you,
John HG

The Child Who Silenced the World With Her Words

Cathi - Obama Supporter — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:35:43 EDT

The following YouTube video link is something that all of us, throughout the U.S. and the world must watch. I look forward to your comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0

Say goodbye to Oil Companies

J. KRAKKER — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:16:28 EDT

I have worked on this project for 5 years. Having been offered a buy out to not build my automobile power plant. Investors from as far away as Japan have read my proposal and want it for themselves. I have refused to surrender the American Dream.
So I put this out to you Senator Obama, I believe in the direction you are going and so I put this in your very hands, and that of your supporters. I have created what I call a Transduced Engine. Originally I designed it to be in a motorcycle but the system is more suited for the auto industry.

The Transduced Engine uses no fossil fuels meaning NO GASOLINE, and has no emmisions. It is a sealed fluid dynamic worm drive system with compressed air charged system. I can state this, it changes the very direction of an electric Hybrid. The Transduced Engine uses a rail of compressed fluid drivers, and magna chargers that recharge the cars lightweight battery as it drives. Unlike hybrids my powerplant charges itself.

Why havent others invented it. Because people forget that small inventors are what MADE AMERICA, but if your not some Big 3 or famous scientist you could not possibly have an idea worth helping the world.

Reality is this Sir. My invention is the real deal it has no fuel injection, no spark plugs, no spark plug wires, no radiator fluid, no brake fluid, no exhaust pipes, cadilatic convertors, in short it looses the entire tradition of the gasoline and desiel engine.

It puts the Big 3 and the Oil Companies on the chopping block. I want to give my invention to our people, our America to show we are strong. My engine can be adapted to fit in any car, truck, bus or semi. My Transduced Engine would change the entire outlook on fossil fuels usage.

All it takes are those willing to accept change and make a differnce to grow with the times. The Transduced Engine would eliminate the need to drill for oil off our shores, and Alaska's wilderness.

It would though cripple the oil companies, and the Arabian Kings because we would not need them. My power plant could be ready for full production in a year. At 1/3 the cost that the Big 3 spend on fossil fuel or Hybrid engines alone. Being that my designs looses 1/2 of what they put into vehicles today.

Best Wishes Senator Obama on becoming our next President.

FISA/Immunity Not "Just Another Issue"

Chip Pitts — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:21:17 EDT

The top US and global issues all have significant, if underappreciated, interrelationships -- e.g. the current financial volatility is related to food/commodity/oil price increases which in turn are influenced by and influencing global warming (affecting weather systems and droughts like that in Australia at present). The increased demand from globalization and urbanization (as, e.g. China paves over agricultural fields to make new parking lots and office parks) is part of this picture, and that too influences and is influenced by energy policy, which in turn influences and is influenced by wars such as those in Iraq/Afghanistan and elsewhere, other conflict, disease, refugee flows, terrorism, etc . . . I won't go on . . . but none of these issues can be effectively addressed without US leadership and action in coordination with that of other actors, official and unofficial (including the people in various countries). (My own view is that all of them -- at home or abroad -- are best addressed with "rights-based" approaches that recognize the pragmatic values of rights such as those at issue in the FISA/immunity debate.)The FISA/telecom immunity issue may seem to be a stand-alone topic, unrelated to education, health care, global warming, energy policy, electoral reform, national security, economics, social justice generally, etc. It is said to relate to merely one right (privacy) or one big idea (uncorrupt good governance and accountability under the rule of law). But those concepts are also importantly interrelated to each other and to rich notions of what I would call the "rights infrastructure" that (despite all our national ills and flaws) has distinguished this country and undergirded the substantial success we've enjoyed. Privacy creates the space for free expression, religious freedom, nondiscrimination, free assembly, free press, etc. Due process of law involving objective standards, no favorable treatment of special interests, etc similarly relates in important ways to respect for the dignity and autonomy of the individual, nondiscrimination, and the values underlying rights and good societies. Without privacy, for example, you lose the critical room for meaningful information gathering, independent creative thought, freedom of conscience and expression, and entrepreneurial activity of all kinds . .. you take a notable step toward the sorts of failing and repressive societies that the US opposed during the Cold War. We won that conflict in large part because of our "soft power" as a country that had a Bill of Rights, opportunity for immigrants and ordinary people, and concern for others in the world as represented by US leadership in creating the United Nations and that of Eleanor Roosevelt and others in advocating for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But if the Bush theory of executive power as manifest in this horrendous FISA bill prevails, and telecoms are granted retroactive immunity, what happens to that national essence? What is the next corporate action that will be expected to be forgiven later? A new round of discriminatory internment by private prison companies after the next terrorist attack? Domestic martial law enforced in part by private military contractors like Blackwater (as we also saw after Katrina)? Surely that sort of "new normal" is intolerable.So . . . protecting those interrelated rights and freedoms is essential, in my view, to reaching high quality decisions, avoiding terrible mistakes like the Iraq war, and generally avoiding further regression/repression and preserving our social capacity to successfully address all the major issues on which we want and desparately need Sen. Obama's leadership. It's that simple. (Or complex.) My point is just that for this and many other reasons (that the candidate has previously seemed to appreciate even if some of his current handlers do not), this is not a "niche" issue as some have characterized it. It cuts across and relates directly to the kind of society, politics, capacity, and soft power that we absolute must have both domestically and globally in order to solve our most pressing problems.Chip Pitts

Inconvenient Truths and High Gas Prices

bdn — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:38:17 EDT

Obama in my opinion is at his best when he speaks the truth that many politicians eschew. Lately it seems that the press is covering a more tepid Obama that is carefully parsing his positions. I hope it is just the press.

Let me propose a position - if not a strategy - that not only is sound policy but may yield political benefit.

Republicans (and Bush) now argue that we should drill more holes domestically as a means to reduce the high price of oil. The response I have heard by the Democrats: that this would have no immediate impact - except possibly to curb futures price escalation (and there are better answers for this) although correct, is not all that inspiring. And Americans are looking for someone to do something. So...