Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

5 Steps to an Environmental Revolution

By Bill Vitek, Prairie Writers Circle. Posted August 27, 2008.


Efficiency tweaks won't save us. Even if every car in the world were a hybrid, growing demand would dwarf savings.
Advertisement

I am not prone to tirades or radical behavior. I have never participated in a public protest and refuse to sign most petitions. In the classroom I offer both sides of an issue. I have a stable job and hope to someday spend the money collecting in my retirement account. In British America in 1775 I would have been a loyalist.

But as an applied philosopher -- I know that sounds like an oxymoron -- poking around modern civilization's foundation and plumbing for two decades, I see cracks and leaks growing, and ever faster. I see that the past half-century's wonderful ride, an amazing and blazing run on the carbon bank of coal, oil and natural gas, is sputtering out. But not before we clog our carbon sinks, particularly the atmosphere, triggering global climatic disruption that is already under way.

We want to see our current problems as part of the usual ups and downs of the business and climate cycles. But in the past three years oil production has remained steady while the price has doubled. Oil supplies will soon fail to keep up with ballooning world demand. Then the other fossil fuels will flare out too. But not before adding to atmospheric carbon dioxide already a third higher than pre-industrial levels and strongly tied to a long, abnormal rise in global temperatures.

I have come to this perspective reluctantly, but am now convinced: We are living in revolutionary times! We must change to a way of life as inconceivable to us as the invention of the modern factory or heart transplant would have seemed to a peasant or professor in medieval Europe.

The good news, if I can call it that, is that only by accepting this challenge in revolutionary terms will our odds of succeeding in this change go from "fuggedaboutit!" to "long shot."

"Well, change, yes," you might say, "but revolution? What about technological progress and efficiency? The environmental and sustainability movements? Isn't all that enough?"

In "Common Sense" Thomas Paine recognized this reluctance: "Until independence is declared, the continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it must be done ... and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity."

Efficiency tweaks won't save us. Ever since England in the 1800s grew efficient with coal, only to use ever more of it, efficiency has led to higher consumption and more atmospheric carbon. Even if every car in the world were a hybrid, and every light bulb a compact fluorescent, growing demand would dwarf savings.

And though Toyota, General Electric and Wal-Mart tout their green efforts, their need to profit by increased consumption of their products is not questioned. This system can't fix the problems it has created or fit our emerging realization that Earth has limits, any more than King George could have encouraged independence-minded Colonials, or medieval scriptural authority could have embraced 17th century scientific discoveries.

Our challenge is to make a new Enlightenment, rejecting belief that we can master Earth and treat it as our unlimited supermarket, playground, laboratory and dumpster. Every human enterprise and standard needs reorientation to recognize the boundaries of our sun-powered planet.

We don't have to be violent about it. But we must be as single-minded and insistent as someone yelling "Fire!" when there is, in fact, a fire. That's not radical, that's prudent and morally required.

It's so much easier to hope for a miracle. But our best hope lies in embracing revolution -- to, in John Adams' words, "start some new thinking that will surprise the world."

Here's a short "to-do" list:

  • 1. Reduce the industrialized world's carbon footprint 80 percent by 2050.
  • 2. Prevent the projected 3 billion increase in human population over the next 30 years and actually reduce population by 2110 without famine, disease or war while preserving human dignity.
  • 3. Revise the scientific method so that it better balances the goal of discovery with moral considerations and precaution.
  • 4. Switch our economy to sustainable energy: solar, wind, hydro.
  • 5. Make that economy one in which happiness and success do not require increased consumption.

It's time to accept the creative limits and boundaries that gave us sun-powered Earth in the first place. It's time to change our minds and our lives.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You say you want a revolution?
Posted by: Spot on Aug 27, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reduce the industrialized world's carbon footprint 80 percent by 2050.
-That means no more TV, no computer, no more driving in your car, no more electric lights when the sun goes down, no more hot showers. 20% of our current consumption is less than we use to heat and cool our homes annually.

Prevent the projected 3 billion increase in human population over the next 30 years and actually reduce population by 2110 without famine, disease or war while preserving human dignity.
-To reduce population, we've got to convince the citizens of the world that reproduction will kill them. Massive airdrops of literature and contraceptives will be necessary, as will a massive deployment of teams of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals to some very unstable places.

Revise the scientific method so that it better balances the goal of discovery with moral considerations and precaution.
-The scientific method is not broken, nor is it an ideological tool. We must protect the apolitical nature of science; it must be permitted to continue to accumulate knowledge, regardless of what we consider to be moral. If you have a problem with people's morality, you should address those people and not the tool they use to learn how things function.

Switch our economy to sustainable energy: solar, wind, hydro.
-No problems here.

Make that economy one in which happiness and success do not require increased consumption.
-This is a plan based on personal values, and not one which can be foisted on a population by a vanguardist elite. How can you possibly expect to dictate the terms of others' happiness? Pure hubris.

If we are truly to build an alternative to the current centralized capitalism, it must be decentralized, it must be green, but most importantly it must be constructed by ordinary citizens who understand it to be in their best interests and who pursue it freely. A grassroots America, organized for liberty within the limits of sustainability of the natural world, would truly be something to strive for, but I feel that your failure to think beyond economics will severely limit your success.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What Needs To Be Done Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» Agreed – and not Posted by: themotie
Roar!
Posted by: edgar1 on Aug 27, 2008 4:12 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We want more. Period. Screw al gore. That's what the working class believes. Beverly Hills: do your green thing, but don't take away my "SUV' (play on Dire Straits, get it "serious greeniacs?").

America says: WE DON'T CARE. AND THE POOR AND BLACKS SAY: WE REALLY DON'T CARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Science is already the most moralof all human activities
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 27, 2008 10:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Science is all about is really quite simply and
elegantly stated in the book: "Science and Immortality" by
Charles B. Paul 1980
University of California Press
The Eloges of the Paris Academy of Sciences (1699-1791)
page 99: "Science is not so much a natural as a moral
philosophy". [Drylabbing [fudging data] will get you fired.]
page 106: Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the
Only authority.
Scientists do not vote on what is the truth. There is only
one vote and Nature owns it. We find out what Nature's
vote is by doing Scientific [public and replicable]
experiments. Scientific [public and replicable]
experiments are the only source of truth. This is what
must be taught in science class.
There is a problem: Science is a simple faith in Scientific
experiments and a simple absolute lack of faith in
everything else except math. Science is the ultimate
Protestant Reformation in which Religion is reformed out of
existence. As I remember the Protestant Reformation, it
happened because the invention of printing press enabled
everybody to own and read and interpret the bible. Priests
were no longer necessary when everybody could read the
source of knowledge.
Science takes the next step: Ancient text is not the source
of knowledge when every person can find out the truth by
carefully following a procedure called "Science" for
him/herself. There is another implicit step here. The
implicit step is realizing that ancient people did not have
some source of knowledge that we do not. In fact, we
have enormous knowledge and "The Ancients" did not.
Even people in the middle ages had technology that the
ancients did not, such as crossbows or even longbows.
Yet there are still people who believe that "The Ancients"
knew things that we don't.*
The problem is that you can't say the above in public.
*I find that describing people as old stone age, new stone
age, copper age, iron age, mideval, etc does not work.
What works is describing "The Ancients" as "just a bunch
of wild indians". The description that works is inaccurate
in the details, but it gets the correct message across. It is
understood.
With apologies to stone age native Americans who were
no more stone-age than stone age Europeans or stone age
anybody else.

The other problem is that to be a good citizen of a
technological society, every citizen needs a BS in science,
engineering or math. Without this level of education,
people do great harm to themselves and the world. For
example:
Paranoia about nuclear power because of a lack of
knowledge of background radiation; which leads to burning
so much coal that global warming could lead to the fall of
civilization. But merely having a BS doesn't guarantee that
specific knowledge. And the nuclear industry has
neglected to present its case well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Background Radiation Posted by: oregoncharles
» Two things Posted by: bingahaba
» Science has been Corrupted Posted by: mgmyers79
» You understood it backwards Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Forget about cars. It's burning coal to make electricity.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 27, 2008 10:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air. Coal fired electric power plants account for 40% of our CO2 output.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter.
Industrial processes are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial
processes is concrete making even though the energy used is less.
The first step in concrete making is heating limestone [calcium
carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium oxide.
Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater
source of CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making,
metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear.

My sole source of income is my retirement annuity from the
federal government. I am telling you the above to avoid the
horrific consequences of global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nuclear is a no-go Posted by: mgmyers79
Revolutionary change will require a portfolio of energy solutons
Posted by: maczocalo on Aug 29, 2008 12:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As energy costs continue to increase, it is becoming more critical for the world to transition to an alternative fueling infrastructure. Instead of seeking a single solution, a portfolio of energy choices will emerge in different ways all over the world. In some areas solar might make more sense, in others, wind or hydropower, and nuclear or coal might be used elsewhere. On of the alternative fuel solutions being explored is hydrogen as a fuel. As a representative of the Hydrogen Education Foundation, I am helping people understand how hydrogen can help us achieve a clean, sustainable energy future.

Hydrogen carries the promise to guide us away from depending on foreign energy imports, while simultaneously improving our environment by reducing greenhouse gases. Incorporating hydrogen within the world’s energy portfolio will simultaneously reduce dependence on oil, while improving the country’s carbon footprint by reducing greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. The advantage certain hydrogen applications have is that in many circumstances, the only emission is water.

To further stimulate the development of a hydrogen refueling infrastructure already underway, an initial $10 to $15 billion investment, equivalent to about one month of military spending in Iraq, is necessary to open hydrogen stations located within 2 miles of anywhere within the top 100 metro areas and along all US highways. Hydrogen has been used for decades by other industries, such as agriculture, oil production and even food processing (ever heard of the term “hydrogenated?” – take a look at a jar of peanut butter or the wrapper of a Starburst). More than 40 billion kg of hydrogen are produced globally each year with production plants located near or within every major metropolitan city in the US – enough to fuel 130 million fuel cell-electric vehicles annually. Since hydrogen is used to produce gasoline, switching from gas to hydrogen to fuel our transportation is achievable.

To learn more about the benefits of hydrogen, we invite everyone to please visit and ask us questions at www.h2andyou.org.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Hydrogen---Not A Solution Posted by: robbrian
Yes yes
Posted by: Uriahz on Aug 30, 2008 1:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But don't fuck with science. Knowledge is good. Period. Start bringing morals into it and you risk everything. It's not scientists' fault that knowledge is used for evil. They aren't the ones with the motive or the power.

Don't change the scientific method. It's fine. Instead, change the rules of business to keep companies from profiting by evil. Change the rules of politics to keep nations from pursuing evil. Maybe business would fight harder against change than science, but it would be more effective. Undoubtedly dismantling the giant war machines of the 20th century is harder than either of the above, but isn't it worth it?

Like everything else, the new way of being will be brought to the mainstream through images of all these happy people living the new American dream. Wander around Portland, see all these intelligent progressives on their bikes eating local organic vegetables all day, growing food instead of lawns, installing solar panels and insulating their homes to save on heating bills. It's a lifestyle that is beginning to be marketed more and more strongly and cohesively. Move into town and give up your car. Turn off your television and brew your own beer to sip graciously with friends in your oh-so-beautiful green life.

Lot of people are buying into it. Which is good, since that's where we're all gonna be at soon enough. The important thing is that we manage the transition well enough that we don't get caught behind the curve and suffer decades of economic hardship in the process while ground under the bootheels of fascistic elements in our government. Because that's the only other option.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, and one more thing
Posted by: Uriahz on Aug 30, 2008 1:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Caught something on TreeHugger recently (which you should all be reading regularly) about geothermal power. Did some digging. Geothermal is simply awesome, check it out, highly underrated technology. Be sure to include it whenever you're discussing renewable energy production, much cleaner than hydro.

I do believe we can maintain current energy consumption levels, and even increase energy consumption-- the important thing is that we convert to renewable resources as soon as possible with all of our consumption. We'll be mining our garbage dumps before too long for the precious metals. They already do that in some parts of the world. Design our lovely technology to be entirely recycled, and we won't run out of resources so long as we have enough energy, which is a surmountable problem.

It's all so frickin easy if we just allocate the funds, that's what's most sad about the situation. We will lose our position in the world over this crap, I'm telling you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Geothermal Factoid... Posted by: jimbee
Scientific method vs scientific research
Posted by: malama on Aug 30, 2008 3:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think there is a confusion here between the scientific method and research. Changing in the scientific method cannot happen, but changes in the direction and uses of scientific research are entirely different. Ethical and moral questions relating to research and technology are important.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Author Presents A Good Program, BUT
Posted by: Last Chance on Aug 30, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he does not say what to do about the robber barons whose greed is destroying the Earth. They have a psychopathic need to control the governments and the media everywhere in order to go on being rich and powerful. That is their price for any environmental revolution - the continuation of their wealth and power, which requires a growing economy and a growing population = ecocide and self-extinction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fat chance!
Posted by: JPHickey on Aug 30, 2008 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A paradigm shift looks as unlikely as it ever was. The vast majority are still in a Darwinian struggle to survive and get ahead. No doubt about it, conventionality still prevails, and most people I know are playing out the same game plan they were taught in high school.

Nearly everyone continues with their unexamined lives. They eat bad GMO foods, and spray highly toxic pesticides and herbicides all over the place. They get surely and even vicious when thoughtful knowledge shared with them.

The rule of gold prevails, and a mostly fake meritocracy reminds the underlings who is boss, while weaping crocodile tears over poor little brown people from the hills of Mexico, while our own sick, disabled veterans and elderly are going bankrupt or passing away before their time.

I don't find it very cute that the media controls information in ways that suit the interests of the select few.

Sociopathic behavoir is the norm in the higher realms of the corporate and government. As a disabled veteran over 65, inflation is robbing me of even the most basic life, while the sociopathogical bureaucrats have set things up so my social security is subtracted from my small military pension, just to make sure I have no chance of a life with any dignity. Who cares? I'm still better off than millions of others.

I still live simple life with quality of consciousness, and I get no respect, either from members of the community, or even when I post of AlterNet.

I help others, but others no longer reciprocate. Here in Sedona, Arizona, the chamber of commerce and real estate speculators have the last word, and denial remains the name of the game, despite the fact that there are over 650 repossessed houses in this county with the number growing by the day.

Turning the tides in favor of a viable future exists in your dreams. Americans want to win in the conventional sense, and the only way we seem to learn is the hard way. We'll know we're ready for a fresh start when the whole nation looks like it's been hit by Katrina.

Our voices calling for a "new paradigm" are just little squacks, made by losers. We'll change only when we have no other choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Shrinking dollars Posted by: edgar1
Number One: Give it Up!
Posted by: Nicnic on Aug 30, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The single greatest thing we could collectively do for the environment is to go vegan. Bang! There goes 1/3 of all pollution in the world. Bang! Here comes a sense of enlightenment the world has never known. Bang! Now there is food for all. Bang! We lose our desire to war. Bang! Now we're able to deal with world issues with a clarity of focus. Bang! Everybody's health and quality of life surges. Bang! We begin to redistribute wealth. Bang! Bang! Bang! The list is endless and so are the possibilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Re: We need meat. Posted by: justAnEgg
» La Banga Posted by: edgar1
Revise the Scientific Method?
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Aug 30, 2008 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
3. Revise the scientific method so that it better balances the goal of discovery with moral considerations and precaution.

It is not the scientific method that needs to be revised. Rather it is the unscientific and anti-scientific attitudes of so many of our political leaders that desperately needs revision.

There is also the problem that too many of our media celebrities operate their mouths without engaging their brains. They are so concerned with the appearance of balance that they give the biased opinions of an uneducated industry spokesman more weight than they give the considered views of distinguished scientists.

Finally there is the problem that so many citizens are unwilling or unable to understand that there are the other real problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We know WHAT, but not HOW. Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: We know WHAT, but not HOW. Posted by: luzmejor
LoL
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 30, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Science as moral? Thats a good one. Anyway yeah good points.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LoL Posted by: luzmejor
Think outside the coffin
Posted by: Growthbuster on Aug 30, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill, you are on the money. This needs to be said over and over again by as many people as possible. And we will have to find a way to get past the vast majority's inability to think outside the coffin.

Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
www.growthbusters.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dick
Posted by: rtmyth on Aug 30, 2008 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only effective,short-term solution is reducing population, either by wars,disease, famine, etc. Long range, there is only oblivion, no matter what human efforts are expended.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dick Posted by: luzmejor
Do what we can HERE and NOW!
Posted by: williameon on Aug 30, 2008 3:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Build super insulated homes and apply those same standards to any new renovation projects and we will
Save more energy then any other method.
Start right now and
We would never have to build another dirty coal fired electric generating plant again.
The total Decentralization the system is the answer.
Produce what we need, where we need it and when we want it.
Stop the Fossil Fuel Pushers:
Bush/Chainey
Stranglehold on our lives.
Kick the Addiction.
The Corpirate System is a failure.
It is riddled with inefficiency, crime and corruption.
If you love being the Monkey in the middle keep buying into it.

The Future is clear.
The micro-democracy revolution is the anwer.
Grow and produce your own:
Food,
Energy,
Products,
Education,
Homes,
Media and
Communities with
Love, Helpfulness, Cooperation, Patience in Peace and Happiness.
Create your own future.
Shut down the Corpirate Mafia.
Turn it off.
Turn your back on their
Mind numbing, hypnotic, addictive, poisonous
GARBAGE!
The BU__! SH__! STOPS HERE!
Trust yourself, your friends and your neighbors.

The Corpirates want to be the middle man.
They get the biggest slice while
get a small tiny piece of inedible pie in the sky.

Pie in the Sky is hard to swallow with an empty stomach.
Start over!
Anything is better than this
Bush/Chainey/McSame
Nightmare

Surge
Purge
Update and
REBOOT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Compassion Over Killing
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 30, 2008 10:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A diet that can lead to heart attacks, cancer, and numerous other diseases cannot be a natural diet," writes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook. "A diet that pillages our resources of land, water, forests, and energy cannot be a natural diet. A diet that causes the unnecessary suffering and death of billions of animals each year cannot be a natural diet."

I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism...which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling. Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today. According to a recent United Nations report, "Livestock's Long Shadow," raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined. Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.

A 2007 journal published by the American Dietetic Association found "meat protein production required 26 times more water than vegetable protein on rain-fed lands." The journal further states that dieticians "can encourage eating that is both healthful and conserving of soil, water, and energy by emphasizing plant sources of protein and foods that have been produced with fewer agricultural inputs."

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

---Union Nations' Food and Agriculture Assocation

A single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day, which is equivalent to that of 20 to 40 humans.

70% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are used by the meat industry. (Audobon Society)

On average 990 liters of water are required to produce one liter of milk. (United Nations)

Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. (Greenpeace)

Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S. Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.

“If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney in a PETA interview, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Beg to differ Posted by: Purple Girl
» RE: Beg to differ (part 1) Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: Beg to differ (part 2) Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: Beg to differ (part 3) Posted by: vasumurti
uninterested observer
Posted by: zgregz on Aug 31, 2008 2:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the discussion about a major shift in thinking is laudable, but there is a forest out there. Most of the commentary looks to be concerned with the trees, ( the choices which are almost limitless ). Yes we can change our energy needs, It will require years, -- it would be like the old popular science magazine -- we will all be flying to work -- of course dismissing the reality it took 100 years to build the roads and cars, and we don't start with a clean slate, or do it over the weekend. The reality is there is the runaway train ( the billions of folks on the planet ). The major negative of this over achievement by the H race is how it seems to be degrading the basic building blocks, the bacteria, viruses, molds, air, oceans, sunlight energy, and heat energy cycle that result in what had been a healthy earth organism. The evidence of basic shifts at such a basic level will most certainly degrade the ability of this planet to provide a normal habitat, and the loss of a single principal linchpin will crash life as we expect it to be. The problem of our acceptance of the profit motive, combined with thoughtless overpopulation creates a perfect storm -- risking all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: uninterested observer Posted by: richholland
Remove Essential Resources From Private ownership
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 31, 2008 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Only Way the World will become 'Energy Independent' is to take these Resources away from Private Profiteers.
Regardless of the Energy source, we will be beholden to what ever Corps own, and control.
They will continue to use what ever resource can gain them the highest profits.
this is not just a National security issue, but a moral issue.By controlling essential resource humankind and its needs becomes an after thought.
The reason Cheney Corp is dragging it's feet out of Iraq, is because THEY have not accomplished their mission- to control the Oil Fields.Iraq wants to continue to own its resource, thus making the Oil industry subserviant to them, they also will increase their peoples wealth & standard of living, since this resource will be nationally owned.
OUR energy resources were handed over to the Corps long ago- and they are now eyeing the renewable energy sources to add to their portfolio.Reason they have dragged their feet on wind & Solar-because citizens could generate their own energy without Corp middlemen- thus no profits.
It is time we Revoke access to OUR lands by these Poachers.Push them back on to land they actually own, and then they can compete against US in the open market.
But this is not the only Essential resource which must be taken out of Corps hands and returned to the Citizens and it's Governing body -Food Production is also an area Profitting has proven to be counterproductive- food cost more, quality goes down, food borne illness not only go up but are also spread wider in the population and they are unable to bring 'heart' to livestock animal husbandry practices.
Return Energy to the Citizens ownership & control and Return Farmlands Back to Real Farmers!
Doing so will encourage US to be more Self efficient,cost effective, innovative and give back the Self Governance we were granted in the Declaration of Independence!
this will lead the way to other countries doing the same, since they are to first & foremost SERVE the PEOPLES INTEREST.When it comes to essential resources for life We will not work through any mediators/middlemen/ profiteers
This 'For Profit Global business stratedgy' has caused more wars, famine, hatred and fear then any previous 'Religious ' crusade- it has been far more reaching and far more innately detrimental- To Humans, animals, plant life and the Ecosytem.
These corp literally hold Our lives in their hands, such power over the 'Stewards' of the Earth is Immoral, Unethical, Dangerous and Irresponsible on Our part.Allowing Brick & mortar to be Humankinds Task masters and keepers!
This design is Innately Flawed, by Rules of Man and The Judgement of God.God (or/aka nature) Made Us the caregivers- a duty to ourselves and all we are to manage. Man invented Gov't and industry to aid Us in our survival and duty. We have allowed one to sleep on the Clock, while the other jacked the 'store'
I am all for Free trade, but it should not include those Tools we need to accomplish our mission- 'take care of it to the best of your abilities (God Given, or perfection of Evolution), then Pass it on to the next in line'.Let these corps profit off IPhones and their manufacturing process. But do not let them own and control energy, food, water,pricing in shelter (Main residence), health care, education, Defense,....Gov't Policies.
This country was founded and built in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, Cosntitution, Bill of Rights....These were Written as Proof and reminders this Country was Built 'for the People and By the People', No Corps will be allowed to sabotage that MOST Important American Value!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There IS a threshold for radiation to cause cancer.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 31, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007
Finally a truthful book about nuclear power.

Page 35: Your golf clubs may contain depleted uranium [DU].
Don't worry, and don't confuse DU with spent fuel. DU is what
is removed from the uranium to make it enriched in U235. DU is
pure U238. U238 has such a long half life that it is almost not
radioactive. DU is safe to handle, but don't eat it because it is a
chemical poison. Heavy metals in general are poisons, radioactive
or not. DU has other uses that depend on its high density.


Page 70: Natural background radiation where the author happens
to be at the time is higher than what people living at Chernobyl
are getting. The US national average background radiation is 360
millirems/year.

Page 71: The natural background radiation in northeastern
Washington state is 1700 millirems/year.
The natural background radiation on the Zuni uplift is 500 to 700
millirem/year.
The natural background radiation in New Mexico is greater than
the calculated dose from the Three Mile Island meltdown, if you
were next to the reactor.
A chest x-ray gives you 10 millirem.

Page 72: The natural background radiation inside Grand Central
Station is 600 millirem/year because Grand Central Station is
made of granite. [ALL rocks are radioactive.]
The allowed exposure to the public from a nuclear power plant is
15 millirem/year.
A set of dental X-rays gives you 39 millirem.

Page 74: Smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes a day gives
your bronchial airways 1300 millirems/year according to the
NCRP OR 8000 millirems/year according to the National
Academy of Sciences.

Page 75: A coal fired power plant gives you 100 to 400 times as
much radiation as a nuclear power plant. Worldwide, an average
person gets 0.01 millirem/year from nuclear power plants, the
same as eating one banana. Bananas contain potassium and some
of the potassium is radioactive potassium 40. This has always
been the case.

Page 76: The cancer rate in New Mexico is much lower than the
national average but the natural background radiation is much
higher than average. The highest rates of cancer are around
heavy industry, chemical factories and petrochemical factories.
[Benzene, a petroleum distillate, is a very powerful carcinogen.]

Page 77: Natural gas contains radon, a radioactive gas.

Page 86: Among 80000 nuclear bomb survivors from Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, the cancer rate was only 6% higher than expected.
Radiation is very weak at causing cancer. Try benzene if you
really want to catch cancer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Storing energy as hydrogen:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 31, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great idea, sort of. It has been
around a long time, like a century or more. It never caught on.
Why? Germany had hydrogen pipelines a long time ago.
Hydrogen works in spark ignition engines and turbine engines, if
the engines are big compared to gasoline or natural gas engines of
the same horsepower. Hydrogen is ideal for fuel cells.

People have not invested in hydrogen as an energy storage
medium because hydrogen is a difficult gas to deal with.
Hydrogen gas leaks out of any and all containers, no matter what
they are made out of. Why?: Because the hydrogen atom,
minus the electron, is just a proton, 1000 times smaller than an
atom. Any solid material is just a sponge, not a wall, as far as
hydrogen is concerned. The electron is easily lost to the atoms of
the wall, leaving just the proton. Even a whole hydrogen atom is
the smallest atom and easily squeezes through solid walls.
Hydrogen will stay bottled up at low pressure to a certain degree,
but the best way to make it stay put is to leave it in the form of
water. Solid materials can be used as filters for hydrogen and
helium. If you make a hydrogen storage facility, you have to
expect to loose a lot of your hydrogen. Energy stored as
hydrogen gas has to be used very soon after the hydrogen is
made.

Pressureized hydrogen storage requires very high pressure, and
the tank is still much too big. The hydrogen fuel tank for a
pickup would use up the whole cargo capacity of the pickup.

Liquid hydrogen storage requires a lot of energy to cool the
hydrogen because hydrogen liquifies at a very low temperature, near absolute zero.

Hydrogen can be stored as sorbed into intermetallic compounds.
Intermetallic compounds form a super-sponge for hydrogen gas.
It was proposed that cars use hydrogen gas tanks containing
intermetallic compounds. A typical car would require a 300
pound gas tank. Research was done on this subject in the 1970s.
Nobody ever commercialized it. Would it work for electric utility
energy storage? Are there enough of the metals required
available? Clearly the storage facility would be large and
expensive. I am going to let other people invest their money.

Hydrogen also causes its container to become brittle and break.
Hydrogen embrittlement is a big problem for the steel pipelines
that transport hydrogen.

A hydrogen flame is invisible to the human eye. That makes it
dangerous, so you have to mix it with a gas that makes a visible
flame. Otherwise, people will accidentally walk into a hydrogen
fire.

Hydrogen that has leaked out of something escapes from Planet
Earth. The earth does not have strong enough gravity to hold
hydrogen. Only giant planets have free hydrogen in their
atmospheres.

Of course, NASA can afford to use hydrogen for fuel cells.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Depleted Uranium is NOT causing deformities
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 31, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not depleted uranium that is causing deformities. Depleted
uranium was available by mail order in 1981.
Crude oil contains BENZENE, a very strong carcinogen. See
the Material Safety Data Sheets at
http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/msds_crude_oil.htm.
and
http://www.valdezlink.com/pages/benzene.htm
Depleted uranium is NOT a nuclear weapon. It is just a denser
metal than lead, and long rods of DU remain sharp when they hit
something. Lead squishes and flattens. DU penetrates better.
Radioactivity is NOT a problem. It is depleted. That means the
fissionable U235 is missing. Only U238 is left. Depleted
uranium is NOT spent fuel. This is a common confusion. Spent
fuel is radioactive. DU is NOT radioactive enough to care about
because its half life is too long. Don't eat DU, it is a poison, like
heavy metals in general.
Please use hard returns. Your posts go off the edge of the screen
on old browsers on old machines, making your posts nearly
impossible to read.

Tank vs tank battles are very common. Tankers [the soldiers
inside the tank] have no other reason to use a depleted uranium
[DU] round. They have other ammunition for other tasks, such a
beehive rounds to kill groups of dismounted [walking] soldiers,
illumination rounds, high explosive squash head [HESH] rounds,
high explosive penetrating rounds, etc. The DU now being
encountered is in the remains of dead Iraqi tanks. The dead Iraqi
tanks were killed because they fired on American tanks.
In World War 2, tank battles often raged for weeks at a time,
with the same 2 tanks sometimes duelling every day and being
repaired every night. A simple hole in a tank doesn't "K" kill it.
It can be driven away and repaired. DU and computer cannon
aiming put an end to that. Every round our tankers fire is a K
kill. A K killed tank is beyond repair. DU rounds were designed
to win against the Soviet Union in central Europe.

Anyone who does anything with the thousands? of dead Iraqi
tanks should follow the Technical Manual [TM] on that subject.
I'm assuming that there is a TM on that subject. I never worked
in Ammo. If the TM is followed exactly, the dead Iraqi tanks can
be dealt with safely. Bad things happen when a TM is not
followed. Proper safety equipment [respirators or whatever]
would be listed in the TM.
DU rounds are managed by nice people at Rock Island Arsenal
in Rock Island, Illinois. I worked there for many years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear power is 1/3 cheaper than coal
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 31, 2008 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Page 211: "In 2005, the production cost of electricity from
nuclear power on average cost 1.72cents per kilowatt-hour; from
coal-fired plants 2.21; from natural gas 7.5, and from oil 8.09.
American nuclear power reactors operated that year around the
clock at about 90 percent capacity, whereas coal-fired plants
operated at about 73 percent, hydroelectric plants at 29 percent,
natural gas from 16 to 38 percent, wind at 27 percent, solar at 19
percent, and geothermal at 75 percent."

Page 214: "[T]he [nuclear] industry is self-insured." Liability
insurance is NOT paid by tax payers.
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy"
by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007
Finally a truthful book about nuclear power.

"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6
order from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
Read a review of this book by the American Health Physics
Society at:
http://www.comby.org/media/
articles/articles.in.english/
HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm

www.ecolo.org
Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [EFN]

Nuclear power is 30% cheaper than the coal power we have been
duped into using. We have 5000 years worth of nuclear fuel if
we recycle it rather than waste it as we do now. Nuclear is also
the safest and cleanest form of energy available.

Subsidies for nuclear power are needed only because of the
paranoid public demand for extremely excessive safety for nuclear
power. The public, especially in the US, has never heard of
natural background radiation, doesn't know that burning coal puts
uranium into the air or cinders, doesn't know that dental X-rays
are radiation, doesn't know that microwaves in their microwave
ovens are radiation, doesn't know that light is radiation, etc. The
public, especially in the US, is generally paranoid of all things
nuclear because of coal industry propaganda and general
ignorance of science. See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html
for a list of all the poisons, including uranium, that coal burning
puts into the environment. NMR [Nuclear Magnetic Resonance]
had to be renamed MRI [Magnetic Resonance Imaging] to get
sick people into the scanner. To lower your electric rates:
Convince your neighbors that nuclear power is the safest and
allow the nuclear power plants to lower safety to a reasonable
level. Subsidies for nuclear power plants are required ONLY
because of the probability of irrational people protesting nuclear
power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Containment buildings and CO2
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 31, 2008 8:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All Western nuclear power plants have Containment Buildings
which protect the world outside from anything that can possibly
happen in the core. Western containment buildings are why
Chernobyl cannot happen in the US. Containment buildings are
pressure vessels, unlike the building the Chernobyl reactor was in.
The walls, ceiling and floor are a minimum of 1 meter [about 39
inches] thick and HEAVILY reinforced with steel. There is so
much steel reinforcing rod that when you look at one under
construction, you wonder where there will be any room for
concrete. There is no explosion that could ever happen inside the
core or the containment building that would have any chance at all
of making a hole in the containment building. The containment
building is many times stronger than required to contain any
explosion that could happen there.
Containment buildings are like the Furher Bunker in Berlin.
When you are digging a hole in the ground to build a tall building
in Berlin, if you encounter Hitler's personal hideout, you just set
the new building on the Furher Bunker. There is nothing you can
do to a Furher Bunker. Likewise, there is nothing a terrorist
could do to a nuclear power plant that could cause a radiation
leak. Just putting a hole in the containment building would be
pointless anyway. Radiation would not leak out, but the reactor
would be shut down while the hole was fixed.
The reactor core itself is better armored than most army's tanks.
The core capsule is 5 inches thick of solid stainless steel.

Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007
Finally a truthful book about nuclear power.
Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity
production. Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2]
than any other source, including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and
wind. Building wind turbines and towers also involve industrial
processes such as concrete and steel making. Wind turbines
produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Nuclear
power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the lowest. Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and
1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Solar power produces
between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Hydro
power produces 2