Tuesday, December 11, 2007
If we change now there will be big losers and big winners financially and the losers will put up a fight to keep change from happening. The losers: big oil companies and the plastics industry along with anything imperatively tied into oil. The winners: The Earth and everything that lives on it. All the money on Earth won't buy a high quality of life is there's not much left. Do you want to wait until Mother Earth steps up and starts really kicking some major butt? I have a feeling we really haven't seen anything yet. Let's not wait until it's too late.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Myth: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
Fact: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying:
"the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies, 2005)
The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.
Myth: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.
Fact: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money.
The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment.
Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth.
Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.
Myth: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
Fact: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth.
Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect.
Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.
Myth: Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.
Fact: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally.
Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.
Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.
Higher levels of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.
The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected.
Myth: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.
Fact: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming.
Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Check out this link to see some of our publicity:
Tonight on "Invention Nation" which will feature HumanCar airs 10:30 p.m. (pst) on the Science Channel. It will repeat at 11:30 a.m. Tuesday and at 3:30 p.m. Sunday
Some other projects I'm working on to check out:http://www.greenteamtv.com, http://www.greenearthvision.com, http://agreenevolution.blogspot.com, http://www.seriousyurts.com, http://www.greenmatecafe.com
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
This Issue always raises my hackles. I am an ardent supporter of Ancient Forests and the BLM's new proposals SUCK.
Take a look at this issue. OFH did a good job of detailing it out:
Oregon Forest Heritage.
Top Ten Reasons the WOPR is a Bad Idea
The Bush Administration proposes the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) to undo protections for Bureau of Land Management-administered public forests. Here are the top ten reasons why gutting protections for some of our last, best old growth forest is a real bad idea:
10. Quality of life.
The WOPR proposes widespread clearcuting of public forest, which could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon’s spectacular landscape.
9. Peace and quiet.
Clearcutting of old growth forest and proposed “Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas” threaten peace and quite for rural residents and visitors. Over 100,000 acres would be promoted as destinations for OHVs, most adjacent to Oregonian’s private residences.
8. Clean water and salmon.
By logging near streams the WOPR reduces important protections for clean water and Pacific salmon. High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Salmon need cool, clean water, but the WOPR would remove stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water.
7. Ancient forests.
BLM lands in western Oregon contain about 1-million acres of our remaining older forests. The WOPR would increase logging of forests over 200 years sevenfold, and threatens some of Oregon’s best remaining ancient forests. Two thousand square miles of forest (an area the size of Delaware) would be put in “Timber Management Areas,” where clearcutting is emphasized.
6. Wildlife and plant habitat.
Wildlife rely on BLM forests such as elk and black bear and threatened species like the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. The WOPR would reduce protections for wildlife populations and diminish habitat for countless plant and wildlife species. An increase in noxious, invasive weeds and wildlife species is predicted under the WOPR.
5. Sustainable economies.
Healthy, protected forests are one of Oregon’s most important natural assets. While rampant old growth clearcutting promises short-term economic boom to a few well-connected mill owners, an economic bust is easily foreseeable under the Bush plan as fish, wildlife and the old growth forests that they rely on dwindle.
4. Northwest Forest Plan.
The Northwest Forest Plan is a landmark agreement that private, state and federal landowners rely on to protect threatened old growth species while producing timber in compliance with environmental law. Removing BLM forests would unravel the whole fabric of the Plan and produce uncertainty for other landowners.
3. It is illegal.
The BLM cannot eliminate protection for old-growth forests, without undermining the Northwest Forest Plan and protections for threatened and endangered species and clean water. To do so, the BLM needs to violate the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts and other laws.
2. Global warming and fire.
While the Bush administration ignores climate change in the WOPR, by converting moist old growth forests into dry flammable tree plantations, the WOPR will increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and places communities at enhanced risk of uncharacteristic fire.
1. There is a better way.
The BLM in accepting public comments until January 11, 2008.For a sample letter and to
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Though the current health care "system" costs almost $2 trillion annually, 46 million Americans have no health insurance. Millions more have inadequate coverage for their needs, such as for prescription drugs.
Thousands die each year as a result.
This makes the US system the most expensive and least effective among all industrialized countries.
The United States National Health Insurance Act would change that. It would establish a national insurance program based on expanding Medicare that would include all U.S. residents.
The goal is to guarantee by law that all Americans would have access to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health care status.
Health care experts believe that this Medicare-for-all plan could save over $286 billion dollars a year in total health care costs.
Working families and employers would save thousands on premiums every year.
This program would cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in-patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment.
Patients would have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices. Medicare will be improved and everybody will get it.
For more information:
"Coalition Builds Momentum on Universal Health Care"
"Now is time to move on health care, Conyers says"
"A Strategy for Healthcare-NOW"
Friday, November 9, 2007
This scenario is playing it self out in one scenario after another. But like all things what comes up must come down. Human population has pretty much reached it's carrying capacity and must come down at some point. Even if you don't believe that we have reached the limits of human population growth that limit still exists somewhere and population dynamics shows that all species grow and shrink in populations much like a roller coaster. We've been on the upgrowth as most people are aware(some actually are not it seems) and have put severe strains upon this planet. We have only one planet and there is no promise that we can sustain life like we know it. Think what you want but some kinda of change must occur. We can of course be proactive and create our future and our childrens. A crisis like we're in will evolve us or we'll be thrown back into the petri dish of creation. It's up to us now right?
At this point in time it seems like even physics has finally come to the understanding that we are all connected: Unified Physics; a unification of
not only the four forces of nature,but also evolution and the occurrence of consciousness. Don't take my word for it check out: http://www.theresonanceproject.org/products/dvd.htm
We ARE all INFINITE beings and we are all connected. Yes change is coming but we can point that change in the right direction. It will take all of us on many levels to do this. I encourage you to learn compassion and promote positive growth within yourself and others.
The Arctic is warming up faster than any other region. Because
it plays a vital role in cooling the rest of the globe, the effects of this warming will be felt worldwide, not just on remote tundra.
Nineteenth-century explorer Fridtjof Nansen called the Arctic "nature's great ice temple," a place teeming with roaming polar bears and a forbidding landscape frozen since "the earliest dawn of time."
But today, one cannot venture far enough north to escape global warming. The region has heated up nearly twice as fast as the rest of the globe over the past 50 years, according to a 2004 study assessing climate change in the Arctic.
Land-based ice such as glaciers, ice sheets and permafrost and floating ice are vanishing, and the ongoing thaw has profound ramifications for the rest of the world.
Arctic Powers the "Heat Pump"
The Arctic is critical to the globe's climate and influence temperatures everywhere.
It sounds counter-intuitive, but the Arctic plays a primary role in distributing heat around the world through what is known as the "heat pump." The ocean's currents circulate heat throughout the world, through a system known as the "great conveyor belt."
Two main forces keep the conveyor moving: winds and ocean density differences. The Arctic is key to the density differences.
The conveyor belt's critical points are where surface waters plunge into deep waters. This happens only in a few places, two of which are in the North Atlantic.
As the ocean surface waters cool in the far north, they become denser and sink toward the bottom of the ocean. There, the cold water flows toward the equator. This combination of sinking and flow helps drive the ocean conveyor.
Because the cold waters that flow south must be replaced, warm surface currents flow farther north and deliver warmth to places far north. Without the ocean conveyor's heat pump, Europe's temperate climate would be much colder.
Global warming is changing that key spot in the North Atlantic where the surface waters plunge. A mix of increased precipitation, river run-off and melting ice—all related to climate change—is making surface waters in the north less salty and dense, weakening this major pump in the ocean's natural circulation.
A Green Evolution is about creating social and environmental solutions to live in harmony with our planet. This blogspot is a discourse on environmental and social issues recognizing that the two are connected intimately. For example: The environment of the prison system creates social stress and crime. Or: Poor people face a disproportionate amount of backyard pollution.