Comment from Erick Green
December 4th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

“We can lift ourselves out of this economic crisis through investing in clean energy solutions that solve global warming”. CLEARLY to all conscious human beings, this statement by The EDF and other leading environmental groups is the only sensible vision of the future that brings both progress and healing to our world!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment from David Beversdorf
December 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

If we fail to move forward on the clean energy front due to current economic circumstances, we will only be worse off in the future as the urgency of the need for clean energy accelerates. It’s that simple.

Comment from Ronald Mathsen
December 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

“We can lift ourselves out of this economic crisis through investing in clean energy solutions that solve global warming” That’s my feeling too.
My experience is to NEVER trust anything coming from ANY level of the Chamber of Commerce!

Comment from giniajim
December 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Climate change will happen economic crisis or not. Where in the world does Mr. Kovacs get those mega-blinders he must wear.

Comment from Christa Fernau
December 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

This is not a question anymore. Time is of essence. Please let us move forward for the sake of any remaining hope of a clean life in the near and far future for all elements and species.

Comment from Diane Harder
December 4th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Investing in clean energy is not only the waive of the future, but a responsible way to solve our economic crisis and bring jobs back to the US. It is our duty as responsible citizens unit to solve the problems of global warming and bring industry back to America. The opposition have nothing to offer but further gloom and doom. The environment impacts on all aspects of our lives, e.g. health, our food supply, poverty, peaceful nations. I’d highly recommend reading “Common Wealth” by Dr. Jeffrey Sachs–excellent read!

Comment from Shannon W
December 4th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

There isn’t any other way for America to act right now except to address and invest in clean energy solutions. Sure, gas prices are low again right now, but look how much our dependency on oil cost America when they were sky high. We can’t keep being so dependent on oil and there isn’t any reason the economic crisis can’t be solved while gearing the US towards clean energy solutions. It has to happen now.

Comment from Peter Baldwin
December 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

It may or may not already be too late to prevent the demise of civilization from climate change, but like when you loose control of your car on icy roads, we really have no choice but to steer like hell in hopes of the least negative outcome. There is no doubt that we have the organizational and physical technology to makeover our culture/economy with no one falling through the cracks, but can we muster the will and focus. My guess is that a couple more Katrinas/mega flood/fires and someone like Obama could lead us there.

Comment from Diane McColley
December 4th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Despair is an ogre. We must do what is right.

Comment from Deborah Kermode
December 4th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

In the past oil prices have dictated response to energy efficient solutions. This time it must be different. Global warming does not care how much we pay for gas. Global warming does not care what the economy is doing. Global warming is a call to create jobs and industry that work to eradicate the reason it is calling.

Comment from Jay Langdon, SPHR
December 4th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

It is an unfortunate but true fact that the down economy will make green initiatives more difficult to implement. In my mind this calls out to all of us to realize, to recommit, to bring others to our cause that the planet is important, our children and grandchildren matter. We can and will sacrifice to leave a better future. We ARE not driven solely by the dollar, but we respect business.

We need to work on both the economy and green, renewable and sustainable solutions. Ideally, we’ll find a low cost alternative solution, like a $100.00 wind turbine or solar panel, that each family could easily assemble and install.

I look forward to creative innovative solutions that like Obama’s grassroots movement will empower each individual to contribute successfully to improving the whole. Can you imagine the example we could set by installing simple systems that would really help?

Comment from Johny
December 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Those who deny the crisis for our air and water will use any weapon or argument to stop action for cleaner environment. With Obama as president we have a chance for concerted, systemic work that gives our grandkids a better planet.

Comment from Tom Reed
December 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

The coming economic depression is BOTH an Opportunity AND a nail in the coffin for climate change. Poor economy means people will forget the long term environmental concerns for short term economic survival, but at the same time Obama has the opportunity to undertake an environmental “New Deal”. It depends on just how entrenched he is with the crooks that brought the country to this point. So far, from his appointments and his tolerance of the grand theft in “bailout” form, I have my doubts about him, but I’m waiting to see who will head the EPA to foretell the future of the planet.

Comment from Nona Weiner
December 4th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

I think that there will be many options to develop new technology & new green approaches to solve the climate problems. There will be jobs generated. If we move away from the debilitating agribusiness toward smaller organic farms, there will be healthier food and more jobs.

Comment from Stockton Buck
December 4th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

There is hope and along with reading “Common Wealth”, I’d like to suggest making “Hot, Flat, & Crowded” by Thomas L. Friedman, mandatory reading for all high school and college students.

Comment from arthur goldstein
December 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

we need to raise gas prices to $4.00/gal so we can continue to develop a green society

Comment from Kate Aglitsky
December 4th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Working in public transportation sector as one of the sustainability champions (MTA NYCT, EMS Director of Capital Program), i can weigh in on the issue in the following manner: investment in public transportation infrastructure (even without necessarily “greening” it internally) creates jobs, lowers cost of mobility for citizens, boosts property values, supports businesses, lowers regional reliance on fossil fuels, reduces regional CO2 emissions, promotes economic growth of its service territory and beyond, and more; and then, if you “green” the infrastructure and the operations themselves (i.e. LEED certification for newly constructed/renovated facilities, “green” procurement, energy-efficiency efforts etc.), job creation, business support, market transformation and CO2 reductions are all getting additional boost. Any way you look at it (except for asking for immediate ROI, like American market liked doing while creating those “bubbles” that burst more than once in our faces), it’s an economically viable, moreover, economically necessary “greening”. Reducing energy consumption [via public transport as well] is of the same importance as alternative energy production – they are just neighboring wedges on the climate change response chart.

Kate Agltisky, LEED AP
Greening, seen smartly, is a solution, not a victim, of economic crisis.

Comment from julia
December 4th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

i like michael moore’s suggestion, buying GM (to buy all the stock would be a huge savings over their 35 billion dollar bailout) and transforming it into an alt energy vehicle, lightrail and public transportation maker. http://www.michaelmoore.com to read his whole eloquent idea

Comment from Greg Crawford
December 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Like all those whose every action is motivated solely by greed and avarice, Mr. Kovacs remarks reflect a sociopathic disregard for the welfare of others, up to and including his own children. No amount of wealth can insulate them from the devastation that will ensue should industry continue its suicidal denial of the global warming crisis.
We will never stop global warming, it has gained too much momentum and too many factors contribute to it, but we can slow and mitigate its effects. But not if we allow fools like Kovacs to fiddle while Rome burns.
Industry’s apologists spare no vitriol when condemning those who argue for common sense solutions; likewise, we should abjure prissy political correctness when exposing these swine for what they are. “They’re entitled to their point of view” is not a valid rationalization when that viewpoint is literally costing people their lives.

Comment from Jan Marie Rushforth
December 4th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

In spite of the media campaign hugely funded by the big oil companies to get people to question global warming, Climate Change is real according to science and it is bearing down on us. A big tipping point is 350 Parts Per Billion in CO2, and we’ve exceeded that – not a good thing! Concentrating Solar Power can be a great solution -that technology could power the country on 100 miles by 100 miles in the US South West (check out SkyFuel.com)with truly clean green energy from the sun. Conservation, Electrical power lines across the US, charging for Carbon use, Wind, Homes powered with PV, Solar Thermal, Geo Thermal, etc are all part of the mix needed to get us off of Foreign Oil; invest in our infrastructure with renewable energy jobs of the future; and provide more national security and economic prosperity.

Comment from Jason Smith
December 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

“What is the business case for ending life on earth?” – Ray Anderson of Interface Carpet

Given the tens of billions of dollars in annual subsidies handed out to the oil and gas industry each year, it’s foolish to imagine a green energy shift costing more than the status quo. Add to the fact that building a new energy infrastructure adds new skilled jobs to the economy, and that overtime the energy itself is cheaper than oil and gas, and the savings we earn from not fighting foreign wars to maintain access to fuel, and you’ve got a ready-made solution to a large portion of our current economic situation. The only way not to see this is to have some vested interest in not seeing it or to be stuck and unable to see a future so much brighter than the past.

Comment from Glenn Koons
December 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

First, it seems to be a real question whether global warming is the horror that many fear. The Times reports that many Europeans with the Czech leader talking, are not sure that it is even proveable. Second, to push a radical socialist view of this issue will defeat it from the get go. In a time of economic crisis, free enterprise capitalism is still the answer not some failed socialist dream involving the entire conservation, green revolution. How to coalesce these views and scientific truths is the real challenge not some radical programs which will not go down in Congress even with a socialist like Obama. He is not a fool. If any EPA changes, enviro new rules hamper an economic recovery, those moves will be dead on arrival. With some of the comments here, I see more socialist idealism than practical legislation.

Comment from Terry Rettig
December 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

I can’t say if the economic crisis does put the nail in the coffin per Mr. Kovacs, BUT IT SHOULD. We need to step back and come up with a rational, well thought out plan how to move forward to solve our energy and environmental problems. In these economic times the ratepayers can’t be expected to continue to pay more and more for environmental and alternative energy solutions, which may not be the best, well thought solutions at all.

The idea of alternative energy for electricity to solve our dependence on oil is severely flawed. Less than 5% of our electricity is from oil. The only way this will work is to produce electric cars.
Alternative energy will help solve environmental issues but the cost will cripple this nation.

In addition, our grid system is not designed to handle wind, solar, etc that will not be a reliable source at all times.

As for global warming with that cause being headed by EDF, it should be remembered that EDF is a utility strongly dominated by Nuclear power (90%) which is totally non polluting. It is easy for them to be the champion for CO2 reductions. They apparently do not have the “fear” of Nuclear power that has been driven here by environmental extremists.

Our Congress has been very involved in developing energy policies. They are not qualified and obviously have a bias that will change with the wind. Like the US auto makers, they have been reactive and not proactive.

The clean use of coal can be improved and would be a good solution. Unfortunately, the technologies being promulgated by the EPA to clean up NOX and SO2 i.e. SCR and Scrubbers are so expensive they often cost more than the power plant. This is an overreaction, overkill, and not a good use of ratepayer money. There are new technologies that can do almost as well for 10% of the cost. Environmentalists might think that “almost as well” is not good enough. However, consider that 10 times as many plants can be equipped for the same price. If we would use the money saved to reduce pollutants on more coal plants in the US and in developing
countries that have little or no controls, the net reduction in pollutants would be staggering.

Comment from Roy Snell
December 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Providence may be saving our hides. We now have a president with a functioning brain and the economic crisis seems custom made to provide us with the kick in the pants we need to let go of old assumptions about what we can and should do to address global warming.

Comment from Marjorie Worthington
December 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Everyone should read Van Jones’s book “The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems”…It is urgent that we stop equivocating and naysaying and instead, be receptive to BOLD new ideas and possibilities and then get busy implementing them. Yes, we can!

Comment from Amy Fallis
December 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

I agree with Jay Langdon. Also I believe that if we work hard to find and impliment solutions for our economy and fight for clean air and a better enviroment, then we can create new jobs, prevent alot of the health problems in the world saving us millions in health care costs, then we could use that money in other areas. I also think every body should follow Californias laws.

Comment from Ed Arnold
December 4th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Two comments about what Bill Kovacs had to say:

1) NOT doing anything about the problem will put a nail in the coffin of the future of humans on this planet.

2) Wasn’t the US Chamber of Commerce the people who came up with a lot of garbage about “lawsuit abuse” (WRT malpractice) in the 1980s – when the real problem was (and still is) incompetence?

Comment from Ray Poggi
December 4th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

I think that we have to do more than simply develop a plan to develop green energy. I think that the long range economic plan is to develop industry by industry a system of sustainable production; planning the entire production process to produce less material and energy waste.

This would be a vast change that would in fact produce initial costs and at the same time create millions of new jobs requiring new skills and vast savings from elimination of clean up costs and environmental damage.

I seriously doubt that it is even possible to create a green energy economy unless we take on the challenge of changing the entire system. Perhaps in order to do this we need to set up a government labor and industry council much as was done prior to WWII (they planned the move from peace time to war time production) to plan a change from the current dirty industrial system to a clean and sustainable one.

Comment from stevewonder
December 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

I ABSOLUTELY do not trust Anything done or said by members/employees of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Their “contributions” are part of the reason why this nation faces both severe ecological and economic problems.

Comment from Robert D Locker
December 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Bill Kovacs and his Chamber of Commerce friends are about as misguided as they come. Reversing the effects of Global Warming means the creation of many more jobs than Big Oil and Coal will loose through the change to alternative energy. They want Americans to think that jobs will be lost. The only change a change to a green economy will mean is that the rich will not get richer through the destruction of our environment. Like the tobacco industry, Big Oil and Coal needs to divest themselves of their investments in oil, gas, and coal production, and do it now before it is too late and the cost of the transition goes up. One of the costs of delay will be our demise, and our children’s demise.

Comment from James Nichols
December 4th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

The economic crisis is both an opportunity and a hindrance. Obviously, many business and manufacturing executives object to environmenta restrictions which cost them money. However, this is a time of investment!

The opporuntiy is here. But we have to be careful. Governments role must be properly managed. Government should be comminting to grants for development and tax credits for the use of new clean energy while reasonably regulating emissions and other negative environmental things. We need new jobs and incentives…a positive approach.

We do NOT need a big new government buracracy! The history of our great country has always been based on our ingenuity and that is what has to be encouraged while we also regulate to stop greed which only makes our environmental and economic problems worse.

Comment from hawkeye
December 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

I do support the idea of limiting emissions, and perhaps the cap and trade mechanism is a step in the right direction. However, I do not support government policy that will be viewed by many as punitive. Too many people are not sold on the idea that human activity contributes to global warming, and in view of that, there will be resistance out of ignorance.

There are alternatives to legislation and administrative policy that is designed to control emissions, and I think these alternatives should also be promoted. Many are simply common sense approaches to doing things that presently are being done in a fuelish manner.

I have sent proposals to the Obama transition team and have asked for a land mail address to where I can send hardcopy, but to date I have received no reply except and automatic computer generated response acknowledging that my email arrived at its destination.

I don’t appreciate the apparent disregard and the disingenuous trait of not responding to my questions after making a big deal out of wanting the people’s input on issues. If they don’t want to hear from the people then drop the sham and quit wasting my time.

Frankly I feel somewhat the same way about the EDF as I have yet to hear from them except to want more donations.
My ideas are worth far more than the donations I could afford to send. I look at it this way in regards to the government. They pay thru the nose for the advice of experts and yet get nothing tangible accomplished. There
is an old adage “Hire a consultant and go wrong with confidence.” So what do they have to lose by listening to some tried and proven common sense ideas that require little to no additional technological development to implement?

I would like to submit the proposals I made to the Obama transiton team to the EDF but they are too large to fit the format of this blog. Where could I send these ideas, which are about three typewritten sheets each? aronbm

Comment from Joseph and Ruth Fitzpatrick
December 4th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

We are of the firm belief that reinstitution of a strong and viable AMTRAK system as well as implementation of light rail wherever possible will have a huge impact on the environment, as well as the budget.
Ruth and Joe
Louisville

Comment from hawkeye
December 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

A reply to David Beversdorf

Good thinking David, the longer we wait the worse off we will be. I think there are a number of activities that could be promoted that would help to reduce emissions and make some steady jobs, right here in the states, and not in Lower Slobovia where wages are dirt cheap.

Cheap wages can be used to make cheap products if the system is automated and systemized to the point that human labor is not the driving force of the operation. Down thru the years the factory owners have employed more and more automation and technology to offset the higher cost of human labor, but there is a limit to what technology can do, so when it is no longer cost effective to apply more technology they go off shore in search of cheaper labor.

My proposals advocate jobs that cannot be shipped offshore because they are site oriented. For example, one cannot operate a commuter bus in India that is intened to carry folks in America to work and back, and building a rapid rail system in France does no good for the American traveler going to and fro here at home. It is this sort of reasoning we need to employ if we want to stop the bleeding and loss of American labor. Put people to work here at home doing things that would be of no benefit to us or greedy factory owners if the work was sent offshore.

Comment from Wobbly1
December 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

1)Tax energy more; electricity, gas and especially fossil sourced.
We need to incentivize using less energy.
2)Reduce income tax. How can you seriously talk of creating jobs while taxing labour more than anything else?
3)Balance the two (for the average American).

Achieve 1,2 and 3 and, at no cost, (to the average American) you’ve
helped create jobs and moved towards energy independence.

#1 might seem to suggest merely carbon trading. Yes, carbon trading because it internalizes the costs to the commons of pollution and balances the price playing field more fairly. But more. Government operating costs are collected mostly through income tax simply because it is the easiest way. We are the patsies.

A resource tax is possible. Those buying the “right” to mine, drill or pollute OUR earth,water or air need to pay more. (The Forbes 500 is dominated by oil and mining barons.) However much that tax amounts to, need not be collected from average people’s income.
Fantastic.

Finally, in the short term…
Please tie the forthcoming economic stimulus package to energy conservation/efficiency. I don’t understand the thinking behind helping families to another dose of consumption. If that $1000/family was entirely spent on, say, house insulation, double glazing or car tax rebate for upgrade or trade-in to better MPG car, the entire US would need less fossil imports for years and years, instead a brief belch of our familiar, gluttonous spending.

PS. Where can I get carbon auditor training? Seems like a job of the future.

Comment from sidel
December 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

If we want to reduce global warming, we also have to look at how much heat and how much energy is being wasted up the chimney’s of the larger commercial and industrial boilers. These boilers are used to heat buildings and domestic water. They are used toprovide steam and hot water to process our food and beverages, and much more.
They are very important, but not very efficient.
The technology of “Condensing flue gas heat recovery” can increase the efficiency of these appliances to over 90%.
Instead of emitting hot exhaust into the atmosphere, these flue gas temperatures could be below 100 degrees F. For every therm of energy recovered from these waste exhaust gases, 11.8 lbs of CO2 will NOT be emitted into the atmosphere. Lets push this new energy administration to include “natural gas energy efficiency” to their list of methods of reducing global warming.

Comment from Lee Hebert
December 4th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Is everyone aware of the fact the Energy and Global Warming solution is already on our Nations Power Grid as “SURPLUS” paid for by American ratepayers and just going to waste?

There is enough “SURPLUS” Energy on the grid everyday to power Hundreds of Millions of homes.

For an example see the CA ISO web site CASIO.com

There is typically enough “SURPLUS” Energy on this grid alone to power 12,000,000 homes.

“SURPLUS” is a CA ISO word.

In Texas and the PJM grids there is enough “SURPLUS” to power 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 homes just going to waste.

We can store this lower cost off peak Energy in our homes for the next days peak and close half the power plants in the country.

For an off peak Energy and Global Warming solution see mrelectricity.com

Comment from Karsten A. Rist
December 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

The time to act is now. We need to use the momentum the incoming Obama administration has and move decisively in the direction of controlling emissions. One possible action is to promote the use of hybrid technology in cars. With about 50 miles per gallon hybrids, if used throughout our country, could cut national gasoline usage in half! More use of wind- and solar power also have great promise. EPA needs new leadership as soon as possible! The response of the chamber of Commerce is pitiful but not surprising.

Comment from joyciekh
December 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

I simply do not understand the almost ‘rabid’ opposition to moving forward as if global warming was a fact — as I believe it is. What’s the down side?

Let’s pretend that our political will is set on developing clean energy. Let’s pretend that we do this based on the belief that global warming is real and caused, or made worse, by human activity. Later, we discover that global warming was over stated, or even completely bogus. What are we left with? Clean air? Relative energy independence? Clean water? New, forward-looking technologies? New jobs? A renewed sense that we can accomplish anything when we set our minds to it? Oh Horror!

No one really expects the transition to be easy or without setbacks. I think most people understand that we are looking at an energy mix that includes, at least for a time, oil, gas and coal. We know, we understand that conservation is key to the future of energy production and use. Even those of us who are, perhaps, a bit starry-eyed about the move toward clean energy understand that it will be a struggle. But, it is time to stop being afraid of that struggle. It is time to be positive about what is possible.

We could just as well continue to pretend that global warming is not real, or that it is beyond the abilities of humans to have any effect on it. We can be satisfied with, or stop at policies that work “almost as well” as clean technologies. We can put our collective heads in the sand and continue with the status quo. If global warming is not real, and we continue on the current path, what are we left with? Continued energy dependence, depletion of resources at the cost of the environment — pollution of air, water and earth, and a defeatist attitude. If global warming is real we’ll have all that and more: rising oceans, more violent storms, crop failures, famine, etc., etc.

I am hopeful that we are finally going to move toward a sensible, forward-looking approach to meeting our, and the world’s energy needs. The current economic crisis should be, not Mr. Kovac’s “nail in the coffin for climate change,” but an opportunity to discover and to create.

Comment from anton
December 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

New Plan for the God’s NWO
by anton2009 on Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:06 am

The world today is an old dead world and so is Humanity and the planet Earth. They need help. Enough with hating and fighting. It is time to work and build the New World Order which is not the New Babel which humans are creating but the God’s Kingdom,God’s NWO. There is no human who can sit in the God’s throne.
There must be first written a New Plan to start so the preparation of the New Kingdom on Earth;
1. Restore the Earth,the air,waters,plants and take care of the animals.They are all destroyed.
2. Building of the new world cities where all humans are world citizens and can travel easy everywhere and have a home, eat fresh natural food, drink fresh water and juice,breath clean air and work few hours per day creating gardens and forests,parks and rivers(chanels),monitoring,feeding and taking care of all animals and all humans who today are tortured,killed and destroyed.Rebellion must end and a New Rebirth must start now.
3. The humans are separated in groups who fight each other and spend more time talking and hating,fighting and destroying than working and changing,building aand creating.
4. There is ONE GOD, the Creator of All and there is no need to fight for religions and nations,groups and races.classes and sexes. There is nothing else higher to love and worship and fight and work for rathen than God of All, who is not many gods but just ONE over all images,creatures,experiences,stories,humans etc.
5. There is no prophet or mesanger,elite or king or priest or leader higher or instand of the God of all. There is nothing more important than the Plan of the Creator,the Transformation of the Earth and of the Humanity, which is their rebirth under the same God who is the only king in charge of all.
6. There will never be war and hate,destraction and torture of the humans and fight for land and power. They belong to the God of All, the Creator of the Earth and all life in it.No one can rebelle against His Power.

Comment from Brandie Schroeder
December 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Instead of drilling here there and everywhere for our energy independence we need to “free the weed”! Hemp seed oil will provide nonfood source alternative energy! And by “freeing the weed” there will be who knows perhaps millions of jobs created, no overcrowding in our correctional facilities, and the kicker for the government, BILLIONS of dollars in new money, tax revenue….The time has come,my friends,to stop the distinction and discrimination of marijuana from tobacco products. No more of this ridiculous prohibition! Stop Americans from sending so much money to Mexico!

Comment from Lawrence Landherr
December 4th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

The statement from The Chamber of Commerce representative comes as no suprise. Typical short sighted commentary motivated by money and greed. They would support global warming no matter what the price humanity has to pay (as long as it isn’t THEIR house which gets flooded).

Bravo to President-elect Obama! He has VISION and enough intelligence to make that Vision reality.

Comment from Lee Hebert
December 4th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Correction,

The CA ISO is at CAISO.com

If you do a google search it will come out on top.

Tab on “TODAYS OUTLOOK” then click on the graph to enlarge it.

As you will see every square represents 1,000 MWh. This is enough Energy to power 1,000,000 homes for an hour.

All the squares between the Green Curve and the Red curve is “SURPLUS” Energy just going to waste.

Under the enlarged graph you can add up the 24 hours of “SURPLUS” Energy just going to waste in the section “SURPLUS/SHORTFALLS”.

If CA is not having a rolling blackout today than logic prevails it is all “SURPLUS”.

Today is a typical day and there is enough “SURPLUS” Energy to power about 10,000,000 homes, paid for in the overall rate structure and more Global Warming and just going to waste.

Imagine if we stored this “SURPLUS” Energy for the next day.

And we can see mrelectricity,com

Other products store “SURPLUS” off peak Energy as ICE and HEAT for use the next day.

With “Smart Meters” recording the time and price homeowners can also be reducing their electric bill too.

Comment from Alden Hathaway
December 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

For six years we lived in a 95% Zero Energy Solar House in Loudoun County, Virginia. We sold it last year in December and made a 22.5% return on the investment we took on the solar and energy-efficient technology. We built the house without tax credits or incentives, financed it with a jumbo loan and walked away from it with cash when we moved to Atlanta last year in the middle of 2200 homes in foreclosure. So anyone in the Federal Government who continues to spout that we cannot achieve sustainability in this economy needs to submit their resigantion. We do not need that kind of negative thinking as we work to move the energy and environmental economy ahead.

Comment from Johnsy
December 4th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Wake Up Folks, it doesn’t matter what we do about any crisis except global warming, because if we don’t solve it, none of the others will matter. Any denial of this reality only brings it closer. We’re already late in responding and we need to act fast, so pretending the problem doesn’t exist is not going to work. We need to recognize that the clock is ticking on us all and begin to use our brains to solve this problem. No time like the present.

Comment from mcmckee41
December 4th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Until the greenies start to support nuclear electric power generation I cannot take them seriously. Also, it is very likely that we have crossed some climate change threshholds. No of us alive is likely to see any reversal of current warming until CO2 is actually removed from the atmosphere. If all our power needs were converted to electric energy created by solar generators and collectors tomorrow, heat would still continue to build up as the albedo would be decrease as the radiant energy was converted to heat energy. I agree we need to move with alacrity to get off fossil fuels for economic and national security reasons. Cars are not selling now because people don’t know what a new vehicle purchased today will be worth one year for now. Let alone five years from now. So if the desire is to get off fossil fuels ASAP then greenies need to learn how to cooperate/negotiate with the resisters.

Comment from rmarksev
December 4th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Arthur G above suggested gas at $4.00/gal. Absolutely! Obama needs as first priority to put a $2.00/gal tax on gas and diesel. If he won’t, then he is all retoric. We Americans are quickly going back to old habits with cheap gas. Americans do not buy fuel efficient vehicles without some pain. That pain is high gas prices. See my blog on my JEDI Fund at http://ecovelectric.blogspot.com We must collect the tax and allocate for specific purposes with oversight to the suggested areas.
We need a carbon tax as well to create pain to conserve electrical energy and gas/oil heating, too.

Comment from Joe Cuviello
December 4th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Is this a trick question? We threw hundreds of billions of dollars at the war in Iraq for some very shaky results. We send military all over the world at our own expense. We gave hundreds of billions of dollars to financial institutions. We are probably going to loan tens of billions to the auto industry despite popular opinion. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars on imported oil every year, and it is the single biggest item on the trade deficit for the United States. So how could you possibly say we couldn’t generate the capital or leverage our countries assets to fund investment in our energy infrastructure? If you believe that we can’t or won’t then you are simply being obstinant or ignorant depending on how well informed you are.

Comment from Ben
December 4th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

How bad would a recession have to be to be worse than the likely scenarios for global climate destabilisation? The former won’t kill us if we protect our arable land and potable water.

Comment from fritz
December 4th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Is anyone talking about steady state economy at the Obama-advisor level?? Seems to me that is where we should be headed. Google Herman Daly or Gus Speth for more details.

Comment from redbull6
December 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Sorry Folks, it seems WHATEVER the U.S. Chamber of Commerce seems to say, advocate or publicize is against the betterment of the American Worker & /or the American Citizen; NOW it seems that the C of C “propeller-heads” (including Mr.Kovacs)are pushing an anti-green agenda.
I for one take EVERYTHING that these fat-cats say with a POUND of Salt
-Redbull sends-

Comment from Joe Chasse
December 4th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

The US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE is NOT a scientific organisation, it is a BUSINESS outfit, and therefore NOT qualified to even ENTER the conversation! Just as redbull6 and others before have succinctly stated.

Comment from Billy
December 4th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Haven’t we been cooling since 1998? I’m not convinced the planet is warming. Even if it has warmed 1 degree in the last 100 years, I’m not convinced humans have caused that warming. But as a matter of common sense, I have 15 solar panels and a wood burning stove that cover two thirds of my power consumption. I recycle everything. Anyone can do it. I never felt the goverment had to make anyone “be green” Most of the people I know that talk about being green are some of the biggest offenders out there. B. Berg

Comment from Eric L. Ellis
December 4th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

The key issue of solving global warming involves California and several other states to impose their own air quality standards. Automobiles sold in California and in other states that have (or planned) the California Emission Standard Requirements would be allowed to significantly curb the tide against rising carbon dioxide levels (or lessen the likehood of poor air quality). The United States Environmental Protection Agency — under President Elect Obama — would be wise to tackle the issue of global warming in a wider detail. Establishing a federal standard of 0.066 parts per million category in reference to ozone levels would allow the Federal Government to require states to have mandatory vehicle emission testing programs for owners with gasoline- and diesel-powered automobiles (manufactured 1990 and later) in curbing the tide against global warming and horrendous air quality. Thank You!!

Comment from Sigma
December 4th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

At least 99 44/100% of human caused ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ is just unscientific hysteria sold by self-interested charlatans trying to get into “boodle bags” of self-destructive paranoid neurotics eager to extract defeat from the jaws of victory and create grand disasters by rolling back the industrial revolution.

The situation is much the same as in ‘The Music Man’ about the “terrible trouble River City was in” or the claim

“Indeed, blood sacrifice is required for the sun to move, according to Aztec cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin 1950 – 1982, 7:8).”

from page 76 of

Susan Milbrath, ‘Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars (The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies)’, ISBN-13 978-0292752269, University of Texas Press, 2000.

Now our versions of the Mayan charlatans, with little better evidence, also want sacrifices, this time, of the industrial revolution.

In fact as in the graph on page 2 of

Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, ‘Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years’, ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006.

the temperature now is within 1 C of what it was in the year 1000, and the rate of increase over the past 100 years is much like it was from years 900 to year 1000.

As in the graph of temperature and CO2 concentrations over the past few hundred thousand years and the current CO2 concentration reported in

March 30, 2006 – Department of Physics

Steven Chu, Director of Lawrence Berkeley Labs: “The energy problem: our current choices and future hopes”

at

http://realserver.princeton.edu:8080/ramgen/lectures/20060330chuVN350K.rm

the current CO2 concentration is higher than at any time covered by that graph yet the current temperature is not higher. So, the claims that CO2 will cause higher temperatures has already been refuted by current CO2 and temperature data.

One of the more vocal climate change alarmists is Tom Friedman, and he recently he explained that CO2 heats the atmosphere because it absorbs sunlight. He is wrong: If CO2 absorbed sunlight, then CO2 would be visible but it is not. The ‘greenhouse’ effect of CO2 is just that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in three narrow frequency bands, one each for the stretching, twisting, or bending of the CO2 molecule, from the Planck black body thermal radiation of the earth warmed by sunlight. So, Friedman has the basic science wrong. He’s just selling hysteria and not science.

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one, and is just pushing politics trying to throttle the prosperity of the industrial world in favor of the developing world.

We should get our base load electric power from coal and nuclear fission and our peak load from natural gas. Wind and solar are so far MUCH more expensive per kWh, mostly too far from the source of the electric power demands resulting in high costs and large power losses from long distance transmission, and intermittent and, thus, not suitable for either base load or peak load until we have inexpensive means of electric power storage which we do not.

Plug-in electric cars are total nonsense because using full house power (100 A at 115 V) it would take about an hour of charging for an electric motor to be equivalent to just one gallon of gasoline for a gasoline engine.

For Obama, f’get about him: In his interview of 1/15/2008, at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9×7t8dGwa0

he claimed that nuclear fission was too expensive and had problems with waste storage. Of course, it’s not too expensive but by a large fraction the cheapest source of electric power we have. Similarly, waste storage is not a problem: The ‘hot’ stuff degrades so quickly that nearly all of the waste can be down to background level in just a few years. More recently he has dropped mention of too expensive and just said that we would use nuclear fission if we could solve the waste storage problem. Soon he will come to accept that there is no serious waste storage problem.

Just go back to the 1970s when the charlatans were selling “global cooling” or to the 1990s when they were selling the fear that we would all be buried in our garbage. The charlatans are just looking for some hysteria to sell.

Comment from John J Burton
December 4th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

“Cap and Trade” sounds good but it is definitly the wrong way to go. There will be delays while politicians haggle over what industries and what firms get what size caps. “Trade” in practice allows unwarranted credits for questionable reductions such as tree planting. The EU tried Cap and Trade for years and found it id not work well.
A revenue-neutral tax is the best way to go.

Comment from Tracie
December 4th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

There are too many things that need to be done in our world. Eliminate plastic bags and buy more foods in bulk taking your own container. Eliminate gas vehicles using hydrogen fuel cells. Use solar energy for all electric and heat (it can be done putting a solar panel through the orbit) Eliminate weapons of mass destruction and machine guns (no one needs them). Eliminate the boundaries of Religion, religion = war. Spirituality is what needs to be with everyone. Elimate all toxins in our foods (pesticides, dyes and additives). Eliminate all pesticides on our cotton (they use more on that than anything and why, we don’t care about bugs in our cotton). Stop making junk in China that is unncessary. Reduce, reuse and recycle everything. Use fast growing trees or plants for our paper and wood.

Comment from elec
December 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

‘Climate change’ is a NATURAL cycle!
There is way too much evidence to deny it!

Actual scientists, unlike the feigned scientists presented by the UNCC, have over and over easily refuted the claims put forward by those who believe otherwise!

If you look at the actual data, glaciers are GROWING!

The Earth is COOLING!

Even the creator of the computer models which started off all of this stuff admits that the data is FLAWED!

People, you are being groomed to accept something that will ENSLAVE YOU!

You’d better read up on WHO is pushing this agenda and WHY!
I did!

I was around when this stuff got a real kick-start back in the 70’s- I was gullible and didn’t have access to ALL of the information as to who was behind this environmental craze and why they were doing it– I NOW KNOW!

You will have a fight on your hands from those who know the truth, so you are with the truth,or you are against it!

Comment from Gabe Schirm
December 4th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

I think this time in our history can be described with one word: Serendipitous. The United States is going through growing pains. We must cast away the old way of doing things. Its not working for business and its not working for our environment. I think the current economic crisis begs for a new way to create jobs. Because of this, the “green” energy movement is going to be propelled forward. I think if we invest “green” the sky is the limit.

Comment from alan
December 4th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

The first place we should be looking at besides the office or commercial environments would be the schools. If we can get millions of students around the States or world to adopt a less usage of paper in their daily learning process would go a long way ….

1. to conserve energy to produce paper
2. avoid landfills flooded with papers
3. avoid use of paper in schools
4. save the trees to breathe CO2 instead of creating it through burning or decay in landfills

If one child/student is to save 3 reams of papers per year, 1 million would be fantastic. 100 million would be awesome!
1 billion that would save the world.

Today’s technology of delivery contents of using CDs and/or flash broadband prevents such projects from being viable because of the inhibitions like rural areas do not have broadband or even poorer homes /schools in urban areas do not have.

Check out our solution using legacy tools and contents.

You would be surprise how easy it is to get this initiative going because any student/teacher/school doing so would be benefitting without trying. It is effortless and beneficial through better understanding, saving time and money etc.

We are looking for environmentalist volunteers to help us push this idea across the globe.

We can be contacted at http://www.paperlesshomework.com

Many developing countries are starting to go into it.

regards,
Alan

Comment from Mark Schonbeck
December 4th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

We MUST invest NOW in energy conservation, public transportation, renewable clean energy and other green technologies if we are to have any hope of getting through the current economic crisis. For the “economic crisis” is also an ecological crisis – we have been living beyond the means of this small planet and its daily and annual inputs of solar energy for too long. Hooray for EDF and the 28 other groups supporting and encouraging Obama to move ahead promptly with vital climate mitigation and clean energy and green jobs – and thereby address both ecological and economic crises at once. As for Bill Kovacs of US Chamber of Commerce, let him keep his head in the sand if he must, but meanwhile let’s help and urge Obama to get on with this vitally important work!

Comment from john bodine
December 4th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

The economic crisis will do more to mobilize individual citizens to acts of conservation than any promos or public pronouncements from government. What’s needed is guidance for individuals and families on how to conserve cash in the most environmentally friendly way. Then we are making a difference both now and int he future.

Comment from Mauvie
December 4th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Green is already an economical way of living….solar and wind energies that replenishes and are always available. lets use our fragile resources consciously while there are still a little under ground….
press our government to swith to green energy now….
to demand electric cars, subsidize solar companies….then there is hope for the next generations to come….

Comment from hawkeye
December 4th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Gasoline prices had been the lowest in months in our area, bottoming out at 1.60 per gallon for unleaded or E10, but in a day’s time the local price went from 1.65 to 1.79, so there is nothing logical or dependable about gas prices. I’ll say one thing, even 1.79 beats the 3.99 we saw here in past months, so you might wonder why I am complaining.

Lower fuel costs tend to dampen people’s interest in alternate fuels and conservation measures but we still need to keep up the effort to make the move to a greener transportation system. Implementation of mass transit services and biofuels can provide steady jobs for Americans
here at home where they are badly needed. And hopefuly someday we can get off the oil barrel and break the stranglehold that big oil has on us.

I think an aggressive education effort via the media outlets is needed in order to motivate people to go green and to help them see that doing so doesn’t mean deprivation and hardship for our economy. Quite the opposite, a heads up program or programs can mean some new jobs and welcome income to thousands of people who now are out of a job and just one heartbeat away from being destitute and homeless. Let’s not let our fellow countrymen down. Let’s put them back to work and at the same time enjoy the fruits of their labor in the way of a better environment and a stronger economy.

We have left it to the experts to provide us with workable policies too long, just to end up empty handed and frustrated. Isn’t it time for the worker bees to take the bull by the horns and start private sector initiatives that are based on tried and proven experience? For example, car pooling works and distributive production and consumption works by reducing the need to haul merchandise long distances from a centralized manufacturing facility to the customer who is sometimes hundreds of miles away. Our milk comes from as far away as 200 miles after the locally produced milk is hauled the same distance to the plants to be processed. Does that make sense to the conservative minded consumer? Nope, only to the greedy corporate type whose main concern is the bottom line of profit, and who doesn’t mind wasting fuel or even paying high prices for it because these costs are merely passed on to the consumer.

What a bunch of disingenuous, uncaring rip off artists we have running our corporations. I think we can learn to live without those parasites by going green. My book titled “Fort Hickok A Green Community” gives a number of examples of how that can be done, and it even gives stats to help size an operation for a given number of customers. It is available at amazon.com for a reasonable price, so try it and share the book with others.

Happy Holidays folks and keep up the good fight.

Comment from hawkeye
December 4th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

stevewonder:

I tend to agree with your opinion of the national Chamber of Commerce. When is the last time they did anything for the American motorist or consumer besides rip his knickers?

One small thing people can do is to have a drive to replace traditional incandescent bulbs with the new curly
fluorescent lamps. Volunteers could go door to door with the new bulbs and could help the homeowner change them out.

Some sort of a fund drive is needed to purchase the new bulbs and donations would also be helpful. I think this sort of effort would be ideal for a church group or a civic club such as the Lions Club or the Kiwanis.

Comment from hawkeye
December 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Peter Baldwin:

You may be right in that we may never reverse the warming process or erase the damage, but there have been very visible signs of pollution for centuries now, particularly in areas that have a high consumption rate of fossil fuels.
Areas that are cool and damp are also breeding grounds for damage due to air pollution. One might think that Lawrence, Kansas would be a relatively clean city but years ago, 50 to be more precise, I noticed the deterioration of art carvings on stone decoration for the historical museum on the campus. Limestone tends to suffer quicker than other materials but when marble and the really tough stone products suffer then that should be a clue as to our habits.

Visit a cemetery someday and look at the older headstones. Those of a hundred years or more, and made of a white marble, are often badly eroded due to air pollution.

Comment from hawkeye
December 4th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Tom Reed:
I have an idea for funding of green projects. Congressmen like to bring home the pork so let’s induce them to bring home money for projects that will help the environment, particularly the infrastructure and mass transit ones that can be long lasting investments in our economyu for a
change.

The EPA is certainly not a popular organization, and as bad as we need the controls, lobby groups who see these controls as punitive on their clients will put up a lost of resistance in Congress.

Maybe Congressmen need a cap and trade system such that for every dollar of pork they spend they also spend a buck for green projects. Let’s not wait for a one-size-fits-all solution to our needs, as that is merely a subterfuge for doing less or nothing, and is a favorite of the conservative crowd.

Let’s get a bunch of tried and proven projects underway all over the country. There are many biofuel initiatives that are technically feasible but not so profitable as yet. Given hands on experience the operators of those projects will find ways to improve the performance of their systems. I think that approach beats the heck out of sitting on our hands and whining while the so-called experts dabble around with this and that looking for a panacea. It ain’t there fools and you need to realize that and get on with what we have.

I am a pragmatist and as Larry the Internet Guy says “Git’er done.”

Comment from hawkeye
December 4th, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Glenn Koons:

A certain amount of socialistic idealism is beneficial in this sort of effort. It provides the inspiration needed to forge ahead into the unknown, and is not unlike leaning on one’s faith in his God to sustain himself.

We need all kinds of talent and if we pick and chose only the market oriented types or the pragmatists like me then we do ourselves a disfavor by shutting out the contributions of millions of people. Young people and the intellectual types tend to be socialistic and idealistic rather than being results oriented as I am. I am an older person now and I went thru the period of being a young idealistic person who was out to change the world and to save it from its ills.

Well, I have survived and the world still turns. Did I make a difference? I think so as I have convinced a number of people that the environment and the economy are interdependent. If only they would take the next step and contribute to the cause with their labors, skills, and gifts.

Comment from hawkeye
December 4th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

alan:Efforts are underway to avoid using disposable shopping sacks, which are plastic and paper.  Stores are selling durable reusable shopping bags and folks are starting to bring them to the store to carry their groceries home in. I understand that somewhere in California there is a 25 cent charge for a disposable bag. That may seem punitive but it sure will be effective in switching to reusable bags.  The plastic and other debris being dumped offshore is wrecking the aqualife and could in time have an adverse impact on our food supply from the sea. That to me is the ultimate of stupidity, to threaten the supply of seafood as there is plenty there for all if we just learn to take care of it. Seafood is essentially wildlife and is free for the taking.  Some folks cannot know a good deal when they see one.

Comment from hawkeye
December 4th, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Sigma:
What rock did you just crawl out from under? There is more to saving the environment than reducing or eliminating CO2, which is thought to contribute to global warming. CO2 reduction can be a free by-product or result
of responsible environmental stewardship.

As a former farm boy I have seen first hand what abusing the environment can do to us. Wake up and face reality for a change.

Comment from rleeh2001
December 4th, 2008 at 9:54 pm

I am for anything that helps mother earth, cleaning up pollution, but most people don’t look any further than there evening news, and misinformation given to us by the government, man has very little to do with global warming, our government wants us to believe we are to blame, because in the long run they want to charge us for our so called part in global warming, wake up do your research, don’t let the gov continue to pull the wool over our eyes.
Global warming is natural, this planet is going for a semi-tropical planet every where, 70-72 degrees year around every where, read and learn you won’t get the truth in the evening news or you local newspaper, government works on fear, fear is control. Thank God we have Obama to help straighten this sick broken system.

Comment from Bill Wurst
December 4th, 2008 at 10:46 pm

There are two types of people in this debate: those who realize the economic opportunities presented by climate change and those who feel that solving global warming requires additional expenditures. President-elect Obama is of the first type and Bill Kovacs is of the second.

The current economic conditions will cause many to advocate a reduction in taxes. While this may be necessary in general, one tax we need is a variable carbon tax to stabilize the price of energy in spite of these difficult times. Commodity speculators are only one reason for roller-coaster oil prices. Reduced demand through conservation brought about by high prices is the other. A variable carbon tax, if properly implemented, will raise the price of carbon-based fuels to the point of encouraging conservation and a switch to green energy sources without increasing the price so high so as to fuel inflation and inhibit economic growth.

Comment from Carol J. Griesemer
December 4th, 2008 at 11:43 pm

I agree with most of what you’re doing, but why does every thing have to be posed as “a fight” or as “a war” or as aggression? The way we got into this mess in the first place was through aggression toward the earth and the universe! I like to think of my contributions to care for the earth as more gentle and nurturing and caring: recycling everything that’s recyclable in Joplin, limiting my use of my car, which is already a hybrid, limiting my use of water and waste, etc. And of course, keeping our officials on task for chaging things at a bigger level.

Comment from epcraig
December 4th, 2008 at 11:57 pm

We need to choose not to burn as much as we can because we’ve added too much carbon dioxide (among other greenhouse gases) to the atmosphere as it is. The easiest way to convince people not to burn is to tax what can be burned. Tax the burning of petroleum more heavily because burning petroleum adds carcinogens to the atmosphere besides conquering Iraq for Cheney was expensive.

Comment from Johan Verink
December 5th, 2008 at 12:50 am

Do you really think, that as long as we do not have ONE clear cut reference parameter to measure, compare and evaluate our impacts on the environment, we can direct/guide ourselves properly?

Since everything in nature turns around energy, why do we not use energy (in kWh, since we may be able to imagine such values, which I call Energy Points (EP)) as the ONE reference parameter for our impacts.

With repesct to the green house effect, pollution and our food, the next thing we speak about isn’t that energy again?

Why can the Environmental Defense Fund not stand up and request unity, world wide, for assessing our human impacts, and then we might be able to start using money again as a valuable means for exchanging values: Goods and services.

Comment from Frances Griffin
December 5th, 2008 at 5:26 am

Reading Kovacs’ quote my first reaction was to say “What is he smoking?
He is so out of touch.
Then I see for whom he works and realize he works for an organization that represents to a large degree the shortsighted, selfish attitudes that got us into this mess in the first place.

Newsflash, Mr. Kovacs: While we do not have to shiver in the dark to save the planet, we do have to make sacrifices. I will do my part but besides the fact that I don’t want to be the only one, we actually don’t have time for this to get fixed one individual at a time. We need leadership and unity. It is a government-level problem!

So Mr. Kovacs,
Lead. Follow. Or get out of the way!

Comment from The Quadfather
December 5th, 2008 at 6:12 am

I lkeep telling you folks that the planet doesn’t need saving. But your moderator keeps deleting my posts. I guess dissenting voices are not allowed here.

Comment from madmatt of Aussie
December 5th, 2008 at 7:55 am

“I lkeep telling you folks that the planet doesn’t need saving” – The Quadfather (06:12 05/Dec/2008).

I couldn’t agree with you more ‘The Quadfather’.

Seriously, the planet will be fine – its already finding ways cope, and will continue to adjust just as it has done for hundreds of thousands of years – though its adjustments may come faster than us humans (and other species) can cope/evolve/invent/innovate…

So its not really ‘Save the Planet’ but more ‘Save Us from Ourselves’…

Comment from madmatt of Aussie
December 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am

‘Climate Change’ – is it real? Well, yes. We’re all feeling it, living it, being impacted by it. There should be absolutely no denial on that scientific fact.

The sticking point however is the ’cause’ or ’causes’ – and especially the phenomenon often dubbed ‘the human-activity factor’. So just what are the causes? Well;
1. On-going climate cycles of the earth (e.g. Ice-Age)… Proven Studies!
2. Previous changes to the earth’s orbit (and axis)… Mathematical Theories!
3. Fluctuation in the Sun’s radiation… Scientific Theories & Studies!
4. In Australia’s case, its tectonic-plate moving north 7cm/yr… Known Phenomenon!
5. Human Activity?!? hmmm, well… Never Ending Contradictory ‘Findings’ from Both Sides!

Is it some or all of these?!? We (humans collectively) waste so much time (and paper and electricity) and personal energy debating and dispelling these factors…

I think “it is time for change”, we need a shift away from ‘Preventing’ or ‘Minimizing’ ‘Climate Change’ – because, if the cause is some or all of causes 1 through to 4 we can’t do squat about it… and it gives the ‘CC sceptics’ and ‘those with selfish agendas’ reasons to dispel the fifth plausible cause.

We need to move more towards a holistic approach of ‘minimizing our own footprint’ (and not just our carbon foot-print). And stop trying to ’sell’ or ‘preach’ the idea (or belief) that humans are the-primary-cause/co-contributor of climate change.

By simply recognising that each and every human activity – our own activity – like transportation & travel, heating & cooling, manufacturing, shopping, leisure activities, participating in sport – right down to simply breathing, eating & sh*tting – is responsible directly and/or indirectly for one of more of following human-only caused events.
A) Air pollution (transportation, energy generation, manufacturing, waste by-products)
B) Water Pollution (as per A)
C) Landfill (waste disposal)
D) Landclearing (at a rate of 80,000 acres per day; wood for building & paper, or for agriculture bio-fuels & foods & farming)
E) Oil Spills (it’s not just a fuel, its used to make plastics)
F) Stripping the Earth of Finite Resources (fresh water, minerals, oils, etc)

Recycling is great because it helps to eliminate impact events like C (landfill) and to some degree F (consuming finite resources) – but it still has an A & B ‘footprint’ – sobeit smaller than that of sourcing and manufacturing from raw materials.

Extending the life of a product by re-using it many times over (or repairing it rather than replacing it) and/or for many different purposes triggers even less impact events.

But it is the initial purchase and original source of the product is the key to just how many, and how big, each of the human-activity impact events are!

When you next purchase…
- Will you buy it locally?
- Will it be made locally? – right there are the two underpins for a sustainable economy!!
- Will it be made using recycled and/or sustainable materials?
- Will it be made from non-toxic and natural materials?
- Will it be made using a process with no or minimal toxins and any waste contained and treated?
- Will it be made with out testing on animals?
- If it is a product produced by or made from animals, will the animals have been a humanly treated as possible (e.g. free-range & organically fed verses caged and pallet fed)?
- Will it be an item that can be re-used – and not a single use, disposal item.
- Will it be a bulk item (rather than multiple smaller-containered items)?
- Will it have minimal packaging and will that packaging be re-usable/recyclable?
- Will it be made by a company that is both environmentally conscious and practicing (are they using green energy)?
- Will it have been transported (or retailed) by an environmentally conscious and practicing transportation company, wholesalers, distributor and/or retailer (are they using green energy and fuel-efficient/zero-emission vehicles)?
- Will it be the most energy efficient on the market?
- Will you consider buying second hand over new?
- Will you do the diligence in determining if the company’s green credentials are genuine and not simply a market gimmick?
- At its end-of-life, can it be disposed of in an environmentally responsible way (i.e. recycleable or bio-degradable)?

The more boxes you can tick when you make your purchase (the smaller your environmental impact by human activity, the smaller your ‘foot-print’) – and no Phd needed to work out that; the less boxes you can tick, the bigger the environmental impact and the larger your ‘foot print’ of human activity…

As a consumer, I think we fail to recognise the power we have to DRIVE THE CHANGE!!

AS CONSUMERS (and as the descendants of generations of consumers) WE ARE RESPONSIBLE for the current world in which we live. Through our demands as consumers we’ve collectively created the world of single-use, non-repairable, shorter-life items manufactured in a non-eco-friendly and non-sustainable ways (and often using cheap labour). We wanted it cheaper and cheaper and cheaper – never questioned where it came from, how it was made or how it would be disposed of.

And if you think that’s a tall order they are minimal foot print alternative products and services out there – but are you supporting them? Look very closely on your supermarket shelves (or at speciality stores and/or on-line), there are many products out there in the market – as well as manufacturers, suppliers and service industry that tick – that can tick many of these boxes.

Including chemical-free cleaners & soaps, and paper products (toilet paper & photocopying paper) made from recycled office waste paper – and not re-bleached (or oxygen bleached), and generally the most energy efficient products in the same feature range (like white-goods and brown-goods) are only about 10% more expensive to purchase – but typically the energy savings in your first year of operating it easily surpasses this outlay…

Your purchase should no longer be based on price, but rather on principle – a holistic understanding coupled with a bit of due diligence.

Don’t get me wrong, lobbying and working close with governments and industry is admirable and in some cases effective – so keep up the great work EDF. However, I believe that any immediate and real change can only be driven by consumers (i.e. everyone of you who posts or simply reads here).

Consumers, change your habits today and everyday. And watch how industry will follow to meet our demands (just has they have done for decades) and governments will eventually catch up with industry and legislate accordingly.

Quite simply;
If you’re not a part of the solution, you’re still a part of the problem!! As a consumer, YOU HAVE THE POWER TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE!!

Comment from madmatt of Aussie
December 5th, 2008 at 9:58 am

AGAIN, Seriously don’t look to (and wait for) government and industry for the change (it may come, it may not, and if it does come it’ll most likely be too little and/or too late)…

Here in Australia, we (the majority of consumers and industry alike) sat on our hands waiting too long for the next election to roll around and for a change of government – lead by one man that promised change (sound familiar?), and once we got it (or rather overwhelmingly brought it about via the ballot box) we continued to sit on our hands waiting and watching ‘helplessly’ as our new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, went from ‘60% reduction by 2050′ pre-election commitment; to interrupting his party’s swearing-in ceremony (just over a year ago) to duck off and ratify Australia’s participation the Kyoto Protocol as soon as only he and his deputy were officially sworn in – which then earned him a standing ovation in the Thailand summit, where it then went down hill from there – unable to commit Australia to the summit’s 25%-40% reduction by 2020 (pretty much an on track stepping-stone for his pre-election commitment), which the world was literally hanging on, looking to the CC Crusader Rudd to led them through the Red-tape Sea – to one year and one Garnaut Report later (which, as I recall it, identified a 90% real reduction need – to stave off catastrophe – but in a recent review – hinted at a wishy-washy somewhere about the 10% reduction mark for the sake of industry and the economy) – now, just days ahead of Poland’s climate “talks” (and hopefully some “action”) Australia is not releasing its figures – but its hinted that when they are released that they’ll be somewhere at the lower end of 5%-15% reduction. Wow!

Sadly, world events (and not local, extreme climate related events in his home city of Brisbane and other states) has caused him to loose sight of one of the main reasons why he was elected – his commitment in relation to ‘human-activity’ related climate change.

Now according to the ‘Office for Climate Change’ (ironically established by our former prime minister and self-confessed ‘climate-change sceptic’ John Howard), 80% of Australians believe that both ‘Climate Change is REAL’ _and_ that ‘Humans are the Primary Contributing Factor’.

Yet sadly, when you talk to a room full of these 80%ers and ask them “what are they themselves doing about, since they believe that they are contributing to it – and the responses is an all too common “I voted for Rudd”… and “umm, what?!? no, that’s it” when asked “what else?”… i.e. very few – maybe one in 20 – have actually changed their habits to minimise their Human-Contributing-Factors”…

Don’t let this happen to you America!! So again, AS A CONSUMER and a collection of many individuals you can drive the change you want to see by simply changing your habits at home, at work and in the shops… support those that are doing the right thing and stop lining the pockets of those that continue to put profits ahead of social responsibility and your family’s future…

You know, humans are such funny beings – often we ridicule ‘fish’ or ‘pigs’ in our jokes making an effort to point out how they release their excrement their waste where they live & eat… yet we ourselves see no relevance to what we’ve all been doing for years… I guess that too could be funny, if it wasn’t such a serious problem… B-)

Comment from hawkeye
December 5th, 2008 at 11:29 am

To Wobbly1:Yes, we need to provide incentives to reduce energy consumption. Here are some rudimentary proposals to do just that and none of trhem exotic or new technology except maybe the last idea.Replace existing incandescent bulbs with the little CFL fluorescent bulbs, or curlies as I call them.  I use them in the home and they seem to last longer in applications where heat buildup shortens the life of an ordinary bulb.Volunteers could go house to house changing out people’s traditional incandescent bulbs for the new curlies, as I call them. Donation’s would be appreciated but the serviceshould be a no strings attached free service to everyone.Church groups and civic organizations such as the Kiwanis  or the Lions Club could have fundraisers to buy the new bulbs and then could do the actual replacement of them in people’s homes.The second proposal is to provide an incentive and even financial assistance to get the older gas guzzlers off the road and into the scrap pile.  This could be financed in more than one manner, but one idea is to charge a guzzler tax on vehicles that do not give minimum mileage or mpg.The state and counties could collect the tax and operate the system. This tax would be collected upon purchase of the vehicle and each time thereafter when the vehuicle is re-registered.Those wanting to trade a guzzler for a more efficent vehicle could be given financial assistance if needed and could be given a cash incentive at the time of buying the car. This would be funded from the guzzler tax collections.I also think that flex fuel equipped systems should be mandated for all passenger vehicles and light trucks of 3/4 ton capacity and under.  We also need to make E85 more accessible by helping to install E85 pumps at filling stations.  Right now the price of petro based gasoline has dropped to the point that using E85 is even less attractive than it was when gas prices were high, but the price of gasoline is fickle and we should not let down our guard.  Get the stations and the flex fuel cars in place so that when the oil patch hogs gouge us again we can use more E85.  It was very cost competitive in a nearby town when gas prices were 3.00 a gallon or more.The key thing to getting better peformance from E85 is to design engines and vehicles that will use it more economically than the ones today can.  It has been said that an engine with high compression will give better mileage on E85, but we are hampered by the idea that carengines must be flexible enough to use a number of fuels.  Engines won’t tolerate the alcohol fuels if the compression has been purposely designed to be low. That ina nutshell is what we have now with a flex fuel vehicle, a compromise design that is intended to make the switch to alternate fuels seamless. Consider these ideas and then come up with incentives to do so.  Mandate that certain classes of engines be designed to use only alternate fuels such as E85.  This would include lawn equiment, both riding mowers and push mowers, chain saws, weed eaters, and leaf blowwrs.  Small horsepower engines used in industry such as in forklifts and on small farm tractors could also be designed to use only E85 or an alternate fuel. 
Mandating the use of special fuels in these classes of engines would result in new designs, new engines, and new jobs.  If I can go to the store to buy special lamp oil then why can’t I go to the store to buy special fuel for my lawn equipment?

If the engine in a given applicatin is normally short lives then this is an opportunity to replace that equipment with one that could use E85. These applications are off road and therefore should not be subject to fuel taxes, at least from the state.
One more idea that is underway.  Help people buy reusable shopping bags and give a small discount at the register on purchases if the customer is using these bags.  Those who don’t use the bags will effectively subsidize those who do by paying a higher price for their merchandise. The Dollar General chain is actually giving customers a nice reusable bag. That is the American spirit, and that sort of thing is going to help get us out of this rut. We need more corporations that are responsible citizens.
Kick these ideas around and then come back with comments and improvements to the basic approach.  We can work together in the private sector and make a difference without raiding the public treasury.

Comment from hawkeye
December 5th, 2008 at 11:44 am

Alan Hathaway:

Good thinking and thank you. Ugrading existing homes is a good way to provide income for American labor.

Many older homes don’t have much if any insulation.

Gas fired furnaces more than 10 years old need to be checked regularly to see if combustion gases are getting into the air that is circulated throughout the home. We had an older house and could smell exhaust gases when the heater ran. Sure enough, the heat exchanger had rusted out and the flue gases were getting into the warmed air.

The test is simple to administer. A small hole is drilled into the plenum or ductwork close to the furnace and a probe is inserted. If flue gases are present it is easy to spot this way. After the test is complete a small piece of heat resistant tape is used to cover up the small hole.

My wife and I received a free furnace with much better efficiency than the one we had, which was the leaker. Some sort of flood damage relief progam back in the early 90s.

If a home is wired for 220V I think fuel could be saved by replacing gas fired water heaters with electric powered ones. Water heaters typicaly are ready to replace every 10 to 15 years so this could be an early way to start the ball rolling. Some assistance may be needed to help pay the costs of installing the electric service for the electric unit. Electrical work is right down terrible in terms of cost. Maybe some fee gratis work could be offered by licensed electricians.

I have two gas fired water heaters in my home and saved about 35 dollars per month by turning off the pilot lights in the summer months. Perhaps a furnace with electronic ignition, or even a conversion kit, could be used to avoid the loss of fuel by the pilot lights.

Comment from calumny
December 5th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

So, does Kovacs mean that now while we’re suffering the effects of economic shortsightedness, we should embrace environmental shortsightedness, too? You’d think that the economic mess would be a big mark against shortsightedness in general and advance warning against similar lax quality control about global warming, which simply takes longer to show the effects of self-indulgent irresponsibility. Global warming will definitely take longer to ameliorate than economic collapse, too.

Nobody ever got rich selling moderation. That’s an inherent bias to the system. It’s why money and economics (which are not synonyms) are not the answer to everything.

BTW, “Global Warming” IS a moderate term, practically an understatement. Don’t literally discuss the issue in the terms preferred by the fossil fuel industries. “Climate Change” is a weasel term; avoid it.

BEWARE false solutions, such as carbon sequestration. It will be much harder & more expensive to put carbon back underground than anything we can gain from pulling it out & burning it. That’s basic physics and basic chemistry, an application of the second law of thermodynamics. Anyone trying to tell you different is either deluded or lying.

Comment from Dr. J. Singmaster
December 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

It is too bad that staffers at EDF do not recognize that we have other perhaps bigger environmental crises developing in uncontrolled water pollution causing health effects and perhaps retrictions on water availability for farming and homes especially for unneeded biofuels that do not remove one molecule of carbon dioxide on balance from the 35% and growing overload of that gas. That pollution is coming from massive amounts of organic wastes and sewage no longer getting proper management for seepage control as well as allowing biodegradation to reemit GHGs needlessly. Emphasizing this developing pollution problem, EPA has called for a conference this month on risks of drugs in drinking water and NAS has issued a report at start of Nov. calling for major action to control pollution coming from storm drains.
Those messes may soon be burying our descendants if we do not get control programs going soon. I have sent several e-mails to numerous ED staffers outlining a program to get control of the messes using pyrolysis to destroy germs, drugs and most toxics by converting much of them to inert charcoal that can be buried with no GHG emissions and no seepage. I have stated some of this in previous Green Room postings and urge readers to call on ED staffers to get action on these wastes.
Dr. J. Singmaster

Comment from Goran Zolnaic
December 5th, 2008 at 5:29 pm

The situation is rather critical so an urgent solution is needed. Of course it could not be provided by the corrupt politicians connected with big capital. The exit for the mankind is in clean alternative energy use coupled with a higher consciousness level.

Comment from Michele Sanderson
December 5th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

HERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR HUMANITY TO SAVE ITSELF FROM EXTINCTION!

GET OFF THE DIME AND CHANGE.

Comment from Jim Lewis
December 6th, 2008 at 12:56 am

Mr. Kovacs and like-minded folks sure have trouble thinking outside the chamber/box. It’s obvious that a green economy can and must be the next, greatest and most important economic engine of all time.

Comment from Mickael Vandenberghe
December 6th, 2008 at 12:57 am

I believe “We can lift ourselves out of this economic crisis through investing in clean energy solutions that solve global warming” : THAT THE ONLY WAY to go from now on.
This is our last opportunity. We can built an economy based on ecology, R&D of renewable energies, cleaning the mess we’ve already made, and be a model for other countries. Once we clean up our acts – as human beings sharing this planet with animals and plants etc… – we can start worrying about cleaning up the junks in orbit around our planet and then we can start looking at exploring other planets… The quest for the sustainability of life on our planet as we know it is endless. We can create industries that grow slowly at a sustainable pace without destroying our planet and other planet in our universe. We can do this if we all get the education to understand this fact !! This is where we need to focus !! EDUCATING mankind.

Comment from Lisa B.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I would like to see a HUGE campaign of advertising and communications to raise public awareness. Not just give voice to those of us who have cared about this for almost 20 years.

It would need to be a campaign that would rival brand awareness of icons such as: Apple, GE, Verizon etc…And it would need to be branded with a consumer feel.

I would like to see each and every American take this to heart not just when they are forced to by economics. Show some pride and respect for your community, state and nation. We cannot continue to hog natural resources.

Comment from John Seymoure
December 7th, 2008 at 2:15 am

If countries like Brazil, Nigeria, India, China, Iran and others all over the world would put pollution controls on Manufacturers and other polluters maybe it would reduce the costs against us in the USA who are gouged for everything in every area of production. In China alone the use of coal is so bad that in 11, yes eleven days, the pollution reaches the USA and has an everlasting affect in our country and our air and affects our health. In Greene county in central Illinois it is in a valley and if the pollution in the air is heavier than the air it will settle in the valley and affect the health of all who live there. We have had what many would call a cluster of people who have been getting cancer and I lost both of my parents to cancer and I think it is due to pollution from other countries who have no pollution control. The Chenobyll Incident as it is referred to is affecting the entire world climate because if you go back in the records of what the weather was like before that you will see that we have alot less snowfall and our winters are more like fall than winter. It started the year of the Chenobyll Incident and is still affecting our winters. If you check I guarantee you will see lots of differences since that occurred. Nuclear fallout and other pollutants are causing deaths all over the world and something needs to be done to stop it.

Comment from Zen Benefiel
December 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Looking for solutions without the emotional trauma of pointing fingers is essential. Too often it takes us off course. There are valuable actions, considerations and potential solutions available throughout this blog. There indeed are numerous routes we can take depending on our personal/professional environmental impacts at present.

I attended a lecture recently, given by Dr. Robert Zubrin, where some shocking information (oil income/dependence) provided some real substance regarding the Saudi/Islamic dominance and why. Beyond that, though, the case for flex fuel vehicles made far more sense for transitioning from both oil and Saudi/OPEC profiteering.

For instance, Brazil was around 80% dependent on foreign oil. Over the last 15-20 years they are now 0% dependent, manufacture only flex fuel vehicles and actually export ethanol now. The US is supposed to be a technological leader, so let’s get with it. We have farmland in fallow, vehicle manufacturers asking for bail out money (result of poor planning) and currently consume 45% of the oil resources with only 5% of the population. That’s just wrong.

My Dad gave me some great words of wisdom years ago. If you are going to point fingers at something awry, be aware you’ve got three fingers pointing back at you. Be prepare with a plan (A, B & C) before you point the fingers. I know how groups can be led to better choices. I do it with road and bridge construction projects as a facilitator for partnering workshops currently.

Stepping back from the situation, asking better questions of procedures and protocols for leading change can do far more good than polarizing. We are all one family on planet earth. Whether we realize it or not, we are all in this together and it may indeed be the focal point that helps us to transcend dogmatic and superstitious religions that have separated people for far too long.

The intricacies of planning, strategic alliances and working with corporate and governmental authorities can make your head spin, but we have the capacity to choose effective leadership to create change for the better. The majority of the American public, for too long, has not been engaged beyond their front doors. It is time we started acting link a community of conscious participants.

Namaste,

Zen

Comment from rfkmjk
December 7th, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Zen,
You write like an intellectual person with great ideals. I applaud you for that. The reality is that Brazil is different from the U.S. as follows : Some stats: USA has a Population of approx. 320 million people with a density of 80 people per square mile – registered cars 240 million – with a ratio of 1.25 people per car. Brazil has a Population of 180 million people with a density of 53 people per square mile – registered cars 32 million – with a ratio of 5.6 people per car. You can see the demographics is much different between the two countries. Brazil has fewer cars per people and fewer people per square mile. Ethanol has less of an impact on their food prices compared to our country. If you want an alternative fuel that is environmentally clean it is hydrogen.

People of the world all have different beliefs and ideology. No one will make them as you would like ( one family ). I agree with your statement “Americans have not been engaged beyond their front.” I believe that more and more people in America are unaware of important issues. This creates a vacuum for far left and far right ideologies to subvert what our Founding Fathers have established over 200 years ago.
Thank you!
Rich

Comment from Marlys
December 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I think that the message is clear if we think about it that our economics and our climate are both in such a mess and out of balance at the same time. Any conscious, thinking human being has to consider the possibility that the two are linked, and also that solving the climate crisis will also solve our economic crisis. Everything on this planet is interrelated, to my view, and we cannot separate things from one another without furthering our state of imbalance, and balance in the way we live and work on the planet is the only way we can all live in harmony on this beautiful planet and survive well.

Comment from Heather Shelby
December 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

John Seymoure,

Thanks for sharing your point of view. At EDF, we do agree that international cooperation is key, which is why we had staffers at the recent international climate talks in Poznan, Poland.

However, if you look at this list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions (http://tinyurl.com/yxawra) you will see that the United States is still the top producer of this greenhouse gas. We need to set the standard and reduce our emissions immediately. After all, as the pollution from China has an impact over here, our pollution has an impact over there as well.

Ultimately, international cooperation is key to stopping climate change – but the change needs to start at home.

Heather Shelby
Online Membership Associate
Environmental Defense Fund

Comment from Heather Shelby
December 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

The Quadfather and madmatt of Aussie,

First, Quadfather, we haven’t deleted your posts unless they were repeats. I have actually written back to your posts several times.

Secondly, I just wanted to post this pdf document (http://www.edf.org/documents/5279_GlobalwarmingAttributuion.pdf) which counters many of the common arguments against anthropological global warming.

Thanks for posting,

Heather Shelby
Online Membership Associate
Environmental Defense Fund

Comment from Phil
December 8th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Economic collapse may lead a reduction in the rate of increase in man made CO2, so a minor ‘benefit’ to the evironment may occur. However due to recession and hardship even in the West, it may be increasingly difficult to encourage a more environmentaly friendly energy production policy as this does cost more money compared to burning fossil fuels. This debate is therefore far from over. Also it is hard to understand how we can avoid the really, really big issue, the human population explosion – an extra 1/4 of a million of us every day.

I’m afraid if we don’t address this then everything else will be futile, and climate change will start to gather pace.

I offer this unpopular opinion to the records. The future will unfold to reveal whether my pessimis, or the above optimism will prevail.

Comment from Adonis
January 7th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

If we imagine Atlantis as well as its culture and idea it’s as if it’s the one we all dream or want to dream but we can’t because we are afraid. Afraid because it’s so beautiful and yet so fragile. We wake up, and it vanishes under the waves of our every day life. That is how I feel about our fragile and precious Planet of today. And that the more we delay to take action the more we push things in a motion that it may cannot be undone.
Since I am also a believer!…I would like to emphasize that even though Atlantis went down a part of the idea still remains in every man and every woman of today. All we have to do is dig a bit deeper insight us and we will all find that the higher sense of consciousness that the Atlantians possessed does not fit to our materialistic world of today and thats why we can not grasp it or develop it.So it’s good to know that it’s not only our fault and that there is HOPE.Hope that people are looking into new Universal values again. Values that will be chosen wisely to serve as the beacons of hope, valour and honour for all life and all generations to come.
Many people in the world share that view today but just don’t know what to do about it.
Our old ancestors or demigods eventually went down because they eventually in a much longer period than what we count our Civilization they kept power in alliance with love and wisdom and that helped keep the balance of the elements in harmony. A wisdom we haven’t had the chance to even comprehend. Unfortunately at some point they misused the power and that’s why they were punished to sink under the sea. Whatever the case we found them flowing in our imagination for quite some time now, and many of us feel like they hung in there all this time to help us to make the right choices when the time comes.
We should be great full or even privileged to think that this time is now.
We took the wrong path as our materialistic world has shaded all of our moral and ethical cultural traits, but Greed. We have also broken the line. So what do we do if we realize that …Wait for all our governments to admit that we may have to change our Unprogressive economic and political systems whose foundations were supposed to be build to offer prosperity, harmony and justice? They do not seem to be serving us right today if we think that two billion people live in poverty today. The rest of us are exploiting the natural recourses without giving anything back to nature. Actually we are the only species on the planet that take from nature without giving back and ironically the only ones with the ability to destroy it or to save it.
How do we even dare to expect to find another planet if cannot prove worthy and cabable to maintain our majestic Earth.

The Green house effect, Global warming are among many others, signs that we are definitely doing something wrang.Even though I still feel that a higher sense of consciousness is slowly arising insight us again. Some politicians are also feeling it today, that Greed is far less noble as an idea which we drive our life path upon….NEW UNIVERSAL VALUES are on the horizon all they are doing is waiting for the right opportunity to SPRING. Respect Water as it’s the most vital element for all life. Respect Nature by implementing any laws to stop polluting the planet’s oceans and lands, Stop exploiting the animal kingdom in such an unfair and un- noble game ,Respect all natural life and let all countries to contribute willingly and vastly in reforestation and the well being of our oceans and ecosystems .Choose wisely the energy that will help both our environment but also to develop our new economies efficiently and rebuild our Economic and Political systems with a fairer and higher scope in mind. In doing so maybe we will proove to our Gods that we are worthy of creation, to Nature we respect it but also worthy of it,and to the Universe that we are a successful life form. Natural and Universal intelligence may reward us once more for becoming a better species. It may open for us the doors of a higher sense of consciousness and a higher sense of things.

Comment from stephen
March 16th, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Can someone tell me the percentage of green house gasses that are emitted from mankind into the atmosphere, I was told it is .03 percent. The rest is put off by natural means?