The earth at 350

Email Print posted by beelzibub 05/13/2008 01:59:12 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
The CO2 level is now above the tipping point.



http://www.thenation.com/do c/20080526/mckibben

350.org

< <snark> Lie berman: Hamas "endorses" Obama | Claims of Iranian munitions in Iraq false says US Army General >
 Display:
The earth at 350 | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
McKibben (none / 0)
I was checking out this site yesterday too.  When I was listening to Cenk talking about how things are generally *improving* in the world in terms of quality of life, I kept thinking about the biological counterpoint--that we are consuming and polluting at ever greater magnitudes and it just is NOT sustainable.  I think people who are not in the sciences can easily miss the evidence of this, but our ecosystems are unraveling, even without climate change as a factor.  Humans can't survive without the basic "ecosystem services" that nature provides:  water, air, living things for food. The easiest solution?  Less people.

by desertpear on 05/13/2008 02:06:04 PM EST

people (none / 0)

"The easiest solution?  Less people."

True.  Nature will do it in the time-honored way for us if we don't find a way first.  Who would have thought that in the end it would work out basically like the rabbits-on-an-island scenario where we consume all available resources, then simply die back?  Yet that seems to be where we're headed.

Maybe what it amounts to is that human culture has not evolved quickly enough to keep up with human technology.  I think it's about to get tested in the most fundamental way.  I wonder what the outcome will be? 

by bfaul on 05/13/2008 02:22:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
climate change (none / 0)
--"if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted, ...."
 
Any solution will require sacrifice on the side of the
public and intelligent leadership from the top.

Do you really wonder how it will end?


by beelzibub on 05/13/2008 03:24:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
nope (none / 0)

It might be summed up in this quote from James Lovelock:  "I would sooner expect a goat to succeed as a gardener than expect humans to become stewards of the earth."

Even my friends who are relatively well-off professional ecologists have generally only made very tiny sacrifices for the environment, but they are pumping out the babies the same as every other group of humans. A surefire way to instantly double your consumption and carbon footprint.  If wealthy Americans are unwilling to make sacrifices, who will? Do we really expect the Chinese and Indians to decide to forego improving their quality of life so that we can continue to hog all the oil and resources?  Most people don't even see the connection between humans and nature anymore, sadly, but that doesn't mean we aren't ultimately limited by our environment.

I forgot though, Baby Jesus will be coming back to float the believers up into the sky and save all the good people.  So it doesn't matter.

 

 

by desertpear on 05/13/2008 09:02:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We need a new direction (none / 0)
Everything I read estimates there are about 4 more years left before catastrophic climate changes occur and resources [read oil] dry up. Unless the next president puts on a path of energy independence, I believe meaniful changes will be next to impossible. There will
be a new economy based on renewable energy, that
will begin a rich and growing human society or there
will be a shrinking amount of resources that the
powers will fight over untill there are only the dead and
dying left.  The posters who are so gleeful at the prospect of fewer people are talking about the death
of billions. Do they think people will starve quietly? Do they think they will watch it in soundbites on youtube while waiting for the pizza delivery? There is only one more chance at the good future and people like kente xeco will fight it because he's mean.  He and his ilk will condem your children to lives brutal, meaningless and short. "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’" Don't sit back after this next election and hope for the best. Push for change that will matter and then push some more.

by beelzibub on 05/14/2008 09:47:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
we don't live on oil either (none / 0)

People seem to assume that if we solve our energy problem, that we can rest easy.  Dave is right in that climate change isn't the major problem affecting ecosystems right now.  I haven't seen any evidence that individual humans are willing to change their behavior much, and I think that is basic animal nature, unfortunately.

by desertpear on 05/14/2008 02:04:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (none / 0)
Everything I read estimates there are about 4 more years left before catastrophic climate changes occur...

Four years? Are you naive enough to believe that?

The CO2 level is now above the tipping point.

You can't possibly know that from what little evidence there is. You are only guessing.

by Twba on 06/11/2008 09:46:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You are completely right! (none / 0)
I often lean towards Dave's viewpoint that the climate change issue has caused us to lose focus on the many other environmental issues we face.  Just look at the honeybee situation to see how intertwined our lives are with nature.

by jawill11 on 05/13/2008 02:56:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Solutions (none / 0)

I wonder if anyone can ever actually comes to grips with the real problem. Capitalism as we know it is the problem, excessive production, waste, and consumption. People do not realize how much energy it takes to produce a shirt, and how much pollution goes into making that shirt.

Lets just use a hypothetical example, cotton grown in Pakistan, transported to China to be spun into yarn, then transported to another part of China to be made into a shirt, then transported from Indonesia are the buttons, that button is made of petroleum from the Middle East or Sumatra, then shipped to China, and the shirt is made, and shipped to the United States in Los Angeles port, then distributed throughout the United States.

IMAGINE the amount of pollution that making ONE shirt takes. Is this what "globalization" is supposed to do? Again, as long as we have an economy preoccupied by profit and governments in the world do not tax pollution (externalities), nothing will change. Why? Because that is cheaper than doing that within a local economy because then labour would demand higher wages! So we all lose, well not the owners of capital.

The solution is either to change the logic of capitalism, abandon capitalism, or localize the economy as much as possible. Because no one is actually wiling to deal with the issues, we are doomed.

 If you disagree with me, do not hesitate to explain. Not KenTX :)
 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/13/2008 04:37:42 PM EST

I didn't read all of your comment (none / 0)
But as relates to the example you provided of the shirt, I do disagree there. It's not like the shirt itself is being sent everywhere. As far as I can reason, first the various parts of the shirt (cotton, buttons, etc.) are shipped from wherever they are cheapest to produce. However, these are where those products are cheapest and would inevitably be exported in some way or another no matter what. Every area of the planet cannot grow cotton AND make plastic AND have the workforce necessary for assembly plants etc. etc.

As long as the method of shipping is utilizing the most efficient methods this can't seriously be considered as being a "wasteful" and environmentally harmful fault of capitalism's.

by Weapon X on 05/13/2008 05:07:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Read it all... (none / 0)
Exactly, you are proving my point. You cannot escape the logic of capitalism which is destroying the environment. The whole BASIS of your analysis is not premised on the environment, but how to maximize profit: "However, these are where those products are cheapest and would inevitably be exported in some way or another no matter what."

First, this is a complete myth, you are naturalizing what is not natural. Secondly, for thousands of years humans have been able to do everything they need locally. Obviously, capitalism has allowed us to have a increase in standards of living but at the expense of sustainability. Thus, short term gain in living standards long term destruction of the environment.

There are some commodities like oil, cotton, that cannot be grown everywhere, thats true. What I am really pointing out is not the extraction of raw materials but the process of production. We have multiple nodes of production all over the world, why? To find the cheapest productive labour we can, which is dispersed all over the world. As long as this is the operative logic of the economy, we will NEVER escape the environmental trap.

 Imagine a economy where international commodities are still transported, but the distance between production and distribution is minimized so that the amount of pollution is minimized. Thus, a local economy, the same goes for agricultural production. Again, the reason this does not happen is because of the logic of accumulation, thus capitalism. Its cheaper to outsource work especially with still cheap oil, compare oil to milk for instance, and exploit third world labour and environments to secure lowest costs possible, then make a killing in the markup.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/13/2008 05:26:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Appropriate technology (none / 0)
Choice of crops and animals is too important to overlook. The admonition for Muslims and Jews that eating pork is sinful resulted because people react to avoiding sin more than the not so common sense not to raise domestic pigs in the desert.

Can't grow cotton or oil yielding plants? Grow hemp or rape seed or olive trees or sunflowers. No food crops for your animals? Let them graze on grasses, or eat less meat. Land is drying, becoming desert or floods wash away soil? Plant trees. Energy is too expensive? Make your own--wind, water, solar, tap the chickens' dung heap for methanol--and let the chickens out of the cages to eat bugs and weeds.

Local and global can only be combined when each makes sense ecologically and economically. Nobody can afford a global economy in the long run until local self-sufficiency for necessities and energy are available for everyone, wherever possible. Only after that will global trade begin to make sense.

by zenie on 05/14/2008 01:55:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the problem is not capitalism (none / 0)
The problem is an over-supply of non productive people. I submit that if all under achievers were given financial incentive to willingly undergo sterilization, we could solve all of Nick's global problems. After the Great Plague, Europe was a great place to live because there were 50% less people.

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 06:30:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey (none / 0)
You belong to the anti abortion, anti birth control party. You need to go talk to your own people on that one.

by z1p101 on 05/13/2008 06:45:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Its funny (none / 0)
How Republicans are "pro-life", yet advocate "pro-death" or "pre-life" policies. This is NOT surprising considering that American's eugenic policies were emulated by Hitler and the Nazi's with Operation T4 and the Final Solution. Republicans truly are, neo-fascists if this is their argument.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/13/2008 07:01:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
real life solutions (none / 0)
Liberals advocate a pro-choice, pro-death agenda that makes abortion a Holy Sacrament. I happen to agree with this Democrat position.

I'm simply advocate paying a $25,000 government check to every person 25 years or age, or younger, who independently chooses to undergo voluntary sterilization.

Think how much money the government could save in future in WIC, food stamps, prison costs, welfare checks, medicare, Medicaid, housing, social security checks. That’s a heck of a bargain for $25,000.

Think how much we could reduce man-made destruction to the environment by eliminating non-producers and under-achievers from the ecosystem.

Nobody is being euthanized. We are simply preventing future losers from being conceived. A form of this social Darwinism and natural selection is already occurring.  

The goal is to dramatically reduce the number of people on the left hand side of this curve, who are commonly referred to as “Democrats”.
iq

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 08:25:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Once and for all (none / 0)

I would like to put an end to a Ken argument.

"Nobody is being euthanized. We are simply preventing future losers from being conceived. A form of this social Darwinism and natural selection is already occurring. "

This statement suggests  that children of conservatives are also conservative.

Now, let's look at Ken's reality with his own son. 

"I had dinner this evening with my son and we debated the issue of smoking mother nature.

My points were that it's bad for your lungs, expensive (if you smoke the good stuff), illegal, and under-appreciated by most employers.

My young Rastafarian is not buying it. He says he's still gonna burn one down.

He needs to grow up, get married, get a mortgage, and get boring like the rest of us."

Oh yea (snicker). Ken's boy sounds like a future conservative to me.

by z1p101 on 05/13/2008 10:54:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sick (none / 0)

Its a rather sick and twisted logic of eugenics, little does a fellow poster realize how much he actually sounds like a Nazi. The idea of sterlizing "undesirables" is a American idea that was adopted by the Nazi's. It basically assumes that poverty, sloth, etc. are genetically inherent traits that should be exercised by the state. Ironically, the HEIGHT of government control is through eugenics. I love the contradiction and ironies in the little empty space between two ears. The Nazi's had a term for the proposed solution to the problem of "overpopulation" of undesirables, "Lebensunwertes Leben"-or-Life Unworthy of Life. It should not surprise ANY of us that Republicans are really cloested fascists.

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/13/2008 11:08:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
zippy (none / 0)
You don't know what I was like back in college.

When my son starts paying $100,000/year in taxes, he will become a lifelong Republican.

It happens every time.

by KenTX on 05/14/2008 05:46:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Every time? (none / 0)

Like Warren Buffet?

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 09:52:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe (none / 0)

But you would be surprised how many people are not willing to sit back and watch our constitution be shredded in exchange for a tax cut.

Don't sell your kid short like that. He does sound like an intelligent person. 

by z1p101 on 05/14/2008 10:48:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If I get a chance (none / 0)
I might not get a chance to pay taxes after your neoCONS start a war with Iran and I get drafted.

by dtpizzle on 05/14/2008 11:28:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Actually... (none / 0)
I can see the GOP instituting a special "freedom tax" on soldier's income.  It would serve their purposes by driving our fighting men to private armies like Blackwater.

by ProfRich on 05/14/2008 12:25:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Empires collapse... (none / 0)
when they replace their normal, patriotic armies for armies for profit, reference ROME. America...you can be so predictable.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/14/2008 12:40:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
God Bless. Go forward. (none / 0)
That is my favorite Republican talking point.

Please keep painting yourselves as rich fat cats whose primary concerns are your wallets.

by richardshort2001 on 06/11/2008 01:38:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oy vey (none / 0)

Not this again,  You need to get some new material. 

Not to worry Ken, Thanks to your boy George the 8 years we will have wasted with drivel about the Global Warming Hoax, suppressing science and all the other nonsensical crap that spews forth from the RNC and the Whitehouse, and you , we may have waited to long.

In fact the magnitude of death and destruction that will be wrought on this planet from your pals intransigence and deception will make your so called "pro-choice, pro-death agenda" a walk in the park.

The difference is, people who have abortions are making a choice. The millions on both sides of the "curve" who will die from flood, famine and fire due to the big oil's pro climatic change agenda had the choice made for them.

Enjoy. You have a few more years left than I do. One more thing, I'd move my family if I was you, Houston is very, very low.

 

 

by MRFred on 05/14/2008 11:19:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Ball (none / 0)
Here is an alternative way of doing things:

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=ErYcScPcaHg&feature =user

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=ErYcScPcaHg&feature

Or Here

by yturks on 05/13/2008 06:33:22 PM EST

Mixed Feelings (none / 0)
I hope that was a joke so I can feel better about it, a condom being used for a ball in AIDS torn Africa...efficient use of resources I'm sure. The odd positive of the story is that balls do not have to be imported from abroad, per se, thus an example of local production.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/13/2008 07:10:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is no joke... (none / 0)
They do this in Indonesia too... Ive seen it with my own eyes!

And we're saving these people from what?

:)

by bobo1 on 05/14/2008 01:20:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The earth at 350 | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: