I'm so happy were finally pulling out heads out of our asses.
Good show! I hope as other provinces, states, countries, counties or even simply as individuals we will see more following suit and helping alleviate anthropogenic global warming!
"One of the few dissenting voices came from the opposition Wildrose Party.
Leader Brian Jean said Albertans face job losses and economic uncertainty."
Shocking!
My understanding is that the Wildrose Party is in Alberta only. Interesting that a political party confines itself to one Province. What's their story?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm so happy were finally pulling out heads out of our asses.
Good show! I hope as other provinces, states, countries, counties or even simply as individuals we will see more following suit and helping alleviate anthropogenic global warming!
"One of the few dissenting voices came from the opposition Wildrose Party.
Leader Brian Jean said Albertans face job losses and economic uncertainty."
Shocking!
My understanding is that the Wildrose Party is in Alberta only. Interesting that a political party confines itself to one Province. What's their story?
From what I can tell, it's just some economically conservative party that puts oil/money first while pretending to care about people... so not much different from any other party when it comes to pretending to care about people.... but it does seem to attract some wackos, even though the party itself isn't loony, as they go (i.e. not comparable to the Tea Party or anything like that). That's my basic impression. Since I don't live in Alberta, I'm not that well-informed about them. IMO, they are only in Alberta because that's the only province that is right-leaning enough for there to be room for two right wing parties.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
I'm so happy were finally pulling out heads out of our asses.
Good show! I hope as other provinces, states, countries, counties or even simply as individuals we will see more following suit and helping alleviate anthropogenic global warming!
"One of the few dissenting voices came from the opposition Wildrose Party.
Leader Brian Jean said Albertans face job losses and economic uncertainty."
Shocking!
My understanding is that the Wildrose Party is in Alberta only. Interesting that a political party confines itself to one Province. What's their story?
From what I can tell, it's just some economically conservative party that puts oil/money first while pretending to care about people... so not much different from any other party when it comes to pretending to care about people.... but it does seem to attract some wackos, even though the party itself isn't loony, as they go (i.e. not comparable to the Tea Party or anything like that). That's my basic impression. Since I don't live in Alberta, I'm not that well-informed about them. IMO, they are only in Alberta because that's the only province that is right-leaning enough for there to be room for two right wing parties.
Sounds like some kind of fringe group. Thanks for the info.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
Interesting article here that talks about the so called "hiatus" or "pause" in global warming:
AMY GOODMAN: We are broadcasting from the 21st COP, Conference of Parties, United Nations Climate Summit here in Paris, France. The first week of talks is wrapping up. Nearly 150 world leaders gathered here earlier this week. On Monday, President Obama praised world leaders for submitting voluntary pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
PRES. BARACK OBAMA: Already, prior to Paris, more than 180 countries representing nearly 95 percent of global emissions have put forward their own climate targets, that is progress. For our part, America is on track to reach the emissions targets that I set six years ago in Copenhagen. We will reduce our carbon emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and that’s why last year, I set a new target. America will reduce our emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels within 10 years from now. So our task here in Paris is to turn these achievements into an enduring framework for human progress. Not a stopgap solution, but a long-term strategy that gives the world confidence in the low carbon future.
AMY GOODMAN: While more than 180 nations have pledged to voluntarily reduce emissions, many scientists say far more needs to be done to keep global warming in check. We’re joined now by two guests, Paul Oquist is Nicaragua’s Chief Climate Negotiator. Nicaragua is one of 11 countries not to submit a pledge to cut emissions. Also with us is Meena Raman, climate change coordinator for the Third World Network. She’s also the Honorary Secretary of Friends of the Earth Malaysia. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! So, Mr. Paul Oquist, what is happening here? Why is Nicaragua not participating? Why didn’t you submit voluntary standards for your country?
PAUL OQUIST: Because the concept of universal responsibility and voluntary commitments doesn’t work. Universal responsibility is a spin, it’s a spin on historical responsibility, and common but differentiated responsibilities. The first proof that INDC doesn’t work —
AMY GOODMAN: Wait, wait, wait. Just one sec. These terms are terms 99 percent of the world won’t understand won’t understand.
PAUL OQUIST: OK. These voluntary commitments don’t work —
AMY GOODMAN: Even common differentiated is a term that is not commonly used.
PAUL OQUIST: OK. But, the — we’ll say that the voluntary commitments that the universal responsibility — everyone is responsible, is a spin on historical responsibility, because, everyone did not create this problem. Nicaragua has 4.8 million tons of emissions a year. And that’s 0.03% of emissions. Do we feel responsible for having caused climate change? No, not at all. Have we done something about it? Yes, we have gone from 25 percent renewable to 52 percent renewable since 2007, and in 2020 we’ll be 90 percent renewable.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain, for a moment, when you say you’ve gone — you’re going to 90 percent, what are you changing? What is happening in Nicaragua?
PAUL OQUIST: We have a contract with a Brazilian consortium for 323 megawatts of hydroelectric that will take us to —- some smaller projects also. But we went from 25 to 52 percent with geothermal power from the volcanoes, wind power, and now sun power because the solar panels are kicking in, too. Last year, we had a saving of 2.1 million tons of CO2 because of our shift to renewable energy. And our actual emissions were 4.8, so it’s quite significant. Plus we have committed to 11 million tons in our forestry sector that we will cut in the next five years. So that is over two years of emissions. And the grand inter-oceanic canal that we’re building represents 32.5 million tons per year of saving for the maritime commerce. So really, Nicaragua’s house is in order terms of mitigation, but we are on planet Earth and we have to keep this genie in the bottle. We have to achieve the objective of 1.5 degrees increase in this century or at worst, the two degrees. And what does this process in Paris lead to? Three degrees. And three degrees, in our country -—
AMY GOODMAN: Your talking about Celsius.
PAUL OQUIST: Celsius, exactly. Three degrees Celsius. And three degrees Celsius is not acceptable. Three degrees Celsius is a disaster. It’s catastrophic. So we think that we have to get out of this spin and back to where the problem can be solved. Ten countries, Amy, have 72 percent of the emissions. 10 countries.
AMY GOODMAN: In the world.
PAUL OQUIST: In the world. Twenty countries have 78 percent. So can see it’s only 72 to to 78 percent, adding 10 more on. But, they have, also, 76 percent of the world’s gross income. A hundred countries have three percent —
AMY GOODMAN: So, wait, you’re saying that they have that much of the world’s gross income so they can afford —
PAUL OQUIST: They can afford it and they are the ones who have the CO2 that can be cut. So 100 countries, the 100 lowest countries have 3 percent of the CO2 emissions. The 20 largest have 78 percent of the CO2 emissions. Are we going to try to cut out of the 100 countries with 3 percent or out of the 20 countries with 78 percent, or even maybe just the 10 countries with 72%?
AMY GOODMAN: So, clearly, one of the countries you’re talking about is the United States. What do you think the United States should do, the historically the largest emitter of greenhouse gas?
PAUL OQUIST: Well, China has over 10,000 million tons. The U.S. has over 6,000 million tons. Europe has over 4,000 million tons. The three of them are half. They’re half. So, they need to increase their level of ambition if we’re going to solve this problem. There is no solution without them increasing their level of ambition. And right now we think —
AMY GOODMAN: And what is that — when you say level of ambition, ambition’s a big term. But, what do you want them to do?
PAUL OQUIST: They cut their CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions more to reforest and get more sinks through forestry and bamboo and other ways of the CO2 the sinks. And then fuel efficiency is another thing that can be done. But their contributions, their commitments are not enough to limit to two degrees right now we’re looking at a three degree world, and that is catastrophic and unacceptable. I would just like to point out that last week, Mr. Michel Jarraud, the Executive Director of the World Meteorological Organization stated that we have reached one degree above the preindustrial level. We have 400 parts per million of greenhouse gases. And at one degree, what do we have? We have all of the ice in the world melting, the Arctic, the Antarctic, Greenland, mountain glaciers. We have drought, four year droughts in Southern California — Southern United States and Southern Iberia, Southern Africa, Southern Australia. You can see a pattern there, the southern edges. We have the strongest Niño in years, one of the fourth strongest since 1950, which is bringing drought to some areas and floods to others, and they also tell us that this is the hottest year ever, 250. This is with one degree. So are we going to play roulette with the world’s future and let three degrees slip out of this Paris congress?
AMY GOODMAN: Just to be clear, three degrees Celsius is about 5.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
PAUL OQUIST: That’s right.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
The old news is that carbon reduction targets are still far too low. I almost want to laugh when I see how pathetic these efforts are. It's really hard for me to read these reports and have much hope that we will make the right choices.
Please, somebody, prove me wrong!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The old news is that carbon reduction targets are still far too low. I almost want to laugh when I see how pathetic these efforts are. It's really hard for me to read these reports and have much hope that we will make the right choices.
Please, somebody, prove me wrong!
Damn... sorry Brian, you just always say what I think.... so sad...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
The old news is that carbon reduction targets are still far too low. I almost want to laugh when I see how pathetic these efforts are. It's really hard for me to read these reports and have much hope that we will make the right choices.
Please, somebody, prove me wrong!
Damn... sorry Brian, you just always say what I think.... so sad...
Believe me, KCE, I so often wish I had more positive things to say. It's really helpful to remember that Vaclav Havelian definition of hope- that hope is not the conviction that things will turn out well but rather, hope is the conviction to do what makes sense no matter how things turn out. I think that helps nullify some of the futility and maybe even gives us, those who come after us, and all other life a chance to be well.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
A comment made by Paul Watson that I read recently states that (as important as it is) global warming is not our biggest ecological problem. The statement is in regard to the first law of ecology:
Law No. 1 The strength of any ecosystem is based on biodiversity.
With regard to that, Watson said, "The decreased level of biodiversity on the planet is our most serious problem, even more serious than global warming."
We are in the sixth known major extinction event and this event is caused by humans and is closely related to human over-consumption and unchecked human population. It makes sense to me that global warming is not our most serious problem.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
A comment made by Paul Watson that I read recently states that (as important as it is) global warming is not our biggest ecological problem. The statement is in regard to the first law of ecology:
Law No. 1 The strength of any ecosystem is based on biodiversity.
With regard to that, Watson said, "The decreased level of biodiversity on the planet is our most serious problem, even more serious than global warming."
We are in the sixth known major extinction event and this event is caused by humans and is closely related to human over-consumption and unchecked human population. It makes sense to me that global warming is not our most serious problem.
true ... although the factors contributing most to global warming are the ones killing biodiversity ... which is pretty much industrialized agriculture ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
A comment made by Paul Watson that I read recently states that (as important as it is) global warming is not our biggest ecological problem. The statement is in regard to the first law of ecology:
Law No. 1 The strength of any ecosystem is based on biodiversity.
With regard to that, Watson said, "The decreased level of biodiversity on the planet is our most serious problem, even more serious than global warming."
We are in the sixth known major extinction event and this event is caused by humans and is closely related to human over-consumption and unchecked human population. It makes sense to me that global warming is not our most serious problem.
true ... although the factors contributing most to global warming are the ones killing biodiversity ... which is pretty much industrialized agriculture ...
Also true. There are different takes on the basic laws of ecology including the more famous Barry Commoner 4 Laws of Ecology. The ones that make most sense to me are these three:
1. THE LAW OF DIVERSITY. ECO-SYSTEMS REQUIRE DIVERSITY.
2. THE LAW OF INTERDEPENDENCE - ECO-SYSTEMS DEPEND UPON INTERDEPENDENCE OF ALL SPECIES.
3. THE LAW OF FINITE RESOURCES. THERE IS A LIMIT TO RESOURCES THUS A LIMIT TO GROWTH AND THEREFORE A LIMIT TO CARRYING CAPACITY.
If we don't abide by these, we perish.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
the issue is where is that tipping point where we've reached the point of no return and we reach ecological collapse!?
We may be there already. It's not like the stock market crashing over night or a massive meteor hitting the planet and causing a mass extinction. This extinction event will probably take many years and will be slow in human terms. What I'm advocating for is to do what we can to slow it down and give us and other species a fighting chance for survival.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
What environmental and labor advocates have been claiming for some time now has come true: Solar energy is a bigger source of jobs than fossil fuels – and it’s only going to get better from here on.
That is according to a new report from the Solar Foundation, which found that by the end of 2015, there were 209,000 workers in the solar industry — more than those employed in oil and gas extraction.
“The solar industry has once again proven to be a powerful engine of economic growth and job creation,” said Andrea Luecke, president and executive director of the Solar Foundation, in a statement. “Employment in solar has grown an extraordinary 123 percent since 2010, adding approximately 115,000 well-paying jobs.”
Much of the growth has come from the installation side: the people putting those beautiful panels on residential rooftops, parking structures and commercial buildings across the country. I’m sure you’ve seen them in your neighborhood, too (unless you live in a state where oil and gas lobbies have restricted solar expansion, like Nevada). Sales jobs are also growing.
On the other side, oil and gas jobs are disappearing. Part of this is due to the wave of bankruptcies in coal — most recently Arch Coal, once one of the biggest energy companies in America. This is due to massive drops in coal prices and the reduction of coal usage, as more and more states shift to cleaner energy. President Barack Obama’s recent move to halt new coal mining on federal lands is only another step in the slow death of coal.
Oil is seeing a similar wave, as major oil companies cut their exploration and development budgets due to incredibly low oil prices. Last week, they fell below $30 a barrel, a level at which drilling in much of the United States is just not economically feasible.
The amazing thing, and something no one could have predicted just a few years ago, is that solar is thriving despite the fact that oil and coal prices are so low. Many thought that high fossil fuel prices were necessary for renewables to be able to compete. It turns out they were wrong, which is great news for climate.
“Solar is providing a tremendous boost to our economy while meeting public demand for clean, affordable energy,” said Andrew Birch, CEO of Sungevity, in a statement.
Both the Solar Foundation and the U.S. Department of Labor expect solar job growth to remain strong in the coming year, as more and more panels go online. States that promote clean energy will win, while states that continue to ride the dying horse of fossil fuels will be left behind.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
^^^ Good to see that what some of us have been saying for quite a while is coming to light. Solar alone will not solve all our planetary environmental woes but it's a big step in the right direction!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
^^^ Good to see that what some of us have been saying for quite a while is coming to light. Solar alone will not solve all our planetary environmental woes but it's a big step in the right direction!
I don't remember who but someone was talking about the impact of solar in the desert. I think it's ridiculous worries as being a former desert resident…
I think solar is a GREAT step into the future.
Also 60 minutes did a great special on the glaciers and global warming tonight!
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
^^^ Good to see that what some of us have been saying for quite a while is coming to light. Solar alone will not solve all our planetary environmental woes but it's a big step in the right direction!
I don't remember who but someone was talking about the impact of solar in the desert. I think it's ridiculous worries as being a former desert resident…
I think solar is a GREAT step into the future.
Also 60 minutes did a great special on the glaciers and global warming tonight!
Probably was me, haha! At one time I would have thought the same but then a few years back I was talking to a cousin of mine who has been an environmental lawyer (highly underpaid as a lawyer, does it for reasons other than money) and he explained in some detail how destructive to fragile desert ecosystems those massive solar grids are. I'm all for putting solar panels on any and all roofs of any kind (buildings, parking lots, etc) but very disinclined to favor covering delicate soils and fragile ecosystems with any kind of hardware. Also, the road building to put these things up wrecks havoc on said environments.
Until we start looking at solutions that are good for ecological balances, that respect the laws of ecology and that favor all life in general we will continue to box ourselves and all other large life into a corner with no escape.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
^^^ Good to see that what some of us have been saying for quite a while is coming to light. Solar alone will not solve all our planetary environmental woes but it's a big step in the right direction!
I don't remember who but someone was talking about the impact of solar in the desert. I think it's ridiculous worries as being a former desert resident…
I think solar is a GREAT step into the future.
Also 60 minutes did a great special on the glaciers and global warming tonight!
Probably was me, haha! At one time I would have thought the same but then a few years back I was talking to a cousin of mine who has been an environmental lawyer (highly underpaid as a lawyer, does it for reasons other than money) and he explained in some detail how destructive to fragile desert ecosystems those massive solar grids are. I'm all for putting solar panels on any and all roofs of any kind (buildings, parking lots, etc) but very disinclined to favor covering delicate soils and fragile ecosystems with any kind of hardware. Also, the road building to put these things up wrecks havoc on said environments.
Until we start looking at solutions that are good for ecological balances, that respect the laws of ecology and that favor all life in general we will continue to box ourselves and all other large life into a corner with no escape.
On the other side of the coin though, we have to be careful not to destroy the forest to save a tree. Those incredibly fragile desert ecosystems are nothing compared to the lush mountains of Appalachia which are being savaged for coal to meet electricity demands. The desert ecosystem that is destroyed by solar farms is not even visible to the average observer, but in WV and KY they are destroying hundred+ year old hardwood trees by the tens of thousands and leaving nothing behind but dirt (the soil is gone and what's left is poisoned) and invasive grasses. They are taking away the very tops of the mountains themselves, in a place where the biomass of 1 acre is probably equivalent to 100 acres in the desert. Tough choices have to be made, and to me, this one isn't even a tough choice, it's a no-brainer!
I don't like the sound of calling one ecosystem superior to another, but the fact is they are not all equal. Some have much more diversity to lose, and much greater consequences of loss than others. If we have to weigh one against another (and we absolutely do), surely the one that is bursting with centenarian beings which inspire CO2 and expire O2 should win out over a crust of seasonal wildflowers and microbes.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,304
I don't like the sound of calling one ecosystem superior to another, but the fact is they are not all equal. Some have much more diversity to lose, and much greater consequences of loss than others. If we have to weigh one against another (and we absolutely do), surely the one that is bursting with centenarian beings which inspire CO2 and expire O2 should win out over a crust of seasonal wildflowers and microbes.
I would argue that all ecosystems are of equal importance because they are part of a whole. Destroying any ecosystem affects others. If you disrupt vegetation in a desert you increase erosion. This can lead to changes in streams and riparian vegetation and habitat which in turn affects something else down the line. It's all connected. If we argue to disrupt what we deem a lesser environment to maintain our energy usage, we're taking an anthropocentric viewpoint that seeks to maintain our own desires but in the long run do so at our own peril as well as other life. I don't see how destroying desert habitats can be anything but harmful to us in the long run.
And I would certainly not advocate the continued destruction of forest over protecting desert ecosystems (on an aesthetic level, I happen to be a fan of both environments) and see both as important parts of an even greater whole.
And yes, what's happened to the Appalachian mountains is deplorable. There's a great book that delves into that deeply called Lost Mountain, A Year in the Vanishing Wilderness by Erik Reece. The destruction to those ecosystems is utterly shocking.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18914
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I encourage all of you to check it out.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/4/we_do_not_want_to_be
AMY GOODMAN: We are broadcasting from the 21st COP, Conference of Parties, United Nations Climate Summit here in Paris, France. The first week of talks is wrapping up. Nearly 150 world leaders gathered here earlier this week. On Monday, President Obama praised world leaders for submitting voluntary pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
PRES. BARACK OBAMA: Already, prior to Paris, more than 180 countries representing nearly 95 percent of global emissions have put forward their own climate targets, that is progress. For our part, America is on track to reach the emissions targets that I set six years ago in Copenhagen. We will reduce our carbon emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and that’s why last year, I set a new target. America will reduce our emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels within 10 years from now. So our task here in Paris is to turn these achievements into an enduring framework for human progress. Not a stopgap solution, but a long-term strategy that gives the world confidence in the low carbon future.
AMY GOODMAN: While more than 180 nations have pledged to voluntarily reduce emissions, many scientists say far more needs to be done to keep global warming in check. We’re joined now by two guests, Paul Oquist is Nicaragua’s Chief Climate Negotiator. Nicaragua is one of 11 countries not to submit a pledge to cut emissions. Also with us is Meena Raman, climate change coordinator for the Third World Network. She’s also the Honorary Secretary of Friends of the Earth Malaysia. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! So, Mr. Paul Oquist, what is happening here? Why is Nicaragua not participating? Why didn’t you submit voluntary standards for your country?
PAUL OQUIST: Because the concept of universal responsibility and voluntary commitments doesn’t work. Universal responsibility is a spin, it’s a spin on historical responsibility, and common but differentiated responsibilities. The first proof that INDC doesn’t work —
AMY GOODMAN: Wait, wait, wait. Just one sec. These terms are terms 99 percent of the world won’t understand won’t understand.
PAUL OQUIST: OK. These voluntary commitments don’t work —
AMY GOODMAN: Even common differentiated is a term that is not commonly used.
PAUL OQUIST: OK. But, the — we’ll say that the voluntary commitments that the universal responsibility — everyone is responsible, is a spin on historical responsibility, because, everyone did not create this problem. Nicaragua has 4.8 million tons of emissions a year. And that’s 0.03% of emissions. Do we feel responsible for having caused climate change? No, not at all. Have we done something about it? Yes, we have gone from 25 percent renewable to 52 percent renewable since 2007, and in 2020 we’ll be 90 percent renewable.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain, for a moment, when you say you’ve gone — you’re going to 90 percent, what are you changing? What is happening in Nicaragua?
PAUL OQUIST: We have a contract with a Brazilian consortium for 323 megawatts of hydroelectric that will take us to —- some smaller projects also. But we went from 25 to 52 percent with geothermal power from the volcanoes, wind power, and now sun power because the solar panels are kicking in, too. Last year, we had a saving of 2.1 million tons of CO2 because of our shift to renewable energy. And our actual emissions were 4.8, so it’s quite significant. Plus we have committed to 11 million tons in our forestry sector that we will cut in the next five years. So that is over two years of emissions. And the grand inter-oceanic canal that we’re building represents 32.5 million tons per year of saving for the maritime commerce. So really, Nicaragua’s house is in order terms of mitigation, but we are on planet Earth and we have to keep this genie in the bottle. We have to achieve the objective of 1.5 degrees increase in this century or at worst, the two degrees. And what does this process in Paris lead to? Three degrees. And three degrees, in our country -—
AMY GOODMAN: Your talking about Celsius.
PAUL OQUIST: Celsius, exactly. Three degrees Celsius. And three degrees Celsius is not acceptable. Three degrees Celsius is a disaster. It’s catastrophic. So we think that we have to get out of this spin and back to where the problem can be solved. Ten countries, Amy, have 72 percent of the emissions. 10 countries.
AMY GOODMAN: In the world.
PAUL OQUIST: In the world. Twenty countries have 78 percent. So can see it’s only 72 to to 78 percent, adding 10 more on. But, they have, also, 76 percent of the world’s gross income. A hundred countries have three percent —
AMY GOODMAN: So, wait, you’re saying that they have that much of the world’s gross income so they can afford —
PAUL OQUIST: They can afford it and they are the ones who have the CO2 that can be cut. So 100 countries, the 100 lowest countries have 3 percent of the CO2 emissions. The 20 largest have 78 percent of the CO2 emissions. Are we going to try to cut out of the 100 countries with 3 percent or out of the 20 countries with 78 percent, or even maybe just the 10 countries with 72%?
AMY GOODMAN: So, clearly, one of the countries you’re talking about is the United States. What do you think the United States should do, the historically the largest emitter of greenhouse gas?
PAUL OQUIST: Well, China has over 10,000 million tons. The U.S. has over 6,000 million tons. Europe has over 4,000 million tons. The three of them are half. They’re half. So, they need to increase their level of ambition if we’re going to solve this problem. There is no solution without them increasing their level of ambition. And right now we think —
AMY GOODMAN: And what is that — when you say level of ambition, ambition’s a big term. But, what do you want them to do?
PAUL OQUIST: They cut their CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions more to reforest and get more sinks through forestry and bamboo and other ways of the CO2 the sinks. And then fuel efficiency is another thing that can be done. But their contributions, their commitments are not enough to limit to two degrees right now we’re looking at a three degree world, and that is catastrophic and unacceptable. I would just like to point out that last week, Mr. Michel Jarraud, the Executive Director of the World Meteorological Organization stated that we have reached one degree above the preindustrial level. We have 400 parts per million of greenhouse gases. And at one degree, what do we have? We have all of the ice in the world melting, the Arctic, the Antarctic, Greenland, mountain glaciers. We have drought, four year droughts in Southern California — Southern United States and Southern Iberia, Southern Africa, Southern Australia. You can see a pattern there, the southern edges. We have the strongest Niño in years, one of the fourth strongest since 1950, which is bringing drought to some areas and floods to others, and they also tell us that this is the hottest year ever, 250. This is with one degree. So are we going to play roulette with the world’s future and let three degrees slip out of this Paris congress?
AMY GOODMAN: Just to be clear, three degrees Celsius is about 5.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
PAUL OQUIST: That’s right.
Please, somebody, prove me wrong!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
so sad...
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/01/13/its-january-and-a-tropical-storm-has-formed-in-the-atlantic-ocean/?tid=sm_fb
Nope, nothing to this global warming business, move along folks.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Law No. 1 The strength of any ecosystem is based on biodiversity.
With regard to that, Watson said, "The decreased level of biodiversity on the planet is our most serious problem, even more serious than global warming."
We are in the sixth known major extinction event and this event is caused by humans and is closely related to human over-consumption and unchecked human population. It makes sense to me that global warming is not our most serious problem.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
1. THE LAW OF DIVERSITY. ECO-SYSTEMS REQUIRE DIVERSITY.
2. THE LAW OF INTERDEPENDENCE - ECO-SYSTEMS DEPEND UPON INTERDEPENDENCE OF ALL SPECIES.
3. THE LAW OF FINITE RESOURCES. THERE IS A LIMIT TO RESOURCES THUS A LIMIT TO GROWTH AND THEREFORE A LIMIT TO CARRYING CAPACITY.
If we don't abide by these, we perish.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
What environmental and labor advocates have been claiming for some time now has come true: Solar energy is a bigger source of jobs than fossil fuels – and it’s only going to get better from here on.
That is according to a new report from the Solar Foundation, which found that by the end of 2015, there were 209,000 workers in the solar industry — more than those employed in oil and gas extraction.
“The solar industry has once again proven to be a powerful engine of economic growth and job creation,” said Andrea Luecke, president and executive director of the Solar Foundation, in a statement. “Employment in solar has grown an extraordinary 123 percent since 2010, adding approximately 115,000 well-paying jobs.”
Much of the growth has come from the installation side: the people putting those beautiful panels on residential rooftops, parking structures and commercial buildings across the country. I’m sure you’ve seen them in your neighborhood, too (unless you live in a state where oil and gas lobbies have restricted solar expansion, like Nevada). Sales jobs are also growing.
On the other side, oil and gas jobs are disappearing. Part of this is due to the wave of bankruptcies in coal — most recently Arch Coal, once one of the biggest energy companies in America. This is due to massive drops in coal prices and the reduction of coal usage, as more and more states shift to cleaner energy. President Barack Obama’s recent move to halt new coal mining on federal lands is only another step in the slow death of coal.
Oil is seeing a similar wave, as major oil companies cut their exploration and development budgets due to incredibly low oil prices. Last week, they fell below $30 a barrel, a level at which drilling in much of the United States is just not economically feasible.
The amazing thing, and something no one could have predicted just a few years ago, is that solar is thriving despite the fact that oil and coal prices are so low. Many thought that high fossil fuel prices were necessary for renewables to be able to compete. It turns out they were wrong, which is great news for climate.
“Solar is providing a tremendous boost to our economy while meeting public demand for clean, affordable energy,” said Andrew Birch, CEO of Sungevity, in a statement.
Both the Solar Foundation and the U.S. Department of Labor expect solar job growth to remain strong in the coming year, as more and more panels go online. States that promote clean energy will win, while states that continue to ride the dying horse of fossil fuels will be left behind.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
We make predictions about the future based on things we observe in the present and imagine the past is irrelevant.
I think solar is a GREAT step into the future.
Also 60 minutes did a great special on the glaciers and global warming tonight!
Until we start looking at solutions that are good for ecological balances, that respect the laws of ecology and that favor all life in general we will continue to box ourselves and all other large life into a corner with no escape.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Those incredibly fragile desert ecosystems are nothing compared to the lush mountains of Appalachia which are being savaged for coal to meet electricity demands.
The desert ecosystem that is destroyed by solar farms is not even visible to the average observer, but in WV and KY they are destroying hundred+ year old hardwood trees by the tens of thousands and leaving nothing behind but dirt (the soil is gone and what's left is poisoned) and invasive grasses. They are taking away the very tops of the mountains themselves, in a place where the biomass of 1 acre is probably equivalent to 100 acres in the desert.
Tough choices have to be made, and to me, this one isn't even a tough choice, it's a no-brainer!
And I would certainly not advocate the continued destruction of forest over protecting desert ecosystems (on an aesthetic level, I happen to be a fan of both environments) and see both as important parts of an even greater whole.
And yes, what's happened to the Appalachian mountains is deplorable. There's a great book that delves into that deeply called Lost Mountain, A Year in the Vanishing Wilderness by Erik Reece. The destruction to those ecosystems is utterly shocking.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"