Renewable Revolution

Environment => Catastrophic Climate Change => Topic started by: AGelbert on April 14, 2014, 06:15:40 pm

Title: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 14, 2014, 06:15:40 pm
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 23, 2014, 11:45:35 pm
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 18, 2014, 10:06:34 pm
Jump to 4:50 where Jeff starts. (

Western University   

Published on Oct 21, 2012 Agelbert NOTE: But prophetic from then until now and on into the future.

Consider today's sociopolitical landscape and it's likely you'll note the environment and the economy don't exactly go hand in hand.

In reality, the two are inextricable and, increasingly, need to be treated as such, according to Jeff Rubin, the award-winning economist who, along with David Suzuki, wraps up a cross-Canada tour addressing the juncture of the two issues on October 18, 2012 in Alumni Hall.

Rubin, former chief economist and chief strategist for CIBC World Markets, is the author of The End of Growth, a national bestseller. He was among the first economists to predict rising oil prices more than a decade ago and is one of the most sought-after energy experts.

Suzuki, an environmental activist, academic and broadcaster, is perhaps best known for The Nature of Things on CBC television. He has written more than 40 books and is known as a leader in sustainable ecology.

The End of Growth Eco Tour came out of a meeting earlier this year in which the two realized their goals of addressing climate change and sustainability were the same, despite an approach from different disciplines.

The event was sponsored by The Bookstore at Western and the USC.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 19, 2014, 07:10:57 pm
Title: Earth has a Future; BUT do HOMO SAPS have a Future on Earth?
Post by: AGelbert on May 19, 2014, 10:21:50 pm
Time to outgrow the Corporate LIARS that run the Fascist SHOW to keep people INFANTALIZED in the USA and IGNORING  REALITY or there will be NO FUTURE! Being WILLFULLY IGNORANT is BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH!  (             (               (  >:(

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 20, 2014, 08:19:58 pm
Mission Blue: Sylvia Earle’s Plan to Save the Ocean

EcoWatch | May 20, 2014
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 22, 2014, 07:10:37 pm
Published on Thursday, May 22, 2014 by TomDispatch
The 95% Doctrine: Climate Change as a Weapon of Mass Destruction Is climate change a crime against humanity? Let's go with... Yes.

by Tom Engelhardt

The fossil fuel industry is waging a war on the planet's ecosystem and her people.
It's not only unnecessary and obscene, but should be considered a crime.

Who could forget? At the time, in the fall of 2002, there was such a drumbeat of “information” from top figures in the Bush administration about the secret Iraqi program to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and so endanger the United States. And who -- other than a few suckers -- could have doubted that Saddam Hussein was eventually going to get a nuclear weapon? The only question, as our vice president suggested on “Meet the Press,” was: Would it take one year or five? And he wasn’t alone in his fears, since there was plenty of proof of what was going on.

 For starters, there were those “specially designed aluminum tubes”  ( ( that the Iraqi autocrat had ordered as components for centrifuges to enrich uranium in his thriving nuclear weapons program. Reporters Judith Miller and Michael Gordon hit the front page of the New York Times with that story on September 8, 2002.

Then there were those “mushroom clouds”  ( ( that Condoleezza Rice, our national security advisor, was so publicly worried about -- the ones destined to rise over American cities if we didn’t do something to stop Saddam. As she fretted in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer on that same September 8th, “[W]e don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” No, indeed, and nor, it turned out, did Congress!

And just in case you weren’t anxious enough about the looming Iraqi threat, there were those unmanned aerial vehicles -- Saddam’s drones!  ( ( that could be armed with chemical or biological WMD from his arsenal and flown over America’s East Coast cities with unimaginable results.  ::)  President George W. Bush ( went on TV to talk about them and congressional votes were changed in favor of war thanks to hair-raising secret administration briefings about them on Capitol Hill.

In the end, it turned out that Saddam had no weapons program, no nuclear bomb in the offing, no centrifuges for those aluminum pipes, no biological or chemical weapons caches, and no drone aircraft to deliver his nonexistent weapons of mass destruction (nor any ships capable of putting those nonexistent robotic planes in the vicinity of the U.S. coast). But what if he had? Who wanted to take that chance? Not Vice President Dick Cheney, certainly. Inside the Bush administration he propounded something that journalist Ron Suskind later dubbed the “one percent doctrine.” Its essence was this:

if there was even a 1% chance of an attack on the United States, especially involving weapons of mass destruction, it must be dealt with as if it were a 95%-100% certainty.

Here’s the curious thing: if you look back on America's apocalyptic fears of destruction during the first 14 years of this century, they largely involved three city-busting weapons that were fantasies of Washington’s fertile imperial imagination. There was that “bomb” of Saddam’s, which provided part of the pretext for a much-desired invasion of Iraq. There was the “bomb” of the mullahs, the Iranian fundamentalist regime that we’ve just loved to hate ever since they repaid us, in 1979, for the CIA’s overthrow of an elected government in 1953 and the installation of the Shah by taking the staff of the U.S. embassy in Tehran hostage. If you believed the news from Washington and Tel Aviv, the Iranians, too, were perilously close to producing a nuclear weapon or at least repeatedly on the verge of the verge of doing so. The production of that “Iranian bomb” has, for years, been a focus of American policy in the Middle East, the “brink” beyond which war has endlessly loomed. And yet there was and is no Iranian bomb, nor evidence that the Iranians were or are on the verge of producing one.

Finally, of course, there was al-Qaeda’s bomb, the “dirty bomb” that organization might somehow assemble, transport to the U.S., and set off in an American city, or the “loose nuke,” maybe from the Pakistani arsenal, with which it might do the same. This is the third fantasy bomb that has riveted American attention in these last years, even though there is less evidence for or likelihood of its imminent existence than of the Iraqi and Iranian ones.

To sum up, the strange thing about end-of-the-world-as-we’ve-known-it scenarios from Washington, post-9/11, is this: with a single exception, they involved only non-existent weapons of mass destruction. A fourth weapon -- one that existed but played a more modest role in Washington’s fantasies -- was North Korea’s perfectly real bomb, which in these years the North Koreans were incapable of delivering to American shores.

The "Good News" About Climate Change

In a world in which nuclear weapons remain a crucial coin of the realm when it comes to global power, none of these examples could quite be classified as 0% dangers. Saddam had once had a nuclear program, just not in 2002-2003, and also chemical weapons, which he used against Iranian troops in his 1980s war with their country (with the help of targeting information from the U.S. military) and against his own Kurdish population. The Iranians might (or might not) have been preparing their nuclear program for a possible weapons breakout capability, and al-Qaeda certainly would not have rejected a loose nuke, if one were available (though that organization’s ability to use it would still have been questionable).

In the meantime, the giant arsenals of WMD in existence, the American, Russian, Chinese, Israeli, Pakistani, and Indian ones that might actually have left a crippled or devastated planet behind, remained largely off the American radar screen. In the case of the Indian arsenal, the Bush administration actually lent an indirect hand to its expansion. >:(  So it was twenty-first-century typical when President Obama, ( trying to put Russia's recent actions in the Ukraine in perspective, said, “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.”( (

Once again, an American president was focused on a bomb that would raise a mushroom cloud over Manhattan. And which bomb, exactly, was that, Mr. President?

Of course, there was a weapon of mass destruction that could indeed do staggering damage to or someday simply drown New York City, Washington D.C., Miami, and other East coast cities. ( It had its own efficient delivery systems -- no nonexistent drones or Islamic fanatics needed. And unlike the Iraqi, Iranian, or al-Qaeda bombs, it was guaranteed to be delivered to our shores unless preventative action was taken soon. No one needed to hunt for its secret facilities. It was a weapons system whose production plants sat in full view right here in the United States, as well as in Europe, China, and India, as well as in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and other energy states.

So here’s a question I’d like any of you living in or visiting Wyoming to ask the former vice president, should you run into him in a state that’s notoriously thin on population:
How would he feel about acting preventively, if instead of a 1% chance that some country with weapons of mass destruction might use them against us, there was at least a 95% -- and likely as not a 100% -- chance of them being set off on our soil? Let’s be conservative, since the question is being posed to a well-known neoconservative. Ask him whether he would be in favor of pursuing the 95% doctrine the way he was the 1% version.

After all, thanks to a grim report in 2013 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we know that there is now a 95%-100% likelihood that “human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming [of the planet] since the mid-20th century.” We know as well that the warming of the planet -- thanks to the fossil fuel system we live by and the greenhouse gases it deposits in the atmosphere -- is already doing real damage to our world and specifically to the United States, as a recent scientific report released by the White House made clear. We also know, with grimly reasonable certainty, what kinds of damage those 95%-100% odds are likely to translate into in the decades, and even centuries, to come if nothing changes radically: a temperature rise by century’s end that could exceed 10 degrees Fahrenheit, cascading species extinctions, staggeringly severe droughts across larger parts of the planet (as in the present long-term drought in the American West and Southwest), far more severe rainfall across other areas, more intense storms causing far greater damage, devastating heat waves on a scale no one in human history has ever experienced, masses of refugees, rising global food prices, and among other catastrophes on the human agenda, rising sea levels that will drown coastal areas of the planet.
From two scientific studies just released, for example, comes the news that the West Antarctic ice sheet, one of the great ice accumulations on the planet, has now begun a process of melting and collapse that could, centuries from now, raise world sea levels by a nightmarish 10 to 13 feet. That mass of ice is, according to the lead authors of one of the studies, already in “irreversible retreat,” which means -- no matter what acts are taken from now on -- a future death sentence for some of the world's great cities. (And that’s without even the melting of the Greenland ice shield, not to speak of the rest of the ice in Antarctica.)

All of this, of course, will happen mainly because we humans continue to burn fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate and so annually deposit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at record levels. In other words, we’re talking about weapons of mass destruction of a new kind. While some of their effects are already in play, the planetary destruction that nuclear weapons could cause almost instantaneously, or at least (given “nuclear winter” scenarios) within months, will, with climate change, take decades, if not centuries, to deliver its full, devastating planetary impact.

When we speak of WMD, we usually think of weapons -- nuclear, biological, or chemical -- that are delivered in a measurable moment in time. Consider climate change, then, a WMD on a particularly long fuse, already lit and there for any of us to see. Unlike the feared Iranian bomb or the Pakistani arsenal, you don’t need the CIA or the NSA to ferret such "weaponry" out. From oil wells to fracking structures, deep sea drilling rigs to platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, the machinery that produces this kind of WMD and ensures that it is continuously delivered to its planetary targets is in plain sight. Powerful as it may be, destructive as it will be, those who control it have faith that, being so long developing, it can remain in the open without panicking populations or calling any kind of destruction down on them.

Continued in next post:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 22, 2014, 07:11:28 pm

The companies and energy states that produce such WMD remain remarkably open about what they’re doing.(  Generally speaking, they don’t hesitate to make public, or even boast about, their plans for the wholesale destruction of the planet, though of course they are never described that way. Nonetheless, if an Iraqi autocrat or Iranian mullahs spoke in similar fashion about producing nuclear weapons and how they were to be used, they would be toast.

Take ExxonMobil, ( one of the most profitable corporations in history. In early April, it released two reports that focused on how the company, as Bill McKibben has written, “planned to deal with the fact that [it] and other oil giants have many times more carbon in their collective reserves than scientists say we can safely burn." He went on:

The company said that government restrictions that would force it to keep its [fossil fuel] reserves in the ground were 'highly unlikely,' and that they would not only dig them all up and burn them, but would continue to search for more gas and oil -- a search that currently consumes about $100 million of its investors’ money every single day. 'Based on this analysis, we are confident that none of our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become "stranded."'(

In other words, Exxon plans to exploit whatever fossil fuel reserves it possesses to their fullest extent.  (

Government leaders involved in supporting the production of such weapons of mass destruction and their use are often similarly open about it, even while also discussing steps to mitigate their destructive effects. Take the White House, for instance. Here was a statement President Obama proudly made in Oklahoma in March 2012 on his energy policy:

Now, under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. That's important to know. Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states.  ( We’re opening up more than 75% of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some.

Similarly, on May 5th, just before the White House was to reveal that grim report on climate change in America, and with a Congress incapable of passing even the most rudimentary climate legislation aimed at making the country modestly more energy efficient, senior Obama adviser John Podesta appeared in the White House briefing room to brag about the administration’s “green” energy policy. “The United States,” he said, “is now the largest producer of natural gas   ( in the world and the largest producer of gas and oil in the world. It's projected that the United States will continue to be the largest producer of natural gas through 2030. For six straight months now, we've produced more oil here at home than we've imported from overseas. So that's all a good-news story.” (

Good news indeed, and from Vladmir Putin’s Russia, which just expanded its vast oil and gas holdings by a Maine-sized chunk of the Black Sea off Crimea, to Chinese “carbon bombs,” to Saudi Arabian production guarantees, similar “good-news stories” are similarly promoted. In essence, the creation of ever more greenhouse gases -- of, that is, the engine of our future destruction -- remains a “good news” story for ruling elites on planet Earth.

Weapons of Planetary Destruction

We know exactly what Dick Cheney -- ready to go to war on a 1% possibility that some country might mean us harm -- would answer, if asked about acting on the 95% doctrine. Who can doubt that his response would be similar to those of the giant energy companies, which have funded so much climate-change denialism and false science over the years? He would claim that the science simply isn’t “certain” enough (though “uncertainty” can, in fact, cut two ways), that before we commit vast sums to taking on the phenomenon, we need to know far more, and that, in any case, climate-change science is driven by a political agenda.

For Cheney & Co., it seemed obvious that acting on a 1% possibility was a sensible way to go in America’s “defense” and it’s no less gospel for them that acting on at least a 95% possibility isn’t. For the Republican Party as a whole, climate-change denial is by now nothing less than a litmus test of loyalty, and so even a 101% doctrine wouldn’t do when it comes to fossil fuels and this planet.
No point, of course, in blaming this on fossil fuels or even the carbon dioxide they give off when burned. These are no more weapons of mass destruction than are uranium-235 and plutonium-239.

In this case, the weaponry is the production system that’s been set up to find, extract, sell at staggering profits, and burn those fossil fuels, and so create a greenhouse-gas planet. With climate change, there is no “Little Boy” or “Fat Man” equivalent, no simple weapon to focus on. In this sense, fracking is the weapons system, as is deep-sea drilling, as are those pipelines, and the gas stations, and the coal-fueled power plants, and the millions of cars filling global roads, and the accountants of the most profitable corporations in history.

All of it -- everything that brings endless fossil fuels to market, makes those fuels eminently burnable, and helps suppress the development of non-fossil fuel alternatives -- is the WMD. The CEOs of the planet's giant energy corporations are the dangerous mullahs, the true fundamentalists, of planet Earth, since they are promoting a faith in fossil fuels which is guaranteed to lead us to some version of End Times.
Perhaps we need a new category of weapons with a new acronym to focus us on the nature of our present 95%-100% circumstances. Call them weapons of planetary destruction (WPD) or weapons of planetary harm (WPH). Only two weapons systems would clearly fit such categories. One would be nuclear weapons which, even in a localized war between Pakistan and India, could create some version of “nuclear winter” in which the planet was cut off from the sun by so much smoke and soot that it would grow colder fast, experience a massive loss of crops, of growing seasons, and of life. In the case of a major exchange of such weapons, we would be talking about “the sixth extinction” of planetary history.

Though on a different and harder to grasp time-scale, the burning of fossil fuels could end in a similar fashion -- with a series of “irreversible” disasters that could essentially burn us and much other life off the Earth. This system of destruction on a planetary scale, facilitated by most of the ruling and corporate elites on the planet, is becoming (to bring into play another category not usually used in connection with climate change) the ultimate “crime against humanity” and, in fact, against most living things. It is becoming a “terracide.”   (  (

© 2014
Title: Future Earth: Are We Going Underground?
Post by: AGelbert on May 25, 2014, 01:01:38 am
Are We Going Underground?  ??? News

 What will happen to humans when climate change really gets going? Some scientists think we'll shrink to hobbit-size :o to give us a chance to survive in a world with much less nourishment.

 Regardless, it will surely be tough and we may end up underground. Here are some ideas people are putting into practice that might be more useful than they seem today. 

Growing Underground - London (picture at link)  ;D

What was once a WWII bomb shelter is being turned into a subterranean urban farm underneath the streets of London.

 100 feet below the street is a 2.5-acre test hydroponic farm being developed by the non-profit Zero Carbon Food. Farming in a tunnel has its advantages - temperatures stay at a steady 60 degrees all year long. No pesticides needed, very little water, powered by LEDs - brings fresh micro-greens like watercress and red amaranth to people that live above. And the space - two long tunnels - is cheap.

 To build out Growing Underground they are crowdfunding and investors are enthusiastic - having contributed about $500,000 in its equity campaign - there are four days left. They start growing this fall.

Urban Farm London Underground  (picture at link)  ;D

Highline - London

Another idea for London's empty tunnels is "Lowline," which would turn some into an underground park and mushroom farm. 

Dark spaces are perfect for growing mushrooms. A series of glass sculptural mushrooms at street level would let in light and also point the way down for visitors. ‘Funghi' restaurants and cafés would be at each entrance.

Lowline - New York City

 In NYC, a group is working on the world's first underground park. After raising funds through crowdfunding, they are in the process of converting an abandoned, underground trolley station into a one-acre park.

 Below the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the site has been vacant since 1948, but it still has cobblestones and vaulted ceilings.

Metro Stations - Paris

A mayoral candidate piqued people's interests when she suggested turning a dozen empty subway stations into a  theater, an art gallery, a swimming pool, a nightclub, and a restaurant.

 Read more:





Title: Future Earth: A Wilder Europe
Post by: AGelbert on May 26, 2014, 08:20:58 pm

A Wilder Europe  ;D

An organization hopes to restore natural ecological processes by reintroducing large herbivores to the continent.
Title: Future Earth: Syria Today Is A Preview Of Memorial Day, 2030
Post by: AGelbert on May 27, 2014, 03:31:36 pm
Syria Today Is A Preview Of Memorial Day, 2030
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 27, 2014, 03:44:31 pm
The military understands the realities of climate change and the negative impacts of heavy dependence on fossil fuels.
The U.S. House does not.  (

Agelbert NOTE: it is hoped that the military understands the realities of climate change and the negative devastating impacts of heavy ANY dependence on fossil fuels.

GREAT COMMENTS! It is refreshing to see that people understand this is REALLY about EVIL based on GREED! I believe evil is the ULTIMATE FORM OF STUPIDITY because it is ego worship based willful stupidity, not ignorance based stupidity.

Dan Daniel
·  Top Commenter · Works at Singer-songwriter

The pathetic thing about all of this is that it is not stupidity that is driving this. If the Republicans were just too plain stupid to realize that by denying reality they are putting our planet at risk, I wouldn't like it, but I could understand it. But they are not that stupid. They know what they are doing is wrong but they do it anyway because it will get them money from idiots like the Koch brothers which in turn will keep them in power. That is as good a definition of evil as anything I can imagine!

Reply · Annette Schneider ·  Top Commenter · ANU

Same goes for Abbott's government, supported by Murdoch and the mining multinationals in Australia - they are not as stupid as they make out, which makes them greedy, destructive, selfish people - yeah, evil's the word.

Reply ·  Len Botterill ·  Top Commenter · RMIT University

Annette Schneider , you have hit the nail on the head. Its very frustrating because time is of the essence to limit the destructive effects of climate change. These people in government should be showing the way. Instead, they cut science, won't understand the facts by choice, and show no leadership to deal with the clear and present dangers that will only cost heaps more to address in the future ( if possible).

Reply · As Promised ·  Top Commenter

You can add Canada under the Harper "regime" to the not-stupid-but-paid-for-ignorance.

Title: Future Earth: We CAN restore depleted, barren soil to healthy soil with greenery
Post by: AGelbert on May 31, 2014, 06:36:37 pm

Returning To Green Is Possible 

 We are facing a catastrophic loss of arable land.

 When there is no vegetation cover on the hillsides, the rains come and the water doesn't soak it into the ground. It flows away in a flood that causes even more damage. This water is useless for agriculture, and drought and famine ensue.

 Vegetation is what secures the water, keeps it in the ecosystem. Especially in dry areas, whatever rainfall comes down needs to be infiltrated and retained into the system.

 This film is about rehabilitating large-scale damaged ecosystems. Environmental film maker John D. Liu documents large-scale ecosystem restoration projects in China, Africa, South America and the Middle East.

 You will not believe your eyes when you see a healthy stream of clean water flowing in a previously torrid part of Ethiopia where people starved. It is thanks to 5 or 6 years work restoring the vegetation, and has literally brought the area "back to life."

 What could be more inspiring? Our hero permaculture expert Geoff Lawton is also featured.

 --Bibi Farber

 More information at John D' Liu's website:
- See more at:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 14, 2014, 01:30:42 am
Title: Future Earth: Agelbert Predicitons made in 2013 for 2013-2017
Post by: AGelbert on June 14, 2014, 08:20:08 pm
Agelbert NOTE:This post was made about a year ago on another forum in response to a Doom and Gloom prediction of Civilizational collapse by a fellow with the "Monsta666"  ::) handle.

It is also very prudent to remember that because our industrialised society is so truly unsustainable on so many levels that very dramatic changes must happen for society to regain a balance with nature.

It is also even MORE prudent to NOT assume that collapse is inevitable.

WHY? Because industrialized society is so fragmented in it's energy using processes that a huge segment of it can still continue while another segment blacks out.

The fact that the present overall structure is unsustainable does not justify the assumption that very dramatic changes must happen for society to avoid a collapse. Assuming that one thing MUST lead to the other is incorrect and inaccurate logic.(

I have argued and continue to argue, with quite a bit of data, that the reverse is true. That is, VERY dramatic changes, like nuclear war, MUST occur for a collapse to occur.

Otherwise, it won't, REGARDLESS OF HOW BAD THE WEATHER GETS because the fascists have the guns and the high tech murderous toys to kill off the revolting rabble ANY TIME. You just don't want to go there.

You are in denial Monsta666. This is my final attempt to get you to see reason. If you do not admit to the possibility that a collapse WON'T occur based on the robustness of present society to respond to damage and emergencies, then I will continue to post while ignoring anything you post because you are sold on your own ideological position.

As the years pass and NO COLLAPSE occurs, you will be forced to reach for ever more implausible scenarios of how said collapse WILL occur.

When a fossil fuel fascist engineered scare tactic type "collapse" of a large city of a third world economy occurs you will seize on this to yell, THE END IS NEAR! But you will be proven wrong again and again as the system, corrupt as it is, rebounds and continues to limp along, to your chagrin.

( Even now, the governments of the world are mobilizing to toughen up their electrical grids. Look HARD at what is going on out there and realize that the trigger, focus and motivator of human affairs now is not financial theory or politics or unsustainable energy infrastructure. All those are horrendously flawed as you, AND I, have taken great pains to point out.

HOWEVER, it's the GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE that is making the idiots clinging to the fossil fuel fascist dystopian modern human power structure to change their ways, not lack of, food, overpopulation, or lack of proper financing.

This is an example of how those governments are sensing that they are in BIG trouble and moving to PREVENT collapse. Pay attention or be proven wrong, Monsta666.

Global Smart Grid Technologies Market - Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast 2012 - 2018      

Now at Transparency Market Research Transparency Market Research Report Add "Smart Grid Technologies Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends And Forecast 2012 - 2018" to its database.

Albany, NY -- (SBWIRE) -- 07/23/2013 -- The growing need of nations across the globe to reduce the cost of blackouts is driving the market for smart grids. The conventional electrical grids installed in many countries are now aging and this is causing massive electrical blackouts.

Governments of many countries are incurring huge losses in order to maintain conventional electrical grids,[size=1opt] owing to which they are now focusing on smart grid technologies. The market is primarily driven by the growing need of robust electrical supply technologies that cannot be interrupted.

According to a study, power outages and blackouts costs nearly USD 80 billion annually in the United States. To reduce these costs, governments are continuously looking for new technologies which are more effective and efficient.

Browse Reports @ : (

Some other factors the market desires include the characteristics of these technologies such as the ability to generate higher quality power and the fact that these are self correcting. However, the market is inhibited by huge initial capital required to set up these technologies and the lack of awareness amongst under developed countries.

Some of the leading companies operating in this industry segment are Alvarion Inc, Ambient Corp, American Superconductor Corp, Comverge Inc, and 3 M Company. This research report analyzes this market depending on its market segments, major geographies, and current market trends.

Geographies analyzed under this research report include

North America

Asia Pacific


Rest of the World

This report provides comprehensive analysis of Market growth drivers Factors limiting market growth Current market trends Market structure Market projections for upcoming years

Full Story Here: (

Even the CIA, not known for tree hugging  ;D, recognizes the PARAMOUNT importance of Climate change to damage civilization and is moving to counter it.

CIA backs study into how to stop climate change through geoengineering. (

MONSTA666, Let the ideology go and open your eyes to the possibility that a TOTAL collapse won't occur.( (
TOTAL Collapse (Monsta666's theory) probability WITHOUT a NUCLEAR WAR
The above GOLDEN pig with wings is officially named the GOLDEN DARWIN AWARD  (presented to anyone with a less than 25% prediction success rate  ;)). Feel free to present it to ME if what I say doesn't pan out. But what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.  :icon_mrgreen:

Agelbert's PREDICTIONs for 2013-2017:






Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 23, 2014, 01:59:14 am
A possible future if we destroy the biosphere.  :(
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 23, 2014, 02:16:35 am
Another "interesting" scenario if we destroy the biosphere.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 24, 2014, 10:02:56 pm
The Sixth Extinction; An Unnatural History (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 27, 2014, 10:22:07 pm
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 27, 2014, 10:26:19 pm
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 29, 2014, 03:46:19 pm

Signs of a new future are visible everywhere, from China to the US and from Europe to Thailand. Green mobility powered by sustainable energy, clean drinking water for all thanks to nanotechnology, dyeing textiles using recycled CO2. All of this is possible and is happening successfully now! Working together with Cleantech-founder Nick Parker, this film shows what our world will be like in the decades to come.VPRO Backlight travels the world in search of a clean future.

Duration: 60'
 Director: Rob van Hattum
 Producer: VPRO Television
Title: Future Earth: RADIOACTIVE FUTURE, Letter of apology…
Post by: AGelbert on June 30, 2014, 10:16:40 pm
RADIOACTIVE FUTURE, Letter of apology…

Letter of apology to the RADIOACTIVE FUTURE… Dear Aquarians, Well, we got through that sensationalized 2012 thing and the Earth is still spinning, but I sense that things could be a lot more comfortable for you had we never fooled around with atom splitting, or at least, if after Hiroshima and Chernobyl we would have cut our losses.

We could not have made the mountains and oceans of radioactive waste go away, as you know, (now many centuries after my generation and the one before us tried to ‘fool Mother Nature’) there is still no solution, but conditions on our beloved Earth might well be much more conducive to good health, happiness, economic stability and broad cooperation of her nations if we had stopped that Nuclear Renaissance early in the 21st century.

Many of my peers knew better than to support that backwards movement, and some worked feverishly to ‘stop the insanity’, but [I fear] it wasn’t enough. I know now, that many of the thoughtful anti-nuke/pro-life activists did not even fully understand the technology, but did understand that everything made by man fails and that failures and even small glitches with systems using highly radioactive materials would injure all life-forms for all time, and it was easy for them to understand that such a sentence delivered to everyone for all time, whatever the claimed need, was simply not acceptable.

From my ‘freer perspective’ (if we allow an imagined ’knowing’ from beyond the veil imposed on physicality) I too now clearly see that we, back at the turn of the 20th – 21st centuries never did really ‘gamble with nuclear folly’ (gamble with your welfare) as some clamed, because in fact, we had a sure-thing. Everyone at the time, save a miniscule percentage of the population suffering from profound mental handicaps, had the intellect to grasp the blindingly obvious facts about nuclear games which are so graphically illustrated in what is left of the world around you and the bodies of the people in your suffering society.

Long before that primitive time early in the 21st century, when the fateful Nuclear Renaissance was proposed, there were mountains of irrefutable evidence/proof regarding the negative aspects of ‘radioactive experimentation’. All humans had measurable levels of radioactive contamination in their bodies, mothers passed it along in breast milk and fathers, through their sperm. Simple lab tests could accurately pinpoint the age of a person by measuring the percentage and calibrating the placement of radioactive markers in teeth and bones. There really wasn’t an argument… The corporate government invented one.

We could all understand the connection, yet some of us used everything at our disposal to put reality out of our minds. In our (my) defense, it was a scary and confusing time. It was the infancy of the age of hyper-information and there were ten counters to every story. Everything that our fathers had counted on for stability was changing, for a while there, it seemed like the whole of society was crumbling… I’m surprised that the race survived at all, though not in very good condition I see.

It may be hard for people of your time (when neuro-empathetic communication is the norm, and ‘privacy’ is only an historic artifact) to imagine, but, back then many people did not think for themselves.

Many of us relied on mainstream news for information and to feed us opinion. Back then, what was called ‘the news’ was (for the most part) actually a twisted form of low class entertainment authored and programmed by ruthless, selfish, money-worshiping corporate enterprises, the same forces that controlled the governments.

As things became extremely confusing and our ability to reason diminished, in large part because of the compounding stressors, including pollutions of many (new to the species) kinds, and not the least of which was propagandized, implanted fear and frankly, measurable levels of radiological contamination from the very sloppy technology at the heart of this matter… some of us fell into apathy and too many others relinquished any remaining hint of critical thinking ability, ‘donned the sheep skin’ so to speak and followed the herd in any direction that the political faces pushed.

As what is now history to you demonstrates, that was a big mistake since the political faces were (could only be) the puppets of the most gratuitously greedy among us. The greed was so extreme that they knowingly sold the well-being of their very own children and grandchildren for bigger yachts.

The country called the United States enjoyed the greatest opportunity to move things in a healthy direction, the powers controlling its government effectively did just the opposite. I know now that it was lazy of me to choose my temporal comfort and to render whole huge tracts of the only Earth uninhabitable, at the price of your health and happiness.

Please know that the news and the leaders assured us that the juice required to fire up TV screens and operate the ski-lifts and casinos flowed necessarily from nuclear generating facilities.

Many among us at the time knew that wasn’t so, indeed, there had been, since at least the mid-20th century, numerous proven technologies which were relatively clean, green and renewable, they were ruthlessly blacklisted, slandered and suppressed.

Actually, we could have lived very comfortably without any nukes and even without burning much more coal, but the situation was not portrayed that way. Even if nukes would have been essential to the provision of our creature-comforts, clearly it would not have been worth the price that you and the bleeding world you have inherited now pay.

For the apathy, the carelessness and the selfish decisions of myself and many of my 21st century brothers and sisters I sincerely apologize from the bottom of my heart. The way I understand it… we can’t go back, we cannot undo the assaults of our mistakes, I wish we could, or at least I wish I had been among those who resisted the nuclear invasion, then it would be much easier to face you now. And you know, we could have stopped it if more of us had just gotten up off our pastry-stuffed butts and said NO!

My generation inherited a world that needed some work, but the planet was still relatively healthy, and a darn nice place to live. Some of the folks of those few generations changed all that with unprecedented speed. Now I can see that the Human race does indeed qualify as intelligent life, yet is not nearly smart enough to fool around with radioactivity without hurting someone, everyone.

Back in the day we did a lot of stuff ‘just because we could’. What a shame. Please Aquarians, if you can find it in your hearts, forgive me, and if you can’t, well I don’t blame you, but please, don’t do something ‘just because you can’ without knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt that the consequences are completely benign.

Sincerely, -
Your Name Here -, One of those who just let it happen -  :(

See more at:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 04, 2014, 09:10:57 pm

If we change, if we act to leave dirty and centralized, political power concentrating energy behind, we will give future generations a chance to live in a Viable Biosphere AND a political democracy.

If we don't, we will perish.

Anthony G. Gelbert

Here's a link to the petition:  (

Thank you


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 12, 2014, 08:31:14 pm
I was over at the "Nature Bats Last" blog recently and found an EXCELLENT  article by Dr. Geoffrey Chia, Cardiologist/Physician as well as his GIFT of a FREE dystopian future novel.

I'm reading it and I recommend it highly. ( (

There is MUCH truth in this novel about the incredible stupidity of "business as usual" among humans projected into the future. Some of the characters sounded EXACTLY like many fossil fuelers! And they are living examples of the "Icecube" Modus Operandi label in the book.  ( I am also happy this medical doctor (A REALIST, not a "cornucopian") gave the "abandon all hope" nihilists a sound verbal thrashing.   ;D

I got a huge laugh out of this line (see italics below) in beginning section of the free novel:

A Future History of Human Folly

minor revisions 2014

All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, for purposes of commerce or profit, without prior written permission of the author. No permission is needed if copied/distributed for non-profit purposes.

All characters, corporations and companies in this novel are fictitious, although you damn well know who they represent

We need more people like Geoffrey Chia  ( in this world.

Title: Good Joke From Dr. Chia's Free Sci Fi Novel!
Post by: AGelbert on July 14, 2014, 02:24:50 am
A Future History of Human Folly

Page 138
Urban legend from the Internet circa 1998:
Scientists at a British aerospace firm built a gun specifically to
launch dead chickens at the windshields of airliners and military jets. The
idea was to simulate collisions with airborne fowl to test the strength of the
windshields. American engineers heard about the gun and were eager to
test it on the windshields of their new high speed trains. Arrangements
were made and a gun was sent to the American engineers. When the gun
was fired, the engineers stood shocked as the chicken shot out of the barrel,
crashed into the shatterproof shield, smashed it to smithereens, blasted
through the control console, snapped the engineer’s back-rest in two and
embedded itself in the back wall of the cabin, like an arrow shot from a
bow. The horrified Yanks sent the Brits the disastrous results of the
experiment, along with the designs of the windshield and begged the
British scientists for suggestions.
The British responded with a one-line memo: “Defrost the
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 16, 2014, 01:25:18 pm
Title: The Age of STUPID
Post by: AGelbert on July 20, 2014, 12:49:18 am
Title: How Western civilization ended, circa 2014
Post by: AGelbert on July 21, 2014, 04:19:15 pm
How Western civilization ended, circa 2014  (  ( (
Title: Losing Nemo
Post by: AGelbert on July 23, 2014, 04:50:10 pm
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 26, 2014, 04:36:46 pm
From a recent (and ALSO FUTURE) conversation:  8)
Thank you for those words and your heartfelt response.

The frustration with inaction in the face of our Thelma and Louise (hopefully BEFORE they went off the cliff) trajectory is no accident. Our media work 24/7 to achieve popular paralysis.

One reason our society is able to persist in its delusion that the suffering it creates is acceptable is that we don't allow the experience of grief, especially in the public realm. Grief needs to be held in community.

I would add that the propaganda effort to make grief "unacceptable" (you need to "move on" an so on   ( includes a false premise. That is, that the sine qua non of a happy life is the avoidance of pain and the seeking of pleasure 24/7. The stoic, for whatever reason, is WILLING, WANTING and MOTIVATED to SUFFER in order to destroy an evil for altruistic purposes, even though it may cause said person discomfort, hunger, pain, injury and possibly death.

Our materialistic society has been TRAINED to eschew sacrifice for a better tomorrow DELIBERATELY selling it to us as the PROPER way for a person to live free of "silly superstitions" when IN REALITY, it is the IDEAL WAY to keep a population PARALYZED in the face of severe abuse of a large segment by the oligarchy.

Every man for himself is a DEATH SENTENCE for Homo Sapiens and the HOLY GRAIL of the 1% who MISTAKENLY believe all their problems will be solved by eliminating the "useless eater billions" from the planet.

You have always been really critical of religion as the CAUSE of society's worst atrocities, hypocrisies, bigotries, and murderous behavior.

I think you are partially right. But underlying all that is NOT the premise (that you seem to have accepted) that the problem was having faith in another life and the willingness to die for "God's" will. The problem was, and still IS, that WE are NOT willing, without a belief in a higher purpose,  to SACRIFICE for each other for a better society and a sustainable biosphere.

The elite, throughout the 20th century, worked OVERTIME to seed ME FIRST into all of us. Its the ULTIMATE divide and crush strategy. It's working.

Whether it is for religion or scientific awareness that we are all part of one large life force and MUST defend it through altruistic behavior TO THE DEATH, if need be, that is the ONLY way we are going to ACCEPT the present situation, GRIEVE for it and be willing to DIE to stop the insanity even if WE PERSONALLY do not benefit.

So tell me JRM, HOW THE ForK are you going to motivate people to do that if they believe that the only thing there IS, is ME FIRST until you die? ( ( (

The destruction of faith and religiosity (the real kind, not the hypocritical duplicitous crap that greedball leaders have espoused) was deliberate. "Religion is the enemy of reasonable and science based nations in MODERN society". How's that workin' for us, eh?  :P

It's NOT WORKING JRM! You can scream and holler about the inquisition or whatever and it's ALL PEANUTS compared with "it's all here, it's NOW, might is right, cooperation is a guise to fool the competition and help destroy it" GAME THEORY that has REPLACED altruistic self denial and sacrifice for others based on religious beliefs.

Sorry JRM, the "cure" for "baseless superstition" is WORSE than the disease.(             (                (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 27, 2014, 05:25:30 pm
JRM assumes that:
theologians are stirring up armies.

And you claim you have NOTHING against religion?  (

As to sacrifice being a form of liberation when viewed as a good, that's a semantic difference that may be important to YOU because you eschew the idea of suffering to help someone else (instead of yourself) survive for a greater good.

You completely avoided the massive ME FIRST, "hedonisim is IT" 20th CENTURY PROPAGANDA EFFORT TO destroy RELIGION. Why? THAT IS the direct cause of our current woes, NOT the "theologians" you have an "anti-universalist" bone to pick with.

Sorry pal, ALL the wars have ALWAYS been about power and greed. The USE of religion by the leaders that don't believe in ANYTHING but themselves is the CAUSE of the "so-called" wars caused by theologians.

The new agers thought WRONGLY that, once people got off the "we must serve God to defeat and kill the infidels" our "great leaders" claim threaten our "religion", everything would be love and peace.

It hasn't worked out BECAUSE new age is about PLEASURE 24/7. Anybody into that is easily manipulated into avoiding pain no matter how many OTHER people get shafted with that pain, just as long as someone ESLSE is getting the PAIN.

Claiming that "we are all one" is all well and good IF, as the ant colony social insects do, you are willing to DIE for the greater good of the colony. It just will not work out for an ant to say, "we are all one" but refuse to function as a subset of the colony, now will it? ( Almost all the ants are female. Sometimes the "wrong" ant gets pregnant. The other ants don't kill the pregnant (non-queen) ant. They hold it down for DAYS until it is WEANED of the hormones that will allow the development of offspring. Yeah, it's a sort of abortion practiced by ants.

No amount of rationalization can avoid the FACT that, IF THERE IS NO GOD,  you need to accept the "fact" that dying without offspring is STUPID BEHAVIOR from a Social Darwinist perspective and ME FIRST, kill anybody in the way of my goodies, is SMART behavior. It's ALSO "smart" to PRETEND religiosity in order to fool people into dying for a cause that counters self preservation "wisdom". THAT is the real reason for wars dressed up historically as "religious" wars.

GREED and the Nietzschean TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE of power hungry megalomaniacs is what is stirring up armies.

Religions certainly have been USED to divide and conquer through GUILE, not based on the tenets of monotheism about the brotherhood of man and our responsibility to care for ALL of God's creation. People who don't believe in anything but ME FIRST have ALWAYS been the ones that fomented "religious" wars for the purpose of satisfying THEIR greed while cleverly claiming a "devotion" to doing "God's will".  (

So now we have a "let's have fun forever" (
propagandized population the is, granted  (  ;D, HARD to convince to go die for a greater cause. That's the upside of hedonism and ME FIRST FOREVER. The downside is that the population won't move a finger to stop tyranny until it hits them personally. :(  It's the perfect 'divide and conquer until it's too forking late to do anything about it' strategy.  (

In the sixteenth century a population dominated by ME FIRSTERS would have certainly prevented a lot of "religious wars". But now that MACHINES do MOST of the killing and a handful of ME FIRSTER people in deep underground bunkers can unleash nuclear holocaust while being assured of living out their lives in comfort with plenty of food, we are in DEEP S H I T.  :o

When someone says to me, "Peace and love, brother. We are all one so your death is, in the overall scheme of this grand and glorious simulacrum multiverse, not that big a deal",( I trfanslate that as: SORRY PAL, I HAVE NO VALID REASON TO SACRIFICE OR DIE FOR YOU.  (

ME FIRST is the problem that will destroy Homo Sap if the willingness to sacrifice oneself for a greater good does not prevail. If everyone believes that there IS NO GREATER GOOD than "survival of the apex predator" , we have had it.   

theologians are stirring up armies.

Ka said
I think the problem is more that the laity doesn't listen to their theologians.
( (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 02, 2014, 03:57:16 pm
 ( Methane Blow-Holes Sign of Runaway Climate Change?   (

Donna Lisenby | August 2, 2014 8:51 am

Scientists think this mysterious crater may be a giant methane blow-hole that signals the beginning of runaway climate change.

They are calling the point when frozen arctic methane in Canada, Alaska and Russia starts erupting into the atmosphere dragon burps.

Dragon’s mouth … a crater recently discovered in the Yamal Peninsula, in Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Russia. Russian scientists said that they believe the 60-meter wide crater could be the result of changing temperatures in the region.

Check out this story * that contains graphs showing such elevated methane levels that they labeled them WTF.
Rising trend … the “dragon’s breath” methane spikes have been recorded eight times in the past 22 years.
If you have ever wondered whether you might see the end of the world as we know it in your life time, you probably should NOT read this story nor study the graphs or look at the pictures of methane blow holes aka dragon burps.
I think Dr. Jason Box (see "Is the climate dragon awakening?" below), who has highlighted the appearance of dangerous spikes in methane above Siberia, sums it up best, “If we don’t get atmospheric carbon down and cool the Arctic, the climate physics and recent observations tell me we will probably trigger the release of these vast carbon stores, dooming our kids’ to a hothouse Earth.”

* Are Siberia’s methane blow-holes the first warning sign of unstoppable climate change?
Jamie Seidel
News Corp Australia Network
July 30, 2014 11:55AM

WHAT do three enormous craters in the Siberian wastelands have to do with a terrified American climate scientist? Methane. And that’s something to scare us all.

The end of the world could be starting right now — in a frozen Siberian wasteland known as Yamal. It translates as “The End of the Land”.

The first mysterious crater was spotted by oil workers earlier this month. It was an 80m wide cavern that reached deep into the earth.

Since then, the Siberian Times reports goatherds have found a further two enormous vents in the ground.

Russian researchers have returned from their investigation of the first find and taken water and soil samples to help resolve how the hole was formed.

Some say aliens. Some say they’re “hellmouths” — gateways to the undead.

But scientists already have a pretty good idea.
Explosive vents of vast quantities of methane gas.

Now a new, ominous, name could be attached to them: Dragon’s mouths.

Here’s where a blog posted by American professor in glaciology Dr Jason Box   (
at the weekend comes in: “The dragon breath hypothesis has me losing sleep.”**

** ( the climate dragon awakening? (

Using a vast and credible set of climate measurements and physics, James Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren makes the case that humans overloading the atmosphere with carbon would eventually trigger the release of vast additional carbon stores locked in shallow sea gas hydrates and from Arctic tundra.

In my professional opinion as a climatologist with more than 70 externally reviewed scientific publications, after 12 years of university education focused on atmospheric and oceanic science, and followed by 10 years of university lecturing on micro and mesoscale meteorology theory and instrumentation, Hansen’s warnings should be met with an aggressive atmospheric decarbonization program.

We have been too long on a trajectory pointed at an unmanageable climate calamity; runaway climate heating. (
 If we don’t get atmospheric carbon down and cool the Arctic, the climate physics and recent observations tell me we will probably trigger the release of these vast carbon stores, dooming our kids’ to a hothouse Earth. [ That’s a tough statement to read when your worry budget is already full as most of ours is. (

Another SNIPPET (full story at link I just gave you):

My understanding was that the methane bubbles can’t or don’t make it to the surface, instead are converted to much less potent carbon dioxide before reaching the surface. Then, here’s what we hear from 4 days ago   :ofrom a Swedish team now surveying the Laptev sea with a very high-end icebreaker, named for the main Norse god.

The Swedish team states “At several places, the methane “bubbles“ even rose to the ocean surface. That’s damn scary.  (  Atmospheric methane release is a much bigger problem than atmospheric carbon dioxide release, since methane is ~20 times more powerful greenhouse gas. If as it seems, sea ice reduction is destabilizing the shallow Arctic Ocean continental shelf waters. Without the reflective cover, the ocean is taking on a lot more solar heating during the 24 h summer days, making it harder for the sea ice to reform, in a self compounding feedback process. Places like the Laptev and East Siberian seas, are shallow, and the water column can more easily be mixed by wind action than when sea ice cover was there. This new heating and mixing can be what unlocks the shallow sea gas hydrates, allowing the methane up to the surface.
The methane bubbles they filmed boiling up toward, even to the surface of the Arctic Ocean. (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 03, 2014, 05:42:42 pm

Titanic lifelike sinking animation: Metaphor for Homo Sap Hubris?
Title: Excellent and sobering video on the almost inevitable extinction of Homo SAP!
Post by: AGelbert on August 08, 2014, 10:34:23 pm
Excellent and sobering video on the almost inevitable extinction of Homo SAP!


I mostly agree with the data. I learned from her some new and frightening stuff about methane in New Zealand and Antarctica. Also that the polar vortex was actually split in half last winter! She explained quite clearly how the cold here WAS a HUGE sign of ACCELERATING global temperature rise. Also, she shows how the ocean temperatures are, WHERE THERE IS NO ICE, HOTTER by a lot (4 C OR MORE) except where glaciers are sending melt water into the oceans and causing temporary cooling anomalies. She believes 2015 -2016 is the first ice free summer in the arctic. I'll stick with my prediction made two years ago of 2017.  8)

But the gist of her talk (and I agree with her!) is that runaway global warming CANNOT be stopped once the methane monster is kick started by an ice free arctic.  (

Methane Monster

Diagram of DOOM

We certainly WILL go extinct if a miracle does not occur. I do believe a miracle is possible but, to tell you the truth, I don't see the point. But then I'm not God so who knows?

I figure we have LESS than a decade to COMPLETELY reverse course on dirty energy AND ACCEPT that mankind is small part of the biosphere and he MUST treat ALL life with respect for his OWN physical AND moral survival.

This GIANT serving of HUMBLE PIE is NOT optional. (

But we can't even agree on the PHYSICAL nature of this problem!  Never mind the sine qua non spiritual development needed for a self aware species capable of DESTROYING itself and those around it.

OUR problem is MOSTLY spiritual (behavioral/moral), not resource or energy related. We HAVE the brains to create an equitable, egalitarian society in harmony with the biosphere for the Glory of God, Gaia or whatever; WE JUST DON'T WANT TO!   (  (

That is the  REASON I don't see "the point". I firmly believe our modern society is empathy challenged (as does she). IOW, I believe, regardless of her "it's over" pitch, she thinks there MAY be a way out of this but is convinced we are INCAPABLE of taking it until it is TOO LATE  because of the following Chris Hedges EPITAPH for our "Greed is Good" society. 

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 19, 2014, 10:13:22 pm
12 Places Worth Protecting
The Pew Charitable Trusts
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 20, 2014, 01:14:19 pm
David Suzuki: Put People Before Politics


All the energy in our bodies that we use to move, grow and reproduce is sunlight captured by plants in photosynthesis and converted to chemical energy, which we ingest. We eat plants and animals for our nourishment, so whatever they’re exposed to ends up in our bodies. We need clean soil to give us clean food.

These are basic, biological facts and should be the prism through which any decision is made at individual, corporate or government levels. Protection of air, water, soil and the web of life should be the highest social, political and economic priority.

We’re also social animals. Scientists have shown that love during childhood is essential for healthy development. Children who are deprived of love at critical points can develop a variety of physical and psychological deficits. To avoid those, we have to work for strong families and supportive communities, full employment, justice, greater income and gender equity and freedom from terror, genocide and war.

Finally, we are spiritual creatures who require sacred places, a sense of belonging to the world and a recognition that we are not in charge of nature, but dependent on the biosphere for our health and well-being. We are not outside of nature; we are part of it.

To be fully healthy and human, our most elemental needs are biological, social and spiritual. Politicians ought to know this. Their role is to protect and enhance those necessities of life; otherwise there is no vision, direction or leadership.

That’s why it’s absurd for a politician or government representative to speak about any aspect of the economy without acknowledging the threat of human-induced climate change. Many oppose doing anything on ideological grounds, but the science is overwhelming and compelling, and the need for action is clear. What can you say about “leaders” who choose to ignore the best available evidence to the detriment of the people they are elected to represent?

Surely those who act only for short-term economic gain, imposing destructive consequences on generations to come, must be held responsible. We must also consider the consequences of rapid and excessive exploitation of fossil fuels on the world’s poorest people, who have done little to create climate change but are most affected by it.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 28, 2014, 01:15:08 pm
Climate Scientists Spell Out Stark Danger And Immorality Of Inaction In New Leaked Report

 by Joe Romm Posted on August 27, 2014 at 4:24 pm

SNIPPET (graphic at link)

Humanity’s choice (via IPCC):

Aggressive climate action ASAP (left figure) minimizes future warming and costs a mere 0.06% of annual growth.

Continued inaction (right figure) results in catastrophic and irreversible levels of warming, 9°F over much of U.S.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 28, 2014, 06:39:52 pm
History warns us that when once-powerful societies collapse, they tend to do so quickly and unexpectedly. That shouldn't come as much of a surprise: peak power usually means peak population, peak needs, and hence peak vulnerability. (

The U.N.’s latest report on climate change is terrifying (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 01, 2014, 10:32:49 pm
To be written on the tombstone of HOMO SAP.  (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 05, 2014, 07:31:29 pm
Guy McPherson gives an EXCELLENT summary of our society's SUICIDAL DYSFUNCTION including the oligarchic elements within it that target ANYONE that wakes up and wants to actually fix the DELIBERATE PROFIT OVER PLANET DYSFUNCTION in politics, industry, the economy and the environment.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 06, 2014, 06:27:03 pm
No More ‘Hiatus’ — Human Emission to Completely Overwhelm Nature by 2030 (  >:(

Greenland ice sheet may melt completely with 1.6 degrees of global warming (  :(
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 06, 2014, 07:02:24 pm
As the seas rise, a slow-motion disaster gnaws at America’s shores (

It’s All About Fresh Water — Rapid Sea Level Rise Points To Massive Glacial Melt in Antarctica (

If ALL the ice melts.
Post by: AGelbert on September 08, 2014, 12:21:15 am

What is the Most Heat Tolerant Multicellular Creature?(

Pompeii Worm is a Thermophile: A form of extremophile that thrives in extremely intense temperatures.

The Pompeii worm is the most heat-tolerant multicellular creature, able to withstand temperatures above 176 degrees Fahrenheit (80 degrees Celsius). Until the Pompeii worm was discovered in the 1980s near the Galápagos Islands, common belief held that only single-celled organisms could withstand extreme heat. Pompeii worms can grow up to 5 inches (13 cm), and live in small tubes near hydrothermal vents on the seafloor.

More about heat-resistant creatures:

•Other sea creatures that have been found to live near underwater fissures include species of shrimp and mussels. Mussel beds have even been found buried in lava.  :o

Cataglyphis bicolor                                       Hi, human! I'll still be here when you AIN'T!  ;D
•The most heat-resistant land-based creature is the Cataglyphis bicolor, an ant that lives in the Sahara desert. The ant can survive in temperatures over 131 degrees Fahrenheit (55 degrees Celsius).

Due to rising global temperatures, researchers at the University of Delaware have begun to study farm animals in order to develop breeds that can survive in warmer temperatures.  ( (

Agelbert NOTE: Above please the old "It was commonly believed" expression so NEAR AND DEAR to our SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Now, let me get this straight.   (
  Our "highly advanced" knowledge of biochemistry and the laws of thermodynamics in the 1980s coupled with nearly a century of accumulated knowledge through MATH and EMPIRICAL SCIENCE (OF COURSE, IT'S A "we always do the math"  ( HORSE! ), of the absolutely essential requirements for sustaining life in a Multicellular Creature led our SCIENTISTS to ASS-U-ME no critter cain live when it's dat hot!  (

Remember that the next time some arrogant scientist tells you he has "done the math" and it's just not possible according the cause and effect physical rules of this universe!  8)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,  Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.*
 - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio   Shakespeare

* OR hypothesized as POSSIBLE in our SCIENCE!
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 17, 2014, 03:12:42 pm
09/16/2014 05:02 PM   
Unilever Aims to End Deforestation  ;D News

Unilever is working with the World Resources Institute's Global Forest Watch platform to increase transparency in its supply chains with the aim of ending tropical deforestation.

The company's goal is to source 100% of its agricultural raw materials sustainably by 2020 - up from a third now - with a strong focus on biodiversity and zero net deforestation.

Using Global Forest Watch - which allows monitoring of specific forests in near-real time - Unilever will be able to see which suppliers are complying with sustainability standards for crucial commodities such as palm oil, soy and timber.

"This partnership will bring new focus to see where our risks are highest and to improve forest management," says Pier Luigi Sigismondi, Chief Supply Chain Officer for Unilever.

Based in the UK, some of Unilever's 1000 brands are Ben & Jerry's, Dove, Lipton, Vaseline and Hellman's.

One view on Global Forest Watch shows where forests are growing and shrinking:

Forests - Global Forest Watch

"Major consumer goods companies are waking up and realizing it's in their interest to protect forests and pursue sustainable business strategies," says Andrew Steer, CEO of World Resources Institute. "Reducing the risk of deforestation in commodity supply chains greatly reduces risks to reputation and supply chain disruption - it's also simply the right thing to do. Unilever has been one of the real leaders in this area and we are pleased to have the opportunity to work with them to promote better forest management and business practices. The effect of this partnership will ripple throughout global commodity supply chains." 

The world lost 568 million acres of forest cover from 2000-2012, according to data ( from the University of Maryland and Google.

Recently, Oxfam called out the 10 biggest food companies ( not doing anywhere near enough to cut greenhouse gas emissions, most of which come from their agricultural supply chains. 

Unilever is alone among food companies in setting science-based targets and has ranked #1 among all corporations for its work on climate change.

Read our article, Nowhere To Hide From Global Forest Watch (

Check out the website:
Global Forest Watch (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 22, 2014, 12:38:27 am
Hope against Desertification   (

Keep The World From Turning To Dust!

 "These examples have to be set so that the world can have a positive future but we have to explain that unless this soil management is fully demonstrated, extended and enhanced, then we don't have any future. The world is just going to turn to dust." says Geoff Lawton in the Part 2 of the Greening The Desert documentary.

This is part 2 a spectacular success story, by world renowned permaculture expert Geoff Lawton. His team went to the Jordan Desert and transformed 10 acres of the arid desert into a lush, thriving, food producing garden. They developed a system to harvest every drop of rainwater, and created swells with over a foot of mulch. Then they used a micro irrigation system in the mulch.

These techniques maximized the moisture and brought life back to the soil. They were able to grow date palms, pomegranates, figs, mulberries, citrus and more. This is fascinating and as Geoff Lawton says in this video: "All the world's problems can be solved in a garden". It's not just that the moisture system worked and kept the soil and plants thriving-- in the process they lowered the salt levels dramatically.

This location is only a few miles from the Dead Sea!  :o  ;D This is recapped in the first 5 minutes of this video. Then we move on to Part 11, six years later, taking you to the original Greening the Desert site, letting you see its present condition after six years of neglect when funding ran out in 2003.

Then you will see the new project site – the Jordan Valley Permaculture Project, aka ‘Greening the Desert, the Sequel. It is possible to re-green and decrease the salt levels in any desert with water harvesting, micro-irrigation and mulch. A miracle indeed! --Bibi Farber

More on the work of Geoff Lawton at
Title: Hope for CHEAP Hydrogen Production
Post by: AGelbert on September 22, 2014, 02:33:48 pm
UH OH! The Fossil Fueler Fascists have to BUY ANOTHER PATENT to crush ANOTHER cheap energy for everybody technology! (  (

Nanosized hydrogen generator uses light and two-dimensional graphene (

September 19, 2014


Argonne National Laboratory


Researchers have created a small scale “hydrogen generator” that uses light and a two-dimensional graphene platform to boost production of the hard-to-make element. The research also unveiled a previously unknown property of graphene. The two-dimensional chain of carbon atoms not only gives and receives electrons, but can also transfer them into another substance.(

Agelbert NOTE:( Observe the Fossil fueler REACTION to CHEAP HYDROGEN generation technology from SUNLIGHT and Graphene below:

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 22, 2014, 05:59:28 pm
What cannot continue, will not continue.


But those who are fossil fueler WEDGES (a wedge is, as any engineer would know, the SIMPLEST TOOL  ( ), the above graphs are NOT representative of an exponential function.   (
Title: Future Earth?
Post by: AGelbert on October 07, 2014, 07:41:38 pm
Excellent quote from the Venus Project founder:
If you were raised by headhunters, you would collect shrunken heads. If I asked you if it bothered you to have 6 shrunken heads, you would probably say, "Yes! My brother has a dozen!"  ;D
Title: Golden Rule Government: A Lawful System Based on Caring instead of Conquest
Post by: AGelbert on October 16, 2014, 11:37:55 pm
Democratic Womanism  (

PART 1 of the Ex Curia Solution   (

Golden Rule Government - A Legal Lawful System Based on Caring instead of Conquest
by Jailhouse Judge Agelbert

Please excuse the nunc pro tunc (I'll fix the typos, spaces and add emphasis fonts and smileys  later - be patient) in this proposed world wide (and humbly submitted, of course!) legislation.  ;D


Golden Rule Government, not to be confused with fiscal policy in government (today mostly given lip service) where borrowing is only authorised except for investment, is a total ex curia replacement ot our hopelessly elitist, fascist, dysfunctional, profit over planet, biosphere destroying and human misery producing (and so on) social governing structure.

This new approach is not a reform of the old; it requires the scrapping of the old because the status quo is based on conquest. This new system mat be labeled "feminine" because it is based on caring.

However, overall, it is utilitarian in its application , not "sentimental", as anything labeled "femine" by our society disingenuously, pejoratively and patronizingly might claim.
In philosophy the male-centered versus the feminine approach are considered areas of moral

... area of moral psychology focuses on whether there is a distinctly female approach to ethics that is grounded in the psychological differences between men and women.
Discussions of this issue focus on two claims:
(1) traditional morality is male-centered, and
(2) there is a unique female perspective of the world which can be shaped into a value theory.
According to many feminist philosophers, traditional morality is male-centered since it is modeled after practices that have been traditionally male-dominated, such as acquiring property, engaging in business contracts, and governing societies. The rigid systems of rules required for trade and government were then taken as models for the creation of equally rigid systems of moral rules, such as lists of rights and duties.

Women, by contrast, have traditionally had a nurturing role by raising children and overseeing domestic life. These tasks require less rule following, and more spontaneous and creative action. Using the woman's experience as a model for moral theory, then, the basis of morality would be spontaneously caring for others as would be appropriate in each unique circumstance. On this model, the agent becomes part of the situation and acts caringly within that context. This stands in contrast with male-modeled morality where the agent is a mechanical actor who performs his required duty, but can remain distanced from and unaffected by the situation. A care-based approach to morality, as it is sometimes called, is offered by feminist ethicists as either a replacement for or a supplement to traditional male-modeled moral systems. (

Of course, all ethical conduct is based on some basic concept of what is right and what is wrong (i.e. morality). While there ARE people, a lot of them, out there that argue that ethics has no place in social structure UNLESS it is "situational" (see Orwell) in nature, what they are really advocating, adopting, espousing and defending is  a Machiavellian view of government of the people, by the elite and for the elite.

The issue, nevertheless, is further "muddled" by the claim that "morality" is a human invention that doesn't "do the Darwinian math" of "reality".  They claim that what is "moral/ethical" for one tribe may be "immoral" for another so the best (i.e. "real world")  course of action is to shake hands and come out fighting (i.e. Conquest is the ultimate "morality").

Actus reus
Action or conduct that is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the accused.

An excellent example of the LACK of "do the math" logic in our closed system biosphere by the Court System of Homo SAPs is poaching. Ask a lawyer to define poaching. While said professional may give lip service to the deleterious effects on the biosphere in general and the poached species of wildlife in particular due to this "illicit" activity, the APPROACH to this life destroying actus reus is ridiculously limited to the typical legalese tunnel vision of  'seeing the stolen healthy trees' PROPERTY, hair splitting illogic, that ignores the forest fire'. That is, the health and perpetuation of the 'impacted species' is measured only with regard to computing damages to the Homo SAP tribe or nation who 'owns' the animals being poached.

Furthermore, if the poacher is doing the bidding of a foreign government to undermine the GDP of the 'enemy' or some other 'justified' activity (according to social Darwinian situational 'ethics' Homo SAP juris-imprudent Court Systems) he is, acting 'lawfully'. It just depends (see SOPHISTRY and the practice of law) which group of Homo SAPS you base your 'fealty' too.

So what's the problem with loyalty to your tribe? Does not the life and welfare of 'your tribe' outweigh all other 'sentimental' notions of questionable ethical behavior? Well, at this point a lawyer will have a field day answering with a fascinating but thoroughly contorted and convoluted amount of 'logic' that basically says, YES (with several escape clause conditional "no" gray areas - be sure to consult a lawyer for each gray area.). The Homo SAP Court System has a sliding scale of ethics where "legal" is "lawful"(i.e. ethical/moral) sometimes but NOT ALWAYS. That's just the way it is among apex predators in a social Darwinian "real world' pecking order. Any other 'sentimental' and 'idealistic' and/or 'ridiculously utopian' notions of ethical conduct are just magical/wishful thinking for reality challenged ignoramuses. The current Court System used by Homo SAP governments  is the ONLY 'workable' system, Sniff! 

IF our concern (see trees versus forest) was exclusively occupying the king of the hill position among competing Homo SAPS, I would agree. But that fails to do the overall biosphere Darwinian (see natural selection and species extinction) MATH. Hence it is not just ridiculous to design and operate a Government/Court System predicated on Conquest, it is not ethical in any sense when the FOREST that Homo SAPS REQUIRE for the health, welfare and perpetuation of their species is COMPUTED into the MATH.

Idealist? Utopian? Try NOT OPTIONAL. In our biosphere, the ethical BOTTOM LINE is NOT some man made philosophical concept that defines "ethical" or "unethical" behavior in terms of what we do to each other and ignores other life forms. The ethical BOTTOM LINE is whether what we DO produces our DEATH or our LIFE, PERIOD.

Therefore, we must (see NOT OPTIONAL) strive, in order to save our own arses, for a Governmental/Court System that does NOT operate on a sliding scale of sophistic fun and games based on loyalty to one Homo SAP tribe/government/corporation/Bar association (you knew I would throw that in, didn't you? - I know - it's dirty pool - but like it!) over another.   

Well then, let's talk a bit about ethics that DON'T operate on a sliding scale of "morality". Let's try to get a bird's eye view of the BIG picture in regard to ethics.
Philosophy says this about that:

...The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. It covers issues from moral semantics to moral epistemology. ]

That doesn't seem to get us anywhere. But this is a good start.

Two issues, though, are prominent:
(1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans, and
(2)psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct.

Since the  metaphysical issue is a gigantic can of worms in regard to ethics and morality, I have not referenced that contentious area in formulating the utilitarian "math" of Golden Rule Government.

... area of meta-ethics involves the psychological basis of our moral judgments and conduct, particularly understanding what motivates us to be moral.
We might explore this subject by asking the simple question, "Why be moral?" Even if I am aware of basic moral standards, such as don't kill and don't steal, this does not necessarily mean that I will be psychologically compelled to act on them.

Some answers to the question "Why be moral?" are to avoid punishment, to gain praise, to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in with society.
Many will claim THEIR "mental basis of moral judgements and conduct is the only VALID mental basis for moral judgements and conduct.

Without evidence to back this claim, they are just smoking that crack pipe of "do as I say, not as I do". The "best of all possible worlds" argument is also fallacious simply because all the alternatives out there are willfully disdained, discarded or simply ignored. See Procrustean bed.
The mental basis of our moral judgements and conduct can only be justified if the following takes place as a result of the said moral judgements and conduct:
1. A steadily improving and diverse fauna and flora in the biosphere.
2. A steady Bioremediation of all toxins in the biosphere.
3. A steady and consistent policy of emulating nature in bringing about a zero waste economy for the benefit of all earthlings.
4. Equal protection among humans from other humans.
5. Equal representation among humans (vote, petition, proposed legislation and law enforcement).
6. Equal access to services.
7. Equal punishment for wrong conduct.
8. Guaranteed Minimum standard of health, education and income to insure the dignity of even the most poverty stricken, disabled, handicapped or just plain dysfunctional from mental disease or laziness. "A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones." Gandhi
9. No statute of limitations on any crime for any reason and no limited liability for any human in any form of business, corporate charter, club, police, military governmental, bath club, etc. You do the crime, you do the time and you pay your share of the fine.   
10. Legal tender laws are carbon footprint/energy based (yeah, it's complicated but is VERY specific about SUBTRACTING the value of any product the EXACT amount of planetary piggery used to manufacture it, PERIOD.

Utopic? Nope. In fact, anything else, as in what we are doing NOW, is criminally negligent suicide. The status quo is not a measured, prudent, logical, or even social Darwinian approach to survival of the species. And forget about thriving when you are arrogantly eliminating diversity of life in a closed system such as our biosphere without even understanding scientifically WTF all these many and varied life forms out there do to contribute to our welfare.

Get this, people. What we are doing IS NOT WORKING. What part of that do you not understand?  ???

As reasonable, logical, intelligent (and so on) humans, it's time to give this strange idea born of the apparent benefits YOU have gotten from the dysfunctional human structure that you are not shooting yourself in the foot. Incremental measures and working within the "system" are doomed to failure because the "system" is based on unscientific principles of conquest.

We live in a closed system. A bubble of life, if you will. The only morality of life is, hello?, A LIFE GIVING social structure. Al the rest is baloney. We aren't talking about singing cumbaya and dancing with permaculture flowers in our head, people! we are talking about DOING THE MATH for a closed SYSTEM called the biosphere! YES, there are scads of life forms here that we can trample willy nilly and they don't fight back because they aren't self aware. SO WHAT!!? Are you going to sit there and tell me that we are going to promote LIFE by continuing to increase the rate of DEATH of non-self aware species as well as the MISERY of ours? GET OUTTA HERE with that Orwellian mindfork!

So you don't believe in God or right or wrong. And? Do you believe in breathing? Yep. Same with eating (and so on). See defecating where you eat. We are there. What part of that can't you wrap your head around? The MORALITY/ETHICS of a LIFE GIVING modus operandi and modus vivendi are not optional if you want to ensure the survival of your species. That is the math.

What's all that got to do with Golden Government Rule?


Let us now move to WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD, so to speak.

Normative Ethics

Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or a set of good character traits.

The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles.

The Golden Rule Government social structure uses computers (a LOT!) to DO THE MATH. This "math" is a biosphere life giving math MORALITY that is sine qua none for the perpetuation of the human species. You may say it is the formula for transitioning from Homo SAP to Homo sapiens as a society. There are many among us that are there already. But the Homo SAPS defending the biosphere ignoring LAW of CONQUEST "morality" are in the way.

I will discuss how to, through friendly persuasion, logic, prudent, measured, consistent, confident (and so on) PEACEFUL activity (or the lack of it - lack of activity, RE, not lack of peace - watch it!  ;D), we can save our arses along with thousands of other earthling species.

But not now. I want to see how the worthies here respond. If I see genuine interest born of a realization of seriousness of our plight and respect for the value of a REAL "do the math" Golden Rule Government proposal, rather than accusations of ignorance, puffery, hypocrisy or flatulence accompanied with disdain, sarcasm or branding of my post as flower child whining utopian blather, then I will get the message, loud and clear that, no matter what the risk of our current suicidal trajectory, you are not interested in a working solution and prefer the delusion that incremental reforms (see lipstick on a four footed truffle forager) will save Thelma and Louise from the laws of physics.

It is true, that once implemented, the Golden Rule Government will be the new "curia", among other things, but since the status quo will fight to the death to prevent said system change, the Golden Rule Government is an EX CURIA solution to our dysfunctional and brutal system. And, of course, if you want to implement Golden Rule Government, you are going to have believe in it to the point of willing to lose everything you have, including your life, simply for adopting the peaceful activities (and lack of them) required to get the Homo SAPs to wake up and smell the Grand Canyon of species extinction.

Sure, it might not work. But what we are doing now has a 100% probability of not working. Stupid is as stupid does. Have a nice day.


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on October 20, 2014, 07:48:19 pm

Pequeño: How Everyone is Capable of Doing Their Part to ‘Change the World’ (

Stefanie Spear | October 20, 2014 4:13 pm

Pequeño, part of the Action4Climate video competition, sets out to find ways people living in Mexico can reduce their impact on the Earth. From eating to commuting to work, filmmakers Diego Martinez, Ana Gutiérrez and Juan Pablo Mayorga, ask, “So, what can a group of persons do to face climate change?”

Throughout the film they provide alternatives on how to live life in a more sustainable way, including growing your own food and using bikes to generate power for community events. This inspiring and thoughtful film shows how everyone is capable of doing their part. As Rachel Kyte, World Bank’s vice president and special envoy for climate change, wrote in her blog post the week after the UN Climate Summit in New York City, “It was Margaret Mead who said, ‘Never doubt that a small number of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.’”

The Action4Climate video competition received more than 230 entries from 70 countries from students inspired to share their climate change stories. To watch other Action4Climate videos, click here (at link below). (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 07, 2014, 10:08:34 pm
This is NOT the "worse case scenario" in the future because the main ENEMY is supposed to be fellow Homo SAPS. That is entertaining but rather quaint. We've been through the Middle Ages and various world wars. The NEXT mess will have a climate catastrophe woven into the "fun". (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 10, 2014, 02:10:32 am
11/07/2014 05:58 PM     

IPCC Issues Final Warning on Climate Change News


While we mentioned the IPCC's final climate report earlier this week, we'd be remiss if we didn't provide you with more details about it.

The Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report summarizes the three reports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued over the past two years and contains even sterner warnings - if that's possible.

 Keep in mind that, as in every report the IPCC has issued, scientists err on the conservative side. Many of the extreme weather events we're seeing today were first predicted to begin in the second half of this century. 800 scientists from across the world contributed to this most comprehensive assessment of climate change ever. 

The upshot is, the extreme weather events we've been seeing are nothing - they will get unimaginably worse unless the world responds much more aggressively NOW.   

IPCC 2014

Let's start with their blockbuster statement:

Because there must be an absolute limit on cumulative greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere (to support life on earth), the use of fossil fuels must be significantly scaled back in the coming decades, and eliminated entirely by 2100 (unless all carbon is captured).

This is the result of the world waiting so long to take action. The more we pump into the atmosphere, the less room there is for more. 

"We have little time before the window of opportunity to stay within 2ºC of warming closes," states Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC. 

"To keep a good chance of staying below the 2C, and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop 40-70% globally by 2050, and fall to zero or below by 2100."  At the same time, renewable energy must grow from 30% now (including to hydro) to 80% by 2050.

If greenhouse gas emissions simply continue as they are now, we are "increasing the likelihood of widespread and profound impacts affecting all levels of society and the natural world."

"We have the opportunity, and the choice is in our hands. The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change."

At this point, halting emissions isn't enough, we must also take strong adaptation measures to deal with what's already baked into the climate system, they say. The longer this takes, the more it will cost.

But We Can Still Turn This Into An Opportunity

Yes, this is frightening, there's no doubt about it, and while getting to zero emissions may seem impossible, we need to see it as the opportunity that it is.

"Phasing out fossil fuels is about different investment opportunities: the IPCC estimates that annual investment in low-carbon electricity will increase by $147 billion and investment for energy efficiency in transport, industry and buildings by $336 billion compared to a business-as-usual scenario from 2010-2029. Zero emissions do not imply zero growth," says Sean Kidney, President of Climate Bonds. 

And these technologies are now much more affordable now, with solar and wind able to compete on price with fossil fuels.

"What we need to fund is essentially a shift to green (climate-smart) infrastructure. The good news is that infrastructure investment is nothing new, and while the massive scale and speed of change required is unprecedented, the tools and instruments are well-known and well-proven; from regulation to floor
 pricing and partial guarantees. All policy makers need to do is pull them out of the bottom drawer and put them to work for the climate," says Kidney.

Unfortunately, that step is the hardest, because every action is a drag-out fight with Republicans, who are now taking over Congress.   

"In the starkest terms ever used, the scientific community is looking world leaders directly in the eye and demanding
 they wake up. To fight global poverty, sustain stable governments and societies, and maintain a livable planet, all findings indicate that we should kick fossil fuels to the curb. The silver lining to the report is that it recognizes clean energy climate solutions are affordable and ready to deploy," says Michael Brune, Executive Director of Sierra Club.   

"We do not need any more reports - we need action. We don't have any more time to coddle fossil fuel billionaires or politicians who will eschew responsibility at every corner. That's what the 400,000 people who marched in September demanded and that is what the scientific community is again confirming. The stakes for negotiations in Lima and Paris are now obvious, and the table is set for world leaders to take significant, immediate action to avert catastrophe."


Read our articles on the three reports issued in 2013-2014:

IPCC Releases Climate Research Update: Warming is Unequivocal

IPCC Update Emphasizes Series of Multiplying Risks

3rd Installment of IPCC Report: We CAN Do It If We Act NOW

Here's the Synthesis report:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 13, 2014, 08:00:11 pm
Pope Francis: ‘Unbridled Consumerism’ Is Destroying Our Planet (

Agelbert NOTE about the Fossil Fuel Forked UP Future (In pictures...  ;D):

(              (

The 1%'s Responsibility to Shoulder 80% of the COST of a 100% Renewable Energy World. (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 15, 2014, 04:35:19 pm
Kevin Spacey is the RAINFOREST
Harrison Ford is the OCEAN
Ian Somerhalder is CORAL REEF
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 24, 2014, 02:55:48 pm

Extreme Weather Will Be ‘New Climate Normal’    (  Without Immediate Action, Warns World Bank   (

Anastasia Pantsios | November 24, 2014 10:37 am

World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said this weekend that the organization’s investment focus will be on clean energy and that it will back coal-fired and other fossil fuel projects only when there is “extreme need.” Flying in the face of a popular climate denier narrative that says phasing out fossil fuels and addressing extreme poverty can’t be done at the same time, Kim said climate change threatened efforts to tackle poverty.

His remarks followed the release of the World Bank’s new report, Turn Down the Heat: Confronting the New Climate Normal. It said among other things that the extreme weather impacts of climate change may now be unavoidable and that they are impacting people’s food and water security as well as threatening their safety. But it also said, “More and more voices are arguing that is possible to grow greener without necessarily growing slower. Today, we know that action is urgently needed on climate change, but it does not have to come at the expense of economic growth.”

“There is growing evidence that warming close to 1.5 Centigrade above pre-industrial levels is locked in to the Earth’s atmospheric system due to past and predicted emissions of greenhouse gases, and climate change impacts such as extreme heat events may now be unavoidable,” the report asserted. “As the planet warms, climatic conditions, heat and other weather extremes which occur once in hundreds of years, if ever, and considered highly unusual or unprecedented today would become the ‘new climate normal’ as we approach 4°C—a frightening world of increased risks and global instability.”

“Today’s report confirms what scientists have been saying—past emissions have set an unavoidable course to warming over the next two decades, which will affect the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people the most,” said Kim. “We’re already seeing record-breaking temperatures occurring more frequently, rainfall increasing in intensity in some places and drought-prone regions like the Mediterranean becoming drier. “These changes make it more difficult to reduce poverty and put in jeopardy the livelihoods of millions of people. They also have serious consequences for development budgets, and for institutions like the World Bank Group, where our investments, support and advice must now also build resilience and help affected populations adapt.”

The 200-plus page report enumerated the impacts of heat waves, prolonged droughts, disappearing glaciers, rising sea levels, heavy rainfall and vanishing forests on different parts of the world from Mexico City to Benghazi to Central Asia and spotlighted what it called “The Case for Immediate Action.”

Immediate action, the report said, meant acting quickly to disinvest in what it called “the carbon intensive, fossil-fuel-based infrastructure” which releases climate change-causing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It said that in some cases, there might be no alternative to funding fossil fuel projects to supply electricity to impoverished areas, but overall, the World Bank’s priority would be backing clean, renewable energy projects.

“At the World Bank Group we will use our financial capacity to help tackle climate change,” said the report. “We will innovate and bring forward new financial instruments. We will use our knowledge and our convening power. We will use our evidence and data to advocate and persuade. In short, we will do everything we can to help countries and communities build resilience and adapt to the climate impacts already being felt today and ensure that finance flows to where it is most needed.”

“The good news is that we can take action that reduces the rate of climate change and promotes economic growth, ultimately stopping our journey down this dangerous path,” said Kim. “World leaders and policy makers should embrace affordable solutions like carbon pricing and policy choices that shift investment to clean public transport, cleaner energy and more energy efficient factories, buildings and appliances.”
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 24, 2014, 04:07:28 pm
There is nothing rational about rebellion.

To rebel against insurmountable odds is an act of faith. And without this faith the rebel is doomed. This faith is intrinsic to the rebel the way caution and prudence are intrinsic to those who seek to fit into existing power structures.

The rebel, possessed by inner demons and angels, is driven by visions familiar to religious mystics. And it is the rebel alone who can save us from corporate tyranny.

I do not know if these rebels will succeed. But I do know that a world without them is hopeless. (

Chris Hedges

Why We Need Professional Revolutionists    (

Posted on Nov 24, 2014

By Chris Hedges

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 27, 2014, 02:40:57 pm
Storm surge: Hurricane Sandy

On the second anniversary of Superstorm Sandy making landfall, we are running an extract from a new book by Adam Sobel “Storm Surge: Hurricane Sandy, Our Changing Climate, and Extreme Weather of the Past and Future”. It’s a great read covering the meteorology of the event, the preparation, the response and the implications for the future.


Sandy didn’t need climate change in order to happen, and the story of the disaster doesn’t need climate change to make it important. The main subject of this book is Sandy, and you can read large fractions of the book without seeing climate change mentioned at all. But climate change looms large when we try to think about what Sandy means for the future.

Sandy was not just an extreme fluke, something that we can assume won’t happen for another few hundred years. But neither is it “the new normal”—something that is sure to happen again soon, and often from now on.

Almost certainly it’s somewhere in between. We’re very unlikely to see another Sandy this year, or next, or even in the next decade or two. We’re not that much more vulnerable today than we were a few decades ago. But at the time of Sandy, we were always more vulnerable than we realized. And the pace of change is quickening.

Steven T. Corneliussen ( says: 30 Oct 2014 at 6:16 PM

Thanks for this informative posting and for the emphasis on shoreline overdevelopment–national folly that continues despite growing awareness of rising seas. Yes, the “most serious problems highlighted by Sandy were not in the preparations right before the disaster or in the response right after. They were in the construction of our coastlines over the span of many decades.”(

In Virginia there’s a potential national symbol of the problem and the folly: the new national monument–a form of national park–at low-lying, ocean-facing Fort Monroe, the Chesapeake Bay’s flat Gibraltar. The Army left in 2011.

Developer-kowtowing politicians then contrived a token national monument, a form of national park. They bizarrely bifurcated it on the bayfront for developers. Earlier this year, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued the report National Landmarks at Risk: How Rising Seas, Floods and Wildfires are Threatening the United States’ Most Cherished Historic Sites.

The report devotes three pages to Fort Monroe, emphasizing that Hurricane Isabel caused more than $100 million in damage there in 2003. That was long before anybody contemplated blanketing the sand spit with condos that politicians  (, apparently unaware of George Orwell  ;D, insist must be called historically compatible residences.

Wetlands Watch has charged that despite “significant new residential development investments” planned for this “increasingly fragile and potentially dangerous landscape,” Fort Monroe’s newly approved development plan “does not consider the long-term costs/benefits.”   >:(

That mid-Atlantic environmental group, sometimes cited in New York Times coverage of sea rise, called the development plan simply “stupid.” Note please that this 570-acre sand spit ranks high among US national treasures. It saw slavery’s 1619 beginning and then–as told in the 2011 New York Times feature “How Slavery Really Ended in America”–it also saw the 1861 start of slavery’s demise, in events that Civil War historian Edward Ayers once called “the greatest moment in American history.”

Yet despite both sea-level rise and historic importance, politicians plan condos for the huge gap in the fake national monument that they contrived.  (

Last year, the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot warned “a national treasure will be squandered.” The National Parks Conservation Association exclaimed “We can’t let this happen.” But we are letting it happen.

It’s well worth noting, though, that the situation stands ready to be made a national symbol of our continuing national fecklessness and foolishness concerning sea-level rise.  >:( For links and for more information, please see .

The ABOVE is due to GLOBAL WARMING which is due to the burning of fossil fuels and massive fossil fuel industry profit over planet.  (  ( Get it?

Agelbert NOTE: This is really quite simple, sports fans; it costs money to clean up our act and those that profited from the polluting energy industries DON'T WANT TO PAY IT.  They did the crime. MAKE THEM do the time and pay the fine. Suicide is stupid. Are we stupid?  ???

 ( to a Low Carbon Economy!  (

Renewable energy= (                                ( Fuelers
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 03, 2014, 08:04:32 pm
Is Extinction on the Table at the Lima Climate Talks?   ???
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 04, 2014, 02:51:19 pm
Preparing the Next Generation for Skilled Jobs in the Clean Energy Sector (

Maria Blais Costello 
December 04, 2014  |  1 Comments 

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Internship Program, created and managed by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC), is providing valuable support to Massachusetts’ growing clean energy economy. By connecting Massachusetts students and recent graduates with paid internships at clean energy companies across the state, MassCEC is helping to ensure that there is a steady stream of prepared, talented, and experienced young professionals ready to meet the growing market demand.

Training the Clean Energy Economy Leaders of Tomorrow

The clean energy industry in Massachusetts is experiencing significant growth. MassCEC’s 2014 Clean Energy Industry Report notes that MA clean energy jobs grew by 10.5 percent from 2013. Massachusetts has over 88,000 clean energy workers and nearly 6,000 clean energy firms. This growing market sector presents both an opportunity and a challenge. In order for industry growth to continue, businesses need to be able to hire new employees, which requires both the capital to afford those workers, and an experienced labor pool to draw from.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center saw the need to connect prospective employers and new clean energy start-ups with promising entrants into the workforce. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Internship Program has matched two key resources: a growing population of environmentally conscious college students and a growing clean energy sector in search of skilled workers.

Since its creation four years ago, the program has placed 952 interns at 228 companies. More than 50 interns have gained permanent positions at their host companies, while many others have found positions elsewhere in the state clean energy industry.

How the Program Works

Through the Massachusetts Clean Energy Internship Program, MassCEC provides paid internships for college students interested in working for a clean energy company in Massachusetts. Applicants submit their resume, unofficial transcript, and proof of Massachusetts residency into an online database, developed by MassCEC. The database serves to match students with prospective employers. To be eligible, participating students must either be enrolled at a higher education institution in Massachusetts, a permanent Massachusetts resident attending an out of state institution, or recently graduated within the previous year. Students and recent graduates gain valuable workforce experience through their internships and build connections in the Massachusetts clean energy industry.

Employer participation in contingent upon submitting to MassCEC an application detailing the company’s clean energy focus and then determining if they qualify as a “clean energy” company as defined by MassCEC’s founding legislation. Additionally, employers must also have a Massachusetts-based office and be registered to do business in the state. Employers deemed eligible to participate in the program by MassCEC staff are able to search the online database and select candidate(s) to interview for an internship. Once the eligible candidate is found, MassCEC then issues an award letter to the employer before allowing the student to begin their work.

Businesses that participate in the internship program are reimbursed up to $12 an hour for the intern’s labor; the $12 amount can be counted towards wages and taxes. Employers are allowed to pay their interns a higher was than the maximum reimbursable hourly rate, with the employer paying the difference.  This is a significant benefit for companies, especially for startups that would not otherwise be able to afford new interns or employees. Upon completion of the internship session, employers are required to respond to an online survey before any reimbursements are made; similarly, a survey is also sent out to participating students to gather their input on the program. The information from both parties has allowed MassCEC to correct any potential oversights and to streamline the application process.

The impacts of the Massachusetts Clean Energy Internship Program are long-term. By helping clean energy companies grow and by training workers entering the field, MassCEC is helping to prepare the next generation of clean energy leaders and ensuring future market growth.

Leveraging Available Resources for Maximum Impact

The success of the program is due to a smart and simple concept: linking one of Massachusetts’ largest and strongest populations, the higher education sector, with one of its fastest growing industries, the clean energy sector. MassCEC actively promotes this program to colleges across the state, providing career centers with the information they need to successfully leverage the program. After MassCEC’s initial work to launch the initiative, the program has developed considerable momentum, because people in the two sectors have a strong interest in promoting it widely. MassCEC now only has to put continued funding and provide modest administrative work to keep the program going strong.

Additional benefits of the Internship Program have included increased exposure for Massachusetts-based clean energy companies, in both urban and less populated areas of the state, as well as alleviating stubbornly high unemployment among college students, especially during the summer months. Due to heavy interest from both applicants and employers, the program has expanded from a summer-only internship to a year-round program, offering part-time positions in the fall and spring, and full-time positions in the summer.

A Model for other States

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Internship Program could be replicated in other states at any scale: state-wide or regional, technology-specific or all-inclusive. Primary components needed for replication are funding for reimbursements, a population of interested college students, and interested clean energy companies. Since an agency or organization hosting the program is simply serving to facilitate the selection process, very little logistical work is required to administer a similar program once sufficient protocols have been established. As the application process continues to evolve and take on a more digital component, it will also require far less administration on the part of the host entity in the future.

Learn More about this Program

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Internship Program was one of eight recipients of the 2014 State Leadership in Clean Energy Awards, an initiative of the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA) to highlight exemplary state and municipal programs that advance clean energy markets. (See my previous blog from November 24, 2014.) CESA will be hosting a webinar featuring this program on December 8th. The webinar is free to attend, but registration is required. You can learn more and register here.

For more information about the Massachusetts Clean Energy Internship Program visit or contact Tamika Jacques, Director of Workforce Development, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center at

To learn more about CESA, please visit The next blog will highlight the New Mexico Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit program, which will also be featured on the December 8th webinar.

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.


A. G. Gelbert   
 December 4, 2014 

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Internship Program is a prudent, intelligent and much needed application of common sense.
Title: Fosil Fuelers a FAILED Predators bringing our entire species down!
Post by: AGelbert on December 24, 2014, 09:34:46 pm
SNIPPET from a May 27, 2008 (but every bit as applicable today, if not more so!) Review of the Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too, by James K. Galbraith. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney: Free Press, 2008.


 Jamie provides a careful analysis of the frontline battles on many of the most important issues--Social Security, health care, inequality, immigration, security after 9-11, trade and outsourcing, and global warming—showing how “market solutions” are designed to enrich a favored oligarchy through a spoils system administered through the state’s structure.

The policy “mistakes” in Iraq or New Orleans or at Bear-Stearns do not result from incompetence—indeed they only appear to be failures because we apply inappropriate measures of success. There is no common good, no public purpose, no shareholder’s interest; we are the prey and governments as well as corporations are run by and for predators. The “failures” enrich the proper beneficiaries even as they “prove” government is no solution.

Noni Mausa said... 

I have been writing about this topic in my own amateur way since at least 1992. I found it weird that when the idea was accepted at all, it was as a metaphor.

One thing to remember about predators is this: they are animals. By that, I mean they are driven by appetite and competition, and foresight is not part of their repertoire. Perhaps what I mean is that if one is driven by appetite and competition, without foresight, this defines one as an animal despite whatever human potential may be present.

Expecting foresight from predators is to convert them into farmers or feedlot operators, efficient predators who look ahead in the management of their livestock. We really DON'T want to go there.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 07:08 PM 

Uncle Billy Cunctator said in reply to Noni Mausa...

I think we're there.
Monday, January 24, 2011 at 11:29 PM 

SqueakyRat said in reply to Noni Mausa...

Excellent insight about predators, Noni, though even the lions and tigers seem (implicitly, of course) to estimate whether a given hunt is worth the effort, given the probability of failure. Still, the short time-horizon of capitalist enterprises is pretty notable.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Agelbert NOTE: The profit over planet plutocrats and their sycophants fancy themselves to be predators like lions, tigers, giant grizzly bears and so on. (      They relish the "we make a daily KILLING   (" mindset. They use powerful wild animals as a Darwinian metaphor that places these conscience free, biosphere math challenged morons at the top of the Apex Predator, Alpha Male species pecking order.  (

This is an excellent example of arrogant, stupid, self serving wishful thinking, Bernays MINDF UCK.

WHY? Because wild animal predators ONLY attack prey when they are hungry. And the planning and hunting activity they engage in. like whales making bubble traps for fish schools, DOES NOT kill the fish they don't eat. EVERYTHING they do works to PROMOTE a viable biosphere, not DEGRADE it.

If these humans that fancy themselves as "predators" had a lick of sense, they would realize that, in Darwinian terms, they are an EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END! Sure, they technically ARE "predators". But they are predators that DEPLETE their FUTURE food supply based on THE WISHFUL THINKING that they'll "figure something out" when the "supply" is hurting their profits.

HELLO? Any biologist will tell you that when populations get below a certain level, they crash. If the predators are the main contributors to said crash, they go extinct along with their prey. (

Animal predators do not have long cognitive time horizons. In that respect, they are similar to the Wall Street predators. However, they have biosphere preserving instincts that DEFINES THEM as SUCCESSFUL predators.

Wall Street Smaht guys, do NOT have that sine qua non  of a successful predator.

They aren't even Dinosaurs except as a cheap shot to the Dinosaurs! The dinosaurs did NOTHING to warrant their extinction; the fossil fuelers INSIST on industrially defecating where they EAT. (

Their ridiculously short cognitive time horizon will, if we survive them (, earn them a place in history as a perfect example of a dysfunctional and self defeating modus operandi. In the ENTIRE natural history of DERANGED and destructive outlier members of, not just our species, BUT ANY species on this planet, the fossil fuelers are number one! 

(Bernays Narcissistic Wild Animal Metaphor stripped) "Predatory" Fossil Fueler profit over planet Energy Resource "Free" Market Solutions  (

Wall Streeters in general and fossil fuelers in particular are Evolutionary DEAD END "predators" because, unlike us, they poison their (and our)  home! Tell them to put their Apex Predator metaphor where the sun don't shine!   >:(
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 25, 2014, 02:17:47 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This news is something that the fossil fuel industry was QUITE aware of at least 4 DECADES ago. Hence all their wagon circling, disinformation and politician buying ethics free behavior. These polluters ONLY think about THEMSELVES, not the biosphere.

To Lord Browne's credit, he has enough sense to realize the GAME IS UP and dirty energy promoters can no longer pretend they have a competitive product.

Burning fossil fuels is THEIR ticket to bankruptcy, not "just" (from a fossil fueler's egocentric point of view) a ticket to a degraded biosphere, misery and death to thousands of species, including Homo SAP.

The fossil fuelers are FINALLY figuring out that they are shooting themselves in the foot FACE. I hope it's not too late.

We will know that they are serious about that when they STOP spending billions in exploration for fossil fuels and, instead, spend those billions to transition to Renewable Energy Technology. The data indicates they have NOT done that yet. And MKing refuses to sell his SLB stock! 


Ex-BP Chief: Warming poses "existential threat" to big oil and big coal

Energy groups face ‘existential’ climate threat, says ex-BP chief

Financial Times, Nov. 20, 2014

Energy and mining companies are ignoring the “existential threat” from climate change and must change the way they operate, the former head of BP warns.

The intervention by Lord Browne, one of the energy world’s most influential voices, comes as coal, oil and gas companies face mounting investor  criticism that they are too complacent about the risk of tougher  action to curb global warming.

He told a seminar in London on Wednesday that the scientific evidence of global warming should be treated as settled but “this conclusion is not accepted by many in our industry, because they do not want to acknowledge an existential threat to their business”.

Expectations have grown that a global climate agreement will be sealed in Paris next year, which could lead to more stringent regulation of the energy sector. Some financial analysts have warned that it could end up devaluing oil and mining companies’ assets worth billions of dollars.

Big oil companies such as ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell have dismissed such a threat, arguing that the global demand for the oil they produce will only grow.

The latest news and analysis on the world’s changing climate and the political moves afoot to tackle the problem

Resource companies are also being targeted by a growing grassroots campaign aimed at making fossil fuels as unpopular as tobacco. It has prompted both Stanford University and the family foundation built on the riches of John D Rockefeller’s Standard Oil fortune to announce plans this year to cut their hydrocarbon investments.

The risk of more energy regulation was underlined by last week’s unexpected joint announcement by the US and China of plans to curb fossil fuel pollution, said Lord Browne, who promoted renewable energy and climate action during his time at BP.

“The targets agreed by President Obama and President Xi will not be achieved with the policies currently in place,” he told the seminar, hosted by Critical Resource, an industry advisory group he supports that encourages extractive companies to reshape their business models to address environmental and political risks.

“They will therefore require new policies, which could reduce the two countries’ cumulative oil demand by more than 17bn barrels of oil over the next 15 years.

“But many operators remain largely insensitive to the potential consequences of such policies,” he said, adding “very few” small and medium sized companies in North America “publicly accept the science behind climate change and even fewer think of climate change as a risk to their business”.

In a thinly veiled rebuke to companies such as US coal giant, Peabody Energy, whose chief executive recently called for an end to “climate alarmism”, Lord Browne said today’s energy leaders had been “somewhat absent” from the climate change debate, or were trying to resist progress. “Signals of resistance do not help because they place you firmly in the past,” he said.

Possible remedies for companies seeking to address the climate challenge include moving into renewable energy and ending the funding of lobby groups trying to weaken climate change policies, said Daniel Litvin, managing director of Critical Resource.

Lord Browne still has interests in the energy sector himself, and is on the board of Cuadrilla, a shale gas exploration company that is set to drill wells in the UK. He said some energy company leaders had an ideological opposition to regulation, while others believed “a CEO whose tenure will last for less than a decade will not be held accountable for their company’s fortunes many decades into the future”. But both were wrong, he added

While Lord Browne said he was reluctant to spell out precisely how energy companies should adapt, the peer said they should accept the conclusions of scientists about climate change and look at “the opportunities presented by low carbon energy systems”.

These technologies were developing at an impressive pace, he said, pointing to how the cost of a wind turbine had fallen more than 20 per cent in five years and the cost of a solar panel had fallen 80 per cent over the same time.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 31, 2014, 03:19:51 pm
Ending 2014 With Hope News

Since there's more than enough to be depressed about in the world today, we're ending the year with some projects that give us hope.

 In September, more than 30 countries signed the NY Declaration on Forests, which for the first time, puts a hard deadline on eliminating deforestation. The US, Canada and the EU are among the signatories, agreeing to cut deforestation in half by 2020 and fully by 2030. They also agreed to restore 1 million acres of degraded land over that time.

Africa is leading, assisted by the World Bank, UK government and nonprofits like Oxfam. Tanzania has restored 1.2 million acres, and efforts have been so successful in Ethiopia, that they pledge to restore 37 million acres by 2030. Other countries' pledges: Democratic Republic of the Congo (20 million); Uganda (6.2 million acres); Colombia (2.5 million); Guatemala (3 million hectares); and Chile (247,000).

Read our article, Namibia Models Economy Benefits And Wildlife Protection (

 In Indonesia, 10 years after the tsunami, villagers are restoring the very mangrove forests and coastal ecosystems that could have prevented much of the disaster that killed over 200,000 people.

 So far, 70,000 mangroves have been planted in the "Green Coast" project using microcredit finance. Birds have returned and the surrounding water is home to shrimp and crabs. Even green turtles are slowly returning. The country's new President,  Joko Widodo, campaigned on a commitment to reforest 2 million hectares of degraded land a year.

At this month's Climate Summit in Peru, Initiative 20x20 launched - an effort to restore 50 million acres of land in Latin America and the Caribbean by 2020. It's part of the Bonn Challenge, a global commitment to restore 370 million acres of land around the world by 2020, led by the World Resources Institute.

In the US, food companies are joining to improve agricultural practices on 50 million acres of farmland by 2020, preserving wild habitats and lowering emissions from agriculture.

In other words, more people understand that we've got to restore the earth's land (and water).  (

Over the past 20 years, protected zones have expanded substantially and as of 2010, take up 12.7% of the earth's land - the size of Russia.

After traveling the world for eight years, photojournalist Sebastião Salgado captured the most remote, pristine places left on earth, to show people that despite the havoc, "some 46% of our planet is still as it was in the time of Genesis." His book Genesis, is a compilation of the photos - a photographic homage to our planet in its natural state.   

Here are some of the photos:


In 2015, let your Faith be Stronger than your Fear.


2015, HERE WE COME! (  (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 04, 2015, 01:55:15 pm
10 Animal Species That Could Vanish in 2015 if We Don’t Act Now (

Anastasia Pantsios | January 3, 2015 10:33 am

Anyone who has ever visited a zoo has probably seen the charts depicting how this or that animal’s habitat has shrunk, thanks to human encroachment, climate change or both. And while some animal rights activists oppose zoos and animal captivity, if we don’t address the disappearance of their territory, many animals themselves could disappear from the face of the Earth—many of them as early as this year.

Habitat destruction in rapidly developing areas has threatened animals such as the South China tiger. Photo credit: Shutterstock

The Center for Biological Diversity says there’s an “extinction crisis” underway that threatens our planet’s biodiversity.

“Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals—the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years,” says Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural ‘background’ rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century.”

And the reason for species extinction has been upended.

“Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us—humans,” says Center for Biological Diversity. “In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species and global warming.”

The disappearing species include mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds and invertebrates such as corals, earthworms and butterflies.

Here are some of the species that may not live to see 2016, thanks to humans. The World Wildlife Fund rates all of these species “critically endangered.”


1. Black Rhino. Recently a white rhino died at the San Diego Zoo, leaving only five in the world. But the black rhino is also threatened. With fewer than 5,000 left in the wild in the grasslands and deserts of coastal east Africa, they’re sometimes killed for food but their double horns are a valuable product in this impoverished area. Ninety-six percent of their population was destroyed from 1970 to 1992. Conflict in countries like Sudan, Rawanda and Somalia has hampered conservation efforts.


2. Javan Rhino.
Indonesia’s Javan rhino is even more threatened than the black rhino, with possibly only 35 remaining. They’re dying of disease and an invasive species that has destroyed their food source. Poaching already wiped out a subspecies of this rhino in Vietnam in 2010 and threatens this one as well. They also face threats from reduced genetic diversity and natural disasters such as volcanos and tsunamis.


3. Hawksbill Turtle. Found in tropical oceans, especially coral reefs, they feed on sponges, sea anemone and jellyfish and are essential to the health of coral reefs. They’re fighting threats from every direction, including habitat disruption, pollution, poor fishery practices and illegal trade in their prized shells.


4. Soala. Often called the Asian unicorn, this previously unknown mammal was discovered in Vietnam in 1992. It’s unclear how many there are since they tend to elude human contact, with estimates ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred. The forests of Vietnam and Laos where they live are being cut down to expand agriculture, forcing them into ever-smaller territory. Closer contact with humans means they’re more hunted as well.


5. South China Tiger. This species of tiger hasn’t been seen in the wild for 25 years, existing only in zoos. Although hunting them was outlawed in China in 1979 and its survival made a conservation priority there in 1995, the country’s rapid development has meant that their habitat is fragmented into areas too small to support a population.


6. Yangtze Finless Porpoise. The Yangtze River was once home to two porpoise species, but one, the Baiji dolphin, was declared extinct in 2006, the first time human activity wiped a dolphin species off the planet. The Yangtze finless porpoise has a remaining population of less than 2,000 individuals and could go the same way as the Baiji if its food supply, threatened by overfishing, continues to dwindle. It’s also threatened by pollution and ship movement.


7. Western Lowland Gorilla. This small gorilla, found in the dense rain forests of west central Africa, was once one of the most numerous but its population has been decimated by ebola. And while hunting them for bushmeat is illegal, timber and other companies making forays into distant forests have also made poaching and bushmeat trade easier—and facilitated the transfer of ebola to humans.


8. Vaquita.
There are probably less than 100 of these rare marine animals left in the wild. They’re often caught in gillnets from the illegal fishing  trade in protected areas in Mexico’s Gulf of California. Half the population has disappeared in the last three years, with one in five drowned as bycatch. They’re one of the most critically threatened species.


9. Sumatran Elephant. There are only 2,400-2,800 Sumatran elephants left on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, with half their population gone in one generation due to habitat loss through deforestation by the paper, pulp and palm oil industries. In addition, they’re often killed in “human-elephant conflict” when they trample homes and crops—another result of destroying their natural feeding grounds.


10. Mountain Gorilla. This gorilla, which lives in the mountainous forests of central Africa, is jeopardized by human encroachment forcing them into more dangerous territory, as well as by poaching and civil conflicts. They number less than 1,000 but the good news is that, thanks to conservation efforts, their numbers are growing. So they could dodge the extinction bullet.

Jeff Comment:

Acting now must include reducing human population to a sustainable 2 billion or preferably below by coercing or dissuading from procreating. China is now sending people to Africa to **** that continent to alleviate the fact that it can't support all of its citizens. It already can't feed itself and has been leasing land in other countries to grow its food. That has burdened natives and destroys wildlife habitat. People are THE problem and not discussing our overpopulation, deluding ourselves that we can do what we want and save wildlife will lead only to disaster. It isn't that a species disappears but that those we don't value suffer and that must end.

Agelbert reply:

Yes, Humans are THE problem. But your emphasis on ALL humans is blame the victim logic when you leave out the subset of humans with the most gigantic, humongous, war profiteering, biosphere destroying, profit over people and planet carbon footprint.

You made a very valid point when you said, "those who we don't value suffer and that must end". That applies to the overwhelming majority of  humanity with a low carbon footprint as well. THEY have ALWAYS suffered at the hands of the human predators along with thousands of species in nature.

Comment on an article on non-human  predators and the public attitude towards them:

"Predators have undergone a remarkable transformation in the public consciousness in the last century. While certainly not universally admired they certainly get more favorable press than in years past."

Agelbert reply:

Especially the human ones... See News Media, CEOs and Wall Street...

The non-human predators get a bum rap while the human ones that stupidly do not limit their predation to what they need to live and eat, thereby endangering ALL of the biosphere, get the ALPHA MALE moniker in a truly Orwellian distortion of reality in nature.

I blame the deliberate ignoring of the massive levels of cooperation, nurturing and symbiotic interdependent caring observed in nature and the hyping of the relatively TINY, though important, role that predation plays in the perpetuation of species.

The biomass of the trophic levels that eat SUNLIGHT far exceeds that of the higher order trophics. In fact, without the phototrophic life forms, no high order intelligence or predator can exist in our biosphere. We ALL indirectly are eating SUNLIGHT! That does not make us parasitic of, commensal or symbiotic with the sun. The sun is NOT our "prey"; it is what gives us LIFE with no sweat off its back, period. But that is glossed over in scientific studies.

The mistaken  view  taught to all of us that in nature EVERY life form (when the reality is a small minority of the total biosphere biomass!) is in a 24/7 competitive life or death struggle in a predation pecking order totem pole where only the top position (apex predator) is the "crown" of evolution is duplicitous and ignorant. 

I blame a massive fail in the proper interpretation of the Theory of Evolution FROM THE START!. Our society has become a culture that HONORS and CELEBRATES the ability to KILL as proof of viability in nature when that is EXACTLY backwards.

But Wall Street likes it. The DISTORTION of Evolutionary Principles through propaganda justifying rampant, unchecked predation as the sine qua non of an "Apex Predator" (not!) is DRILLED into every child's mind by the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. 

And that's why no kid in high school gives a second though to cutting a frog open and killing him in the name of "science".   >:(

Nature is, and always was, about LIFE, not DEATH.  

"A society that loses the capacity for the sacred, that lacks the power of human imagination, that cannot practice empathy, ultimately ensures its own destruction" - Chris Hedges

If you think the scientific community does not contribute to this mindset with all the KILLING they do for "science" and "the good of society", I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.


We need a paradigm shift in science. Science should not be for sale to justify human cruelty against other humans and other earthlings, PERIOD.

The Fossil Fuel Industry and Wall Street mindset exemplifies a FAILED PREDATOR Evolutionary DEAD END (

The 1%'s Responsibility to Shoulder 80% of the COST of a 100% Renewable Energy World with a VIABLE BIOSPHERE for ALL EARTHLINGS. (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 06, 2015, 02:55:13 pm
It's time for all of us to get real about the fact that burning fossil fuels is suicidal. The degradation of the biosphere AND our democracy has been the result of over a century of profit over people and planet used to buy politicians AND the courts so these conscience free polluters can literally get away with murder of, not just humans, but thousands of other species VITAL to our continued existence, as well.

A brief account of the predatory capitalist modus operandi in ALL industries, not just fossil fuel dirty energy industries:

A perfect example of how predatory capitalist corporations keep their "losses" at a minimum when they cause massive injury and death. (")

The Fossil Fuel Industry and Wall Street mindset exemplifies a FAILED PREDATOR Evolutionary DEAD END (

The propaganda these murdering crooks and liars push to justify their profit over planet:

The "Welfare" of Society has always been the alibi of Tryrants (


Renewable Energy PROVEN to be CHEAPER than Fossil Fuels and other facts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy (

A study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance showed that the cost of renewable energy is now $80/MWh versus the cost of new build coal fired generation of $143/Mwh and new build gas fired generation of $116/MWh.

Myth Busters: the top 4 myths about renewable energy debunked! (

The solution:

Trophic Pyramid Respecting Plan to Save Humanity From Itself (!/msg2502/#msg2502)

The reason we MUST vanquish the profit over planet suicidal mindset from our species FOREVER!:

The Corporate Business Model is Psychopathic (ONE MINUTE): (

Watch this one minute clip to learn why Natural Capitalism is the only REAL Capitalism. Modern so-called "Capitalism" (i.e. Crapitalism!) actually SHRINKS,  DEGRADES and DESTROYS  Capital! (

Please pass it on. Your children will thank you.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 28, 2015, 11:14:04 pm

"The Guitar Is Mightier Than The Bomb"

 Folk music icon and activist Pete Seeger (May 3, 1919 – January 27, 2014) performed with the great minstrel Woody Guthrie in his younger days and marched with Occupy Wall Street protesters in his 90s, leaning on two canes. He wrote or co-wrote "If I Had a Hammer," "Turn, Turn, Turn," "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" and "Kisses Sweeter Than Wine." He lent his voice against Hitler and nuclear power.

 Just as the "pen is mightier than the sword", Seeger believed "The guitar is mightier than the bomb".

 In this video Pete Seeger performs the brilliant Earth Day anthem titled "Garbage".

Every word is just as poignant and relevant today though the song was written in 1969.  (

 Folk musician Bill Steele wrote the song, but Seeger added the powerful 4th verse (beginning with "In Mister Thompson's factory, they're making plastic Christmas trees ...") and a new chorus, decrying the effects of corporations and capitalism.

 Note to all songwriters...and everyone else: Look at this man's life. He urges you to use your voice to inspire, to influence, to stand up, and be part of changing your generation's course!


 Mister Thompson calls the waiter, orders steak and baked potato
 Then he leaves the bone and gristle and he never eats the skins;
 The busboy comes and takes it, with a cough contaminates it
 And puts it in a can with coffee grinds and sardine tins;
 The truck comes by on Friday and carts it all away; And a thousand trucks just like it are converging on the Bay, oh,

 Garbage (garbage, garbage, garbage) Garbage!
 We’re filling up the sea with garbage (garbage. . .)
 What will we do when there’s no place left
 To put all the garbage? (garbage. . .)

 Mr. Thompson starts his Cadillac and winds it down the freeway track
 Leaving friends and neighbors in a hydro-carbon haze;
 He’s joined by lots of smaller cars all sending gases to the stars.

 There they form a seething cloud that hangs for thirty days. 
 And the sun licks down into it with an ultraviolet tongue.
 Till it turns to smog and settles down and ends up in our lungs, oh,

 Garbage (garbage. . .) Garbage!
 We’re filling up the sky with garbage (garbage. . .)
 What will we do
 When there’s nothing left to breathe but garbage
(garbage. . .)

 Getting home and taking off his shoes he settles down with the evening news,
 While the kids do homework with the TV in one ear
 While Superman for the thousandth time sells talking dolls and conquers crime
 Dutifully they learn the date of birth of Paul Revere.
 In the paper there’s a piece about the mayor’s middle name,
 And he gets it done in time to watch the all-star bingo game, oh,

 Garbage (garbage. . .)
 We’re filling up our minds with garbage
 Garbage (garbage. . .)
 What will we do when there’s nothing left to read
 And there’s nothing left to need
 And there’s nothing left to watch
 And there’s nothing left to touch
 And there’s nothing left to walk upon
 And there’s nothing left to talk upon
 Nothing left to see
 And there’s nothing left to be but
 Garbage (garbage. . .)

 In Mister Thompson’s factory, they’re making plastic Christmas trees
 Complete with silver tinsel and a geodesic stand
 The plastic’s mixed in giant vats from some conglomeration
 That’s been piped from deep within the earth or strip-mined from the land.
 And if you question anything, they say, “Why, don’t you see?
 It’s absolutely needed for the economy,” oh,

 Oh, Garbage! Garbage! Garbage! Garbage!
 There stocks and their bonds — all garbage!
 Garbage! Garbage! Garbage! Garbage!
 What will they do when their system goes to smash  :emthup:
 There’s no value to their cash
 There’s no money to be made
 But there’s a world to be repaid  (
 Their kids will read in history books
 About financiers and other crooks
 And feudalism, and slavery
 And nukes and all their knavery
 To history’s dustbin they’re consigned
 Along with many other kinds of garbage.
 Garbage! Garbage! Garbage! Garbage!

 Words and Music by Bill Steele; 4th verse by Pete Seeger and Mike Agranoff (1977)
 (c) William Steele. Copyright assigned 1992 to the Rainbow Collection, Ltd.
- See more at:
Title: Racing Extinction (trailer)
Post by: AGelbert on January 31, 2015, 09:19:47 pm

Racing Extinction: A Must-See Documentary of 2015, World Premier at Sundance

Cole Mellino
January 30, 2015 11:50 am

Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah is one of the largest independent film festivals in the world, attracting some 50,000 attendees. This year’s festival, its 31st anniversary, runs from Jan. 22 to Feb. 1. Robert Redford, founder of Sundance and a longtime environmental activist, sat down with Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman yesterday to discuss this year’s festival and pressing environmental issues, including the Keystone XL pipeline. The festival always has a solid showing of environmental films and this year is no different.

One of the standouts premiering at the festival is Racing Extinction. There have been five mass extinctions in the history of our planet and we may be in the midst of a sixth. We could lose up to half the world’s species and humans are to blame.

Every year, some 100 million sharks are killed to make shark fin soup. Photo credit: Racing Extinction’s Facebook Page

Academy award-winning director, Louie Psihoyos, who also directed The Cove, joins forces with activists, scientists, nature photographers and inventors to give viewers a behind-the-scenes look at black markets where endangered species are sold. With hidden cameras on, these activists uncover highly endangered species being sold at markets all over Asia. Psihoyos says, “the more endangered it is, the more you have to go to the backrooms. Wildlife trade is second only to the drug trade.” The film goes beyond the black market trade to highlight humans’ devastating impact on other species with greenhouse gas emissions.

Racing Extinction, is produced by Psihoyos’s Ocean Preservation Society, who together with the United Nations, Obscura Digital, producer Fisher Stevens and musical score composer J. Ralph created illUmiNations. During this 11-minute event, images and statistics of the extinction crisis in our midst were displayed at the United Nations headquarters in New York City in September—the day before the People’s Climate March and two days before the UN Climate Summit.

Jane Goodall’s voice broadcasted at the event, imploring the world: “In 200 years, people will look back on this particular period and say to themselves how did those people at that time just allow all those amazing creatures to vanish. But it would be very little use in me or anybody else exerting all this energy to save these wild places if people are not being educated into be better stewards than we’ve been. If we all lose hope, there is no hope. Without hope, people fall into apathy. There’s still a lot left that’s worth fighting for.”(

That’s the take away message from this film. We can do something about this. Sundance says, “With stakes as high as the survival of life on the planet, Racing Extinction dispenses with apathy or fatalism to emerge as an urgent, affirming call to action to stem the tide before it’s too late.” Psihoyos says, “When you’re talking about losing all of nature, it’s not a spectator sport anymore. Everybody has to become active somehow.”

Invoking a Chinese proverb, one activist says, “Better to light a candle than curse the darkness. There’s so many people who sit back and say we’re screwed, but you know what, with that one candle maybe someone else with a candle will find you, and I think that’s where movements are started.”

Agelbert NOTE:
So, do you want to light a (BRIGHT but flameless, of course!   ( ) candle?  ( Here's something you can do to help RIGHT WHERE YOU LIVE!  (

Monarch Way Stations For Dummies Smart People --> PLANT MILKWEED!

To avoid harming bees and other helpful pollinators that visit your garden, swap out toxic pesticide and lawn chemicals for organic weed and pest control alternatives. Even some organic formulations can be harmful to beneficial insects, so be sure to vet your products carefully. Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant an edible organic garden. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide good honeybee habitats. It's also recommended to keep a small basin of fresh water in your garden or backyard, as bees actually do get thirsty.

In order to support the Monarch butterflies, consider planting a locally appropriate species of milkweed in your garden, on your farm, or wherever you manage habitat. You can use the Milkweed Seed Finder ( to locate seeds in your area.
Asclepias syriaca (Common Milkweed)

Monarchs love Backyard milkweeds

Whatever you choose to grow, please avoid purchasing pesticide-treated plants. (  Cut flower growers ( are among the heaviest users of toxic agricultural chemicals, including pesticides, so if you must buy cut flowers, make sure you select only organically-grown and/or fair trade bouquets.

Ideally, you'll want to grow your own pollinator-friendly plants from organic, untreated seed, but if you opt to purchase starter plants, make sure to ask whether or not they've been pre-treated with pesticides. Keep in mind that you also help protect the welfare of all pollinators every time you shop organic and grassfed, as you are actually “voting” for less pesticides and herbicides with every organic and pastured food and consumer product you buy.

You can take bee preservation a step further by trying your hand at amateur beekeeping. Maintaining a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time each week, benefits your local ecosystem—and you get to enjoy your own homegrown honey! (

DETAILED article revealing how Monsanto and Dow Chemical are FIGHTING TO PREVENT butterfly friendly milkweed planting   ??? >:( and much more:

Killing Off the Monarchs
January 31, 2015 | 111,886 views
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on February 10, 2015, 02:03:40 am
An INCLUSIVE, not exclusive, Todmorden effort requiring the "tenacity of a Rottweiler".   ( (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on February 15, 2015, 08:55:51 pm
Behind the Great Western Firewall Is the Ugly Truth (
EXCELLENT article.  ( 

I just have a couple of things to point out.

The author has hope. This statement and others are true. But it (and others) posit the possibility that there is some Selma and Louise cliff that we have not departed.

Yes, the United States is delusional and megalomaniac, but it’s frightening to know that if carried to its logical conclusion, it will mean the end of humanity as we know it.

His claim that TPTB originally felt threatened by the Communist Revolution in Russia is also a bit on the wishful thinking side, although said revolution did, as he states, get TPTB to marshal their forces against it.

The original  THREAT was the creation of a non-central bank operated government in the USA. You know all about Jackson's war with them and that article I posted from the "What Really Happened" web sight. The MINDSET of people from the robber barons to Teddy Roosevelt to Hillary Clinton has NOT changed whatsoever.

Our ENTIRE foreign policy has been OWNED by the Rockefeller Standard Oil foreign office network established BEFORE we had an active foreign policy.

The banks and the polluting industries work hand in glove to plunder, despoil, exploit and dominate. That has not changed since the Western world became industrialized. He does not see that.

It's been TOO LATE since the Spanish American War, as far the USA is concerned. THAT is when the banks got our government to go into DEBT for WARS OF CONQUEST for the purpose, never admitted to the public, of the bank and polluting industries "profit" (welfare queenery) gravy train.

It has been downhill and snowballing with improvements in surveillance technology and propaganda dispersal tools ever since.

It WAS OVER before you and I were BORN!

But this idea that, "we must wake up BEFORE it's TOO LATE" ignores reality. THAT reality is that  ethics free monstrous, plundering, exploiting and ruthless domination of everybody and everything in our biosphere is an UNSUSTAINABLE MODUS OPERANDI.

The author is bothered by the resignation he sees in people. He mentions a string of famous names that challenged the system and got wasted for their efforts. Here he is mixing apples with oranges when he talks about the pressure to conform as a tool of coercion.

That people WANT to conform (see "long train of abuses" in the Declaration of Independence about how people will do all they can to see their government in a positive light until it becomes impossible to do so) is a GOOD human trait that leads to social cohesion and support networks. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the innate desire for peer group acceptance.

If you want see it as an 'evolutionary' mechanism, you can see how staying in herd helps you survive.

Ambitious and evil people in TPTB use that in propaganda to dominate us. They use it to threaten to black list people and destroy careers for people that don't accept the bullshit. No ****! They know how we tick so they go all out to turn our strengths into weaknesses.  :emthdown:

TPTB are made of arrogant, rigid personality type humans. They don't change easily. That TOO is human nature for people on the top of the pecking order.

The experience of Confucious is a perfect example:

Confucious (Kung Fu-tzu or Kung the Master) 551 B.C. - 479 B.C.

A failure as a politician, Confucious is undoubtedly one of the world's greates teachers. Prepared to instruct in virtually all the disciplines of his day, he was a one-man university.   (

With his death began his glorification.  ;) Twenty years prior to his death, when he was 53, he had gone on a 13 year trek from state to state proffering unsolicited advice to rulers on how to improve their governing and seeking always a chance to put his ideas in practice.

The opportunity never came. State after year state disregarded his counsels, and only a small band of faithful disciples stood by him through rebuff, discouragement and near starvation.
Source: Google it (I would, of course, never engage in copyright violations of printed material.)

TPTB have a habit of allowing the glorification of people that tell it like it is AFTER they die. That seems to be par for course in Homo SAP "civilization" throughout the ages. 

In short, warning us that we must ACT before it's too late is quixotic. He may not see it, but a LOT is going on that is going to FORCE the top dogs here, AND in the rest of human civilization too, that megalomania is suicidal. We-the-victims know what to do and we are DOING IT NON-VIOLENTLY (hello there, friends at the NSA!  :icon_mrgreen:). But there is another mechanism out there in operation that will CONVINCE TPTB that they are suicidal.

And yeah, it's TOO LATE for we humans to change the evil=stupid thinking of TPTB. So the hope the author has in his fellow man is totally out of place and thoroughly quixotic. (

For you to picture where I am coming from when I claim there IS hope, but not from we victims, let me relate an anecdote from November of 1964.

After the Army-Navy game cadets were given an opportunity to see a show at a hotel in Philadelphia before taking the train back to West Point. Not many were interested in seeing a black comedian (only about 30 of a class of over 800!) do a show so I was just a few chairs from Bill Cosby doing his Noah and God routine. I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

Here's the part of the routine that I think applies to our planetary situation;

GOD: Noah, I'm gonna destroy the world and everyone in it!

Noah: Right. Uh, how are You going to do that?

GOD: I'm gonna let it rain for a thousand days and drown all the evil people like rats!

Noah:  I've got a better idea; let it rain for 40 days and 40 nights and wait for the sewers to back up!


Surly, the sewers are backing up for the megalomaniac evil=stupid biosphere math challenged overlords. They BEGAN backing up as soon as the industrial revolution began. We-the-people have been on death row for over a century. TPTB are the only ones that need to GET IT before it's too late for THEM. If they don't, ALL OF US go extinct.

The biosphere does not DO propaganda or delusional wishful thinking predatory wet dreams. God set up the equation of species life interaction so that any species that breaks the rules DIES.  ( ( 


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on February 15, 2015, 09:10:36 pm
This happens or we go extinct, period.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on February 16, 2015, 09:00:35 pm
What we have all been taught, programmed to accept as true, and brainwashed into believing is earth's past and how we humans became successful=apex predators through war=COMPETITION for resources. NOWHERE on this film is COOPERATION even hinted at. The MESSAGE is that MIGHT is RIGHT! :( The above short video is a requiem for mankind, not evidence of intelligence or success.   :(
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on February 23, 2015, 09:24:11 pm
A Voice from 1970 that describes our PATH to EXTINCTION and why we are on it.   :(

The wisdom of Alan Watts 

 Could it be a general mental structure that humans have imposed on themselves which leads to our species' constant self-ruin?

 He starts with the fascinating story of some of the greatest minds of the 70s coming together in an organized effort to propose solutions, and reveals that even some of the greatest among us didn't seem to know what to do at the time.

 Alan Watts has his own view of what’s wrong with the world, and proposes a beautiful and simple way we can do something about it.

- See more at:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on February 27, 2015, 07:35:12 pm

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. Alvin Toffler   (

The “Pay As You Feel” cafe model asks customers to pay what they see fit for perfectly good food that would have otherwise been thrown out.

3 Young Entrepreneurs Find Revolutionary Way to Cut Out Food Waste  ;D

Article at link:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 04, 2015, 09:09:21 pm
Evidence of a Planet in turmoil. Is this a taste of worse events yet to come?  ???
Does a wild bear go poop in the woods?  :(
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 05, 2015, 01:17:42 pm
If mankind survives, it will be because of Women like these: (  (

Moms Fight Colorado Roll Back of Renewable Energy (

Posted on March 5, 2015  by  John Davis   
CO_MomsKnowsBest1A group of moms in Colorado are fighting proposed changes in that state’s legislature to Colorado’s renewable energy standards. The group, Colorado Moms Know Best, say they oppose the changes that would rollback from 30 percent down to 15 percent of the energy produced and consumed in the state.

“Moms believe we have a moral obligation to protect children’s health and future, ensuring they have clean air is one of the very basics,” said Data Gutwein with Colorado Moms Know Best. “The reality is that chopping the state’s renewable energy standard in half would mean relying more on coal-fired plants and more kids dealing with asthma and other respiratory problems.”

Colorado has been a leader in renewable energy. In 2004, Coloradans passed the first state ballot initiative to establish a renewable energy standards; 29 states and the District of Columbia have since adopted similar standards. In the years since, Colorado has added tens of thousands of clean tech jobs with an average salary of $78,000, according to the Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce’s 2014 Energy Cluster report.

 “Renewable energy is not only good for kids’ health, it’s also great for their future career options,” said Colorado Moms Know Best’s Dana Gutwein. “If Colorado can remain on the cutting edge of the renewable energy industry, our children will be able to prepare for plentiful high-paying, clean tech job opportunities.”

The group has previously helped influence Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission to adopt stricter air quality standards for oil and gas operations in the state of Colorado. (  (

If mankind does not survive, it will be because of the profit over planet fossil fuel tools.   (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 06, 2015, 01:21:19 pm
Colorado House kills Senate bill to rollback renewable energy standard   (   (

By Joey Bunch
The Denver Post
Posted:   03/02/2015 05:54:23 PM MST21 Comments | Updated:   3 days ago

(Andy Cross, Denver Post file)

A House committee on Monday killed legislation  ( that would have cut in half the requirement that the state's largest utilities get 30 percent of their power from wind, solar and other renewable sources by 2020.

Senate Bill 44 also would have reduced the standard for rural electricity associations from 20 percent to 15 percent starting in 2020. img][/img]

The bill died on a party-line 6-5 vote, with Democrats in opposition to the rollback.  (

The Republican-led Senate passed the measure last month on a party-line 18-17 vote. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Ray Scott  (, R-Grand Junction, said he was concerned the standard went too far, hurting utility ratepayers, especially those in rural areas.

The bill's House sponsor, Rep. Dan Thurlow, R-Grand Junction, said electricity prices have been rising in comparison to other states, which also could deter companies from locating in Colorado. (  (

Opponents to the rollback testified that Colorado is a national leader in renewable energy growth, while creating more than 22,000 jobs in clean-energy technology. (

"Taking a step back now makes no sense," Pete Maysmith, executive director of Conservation Colorado, said at a rally for renewable energy supporters Monday.

Agelbert NOTE: I am CERTAIN that these ladies had something to do with that victory for CFS:


 Moms Fight Colorado Roll Back of Renewable Energy

Planetary Polluters in the service of Predatory Capitalist Profit, the ORCHI WOMAN has plans for you if you don't get with the RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM NOW...  (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 06, 2015, 02:42:35 pm
College Town Cuts Ties With TransCanada Over Keystone XL, Plans to Go 100 Percent Renewable  [/font]([/b][/size][/i]

Anastasia Pantsios | March 5, 2015 2:28 pm

The battle over building the Keystone XL pipeline is having an impact far from its proposed route. One of those places is the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, home to Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a city of 100,000 known for its educated and engaged citizens.

Cambridge city councillor Dennis Carlone poses with members of Mothers Out Front  ( their testimony in support of terminating the city’s contract with TransCanada. Photo credit: Dennis Carlone blog

The city currently purchases the electricity that powers its municipal buildings from TransCanada, Keystone XL’s parent company. But now its city council has passed a unanimous resolution advising city manager Richard Rossi not to do business with the company once its current contract expires at the end of 2015 and to look at acquiring the city’s electricity from clean, renewable sources. The measure was sponsored by councillor Dennis Carlone.

In the distinctive language of such resolutions, Policy Order 18 made clear what motivated the demand for change, stating:

“Whereas: the City of Cambridge obtains electricity for municipal operations through a contact with TransCanada Corporation; and Whereas: TransCanada is the driving force behind Keystone XL, a proposal to create a 1,179-mile pipeline to deliver tar sands oil to the U.S.; and Whereas: Jim Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has stated that the Keystone XL pipeline would mean ‘game over’ for the environment, because exploitation of tar sands oil would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts; and Whereas: it has come to the attention of the city council that our contract with TransCanada is set to expire at the end of the year; now therefore be it Ordered: that the city manager be and hereby is requested not to enter into any future contracts to obtain electricity from TransCanada; and be it further Ordered: that the city manager be and hereby is requested to investigate the possibility of entering into an agreement to obtain up to 100 percent renewable power for all municipal electricity needs.”

In an email to constituents, Carlone said, “Let’s end our dealings with TransCanada. The same logic that applies to the fossil fuel divestment campaign applies here—if TransCanada is going to continue with its business of extracting oil from tar sands, then we shouldn’t be buying our electricity from them.”

Carlone was referring to the Divest Harvard campaign, in which hundreds of students and prominent alumni such as Natalie Portman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Cornel West and Bill McKibben are pressuring the school’s administration to remove its endowment money from fossil fuel investments.

The policy order came out of a series of discussions Carlone had with Mothers Out Front, a two-year-old Cambridge-based grassroots advocacy group describing themselves as “mothers, grandmothers, and other caregivers who can no longer be silent and still about the very real danger that climate change poses to our children’s and grandchildren’s future.” The group provided testimony at city council on behalf of the resolution.

“Our organization has a strategy for creating a clean energy future but we need your help,” said Beth Adams, the mother of two young boys, in her testimony. “We are working on the ground to get individuals to weatherize their homes, conserve their energy and to switch to clean electricity. My family has made the switch, along with 100 other people in Cambridge including councillor Carlone. I am here tonight to ask for more bold climate action and leadership from the city of Cambridge to help us ensure a livable climate for our children and for future generations.”

“I am extremely proud that we have this possibility for the city to take this bold step to say no to continuing our contact with TransCanada which is actual the corporation that has brought us tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline which I’ve been protesting for several years now,” added Mothers Out Front member Rachel Wyon. “We have an opportunity now to close down that end of that contract and open a new contract in a new era with clean, renewable energy. We need for Cambridge to be a leader, not only for Cambridge, but for the state and for the nation.”

TransCanada spokesperson Sharan Kaur minimized the company’s climate impact, telling the Boston Globe, “Regardless of the type of product we are transporting or the kind of energy we are producing, we will continue to do so safely and in an environmentally sustainable way.” ( 

Cambridge residents clearly don’t agree.  (

“As a lifelong Cambridge resident and clean energy entrepreneur, I’m thrilled to see the city potentially making a real change in our energy supply,” said Eric Grunebaum. “I hope we can move towards the front of the pack of U.S. cities which recognize the grave risks that climate disruption and destabilization poses. It would be a great thing for Cambridge to use its buying power to spur new renewable power generation, while at the same time removing our financial support from TransCanada which has demonstrated itself to be a bad actor in the growing movement to reduce our dependence on planet-cooking fossil fuels.”

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 15, 2015, 07:11:58 pm

Three Year Old Girl Prepares for 21st Century Challenges (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 15, 2015, 10:07:03 pm


David Michaels’s “Manufactured Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment” is the third chapter in Part I. 

In this thought-provoking chapter, replete with interesting examples and insights, Michaels explores the role certainty plays in contemporary medicine and public health debates.  Based on the assumption that “debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy” (92), big business, Michaels argues, has become adept at manufacturing ignorance about science in order to attain their policy goals.

Michaels brings together the examples of tobacco, global warming, and toxic chemicals such as beryllium (used in the production of nuclear weapons systems), to support his claim that a “new regulatory paradigm is required” (102). 

Michaels sets out the first steps for such a paradigm, including requirements that federal regulatory agencies develop requirements for research integrity, which means they should be given the authority to inquire into who pays for studies “and whether these studies would have seen the light of day if the sponsor didn’t approve the results” (102-103).    (

Michaels concludes that “those charged with protecting the public health [must] realize that the desire for absolute scientific certainty is both counterproductive and futile”  ( (  That is, we need a new regulatory paradigm that focuses more on values in policy than just science, which is fallible and easily manipulated (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 19, 2015, 02:43:34 pm
As mentioned elsewhere in this labyrinth, I will not be voting for anyone named "Clinton" or "Bush" at the next coronation.

We need a miracle Surly, most likely a young idealistic adult, sly enough to use the sytem to get in, and then turn on the pigs he conned to rally the people. 

Talk about a long shot or pipe dreaming.  ::)

This  old Spanish Proverb is small consolation but it might be of some help:
"No hay mal que dure cien años ni cuerpo que lo resista".

Translation: There is no evil that lasts 100 years or human life that can bear it for that long.

IOW, there is a clock timer on everything we perceive and experience. All the evil that is present will end while we are alive or be the cause of our death. After that, earthly evil cannot affect us.   

A bit fatalistic, but it is still accurate.  8)
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 20, 2015, 03:05:55 pm

   The Irony of Climate

Archaeologists suspect that a shift in the planet's climate thousands of years ago gave birth to agriculture. Now climate change could spell the end of farming as we know it.  

High in the Peruvian Andes, a new disease has invaded the potato fields in the town of Chac­llabamba. Warmer and wetter weather associated with global climate change has allowed late blight-the same fungus that caused the Irish potato famine-to creep 4,000 meters up the mountainside for the first time since humans started growing potatoes here thousands of years ago. In 2003, Chacllabamba farmers saw their crop of native potatoes almost totally destroyed. Breeders are rushing to develop tubers resistant to the "new" disease that retain the taste, texture, and quality preferred by Andean populations.

Meanwhile, old-timers in Holmes County, Kansas, have been struggling to tell which way the wind is blowing, so to speak.
On the one hand, the summers and winters are both warmer, which means less snow and less snowmelt in the spring and less water stored in the fields. On the other hand, there's more rain, but it's falling in the early spring, rather than during the summer growing season. So the crops might be parched when they need water most. According to state climatologists, it's too early to say exactly how these changes will play out-if farmers will be able to push their corn and wheat fields onto formerly barren land or if the higher temperatures will help once again to turn the grain fields of Kansas into a dust bowl. Whatever happens, it's going to surprise the current generation of farmers.

Asian farmers, too, are facing their own climate-related problems. In the unirrigated rice paddies and wheat fields of Asia, the annual monsoon can make or break millions of lives. Yet the reliability of the monsoon is increasingly in doubt. For instance, El Niño events (the cyclical warming of surface waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean) often correspond with weaker monsoons, and El Niños will likely increase with global warming. During the El Niño-induced drought in 1997, Indonesian rice farmers pumped water from swamps close to their fields, but food losses were still high: 55 percent for dryland maize and 41 percent for wetland maize, 34 percent for wetland rice, and 19 percent for cassava. The 1997 drought was followed by a particularly wet winter that delayed planting for two months in many areas and triggered heavy locust and rat infestations. According to Bambang Irawan of the Indonesian Center for Agricultural Socio-Economic Research and Development, in Bogor, this succession of poor harvests forced many families to eat less rice and turn to the less nutritious alternative of dried cassava. Some farmers sold off their jewelry and livestock, worked off the farm, or borrowed money to purchase rice, Irawan says. The prospects are for more of the same: "If we get a substantial global warming, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be serious changes to the
 monsoon," says David Rhind, a senior climate researcher with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Archaeologists believe that the shift to a warmer, wetter, and more stable climate at the end of the last ice age was key for humanity's successful foray into food production.
Yet, from the American breadbasket to the North China Plain to the fields of southern Africa, farmers and climate scientists are finding that generations-old patterns of rainfall and temperature are shifting. Farming may be the human endeavor most dependent on a stable climate-and the industry that will struggle most to cope with more erratic weather, severe storms, and shifts in growing season lengths. While some optimists are predicting longer growing seasons and more abundant harvests as the climate warms, farmers are mostly reaping surprises.

Toward the Unknown (Climate) Region 

For two decades, Hartwell Allen, a researcher with the University of Florida in Gainesville and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has been growing rice, soybeans, and peanuts in plastic, greenhouse-like growth chambers that allow him to play God. He can control-"rather precisely"-the temperature, humidity, and levels of atmospheric carbon. "We grow the plants under a daily maximum/minimum cyclic temperature that would mimic the real world cycle," Allen says. His lab has tried regimes of 28 degrees C day/18 degrees C night, 32/22, 36/26, 40/30, and 44/34. "We ran one experiment to 48/38, and got very few surviving plants," he says. Allen found that while a doubling of carbon dioxide and a slightly increased temperature stimulate seeds to germinate and the plants to grow larger and lusher, the higher temperatures are deadly when the plant starts producing pollen. Every stage of the process-pollen transfer, the growth of the tube that links the pollen to the seed, the viability of the pollen itself-is highly sensitive. "It's all or nothing, if pollination isn't successful," Allen notes. At temperatures above 36 degrees C during pollination, peanut yields dropped about six percent per degree of temperature increase. Allen is particularly concerned about the implications for places like India and West Africa, where peanuts are a dietary staple and temperatures during the growing season are already well above 32 degrees C: "In these regions the crops are mostly rain-fed. If global warming also leads to drought in these areas, yields could be even lower."

As plant scientists refine their understanding of climate change and the subtle ways in which plants respond, they are beginning to think that the most serious threats to agriculture will not be the most dramatic: *** the lethal heat wave or severe drought or endless deluge. Instead, for plants that humans have bred to thrive in specific climatic conditions, it is those subtle shifts in temperatures and rainfall during key periods in the crops' lifecycles that will be most disruptive. Even today, crop losses associated with background climate variability are significantly higher than those caused by disasters such as hurricanes or flooding.

Agelbert NOTE: While the above may be true fro CROPS, it is the lethal heat waves, severe droughts, endless deluge and/or large daily temperature extremes that WILL KILL most wildlife that land REQUIRES to be healthy.

John Sheehy at the International Rice Research Institute in Manila has found that damage to the world's major grain crops begins when temperatures climb above 30 degrees C during flowering. At about 40 degrees C, yields are reduced to zero. "In rice, wheat, and maize, grain yields are likely to decline by 10 percent for every 1 degree C increase over 30 degrees. We are already at or close to this threshold," Sheehy says, noting regular heat damage in Cambodia, India, and his own center in the Philippines, where the average temperature is now 2.5 degrees C higher than 50 years ago. In particular, higher night-time temperatures forced the plants to work harder at respiration and thus sapped their energy, leaving less for producing grain. Sheehy estimates that grain yields in the tropics might fall as much as 30 percent over the next 50 years, during a period when the region's already malnourished population is projected to increase by 44 percent. (Sheehy and his colleagues think a potential solution is breeding rice and other crops to flower early in the morning or at night so that the sensitive temperature process misses the hottest part of the day. But, he says, "we haven't been successful in getting any real funds for the work.") The world's major plants can cope with temperature shifts to some extent, but since the dawn of agriculture farmers have selected plants that thrive in stable conditions.

Climatologists consulting their computer climate models see anything but stability, however. As greenhouse gases trap more of the sun's heat in the Earth's atmosphere , there is also more energy in the climate system, which means more extreme swings-dry to wet, hot to cold. (This is the reason that there can still be severe winters on a warming planet, or that March 2004 was the third-warmest month on record after one of the coldest winters ever.) Among those projected impacts that climatologists have already observed in most regions: higher maximum temperatures and more hot days, higher minimum temperatures and fewer cold days, more variable and extreme rainfall events, and increased summer drying and associated risk of drought in continental interiors. All of these conditions will likely accelerate into the next century.

Cynthia Rosenzweig, a senior research scholar with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University, argues that although the climate models will always be improving, there are certain changes we can already predict with a level of confidence. First, most studies indicate "intensification of the hydrological cycle," which essentially means more droughts and floods, and more variable and extreme rainfall. Second, Rosenzweig says, "basically every study has shown that there will be increased incidence of crop pests." Longer growing seasons mean more generations of pests during the summer, while shorter and warmer winters mean that fewer adults, larvae, and eggs will die off.

Third, most climatologists agree that climate change will hit farmers in the developing world hardest. This is partly a result of geography. Farmers in the tropics already find themselves near the temperature limits for most major crops, so any warming is likely to push their crops over the top. "All increases in temperature, however small, will lead to decreases in production," says Robert Watson, chief scientist at the World Bank and former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Studies have consistently shown that agricultural regions in the developing world are more vulnerable, even before we consider the ability to cope," because of poverty, more limited irrigation technology, and lack of weather tracking systems. "Look at the coping strategies, and then it's a real double whammy," Rosenzweig says. In sub-Saharan Africa-ground zero of global hunger, where the number of starving people has doubled in the last 20 years-the current situation will undoubtedly be exacerbated by the climate crisis. (And by the 2080s, Watson says, projections indicate that even temperate latitudes will begin to approach the upper limit of the productive temperature range.)

Coping With Change 

"Scientists may indeed need decades to be sure that climate change is taking place," says Patrick Luganda, chairman of the Network of Climate Journalists in the Greater Horn of Africa. "But, on the ground, farmers have no choice but to deal with the daily reality as best they can." Luganda says that several years ago local farming communities in Uganda could determine the onset of rains and their cessation with a fair amount of accuracy. "These days there is no guarantee that the long rains will start, or stop, at the usual time," Luganda says. The Ateso people in north-central Uganda report the disappearance of asisinit, a swamp grass favored for thatch houses because of its beauty and durability. The grass is increasingly rare because farmers have started to plant rice and millet in swampy areas in response to more frequent droughts. (Rice farmers in Indonesia coping with droughts have done the same.) Farmers have also begun to sow a wider diversity of crops and to stagger their plantings to hedge against abrupt climate shifts. Luganda adds that repeated crop failures have pushed many farmers into the urban centers: the final coping mechanism.

The many variables associated with climate change make coping difficult, but hardly futile.
In some cases, farmers may need to install sprinklers to help them survive more droughts. In other cases, plant breeders will need to look for crop varieties that can withstand a greater range of temperatures. The good news is that many of the same changes that will help farmers cope with climate change will also make communities more self-sufficient and reduce dependence on the long-distance food chain.

Planting a wider range of crops, for instance, is perhaps farmers' best hedge against more erratic weather. In parts of Africa, planting trees alongside crops-a system called agroforestry that might include shade coffee and cacao, or leguminous trees with corn-might be part of the answer. "There is good reason to believe that these systems will be more resilient than a maize monoculture," says Lou Verchot, the lead scientist on climate change at the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry in Nairobi. The trees send their roots considerably deeper than the crops, allowing them to survive a drought that might damage the grain crop. The tree roots will also pump water into the upper soil layers where crops can tap it. Trees improve the soil as well: their roots create spaces for water flow and their leaves decompose into compost. In other words, a farmer who has trees won't lose everything. Farmers in central Kenya are using a mix of coffee, macadamia nuts, and cereals that results in as many as three marketable crops in a good year. "Of course, in any one year, the monoculture will yield more money," Verchot admits, "but farmers need to work on many years." These diverse crop mixes are all the more relevant since rising temperatures will eliminate much of the traditional coffee- and tea-growing areas in the Caribbean, Latin America, and Africa. In Uganda, where coffee and tea account for nearly 100 percent of agricultural exports, an average temperature rise of 2 degrees C would dramatically reduce the harvest, as all but the highest altitude areas become too hot to grow coffee.

In essence, farms will best resist a wide range of shocks by making themselves more diverse and less dependent on outside inputs. A farmer growing a single variety of wheat is more likely to lose the whole crop when the temperature shifts dramatically than a farmer growing several wheat varieties, or better yet, several varieties of plants besides wheat. The additional crops help form a sort of ecological bulwark against blows from climate change. "It will be important to devise more resilient agricultural production systems that can absorb and survive more variability," argues Fred Kirschenmann, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. At his own family farm in North Dakota, Kirschenmann has struggled with two years of abnormal weather that nearly eliminated one crop and devastated another. Diversified farms will cope better with drought, increased pests, and a range of other climate-related jolts. And they will tend to be less reliant on fertilizers and pesticides, and the fossil fuel inputs they require. Climate change might also be the best argument for preserving local crop varieties around the world, so that plant breeders can draw from as wide a palette as possible when trying to develop plants that can cope with more frequent drought or new pests.

Farms with trees planted strategically between crops will not only better withstand torrential downpours and parching droughts, they will also "lock up" more carbon. Lou Verchot says that the improved fallows used in Africa can lock up 10-20 times the carbon of nearby cereal monocultures, and 30 percent of the carbon in an intact forest. And building up a soil's stock of organic matter-the dark, spongy stuff in soils that stores carbon and gives them their rich smell-not only increases the amount of water the soil can hold (good for weathering droughts), but also helps bind more nutrients (good for crop growth).

Best of all, for farmers at least, systems that store more carbon are often considerably more profitable, and they might become even more so if farmers get paid to store carbon under the Kyoto Protocol. There is a plan, for instance, to pay farmers in Chiapas, Mexico, to shift from farming that involves regular forest clearing to agroforestry. The International Automobile Federation is funding the project as part of its commitment to reducing carbon emissions from sponsored sports car races. Not only that, "increased costs for fossil fuels will accelerate demand for renewable energies," says Mark Muller of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis, Minnesota, who believes that farmers will find new markets for biomass fuels like switchgrass that can be grown on the farm, as well as additional royalties from installing wind turbines on their farms.

However, "carbon farming is a temporary solution," according to Marty Bender of the Land Institute's Sunshine Farm in Salina, Kansas. He points to a recent paper in Science showing that even if America's soils were returned to their pre-plow carbon content-a theoretical maximum for how much carbon they could lock up-this would be equal to only two decades of American carbon emissions. "That is how little time we will be buying," Bender says, "despite the fact that it may take a hundred years of aggressive, national carbon farming and forestry to restore this lost carbon." (Cynthia Rosenzweig also notes that the potential to lock up carbon is limited, and that a warmer planet will reduce the amount of carbon that soils can hold: as land heats up, invigorated soil microbes respire more carbon dioxide.)

"We really should be focusing on energy efficiency and energy conservation to reduce the carbon emissions by our national economy," Bender concludes. That's why Sunshine Farm, which Bender directs, has been farming without fossil fuels, fertilizers, or pesticides in order to reduce its contribution to climate change and to find an inherently local solution to a global problem. As the name implies, Sunshine Farm runs essentially on sunlight. Homegrown sunflower seeds and soybeans become biodiesel that fuels tractors and trucks. The farm raises nearly three-fourths of the feed-oats, grain sorghum, and alfalfa-for its draft horses, beef cattle, and poultry. Manure and legumes in the crop rotation substitute for energy-gobbling nitrogen fertilizers. A 4.5-kilowatt photovoltaic array powers the workshop tools, electric fencing, water pumps, and chick brooding pens. The farm has eliminated an amount of energy equivalent to that used to make and transport 90 percent of its supplies. (Including the energy required to make the farm's machinery lowers the figure to 50 percent, still a huge gain over the standard American farm.)

But these energy savings are only part of this distinctly local solution to an undeniably global problem, Bender says. "If local food systems could eliminate the need for half of the energy used for food processing and distribution, then that would save 30 percent of the fossil energy used in the U.S. food system," Bender reasons. "Considering that local foods will require some energy use, let's round the net savings down to 25 percent. In comparison, on-farm direct and indirect energy consumption constitutes 20 percent of energy use in the U.S. food system. Hence, local food systems could potentially save more energy than is used on American farms."

In other words, as climate tremors disrupt the vast intercontinental web of food production and rearrange the world's major breadbaskets, depending on food from distant suppliers will be more expensive and more precarious. It will be cheaper and easier to cope with local weather shifts, and with more limited supplies of fossil fuels, than to ship in a commodity from afar.

Agriculture is in third place, far behind energy use and chlorofluorocarbon production, as a contributor to climate warming. For farms to play a significant role, changes in cropping practices must happen on a large scale, across large swaths of India and Brazil and China and the American Midwest. As Bender suggests, farmers will be able to shore up their defenses against climate change, and can make obvious reductions in their own energy use which could save them money.

But the lasting solution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change will depend mostly on the choices that everyone else makes. According to the London-based NGO Safe Alliance, a basic meal-some meat, grain, fruits, and vegetables-using imported ingredients can easily generate four times the greenhouse gas emissions as the same meal with ingredients from local sources. In terms of our personal contribution to climate change, eating local can be as important as driving a fuel-efficient car, or giving up the car for a bike. As politicians struggle to muster the will power to confront the climate crisis, ensuring that farmers have a less erratic climate in which to raise the world's food shouldn't be too hard a sell.

Brian Halweil is a senior researcher at Worldwatch Institute, and the author of Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global Supermarket.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 12, 2015, 04:23:46 pm
Action starts after the 15 minute mark.  :o  :o
A Stormy Odessy - May 31, 2013 The Day The Rules Changed
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 12, 2015, 06:25:03 pm
Severe Storms and Tornadoes in 4K   :(  :P
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 14, 2015, 09:50:11 pm

The OceanMaker: An Animated, Post-Apocalyptic Film You Don’t Want to Miss (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 15, 2015, 11:09:52 pm
The time has come.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 17, 2015, 06:40:54 pm

Ka and Ashivin,
The bottom line is that humans, although we are tasked as self aware beings with being stewards of those life forms who are not, are a function of the biosphere, just as all the other life forms are.

We have NOT "risen above" the other life forms with our polluting example. The reverse is true. Our science CANNOT replace life forms that go extinct. We can't even make a paramecium! We are STUCK when a large enough percentage of the biosphere we MUST have to survive dies off. And THAT is ALREADY BAKED IN, according to Hansen and thousands of other serious scientists.

We have NOT earned the right to do anything on this biosphere except to obey the rules of  planetary biochemistry that our scientists have discovered. We don't do that and we die, period.


So we can sit here and hem and haw about whether this or that system is "doable", "practical" or "too utopian" while we are oh, so cautious in not wanting to tinker with all those "Great traditions" and "individuality" and "freedom" that gave us our present Dystopia. Good luck with that.

As far as I can tell, I am in full agreement with you as to the correct attitude and actions for the individual and society to take with respect to the environment. That's the whole point of it being GREEN Libertarian Socialism. As to the libertarian socialism, as I see it, that is the only way that what you want to see happen w.r.t. the environment can be institutionalized. What do you propose instead?

Well, I propose that we go from a defunct "carrying Capacity" meme to a "Caring Capacity" meme.
This world view modification is life promoting, instead of death rewarding.

First, we would need to adopt Hansen's "Golden Opportunity" (tax and dividend) on fossil fuels  along with the elimination of any and all subsidies and tax deductions for exploration for fossil fuels.

Second, codifying into international law fines and/or imprisonment for biosphere harming activities (e.g. fossil fuel exploration and non-bioremidiated mining) must occur across the board in order to ensure compliance to the Caring Capacity meme.

Third, we adopt the product of a Caring Capacity concept called a modified Borsadi Constant.  The modification consists of Biosphere math applied to the basket of commodities Borsadi proposed. The modified Borsadi Constant must be the ONLY LEGAL TENDER in order to ensure compliance to the Caring Capacity meme.
Of course, the international community could expand that basket to include other, less known, but important commodities vital to biosphere restoration. This requires a planetary ecology inventory of the biosphere by objective scientists. 

An inventory of the biosphere must be RADICALLY different than those now made by the CIA and all the other profit over planet exploiters that operate on the carrying capacity meme (i.e. ANYTHING we get from the ground that harms the biosphere MORE than nurtures it MUST be considered too expensive to extract, period).

For those that will wail and moan about how we need fossil fuel this and fossil fuel that (pesticides, fertilizers, plastics, etc.) in order to avoid having to cull the human population, I present to you the example of China BEFORE the industrial revolution.

For over 1,000 YEARS they had such a perfectly balanced use of human feces for fertilizing crops, that they obtained a population density FAR above anything any other country in the world has reached as of this date. And they did that WITHOUT warring on other countries (yeah they had internal conflict but nobody's perfect!  ;D)  and WITHOUT CAPITALISM several centuries before the industrial revolution. 

With the knowledge we now possess, ALL the products we need to thrive can be obtained IN HARMONY with the biosphere. Any population pressure we experience can be solved by GROWING the biosphere onto arid, desolate portions of the globe. There are a LOT of those.

When the limit to THAT is reached within a century or so, we can terraform mars to give us another 1000 years of growing elbow room. It's a BIG universe out there! The reason more people don't see this is that they are brainwashed to think SCARCITY, SCARCITY and SCARCITY equals VALUE. That's the exploitive, profit over planet mindful ck we have been visited with for the benefit of the Gordon Gecko IDIOTS.

Here's the CARING CAPACITY CURRENCY part of the proposal:


The "currency" of Dystopia:

3 09 Ralph Borsodi Constant Currency (

22 § Community Currency Magazine March 2009 Issue

The BorsodI Constant aka “the Exeter experiment ”InFLatIon Free Currency (approximately 1971-1974)

United States Constitution forbids the counterfeiting of this nation’s currency, however, it in no way limits the circulation of a completely alternative medium of exchange...

3 09 Ralph Borsodi Constant Currency (

What MUST we do to have a type of FUNCTIONAL society based on human CARING CAPACITY instead of the exploited biosphere's "carrying capacity"?  ???

We must adopt a currency that reflects REAL VALUE in the biosphere. The use of this currency must nurture LIFE, not reward coercion, greed, war and death.

Ralph Borsodi came up with a local currency called the "CONSTANT".

I like it. With some fine tuning (  ;D, it would fit the bill for a Green Libertarian Socialist  currency that would meet the Caring Capacity requirement to nurture LIFE, not reward coercion, greed, war and death.


The first Constants were sold on June 21st 1972. Over a period of about three years, Borsodi presented his ideas to many people who deposited approximately $100,000 in his bank experiment called Arbitrage International and the funds were used to buy the basket of 30 basic commodities on the world market. (Arbitrage International maintained a Luxembourg and a London office, in addition to its temporary headquarters in Exeter, New Hampshire.)

“The value of a Constant was based on that of specific amounts of thirty basic commodities,
including gold, silver, iron, aluminum, lead, copper, nickel, tin, zinc, coal, oil, wheat, barley, rice, rye, oats, soya, maize, wool, cotton, cocoa, coffee, copra, hides, jute, rubber, cement, sulphur and sugar, and holders could sell them at any time for the total of whatever the constituents were then worth:


Borsodi’s organisation, Independent Arbitrage International, recalculated the Constant’s underlying value monthly and let the banks know. “ People who bought Constants from Borsodi’s organisation at, say, $2.18 a 10-Constant note were surprised later when the bank
paid them $2.19 for it” a local newspaperman, Mel Most, wrote after the experiment had been running for seven months.” 

“To everybody’s surprise, even including Borsodi, many people bought Constant notes and made deposits in the bank checking account. At the same time Constants began to circulate around the town of Exeter, where restaurants and other businesses accepted them in payment.”

The participants in the experiment saw the value of their constant rise 17% in three years. 36 months into the test, “...a constant bought in 1970 can still be traded for exactly one constant’s worth of goods . . . while a dollar will now buy only 85% of what it would purchase three years ago.”

3 09 Ralph Borsodi Constant Currency (

HERE is the typical BALONEY double talk response from the gooberment:

What did the U.S. Treasury Department have to say about the private currency? 

A Treasury agent was quoted at the time saying, “We don’t care if he issues pine cones, as long as it is exchangeable for dollars so that transactions can be recorded for tax purposes.( (” 


"Tax purposes" DOES NOT HAVE BEANS to do with it and COERCION to make people accept a  worthless fiat currency issued by the "Federal" Reserve has EVERYTHING to do with it. But they don't say that, do they?  ;)  THE INSTANT people with REAL currency try to PROPERLY value fiat dollars (see USED toilet paper or less), the profit over planet counterfeiters get their balls in an uproar.  (



Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 19, 2015, 05:39:15 pm
We ARE in a mass extinction event. The question is, will we, thanks to Homo SAP POWERS THAT BE (NOT MOST OF THE POPULATON!) GREED & STUPIDITY, be one of the species to go extinct?  >:(
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 22, 2015, 06:49:24 pm


Dystopia's Dysfunctional Currency
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 24, 2015, 07:54:05 pm

A Community Resilience Take on The Great Transition

by Richard Heinberg, originally published by The Great Transition Initiative   | TODAY 
A review of Bounding the Planetary Future: Why We Need a Great Transition by Johan Rockström.

“Planetary boundaries” research constitutes an important advance in our ability to identify and quantify the components of global overshoot. Permit me to suggest that all presentations on planetary boundaries should include a discussion of Liebig’s Law—an ecological truism that can be boiled down to “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.” We don’t have to wait for all nine boundaries to be transgressed before global calamity threatens; all it takes to shred the ecosystem web is for one boundary to be breached far enough, long enough. Seen in that light, the fact that four out of nine identified boundaries are already far behind us should be cause for profound concern.

 Nevertheless, Johan Rockström’s exposition follows the familiar and necessary formula: industrial civilization is propelling us toward planetary collapse, but there is still time to change civilization’s operating system so as to ensure survival and well-being for everyone, even as population continues to grow. I have used that formula in essays and lectures any number of times, and, each time I do, I catch myself feeling just a bit disingenuous. Yes, as public intellectuals, it is our job to prescribe the medicine we think will improve the patient’s (i.e., civilization’s) condition. But is our prescription really capable of curing the disease?

Let’s face it: our patient’s condition is worsening. Further, we have seen cases like this before (i.e., there have been previous civilizations that overshot their environment’s carrying capacity), and in all instances, the outcome was dire. Nevertheless, following the discursive formula, a hypothetical treatment is proposed, consisting of energy substitution, massive resource efficiency improvements, wealth redistribution, and global governance; though it has never been tried, it seems to be our only hope.

 A new school of environmentalist thought—sometimes labeled “doomerism”—holds that it is too late for such nostrums. The patient has no interest whatever in taking our medicine (sustainability proposals have been tabled at least since 1972’s Limits to Growth, but global elites have shown themselves completely uninterested in any course of action that does not promise continuing GDP expansion), and the disease is too far advanced (we have set in motion self-reinforcing geophysical processes that cannot be reversed). The most extreme doomers insist that near-term human extinction is now assured. Forget trying to save civilization, they say; think planetary hospice instead.

 Doomerism has the virtue of willingness to look our predicament squarely in the face without flinching. But it has been criticized for underestimating the likely role of balancing feedbacks within both the environment and human society; further, it disempowers both its purveyors and its audience, who have a tendency to adopt an attitude of cynical, resigned apathy. Is there a third approach?

 It seems to me we could start with a recognition that crisis is now assured. That does not mean near-term extinction is inevitable, but it does mean that this century will almost certainly see ecological, economic, and social upheaval on an unprecedented scale. The doomers are right in saying that it is late in the game, but wrong in simply giving up.

 An alternative strategy would be to anticipate crises and use them to advantage. Such a crisis-led strategy would first seek to provide ways for people and institutions to adapt to coming changes in ways that create more community resilience and that meet basic human needs more sustainably over the long run. That would almost certainly imply different adaptive tactics for societies in varying stages of industrialization (or de-industrialization, as the case may be). A secondary strategy would be to widely and consistently publicize an ecological explanation for inevitable crises (overpopulation, depleting resources, pollution) that could at least partly reduce the social tendency to find scapegoats for declining economic conditions. This could avert a great deal of unnecessary conflict.

 Crisis can be a teacher. All indigenous human societies eventually learned self-restraint, if they stayed in one place long enough. They discovered through trial and error that exceeding their land’s carrying capacity led to awful consequences. That’s why these peoples appear to us moderns as intuitive ecologists: having been hammered repeatedly by resource depletion, habitat destruction, overpopulation, and resulting famines, they eventually realized that the only way to avoid getting hammered yet again was to respect nature’s limits by restraining reproduction and protecting other forms of life. We have forgotten that lesson, because our civilization was built by people who successfully conquered, colonized, then moved elsewhere to do the same thing yet again  ( (—and because we are enjoying a one-time gift of fossil fuels that empower us to do things no previous society ever dreamed of. We have come to believe in our own omnipotence, exceptionalism, and invincibility.   (

But we have now run out of new places to conquer, the best of the fossil fuels are used up, and the environmental consequences of burning them are starting to catch up with us. We can learn from crisis; cultural anthropology shows that. But, in this instance, we need to learn fast, and perhaps some organized effort to aid that process would be well spent. Planetary boundaries discourse could help explain to frightened masses why the world seems to be falling apart around them, while community resilience-building could help them adapt to changed conditions.

 For the time being, most environmental activists will (and probably should) continue publishing new reports saying, “If we don’t change policies, terrible things will happen,” and, “If we do change policies everyone can live in peace and sufficiency.” I am merely suggesting that some of us might also be thinking strategically about what to do if world leaders do not adopt policies to drastically cut carbon emissions and redistribute wealth. Crisis-led community resilience seems to be the logical fallback plan. (

"The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 25, 2015, 12:30:13 am
This is a True Story. It just hasn't happened yet (BUT IT WILL).  :o
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 09, 2015, 02:04:52 pm
15 Insects You Can Eat  :P
Kara, selected from TreeHugger
May 8, 2015
6:13 am

Not being much of an eater of things with legs in the first place, partaking of those from the creepy-crawly family of edibles doesn’t hold much appeal to me personally. But I might be in the minority there, especially when considering entomophagy from an international perspective. We may be squeamish here in the United States when it comes to binging on bugs, but people all over the world smartly consume insects. In fact, some two billion people across the globe eat a wide variety of insects regularly.

They are a fantastic source of protein and don’t require intensive resources to produce; and they have little environmental impact, unlike the livestock that we are so reliant on here.

Given the food crunch the globe is in, all I can say is this: Bring on the cricket skewers and roasted water bugs, the smoked tarantulas and candied ants. If you’re an eater of creatures already, get on this!

While there are more than 1,900 edible insect species from which to choose, not all are edible. Brightly colored insects usually indicate a warning: Back off, buddy, I’m toxic. Pungent bugs, hairy bugs, bugs that bite or sting, and disease-carriers like flies, ticks and mosquitoes are also on the very generalized do-not-eat list, although there are exceptions. But not to worry, that leaves so many many other insects to revel in.  ( (

To get started, here are the main 15 orders of insects suitable ;D for eating:

1. Anoplura: Lice
 2. Orthoptera: Grasshoppers, crickets and roaches
 3. Hemiptera: True bugs
 4. Homoptera: Cicadas and treehoppers
 5. Hymenoptera: Bees, ants and wasps
 6. Diptera: Flies and mosquitoes
 7. Coleoptera: Beetles
 8. Lepidoptera: Butterflies and moths
 9. Megaloptera: Alderflies and dobsonflies
 10. Odonata: Dragonflies and damselflies  (
 11. Ephemetoptera: Mayflies
 12. Trichoptera: Caddisflies
 13. Plecoptera: Stoneflies
 14. Neuroptera: Lacewings and antlions
 15. Isoptera: Termites (

And a few things to consider. Cooking will improve flavor  ;D, texture and kill parasites. Wings and legs do not contain much protein, remove them if they make you want to gag. Heads, too. Take care in eating already-dead insects, as they may have been killed by pesticide. And importantly, if you want to forage for wild insects, seek out a good guidebook so that you are sure to get the best from your efforts. Be brave, and bon appetite.

by Melissa Breyer, from Treehugger

Agelbert COMMENT:
Well, any port in the storm, of course. I don't deliberately eat insects, especially Dragonflies. I like Dragonflies! Don't eat Odonata! (

That said, according to the FDA, that regulates insect parts in processed foods like flour, candy bars, soups, juice, etc., we ALL EAT a certain amount of "insect parts" in our food, whether it is processed or not.  :P

Some strict vegetarians from India moved to England several decades ago. They ate the same diet in England but began to suffer vitamin B-12 deficiency because the veggies they ate in India had a healthy amount of insects and insect eggs in them, whereas those veggies were washed too well in England.

 If you want to eat MORE insects than you already eat in blissful ignorance of that fact, and save the planet too, EAT TERMITES.  ( I will have you know that the planetary termite biomass produces more methane than cows!  :o

Termites are soft and gather in large groups for easy harvesting. We will NEVER run our of termites! Besides, we can feed them to the fossil fuelers when we put them in prison!  (  (

AS for meat products, there is absolutely no difference between the muscle tissue of a slug, snail or earthworm as compared to that of a cow and may, in fact, be a healthier source of meat protein. Birds and fish all agree! (

I'm sure McDonalds and Burger King are working on that right now...  ( (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 09, 2015, 05:06:16 pm

If the following continues
, UNDERpopulation will be the main problem in the future, not overpopulation.  (

What's the First Thing Most Younger People Do When They Wake up?

The first thing most younger people do when they wake up is check their phones – approximately 74% of adults aged 18 to 24 report looking at their phones in the morning.

Checking email is the most common activity performed on smartphones first thing after waking up, with 67% of people, followed by checking the weather reports, with 45%, and social media at 40%. Smartphone usage for the age group generally continues throughout the day - about half of all young professionals reported that they also use their phone to perform work tasks while driving. Additionally, 20% admitted that their smartphone would be their first priority if they were robbed.

More about smart phone usage :

•42% of young people surveyed that they would give up their sense of smell if they had to choose between it or having internet access with their phones   (

•Smartphone users unlock their devices an average of 110 times per day, or approximately once every six minutes.

•Nearly one-third of smart phone users check their phones while in the bathroom, and almost half admit to having checked their phones during meals.    (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 09, 2015, 09:47:28 pm
05/08/2015 12:49 PM     
Western Towns Want Coal Miners to Pay for Climate Adaptation  ( News

Does this sound familiar?

 Pay us to cope with climate change because you caused it. ( That's the stand developing nations take at international climate talks, and now that argument is being used right here in the USA.

Is this is a sign of things to come?     (

The Mountain Pact  (

11 Western towns in Colorado, Utah and New Mexico have formed "The Mountain Pact" to get coal companies to pony up the cash they need to cope with climate change impacts in the American West.

"Economic, public health and environmental damages from catastrophic wildfires, floods and reduced snowpack are some of the threats we face," says their letter to Sally Jewel, Secretary of the Interior. It is also being sent to the White House and members of Congress.

Although they want the pollution reduced from coal, they are simply asking for coal miners to pay market rate prices for the coal they extract from public land. The US charges the lowest royalties in the world.

Arch Coal wants to open this area in Colorado, but a judge ruled against it using climate change as the reason for the first time.   (

Many of these towns are snow-based resort communities which must diversify their economies in order to adapt. The mayor of Telluride, for example, plans to put the money toward solar and wind installations.

"We have to band together to draw attention to the changes we are seeing. It is actually bad and needs to be addressed, Ashley Perl, Aspen's Climate Action Manager, told the Denver Post. Aspen has a goal of 100% renewable energy.

Towns signing on are growing and currently are mostly in Colorado: Aspen, Telluride, Leadville, Ophir, Ridgway, Buena Vista and Carbondale. Dillon and Park City, Utah are signatories along with Taos, New Mexico.  (

In 2013, the US Ski Industry signed a Climate Declaration, urging Congress to address climate change.

Royalties Are Being Evaluated

In April, the Department of Interior announced it is evaluating royalties for coal, oil and gas leases and royalties on federal lands. Half the fees the federal government gets are shared with states where mining occurs, and towns and cities get a share of that. 

Amazingly, it costs $1.50 per acre a year for the first five years of a lease, and increases to $2 per acre for years 5-10 - the same as when Eisenhower was President.  (

Royalties are 12.5% of the value of the extracted coal, oil and gas, but that ends up around 5% after loopholes, and is much lower than the 18.75% for offshore leases (and that's also undervalued).   

US taxpayers are losing about $1 billion a year in royalties
- $30 billion over the past 30 years, says The Mountain Pact.

Read our articles, Even At Bargain Basement Prices, No Coal Company Bids At Auction and US Continues To Lease Our Coal for $1 a Ton.

Banks Keep Coal On Life Support    (

This week, Bank of America announced it will lower its financial exposure to coal because of the industry's bleak future. Between carbon and mercury regulations and stiff competition with gas, investors in coal companies increasingly face stranded assets.

The move comes, however, after years of relentless pressure from environmental groups. For years, the world's largest banks have promised to stop financing coal, but in 2014 they still supported the industry with $144 billion - a billion less than the previous year. (

 Financing for coal mining actually increased from $55 billion in 2013 to $70 billion in 2014, and financing for coal-fired power producers dropped to $75 billion from $90 billion in 2013.

 Some banks have stopped financing the worst kinds of coal mining, such as mountaintop removal in the US and the world's largest mine in Australia.

"It's outrageous for some banks to be hitching themselves to this year's UN climate negotiations in Paris as 'climate leaders' while they are not prepared to pull out of all coal sector financing, end of story,"   ( says Yann Louvel at BankTrack.

 Read our articles, World's Biggest Coal Miner Gets Help From Major Banks and JP Morgan, Bank America, Citi Still Top Coal Financiers.

Read, The End of Coal, the Coal Finance Report Card 2015, which ranks the banks:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 15, 2015, 08:52:49 pm

A vulnerable luxury 

 Could losing one species mean the loss of thousands?

 Not always, but it can be true.

 Take coral, for example.

 Thousands of species rely on coral for their own wellbeing.

 Biodiversity is a net, and if we start cutting the strings, we risk losing the whole thing.

 Coral is on the downfall, as is biodiversity across the board.

 What new net are we weaving, and could it really sustain us?
- See more at:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 16, 2015, 02:33:10 pm
Urban Living: Green Spaces Improve Your Mental Health

( to greener urban areas boosts mental health for at least three years.
A new study, which included over 1,000 participants, is one of the first to examine the long-term effects of green spaces on mental health (Alc ock et al., 2014).

People in the study were followed over five years, in which time some moved to greener urban areas and some to less green urban areas.

The results showed that, on average, people who moved to greener urban areas felt an immediate improvement in their mental health. This boost could still be measured fully three years after they moved. (

For those who moved to less green areas, the pattern wasn’t quite what you’d expect.
Instead people suffered a drop in mental health even before they moved–but this recovered to its previous levels over time.

The study controlled for factors that might have been associated with the move. For example, moving to a worse neighbourhood might have been brought about by work problems. But, when employment, along with education and income, were taken into account, the effects were still present.

The lead author Ian Alc ock said:
“We’ve shown that individuals who move to greener areas have significant and long-lasting improvements in mental health. These findings are important for urban planners thinking about introducing new green spaces to our towns and cities, suggesting they could provide long term and sustained benefits for local communities.”

It’s fascinating that the boost to mental health is sustained over a relatively long period of time.

We might expect that people would get used to their new surroundings and then their mental health would drift back to its previous levels.

This is typically what happens when people get a pay increase. Initially they are happier, but they soon get used to the extra income and their overall level of happiness falls back to its previous level.

We don’t know exactly what it is about greener urban areas that causes these sustainable gains in happiness, but it’s probably no coincidence that:

One study has found that simply looking at a picture of nature is enough to improve cognition (see: Memory Improved 20% by Nature Walk).  :o   (  (

Another has found that outdoor activities have the strongest restorative effect on our mental health (see: Happiness is Right Outside).  (  ;D
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 16, 2015, 03:07:39 pm

How To Live A Moneyless Life Like

"Mark Boyle"  (
Mark Boyle has been living in the UK near Bath, without money since 2008 in a camper with solar panels he installed beforehand. His plan was to go one year, but he never stopped the experiment.

 Here he shows a reporter from the newspaper Guardian UK how he manages a whole life with no money being exchanged.

 He grows his own food, chops his own wood, built a rocket stove, uses old newspaper for toilet paper, has punctureless tires on his bicycle, makes his own soap and washes his clothes in the stream. He barters work occasionally for oats and other grains, and goes dumpster diving in town for additional food.

 He admits it was daunting in the beginning, but that he is so much more satisfied living according to his ideals.  (

 In a TED talk in 2011 he outlined why he chose to create a life without money. After studying economy, he saw clearly the connection between money and well, the disconnection.

"Ecological destruction, factory farms, destroying the oceans, sweat shops, deforestation - this all stems from our delusion that we are separate from nature. We are very disconnected from what we consume.

 ( We no longer have an appreciation for the embodied energy, embodied destruction and suffering that goes into every stage of the supply chain of the things we buy.   (

The tool that enabled this disconnection is money.   (

If we all had to grow our own food, we wouldn't waste 1/3 of it as we do today in the UK.

If we had to make our own tables and chairs, we wouldn't chuck them out the moment we decided to change the decor.

Until we reconnect with what we consume, all these problems will continue because we're not getting to the root of the problem, which is our separation from nature, and our separation from what we consume."

 You can follow Mark Boyle's blog, Freeconomy here where he has created a real forum for the new economy, based on barter, sharing and co-creating -- a whole new way of looking at exchange and community among people ready for a new society.

 --Bibi Farber

 This video was produced by the Guardian UK.
- See more at:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 17, 2015, 04:31:46 pm
IS Tomorrow like Yesterday?  ???

What Was the Population of the Earth in Prehistoric times?

According to scientists from the University of Utah, the entire human population of Earth was less than 26,000  :o for about a million years. Even fewer, about 18,500, were capable of breeding. This means that 1.2 million years ago, humans were an endangered species. Endangered species are species at risk of becoming extinct.

Scientists arrived at these estimates based on studies of genetic variation in ancient humans. Although the exact causes of such low numbers are not known, experts believe it may be due to various events that killed many people. One such suspected event is a nuclear winter, a period of very cold temperatures, caused by an eruption of a super volcano in Indonesia 70,000 years ago. Less than 15,000 people survived the disaster.

More about the world and human population:

•About 108 billion people have lived on earth since the beginning of history.

•Homo sapiens (modern humans) first appeared on earth at about 50,000 B.C.

•Growth rate of the human population was abnormally low between 542 A.D. and mid-1600s due to the Black Death -- bubonic plague.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 17, 2015, 06:00:26 pm

It's time for a re-evaluation  (

 What is it about our society that leads to such negative impacts on the environment?

 Could it be boiled down to a few root causes? (

 This guy thinks so, and he has a pretty good argument for why. (

 If we can collectively address these four issues, perhaps we can start coming up with solutions that will help us create a new vision for our society.

 Let’s take a look at the root problems.

- See more at:

"We do not need a 'new' business model for energy because we never had one. What we need, is to plug the environmental and equity costs of energy production and use into our planning and thinking in order to avoid extinction. " A.G. Gelbert

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 17, 2015, 09:09:48 pm
IF the rich pigs cooperate, the following scenario will prevent our extinction:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 22, 2015, 07:53:30 pm
Would you like to be a Lord, Lady or maybe a Baron or Baroness? (
Check this out.   (

Sealand was founded as a sovereign Principality in 1967 in international waters, six miles off the eastern shores of Britain.

The History

During the Second World War the British government built several Fortress islands in the North Sea to defend its coasts from German invaders. These forts were built illegally in international waters.

One of these Fortresses, consisting of concrete and steel construction, was the famous royal fort Roughs Tower situated slightly north of the estuary region of the Thames River. In contrast to the original plan to locate the tower within the sovereign territory of England, this fortress was situated at a distance of approximately 7 nautical miles from the coast, which is more than double the then applicable 3 mile range of territorial waters; to put it briefly, this island was situated in the international waters of the North Sea.

The forts were abandoned in the early 1950’s and whilst built in international waters in a time of world crisis, they should have been pulled down to comply with international law. Except for the aforementioned fortress, the fortresses were subsequently pulled down. This resulted in the portentous uniqueness of the fortress. Fort Roughs Tower, situated at the high seas, had been deserted and abandoned, res derelicta and terra nullius. From a legal point of view, it therefore constituted extra-national territory.

The Birth of Sealand

In 1966 Roy Bates a former infantry major in the first battalion Royal Fusiliers whose regimental headquarters strangely enough was the “Tower of London” decided to take over the fortress. It was Christmas Eve 1966.

Roy, smarting from a legal battle with the British government over his offshore radio station “Radio Essex”, which had broadcast from another abandoned fortress that was found by the British courts to be within UK jurisdiction. These stations were known affectionately by the press as “Pirate” radio stations and were much loved by the British public as they supplied everything that the BBC did not at the time, Pop music and amusing presenters.

Roy never did bring his radio station back to life but instead, after taking much advice from his lawyers, had the idea to declare this fortress island the independent state of “Sealand”. Claiming “Jus Gentium” over a part of the globe that was Terra Nullius.

2nd of September 1967 along with his son Michael (14), daughter Penelope (16) and several friends and followers Roy declared The Principality of Sealand raising a newly designed flag and making his beautiful wife “Princess Joan”. It was her birthday and Roy gave her the best and most romantic present he could think of the title of Princess.

The not so jolly roger Sealand Flag

Initial Challenge to Sealand's Sovereignty
It was not long before the British Government decided they could not have what ministers described as a possible Cuba off the east coast of England. They sent the military out to destroy other forts that were left in international waters. The Bates family looked on as huge explosions sent the massive structures hundreds of feet in the air and debris floated past for days.

Helicopters that had carried the explosives buzzed above and the navy tug carrying the demolition crew passed close by and shouted “You’re next!”. A while later a government vessel passed close by its crew shouting threatening obscenities at Michael and his sixteen year old sister. Warning shots were fired across the bow of the boat and it raced away towards the UK.

Since Roy was still a British citizen a summons was issued under the fire arms act and on the 25th of November 1968. Roy and Michael were in the dock of the Crown court of Chelmsford assizes in Essex. There was much argument and laws going back to the 17th century were called upon. During his summing up the judge said “This is a swash buckling incident perhaps more akin to the time of “Sir Francis Drake” but it is my judgment is that the UK courts have no jurisdiction.” This was Sealand’s first de facto recognition.

About Sealand

Sealand was founded as a sovereign Principality in 1967 in international waters, six miles off the eastern shores of Britain. The history of Sealand is a story of a struggle for liberty. Sealand was founded on the principle that any group of people dissatisfied with the oppressive laws and restrictions of existing nation states may declare independence in any place not claimed to be under the jurisdiction of another sovereign entity. The location chosen was Roughs Tower, an island fortress created in World War II by Britain and subsequently abandoned to the jurisdiction of the High Seas.
The independence of Sealand was upheld in a 1968 British court decision where the judge held that Roughs Tower stood in international waters and did not fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. This gave birth to Sealand's national motto of E Mare Libertas, or "From the Sea, Freedom".

The official language of Sealand is English and the Sealand Dollar has a fixed exchange rate of one U.S. dollar. Passports and stamps have been in circulation since 1969 and the latter decade of the 20th century saw an impressive expansion in its activity both socially and industrially as it began to develop a growing economic base which underscored its long-standing membership of the international community of States.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 30, 2015, 01:41:18 am

New Documentary Covers the Environmental, Economic, Social, and Political Impacts of Soil
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 30, 2015, 12:45:10 pm
Never Say Never: Maryland Fracking Moratorium Becomes Law    (   (

Wenonah Hauter | May 29, 2015 3:48 pm

“You’ll never get a fracking moratorium through the Maryland Legislature”  was the common refrain I heard as we at Food & Water Watch joined with more than 100 groups from throughout the state to work on preventing fracking in Maryland. But we didn’t let that stop us. And today, thanks to the tireless efforts of business owners, health professionals, activists and countless concerned Maryland residents, we proved those naysayers wrong.(


At the end of March, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill that would prohibit any permits for fracking in the state for two and a half years. Photo credit: Food & Water Watch

Today, a two and a half year fracking moratorium became law in Maryland. Over Memorial Day weekend, Gov. Hogan let it be known that he would not veto the bill. At the end of March, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill, originally introduced by Delegate David Fraser-Hidalgo and Senator Karen Montgomery, which would prohibit any permits for fracking in the state for two and a half years. The bill passed with veto-proof majorities in each house.

This critical moratorium was made possible by a coalition of more than 100 community and advocacy groups who don’t want to see Maryland fracked. The Don’t Frack Maryland Coalition worked throughout the 2015 legislative session to carry the message that Marylanders do not want fracking in their state. The organizing efforts of the coalition came in waves over several months.

More than 100 Maryland health professionals had expressed concern about the unknown long-term health effects of fracking on human and environmental health. The evidence for the potential short and long-term health effects continues to grow. In fact, two new studies were published just this month, one showing that air-pollution from fracking in neighboring Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia has contaminated the air across state lines into Maryland and other areas, and the other found a chemical commonly used in drilling in Pennsylvania drinking water. The health risks alone are enough to want to press the pause button on fracking, but it didn’t stop there.

More than 100 Western Maryland business owners and more than 50 restaurant owners, chefs, winemakers and farmers from across the state also came together to voice their concerns about how fracking would impact their livelihoods. The risks to local business of allowing fracking in Maryland far outweigh the potential profits of out-of-state gas companies. The gas industry will decimate formerly rural and pristine areas by marring landscapes with service roads, roaring fracking rigs and leveled foliage replaced by well pads. Existing industries that are vital to the growing, long-term economy of Western Maryland, such as tourism, agriculture, organic farming, hunting, fishing and second homes, are likely to decline as these industries are not compatible with an industrial landscape. Not to mention the threat of water, air and land contamination. The Baltimore Sun even editorialized, “There’s simply no reason for Maryland to embrace such a risk to health, safety or livelihood right now.”

The Don’t Frack Maryland Coalition even had some help from a celebrity. A radio ad recorded by actor and Maryland native, Edward Norton, targeted the Governor to sign the bill. All of these efforts combined, brought us to where we are now.

The fact that Governor Hogan, who comes from a political party that routinely panders to the oil and gas industry, felt so much political pressure to prevent fracking from entering his state at this time, is a sign that the movement to protect against the dangers of fracking is growing stronger and gaining momentum. Protecting the health, safety and livelihoods of the people is not a partisan issue, and this moratorium is a sign that the tide is changing on fracking. (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 01, 2015, 06:33:42 pm
Negotiations in Bonn Will Likely Decide if Paris Climate Talks ‘Can Save Human Civilization From Ultimate Collapse’

Paul Brown, Climate News Network | June 1, 2015 3:41 pm
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 05, 2015, 10:32:10 pm
Neoliberal Globalization: Is There an Alternative to Plundering the Earth?
Excerpt from "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century"

By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof


Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything becomes an object of “trade” and commercialization (which truly means liquidation, the transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal stage it is not enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive and preferably “wageless” commodity production. The objective is to transform everyone and everything into commodities, including life itself.[35] We are racing blindly towards the violent and absolute conclusion of this “mode of production”, namely total capitalization/liquidation by “monetarization”.[36]

We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market – we are witnessing what can be described as “market fundamentalism”. People believe in the market as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing could ever happen without it. Total global maximized accumulation of money/capital as abstract wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic activity. A “free” world market for everything has to be established – a world market that functions according to the interests of the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of such a market proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities where they have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.

One thing remains generally overlooked: the abstract wealth created for accumulation implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth. The result is a “hole in the ground” and next to it a garbage dump with used commodities, outdated machinery and money without value.[37] However, once all concrete wealth (which today consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract wealth will disappear as well. It will, in Marx’s words, “evaporate”. The fact that abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really created. In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth (and even this mainly exists virtually or on accounts) that constitutes a monoculture controlled by a tiny minority. Diversity is suffocated and millions of people are left wondering how to survive. And really: how do you survive with neither resources nor means of production nor money?

The nihilism of our economic system is evident.
The whole world will be transformed into money – and then it will disappear. After all, money cannot be eaten.

What no one seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform commodities, money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It seems that underlying all “economic development” is the assumption that “resources”, the “sources of wealth”,[38] are renewable and everlasting – just like the “growth” they create.[39]

The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by neoliberalism and its “monetary totalitarianism”.[40]

The primacy of politics over economy has been lost.
Politicians of all parties have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics. Where corporate interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic convention or community control. Public space disappears. The res publica turns into a res privata, or – as we could say today – a res privata transnationale (in its original Latin meaning, privare means “to deprive”). Only those in power still have rights. They give themselves the licenses they need, from the “license to plunder” to the “license to kill”.[41]

Those who get in their way or challenge their “rights” are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as “terrorists” or, in the case of defiant governments, as “rogue states” – a label that usually implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can see in the cases of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and Iran in the near future. U.S. President Bush had even spoken of the possibility of “preemptive” nuclear strikes should the U.S. feel endangered by weapons of mass destruction.[42] The European Union did not object.[43]

Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy and war are still “an inseparable three” – today maybe more so than ever. War is not only “good for the economy” but is indeed its driving force and can be understood as the “continuation of economy with other means”.[45] War and economy have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples. Militarism once again appears as the “executor of capital accumulation” – potentially everywhere and enduringly.[48]

Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people, communities and governments to corporations
.[49] The notion of the people as a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have witnessed a coup of sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation state as guarantees for and expression of the international division of labor in the modern world system are increasingly dissolving.[50] Nation states are developing into “periphery states” according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic “New World Order”.[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it “hinders business”.[52]

The “New World Order” implies a new division of labor that does no longer distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South. An according International Law is established which effectively functions from top to bottom (“top-down”) and eliminates all local and regional communal rights. And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively and for the future.[53]

The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of production, all “investment opportunities”, all rights and all power belong to the corporations only. To paraphrase Richard Sennett: “Everything to the Corporations!”[54] One might add: “Now!”

The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get. Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at risk since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know. The times of social contracts are gone.[55] In fact, pointing out the crisis alone has become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as “terror” and persecuted as such.[56]

IMF Economic Medicine   (

Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism. These programs are levied against the countries of the South which can be extorted due to their debts.

Meanwhile, numerous military interventions and wars help to take possession of the assets that still remain, secure resources, install neoliberalism as the global economic politics, crush resistance movements (which are cynically labeled as “IMF uprisings”), and facilitate the lucrative business of reconstruction.[57]
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 09, 2015, 02:37:25 pm
Game of Thrones is really about how human civilization is degraded, along with the climate, because of Empathy Deficit Disorder.

Technical knowledge of Carrying Capacity will not save us; only a massive increase in Caring Capacity will. -- A. G. Gelbert

"The fossil fuel industry swallows up $5.3 trillion a year worldwide in hidden costs to keep burning fossil fuels, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

This money, the IMF noted, is in addition to the $492 billion in direct subsidies offered by governments around the world through write-offs and write-downs and land-use loopholes.

In a sane world these subsidies would be invested to free us from the deadly effects of carbon emissions caused by fossil fuels, but we do not live in a sane world. "  -- Chris Hedges
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 11, 2015, 06:52:52 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Sean Toon is an excellent example of a Homo SAP with Empathy Deficit Disorder.

Gratuitous cruelty to animals and people are part and parcel of the egocentric attitudes that undervalue fellow earthlings of the same and other species. Sean Toon cares ONLY about himself. He is egocentric, selfish, bigoted, racist and cruel to animals. I am certain he is a narcissist too. He successfully lied to the police in order to hurt innocent African American children. This means he is an excellent liar too. 

Along with all other Homo SAPS that suffer from Empathy Deficit Disorder he has the following meter reading:

Unless his behavior pattern can be weeded out of human society, there is little hope for us. (

Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:18 PM EDT.

Someone took a look at the guy who called 911 because black people were in the pool


Someone took a look at the guy in McKinney who called 911 because black people were in the pool. Guess what they found? He's hideous:

911 caller in Texas pool party incident was convicted of torturing animals

Sean Toon, who called police to complain about group of black teenagers trying to enter a party on Friday, was jailed for violent behavior and animal torture.

The man who called 911 to complain about a group of black teenagers at a pool party in Texas, and defended the controversial police response as a “good amount of aggression”, is a convicted felon who spent time in jail for violent behavior and torturing animals. (

Sean Toon was sentenced to more than nine months in jail after pleading guilty to killing and maiming prize farm animals and covering them in paint, according to court records in Texas. He was separately sentenced to two and a half months for an assault.

Toon, 33, called police on Friday to allege that a group of predominantly African American young people were climbing over fences ( to get into a party and cookout at a community pool in his neighborhood of Craig Ranch in McKinney, a suburb of Dallas.


In November 1999, aged 18, Toon and three high school friends were arrested and expelled from school after vandalizing the agricultural center of a rival high school district and attacking animals housed there, many of which were owned and cared for by school children.

Cows and pigs were cut and bruised, apparently beaten with wooden boards. And baby turkeys were slain, their limbs torn apart,” the Dallas Morning News reported at the time. Dale Gardner, a teacher in the school district’s agri-science and technology program, told the newspaper: “It was brutal. There’s no way to describe it. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

About a dozen prize turkeys, which were reportedly being bred by a student aiming to win money for his scholarship fund, were feared killed.

Animals and buildings were covered in green and gold paint, according to reports. These were the colors of Toon’s high school, Newman Smith, whose football team rivaled that of RL Turner High, whose students used the agricultural center.

We can all agree that Sean Toon is a SICK FU CK. But that is not the real problem. The problem is the refusal by our society to accept that OUR CULTURE REWARDS PEOPLE LIKE HIM and demonizes people that conscience free greed balls like him victimize. George W. Bush, whose childhood "fun" blowing up frogs aligns quite well with the Sean Toon behavior pattern, probably applauds Sean Toon's "school spirit".  (

Empathy Deficit is destroying everything good about humanity.

Technical knowledge of Carrying Capacity will not save us; only a massive increase in Caring Capacity will. -- A. G. Gelbert

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 11, 2015, 10:02:19 pm
Ikea is putting more than a billion bucks into the climate fight  (

By John Light  on 4 Jun 2015


Ikea announced today that it plans to put 1 billion euros toward fighting climate change — more than $1.12 billion. Sixty percent of that will go to build renewable energy capacity, especially wind, moving the company toward its goal of using 100 percent clean energy. The remaining 40 percent will go toward helping poor countries adapt to climate change.  (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 20, 2015, 05:24:16 pm
More evidence of ("greed is good" worshipping) American Empathy Deficit Disorder


Agelbert NOTE: The above is about relatively mild cases of Empathy Deficit Disorder (EDD). It gets a whole lot worse HERE and all over the rest of the world too. Our military, backed by the corporations that run our government (and the EDD persons that run those Corporations), have spared no taxation of we-the-people to provide profits for EDD people HERE and rain misery, harm and death on the "consumers" of the weapons manufacturer products.

People free of Empathy Deficit Disorder will read the following and empathize with these victims of injustice. People in the grips of Empathy Deficit Disorder will blame the victim or claim it's just "survival of the fittest" in action - nothing to see, move along... 

56.1 million. This is how many people worldwide who have been forced from their home due to violence, persecution or poverty. Most have moved within their home country, desperately seeking peace and security in a different region, while the remaining have had to flee their homeland all together. According to the United Nations, this is the worst migration crisis since World War II.

But focusing on the number masks the human story behind each person who has lost a home, a livelihood, and a sense of security.

Global Communities has been working with refugees and other displaced around the world for more than 30 years. In honor of World Refugee Day, we want to connect you to the human story by introducing you to a few of the most resilient people we know. All have endured immense amounts of violence. All are trying to rebuild the lives they lost.

Meet them and share their stories.

Building a New Life in Lebanon – Iman's Story

Iman, a refugee from Syria, had run out of money and options. Finding herself living in a unfurnished shelter with no running water and using a pair of old shoes as a pillow, she had little hope for the future. With a referral to Global Communities' shelter assistance program in Lebanon, Iman has finally found a safe and supportive environment to live in. Read her story here.:

Reclaiming their Communities in Colombia – Alfonso's Story

Alfonso has spent most of his young life living in an environment of fear and mistrust. Drug traffickers, guerrillas and paramilitary groups established a reigns of terror in many rural communities driving out social organizations and displacing many people from their land. But slowly, he and his fellow residents are learning how to work together and trust each other to rebuild their community. Read his story here:

Finding Safety in Lebanon – Halima's Story

Halima and eleven family members fled Ghouta, Syria for Lebanon when the ongoing civil war became too much for them to bear. There they found themselves facing the same plights as so many Syrian refugees. Read her story here;

Empathy Deficit Disorder is quite old in human history.

EDD has two salient aspects; the first one is a lack of empathy, of course.

But the second one, which is not so obvious until you delve into the amazingly vigorous EDD refutation of responsibility for other people's woes, is the mens rea complicity by the person with EDD for those very woes other people are suffering.

The person with EDD is fully convinced that anything done to help the downtrodden poor is NOT a good idea (beyond lip service and token displays of "charity" to provide the appearance of empathy  ;)) and anything the EDD person is partially or wholly responsible for that increases the misery, poverty and deaths of the downtrodden is good business. Therefore, the EDD person will seek to justify harming others for profit, using all kinds of mendacity, dissembling and double talk. (

Empathy Deficit Disorder is quite old in human history.

As for me, I urge you all to strive to be a Billionaire. The PROPER, empathy based definition of "BILLIONAiRE" is in the short video below. I want to be one of THOSE billionaires.


"We do not need a 'new' business model for energy because we never had one. What we need, if we wish to avoid extinction, is to plug the environmental and equity costs of energy production and use into our planning and thinking. " -- A.G. Gelbert

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

"We can’t have a healthy business on a sick planet."-- Ashley Orgain, manager of mission advocacy and outreach for Seventh Generation, Burlington, Vermont


"Technical knowledge of Carrying Capacity will not save us; only a massive increase in Caring Capacity will." -- A. G. Gelbert

Help me become a billionaire as defined above. Pass this on to everyone you know.  ;D
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 21, 2015, 10:32:42 pm
I think you are 100% right. However, I do not think the Libertarians are the main problem with all the issues they refuse to address honestly.

I think the problem is Empathy Deficit Disorder. As Eddie pointed out, there are several graduations of attitudes and behaviors that display the "leave me the fu ck alone", "I didn't cause your poverty", "fu ck you"  "etc." mindset among Libertarians. Many people do not become Libertarians because they buy into the "greed is good" Empathy Deficit. 

The "Libertarian" label itself, at least to me, is highly misleading and Orwellian. Many people may join simply because they see the encroachment of big government and feel threatened by it. Nobody likes to be told what to do.
Nevertheless, ANY defense of greed is destructive to our body and our soul. Selfishness is not justified within one's family. We can all agree on that. But all humans are really a part of one family. Therefore, it is wrong to try to make a virtue out of that vice.

I appreciate your comments.

 As I replied to Eddie, all of us want to be left to the fark alone to live our lives, raise our families, and use our talents as best we may without interference or meddling from the corporate state or its many, many agents.

Labels may well not be ultimately useful. Nevertheless people use them and insist on them, so what are we to do? Indeed, doesn't the idea of being for liberty sound like something you would sign on for? I know I would.  Yet "libertarianism" in the US falls primarily under the "tea party" rubric, and these people represent brutish and empathy-free points of view that I find heinous, and oppose with every fiber of my being. Such that I put my ass in the streets over it.

 Ultimately, people on both sides of this divide will find themselves talking past one another, insistent that they and they alone have full purchase on the truth.  Your diagnosis of "empathy deficit disorder" describes a sickness of the soul, fueled by a materialist society whose only ethics are winning at all costs, a tender concern for the bottom line, and a "what if you done for me lately? concern for expenses"  All of which to my mind makes hope Francis's encyclical this week that much more potent.  Casting concern for climate change in moral terms is absolutely what is needed at this time in our so-called development.

Whether it is enough, or soon enough, or will make a difference remains to be seen.  But that moment Thursday was a great moment be alive.

Thank you. I have screamed myself hoarse about the Libertarian cognitive dissonant defense of greed for years.

But as the Pope and you and millions of others, including yours truly  ;D, have said over and over in so many words: The morality shown by caring for the environment and each other (empathy) is just CFS. It's biosphere MATH! It's fu cking OBVIOUS to a species that wants to avoid extinction.

But if you've made a lot of money from divide et impera, it's a tough pill to swallow. If TPTB don't swallow it, their greed, stubbornness, arrogance and stupidity (EDD) will be inscribed on the Homo SAP species tombstone.

Because it's a 180 DEGREE FLIP IN ATTITUDE REQUIRED FOR OUR SURVIVAL, the elites simply may not be capable of it.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 21, 2015, 10:35:39 pm
AG: I think the problem is Empathy Deficit Disorder.

I largely agree with that, except that I would use the Sociopath label rather than EDD (is that your own label, or does it have wider currency?)

You take it as agreed that sharing/caring amongst families is the norm, but their are plenty of examples of families torn apart due to lack of it.  As you widen the circle to extended family, it almost disappears. And when you widen it to all the people in your neighbourhood, including the homeless, drunks, drug addicts, gambling addicts, and criminals, it is only the exceptional do-gooders in society that care.  The rest want more Law and Order, in the hope that the poor/dispossessed/alienated will be locked up out of sight and out of mind.  Starving/refugee Africans don't stand a chance.

More empathy would be a solution, but where is it to be found in nature?  Some suggest the relatively early onset of menopause, is not selected against because the grandparent generation are there for backup, should the parents die early.  This implies that we shouldn't expect empathy to extend much further than that. 

Others suggest the "local tribe" size of 100-150 is the limit of empathy.  A tribe of 100 would have maybe 60 children, 10 young adults, 25 parents and 5 grandparents, so the male-only "tribal council" would number about 15, of differing status, of which maybe 6 were leaders.  Anyone who has tried to run meetings would know that 6 is about the limit for efficiency - anything over that breaks into factions.

Thus politics at County, State, Federal and World levels is never going to work for everyone's benefit properly.  When the UN issues the Declaration of Human Rights, enshrining the right to be free from torture and exploitation, it's just a joke.  We're just not able to empathize that much. 

I got the term EDD from Robert Reich, who was the first (I believe) to write about it. He defines it, not as a form of criminal insanity like a psychopath or sociopath, but something less obvious and far more ubiquitous. He pins that label on conservatives. I think that's too narrow.

I certainly agree that there is a lack of empathy. I disagree that it is hardwired. I believe it has been deliberately adorned with all sorts of mendacious double talk and cheap rationalizations in order to get more people to buy into a greed is good world view that profits the business elites.

The media, of course, pushes the view that beneath the THIN veneer of the civilized individual is a raging monster out to tear his or her fellow humans apart for the hell of it (i.e. "resources").

The evidence is contrary to that 'fu ck your buddy' world view. Please don't compare us to lions and tigers and so on. WE are SELF AWARE. We KNOW what the consequences of our actions are. We do NOT operate on instinct. So ALL analogies about the hunt and tooth and claw have no place in the discussion.

SOMEBODY has made a lot of money out of keeping us at odds with each other. THAT is the reality, whether we want to accept that or not.

The Dunbar number aside, we have the internet. We are talking from thousands of miles away. We ARE expanding our empathy in ways that were hitherto impossible. THAT is a THREAT to the profit over people and planet dysfunctional status quo.

We cannot throw our hands up and say we are a bunch beasts that deserve our extinction because we can't get along.

Maybe that's true. But do you really think that if the EDD elite were themselves convinced that a massive increase in empathy is sine qua non to our survival, they would not take steps to DEMONIZE Empathy Deficit in all it's greed based, violence based and racist aspects? OF COURSE they would.

Maybe it is too late. Maybe EDD is so far advanced among the elite that all they can come up with is what you claim is the only way to have a society governed by empathy (the Dunbar number).

Do you realize that the Dunbar number "math" DICTATES that humanity MUST BE CULLED for our species to survive because we JUST CANNOT GIVE A FU CK about each other when our community has more than 300 or so people in it?

Ponder that, Palloy. If the Dunbar number is IT, then the elite are planning to off 99% of humanity in order to "save" it.

I do not think we are so limited in our caring capacity.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 22, 2015, 08:50:26 pm
Space based PV has unlimited potential. But more importantly, we have had the technology to do this for OVER 20 YEARS! It has not been done because of fossil fuel and nuclear power dirty energy interests, PERIOD.  >:(
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 22, 2015, 09:26:33 pm
Sustainability is not enough. If we are to survive and thrive, we need to go WAY beyond sustainability.   (

Here, for your viewing pleasure is a future we MIGHT achieve   ( if the Empathy Deficit Disorder based humans don't kill us first.

The last video below has a nuclear reactor on the moon. I think that is a great place for one! I even said so back in October of 2010 at the Common Dreams web site. I don't want one any closer than that to earth.  (  ;D
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 24, 2015, 08:47:35 pm
Human extinction by 2030? (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 01, 2015, 06:33:49 pm
"If there’s anything you read – or share – let this be it. The content of this article has potential to radically shift the world in a variety of positive ways.

And as Monsanto would love for this article to not go viral, all we can ask is that you share, share, share the information being presented so that it can reach as many people as possible."   (   (

Could a Man and Some Mushrooms Bring an End to Monsanto?

Posted on Jun 30, 2015

 A few years ago, a man named Paul Stamets made a discovery that has apparently had those in the pesticide business reeling ever since. Some executives from the industry have even gone so far as to call his finding “the most disruptive technology we have ever witnessed.”

From The Progressive Radio Network:

In 2006, a patent was granted to a man named Paul Stamets. Though Paul is the world’s leading mycologist, his patent has received very little attention and exposure. Why is that?
Stated by executives in the pesticide industry, this patent represents “the most disruptive technology we have ever witnessed.” And when the executives say disruptive, they are referring to it being disruptive to the chemical pesticides industry. (

What has Paul discovered? The mycologist has figured out how to use mother nature’s own creations to keep insects from destroying crops. It’s what is being called SMART pesticides. These pesticides provide safe & nearly permanent solution for controlling over 200,000 species of insects – and all thanks to the ‘magic’ of mushrooms.

Paul does this by taking entomopathogenic Fungi (fungi that destroys insects) and morphs it so it does not produce spores. In turn, this actually attracts the insects who then eat and turn into fungi from the inside out!

Details here:

—Posted by Natasha Hakimi Zapata

Title: Re: Future Earth - 2005 was just a taste of things to come
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2015, 06:11:38 pm
2005 the year the earth went wild

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2015, 08:37:24 pm
All celestial objects have gravity wells.  The asteroids are the only things that can have small gravity wells of their own.  Since they are twice as far as the Earth from the Sun, they have a quite different potential in the Sun's gravity field. This has to be overcome with energy to get empty haulage spaceships out there and to get full ones back.  Doing it quickly (large V) takes V2 the energy.  And of course you have to pay in energy for every gram of matter moved twice - once to get it moving, and again to slow it down.
Thank you, Sir Speedy....

While what you say is true enough for fragile things you want to minimize transit time for, say, human astronauts, if time is not an issue, like for ore, you only need to worry about delta Vs.  For example, to go from the Earth to Mars with the minimum amount of energy, you just have to go from Earth's orbital velocity (2 * PI * Earth's orbital radius / Earth year) to Mars orbital velocity (2 * PI * Mars orbital radius / Mars year).  Of course, the tricky part is having the planets lined up right so Mars is actually there when you get there; that is what determines the "launch window".  None of these should be a problem for a robotic mining operation.

Minerals are going to be as hard to extract from rocks as they are here on Earth, only without the readily available energy.  Sure, there are hydrocarbons in comets, but no Oxygen, so unless you have brought a bottle of it with you, they won't burn.  Yes, you can get Oxygen out of water, but that takes lots of energy too.

Mining the asteroids, or anything else in space, is actually impossibly hard.  That doesn't stop "blue sky" merchants from trying to fleece gullible investors in such projects.
Are you forgetting the big fusion reactor that is pumping out energy for free?  You need to break out of the fossil-fuel mentality.That said, that does not mean there are not horrendous technical challenges to mining in space.  One problem is it is incredibly dry, and if you rub dry things together, you tend to get static.  Getting ore dust clinging to your mining equipment is not fun.

In the end, the problems with mining in space should be technically solvable; the real question is whether the solutions will be economically feasible, especially in an era of decreasing demand due to deflationary pressures.  THAT is the real killer for space mining.

Thank you, JD, for telling like it really IS. As to the propulsion issue alone, solar sails are child's play outside our gravity well.

And mining asteroids is considerably LESS energy intensive, once you are there, than mining on Earth. Palloy has forgotten that gravity tends to push rock and soil together, making it a lot harder, despite having the EXACT SAME mixture of elements and compounds of said elements. If MKing would tell the truth for a change, he would confirm the FACT of much higher (and more difficult to mine) mineral compression in one G versus .001 G. That is, unless the Colorado School of Mining does not teach low gravity properties of minerals.  ;D

Sure, mining asteroids IS rocket science. But to claim it's "impossibly difficult" is incorrect. It's simply too expensive now. The issue is NOT EROEI, particularly when the lack of environmental external costs are considered. The issue is the will.

The study of meteorites, space rocks that have fallen to Earth, reveals a variety of useful materials that could be extracted:

• Platinum:  precious metal used in electronics and as a catalyst in chemical reactions. Carmakers used $7 billion worth of platinum in 2012

• Palladium: harder than platinum, similar uses

• Water: can be broken into hydrogen and oxygen for use as rocket fuel or life support for humans

Planetary Resources' announcement of their intention to mine the asteroids rekindles dreams of the early Space Age (

( (

Sustainability is not enough. If we are to survive and thrive, we need to go WAY beyond sustainability.   (

Here, for your viewing pleasure is a future we MIGHT achieve   ( if the Empathy Deficit Disorder based humans don't kill us first.

The last video below has a nuclear reactor on the moon. I think that is a great place for one! I even said so back in October of 2010 at the Common Dreams web site. I don't want one any closer than that to earth.  (  ;D

From one of those images:
Water: can be broken down into Hydrogen and Oxygen for use as rocket fuel or life support for humans.

But doing that takes energy (4.41 KW.h / Litre of water). So if you are not going to take your rocket fuel with you, you are going to have to take something to capture the local "free" solar energy, which is 4 times weaker at twice the distance from the Sun.

I actually said that mining the asteroids was "impossibly hard", meaning it is not impossible, but so hard it is effectively impossible.  So it appears we are all in agreement on that.

Okay. But when I read the adjective, "impossibly", I have a tendency to think the writer believes it can't be done. Especially when said writer than claims that only a fool or a gullible chump would consider such a venture a good idea to spend money on.

Also, you continue to ignore some energy storage math while emphasizing the energy to split water into rocket fuel math.

Here are some facts you left out of your calculus.:

1) In space, even out to the asteroids, there is no air to diffuse solar radiation, and consequently, PV efficiency from solar energy is always there and free in space within our solar system.

2) Unlike the solar energy available at any given time, the rocket fuel being made 24/7 can be stored to provide a LOT of acceleration and deceleration. SO, the energy required to split the water is NOT applicable to the propulsion obtained in rocket fuel BECAUSE you are storing it until you need it.

3) The mineral adhesive properties in low G are much less than in one G. That is a BIG DEAL as far as LESS energy required to fracture and pulverize the raw material.

4) There are ZERO environmental costs in space. You may think that is trivial but the fact is that every single Joule, Newton or whatever that MKing and his pals expend to trash the planet extracting this, that and the other requires AT LEAST twice that much energy needed to restore the degraded biosphere some time in the future. The mining industry and the fossil fuel industry are both always bobbing and weaving around that reality in order to dump the costs on the rest of us. Those costs are REAL. They ARE NOT THERE in space.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2015, 08:49:07 pm
Mining in Zero Gravity

Although it might seem easier to move materials in zero gravity than on Earth, inertia, not overcoming gravity, is the major effect to consider. Little experience has been gained in weightlessness. One sample problem is that of holding fracturing and excavation tools to the face of an asteroid.

On Earth, equipment hold-down is accomplished solely by gravity. Another sample problem is containing the excavated material, either large or small fragments. Rock fracturing places an initial velocity on the broken material. On Earth, gravity quickly collects the broken rock.

In weightlessness, the broken rock will behave like out-of-control billiard balls, a potentially destructive game. Furthermore, the fines that are always generated by rock fracturing may obscure vision and clog equipment. Our study group did not have time to consider the full significance of working complex equipment in zero g, but we note that this problem needs in-depth study.
A Conceptual Asteroid Mining Method

The study group did not have the time or the resources to fully design a baseline asteroid mining method. This incomplete concept of an asteroid mining method is intended to illustrate how some of the problems could be overcome. As with the lunar proposal, the concept should be used to promote discussion of asteroid mining problems, but not to promote the method itself.

Assuming that the delta V for the available asteroid is small and that only a modest amount of material is needed, I propose the following method to accomplish a first mission.

After arriving at the asteroid, the operators place one or more cables around the body. The asteroid proposed to the group for study was no more than a few hundred meters in diameter. Placing a cable around the body appeared to us much easier than anchoring the end of a shorter cable. Anchoring in rock can be a difficult process.

If augering is used in weightlessness, a method must be devised to hold the augering tool down while it is working. The most desirable asteroids have very low strengths, good for mining but poor for anchoring. Quite long cables are possible, on the order of 1000 meters. The cable is easily placed and provides easy movement of the mining tool. One disadvantage of a long cable is the mass; for example, a cable 1 inch in diameter weighs 1.6 pounds per foot on Earth (has a mass of 2.4 kg/m).

The cable holds a cutter head or other rock-fracturing tool in place and provides sufficient working force for it. The cutter head is designed to excavate in addition to fracturing the soft rock. A cohical Kevlar collection bag is placed over the area to be mined and is held in place by the same cable (fig. 24). The flexible bag holds its shape because of the rotation of the asteroid. The spin also aids in collecting the fragmented asteroid material.

The cutter head travels back and forth along its restraining cable, cutting material until the collection bag is filled (fig. 25). The cutter is similar to the coal shear currently used in longwall operations but is designed to overcome the asteroid's low gravity and fling material past synchronous orbit so that centripetal force effects collection.

Dust production around the cutter head remains a problem.
Dusty environments obscure vision and thus increase problems in controlling teleoperated systems or in monitoring automated systems.
However, direct vision may not be so important on a body that proves to be homogeneous in structure and composition.

After the required amount of material is collected in the bag, it is "lowered" away from the body, allowing the bag and material to steal angular momentum from the asteroid.

For low delta V return flights, there may be sufficient energy available to slingshot the load back to Earth.

Deceleration at Earth could be accomplished by aerobraking. The collection bag might be designed to act as an aerobrake shield in addition to being reusable. The bag could also serve as a retort for carbonyl or other types of processing during return.

Concept for an Asteroid Miner

The shear breaks material and throws it away from the asteroid into the collection bag. The bag is moved when the shear moves to a new mining area. The collection bag can be used to transport the material to the Earth. The bag could also be used as an aerobrake shield or a processing container.

Detail of the Shear

The shear is derived from coal-cutting technology. It performs a dual role: it cuts the asteroid material and throws the material into the collection bag. In this illustration, the wheels are too small; larger, high-flotation wheels will help negotiate rough terrain. There should also be chutes to direct material past synchronous orbit and into the bag. And the shears conflict with the wheel path; they should be either inside or outside the wheels.

An alternative, but basically similar, method still uses the bag and cable. However, a large block of asteroid material is collected, not by mechanical excavation but by blasting material into the bag. Instead of a shear, which could have trouble negotiating the asteroid surface, an explosive is used. The cable holds in place a drilling machine, which drills a series of blast holes. Theprill holes and charges are carefully designed to excavate a large section of the asteroid. The explosive charges break out the desired amount of material, and the force of the explosion moves the material into the collection bag. Pattern drilling designed to create shaped explosions has achieved some success on the Earth and is finding more applications. The explosive method appears simpler in equipment and operation than the shear, but the blasting must have a very high degree of control. Uncontrolled fragmentation of the cabled body would be a disaster. I have not considered a suitable blasting agent. The reader can visualize this alternative method by imagining a drill rig instead of the shear in figures 24 and 25 (at link).

While the sizing of the return loads requires further study, the same basic mining scheme should be able to handle a range of sizes. It is not completely clear whether one large load or several smaller loads would be better, although several smaller loads might be more manageable, while allowing more flexible return flight plans.   (

Full article with graphics and references (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2015, 09:17:12 pm
Moon Mining is NOT a lunatic idea  (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 06, 2015, 10:48:19 pm
Palloy said,
and putting nuclear reactors on the moon - is it OK to pollute the Moon or inner space with radioactive crap?

YES, it's OKAY because hard radiation is a fact of life in space, not a pollutant. Besides even if the Helium3 fueled reactors (that are claimed to be pollution free) DO produce a lot of waste, it's a piece of cake in terms of energy required outside our gravity well, to send the waste into the sun. The issue with radiation is that it destroys DNA. That is a factor here, not out there.

Also, Once again, you ignore the ACTUAL costs we are NOW being saddled with 24/7 by polluting the fu ck out of our planet. Those are ENERGY costs. What is your problem, Palloy? WHY do you flat REFUSE to include those costs in your calculus? What we are DOING now is unsustainable, PERIOD. We don't have to go back to caves! All we have to do is ALL of the biosphere math! Don't tell me we can't do that!

Your premise that business as usual PREVENTS asteroid exploration (because we have to run like hell just to stand still here on planet Earth) is flawed logic. And you won't let it go.

That is exactly the logic the fossil fuelers used for the last 60 years or so to claim that renewable energy was "too expensive" and "not ready for prime time" and "not cost competitive". ALL those claims excluded externalized pollution costs. When ALL the biosphere math is done, polluting energy was always LESS cost effective than renewable energy. That applies even more so to asteroid mining. Yes, the upfront costs are gigantic. But when JUST ONE asteroid (already identified) is worth over 100 billion dollars, then any hemming and hawing about costs and affordability is short sighted, to put it mildly.

But it may be too late for a future in space because TPTB are OWNED by the dirty energy producers who LOVE to externalize pollution costs and could give a **** whether pollution is absent in space. They don't pay for all the sh it they visit us with now, so they have no incentive to do proper biosphere math. So, my argument that mining space is more cost effective than degrading our biosphere may be a moot point.  :(

FWIW, notice how different the properties of minerals in asteroids are from the same minerals here on Earth:

Asteroids are unlike any mineral deposit on Earth because they are the undisturbed remains from the creation of the solar system. This leaves them relatively pristine and undisturbed in compositions that could have only formed and cooled in the microgravity of space, outside of a planet’s gravitational pull.

As the planets formed, these smaller elements continued to orbit the Sun independently. However, since the building blocks of the solar system were all of similar origin, asteroids had the same starting point as the materials that make up the Earth – just in different concentrations.

Asteroid composition can be generally grouped into three main categories – C-type, S-type, and M-type.

C-type asteroids are carbonaceous, and represent the majority of known asteroids. While not large sources of metal, they do tend to contain water (aka hydrated minerals), an incredibly valuable resource for in-space fuel. C-type asteroids are quite dark, making them harder to identify with basic ground-based observations – which means they may be even more abundant than current estimates. C-type are the most attractive targets for initial exploration by Planetary Resources, as in-space water could be the source of the energy needed to unlock more complex asteroid resources.

S-type asteroids are ‘stony’ asteroids, and tend to be composed primarily of magnesium-silicate. They tend to be quite bright and easy to identify, and are the second most frequently occurring asteroid, after C-type. While less likely to contain hydrated minerals, silicates represent a potential source of building material and radiation protection for commercial and government space operations.

M-type asteroids are ‘metal rich’ assets (sometimes referred to as X-group) and they tend to contain very large quantities of refinery-grade nickel and iron. They are less common than carbonaceous or stony asteroids, but are of long-term interest to Planetary Resources and our partners as we move into the second-wave of extraction, enabling space-based projects where metallic resources are critical

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2015, 12:15:11 am
If we pollute the Moon with DNA-harming radiation, then we might be killing the DNA-based life there (that we haven't discovered yet), and we would be stopping ourselves from going there, and we could be stopping aliens from going there. It's a typically Earth-like "couldn't care less" sort of attitude.  Why not pollute Antarctica?

There is a big difference between me and the FF exploiters - they say FFs are the solution, and I say NOTHING is the solution.  If you lump me in with them because we both say renewables won't cut it, then that's your flawed logic.

But when JUST ONE asteroid (already identified) is worth over 100 billion dollars ...

That must be assuming that something less than 100 billion dollars can buy you all the energy you need to go and get it.  But it can't, if you believe in LtG.  I'm beginning to think you don't, so maybe we need to sort that out before we go any further.


Now I'm the one that is going to "run away" from your devolution into straw grasping hyperbole and ridiculous comparisons between ANYWHERE on Earth with ANYWHERE in atmosphere lacking space. You are WORRIED about alien life on the moon? Did you miss the part about sending radioactive waste to the sun?

And have you EVER sat down and computed how much STUFF we have ALREADY hoisted into space?

What part off Fossil Fuels WON'T CUT IT (and NEVER DID "CUT IT") do you not understand?

Does is not BOTHER you that we spend 5.3 TRILLION DOLLARS a year in subsides for dirty energy that WE COULD SPEND on renewable energy and or asteroid mining instead? Don't tell me the money AIN'T THERE, PAL.


"The fossil fuel industry swallows up $5.3 trillion a year worldwide in hidden costs to keep burning fossil fuels, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
This money, the IMF noted, is in addition to the $492 billion in direct subsidies offered by governments around the world through write-offs and write-downs and land-use loopholes.

In a sane world these subsidies would be invested to free us from the deadly effects of carbon emissions caused by fossil fuels, but we do not live in a sane world. "  -- Chris Hedges

Never mind.

Have a nice day, Palloy.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 31, 2015, 05:55:54 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This is how Divestment from the Fossil Fuel Corporate Crooks and Liars Begins.  ;D

Exxon, Chevron Brace for Darker Times as Earnings Slump   ( (

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the biggest U.S. energy producers, hunkered down for a prolonged stretch of weak prices after posting their worst quarterly performances in several years.    (

Exxon reported its lowest profit since 2009 as crude prices fell twice as fast as the world’s largest crude producer by market value could slash expenses. Chevron recorded its lowest profit in more than 12 years after the market rout forced $2.6 billion in asset writedowns and related charges. The companies’ shares fell to multi-year lows.

Stung by the worst market collapse since the financial crisis of 2008, oil explorers from The Hague to Calgary to Houston are firing staff, scaling back drilling, canceling rig contracts and reducing share buybacks to conserve cash. Chevron said the slump convinced it to lower its long-term outlook for crude prices.

“This is the beginning, not the end, of the writedown process,” Paul Sankey, an energy analyst at Wolfe Research LLC, said on Bloomberg TV. “The biggest concern is that we’ll see weaker demand over the second half of the year.”

Oil entered its second bear market since mid-2014 this month as a flood of output from North American shale regions, the Persian Gulf and deepwater fields overwhelmed consumption by refiners and chemical producers.

Avalanche of Crude

Exxon and Chevron contributed to the avalanche of supply by increasing second-quarter crude output by 12 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively. Exxon expanded oil production in every region where it operates except Australia/Oceania. All of Chevron’s growth occurred in the U.S.

“Oil prices will be under downward pressure until there is evidence the glut is shrinking,” analysts at IHS Energy said in a note to clients. “This will not happen quickly unless prices fall even further from recent levels,” discouraging new drilling.

Exxon shares fell 4.6 percent to $79.21 in New York, the lowest closing price since June 2012. Chevron dropped 4.9 percent to $88.48, the lowest close since December 2010. The companies were the day’s worst performers in the Dow Jones Industrial Average index.

Exxon cut share repurchases for the current quarter in half to $500 million after net income fell to $4.19 billion, or $1 a share, from $8.78 billion, or $2.05, a year earlier, the Irving, Texas-based company said in a statement. The per-share result was 11 cents lower than the average estimate of 20 analysts in a Bloomberg survey.

Spending Cuts

Refinery profits fattened by lower crude costs were more than offset by weaker results in the company’s primary business, oil and natural gas production, Exxon said. The company’s U.S. wells lost $47 million. (  (

Exxon reduced spending on major projects like floating crude platforms and gas-export terminals by 20 percent to $6.746 billion during the quarter, according to the statement. International crude prices fell 42 percent from the previous year to average $63.50 a barrel.

Chevron’s profit dropped to $571 million, or 30 cents a share, from $5.67 billion, or $2.98, a year earlier, the San Ramon, California-based company said in a statement. The per-share result was well below the $1.16 average estimate.

Chevron’s biggest business unit -- oil and gas production - - posted a loss as the second-largest U.S. energy company recorded a $1.96 billion writedown on assets and another $670 million charge for taxes and projects suspended because they no longer make economic sense.

Pessimistic Outlook  (

“The writedowns will get worse into the end of the year as companies complete their end-of-the-year SEC filings,” Sankey said. “The market still looks very oversupplied with oil and we’re in peak demand season.”

Exxon Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson was among the first to shrink spending as the crude rout began more than a year ago. After cutting the budget by 9.3 percent in 2014, this year’s reduction may exceed the original 12 percent target, Jeff Woodbury, vice president of investor relations, said during a conference call with analysts.

Tillerson, an Exxon lifer whose 10th year as CEO began in January, has been pessimistic about the prospects for an imminent oil-market rebound. On April 21, he told a Houston energy conference that the supply glut and low prices will persist “for the next couple of years” at least.

Those remarks proved prophetic: international crude prices that rose 45 percent between Jan. 13 and May 6 have since tumbled 22 percent, inaugurating the second oil bear market in 14 months.
“Chevron was a disaster; Exxon was a disappointment,” Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. In New York who rates the shares of both the equivalent of a hold and owns each. “A rising tide lifts all ships, but when the tide goes down, all ships go down.”
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 06, 2015, 07:36:24 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This is available now. I post it because I anticipate many humans will soon be forced to use this sort of attire to deal with global warming.   (

DIY Refrigerator Shirt         ;D
by BillW1


I like to race Radio Control cars here in California in the Central Valley but I get heatstroke symptoms (headache, dizzy, nausea) on 100 degree plus days. (Heatstroke is risky). I was bummed I couldn't race all summer. I then sought a solution and came up with this. It is not a cheap as anyone would like ($410), but it is better than trying to save money by buying cheap, then the merry-go-round of stuff that doesn't work, and then buying the expensive stuff in the end anyway.

The shirt can be assembled in any order, so it isn't really step-by-step. Also, my eBay links can go stale, so I will tell you what to google.

The vest has tubing that you circulate ice water through with a pump. The hydration pack has a reservoir that you half fill with water then add ice. As the ice melts you pour out the excess water and add more ice. A 5lb bag of ice from a convenience store lasts all day.

The shirt works. I can spend all day in 100 degree plus weather and be comfortable.   (
When you first switch the pump on, it fells like jumping into an freezing pool  ;D, but then your body acclimates and you don't even know it's working. Then you take it off, and holy crap, you see how hot it is outside. (

The design is a coolshirt vest (vest with hose sewed in), a pump, a battery, a switch and a hydration pack.  (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2015, 07:38:49 pm
Sanders Schedules September Sojourn to Falwell’s Liberty University (

I hope he has a food taster to protect him from being poisoned.

TPTB will not kill Senator Sanders.  The last thing they want is a martyr. They have other plans for him. I suspect they will try to besmirch his rep with some half truths about his amorous adventures.

But for the moment, the media will continue to talk as little as possible about him. When that is no longer possible because of his MASSIVE support, they will then keep watering down his campaign by talking up liars that promise the moon in order to confuse people.

Subsequently they will produce polls (near the elections) that are of the three dollar bill value to claim Sanders is neck and neck with Hillary in order to bullshit the American public info thinking the gamed voting machine results are real voting results (when Hillary "wins" by a small margin.    (

The problem for all these bastards running our country is that it is not going to work. There is no way in hell that people are going to swallow the bullshit this time around.

WHY? Because of Sanders' legislative track record. NOBODY out there has one like he does. He WALKS the TALK! Therefore NOBODY in the public is going to believe somebody promising the moon has the same cred. Therefore NOBODY is going to believe that so-and-so is just as worthy a candidate. Therefore EVERYBODY (who has a brain) will know TPTB are trying to game the election with fake polls followed by "horse race" election results.

Will there be goon violence? YES.
Will there be intimidation by the goons? YES.
Will the country stand for it like they have always done? Maybe.

But I don't think so.   (

( (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 16, 2015, 09:47:26 pm
"The real winners in sea level rise are the Lawyers."   :P
"All wells within six miles of the coast in Fort Lauderdale have been lost to salt water intrusion"- Video

The "FUN" is just beginning...

The phenomenon that can not be spoken in Florida continues as salt water intrusion moves inland (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 17, 2015, 01:55:57 pm

What the Wolf Said

Sheryl Lee | August 17, 2015 12:07 pm

palm to palm
 palm to paw
 paw to earth
 earth to root
 root to trunk
 trunk to branch
 branch to wing
 wing to petal
 petal to wind
 wind to breath
 breath to life
 life to body
 body to earth
 earth into body
 body receives life
 life as breath
 breath exhales wind
 wind touches petal
 petal offers wing
 wing embraces branch
 branch reaches trunk
 trunk connects root
 root feeds earth
 earth kisses paw
 paw touches palm
 palm holds palm

this is the circle
 no beginning
 no end

And this is the world humanity is destroying by his desire to stop the circle by clinging to an illusion of permanence through toxic technology products.

There is a right way.   (

We are NOT on it. We will take it or we will perish, PERIOD.    (

These results will not be welcome news as there are many with short-term vested interests that will want to ignore them. The Reason Brain Diseases Have Quadrupled in 21 Years.  (

The fossil fuel industry falsely claims the world owes them for "feeding millions" with fossil fuel powered farm machines, fossil fuel based pesticides and fossil fuel based chemical fertilizers that "increased the yield per acre of crops". It's a lie. ('green-revolution'-fossil-duel-based-lie/msg325/#msg325)

"Analysis of historical data shows that over the past seven years eliminating the fossil fuel sector from a global benchmark index would have actually had a small positive return effect. Furthermore, much of the economic effect of excluding fossil fuel stocks could have been replicated with 'fossil free' energy portfolios consisting of energy efficiency and renewable energy stocks, with limited additional tracking error and improved returns."

IMPAX Asset Management Report on the Case for Fossil Fuel divestment. (!/msg3607/#msg3607)
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 02, 2015, 09:01:45 pm
Shilling for Dollars

Front groups with official and impressive name such as Medicine and Public Health at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) tend to lend an air of authoritative credibility to a given issue. It carries the impression of being an expert source.

To increase the “expert credibility” image, add someone with a few letters before and/or after their name to the staff.

But is the front group or its representatives really an expert and credible organization?  (

Full article:

Agelbert NOTE:
The short answer is NO. The ACSH is funded by a rogues gallery of polluters. The scientists they employ are bought and paid for to distort, dissemble and twist the science of applied physics (see "High Energy Density" of fossil fuels happy talk) and climate science along with several other pro-corporate and anti-people propaganda). The ACSH exists to perpetuate the profit over planet polluting status quo, PERIOD.

Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and Health

Posted on April 17, 2015 by Gary Ruskin

The American Council on Science and Health is a front group for the tobacco, agrichemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other industries.


ACSH’s “Medical/Executive Director” is Dr. Gilbert Ross.[2] In 1993, according to United Press International, Dr. Ross was “convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy,” and was “sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture and restitution of $612,855” in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system.[3]
ACSH’s Dr. Ross was found to be a “highly untrustworthy individual” by a judge who sustained the exclusion of Dr. Ross from Medicaid for ten years.[4]


ACSH has often billed itself as an “independent” group, and has been referred to as “independent” in the press. However, according to internal ACSH financial documents obtained by Mother Jones:

“ACSH planned to receive a total of $338,200 from tobacco companies between July 2012 and June 2013. Reynolds American and Phillip Morris International were each listed as expected to give $100,000 in 2013, which would make them the two largest individual donations listed in the ACSH documents.”[5]

“ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000).

Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Philip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.”[6]

ACSH has received $155,000 in contributions from Koch foundations from 2005-2011, according to Greenpeace.[7]

Indefensible and incorrect statements on science
ACSH has:

Claimed that “There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke involves heart attacks or cardiac arrest.”[8]

Argued that “there is no scientific consensus concerning global warming. The climate change predictions are based on computer models that have not been validated and are far from perfect.”[9]

Argued that fracking “doesn’t pollute water or air.”[10]

Claimed that “The scientific evidence is clear. There has never been a case of ill health linked to the regulated, approved use of pesticides in this country.”[11]

Declared that “There is no evidence that BPA [bisphenol A] in consumer products of any type, including cash register receipts, are harmful to health.”[12]

Argued that the exposure to mercury, a potent neurotoxin, “in conventional seafood causes no harm in humans.”[13]


[2] “Meet the ACSH Team,” American Council on Science and Health website.

[3] “Seven Sentenced for Medicaid Fraud.” United Press International, December 6, 1993. See also correspondence from Tyrone T. Butler, Director, Bureau of Adjudication, State of New York Department of Health to Claudia Morales Bloch, Gilbert Ross and Vivian Shevitz, “RE: In the Matter of Gilbert Ross, M.D.” March 1, 1995. Bill Hogan, “Paging Dr. Ross.” Mother Jones, November 2005. Martin Donohoe MD FACP, “Corporate Front Groups and the Abuse of Science: The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Spinwatch, June 25, 2010.

[4] Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, In the Cases of Gilbert Ross, M.D. and Deborah Williams M.D., Petitioners, v. The Inspector General. June 16, 1997. Docket Nos. C-94-368 and C-94-369. Decision No. CR478.

[5] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013.

[6] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013.

[7] “Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Greenpeace. See also Rebekah Wilce, “Kochs and Corps Have Bankrolled American Council on Science and Health.” PR Watch, July 23, 2014.

[8] Richard Craver, “The Effects of the Smoking Ban.” Winston-Salem Journal, December 12, 2012.

[9] Elizabeth Whelan, “’Global Warming’ Not Health Threat.” PRI (Population Research Institute) Review, January 1, 1998.

[10] Elizabeth Whelan, “Fracking Doesn’t Pose Health Risks.” The Daily Caller, April 29, 2013.

[11] “TASSC: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition,” p. 9. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco. November 21, 2001. Bates No. 2048294227-2048294237.

[12] “The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2012.” American Council on Science and Health, February 22, 2013.

[13] “The Biggest Unfounded Health Scares of 2010.” American Council on Science and Health, December 30, 2010.

Food For Thought, Hall of Shame

Agelbert NOTE:
Here is an excellent example of pseudo scientific baloney published by the ACSH (it's three years old but the same baloney continues to be peddled by fossil fuelers and those that swallowed their mendacious propaganda):

Energy Density: Why Gasoline Is Here To Stay  (

By Hank Campbell   ( | August 2nd 2012 11:00 PM

SNIPPET 1 - The Pretense of Objectivity Wind Up (i.e. tough love "real world" baloney mixed with sympathy laced rhetoric):

Like people who approach geopolitics with the attitude of "If people would just talk to each other, we would all along", there are a lot of naïve assumptions about just dumping gasoline.

We know it causes emissions, and emissions are bad, we know a lot of the money paid for oil goes to fund Middle Eastern terrorism, and that is bad - those things should cause both the left and the right in America to want gasoline gone. And yet it is not gone. The reason is simple: gasoline is a lot more efficient than alternative energy proponents want to believe.

SNIPPET 2 - The pitch:

Energy density is the amount of stored energy in something; in the case of gasoline we talk in America about a 1 gallon volume but I will use both metric and standard for the values. Gasoline has an energy density of about 44 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), converted to American values that is 1.3 × 108 J/gallon.

SNIPPET 3 (Just ONE of SEVERAL real world AND applied physics LIES):

Ethanol was the last craze of the Anything-But-Oil contingent yet even they had to succumb to reality and recognize that the lower energy density meant 25% worse gas mileage - worse for people, worse for food prices and worse for the environment.

Agelbert NOTE: To begin with, ethanol is not a "craze". It was not a craze in 2012 and, because presently 15 billion gallons of it are made a year (, it certainly isn't one now.

But the fact that the author is so ignorant of history (Edison labs in partnership with the U.S. Navy, in the first decade of the 20th century, PROVED that ethanol was a superior fuel to gasoline - It was rather convenient for Standard Oil that Prohibition just happened to come along after Rockefeller funded the temperance movement to the tune of several million dollars...) is informative about the questionable scientific objectivity of the author.  ;)

The author puts up a happy talk graph showing gasoline as the high energy density champion over E85. He leaves out E100 (an informative omission that points squarely at a fossil fuel bias).

The chart is accurate. So what's the problem? The problem is that energy density of gasoline and ethanol is a process determined in the lab, by scientists, in certain standardized conditions. I'm CERTAIN fossil fuelers know this. The energy density of about 44 MJ/kg) for gasoline is determined by heating water, in an open flame in standard atmospheric conditions (a fixed temperature and pressure - sea level at 59 degrees F). 

If the above appears irrelevant to you, let me remind you that heating water in an open flame is an EXTERNAL combustion process. It is true that gasoline will heat that water quicker than ethanol.  ;D

But, unless you have a steam engine running your car, you need to consider how much WORK you can get from gasoline versus ethanol in an INTERNAL combustion engine. (

The author neglected to mention that ethanol (E100) has a higher octane rating than non-leaded gasoline, even though E100 has a lower energy density.  ;D High octane ratings give a fuel better mileage as long as you oxidize them in a high compression internal combustion engines. That is why tetra-ethyl lead was invented to help our children's IQ... You see, ethanol was outlawed for fuel thanks to Prohibition... And, by the way, leaded gasoline is STILL LEGAL for use in aircraft internal combustion engine, all of which are high compression engines. Do you live under the approach to general aviation airport? Then you are getting the "benefit" of still another "externalized" cost thanks to the fossil fuel industry.

When you mix gasoline with ethanol (e.g. E85) you LOWER the octane rating. IOW, you are making it LESS efficient. You are making it LESS competitive with gasoline. You are getting the waste heat disadvantage of gasoline and losing the a part of the high octane rating of ethanol. That is Inefficient. That is unscientific. That is STUPID. But that is convenient and profitable for the fossil fuel industry. You might ask yourself why E100 is in common use in Brazil, but not in the USA. I'll give you three guesses - the first two don't count.  ;)

Why ethanol's octane rating is higher than that of non-leaded gasoline if ethanol has a lower energy density? Because ethanol is of uniform chemical structure. Consequently, it burns evenly and does not suffer from pre-ignition (like low octane gasoline DOES) which can severely damage an engine.

More thermodynamically important, however,  the consistent chemical structure of E100 ensures complete combustion, aided by the fact that it carries it's own oxygen.

In addition, ethanol has extremely low waste heat because, unlike gasoline, it doesn't produce carbon deposits from incomplete combustion on the cylinder walls that increase friction and decrease engine life.

Unlike an engine running on gasoline, you can touch the block, or the manifold, of an engine running on ethanol with your hand AND KEEP IT THERE without getting burned. This has huge savings implications for engine design that the fossil fuel industry has done it's best to keep from internal combustion engine designers and manufacturers (more on that below).

IN SUMMARY, "High energy density" calculations  are based on EXTERNAL thermodynamic combustion processes. It is true that gasoline will boil water in an open flame faster than ethanol will. That doesn't have beans to do with automobiles.

But when INTERNAL combustion is involved, ethanol produces more useful work than gasoline. That has EVERYTHING to do with automobiles.

But there is more the fossil fuel industry does not want most people to know. Due to the fact that ethanol burns so cleanly and has such low waste heat, a high compression internal combustion engine specifically designed for ethanol would be about 30% lighter (i.e. a lot cheaper) because the metal alloys involved would not have to be engineered to withstand the engine stressing waste heat that gasoline generates. Of course, said internal combustion engine (ICE) could not be approved for running gasoline. Gasoline would trash an engine designed specifically to run on ethanol in short order. The fossil fuel industry would not like that at all.

A lighter ICE running ethanol would then get even more mechanical energy (i.e. WORK) out of each gallon because less engine weight would need to be moved along with the car and occupants.

The Fossil Fuel Industry knows all that. That is why they continuously try to demonize and talk down ethanol biofuel with mendacity and dissembling about "low ERoEI", "water in the fuel" and "corrosion".

I, and many others, have exposed all that fossil fuel industry self serving propaganda. But they just keep throwing it out there to try to preserve the TOTALLY unscientific basis for claiming fossil fuels are a "better fuel" than E100 (pure ethanol).

Don't believe them. And check to see who is doing the funding when you read happy talk about fossil fuels.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is not objective, science based or credible. Hank Campbell, like the fossil fueler MKing that haunts the Doomstead Diner, is not interested in scientific objectivity; preserving the fossil fuel profit over planet status quo with mens rea mendacity is behind everything they write. (

Further reading that methodically takes apart some relatively recent pseudo scientific baloney by the "illustrious" Professor Charles Hall, friend of fossil fuelers everywhere.  (

Renewables have higher ERoEI than fossil fuels (


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 09, 2015, 06:37:45 pm
A very interesting comment in a climate science web site (run by climate scientists)  thread where actual climate scientists post.
Chuck Hughes says: 2 Sep 2015 at 1:24 PM Is this anything like, “Nobody saw it [crash] coming,” in which any number of people did? Much like you say “anyone” above when quite a few have seen high SLR this century for a while now. I’m sure you mean hardly anyone; just checking. Comment by Killian — 1 Sep 2015

Killian, I know you’re a bright fellow and I was using “everybody” in the colloquial sense or, the vernacular of the common citizenry, excluding those of us here at RC of course. Having said that I would like your opinion on “abrupt SLR.”

How “abrupt” do you think it might be? IPCC puts it at 1 meter by the end of the century. I personally think that’s a tad bit conservative. What say you?

If salt water is able to penetrate the underbelly of Greenland, say within the next 5 to 10 years I’m thinking all bets are off.   :o

Then there’s the WAIS… along with several amplifying feedbacks that climate models may not have figured in. Am I in the ballpark? - See more at:

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 18, 2015, 09:13:40 pm
Will this be the worst El Nino in 65 years?  ???
Sep. 18, 2015 8:07 am
By Thom Hartmann

Droughts … floods... heatwaves... you don't have to be an expert to see that 2015 is shaping up to be a record-breaking year when it comes to extreme weather. And, according to the experts, it's only going to get worse.

Earlier this week, the National Weather Service issued an El Nino update, and said that this season may be the worst El Nino event in their 65 years of record keeping. And, international climate scientists are saying the same.

The British Meteorological Office recently published a study, called “Big Changes Underway in the Climate System?”, which says that increased carbon pollution is going to exacerbate El Nino and push global temperatures even higher.

In other words, that means temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are expected to hit new record highs in the 2015-2016 summer season, and that could bring about more extreme weather events for the whole planet.

Rowan Sutton, a scientist who works for the National Center for Atmospheric Science, said,
“This is not a fluke. We are seeing the effects of energy steadily accumulating in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere, caused by greenhouse gas emissions.”

Adam Scaife, the study's lead researcher, explained further by saying, “We believe we are at an important point in the time series of the Earth's climate and we'll look back on this period as an important turning point.”
He added,
“That's why we're emphasizing it, because we're seeing so many big changes at once.”
The consensus among these experts is that global warming is no longer a problem for the future that we're trying to prevent, it is a very real dilemma that we're seeing occur right before our eyes.  (

A century of pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is coming back to haunt us, and it's only going to get worse if we don't get serious about fighting climate change right now. (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 19, 2015, 06:04:37 pm

Cry From a Far Planet

A SF morality tale about a feline ET species that learned from environmental catastrophe what we refuse to learn.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 19, 2015, 06:41:12 pm
Excellent comment posted on an article by Thom Hartmann


RFord • 6 hours 33 min ago #6

Seems like every time I turn around there's a new climate change report coming out showing that climate change and global warming is happening faster than had previously been predicted. Many people are not concerned about this happening (global warming) because they believe it's not going to affect them because they will die of old age long before it starts killing all human beings and they are not concerned with what will happen to yet unborn generations.

Some think that global warming is a farce and it's not feasible, or that it's too expensive to move away from carbon energy. These Ideas come from the fossil fuel industry, who pay their bought and paid for congressmen, senators and news outlets to say these things.

The fact is people are already dying from the effects of climate change in Serria (Sierra Leone - and, yes, right here in the USA.

People are dying because of drought caused forest fires either by fighting the fires or by being caught in the fires.

But many don't die, they just lose everything they own including their home. Global warming and climate change are happening now at ever increasing rates. It may not be the future generations of earthlings that go extinct. It may be the present generations that go extinct sooner than anyone has imagined.

If humans are smart, they will do all they can to keep themselves from going extinct. But I'm afraid humans are not as smart and superior as humans think they are.

The time to act against global warming is now because the tipping point is when human produced greenhouse gasses are no longer the main cause of global warming.

The tipping point is when global warming is causing global warming and then there is no stopping it. The air, water, and the surface of the Earth become extremely hot and poisoned with methane and 90 percent of all living things on earth dies.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 22, 2015, 04:18:12 pm
Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.- A. G. Gelbert

The following multi-part article post makes a case for the premise that ignoring, deriding or mocking the high probability of the existential threat we face from anthropogenic climate change is irresponsible. Anyone who is alive after around 2040 will pay for their present irresponsible, egocentric, empathy deficit disordered behavior.

Unfortunately, the innocent will suffer equally along with the criminally negligent reprobates who support incremental measures to deal with this existential threat. Have a nice day.


The essay, "What it Means to be Responsible - Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future" by Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz references the work of Fitzpatrick, Jonas, Aristotle and others. I have summarized the essay to save the readers time.

FitzPatrick, W.J. 2007. Climate Change and the Rights of Future Generations: Social Justice Beyond Mutual Advantage. Environmental Ethics. 29(4): 369-388.

The author discusses the moral responsibilities that current generations have to future generations, and how arguing for protecting the rights of future generations is an effective answer to political arguments against taking mandatory measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions when these are unpopular with a democratic populace.

Climate Change, Engineered Systems, & Society Bibliography (
Theoretical & Applied Ethics Vol. 1, Issue 42 2, Spring 2011

What it Means to be Responsible
Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future
Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz

The concept of responsibility is a central one in ethics but it seems to require rethinking when we consider the fact that oftentimes the consequences of actions in contemporary, technological society extend far into the future. To whom or what are we responsible, and how far into the future do our obligations extend?

In this essay, I consider the question of our possible responsibility for the future, specifically the future state of our planet, and the well-being of future people and other beings. I argue that we do have responsibilities to future people and an obligation to try to preserve and protect the planet and its living beings for the future, and I present a new concept of responsibility, one that provides a way of understanding our actions in light of concern for the future.

The central problem with an argument that considers the effects of present actions on the future world lies in the fact that those acting today will not exist in the world they are affecting with their actions.

Why should people, now living, care about the consequences of their actions on a future world whose inhabitants are currently non-existent? Even if held accountable by those future generations, no price for wrongful actions can be extracted from the dead. We lack the usual motivations for acting ethically in situations that might impact future generations, and though we may imagine angry voices condemning us for our lack of forethought and care some several generations into the future, we will never hear those words of contempt.

Despite this, Attfield (1998) argues that "intergenerational justice remains a serious possibility, as actual future generations which come into being, and find that they have been deprived by earlier generations of opportunities for satisfying some of their most basic needs, could reasonably criticize their ancestors for failing to facilitate the satisfaction of foreseeable vital interests" (p.211).


Ethical arguments struggle, however, when lack of proximity is a factor, for it is difficult to take into consideration the impact of our actions on those spatially distant from us.


This problem arises whenever we are asked to take into consideration or contribute to the welfare of those who live in distant places, those who do not share our community, and those whose suffering we do not directly experience.

Without the presence of the other face-to-face, without a real relation to the other person, it is difficult to remain aware of and concerned about his or her need.

How much more difficult then, to take into consideration those who do not yet exist, those others we will never know and can only imagine.

The difficulty is further complicated by the fact that often the choices we make today, choices that involve use of finite resources, for instance, or the use of technology that may have deleterious aftereffects, may seem at the time to be valuable for the comfort, health or well-being of the contemporaneous human population. Indeed, most of our ethical deliberation is concerned with present actions.

In what way and how can it be argued that sacrifices or restrictions on some very useful and beneficial activities and technologies must be made in order to benefit future peoples who do not yet exist?

Responsibility in Aristotle

For Aristotle, the capacity human beings have to think about what they will do is what lies at the root of our responsibility for our actions. We are free to act, within certain necessary limits, and we have the capacity to think about our choices, therefore responsibility accompanies actions when, as Aristotle says, the "source is in oneself."

Rational beings with the capacity to choose among actions and bring about ends cannot escape from the notion of responsibility. It is a given, provided one is free from coercion in one's actions. Here responsibility is not responsiveness to the Other, not responding to another's need or want, as in Levinas. Rather, it is that since we are free to make choices and commit acts, we must accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

For Aristotle, to act responsibly is to act beautifully, because when a person does so he or she engages the greatest capacity available to human beings; that is "thinking things through," dianoia . What differentiates ethical choice from willing, desiring, and wishing, for Aristotle, is that it involves deliberation (NE 1112a 15).

To think things through is to look ahead and estimate consequences using imagination and forethought and to make judgments about possible actions based on experience and memory; this is the kind of reasoning that responsibility requires.

Aristotle says, "We deliberate about things that are up to us and are matters of action" (NE 1112a32). Choice is not something that is shared by irrational beings, it is the mark of a being with self-control (NE 1111b15).

Thus choice is firmly in the realm of practical, ethical action. With his emphasis on dianoia, Aristotle offers one way to think about responsibility to the future; it is the lack of "thinking things through," in preference for shortsightedness regarding means and ends, that results in acts of harm, both to the environment and to future people.

If we fail to think things through to the consequences of our actions we are not acting responsibly.

And ignorance is no justification for poor choices, for Aristotle points out that we can be ignorant and still responsible. If we deliberately become irrational, as when we become drunk, or when we ought to know something and yet fail to, we are still held responsible, "on the grounds that it is up to people themselves not to be ignorant, since they are in control of how much care they take" (NE 1114a).

Aristotle is rigorous in his insistence that human beings, because they are rational and have the capacity to "think things through," are responsible for their actions.

World Bank Warns of Severe Threat to Food Supplies from Climate Change (

But perhaps, Aristotle says, "one is not the sort of person who takes any care" (NE 1114a5). Perhaps here we have the crux of it; that there are people who don't care, who are careless.

We must act on Global Warming: Climate Change has already made the world three times more dangerous. (

Aristotle says such people, despite their lack of care, are still responsible because it was always in the beginning up to them to use their intelligence to make good choices and the fact that they don't care is the result of a long line of deliberations that denigrated the value of their own beautiful actions, the concerns of others, and the consequences of their actions on themselves and others.


On Aristotle's view, we always become who we are through a series of choices over time, and those choices form our moral character.

The Problem of Responsibility Today

That ignorance is no excuse for Aristotle seems to indicate that those of us who fail to acknowledge scientifically based warnings about climate change, or who acknowledge the warnings and refuse to heed them, are responsible for our failure.

To think things through would be to take into account in deliberating about our choices the realities that face us, the sure consequences of some of our actions, those that we have experience and knowledge enough to foresee.  If the consequences of our actions today extend far into the future, this would require that we take that far future into consideration in our actions.

It is just because of this farther extension of consequences into the future that Jonas argues that human action today differs radically from human action in Aristotle's time. As he says, "modern technology has introduced actions of such novel scale, objects, and consequences that the framework of former ethics can no longer contain them" (Jonas, 1984, p. 6). Powerful technologies in use today have effects that extend far into the future, and this includes harms that arise directly from their manufacture and use, such as resource depletion and pollution from hazardous waste, as well as harms that occur because of the scope their reach, as in climate change. The negative effects are not limited to the earth and its ecosystems but include effects on communities of people whose livelihoods are harmed and whose basic goods, such as water and air, are polluted and rendered unusable.

These consequences affect living beings over their lifetimes, threaten the health of the planet, and are passed down to future generations as the integrity of the global ecosystem is damaged over time.

For Jonas, technology has enabled us to greatly extend the scope of our actions and magnified their repercussions, and yet our concept of responsibility has not grown to encompass the new range of action.

Particularly, Jonas has in mind the repercussions of genetic engineering, nuclear technologies, and other technologies that have the capacity to impact the future in highly significant ways: "more specifically, it will be my contention that with certain developments of our powers the nature of human action has changed, and since ethics is concerned with action, it should follow that the changed nature of human action calls for a change in ethics as well, in the more radical sense that the qualitatively novel nature of certain of our actions has opened up a whole new dimension of ethical relevance for which there is no precedent in the standards and canons of traditional ethics" (1984, p. 1).

For example, the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf had consequences that extend far into the future, affecting marine and coastal ecosystems, the livelihood of human beings dependent on a healthy environment for sustenance, and marine life far from the origin of the spill.

Ecosystems are by nature interconnected and interdependent, and the reach of the spill was extensive. Its impact is not limited in space or time. As well, we might ask who exactly is responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf? Is it the technicians and engineers, the government regulations that allow drilling to be done in extreme conditions, the companies making a profit, or the consumers whose desire for cheap fossil fuel drives the market?

This kind of diffusion of responsibility, a diffuse collective responsibility that Stephen Gardiner refers to as a "fragmentation of agency," means that it is difficult to assign responsibility.

As Gardiner points out, "climate change is caused not by a single agent but by a vast number of individuals and institutions not unified by a comprehensive structure of agency. This is important because it poses a challenge to humanity's ability to respond" (2010, p. 88).

How much is up to us then, to use Aristotle's term, in today's technological, global world? The notion of collective responsibility is pertinent because in a democratic society responsibility for collective actions like oil drilling would seem to rest with all citizens.

How we are to understand democratic responsibility, diffused among many, is a significant problem given the altered nature of human action and the extended reach of the consequences of our actions. And because the consequences will fall primarily on future generations, there is a disincentive to alter our behavior, particularly if that might make current lives more difficult.

While a new ethical understanding that takes into consideration the extended consequences of our actions in a technological society seems necessary, another question arises: where do our obligations end if we begin to think of extending them to future beings and the future existence of a livable planet?

How might such seemingly open-ended obligations be argued for?

And if, to be responsible, as Aristotle claims, is to "think things through," are there limits to our capacity to be responsible?

End of Part 1.

Read Part 2 HERE. (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 23, 2015, 07:01:03 pm

Part 2

What it Means to be Responsible
Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future

Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz

While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist (

Without a Trace ‘The Sixth Extinction,’ by Elizabeth Kolbert

New York Times Sunday Book Review Snippet:

In the same way, and for many of the same reasons, many today find it inconceivable that we could possibly be responsible for destroying the integrity of our planet’s ecology.

There are psychological barriers to even imagining that what we love so much could be lost — could be destroyed forever.

As a result, many of us refuse to contemplate it. Like an audience entertained by a magician, we allow ourselves to be deceived by those with a stake in persuading us to ignore reality. ...

... we continue to use the world’s atmosphere as an open sewer for the daily dumping of more than 90 million tons of gaseous waste. ...

... The resulting rapid warming of both the atmosphere and the ocean, which Kolbert notes has absorbed about one-third of the carbon dioxide we have produced, is wreaking havoc on earth’s delicately balanced ecosystems.

It threatens both the web of living species with which we share the planet  and the future viability of civilization. “By disrupting these systems,” Kolbert writes, "we’re putting our own survival in danger.” (

While a new ethical understanding
that takes into consideration the extended consequences of our actions in a technological society seems necessary, another question arises: where do our obligations end if we begin to think of extending them to future beings and the future existence of a livable planet?

How might such seemingly open-ended obligations be argued for? And if, to be responsible, as Aristotle claims, is to "think things through," are there limits to our capacity to be responsible?

Rethinking Responsibility

Here I think it is a good moment to turn to Jonas, who argues in The Imperative of Responsibility that, difficult as it may seem, we do have a responsibility for the future.

He presents an argument for responsibility based on the presence of an objectively existing good, and he claims that fulfillment of the human good results from taking the effects of our actions on the future into account (Jonas, 1984, pp. 80-82).

When we are not able to predict the long-term consequences of our actions he argues that we should proceed with prudence, even to the extent of being guided by fear, in order to ensure that we do not create extensive future harms.


For Jonas, the human being occupies a special place in the lifeworld. Jonas sees the human being as that being which is uniquely capable of responsibility, and the presence of this capacity entails that it must be acted on if a one is to fully become the being one is capable of becoming.

The capacity for responsibility contributes to the "what it is to be" a human being and as such, informs the telos of human being. Jonas says that
"every living thing has its own end which needs no further justification. In this, man has nothing over other living beings, except that he alone can have responsibility also for them, that is, for guarding their self-purpose" (Jonas, 1984, p. 98).

For Jonas, the fact that each organism desires and pursues the continuance of its own life points to the fact that life is a value for each being. Life is a good and as such it presents the being with the capacity to take responsibility with an imperative to protect and preserve it, to recognize the value it is for all living beings. The particular human good lies in the capacity of the human being to recognize and respond to the imperative of responsibility.

The practice of taking responsibility for our choices, of taking the well-being and future of the planet and its beings into consideration, draws out the higher capabilities of the rational animal.

For Jonas, the imperative of responsibility commands us to respond ethically for the sake of the good that is evidenced in Being, a good that reveals itself in each living beings' pursuit of its own continuance, its desire for life.

As well, responsibility includes protecting the possibility for the continued existence of human freedom and ethical responsiveness.

As Jonas says, "the secret or paradox of morality is that the self forgets itself over the pursuit of the object, so that a higher self (which indeed is also a good in itself) might come into being.

The good man is not he who made himself good but rather he who did the good for its own sake.

As Jonas tries to show, the good of the human and the good in the world are not separate but the same.


Taking responsibility for the future becomes necessary as soon as we recognize our potential to harmfully impact the future and, as Aristotle argues, once this recognition registers, ignorance is no longer an acceptable plea.

Rights and Responsibility

Another means of arguing for responsibilities to future generations, one that is less metaphysical and more supportive of political action, is to consider the question of the rights of future people. A proponent of this view is Hiskes (2009), who argues that "global warming and climate change have made it abundantly clear that the human impact on the environment is an emergent one, the product of uncounted individual decisions and choices on one hand, and public policies and political omissions on the other, which make every one of us responsible for putting all the rest of us in a new situation of risk, and not only "all of us" but those who come after us as well" (p.146).

( (

Hiskes goes on to explain that "rights are necessarily the legal response to harms, real or potential. The fact that they are new and collective harms that do not fit within the traditional individualist language of either rights or responsibility do not alter the equation of rights as a response to harm.

New harms demand new rights. Because they are emergent harms, the rights that they begat will share their emergent ontological nature" (p. 146).

This argument supports the contention that we cannot disregard responsibilities to the future simply because future people do not now exist.

Future people are continually coming into existence, even as the effects of our actions emerge over long periods of time. There is a synchrony in terms of the emergence of future beings and the emergence of harms.

Both are initiated in the present, in the actions of present day beings, and both concern a time after present day actors are gone.

Future needs are predictable and future beings are coming into being all the time. It is not as if the future exists at some point far into the distance, with no connection to the present. The future is always coming into being, it follows closely on the heels of the present, and while we see changes in each generation, physical human beings will always need clean air to breathe and water to drink, as well as fire to stay warm.

The realities of life for future beings are being established now through our contemporary actions and this is a fact we cannot deny. If we refuse to take responsibility for the impact of our actions on future generations, we must admit that we are willfully disregarding this fundamental reality and its ethical implications.

In a similar vein, Fitzpatrick (2007) argues that a conception of justice based upon a notion of "mutual advantage among cooperating parties of roughly equal power and vulnerability" is too restrictive (p. 377).

Justice, insofar as it relates to rights and obligations, is a concept not limited to those sharing space and time. He says that, "attribution of rights to future generations will therefore be legitimate if we can speak of an earlier generation's wronging future generations by spoiling the environment the former was given and has relied upon for its flourishing in the same way that future generations depend upon it for theirs" (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p. 377).

Fitzpatrick turns to a notion of stewardship to frame the question of responsibilities to future generations; contemporary inhabitants of the Earth do not own it, they have merely inherited it and should care for it sustainably in order to pass a flourishing environment down to future generations.

Future generations have a right to inherit a healthy ecosystem, just as we did, and this right entails an obligation on the part of the living to pass down a viable planet. The responsibility to do so is centered in the right future generations have to be protected from harms caused by others, as well as the right to inherit and enjoy what previous generations have inherited and enjoyed.

That people depend upon a healthy environment to flourish, and that a diminished environment is harmful to people is at the basis of Fitzpatrick's argument.

"The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under equitable rules of access to all common property resources.

It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective protection of essential common property resources of all to feed the financial interests of a few.

These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment, denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political behavior. It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but scorned for what it is – simple thievery." —George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center founder

He considers future people to be the moral equals of presently living people, and therefore claims we cannot disregard their rights or turn aside from our responsibility not to cause them harm.

He argues that "if we fail to conserve limited natural resources, or to control dangerous waste, or to curb greenhouse gas emissions, then we will be causing people harm, not merely failing to benefit them" (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p. 377).

The currently prevailing “law of the jungle”, causing the atmosphere to be overused in terms of the deposition of carbon ad infinitum, is thus de-legitimized by the Pope.

The fact that these people do not exist simultaneously with us is not a reason to fail to take them into ethical consideration. Fitzpatrick concludes by arguing that we need to reconsider the meaning of justice rights in order to include responsibilities to future generations in our consideration because there is simply no justification possible for disregarding the effects of our actions on the future.



There is no doubt that accepting responsibility for the future will require a great deal of effort and even sacrifice on the part of those of us living today.

In the next and final section, I take a brief look at the way in which an ethic of care might provide the needed motivation for the difficult changes that taking future generations into ethical consideration might require.

End of Part 2.

Continued in Part 3 ( final part).

Read Part 1 HERE. (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 24, 2015, 01:02:56 am
Late Permian CO2 levels were broadly similar to today.

Mid Permian levels were higher at around 1000 to 2000 ppm, but early Permian CO2 levels were at today's levels or below (there was a significant ice age then).

We report that greenhouse [CO2]atm have been significantly overestimated because previously assumed soil CO2 concentrations during carbonate formation are too high.

More accurate [CO2]atm, resulting from better constraints on soil CO2, indicate that large (1,000s of ppmV) fluctuations in [CO2]atm did not characterize ancient climates and that past greenhouse climates were accompanied by concentrations similar to those projected for A.D. 2100.

CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100 (

The biggest individual flow and pipe degassing events are considered by workers in the field to have taken place over a 1-100 year timeframe.

By showing that the Permian emissions occurred faster than the slow compensation mechanisms (weathering etc.) and at rates in the ballpark of modern emissions, from CO2 levels not far off modern values (geologically speaking), Burgess et al have shown that we can't rule out a Permian-like (or Triassic-like, etc) event at the extreme end, with business-as-usual emissions continuing. (

Mass Extinction: Life at the Brink Smithsonian
CO2 projected 2100 rise
( (

If the above is not as near as our science can get to the certainty that there is a high probability of N.T.H.E., I don't know what is.

Incremental measures = BUSINESS AS USUAL = N.T.H.E. This is not hard to understand.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 24, 2015, 01:07:01 am

The only way to approach this situation is to demand all fossil fuels stop being burned. I will never agree with you that we need them.

I have never argued that we need Fossil Fuels.  In fact I argue precisely the opposite, that Homo Sap did fine without them for millenia.  I argue that we can return to Stone Age technology (with some improvements) and live a rich, intellectually and culturally diverse life without all the Bling we seem to think is necessary now.

The Polynesians did it.


They built those boats with all stone age technology.  No metal hardware whatsoever.



I won't argue the point.  Sails are cool!    (

But there is an issue with the collapse scenario you may not have taken into consideration.

As you know, the ocean served as a CO2 sink for the greater part of the industrial revolution, thereby masking the seriousness of the CO2 pollution existential threat to humanity. Now, as the scientist in the Arctic lecture I posted today said, the ocean is undergoing what they call "sink degradation". That's another way of saying that it CANNOT keep sucking in CO2 at the rate it has been doing for over a century until about 2010.

Each year it's rate of CO2 absorption is slowing.

Since the rate we are emitting CO2 is NOT slowing, the atmosphere has another positive feedback goosing warming.

And, of course, the 40 years of baked in CO2 is still being emitted at increased rates as well because 40 years ago our CO2 emissions were accelerating like crazy.

The ocean CO2 emissions CLOCK is at around 1975. If we had STOPPED burning fossil fuels in 1975, NOW the oceans would begin to heal and the parts per million in the atmosphere would have reached their zenith of a  little less than 400PPM or so. Yep, CO2 is VERY persistent, once it gets in the atmosphere. And through the hypothetical 40 year period without fossil fuel burning, the oceans would be emitting right up to the present.

A cursory glance at the industrial activity of the human civilization since 1975 only leaves the brain damaged wishful thinkers with any hope that we can put a lid on atmospheric CO2 before they reach Permian extinction levels.

We have plus 4 degrees C above baseline (pre-industrial civilization) ensured if we stop burning fossil fuels TODAY. Man has never walked the earth in a climate over plus 3.3C from baseline.

But it gets worse.

There is another mechanism threatening the chances of those rooting for collapse to save the hide of a small percentage of humans.
That is particulate matter emitted by industrial civilization that, like the ocean CO2 sink I mention, masks global warming by providing some aerosol caused dimming.

We have a hell of high temperature baked in with the 4C mark.

But guess what happens when civilization collapses? The temperature JUMPS about ONE degree!

So all that "happy talk" about a collapse saving the good guys because 90% of humanity buys the farm is wishful thinking.

WHY? Because when all that particulate matter isn't there because all the factories and other machines that emit STOP emitting, the air clears within days to a few weeks and the sun becomes ANOTHER positive feedback mechanism jacking up the temperature.  (  (

Sorry, I couldn't resist bringing in the doom smileys ;D. And no more Alaskan mountain pictures, please. I know you'll be holed up in the mountains. It's still gonna be a major challenge to survive. What do you do for water in the mountains if it DOES NOT RAIN?

The lack of clouds (see my post on "the other CO2 problem" of ocean acidification killing the critters than produce a cloud making chemical) is still another positive feedback mechanism.

And trees ALSO make that chemical. If you got a giant tree die off, your cloud cover is further reduced. That ANOTHER positive feedback mechanism to heat the cr ap out the vegetation left and kill more trees.

The dying plankton that no longer turn white (for up to a thousand square miles or so) when they are blooming is still another positive feedback mechanism enabling the oceans to absorb MORE heat.

The noble savages surviving the human cull will have to deal with a world that CONTINUES to warm rapidly for AT LEAST a century. And the staying power of that CO2 causing that heat is estimated by credentialed atmospheric scientists (this is WITHOUT any emissions whatsoever!) to be not less than a 1,000 years.

These screen shots below are from a Guy McPherson lecture but the data has NOTHING to do with his opinions. As you can see (the  literature references), it is hard science, not hyperbole or scaremongering.


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: guest32 on September 24, 2015, 01:30:43 am
Yes I remember this in his lecture.  We need a reference on this.

"A reduction of 35% in particulate matter from a collapse of industry will raise the global average temperature by 1.0 C within about 1 year."

I looked hard and the only place I have any luck at all is at 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics' which I listed above the 35% claim I quoted.  here is a related article there.

I have put 'Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics' on my page of links.  It lives there under ACP with the other environmental links.

The 35% claim seems initially outrageous but particulate matter is linked to cloud life cycles and counter-intuitive results are possible.  This is an area of study with great uncertainty.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 24, 2015, 03:19:30 pm
Thank you, K-Dog.    (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 24, 2015, 04:16:00 pm
The topic introduced by Ashvin is a valuable addition to the problems we face. However, it is a minor factor, not the major factor to the environmental degradation we are experiencing.

I have proven that before, with data, and will so again, if requested.

That said, I agree that we DO have to stop consuming meat at the rate we do. We CAN replace animal meat with insect protein.

But the underlying FALSE premise that wishful thinkers will embrace, if they can be convinced that our main problem is eating meat, not the burning of fossil fuels  ;), is that a collapse of industrial civilization will solve that big meat farming polluting problem and everything will be just fine. (

Yes, a collapse WILL solve that problem. But it will not ameliorate the existential threat that the burning of fossil fuels presents to mankind. And it will not do BEANS to reduce the excessively high extinction rate we are experiencing.

 Professor Bron Taylor Warns about extinctions

We are looking at the first human-made extinction – environmental scientist
Published on Mar 19, 2015

A new study published in the magazine 'Science' claims that humans are pushing the last boundaries the planet has in making life habitable, already speeding past limits for climate change and excessive species extinction, deforestation and ocean acidification.

RT’s Ben Swann sits down with religion and nature professor Bron Taylor at the University of Florida to discuss the current impact we are making on the planet and the possible outcomes if we do not change our course.

Agelbert NOTE:
Regardless of the massive evidence piling up about the scientifically based certainty that we face an existential threat, there are those that simply cannot handle that. So, they will search day and night to find excuses for not demanding drastic measures be taken to ameliorate or prevent N.T.H.E.

Bertrand Russell described the MO of too many humans that are pre-disposed to fixing the facts around their comfort zones:


"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. 

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way".-- Bertrand Russell

( (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 24, 2015, 10:59:32 pm
Part 3 of 3 Parts


What it Means to be Responsible
Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future

Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz


There is no doubt that accepting responsibility for the future will require a great deal of effort and even sacrifice on the part of those of us living today. In the next and final section, I take a brief look at the way in which an ethic of care might provide the needed motivation for the difficult changes that taking future generations into ethical consideration might require.

Motivation and Care

To accept the burden of responsibility for what is up to us, difficult as it is where our technological reach is so extended and agency is so fragmented, is to strive to fulfill the capacity we have to respond to the good and protect and preserve it.

This task, however, is difficult, not only because of the extent of effects in time and space, fragmentation of agency, and the difficulty of predicting harms, but also because in many cases we may benefit now from actions that result in harms to future generations.


What could motivate us to make the necessary sacrifices required by responsibility of this scope and nature?

Jonas turns to the human capacity for care for an answer to this question. He uses the analogy of the parent and child to demonstrate that we are attuned to caring in a fundamental way (Jonas, 1984, pp. 98-108).

 Jonas sees that caring is a mode of being for the human being, one that is demonstrated naturally in the attention and love parents give to their children as they nourish these beings who will exist in the future.

It can be argued that the care of children is ultimately selfish, a way to project particular and individual genetic material forward. Yet, at the same time, most stable societies demonstrate their concern and care about the future through the fostering of all children in the society and through their concern with passing down cultural and physical artifacts to posterity.

If selfish instincts were at issue here, individuals would not bequeath to unknown future others the endowments and monuments and institutions they have.

Jonas’ example of the statesman as a paradigm of responsibility toward the future reflects the important role of democratic social institutions and governments in responsibility. Established to foster and preserve culture and enable the orderly transfer of power from generation to generation, governments, at their best, are concerned with bettering the conditions of the people and ensuring that opportunities, values, artifacts, inventions, techniques, and other "objects" cultivated and produced by society are preserved and passed down.

This example illustrates the presence, in social institutions, of a fundamental care and concern with the future and future peoples that can serve as an example and guide for a practical ethic of responsibility for the future.

It is only through care of the future that we can extend the reach of our grasp on life through bequeathing a planet that is livable and viable, one that preserves and protects the cycle of life for the beings who will inhabit it.

The natural drive toward transcendence of finitude through leaving behind works, objects or beings of lasting value can be engaged as a motivating force in an ethics that is concerned with extending its reach to future generations.


There is, finally, another way to think of the role of care as a motivating force for assuming responsibility; not necessarily care or love for future persons unknown to us, but love for the Earth and for life itself.

Perhaps we should reframe the question of an ethics of responsibility for the future, because it can be argued that we are motivated to moderate and measure our actions toward nature and to care about the health and continued viability of the Earth because of our love for it, and for the life it offers.

We are capable of caring not only about those potential beings of the future who will inherit this planet but also about the planet itself as a living being we will pass down.[1] Inspired by the beauty of existence, fleeting though it is, we desire its continuance even though we will not be here to enjoy its pleasures forever, and this too is reflective of our ethical capacity.


In the preceding I've shown what I see is a need for a reconsidered understanding of the meaning and extent of responsibility today, and I've talked about some of the difficulties facing us in attempting to accept responsibility for the future, as well as some of the motivational forces that might help us overcome those difficulties.

To begin to take responsibility for the Earth and future generations we can consider ourselves as caretakers, trustees or stewards. We can pursue sustainable practices that conserve resources and other basic goods for future generations to benefit from and enjoy.

Recognizing the presence of the good in existence, we can protect it by considering the long-term effects of our choices and actions on the future. The damage we've done has been done collectively, as Fitzpatrick points out, and the only way to prevent further damage and protect the future is through collective action.


Taking responsibility will require thinking about ourselves differently, as well. We must develop a new self understanding, one that reflects our increasing knowledge concerning the extent of the effects of our actions on the Earth and the future. The human capacity for responsibility is a reflection of what Jonas calls "the higher self," a good-in-itself that comes into being when we recognize the value of life, reflect on the consequences of our choices, and take responsibility for the harms we cause.

Thus, a significant aspect of the good of the human being is the human capacity to bear responsibility.

The continued existence of the good for all beings rests on humans assuming that responsibility, and the time for us to recognize that is now.

If we fail to take responsibility it will be a failure of justice and of love, towards both future beings and the planet.



1. "When men act for the sake of a future they will not live to see, it is for the most part out of love for persons, places and forms of activity, a cherishing of them, nothing more grandiose. It is indeed self-contradictory to say: 'I love him or her or that place or that institution or that activity, but I don't care what happens to it after my death.' To love is, amongst other things, to care about the future of what we love" (Passmore, 1980, p. 53)


Adam, G. (2011). Futures Tended: Care and Future-Oriented Responsibility. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society,
31, 1, 17-27.

Aristotle. (2002). Nicomachean Ethics, J. Sachs (trans). Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing.

Attfield, R. (1998). Environmental Ethics and Intergenerational Equity. Inquiry, 41, 2, 207-222.

Fitzpatrick, W. J. (2007). Climate Change and the Rights of Future Generations: Social Justice Beyond Mutual Advantage.

Environmental Ethics, 29, 4, 369-388.

Gardiner, S. M. (2010). A Perfect Moral Storm. In Climate Ethics. NY: Oxford University Press.

Hiskes, R. P. (2009). The Human Right to a Green Future. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Passmore, J. (1980). Conservation. In Responsibilities to Future Generations. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books..

Agelbert NOTE: The mens rea ( of the fossil fuel industry and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, including Procter & Gam ble and Duke Energy, has been recently exposed. They all funded lobbyists and propagandists in order to obstruct climate change legislation.

I use the Latin legal expression, "mens rea", because the above obstructionists of climate change legislation were knowledgeable over 40 years ago of the damage that burning fossil fuels causes to the biosphere in general and humans in particular.

As Theresa  Morris made quite clear in her essay, these corporations made the wrong choice. And they made that choice because they refused to think things through.

Theresa  Morris said,
This task, however, is difficult, not only because of the extent of effects in time and space, fragmentation of agency, and the difficulty of predicting harms, but also because in many cases we may benefit now from actions that result in harms to future generations.

Ethical considerations aside for a moment, the people in these powerful corporations are not stupid. They love their own children.
So, if they knew, because over 40 years ago ExxonMobil scientists laid out the facts to oil executives (, who then secretly joined with several other corporations to fund denial of climate change and obstruct climate change legislation, why did they, with malice and aforethought, engage in disguising the fact that they were, and are, getting an F in viable biosphere math?

Some will say that it's a no brainer that they did it for profit. While that is partially true, it ignores the fact that big oil corporations DO believe their own scientists. It also ignores the fact that fossil fuel corporations DO NOT believe the happy talk propaganda that they fund.

They plan ahead. They plan to take advantage of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' mentioned by  Stephen Gardiner. The corporations did not get limited liability laws passed because they wanted to be socially responsible. I believe they will use the 'Fragmentation of Agency', in regard to biosphere damage claims, to unjustly limit their liability in a typically unethical "damage control" exercise.

One of the themes about human history that I have tried to communicate to readers over and over is that predatory capitalist corporations, while deliberately profiting from knowingly doing something that causes pollution damage to the populace, always plan AHEAD to socialize the costs of that damage when they can no longer deny SOME liability for it. Their conscience free lackey lawyers will always work the system ( to limit even PROVEN 100% liability.

When 100% liability is blatantly obvious, as in the Exxon Valdes oil spill, they will shamelessly use legalese to limit the liability. ExxonMobil pulled a fast one on the plaintiffs by getting "punitive", rather than "compensatory" damages. See what the learned counselor said, "The purpose of punitive awards is to punish, not to destroy, according to the law". Ethics free Exxon and its ethics free lawyers KNOW how the Court System "works". JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 18:151] The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation. (

While the profits are rolling in, they will claim they are "just loyal public servants, selflessly providing a service that the public is demanding", while they laugh all the way to the bank. When the damage is exposed, they will claim we are "all equally to blame" (i.e. DISTORTED Fragmentation of Agency).

This is clearly false because polluting corporations, in virtually all cases, AREN'T non-profit organizations. If they were NOT PROFITING, THEN, and only then, could they make the claim that "we all benefited equally so we all are equally responsible to pay equally for the cost."

Those who presently benefit economically from the burning of fossil fuels, despite the scientific certainty that this is ushering in a Permian level mass extinction, will probably be quick to grab on to a severely distorted and duplicitous version of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' meme, in regard to assigning the proportionate blame for the existential threat our species is visiting on future generations.

Privatizing the profits and socializing the costs is what they have done for over a century in the USA. They have always gotten away with it. That is why, despite having prior knowledge that their children would be negatively impacted by their decisions, they decided to dispense with ethical considerations.

They assumed that, with all the profits they would accumulate over the last 40 years (or as long as the populace can be blinded to the truth of the existential threat), they could protect their offspring when things got "difficult".

They know that millions to billions of people, in all probability, will die. But they think their wealth can enable them to survive and thrive.   

As for the rest of us, who obtained a pittance in benefits in comparison to the giant profits the polluters raked (and still continue to rake) in, we can expect an army of corporate lawyers descending on our government(s) demanding that all humans, in equal portions, foot the bill for ameliorating climate change.

The lawyer speak will probably take the form of crocodile tears about the "injustice of punitive measures" or, some double talk legalese limiting "punitive damage claims" based on Environmental LAW fun and games (see: "punitive" versus "compensatory" damage claims).

This grossly unjust application of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' is happening as we speak. The poorest humans are paying the most with their health for the damage done by the richest. The richest have avoided most, or all, of the deleterious effects of climate change.

When the governments of the world finally get serious about the funding needed to try to clean this mess up (present incremental measures ARE NOT sufficient), the rich plan to continue literally getting away with ecocide, and making sure they don't pay their share of the damages for it. 

As Kevin Anderson (after showing the alarming rate of increase in CO2 emissions) put it in the graphic below, the 1% bear about 50% of the blame.


Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should look like this:

The way the fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, will want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart to look like is as follows:


The world of business has made many Empathy Deficit Disordered, unethical choices. We are all paying for their rejection of  their responsibility to use dianoia in their decision making process.

But they are relatively few in number. Their chicanery would cease from a huge public outcry if they did not have so many people aiding and abetting their unethical destructive exploitation of the biosphere for short term gain, 'greed is good',  modus operandi.

Those are the comfortable millions who have swallowed the corporate happy talk propaganda.

Those are the people that continue to delay progress on the implementation of the drastic government action we must demand, which is desperately needed to stem, or eliminate, the length and breadth of the  existential threat we face from climate change damage.

The people who think that this climate change horror can be addressed by incremental measures are, as Aristotle said, deliberately becoming irrational.

Thus choice is firmly in the realm of practical, ethical action. With his emphasis on dianoia , Aristotle offers one way to think about responsibility to the future;

it is the lack of "thinking things through," in preference for shortsightedness regarding means and ends, that results in acts of harm, both to the environment and to future people.

If we fail to think things through to the consequences of our actions we are not acting responsibly.

And ignorance is no justification for poor choices, for Aristotle points out that we can be ignorant and still responsible.

If we deliberately become irrational, as when we become drunk, or when we ought to know something and yet fail to, we are still held responsible, "on the grounds that it is up to people themselves not to be ignorant, since they are in control of how much care they take" (NE 1114a).

Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.

Please pass this on with attribution to Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz. I just summarized her essay and added images to enhance the gravity and importance of her message. We are in a world of trouble. 

A. G. Gelbert
Colchester, Vermont

If you missed the previous two parts of this article, you may go to this link to read them:

Why Dianoia is sine qua non to a Viable Biosphere. (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 27, 2015, 07:29:05 pm

gc2smOff the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on September 27, 2015


Discuss this article at the Environment Table inside the Diner

Besides the ongoing collapse of the monetary system which fill the Newz headlines every day with a plethora of stories of bankrupt countries and mass layoffs, ever more people on Food Stamps and living out of their cars even if they have a full time job, probably the hottest topic in the collapse blogosphere is the question of Near Term Human Extinction. I've covered it in rants and I've done surveys to see what the readers think on this topic also, but it's the collapse gift that keeps on giving.

The most well known person throuh the collapse blogosphere hawking this concept is Guy McPherson who runs the blog Nature Bats Last, but by no means is he the only one these days. In his Encyclical, even the POPE insinuated this as a possibility in his Encyclical on Climate.

Before beginning here on debunking this idea, let me state for the record that NTHE is possible, and the longer you go out on the timeline the more possible it becomes. Go out far enough on the timeline, it's inevitable and always has been. As the tagline goes on Zero Hedge, "On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to Zero". The issue is about the likelihood this can occur on short timelines. In Guy's case, he has the timeline down to as soon as 2030 now. That means every last Homo Sap on the planet is DEAD in 15 years.

For our purposes in this examination though, we'll consider "Near Term" to be anything under a Century.

The second caveat to this examination is that it is looking strictly at the Climate Change problem, not at the possibility we are on a collision course with Planet X or that the numbskulls with their Fingers on the Nuke Buttons will push them and set off Global Thermonuclear War. Either of those as well as a few other scenarious could vastly accelerate the extinction of Homo Sap.

The question we are looking at here is:

Will a rise in Average Global Temperature (AGT) by 4C exterminate all Homo Saps inside the Next Century due to loss of Habitat and die off of many species we currently depend on?

Let's begin with what the current Average Global Temperature (AGT) actually IS at the moment.

Climatologists prefer to combine short-term weather records into long-term periods (typically 30 years) when they analyze climate, including global averages. Between 1961 and 1990, the annual average temperature for the globe was around 57.2°F (14.0°C), according to the World Meteorological Organization.

Now, according to the NOAA, as of August 2015, the current Average Global Temperature is 1.14C over the 20th Century Average.

The average global land surface temperature for August 2015 was 1.14°C (2.05°F) above the 20th century average

So let us be generous on the warming side and say the current AGT is up to 16 C now. Let us warm this up further by another 4C over the next 15 years to 20 C.

Now, Guy's hypothesis states that no Homo Saps have ever been alive when the AGT was that warm, and that is true. However, can you draw the conclusion from that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Homo Sap to survive at such an AGT? Other mammals (our ancestors) survived an even warmer time period, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) when the AGT went up to about 25 C or so. If other mammals could do it back then, why in principle can we not do it again this time?

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum" refers to a climate event that began at the temporal boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs. The absolute age and duration of the event remain uncertain, but are thought to be close to 55.8 million years ago and about 170,000 years of duration[1][2][3] The PETM has become a focal point of considerable geoscience research because it probably provides our best past analog by which to understand impacts of global warming and massive carbon input to the ocean and atmosphere, including ocean acidification.[4]

The onset of the PETM has been linked to an initial 5 °C temperature rise and extreme changes in Earth’s carbon cycle.[5] The PETM is marked by a prominent negative excursion in carbon stable isotope (δ13C) records from around the globe; more specifically, there was a large decrease in 13C/12C ratio of marine and terrestrial carbonates and organic carbon.[5][6][7]

Numerous other changes can be observed in stratigraphic sections containing the PETM.[5] Fossil records for many organisms show major turnovers. For example, in the marine realm, a mass extinction of benthic foraminifera, a global expansion of subtropical dinoflagellates, and an appearance of excursion, planktic foraminifera and calcareous nanofossils all occurred during the beginning stages of PETM. On land, there was a sudden appearance of modern mammal orders (including primates) in Europe and North America. Sediment deposition changed significantly at many outcrops and in many drill cores spanning this time interval.

Although it is now widely accepted that the PETM represents a “case study” for global warming and massive carbon input to Earth’s surface, the cause, details and overall significance of the event remain perplexing.

Guy's case is that Habitat will be so destroyed globally by such a rise in AGT, that there simply will be NOWHERE Homo Sap can survive on the planet. Is that necessarily true?

Well, first off you have to remember this is an AVERAGE taken over the whole globe, it is not the average for a given region in any given time period. Right now, TODAY, many people live in neighborhoods which have yearly average temperatures quite a bit warmer than this. Lagos in Nigeria is one such place, but there are many in the equatorial regions of the Earth.

February is the hottest month in Lagos with an average temperature of 29°C (84°F) and the coldest is July at 25°C (77°F)

There are a LOT of people currently living in Lagos, like around 20M of them and that's just one Big ****y in Nigeria too! They don't all have HVAC either, in fact most of them live in slums with no electricity at all! So clearly, Homo Sap can survive at these temperatures.

Granted though, this is rather sweaty and uncomfortable weather overall, but if the AGT is 20C, does that mean every neighbohood is 20 C? Of course not, because the average temperature for any given location depends on its Latitude and its Altitude.

Starting with Altitude, you drop almost 2C for every 1000' in altitude you gain

Although the actual atmospheric lapse rate varies, under normal atmospheric conditions the average atmospheric lapse rate results in a temperature decrease of 6.4 °C/km (3.5 °F or 1.95 °C/1,000 ft) of altitude above ground level.

So, all you need to do in any given latitude is situate yourself 2000' above sea level and you have already knocked off 4 C tempeature rise on a global average.

The situation is similar with Latitude:

Temperature also decreases as latitude becomes more northward in the Northern Hemisphere and more southerly in the Southern Hemisphere. Latitude in this sense simply refers to a measurement of movement north or south across the surface of the earth. The general rule is that temperature changes three (3) degrees Fahrenheit for every 300 mile change in latitude at an elevation of sea level. If you are in the Northern Hemisphere, you can expect temperatures to be 3 degrees cooler 300 miles north, 6 degrees cooler 600 miles north, and so on, until you reach the North Pole. The same is true for the Southern Hemisphere, except that temperatures cool the further you travel from the equator toward the South Pole.

So, depending where you are in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, you can knock off aroun 1.5C for every 300 Miles you move from your current location. Can you stand the heat where you currently live without HVAC? If you can, each time the AGT goes up by 1.5C, you just need to move another 300 miles north or south and you are back to where you started, and that is WITHOUT gaining altitude!

So clearly even with a projected 4 C rise in AGT, there are still going to be zones on the earth with still livable climate for Homo Sap. It is also by no means clear that we will get 4 C inside of 15 years either. So it has no good basis in scientific reasoning to suggest that Homo Sap will go extinct in such a short period of time, simply due to a 4 C rise in AGT.

Can Homo Sap experience an extreme Knockdown event in such a short time? That is much more possible, and perhaps even probable at this point. The number of neighborhoods that would have both good temperatures and enough water would be vastly reduced from what is available today. However, a Knockdown event is not an Extinction, and Homo Sap has experienced Knockdowns before and rebounded from them.

Although the cause is disputed, somewhere between 75-200K years ago Homo Sap DNA evidence shows that the population of Homo Sap around at the time experienced a severe bottleneck, which may have been quick or it may have gone on for some time, but the bottleneck is still there:

The Toba catastrophe theory as presented in the late 1990s to early 2000s suggested that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 10,000-30,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidence of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidence of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation in humans.[3]

However, coalescence times for Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA have been revised to well above 100,000 years since 2011. In addition, such coalescence would not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Genetic material inherited exclusively from either father or mother can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[5]

In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[6] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[7]

So whether this bottleneck was fast or slow, whether the Toba Supervolcano caused it or not, whether the numbers dropped to 30,000, 10,000 or 2000, it's pretty clear the population of Homo Sap can rebound from a very small number to quite a large one, as today there are over 7B who reproduced up from that number.

So not a whole lot of people need to make it through this Zero Point to avoid an Extinction Level Event for Homo Sap.

So we have established now 2 things:

1- The climate in all places on earth is unlikely to become unfit for human habitation

2- The number of people who need to survive in order to avoid extinction is quite small

The next question to address is that of Positive Feedback Loops, which some folks suggest will send the planet into a Venusian style Global Cooking Event, with runaway heating that exceeds even the PETM. If that were to occur, most certainly Homo Sap and most other living things besides Extremophiles like the Tardigrades would not be able to make it through such an event. However, does the scientific record of Global Atmospheric Carbon content and Average Global Temperature suggest that is likely? No it does not.

As you can see, basically regardless of how much of the Global Carbon Reservoir gets dumped into the atmosphere for whatever reason, the AGT always plateaus out around 25C. So for all the Positive Feedback Loops that are out there, at 25C some Negative Feedback Loops must start to kick in. Unidentified as of yet what they are, but they must be there, otherwise we should have turned into Venus 170M years ago when global atmospheric CO2 was at around 2300 ppm. We got a lot of carbon to burn to get there in any event, and lots of clathrates have to melt too! That is not going to happen in 15 years.

The other issue here is what happens to the oceans and all the fishies during this period? Well, the Ocean is going to continue to acidify, and many current species are going to die off. Phytoplankton are of particular concern here, since they are in large part responsible for dropping molecular oxygen back into the atmosphere for the animals on the planet to breathe, including you and me. Can the atmosphere go Anoxic inside 15 years? No, not even if every last phytoplankton died could that occur, because the atmosphere is a very large sink. As more animals die off, less oxygen is consumed. So it takes some time to deplete the atmosphere of oxygen down to say 10% where it would be real difficult to survive. Although, well acclimated people such as the Sherpas can do OK at 8%. Obviously, as oxygen levels in the atmosphere decline, only people who can survive with such low concentrations would be selected for. In any event it takes some time for this to occur, a lot longer than 15 years. There are at least 3 currently living communities of people who can survive these low oxygen concentrations.

Prehistoric and contemporary human populations living at altitudes of at least 8,000 feet (2,500 meters) above sea level may provide unique insights into human evolution, reports an interdisciplinary group of scientists. Indigenous highlanders living in the Andean Altiplano in South America, in the Tibetan Plateau in Asia, and at the highest elevations of the Ethiopian Highlands in east Africa have evolved three distinctly different biological adaptations for surviving in the oxygen-thin air found at high altitude.

Above 25,000', fuhgettabboudit, not even Sherpas can last long up there. It's the DEATH ZONE. However, below 8000' or so, even with steady atmospheric oxygen concentrations depleting, it will take a good deal longer than 15 years for that one to occur.

The Death Zone on Everest

However, the likelihood that all the phytoplankton die off within 15 years itself is quite small. Remember, they all did not Buy their Ticket to the Great Beyond TM in the PETM, 5-10% of ocean species survived that event. Phytoplankton are single cell and they reproduce and adapt to changing environmental conditions rapidly. There has been a dieoff of around 50% of them over the last 40 years or so, but it is unlikely they ALL will die off inside even another 40 years, because this is asymptotic.

Land based ecosystems have their own set of parameters, and some will collapse quickly, others will persist for quite some time to come. As the population of Homo Sap dwindles, it will migrate to those zones that still have functional ecosystems. Then in addition, Homo Sap being Sentient can further augment what is available in the local ecosystem, through techniques like Hydroponics and Aquaculture.

This Greenhouse is on the North Slope of Alaska:

So you clearly can feed SOME number of people this way, it's a Non-Zero number, which by definition means you don't have Extinction. How big that number is remains open to question, but it is certainly more than 100,000, which is more than enough to provide genetic diversity for the species to recover over time.

Now, despite the fact the evidence above shows that Guy's 15 year timeline to Near Term Human Extinction is quite preposterous, does this mean we are not in BIG TROUBLE?


We are going to have a LOT of DEAD PEOPLE!

What is important given this incontravertable fact of life is that the sooner we get started on addressing this problem realistically, the better we can make it possible for not only more people to survive this crash, but more of the rest of the ecosystem too!

For right now, making any changes on the gross geopolitical level is impossible. The Chinese are going to keep burning coal to keep their electric power plants running as long as they can. Happy Motorists in the FSoA will keep driving around willy nilly as long as they can too. The carbon will be burned, the climate will continue to become more inhospitable, for at least the next 40 years no matter what due to the lag time for many effects to show themselves.

However, individuals can begin the process of learning how to survive in a drastically changed environment, and communities can begin to form to handle it as well. It is up to each person to begin this process inside your own small sphere of influence. My small sphere is the Doomstead Diner , & Sun4Living websites. That's my effort, that is all an old cripple can do.

If you have talent, knowledge and/or experience, you too can make a difference, and this is no time to be a QUITTER. Resigning yourself to an inevitable fate of EXTINCTION in the Near Term is QUITTING. Accepting this situation as HOPELESS is QUITTING.

This is a battle that can be fought, and it is a battle that can be WON! Not without a lot of pain and a lot of loss, to be sure, but giving up is not an option, unless you really WANT to die, or you want our whole species to die because you think we are so awful and bad to have around on the planet. If you want to LIVE, you look for means and methods to SURVIVE.

This battle has been waged before by the ancestors of Homo Sap in the PETM, and they won it.

DONE ONCE, IT CAN BE DONE AGAIN.,5635.msg86355/topicseen.html#msg86355

Agelbert Comment: Great article! The fact that you obviously advocate for drastic action to ameliorate the existential threat to MOST, if not ALL, is the bottom line. But you can be sure that many deniers will try to twist your words into interpreting them as a justification for applying incremental measures to deal with CO2 caused warming :P. I am sure you will be ready, willing and able to hand their prevaricating asses to them when they try that bit of verbal sleight of hand. ( (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 27, 2015, 07:33:30 pm
RE said,

The other issue here is what happens to the oceans and all the fishies during this period?  Well, the Ocean is going to continue to acidify, and many current species are going to die off.  Phytoplankton are of particular concern here, since they are in large part responsible for dropping molecular oxygen back into the atmosphere for the animals on the planet to breathe, including you and me.

There is another salient issue with losing a large percentage of the phytoplankton, if not all, from acidification.

1. The phytoplankton, like the trees on land, manufacture dimethyl sulfide. This is vital for cloud formation.

DMS originates primarily from DMSP, a major secondary metabolite in some marine algae.[2] DMS is the most abundant biological sulfur compound emitted to the atmosphere.[3][4] Emission occurs over the oceans by phytoplankton.

DMS is oxidized in the marine atmosphere to various sulfur-containing compounds, such as sulfur dioxide, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), dimethyl sulfone, methanesulfonic acid and sulfuric acid.[6] Among these compounds, sulfuric acid has the potential to create new aerosols which act as cloud condensation nuclei.

Through this interaction with cloud formation, the massive production of atmospheric DMS over the oceans may have a significant impact on the Earth's climate.[7] The CLAW hypothesis suggests that in this manner DMS may play a role in planetary homeostasis.[8] (

2. When the phytoplankton cannot make their calcium carbonate tiny skeletons due to acidification, they sink. When they sink, the top layer of the oceans becomes anoxic, as you alluded to. But the failure of that phytoplankton to make MASSIVE amounts of  dimethyl sulfide results in a massive LOSS of cloud formation. This will accelerate land deforestation and desertification.

3. In addition, the loss of massive phytoplankton blooms decreases the albedo of the ocean surface and makes it absorb solar heat more rapidly.

4. Finally, the benthic organisms (those that live and feed on the bottom) are threatened with extinction by acidification and the loss of the phytoplankton nutrient and carbon capture cycle.

So, the oxygen depletion aside for a moment, the severe depletion of cloud formation is a positive feedback mechanism that increases warming. The loss of a large percentage of the phytoplankton creates another positive feedback mechanism in CO2 atmospheric increase, which will, in turn, produce still more warming.All that phytoplankton does a huge service now in sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Finally, the darker ocean surface over thousands of miles, due to the absence of large phytoplankton blooms, provides another positive feedback mechanism warming the oceans. Warmer oceans experience "sink degradation". That is, they can absorb even less CO2 than they do now from normal ocean chemistry separate and apart from the biochemistry of marine organisms. That will also increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which added to all the positive feedback mechanisms I just mentioned, will further accelerate global warming.

The localized negative feedback mechanisms you are pointing (cooler areas at altitude and towards the poles) to will work on land for us. But we are threatened because cooler oceans towards the poles will not help the phytoplankton. They are not dying because the oceans are warming. They are dying because the oceans are becoming more acidic. When most of them die, the rate of acidity increase of the oceans increases as well. That does not augur well for the remnant phytoplankton.

So, what to do?

Well, as you said, and I have mentioned myself, the only place a high CO2 concentration is good deal is inside a greenhouse. The North Slope Greenhouses are a laudable survival tool, but not for over 90% of humanity, UNLESS you get really technofixy with them.

You need to build  geodesic dome greenhouses (several MILES in diameter) towards the poles (using geothermal energy to ensure the proper wave length of light is provided along with all the other plant nutrient requirements. You need to do this, not just for food, but for CO2 scrubbing and oxygen generation the biosphere lost from a mass phytoplankton die off, unless you plan to let this global warming CONTINUE past 4C, and STAY up there for 1000 years or so.

Decades ago, the Russians figured out how much one human needs in plants to provide him an adequate atmosphere. They did that because they wanted to know how big the greenhouses they planned to build on mars would have to be. It depends on the plants, of course, but when you throw in food plants along with the atmosphere recyclers so you can do a technofix "replacement"  ( for the loss of the carbon sequestering, oxygen producing and cloud forming planetary homeostatic phytoplankton mechanism, you need about 12 to 15 acres of land per person with a certain amount of water and a certain relative humidity. It costs a LOT of money to do that. Nobody ever has done that on a scale above 4 or five people, and then not for more than a year or so. But it can be done, in theory.

And of course, if you've got DA Money, the possibilities are endless. There is no reason why palm trees cannot be grown in Alaska in a plus 4degree C biosphere.

The REMNANT just wants to have fun.  (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 28, 2015, 10:23:53 pm
The FACT that advocating incremental measures will not prevent the existential threat from getting worse is justification for DEMANDING DRASTIC measures!  (

Only a deliberately irrational person or a propagandist would argue that the issue here is between doing nothing and incremental measures. YEAH! BOTH doing nothing and incremental measures are insufficient, even though the mindset of the irresponsible advocates of incremental measures is somewhat healthier than the nihilists that advocate doing nothing! AND?

WHERE do you get the idea that when somebody says incremental measures are insufficient, they are a advocating doing nothing, HUH!!? That's BULLSHIT!

The world of business has made many Empathy Deficit Disordered, unethical choices. We are all paying for their rejection of  their responsibility to use dianoia in their decision making process.

But they are relatively few in number. Their chicanery would cease from a huge public outcry if they did not have so many people aiding and abetting their unethical biosphere destroying modus operandi.

Those are the comfortable millions who have swallowed the corporate happy talk propaganda.

Those are the people that continue to delay progress on the implementation of the drastic government action we must demand, which is desperately needed to stem, or eliminate, the length and breadth of the climate change damage existential threat.

The people who think that this climate change horror can be addressed by incremental measures are, as Aristotle said, deliberately becoming irrational.

Thus choice is firmly in the realm of practical, ethical action. With his emphasis on dianoia , Aristotle offers one way to think about responsibility to the future;

it is the lack of "thinking things through," in preference for shortsightedness regarding means and ends, that results in acts of harm, both to the environment and to future people.

If we fail to think things through to the consequences of our actions we are not acting responsibly.

And ignorance is no justification for poor choices, for Aristotle points out that we can be ignorant and still responsible.

If we deliberately become irrational, as when we become drunk, or when we ought to know something and yet fail to, we are still held responsible, "on the grounds that it is up to people themselves not to be ignorant, since they are in control of how much care they take" (NE 1114a). (
The FACT that advocating incremental measures will not prevent the existential threat from getting worse is justification for DEMANDING DRASTIC measures!  (

Only a deliberately irrational person or a propagandist would argue that the issue here is between doing nothing and incremental measures. YEAH! BOTH doing nothing and incremental measures are insufficient, even though the mindset of the irresponsible advocates of incremental measures is somewhat healthier than the nihilists that advocate doing nothing! AND?

WHERE do you get the idea that when somebody says incremental measures are insufficient, they are a advocating doing nothing, HUH!!? That's BULLSHIT!

I totally agree that wholesale changes as opposed to incremental changes are the order of the day but to answer your last question about how some people advocate doing nothing, I hear it all the time. There are a good number of people and it is not just the corporate shills who say this but regular folk who will say things like the market will resolve these issues or "they" (with they rarely being clearly defined) will find a solution so there is no need for us to worry and we can carry on doing our daily (destructive) habits. Then you have the other side of people who have lost all hope and when you suggest PVs or any other renewable solution they will throw their hands in the air and say it is futile. Heck in the Nature Bats Last blog anyone who proposed a solution, of any sort will be labelled delusional. So you see no matter what scenario you have some people will be advocates for doing nothing. Is that bullshit? Certainly but nonetheless a good number of people say it. What you can infer from it is there is a considerable number of people who are irrational.

These ideas are also dangerous because when things do go wrong then since they felt a solution would have naturally evolved the fact that one doesn't means people will think there is a problem with the political or economic system and not see that the problem is the basic framework of our society which promotes consumption and the disregard of resources, pollution and energy. This will make people take the wrong actions or suggest incremental changes when more drastic measures are required.

Well, according to Aristotle, choosing to be ignorant of all the facts, be they good news or bad news, is, by definition, irresponsible because it is a choice to become deliberately irrational. Aristotle stated that humans have no excuse for ignorance born of deliberate irrationality.

And that choice to become deliberately irrational is more applicable to those advocating incremental measures than to those nihilists that have chosen to despair.

As to your assumption that all the above equates to a large percentage of humanity being deliberately irrational, I believe you are wrong. That really would be a valid reason to despair.

You are right that anyone that thinks our society is based on anything but a multiplicity of schemes to favor a few and shaft the rest is deluded.

But you are wrong to think the masses cannot handle that reality check because they would despair.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is sine qua non to our survival. The lip service paid to truth in our society is a bad joke. As you have said many times, our society is dysfunctional.

Dysfunctional mechanisms eventually stop working. That is reality. The fact that all this is occurring in slow motion blinds many to think the problems we have are superficial, not intrinsic.

RE pictures a society where greed is SHUNNED. The intrinsic problem of the present society is that greed is CELEBRATED.

All the downstream effects of biosphere math challenged greedballs are toxic fruit of the celebration of greed. 

The bottom line for me is that a belief that incremental measures are sufficient to address the existential threat we face breeds false hope.

And Monsta, the crowd into despair probably does not make it to 2 or4 % of humanity, so it is really NOT the issue. Putting the despair crowd in the same category (in numbers and influence) as the incremental measures crowd is a false equivalence.

The incremental measures crowd are the BACKBONE of the foot dragging efforts by policy makers to AVOID drastic measures to address climate change.

The incremental measures supporting crowd easily represents 40% to 60% of the population. And those deliberately irrational people are over-represented in the upper 20% of the human population doing 80% of the damage.

The despair crowd is not the problem. You always have a few people out there claiming the end is near. It's the incremental measures crowd that is the PROBLEM.

And their deliberate irrationality is exacerbating the magnitude of the existential threat we face.

Being deliberately irrational is not what is BULLSHIT. What is BULLSHIT is claiming the crowd advocating incremental measures is somehow being more "reality based" than those, like me, who advocate drastic measures, regardless of the hand wringing by the incrementalists about "negative" effects on GDP.

The "real world" of our dysfunctional society is what those incremental measures folks base their assumptions on. They are hurting not helping. And NO, if you strip the happy talk based wishful thinking propaganda from the incremental measures crowd, they are NOT going to automatically jump in with the nihilist despair crowd.

The overwhelming majority of them will THEN demand drastic measures be taken to ameliorate global warming.

A lot of ass holes advocating incremental changes understand that too well. THAT'S WHY they push the FALSE MEME that too much negative news, regardless of how true that negative news is, will drive people to despair.

That is the segment of the incremental measures crowd married to the dysfunctional "real world" of the "greed is good" society that is degrading democracy and the biosphere.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 29, 2015, 03:46:05 pm
Here's something else to consider about rationality and climate change...

In Russian Roulette, you only have a 17% chance of losing.
Yet, most people don't want to play Russian Roulette.

But if you lose at Russian Roulette, at least it's only your own life.
If we lose at Climate Change, it's the lives of everyone we love.

So, if we won't play Russian Roulette because we have a 17% chance of losing,
are we more than 83% sure that Climate Change will NOT happen?  Because if not, we might as well be pointing a gun to our childrens' heads if we are doing nothing to avoid Climate Change.
      (   (

I admire your quote so much that I have decided to abscond with it and spread it all over the internet, with some minor modifications to, uh. clarify things a bit for the deniers I battle with daily out there. Yesterday I really had them bent out of shape with the one year performance of fossil fuel stocks. It is very hard for them to argue with THAT data.  (

They prefer to push the bull**** that the IPCC models ensemble OVER-estimated warming, when the exact reverse is true. They DO NOT want to talk about the ice retreat UNDER-estimated by the models ensemble mean distribution by 48 YEARS.

They prefer to talk temperature because most people do not understand how DANGEROUS the present 0.85 to 1.0 degree centigrade increase above pre-industrial baseline is to us. So, I ruin their day with the FACT that humans have never walked the Earth in a 3.3C or more increase and add the FACT that, barring drastic action, the IPCC predicts 3.7 to 4.0C by 2100.  ;D

Here is how I will rephrase your excellent analogy of Russian Roulette and  rationality in regard to climate change.  8)

Here's something else to consider about rationality and climate change...

In Russian Roulette, you only have a 17% chance of losing.
Yet, most people don't want to play Russian Roulette.

But if you lose at Russian Roulette, at least it's only your own life.
If we lose at Climate Change, it's the lives of everyone we love.

So, if we won't play Russian Roulette because we have a 17% chance of losing,
are we more than 83% sure that a Climate Change caused Mass Extinction will NOT happen?  Because if not, we might as well be pointing a gun to our children's heads if we do not take drastic action to reduce the deleterious effects of Climate Change. (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on September 30, 2015, 04:11:03 pm
There was a marked decline in ocean pH during the PETM, as one might expect with atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 2300 ppm. (

However, all the phytoplankton did not die.  There were SURVIVORS.  Phytoplankton Diners    (
Currently, ocean pH is around 8.08


It appears to be decreasing about .05 every 20 years right now.  So in a Century, that is .25, bringing it down to  around 7.8.

As it looks right now, it will take a while to get to 7.4


Agreed. But we know how the "how it looks now" has been working for the IPCC predictions for the past 30 years, don't we? And that 7.4 pH is a laboratory determined level that did not include open ocean conditions. You can be sure it is, as most scientific studies continue to turn out on this issue, overly conservative. And with a 40 to fifty year lag, what makes you think we will stop it if we aren't doing jack sh it NOW to stop the baked in pH acidity increase for the next 50 years?

RE, because phytoplankton populations constitute the main marine food chain base along with the zooplankton (which eat each other AND the phytoplankton too), you do not need more than a 20% or so reduction in viability to have a disproportionate impact on the other species. The numbers MUST be at least ten to one in biomass from prey to predators. You knock out 20% of the prey, you knock out a LOT MORE than 20% of the predators. That 's how it works.

And the forests are NOT going to even suck in the CO2 they have been sucking up to now because the added CO2 in the air degrades their ability to process CO2!. So you've got a double whammy reducing your oxygen production. This is NOT a trivial issue.

To make things WORSE,  the corporate kowtowing IPCC is setting up big business interests for a giant geo-engineering technofix SCAM to fleece we-the-people even more while they try a profit over planet Band-Aid disguised as a high tech planetary air conditioner. This is BAT SH IT CRAZY! But that's what they are ALL saying now in their measured, prudent tones that we MUST do, along with "reducing" our CO2 production. Anything to make corporate buck.  ( (

This threat is HUGE, RE.  Because we live on a water planet, the EFFECT of the CO2 CAUSE has a 50 year lag, according to paleo-climate scientist Professor James White from Colorado.

I continue to believe that a few of many species will survive. Hopefully, we will be one of the 25% or so that make it. But we are vertebrates. According to Prof. Gerardo Cebellos, vertebrate mammals are particularly at risk in this sixth extinction because of their habitat requirements. We ARE extremely fragile.

I think it is more prudent to assume that most people will perish from environmental conditions AFTER the collapse. Humans operate basically on the rule of 3.

You die if you
1) lack sufficient oxygen for 3 minutes.
2) lack water for 3 days
3) lack food for three weeks.

Some people can do better than that, but most can't. And all this biosphere math operates on the margins. I keep seeing you look at the bright side, like it's a sure thing. It isn't. The most probable scenario is a slow death for the toughest of survivors. The fact that the outlier of the bell curve includes a portion that can pull through does not make it look any rosier to me.

When you can provide me proof that business as usual for the fossil fuel industry will stop in its tracks within ten years, I'll share your optimism. But if we haven't sh it canned fossil fuels within ten years, it's game over. I REPEAT, if we are still burning fossil fuels in 2025, it's game over within LESS than a century for mammalian vertebrates. Only Divine intervention can change things for the better at that point. I'm not holding my breath waiting for God to step in an contradict His law that the wages of sin are death.

Here's a video spelling things out without hyperbole. Guy does not do most of the talking and remains fairly low key. The evidence he presents is solid. We LEFT the linear climate changes behind and have entered the abrupt ones. That means that, with ocean sink degradation, the pH is going to drop SOONER than predicted. Already I have posted that a 0.5 pH drop can threaten most of the phytoplankton, mollusks and corals, according to the Royal Society in the UK. This is serious sh it.
Climate Change: Have We Reached the Point of No Return?

I keep seeing you look at the bright side, like it's a sure thing.

The only things I am certain of is that at some point in the future all life on earth will come to an end, and prior to that all multicellular organisms will die off.  What is something of a guessing game is what the timeline on this will be.  I definitely do not see a rosy picture out there for the forseeable future, the question is what can you do to make the best of a bad situation?

Far as Fossil Fuel burning, I think that is going to come to a halt on its own due to economics, but probably not as fast as you would like to see it happen.  Hills Report says 2020, I'll go out to 2025 as when most of the industrial economy has shut down.

The adjustment off of the FFs is the hardest part, and because that energy artificially inflated a population bubble, that bubble has to pop.  That's what makes projecting out anything past a 20 year timeline or so a complete crapshoot.  So I try to focus on what the individual and small community can do during this 20 year period to up survival chances.  No guarantees there of course, but just a better shot at it.


This is not about when I would like to see fossil fuels stop being burned; this is about the science that demands fossil fuels stop being burned in order to ameliorate or prevent the existential threat we face from burning fossil fuels.

Making the best of a bad situation is precisely what militates that we all lend our voices to demand the end of burning fossil fuels within a decade. If we fail to do that, your extinction dice are LOADED. The "crapshoot" is survival, at that point.

In a remnant survival situation, expecting technological advances on the order of present day civilization is not realistic. So, when people hunker down, they won't be coming up with any super inventions to handle the hellish atmosphere in anything resembling the present day pace of technological development.

RE, we ALL get it that everything in this universe is finite. That is not the issue. The issue is that WE are shooting ourselves in the foot burning fossil fuels.  And the population bubble is the least of our worries. The coming collapse will take care of THAT problem, thank you very much.

It's the RUNAWAY greenhouse that WILL CONTINUE after most of humanity is offed that is the problem for the remnant humans. THAT is the issue because the window to solve that problem began to close during the Carter Administration. Carter tried to act but was cheated out of a second term.

That window, requiring us to Totally STOP burning of fossil fuels to save our asses, will CLOSE by 2025, thanks to business as usual (and that is a an optimistic outlook, by the way). Reagan and his fossil fueler pals leaned on the window with all their might to see how fast they could CLOSE IT!

20% of ALL the fossil fuels EVER burned were burned AFTER the Kyoto agreement was signed in 1997! Business as usual CONTINUES! WHY? (see the next paragraph) They PLAN AHEAD. Their plan SUCKS. It's MORE business as usual.   (   (

Now those Empathy Deficit Disordered fossil fuel industry predators are gearing up for the big transition from the monopolistic fleecing of the people with the fossil fuels gravy train to the monopolistic fleecing of the people with a giant geo-engineering corporate gravy train.   ( (

Do you REALLY think their plan is going to work? I don't.

The fact that everything will eventually die isn't at issue here. I do not understand why you keep bringing that up. The bare assed minimum survival timeline of all humans rotates around that rule of three I mentioned. And you can get THAT much sustenance in prison. A human society needs a hell of a lot more than that to survive. Reducing our "needs" to air, food, water and shelter is not realistic for a 1,000 year minimum timeline.

And as for the domes for the remnant, there are giant difficulties with that.

As you said, ANY technofix is necessarily temporary. The runaway greenhouse WILL NOT stabilize for at least 1,000 years. If the technofix cannot bridge that gap, you are screwed and tattooed. There is NO EVIDENCE that we have the technology to dome 12,000 humans or so for 1000 years in a PLUS 4C planet. I check around a lot! I'm the guy that has battled you over the years proposing technofixes that might work. You are the one that has batted me down each time.

This is why RE likes Alaskan mountains.  ;D

The REALLY inconvenient truth about the IPCC projections:

The following alarming, but still too conservative, study EXCLUDES the ABRUPT climate change positive feedback loop effects we are now beginning to experience.

"Conclusions" still lack punch but at least major action to prevent an increase emissions is clearly stated. In the lecture itself, stopping emissions altogether is clearly established as the only way to stop the ice melt altogether.:

NOTICE the IPCC conclusions are FOLLOWED by GEO-ENGINEERING cheerleading.
You can be SURE they will find trillions of dollars to do the above but it's uh, just too economically "impractical" to replace all our infrastructure with renewable energy, ISN'T IT?   (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on October 02, 2015, 07:31:50 pm
I am posting this video about FREAK GIANT WAVES in this topic thread because, as you will learn, their frequency is not only increasing, but said waves are predicted (see videos after this one) to get even larger. :o

Enjoy fantastic stormy ocean waves film footage and learn of some tragedies caused by giant waves.

The applicability of this for our future is that the Hansen et al landmark climate change study, just released, predicts MUCH rougher oceans in the plus 2 degree C warmed world we will arrive at around 2040 (some say 2025!).

Paul Beckwith is a part time professor at the University of Ottawa and a post graduate studying and researching abrupt climate change, with a focus on the arctic.

Jump to the 9:00 mark for the massive waves money quote.  8)

Part 1: Two degree Celsius Global Temperature Rise is Highly Dangerous Paul Beckwith

Watch the video below to learn ALL the details from the Hansen et al study predicted ocean action in a 2 degree C plus world.

THAT world is now LOCKED in, according to the IPCC. And we are doing NOTHING to prevent it from going ABOVE 4 degrees C by century's end.  (

Part 4: An Ocean Full of 30 meter Tall Waves. by Paul Beckwith

Published on Jul 23, 2015

Near the end of the previous warm period (Late-Eemian) when the sea level was +5 to +9 meters higher than today, persistent long period long wavelength waves 30 meters high battered the Bahamas coastline. Will we see these massive storm generated waves soon? No ship could survive this...  :(
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on October 03, 2015, 06:01:38 pm
The 1990 global atmospheric mean temperature  is assumed to be 14.49 oC (Shakil, 2005; NASA, 2002; DATAWeb, 2012) which sets the 2 oC anomaly above which humanity will lose control of her ability to limit the effects of global warming on major climatic and environmental systems at 16.49 oC  (IPCC, 2007).

The major Permian extinction event temperature is 80 oF (26.66 oC) which is a temperature anomaly of  12.1766 oC above the 1990 global mean temperature of 14.49 oC (Wignall, 2009; Shakil,  2005).

Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on October 03, 2015, 09:29:49 pm
The PLUS 2 degree C world, now locked in according to the IPCC, is BAD NEWS.


The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). (

THAT IS, 2014 had an AVERAGE global temperature of 58.24°F = 14.58°C.

In 2015 an EL NIÑO began. EL NIÑOs always flush a LOT of heat from the oceans into the atmosphere. They can last more than just one year.

So, 2015 will top 2014. It is safe to add another 0.04°C (0.07°F) for an estimate of 2015 temperature. That will bring us to  58.31°F = 14.62°C.

If we continue to rise  0.04°C per year, we will reach the IPCC plus 2 degree C red line (NOW inevitable according to them), in about 28 years.

That is assuming we are ONLY 0.85°C above the pre-industrial baseline.

If we are at 1.00 °C above the pre-industrial baseline, as some claim is the case, we will reach plus 2.00°C of 15.62°C = 60.12 °F in about 25 years.

This, though lower than the previously set IPCC  plus 2.00°C mark of 16.49 oC  (IPCC, 2007), doesn't sound too bad. That sounds like we have that much time to deal with it. But that reasoning has a problem. 

All that ASSUMES a LINEAR annual temperature increase of 0.04°C.

All that IGNORES the feedback acceleration of heat reinforcing now going on. 

All that IGNORES the sink (ability to absorb CO2) degradation the oceans are undergoing which is guaranteed to increase the RATE of heat entering the atmosphere from the oceans, irrespective of any additions in CO2 input we add. (

What's the big deal about a 2 degrees C increase? (

The 1990 global atmospheric mean temperature is assumed to be 14.49 oC (Shakil, 2005; NASA, 2002; DATAWeb, 2012) which sets the 2 oC anomaly above which humanity will lose control of her ability to limit the effects of global warming on major climatic and environmental systems at 16.49 oC  (IPCC, 2007).

The major Permian extinction event temperature is 80 oF (26.66 oC) which is a temperature anomaly of  12.1766 oC above the 1990 global mean temperature of 14.49 oC (Wignall, 2009; Shakil,  2005).

( Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm ( (


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2015, 04:00:37 pm
These observed phenomena are all REAL.
But Science CANNOT explain them. Particularly unsettling to those who worship science and it's view that the physical universe is the limit of reality, is the placebo effect. It even works better than nothing when you KNOW it is a placebo!

Learn about a careful, meticulous science experiment done involving patients that required knee surgery divided into three groups.

Only ONE group of the three was actually given knee surgery. The other two groups given two variations of placebo surgery (incision with saline solution or just an incision) had equal or better rates of healing.  ;D

But there is a terrible downside to the placebo effect. Propagandists and Con artists everywhere have noticed how effective it is at fooling people. The Fossil Fuel Industry  ( learned it from the Tobacco Industry (see: Birds of a feather).  (

If a polluting industry that is trashing the planet for short term gain can convince enough people that their pollution is "beneficial" to the biosphere, the minds of those propagandized would work to prevent that pollution from being accepted as real.

Perhaps the greatest hidden tool of the fossil fuel industry to fight global warming (in order to preserve their profits, not to stop the pollution) is the propaganda effort to convince people we are entering an ice age! If enough people believe that, reason the Empathy Deficit Disordered ASS HOLES that cheerlead fossil fuels, the placebo effect might even slow global warming down!

But there is a GIANT problem with that logic. And it is not about whether the placebo effect is real or not. That much has been proven. It's the DENIAL of the FACT that something is INJURING the biosphere that undermines any hope of using a mass placebo effect to reduce or prevent global warming.
Whether that would work to prevent the biosphere from being polluted is not the question. WHY? Because the placebo effect ONLY works when you think you need to be HEALED of a disease or injury. The Fossil Fuel Industry has PREVENTED public awareness of the problem (i.e. injury/disease to the biosphere).


The placebo effect may work quite well inside our bodies but I suspect the faith to move mountains is at odds with fooling  people in using faith to prevent global warming. The predators 'R' US crowd running the polluting industries are not known for their faith or good works. They are known for there 24/7 lie that they are our "loyal servants concerned only with our welfare".

They claim they are merely "supplying our demand" when, in actuality, they are gaming us to supply THEIR demand. Clever, aren't they?

Now you know why the propagandists for the fossil fuel industry lie, distort and double talk about "no warming for a decade", "warming has ceased", "we are entering an ice age" and, last but not least in the hit parade of Push the Placebo to Preserve Profits efforts, "it's the sunspots, not Carbon Dioxide", that control Earth's temperature baloney.  (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on October 29, 2015, 02:36:30 am
Human activity is destroying the needed balance in nature
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on October 31, 2015, 08:29:15 pm

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity


Whatever is finally determined by scientists as the exact combination of factors that forms these monster waves, it is well known that wave height and ferocity is a function of the ferocity and duration of the winds.

ΔT = plus 2C or greater guarantees ferocious winds of long during over wide areas in a consistent direction.

We are already experiencing the beginning of the abrupt climate change that is bringing these destructive winds due to the increase in frequency and severity of cyclonic movements over the oceans.

Hurricanes and typhoons are the DIRECT result of overheated ocean surface water. As heat increases, so will they continue to increase in frequency and severity, setting new records. As soon as the surface temperature of the ocean is at or above 27.8C (82F), they can form.

And the sea surface temperature (SST) continues to steadily rise.

Below is a NOAA graphic of the SST Anomaly as of June 15, 2017:


From a June 20, 2017 NOAA article:

The May globally averaged sea surface temperature was 1.28°F above the 20th century monthly average of 61.3°F—the third highest global ocean temperature for May in the record, behind 2016 and 2015.

Don't let that average global temperature lull you into thinking the risk of hurricanes is the same as always. The sea surface temperature in the hurricane forming areas is much higher. Which means that, on top of everything else, we will get more hurricanes.


Sea surface temperatures must be 82 degrees F (27.8C) or warmer for tropical cyclone formation and sustenance.
Recipe for a Hurricane

The higher the ocean surface temperature, the more often they will form to wreak havoc with ships and coasts.


We now must apologize for interrupting this article to bore you readers with some fine print:

What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work—for instance, writing a book review—fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public reaps benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material.

Agelbert NOTE: The following includes snippets of an excerpt from the excellent scientifically accurate book, "The Wave. Copyright ©2010 Susan Casey. Published by Doubleday Canada, an imprint of the Doubleday Canada Publishing Group, which is a division of Random House of Canada Limited".

I am posting said snippets of said book review under Fair Use for the purpose of Commentary. I am not posting for commercial purposes. Even though Susan Casey and her publisher may benefit from my praise of her book, which provides ample evidence for increased giant wave activity, I do not benefit monetarily.

Consequently, I am sure these snippets of the book review excerpts posted below are done under Fair Use - for a limited and "transformative" purpose (i.e. Commentary) through which the public will reap benefits (it may even save thousands of lives). Nevertheless, if the Daily Kos legal eagles are concerned that I may be infringing on a copyright here, I will delete the entire article.That ends the fine print.

Now to get back to benefiting the biosphere loving public! (
Susan Casey gives us an eye opening look at giant waves.

The book titled, "The Wave" is the overall scope; Casey links how the Earth's weather is changing to how waves are growing, and there's no denying the stats: there is a clear correlation. She visits various scientists and marine salvage folks and shares their stories; they all agree that we're seeing the oceans get nuttier, and it's only just beginning.

The Wave: In Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks, and Giants of the Ocean by Susan Casey

Susan Casey, National Post · Monday, Sept. 20, 2010

The clock read midnight when the 100-foot wave hit the ship, rising from the North Atlantic out of the darkness. Among the ocean's terrors a wave this size was the most feared and the least understood, more myth than reality -- or so people had thought. This giant was certainly real. As the RRS Discovery plunged down into the wave's deep trough, it heeled 28 degrees to port,
The above graphic is a scale simulation of 295 ft. ship heeling 28 degrees to port in the trough of a 100 ft. wave by Agelbert.

rolled 30 degrees back to starboard, then recovered to face the incoming seas. What chance did they have, the 47 scientists and crew aboard this research cruise gone horribly wrong? A series of storms had trapped them in the black void east of Rockall, a volcanic island nicknamed Waveland for the nastiness of its surrounding waters. More than 1,000 wrecked ships lay on the seafloor below.

Scale simulation by Agelbert

Captain Keith Avery steered his vessel directly into the onslaught, just as he'd been doing for the past five days. While weather like this was common in the cranky North Atlantic, these giant waves were unlike anything he'd encountered in his 30 years of experience.

And worse, they kept rearing up from different directions. Flanking all sides of the 295-foot ship, the crew kept a constant watch to make sure they weren't about to be sucker punched by a wave that was sneaking up from behind, or from the sides.


No one wanted to be out here right now, but Avery knew their only hope was to remain where they were, with their bow pointed into the waves. Turning around was too risky; if one of these waves caught Discovery broadside, there would be long odds on survival. It takes 30 tons per square metre of force to dent a ship.

A breaking 100-foot wave packs 100 tons of force per square metre and can tear a ship in half. Above all, Avery had to position Discovery so that it rode over these crests and wasn't crushed beneath them.

He stood barefoot at the helm, the only way he could maintain traction after a refrigerator toppled over, splashing out a slick of milk, juice and broken glass (no time to clean it up--the waves just kept coming).

Up on the bridge everything was amplified, all the night noises and motions, the slamming and the crashing, the elevator-shaft plunges into the troughs, the frantic wind, the swaying and groaning of the ship; and now, as the waves suddenly grew even bigger and meaner and steeper, Avery heard a loud bang coming from Discovery's foredeck. He squinted in the dark to see that the 50-man lifeboat had partially ripped from its 2-inch-thick steel cleats and was pounding against the hull.

Below deck, computers and furniture had been smashed into pieces. The scientists huddled in their cabins nursing bruises, black eyes and broken ribs. Attempts at rest were pointless. They heard the noises too; they rode the free falls and the sickening barrel rolls; and they worried about the fact that a 6-foot-long window next to their lab had already shattered from the twisting. Discovery was almost 40 years old, and recently she'd undergone major surgery. The ship had been cut in half, lengthened by 33 feet, and then welded back together. Would the joints hold? No one really knew. No one had ever been in conditions like these.

One of the two chief scientists, Penny Holliday, watched as a chair skidded out from under her desk, swung into the air and crashed onto her bunk. Holliday, fine boned, porcelain-doll pretty and as tough as any man on board the ship, had sent an e-mail to her boyfriend, Craig Harris, earlier in the day. "This isn't funny anymore," she wrote. "The ocean just looks completely out of control." So much white spray was whipping off the waves that she had the strange impression of being in a blizzard. This was Waveland all right, an otherworldly place of constant motion that took you nowhere but up and down; where there was no sleep, no comfort, no connection to land, and where human eyes and stomachs struggled to adapt, and failed.

Ten days ago Discovery had left port in Southampton, England, on what Holliday had hoped would be a typical 3-week trip to Iceland and back (punctuated by a little seasickness perhaps, but nothing major).

RRS Discovery in calm seas

Along the way they'd stop and sample the water for salinity, temperature, oxygen and other nutrients. From these tests the scientists would draw a picture of what was happening out there, how the ocean's basic characteristics were shifting, and why.

These are not small questions on a planet that is 71% covered in salt water.
As the Earth's climate changes -- as the inner atmosphere becomes warmer, as the winds increase, as the oceans heat up -- what does all this mean for us? Trouble, most likely, and Holliday and her colleagues were in the business of finding out how much and what kind. It was deeply frustrating for them to be lashed to their bunks rather than out on the deck lowering their instruments. No one was thinking about Iceland anymore.

The trip was far from a loss, however. During the endless trains of massive waves, Discovery itself was collecting data that would lead to a chilling revelation. The ship was ringed with instruments; everything that happened out there was being precisely measured, the sea's fury captured in tight graphs and unassailable numbers.

Months later, long after Avery had returned everyone safely to the Southampton docks, when Holliday began to analyze these figures, she would discover that the waves they had experienced were the largest ever scientifically recorded in the open ocean. The significant wave height, an average of the largest 33% of the waves, was 61 feet, with frequent spikes far beyond that.

At the same time, none of the state-of-the-art weather forecasts and wave models-- the information upon which all ships, oil rigs, fisheries and passenger boats rely -- had predicted these behemoths. In other words, under this particular set of weather conditions, waves this size should not have existed. And yet they did.

You could call them whatever you wanted -- rogues, freaks, giants -- but the bottom line was that no one had accounted for them. The engineers who'd built the Draupner rig had calculated that once every 10,000 years the North Sea might throw them a 64-foot curveball in 38-foot seas. That would be the maximum. Eighty-five-foot waves were not part of the equation, not in this universe anyway.

But the rules had changed. Now scientists had a set of numbers that pointed to an unsettling truth: Some of these waves make their own rules. Suddenly the emphasis shifted from explaining why giant waves couldn't simply leap out of the ocean to figuring out how it was that they did.

This was a matter of much brow sweat for the oil industry, which would prefer that its multimillion-dollar rigs not be swept away. It had happened before. In 1982 the Ocean Ranger, a 400-foot-long, 337-foot-high oil platform located 170 miles off the coast of Newfoundland, was struck by an outsize wave in heavy weather. We'll never know how big the wave was exactly, for there were no survivors. Approved for "unrestricted ocean operations," built to withstand 110-foot seas and 115-mile-per-hour winds, considered "indestructible" by its engineers, the Ocean Ranger had capsized and sank close to instantly, killing all 84 people on board.

In the nautical world things were even more troubling. Across the global seas ships were meeting these waves, from megaton vessels like the Munchen -- oceangoing freighters and tankers and bulk carriers -- down to recreational sailboats.

At best, the encounters resulted in damage; at worst, the boat vanished, taking all hands with it. "Two large ships sink every week on average [worldwide], but the cause is never studied to the same detail as an air crash. It simply gets put down to 'bad weather,' " said Dr. Wolfgang Rosenthal, senior scientist for the MaxWave Project, a consortium of European scientists that convened in 2000 to investigate the disappearing ships.
MS München

December 12, 1978: Considered unsinkable, the Munchen was a cutting-edge craft, the flagship of the German Merchant Navy. At 3:25 a.m. fragments of a Morse code Mayday, emanating from 450 miles north of the Azores, signaled that the vessel had suffered grave damage from a wave.

Artist's conception of MS München facing a giant wave.

But even after 110 ships and 13 aircraft were deployed -- the most comprehensive search in the history of shipping -- the ship and its 27 crew were never seen again.

A haunting clue was left behind: Searchers found one of the Munchen's lifeboats, usually stowed 65 feet above the water, floating empty. Its twisted metal fittings indicated that it had been torn away. "Something extraordinary" had destroyed the ship, concluded the official report. *

The Munchen's disappearance points to the main problem with proving the existence of a giant wave:
If you run into that kind of nightmare, it's likely to be the last one you'll have.

The force of waves is hard to overstate. An 18-inch wave can topple a wall built to withstand 125-mile-per-hour winds, for instance, and coastal advisories are issued for even five-foot-tall surf, which regularly kills people caught in the wrong places.

The number of people who have witnessed a 100-foot wave at close range and made it back home to describe the experience is a very small one.

* Agelbert NOTE: The container ship El Faro sank during Hurricane Juaquin on October 1, 2015. All 33 crewmembers perished. The lifeboats on El Faro were also 65 feet above the water line. From the condition of the lifeboat that was recovered, the evidence indicates a giant wave sank the El Faro. The authorities have not admitted this as of yet. But I am not the only one that strongly suspects that the condition of the lifeboat is evidence that a giant wave sank El Faro (Spanish for "Lighthouse"). 

"A heavily damaged lifeboat from the El Faro was discovered, with no one ..."

Coast Guard Investigates El Faro Life Boat
Published on Oct 5, 2015
A Coast Guard Air Station Miami MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter crew investigates a life boat Sunday, Oct. 4, 2015, that was found from the missing ship El Faro. El Faro lost propulsion and communications prior to Hurricane Joaquin passing directly over it. U.S. Coast Guard video.

Warming oceans are with us now and increasing the violence of the oceans. By chance, I recorded the SST (Sea Surface Temperature) off the East Coast of the USA the day before Hurricane Juaquin sank the El Faro container ship. Here's the September 30, 2015 (8 day average - proof  that it was really consistently hot out there!) screenshot:

Notice all that ocean surface at 27.8C (82F) hurricane forming minimum temperature or greater.

Here's two days later (one day after the El Faro Container ship sank). I superimposed the hurricane location. It is a one day average SST so the conditions when the El Faro sank are displayed.  I was not aware that the El Faro had been lost at the time I made these screenshots. Notice the cooler spot on the ocean precisely where Hurricane Juaquin is lashing El Faro. A hurricane transfers several degrees of water temperature directly to the atmosphere, which, in turn, increases the ferocity of the winds. Ferocious winds produce ferocious waves.


El Faro departed Jacksonville en route to San Juan, Puerto Rico.


The El Faro was one of TWO cargo ships that went down because of Hurricane Juaquin (the 215 ft. MV Minouche that went down didn't make national headlines, because people, perhaps, might start to get "unnecessarily alarmed" about the increasing shipping losses from our increasingly violent oceans). All 12 crew of the MV Minouche were rescued.

MV Minouche

The Coast Guard pilot's voice shakes as he describes conditions they have never before experienced in rescue attempts when they were searching for the El Faro and rescuing the crew of the MV Minouche.

US Coast Guard search for El Faro; 12 rescued from MV Minouche
Published on Oct 5, 2015
A US Coast Guard C-130 pilot describes a flight through Hurricane Joaquin in 100 knot winds and over 40-foot waves in search of the cargo ship El Faro, which has been reported sunk after debris was found. Part two of this video features footage from an Oct. 1 rescue of 12 people from the MV Minouche near the Bahamas.

The El Faro, that went down with a crew of 33, all lost, 294 cars, trailers and trucks, along with hundreds of containers, had a type of lifeboat that is a death boat in stormy seas.

Here's a comment by a fellow who's handle is deckofficer:

Hurricane Joaquin vs. M/V El Faro's final voyage, weather and decision-making...

I guess the only point I would like to make is some owners don't seem to value the lives of their crews. Schedules are tight and safety equipment is in many cases the bare minimum for certification. In the case of SS El Faro (it is my understanding this is a steam ship, not diesel) the open life boats as high on the super structure as they were meets requirements but certainly doesn't offer the all sea state conditions of deployment as free fall enclosed life boat capsules. If these souls are lost at sea, it is maddening that the simple added investment of better emergency egress would have saved their lives. I have done more lifeboat drills than I can remember, and for the older style gravity systems there was a good reason these drills only occurred on calm days.

When sea state is overwhelming and you have lost propulsion and need to abandon ship, do you want this....


Or this....


USCG Unlimited Tonnage Open Ocean (CMA)

Free fall enclosed life boat capsules are a great idea. They should be mandatory. The fact that they aren't is mute evidence of the neoliberal Empathy Deficit disordered "cost/benefit analysis" that values goods more than lives. As long as people continue to line up to crew the ships, management will cut corners on life support.

And the Libertarians will cheer them on demanding all those "government regulations" be eliminated so the shippers can make more money without "government interference".   (

But the greedball shippers are increasingly going to have a bit more to worry about than whether they have a labor force or not. Thanks to the fossil fuel industry socialized cost of CO2 pollution (even though Big Oil is getting a bit of payback from the oceans with oil rig difficulties and tanker losses), this is no longer going to be about whether the "demand" for products "justifies" cargo shipping.  (

I am grateful to Paul Beckwith of the University of Ottawa for alerting me to the threat from violent oceans that mankind faces.

Paul Beckwith is a part time professor at the University of Ottawa and a post graduate studying and researching abrupt climate change, with a focus on the arctic.

An Ocean Full of 30 meter Tall Waves

by Paul Beckwith

Published on Jul 23, 2015

"Near the end of the previous warm period (Late-Eemian) when the sea level was +5 to +9 meters higher than today, persistent long period long wavelength waves 30 meters high battered the Bahamas coastline. Will we see these massive storm generated waves soon? No ship could survive this..."

If the ships cannot handle the seas (NO ship is designed, or can cost effectively be designed, to handle anywhere near 100 tons per square meter of force on her hull), shipping itself will no longer be cost effective unless cargo ships morph into cargo submarines. The cost of doing that is staggering. Even if they designed them to ride just beneath the wave turbulence, they still would have to submerge to one half the wavelength of ocean waves.

Deep-Water Waves

If the water depth (d) is greater then the wave base (equal to one-half the wavelength, or L/2), the waves are called deep-water waves. Deep-water waves have no interference with the ocean bottom, so they include all wind-generated waves in the open ocean. Submarines can avoid large ocean waves by submerging below the wave base.

The wave that hit the Draupner platform in 1995 was over 90 ft. high and had a wavelength of 231 meters (which it covered in only 12 seconds! - 45 mph). To avoid these waves, a submerged cargo vessel or tanker would have to withstand pressures at a minimum of 116 meters below sea level.

That may be a piece of cake for a normal submarine but it would cost multiples of what cargo and tanker vessels cost now to make cargo submarines and tankers capable of routinely submerging to 400 or 500 feet.

And in water that is too shallow to get under the wave action, they will not avoid being damaged or sunk. Those waves Paul Beckwith mentions will be visiting the coastlines regularly in a ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world.

During WW2 the Germans actually made submarine tankers. They nicknamed them "Milk Cows". The German type XIV U-Boat could resupply other boats with 432 t (425 long tons) of fuel. I'm sure ExxonMobil will look into it when the going gets REALLY rough on the oceans, instead of doing the right thing and giving up fossil fuels. They aren't known for their ability to consider the wider consequences of their greed based, short term profit motive stupidity. But I digress.  ;D

Besides the large increase in sea level, the wave action predicted makes every hull design of modern shipping inadequate. It will be very hard to sustain our level of civilization without the benefits of modern shipping.

Redesigning hulls will not work for the simple reason that the waves, now called "rogue" waves, of those oceans will be routine. 30 to 35 meter tall waves exert forces on a hull of about 100 tons per square meter. No modern hull design exceeds 30 tons per square meter.
Hellespont Alhambra (now TI Asia), a ULCC TI class supertanker, which are the largest ocean-going oil tankers in the world

To give you a better idea of the huge threat a giant wave or three is to a large tanker or cargo vessel,  I took some screenshots from a video of a wave laboratory testing the effects of 72 ft. waves on a modern supertanker. I'm sure Big Oil is paying attention, regardless of what they say in public.  ;)


3D simulation by Agelbert of tanker model is below the wave tank screenshot

5: The above is catastrophic for a tanker. 6: Supertanker scale model in scale 72 ft. waves is rolled and sinks.

The tanker completely capsized. In a real world situation, this is a death blow to the crew because it happens too fast to get survival gear on or reach the lifeboats, even if they are the emergency egress sealed type you saw earlier. That is why both tanker and cargo ships do everything they can to avoid being broadsided. In the real world, when the engines are lost in these types of seas, the only way to survive is to immediately abandon ship on a free fall enclosed life boat capsule.

If the above series of screen shots are not convincing enough to the reader of the threat shipping faces from giant waves, the following video series will leave no doubt in your mind that world shipping is incapable of handling the routine 30 to 35 meter waves that the Hansen et al June 2015 paper predicts for a ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world.

The following video series is the first of an excellent BBC series that describes the difficulties that shipping faces with giant waves. Some of the material I have covered is presented with some added background provided. You will learn much from these videos. You will learn that absolutely nothing I have told you is exaggeration or hyperbole.

The threat is real and it is getting worse. I urge you to set aside some time to view them because this concerns our future as a civilization. We are not prepared for a ΔT = plus 2C  world (and beyond).


Global Civilization is threatened within 25 years or less by the scientifically predicted ocean surface wave activity in the Hansen et al June 2015 study * and the Dutton et al July 2015 study ** evidencing a 6 to 25 meter (19 to 82 feet!) sea level increase in the geological record when the CO2 parts per million (PPM) atmospheric concentration was between 300 and 400 PPM.

As of April of 2017, the CO2 concentration passed 410PPM. It is increasing at over 3PPM per year.

We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

Carbon dioxide has not reached this height in millions of years

•By Brian Kahn, Climate Central on April 21, 2017

* Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059–20179, 2015 doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-2015 © Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming is highly dangerous
J. Hansen1, M. Sato1, P. Hearty2, R. Ruedy3,4, M. Kelley3,4, V. Masson-Delmotte5, G. Russell4, G. Tselioudis4, J. Cao6, E. Rignot7,8, I. Velicogna8,7, E. Kandiano9, K. von Schuckmann10, P. Kharecha1,4, A. N. Legrande4, M. Bauer11, and K.-W. Lo3,4

** Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349  no. 6244  DOI: .1126/science.aaa4019 

Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods
A. Dutton1,*,  A. E. Carlson2,  A. J. Long3,  G. A. Milne4,  P. U. Clark2,  R. DeConto5,  B. P. Horton6,7,  S. Rahmstorf8,  M. E. Raymo9

Furthermore, the rate of increase is also rising, evidencing, not only the lack of concerted action by the governments of the industrialized nations of the world to stop using fossil fuels, but an increase in their use, along with the incredibly destructive policies of subsidizing the exploration for fossil fuels.

If drastic action is not taken to avert this violent oceans catastrophe for human civilization, our global civilization will collapse into "sea-locked" regions unable to conduct trade across the oceans except via air transportation, a method that is not economically feasible to use for bulk cargo.

Port facilities and coastal airport facilities will become unusable. In addition, the salt water fishing industry would also collapse, both from the violent oceans and the increasing rate of marine extinctions, creating joblessness, food shortages and widespread hunger.

At least 25 percent of the world's arable land, all of which is low lying and near sea coasts, will be lost due to salt water invasion of the water table, even several miles from the coasts.


To prevent a collapse of global civilization into a group of "sea locked" areas, we must act now to prevent the oceans from being too stormy for shipping.

This requires the following:

1. The manufacture of internal combustion engines, and spare parts, used to power utility scale power plants, land, sea and air vehicles and emergency generators for public or private use, be they large or small, is to be outlawed, unless they are designed to run exclusively (low temperature alloys ONLY - 2/3 lighter engine blocks - they break down due to high waste heat if run on fossil fuels) on ethanol or some other biofuel. All aircraft must be powered by biofuels until electrically powered or hydrogen powered aircraft replace current jet engines. All ocean going oil tankers are to be recycled for low cost EV metals. All remaining ships of all sizes must be electrically powered as well, unless they can be modified to run on biofuels. Biofuels must be used to bridge the gap while phasing out the internal combustion engine in industry, the military and transportation by air, land or sea.

2. All ships must have enclosed egress lifeboats capable of surviving 35 meter waves.

3. Small engines, like those used for lawn mowers. leaf blowers or weed whackers are to be outlawed. All ordinances requiring lawns are to be outlawed. All lawn, gardening or snow removal power equipment not running on E100 is to be electrically powered without any exceptions or grace period.

4. A program to phase out of all uses of fossil fuels within one year must begin immediately. All gasoline stations are to have at least two E100 pumps. A gasoline tax of one dollar per gallon is to be levied to existing gasoline or other distillate fuels tax. The tax is to be increased by one additional dollar per gallon every month.

5. All governments must provide an EV for gas guzzlers consumer trade program at no cost to the owner until all on road and off road vehicles that are not fueled exclusively with E100 (100% ethanol) have been recycled.

6. All public and private buildings (including the military) are to be modified to have 100% renewable energy for heating and cooling. Zero percent financing and a 30 year amortization period is to be provided to all private households and landlords for the purchase and installation of Renewable Energy infrastructure. No household is entitled to heat and cool more than 500 square feet per occupant (No exceptions). Monitoring devices are to placed on all large houses in general and mansions in particular with heavy fines for violations.

7. After all buildings are heated and cooled with renewable energy, the remaining energy needs, plus a surplus, are to be generated by renewable energy in order to begin the process of returning to less than 350PPM (Parts Per Million) of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide). Carbon will be sequestered with renewable energy machines.

8.The manufacture, sale or use of fossil fuel based pesticides or chemical fertilizers for agriculture is to be outlawed with a six month phase out grace period.

9. The manufacture and sale of any product, including, but not limited to, pharmaceuticals and plastics, using fossil fuels as a feed stock is to be prohibited by law. A one year grace period will be allowed for transition to the use of plant based carbohydrates as feed stock.

10. Water use is to be heavily regulated.

11. Military budgets are to be limited to no more than 5% of tax receipts.

12. All subsidies for fossil fuels are be declared null and void in every country in the world. All rigs, refineries, tanker trucks, pipelines and other fossil fuel industry plant and equipment are to be recycled within a five year period. The fossil fuel industry stock holders are to shoulder the cost of this. Corporate bankruptcies of fossil fuel corporations will not limit the liability of the corporation stock holders according to a worldwide proclamation of Force Majeure. Executives, board members and all other stock holders will be liable for all recycling costs according to ownership records over the last 50 years.

And, as "radical" as the above seems to status quo lovers, that is just the start of what MUST be done.

Massive conservation efforts must be undertaken to preserve and protect all animals now threatened with extinction. All governments must put these efforts on the level of war time demands simply because our survival as a civilization and possibly as a species is threatened.

A wartime mobilization scenario has been proposed that is somewhat less radical than what I propose. I would certainly support that action (Any Port in the Catastrophic Climate Change Storm 😇).

Wartime mobilisation for climate mitigation. Preprint of paper published subsequently in Energy Policy (2013) 58: 371-380.

Laurence L. Delina and Mark Diesendorf* Institute of Environmental Studies University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052, Australia *Corresponding author: email:


Climate science suggests that, to have a high probability of limiting global warming to an average temperature increase of 2ºC, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2020 and be reduced to close to zero by 2040. However, the current trend is heading towards at least 4ºC by 2100 and little effective action is being taken. This paper commences the process of developing contingency plans for a scenario in which a sudden major global climate impact galvanises governments to implement emergency climate mitigation targets and programs. Climate activists assert that rapid mitigation is feasible, invoking the scale and scope of wartime mobilisation strategies. This paper draws upon historical accounts of social, technological and economic restructurings in several countries during World War 2 in order to investigate potential applications of wartime experience to radical, rigorous and rapid climate mitigation strategies. We focus on the energy sector, the biggest single contributor to global climate change, in developed and rapidly developing countries. We find that, while wartime experience suggests some potential strategies for rapid climate mitigation in the areas of finance and labour, it also has severe limitations, resulting from its lack of democratic processes. 
Keywords: climate mitigation, wartime mobilisation, non-technical aspects, energy transition

We cannot function without the use of the oceans. We will not be able to use those oceans if we don't lower the CO2 atmospheric content to at least 350 PPM.

And even then, with the 6 meter or more (over 19 feet!) rise in sea level locked into the  ΔT = plus 2C  world, we will lose the use of all port facilities, coastal cities and arable land near sea level within a decade or, optimistically speaking in regard to the IPCC RCP-8.5 "Business as Usual" scenario, by 2050. Our civilization does not have the money to rebuild and replant and relocate millions of people as the seas go up and fly all cargo when the seas can't be used, PERIOD.

It is only possible to avoid a collapse of global civilization by drastic measures, and only if those measures are undertaken within a decade.

If not, then mankind will be split into several "sea locked" groups watching the oceans acidify and the temperature increase to the point when the methane bursts from the thawed clathrates in the Arctic ocean bottom. Then the ΔT = plus 2C world will be a distant mild memory in comparison to the  ΔT = plus 4C and beyond runaway GHG hell.

Sadly, I do not see any of evidence that any government is championing drastic action.  (

Yes, ALL governments will eventually realize that we are in an Existential Catastrophic Climate Crisis. But every day of delay multiplies the costs of ameliorating the damage from climate change exponentially.

Oil Tanker named "Prestige" sinks. Is this the Writing on the Oil Tanker Hull Wall for Big Oil?

It is small consolation to me that these oil tankers will not survive the coming oceans. But there is a certain logic to it.

If you find this article of importance to our survival as a species or the survival of civilization, please pass it on with or without attribution. People need to properly understand the nature of our climate problem in general, and the fossil fuel industry's blame for profiting from it in particular, in order to embrace the outlawing of the burning of fossil fuels.


They must be held accountable and they must NOT be allowed to influence energy policy ever again. They successfully sabotaged and/or watered down all the reforms proposed at the December 2015 COP21 Climate Conference, as they have done at all the other global climate conferences through corruption or threats. Our survival and the welfare of the children of the world depends on stopping these criminals NOW.


Please Help the Children have an Opportunity to Live in a Viable Biosphere.


The following was written for the COP21 conference. Included are the names of all that signed on. Daily Kos, I’m glad to say, signed on to this document:


"We call on you to take immediate action to protect COP21 and all future negotiations from the influence of big polluters. Given the fossil fuel industry’s years of interference intended to block progress, push false solutions, and continue the disastrous status quo, the time has come to stop treating big polluters as legitimate “stakeholders” and to remove them from climate policymaking."

Today, we are facing the prospect of the destruction of life as we know it and irreversible damage to our planet due to climate change. Scientists are telling us with ever more urgency that we must act quickly to stop extracting fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the world’s largest polluters have prevented progress on bold climate action for far too long.

We call on the Parties to the UNFCCC to protect the UN climate talks and climate policymaking around the world from the influence of big polluters. The world is looking to the next round of negotiations – in Paris this December – for decisive action on climate. This is a pivotal moment to create real solutions. We need a strong outcome from the Paris talks in order to seize the momentum of a growing global movement, and to urge leaders to take bolder action to address the climate crisis.

But the fossil fuel industry and other transnational corporations that have a vested interest in stopping progress continue to delay, weaken, and block climate policy at every level. From the World Coal Association hosting a summit on "clean coal" around COP19 to Shell aggressively lobbying in the European Union for weak renewable energy goals while promoting gas – these big polluters are peddling false solutions to protect their profits while driving the climate crisis closer to the brink.

 A decade ago, the international community took on another behemoth industry – Big Tobacco – and created a precedent-setting treaty mechanism that removed the tobacco industry from public health policy. This can happen again here.

Corporate Accountability International delivered this message and the list of signatures at the climate talks in Bonn, Germany, the first week of June of 2015 and did another delivery by the end of COP21 in Paris in December of 2015.

Participating organizations:
Amazon Watch
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Climate Action Network International
Corporate Accountability International
CREDO Action
Daily Kos
Environmental Action
Food & Water Watch
Federation of Young European Greens
Forecast the Facts
Greenpeace USA
League of Conservation Voters
Oil Change International
People for the American Way
Rainforest Action Network
RH Reality Check
The Natural History Museum
CC: UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
Outgoing COP20 President Manuel Pulgar-Vidal
Incoming COP21 President Laurent Fabius

Many will read this and scoff. They do not accept the FACT that Business as usual is a death sentence for global civilization. They do not accept the FACT that nature does not negotiate. They do not accept the FACT that Incremental/half measures are like being half pregnant with Rosemary's baby. 

They will say that there is absolutely no way that the governments of the world will undertake even a tiny portion of the recommendations I list as sine qua non for our survival as a global civilization. 

Perhaps they are right about the governments. If they are, then perhaps we will, because of the successful degrading of democracy and the biosphere by the fossil fuel industry over the course of about a century, experience the roaring oceans and the collapse of all human civilization, not just global civilization.

If so, then the ocean violence, including its dramatic effects on human civilization, now predicted by science, was accurately described in prophesy a long time ago.

And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Luke 21:25-26 English Standard Version 

But whether you believe the above prophesy is valid or not, I think it safe to assume that our future ocean surface will be very unsafe. And below the surface, it will be even worse for the marine species we all depend on.

Suggested viewing:

Agelbert NOTE: Learn about biological stability of systems, negative feedbacks, positive feedbacks, population trends, ocean acidification and the very important issue of increasing anoxic (oxygen starved) conditions in the oceans directly caused by the continued burning of fossil fuels in the video below. Dr. Lubchenco is one of several credentialed leading climate scientists at this conference:

Biological Extinction | Discussion #11
Jane Lubchenco (born December 4, 1947) is an American environmental scientist and marine ecologist who teaches and does research at Oregon State University. Her research interests include interactions between the environment and human well-being, biodiversity, climate change, and sustainable use of oceans and the planet. From 2009-2013, she served as Administrator of NOAA and Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

Casina Pio IV

Published on Mar 2, 2017
How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend (
PAS-PASS Workshop
Casina Pio IV, 27 February-1 March 2017

On our 4.54 billion year old planet, life is perhaps as much as 3.7 billion years old, photosynthesis and multi-cellularity dozens of times independently around 3.0 billion years old, and the emergence of plants, animals, and fungi onto land, by at least the Ordovician period, perhaps 480 million years ago, forests appearing around 370 million years ago, and the origin of modern groups such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and land plants subsequently. The geological record shows that there have been five major extinction-events in the past, the first of them about 542 million years ago, and suggests that 99% of the species that ever lived (5 billion of them?) have become extinct. The last major extinction event occurred about 66 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous Period, and, in general, the number of species on earth and the complexity of their communities has increased steadily until near the present.

Suggested Reading:

Greenland now a major driver of rising seas: study    June 26, 2017 by Marlowe Hood

More summer sunshine leading to increased Greenland ice melt June 28, 2017
A team of scientists, led by the University of Bristol, has discovered that a marked decrease in summer cloud cover during the last 20 years has significantly accelerated melt from the Greenland ice sheet.

Greenland ice sheet may melt completely with 1.6 degrees of global warming March 12, 2012

Storms caused massive Antarctic sea ice loss in 2016   
June 26, 2017

The Real Sea Monsters: On the Hunt for Rogue Waves
By Lynne Peeples | September 2, 2009

Rogue waves are no fish tale
Once regarded as extremely rare, satellite photos and radar imagery have documented the existence of numerous rogue waves, and it turns out that they are far more common than previously thought.

Wave Power Could Contribute 10% Of Global Electricity Demand By 2050 June 28th, 2017 by Joshua S Hill

Water, Energy and Waste Sustainable Development in Large Cities Masdar Engage Contest Entry Submitted December 20, 2013 by A. G. Gelbert (

If you missed the first two parts, you can read them at the links below.

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART ONE (

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART TWO (

You may print or post any part or the whole of the three parts of this article, with or without attribution, as many times as you wish. Spread these timely warnings far and wide. Remember, the biosphere we need to preserve is the only one we have. Without a Viable Biosphere, we cannot survive. We cannot have a viable biosphere unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

"We do not need a 'new' business model for energy because we never had one. What we need, if we wish to avoid extinction, is to plug the environmental and equity costs of energy production and use into our planning and thinking. " -- A.G. Gelbert

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 02, 2015, 10:00:11 pm
The melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and a large part of the Antarctic Ice Cap TIPPING POINTs have been passed. We can NO LONGER prevent that from happening.  :( Have a nice day.

The video from this session has a duration of 1 hour 39 minutes 44 seconds.

For the money quotes start at the 1 hour 22 minute 57 second mark:  :o

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 02, 2015, 10:22:24 pm
This is what the polluting energy industries will make extinct.   (



Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 21, 2015, 04:35:45 pm
Michael Pollan’s Letter to the Future
Michael Pollan | November 18, 2015 9:04 am

This letter to the future by Michael Pollan is part of the Letters to the Future campaign, a national effort to encourage people from all walks of life to write six generations into the future about climate change. The campaign puts a spotlight on the importance of world leaders agreeing to a global climate treaty at COP21 in Paris.

Dear Future Family,

I know you will not read this note until the turn of the century, but I want to explain what things were like back in 2015, before we figured out how to roll back climate change. As a civilization we were still locked into a zero-sum idea of our relationship with the natural world, in which we assumed that for us to get whatever we needed, whether it was food or energy or entertainment, nature had to be diminished. But that was never necessarily the case.

In our time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture still handed out subsidies to farmers for every bushel of corn or wheat or rice they could grow. This promoted a form of agriculture that was extremely productive and extremely destructive—of the climate, among other things.

Approximately one-third of the carbon then in the atmosphere had formerly been sequestered in soils in the form of organic matter, but since we began plowing and deforesting, we’d been releasing huge quantities of this carbon into the atmosphere. At that time, the food system as a whole—that includes agriculture, food processing, and food transportation—contributed somewhere between 20-30 percent of the greenhouse gases produced by civilization—more than any other sector except energy. Fertilizer was always one of the biggest culprits for two reasons: it’s made from fossil fuels, and when you spread it on fields and it gets wet, it turns into nitrous oxide, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Slowly, we convinced the policy makers to instead give subsidies to farmers for every increment of carbon they sequestered in the soil.


Over time, we began to organize our agriculture so that it could heal the planet, feed us and tackle climate change. This began with shifting our food system from its reliance on oil, which is the central fact of industrial agriculture (not just machinery, but pesticides and fertilizers are all oil-based technologies), back to a reliance on solar energy: photosynthesis.

Carbon farming was one of the most hopeful things going on at that time in climate change research. We discovered that plants secrete sugars into the soil to feed the microbes they depend on, in the process putting carbon into the soil. This process of sequestering carbon at the same time improved the fertility and water-holding capacity of the soil. We began to relying on the sun—on photosynthesis—rather than on fossil fuels to feed ourselves. We learned that there are non-zero-sum ways we could feed ourselves AND heal the earth. That was just one of the big changes we made toward the sustainable food system you are lucky enough to take for granted.

Adapted from an interview in Vice Magazine.

An American public intellectual, Michael Pollan is a teacher, author and speaker on topics that include the environment, agriculture, the food industry, society and nutrition.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 21, 2015, 04:51:48 pm
Groundbreaking Ruling: State Has Constitutional Obligation to ‘Stem the Tide of Global Warming’  (

Our Children's Trust | November 20, 2015 9:33 am

Late last night, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis R. Hill issued a groundbreaking ruling in the unprecedented case of eight youth petitioners who requested that the Washington Department of Ecology write a carbon emissions rule that protects the atmosphere for their generation and those to come.


In a landmark decision, Judge Hill declared “[the youths’] very survival depends upon the will of their elders to act now, decisively and unequivocally, to stem the tide of global warming … before doing so becomes first too costly and then too late.” Photo credit: Shutterstock

In a landmark decision, Judge Hill declared
“[the youths’] very survival depends upon the will of their elders to act now, decisively and unequivocally, to stem the tide of global warming … before doing so becomes first too costly and then too late.” (

Highlighting inextricable relationships between navigable waters and the atmosphere, and finding that separating the two is “nonsensical,” the judge found the public trust doctrine mandates that the state act through its designated agency “to protect what it holds in trust.” The court confirmed what the Washington youth and youth across the nation have been arguing in courts of law, that “[t]he state has a constitutional obligation to protect the public’s interest in natural resources held in trust for the common benefit of the people.”

“It’s incredible to have the court finally say that we do have a right to a healthy atmosphere and that our government can’t allow it to be harmed,” said 13-year-old petitioner Gabriel Mandell. “This ruling means that what the Department of Ecology does going forward in its rulemaking has to protect us, the kids of Washington, and not just us, but future generations too, like my children and those to come. Now they can’t decide to protect short-term economic fears and ignore us because we have constitutional and public trust rights to a stable climate!”

The court validated the youths’ claims that the “scientific evidence is clear that the current rates of reduction mandated by Washington law … cannot ensure the survival of an environment in which [youth] can grow to adulthood safely.” The judge determined that the state has a “mandatory duty” to “preserve, protect and enhance the air quality for the current and future generations,” and found the state’s current standards to fail that standard dramatically for several reasons.

The judge continued, writing that “current scientific evidence establishes that rapidly increasing global warming causes an unprecedented risk to the Earth, including land, sea, the atmosphere and all living plants and creatures.”

The youth petitioners first requested the state initiate greenhouse gas rulemaking procedures in June 2014. The state refused to do so in August of the same year. The youth appealed that refusal last September, and in a June 2015 decision highlighting the urgency of the climate crisis, the judge ordered the state to reconsider the youth’s petition taking into account current climate science.

Then, in July 2015, the youth plaintiffs met with Gov. Inslee to plead their case personally. Just 11 days later, Gov. Inslee ordered the Department of Ecology to institute greenhouse gas rulemaking, as the youth had requested for more than a year. In August 2015, the Department of Ecology again refused the youths’ request for a science-based rulemaking because they had initiated similar rulemaking at Gov. Inslee’s request. Because the Department of Ecology also rejected the youths’ constitutional and public trust rights, the case, resulting in this decision, was argued in front of Judge Hollis Hill on Nov. 3, 2015.

“In this important ruling, Judge Hill has made it very clear what [the Department of] Ecology must do when promulgating the Clean Air Rule: preserve, protect and enhance air quality for present and future generations and uphold the constitutional rights of these young people,” said Western Environmental Law Center attorney Andrea Rodgers. “We will hold Ecology accountable every step of the way to make sure that Judge Hill’s powerful words are put into action. This is a huge victory for our children and for the climate movement. To Gov. Inslee, we hope you take this message with you to Paris and heed Judge Hill’s finding that ‘if ever there were a time to recognize through action this right to preservation of a healthful and pleasant environment, the time is now.’”

This case is one of several similar state and international cases, all supported by Our Children’s Trust, seeking the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate. Cases brought by youth to protect the atmosphere are pending before trial judges in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Colorado, and before appellate courts in Massachusetts and Oregon.

Significantly, similar legal issues are being considered in a federal lawsuit brought in August 2015 against the federal government by 21 young people from across the U.S. and Dr. James Hansen as guardian for all future generations, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Just last week in that case, the world’s largest fossil fuel industry representatives filed a request to intervene to protect their commercial economic interests in fossil fuel exploitation and to thwart the youth’s request for protection of their fundamental constitutional rights. The proposed intervenors, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (representing members ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Koch Industries and virtually all other major refiners and petrochemical manufacturers), the American Petroleum Institute (representing 625 oil and natural gas companies) and the National Association of Manufacturers, called the youth’s case “a direct threat to [their] businesses.”

Julia Olson, executive director of Our Children’s Trust said, “This Washington decision establishing constitutional public trust protections for the atmosphere, together with the decision earlier this year doing the same in New Mexico, evidences a wake-up by the judiciary that our collective right to a habitable future is at stake and must be protected by the courts before it is too late. Judge Hill did not mince words on the need for science-based climate action now.”  (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 14, 2015, 07:33:06 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Despite the COP21 "agreement", reality will prevail. The climate doesn't negotiate and is certainly not impressed with any ass hole or tiny group of them in our species claiming to be TPTB.


Why the COP21 "Agreement" is Smoke and Mirrors

War & Climate Change: Jeremy Corbyn on the Brutal Quest for Oil & the Need for a Sustainable Planet: video. (

Top Climate Expert Kevin Anderson: Crisis is Worse Than We Think & Scientists Are Self-Censoring to Downplay Risk. ( 

The biggest threat that climate change has in store for us. ( 

12/04/2015 12:12 PM 

Income Inequality = Climate Inequality, Says Oxfam News

In the US, one of the major themes in our presidential campaign is income inequality between the richest 1% and the rest of our citizens. Not suprisingly, this theme also applies to climate change.  

Oxfam's new report - released at COP21 - lays bare "climate-change inequality": the world's richest 1% are also the biggest polluters by far, producing 175 times the carbon emissions as people in the bottom 10% of income.

The richest 10% are responsible for half the world's emissions, while the poorest half - roughly 3.5 billion people - produce only 10% of all emissions.

That 10% has no intention, despite the COP21 accord, of changing their giant carbon footprint suicidal ways. Here's the evidence of that suicidally stupid greed:

Oxfam says:

"While the richest citizens can and should contribute as individuals to cutting their own emissions through lifestyle changes, wherever they live, they can't solve the climate crisis through voluntary action alone. Their choices are often constrained by the decisions of their governments in all sorts of areas, from energy to transport policy.

"Without question, a weak agreement in Paris is no more in their interests than it is in the interests of the poorest and least responsible. Increasingly members of the richest 10% are experiencing the impacts of climate change themselves, and are mobilizing to demand action from their governments.

"The only beneficiaries of inadequate climate action in Paris and beyond are a much smaller elite with vested interests in the continuation of a high carbon and deeply unequal global economy.

The number of billionaires with interests in fossil fuel activities has risen from 54 in 2010 to 88 in 2015, while the size of their combined personal fortunes has expanded by around 50% from over $200 billion to more than $300 billion."

Read Oxfam's report, "Extreme Carbon Inequality": 

When I see this clock ( and this clock ( and this clock ( show greenhouse gas and pollution levels at survivable levels, I will entertain some hope that we can avoid climate catastrophe.

Until then, this "agreement" is a feel good toothless tiger.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 14, 2015, 10:34:34 pm
12/14/2015 04:45 PM   
How The Paris Agreement Falls Short      ( News
The Paris Agreement is fantastic news if only because it is the first time the entire world said Yes ... and by consensus ... pushed along by the business community - but it certainly falls short in many crucial ways.

 The Agreement is based on aspirations, not binding agreements, and anything done is purely voluntary. We are too far along on climate disruption for this approach to make sense, say many critics. But the fact is, it is the only way to get all countries on board. 

Saying ‘We'll have a 2°C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years' is worthless words, says climate scientist James Hansen. "There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned."

Hansen is referring to the fact that there is still no carbon tax and countries can still subsidize fossil fuels.

The only way to avoid catastrophic flooding of the world's major cities is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a minimum 3% a year and impose a global carbon tax,
says Hansen.

"Despite the self-congratulatory statements from world leaders, the reality is they have set the planet on course to burn. Science tells us that emissions of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels, need to peak by 2020 and come down 6-10% every year after that, yet 'fossil fuels' are not mentioned once in the entire agreement signed in Paris. Hence, there is no mention of stopping exploration for more, stopping building coal plants, oil pipelines, or fracking for more natural gas," says Chris Williams, author of the book, Ecology & Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis. 

Another study warns that only "immediate and substantial" reductions can prevent massive, irreversible damage to the world's oceans and marine life by 2100. Without that, oceans will heat up, lose oxygen and become too acidic for much of life. 

"Impacts on key marine and coastal organisms and ecosystems are already detectable, and some face high risks well before 2100," say the international team of scientists.

"We are allowing ourselves to travel a uniquely dangerous path, and we are doing so without an appreciation for the consequences that lie ahead," Manuel Barange, Science Director of Plymouth Marine Laboratory told BBC.

Current World Emissions Path: Yellow shows country climate pledges, blue shows the path we must be on.


 This summer, Hansen and 16 other scientists released a paper showing that limiting warming to 2°C is extremely dangerous. All over the Earth, ice sheets are melting much faster than expected and sea levels could be up to five meters higher by the latter part of this century - inundating cities such as London, New York, Miami and Shanghai.
"More than half the world's cities are at risk,"
Hansen says.

"The economic cost of a business as usual approach to emissions is incalculable. It will become questionable whether global governance will break down. You're talking about hundreds of million of climate refugees from places such as Pakistan and China. Civilization was set up and developed with a stable, constant coastline."

Speaking of US Republicans - where every leading presidential candidate denies the existence of climate change - Hansen says: 

"Many conservatives know climate change is not a hoax. But those running for president are hamstrung by the fact they think they can't get the nomination if they say this is an issue. They wouldn't get money from the fossil fuel industry."

Still, Hansen believes humans will meet the climate challenge. He points to the flattening of global emissions we're seeing and sees China as emerging as the world leader, not the US. 

"I think we will get there because China is rational. Their leaders are mostly trained in engineering and such things, they don't deny climate change and they have a huge incentive, which is air pollution. It's so bad in their cities they need to move to clean energies. They realize it's not a hoax. But they will need cooperation," Hansen says.

Read our articles, Global Emissions Fall This Year, Coal Use Peaked in 2013!

International Momentum Builds For Price On Carbon, End to Fossil Subsidies.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 15, 2015, 04:04:40 pm

Will Paris Agreement Save Us From Climate Chaos? (

•The preamble to the agreement suggests that governments “should consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants … as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.” But, there is nothing in the actual binding part of the agreement to ensure that any of these obligations are addressed.

•There’s no mention of “food security” anywhere in the preamble or the binding part of the agreement.

•The agreement contains only limited acknowledgement of the responsibilities of the most highly polluting countries to those in the global south and furthest north which did not create the climate disaster.

•The agreement continues to support false solutions such as carbon markets that allow polluters to pay or trade “credits” with those who are actually stewarding their farms and forests.

The agreement contains no mention of the need to stop using fossil fuels and turn to alternative energy sources. This omission is simply ridiculous greenwashing. We must immediately keep the oil in the soil and the coal in the hole or the planet will continue cooking.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 02, 2016, 09:50:44 pm

( (

How do wealthy families protect their wealth when their country has been successfully invaded?

Geoff Smith, undergraduate degree in History


My former wife's family was extremely wealthy prior to World War 2. They lived in Austria and had a prescience that horrible things were to come in 1937. They sold most of the assets and invested in diamonds and antique furniture. They hired an accomplished woodworker to make ingenious hiding places within the furniture.

They then placed the diamonds in the furniture and shipped it to many different storage facilities in many different countries.

While they lost a fortune in lost treasure to countries in Eastern Europe they had successfully recovered the shipments sent to Australia and South America.

They had many Jewish friends in Austria that thought they were paranoid. (

Aglbert NOTE: Those STUPID, CLOSED MINDED, IGNORANT people that labeled those intelligent people (that saw the writing on the wall and took measures to weather the coming storm) as "paranoid" are EXACTLY like the fossil fuelers that, in the face of overwhelming evidence of assured climate catastrophe because of 402 PPM (and climbing) CO2 pollution, say, uh, see below:


The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on! (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 03, 2016, 02:34:33 pm
   ( (

For those who believe this CO2 mess can be cleaned up lickety split with biochar or whatever, you, like the fossil fuel worshiping, biosphere math challenged "fine fellows" before you, should proceed to window number three (see below).

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 08, 2016, 06:34:04 pm
Thinking Beyond the Age of Fire

Posted on Jan 4, 2016

By Tim Radford / Climate News Network

This Creative Commons-licensed piece first appeared at Climate News Network.

LONDON—In December, in an unprecedented demonstration of international unity, 195 countries adopted the first-ever, universal, legally-binding agreement to take action on climate change.

It was a decision that, to be truly effective, requires an obligation to think again, at the most fundamental level, about how humans manage energy and maintain the essential comforts of civilisation.

Humans cannot go back to the beginning and start again, but if they had to, Walt Patterson’s new book would be as fundamental a guide to the challenges as any.

It doesn’t contain many helpful prescriptions about the most efficient exploitation of the emerging technologies that could deliver renewable energy, or deliver more bang for the megabuck of investment. But that’s not the point.

Patterson’s point is that a new start means a fresh attitude, and Electricity vs Fire is as nice a statement of the essential simplicity – and the scale – of the challenge as I have yet seen.

Patterson ( first made his name 45 years ago as an informed critic of the nuclear industry, and as one of the early voices of Friends of the Earth. He starts simply by reducing what humans do to six simple and very easily described physical actions.

•Humans control heat flow: that is, they put on clothes when cold, and open windows when hot.

•They adjust local temperatures: that is, they put a log on a fire or turn down a thermostat.

•Third, they make light: by candle, by electric lamp.

•Fourth, they exert force: they lift weights and push open the door.

•Fifth: they move things: this sounds like exerting force – and it requires force – but the whole of civilisation is based on traffic, on commerce, on the flow of objects, so you can see why he makes it a separate physical action.

•And lastly, humans manage information: they talk, listen, reason, exchange ideas, amass data, create mental pictures of worlds they cannot see, construct histories, and compose paradigms that help them work out how things came to be as they are, and how they could be different.

Everything Homo sapiens has achieved in the last 70,000 years involves all of, but only, those six actions. And for most of those 700 centuries, humans have achieved everything using only tools, and fire, and – but only for a century or so – electricity.

And much of that electricity is made for us with help from fire – coal, oil, gas fire – which delivers carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in quantities so vast that global temperatures have begun to rise and the once-stable global climate has begun to change in ways that, ultimately, threaten civilisation itself.

So the trick is to switch to electrical supplies that don’t depend on fire. We’ve started. But the logic of this book insists, to really change, we need to think the whole process through from the beginning, and understand that humanity’s profound dependence on fire must end.

Chance of change

Having listed the six physical energy-dependent actions that define us as humans, Patterson pursues each of them, as histories, and as opportunities that really do offer change.

The arrival of the combined cycle gas turbine in continuous operation, for instance, meant that generating stations could be smaller, better and clean enough to be close to users, and built in shorter time. Where natural gas was cheap, you could have electricity.

But such innovation pointed to even smaller, better and cleaner ways, and once a “renewable” – a wind turbine or photovoltaic array – is in existence, electricity becomes not a commodity, but a process, with options for new ways of financing it.

Patterson explores the inventive ways we can control heat efficiently without fire, and concedes that domestic cooking “is not, in the main, a significantly wasteful way to use fire. In rich countries the waste occurs much more in the increasing prevalence of processed food.”

“Infrastructure changes only slowly. But minds can change in an instant. Today could be the day you start thinking beyond the Fire Age”

He delivers analysis, and instances better ways of doing things, but the value of a book such as this is that it simply frames the important questions.

On the exertion of force, for instance: “Many people might now argue that most of the undertakings that use lots of brute force, such as large dams and river diversions, mountain-top removal coal mining, tar sands extraction or uranium mining, are at best ill-advised and frequently destructive.

“Closer examination suggests that such undertakings proceed only because those promoting them do not pay the costs of their actions.”

He points out that the whole global economy is based on fire and its consequences, and the consumer society exists to turn resources into waste. The phrase “consumer durables” becomes an oxymoron.

New values needed (

To move beyond this “stupid and dangerous” situation, humans “need to rethink the whole value structure that governs what we do and how.”

This is more easily said than done, but he foresees human activity switching towards natural systems, functioning not with the brute force of fire but the elegance of electricity.

One bit of this reviewer murmurs: “Good luck with that!” But another bit endorses his final words: “Infrastructure changes only slowly. But minds can change in an instant. Today could be the day you start thinking beyond the Fire Age.”

Tim Radford, a founding editor of Climate News Network, worked for The Guardian for 32 years, for most of that time as science editor. He has been covering climate change since 1988. (

Agelbert COMMENT: In regard to fossil fuels, it is amusing, in analyzing the prejudices that support their use, how slender the foundation they rest upon is.

The problem with the fossil fuel polluting status quo is that custom and prejudice accompany it and unthinking resistance to change perpetuate it. In human affairs custom, prejudice and resistance to change are stronger than truth and logic.  :(

We need to change that in order to survive our "WE, the 'apex predators', can do WHATEVER"  ( ( suicidal STUPIDITY.


"Human nature is bad. Good is a human product . . . A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles." —Sun Tzu

Patterson is a good teacher. We do as he says or perish in a nuclear and fossil fuels fouled nest.

Renewable is the cheaper energy option without fossil fuel and hidden nuclear subsides. (

Top Climate Expert Kevin Anderson: Crisis is Worse Than We Think & Scientists Are Self-Censoring to Downplay Risk. (

Our Responsibility to Future Generations (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 11, 2016, 03:20:23 pm

Steve is right. ( It's time for people to get right with God.

No truer words spoken.
Thanks Ag.

You are always welcome, my friend.  (

Work While There's Day light - Night is Coming...


John 9:4 We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 23, 2016, 06:54:03 pm
Is Humanity On the Eve of Extinction?  (
Jan. 21, 2016 1:23 pm By Thom Hartmann

According ( to NASA and NOAA scientists, 2015 was the warmest year ever for global land and ocean surfaces, dating all the way to 1880.

And it's not just American scientists who are reporting that last year was the warmest on record, British scientists reported that it was the warmest year since 1850, and Japanese scientists reported that it was the warmest year since 1891.

Keep in mind, 2014 had set the previous record for global surface temperatures, and 2015 just beat that record by a longshot.

Part of what's going has to do with an unusually warm Pacific Ocean due to an El Nino that's going on right now, but that doesn't explain it all.

As Dr. Michael Mann explained to the New York Times, (  if the global climate weren't warming, the odds of setting two back-to-back record years would be about one chance in every 1,500 pairs of years.

He added though, that because the planet is warming, the odds of setting back-to-back record years is really closer to one in ten now.

The really scary part though, is that there's good evidence that this is nothing compared to what's to come.
Just as William F. Ruddiman argued in a paper from 2003, even though humans hadn't industrialized, we had already started having a major impact on the Earth's atmosphere and its natural cycles as far back as 8000 years ago.

And that makes sense, because 8000 years ago is about the time that early agriculture appeared in Eurasia and humans started clearing, and burning, forests to make more space for agriculture and human settlements.

In his research, (  Ruddiman points out that based on the natural Earth's natural cycles for methane and carbon over the last 400,000 years, we should see a decrease in both gases starting roughly 11,000 years ago and continuing for another several thousand years.

Instead, we see that carbon dioxide and methane levels started to rise in the atmosphere starting about 8000 years ago, marking a sharp movement away from what had occurred for over 400,000 years of Earth history.

Recent research from the Anthropocene Working Group at the University of Leicester shows that humans have almost always had a noticeable impact on the planet's natural cycles, but our impact has been exceptional since the start of the industrial revolution.

In fact, the 24 co-authors argue that we've entered a new and distinct geological era, just within the last 50 years.

They call it the "Anthropocene era" from the greek word "Anthropos" meaning "man".

The authors argue that even though we've been having an impact on our planet for thousands of years, it's only been during the last 50 years that human activity became the main factor driving almost every single natural process on Earth.

And that brings us back to the relationship between global surface temperatures, methane, and carbon dioxide.

Because as these (    charts (    show, ( if atmospheric temperatures continue to follow the same sky-rocketing trend that methane and carbon dioxide have during the last century, we could very well be approaching the eve of extinction.

And none of this is taking into account the greenhouse gases that are trapped in the Antarctic Ice Sheet, which could be up to 21 quadrillion grams of organic carbon, and up to 400 billion tons of methane gases.

If we continue on this course, if we continue to spew methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the pursuit of cheap and short sighted economic growth, we can guarantee that our planet will continue to warm.

And, as the planet warms, the Antarctic Ice Sheet (Nature International Weekly Journal of Science:  Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica ) (  will begin to rapidly melt, which means that up to 21 quadrillion grams of carbon, and up to 400 billion tonnes of methane would be released into the atmosphere.

At that point, if humans are even still around, there will be literally nothing that we can do to stop a planetary mass extinction and to save humanity.

More and more scientists agree that natural processes don't drive the climate anymore, human activity does.

And it's only human activity that can stop our march towards planetary extinction.

Which means we need to put a price on carbon.

And we need to aggressively convert our energy system to one that's 100% renewable, and we need to find carbon and methane-neutral ways of transporting our goods, building our infrastructure, and constructing our cities.

The technology to achieve all of those goals already exists, and we now face a choice as a global society.

We'll go extinct if we keep doing what's easy, and what's comfortable.  (

But we can save the planet, if we make bold decisions and take immediate action to minimize human impact, and thus restore the planet's own natural processes and the balance that existed for hundreds of thousands of years before the first human settlements.   (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 27, 2016, 02:55:37 pm
I may be the king of beasts but Homo SAPS own the title of King of Stupidity.

Doomsday Clock Stays at Three Minutes to Midnight: At the ‘Brink’ of Man-Made Apocalypse

With “utter dismay,” the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced Tuesday that the symbolic Doomsday Clock will hold at three minutes to midnight—at the “brink” of man-made apocalypse—because world leaders have failed to take the necessary steps to protect citizens from the grave threats of   nuclear war (  runaway climate change (

View various charts at link:

“Three minutes (to midnight) is too close. Far too close,” reads the statement by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board.

The decision not to move the hands of the Doomsday Clock “is not good news,” it continues, “but an expression of dismay that world leaders continue to fail to focus their efforts and the world’s attention on reducing the extreme danger posed by nuclear weapons and climate change. When we call these dangers existential, that is exactly what we mean: They threaten the very existence of civilization and therefore should be the first order of business for leaders who care about their constituents and their countries.”

The Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 17 Nobel Laureates, ruled last year to move the clock forward from five minutes to midnight to three in response to the competing threats of “unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals.”

The board acknowledged some bright spots over the past year, namely the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris Climate Accord, but said that “they constitute only small bright spots in a darker world situation full of potential for catastrophe.”

The statement continues:

Even as the Iran agreement was hammered out, tensions between the U.S. and Russia rose to levels reminiscent of the worst periods of the Cold War. Conflict in Ukraine and Syria continued, accompanied by dangerous bluster and brinkmanship, with Turkey, a NATO member, shooting down a Russian warplane involved in Syria, the director of a state-run Russian news agency making statements about turning the U.S. to radioactive ash and NATO and Russia repositioning military assets and conducting significant exercises with them. Washington and Moscow continue to adhere to most existing nuclear arms control agreements, but the U.S., Russia and other nuclear weapons countries are engaged in programs to modernize their nuclear arsenals, suggesting that they plan to keep and maintain the readiness of their nuclear weapons for decades, at least—despite their pledges, codified in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue nuclear disarmament.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, the presenters repeatedly called attention to U.S. President Barack Obama’s plan to modernize   ( the country’s nuclear arsenal.

“What message does this send to non-nuclear nations about our intention to build smaller, more useable weapons?” asked Lawrence Krauss, chair of the Board of Sponsors and foundation professor at the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics departments at Arizona State University. “There is no sane strategic use of nuclear weapons. We need to reduce our nuclear arsenal, not make a new generation of weapons.”

Further, the panel described the COP21 agreement as merely a “tentative success.”

Sivan Kartha, a member of the Board and senior scientist and climate change expert with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), said national pledges to reduce carbon emissions are “manifestly, unequivocally inadequate.”

“The voluntary pledges made in Paris to limit greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient to the task of averting drastic climate change,” he continued. “These incremental steps must somehow evolve into the fundamental change in world energy systems needed if climate change is to ultimately be arrested.”

Since the clock was first introduced in 1947, the hands have moved 22 times. As Rachel Bronson, executive director and publisher of the Bulletin, explained, the clock represents a “summary view of leading experts deeply engaged in the existential issues of our time.”

It has become a “universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability” and is a symbol of “how close we are to destroying our civilization with dangerous technologies of our own making,” the Bulletin states. Such dangers include nuclear weapons, “climate-changing technologies, emerging biotechnologies and cybertechnology that could inflict irrevocable harm, whether by intention, miscalculation or by accident, to our way of life and to the planet.”

The clock does not move every year. In fact, prior to 2015, the countdown hadn’t changed since 2012, when it ticked ahead one minute.

A broadcast of this year’s announcement can be viewed  here. (

Doomsday clock history video at the end of the above story. (

The M.I.C. and their FASCIST Fossil Fuel industry pals weigh in on the above news. SEE BELOW:

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on February 21, 2016, 07:54:06 pm
"We did not get to our imminent climate catastrophe by accident. WE got here because of the WORSHIP of 'PROGRESS'." 
( (

John Michael Greer: False Promises
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on February 24, 2016, 03:03:00 pm

Dear A. G.,

Last week, Climate Reality Founder and Chairman Al Gore spoke at the 2016 TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. This talk came nearly a decade after Vice President Gore last spoke on the TED stage, and we can say with certainty, the future of our planet looks very different today than in 2006.

Today, we’re truly hopeful.  (
Hope isn’t always easy. With global temperature records being broken month after month, rising seas off coastal cities like Miami causing “sunny day flooding,” droughts and wildfires destroying thousands of acres of forests, and more severe hurricanes and typhoons, many wonder how we’ll solve this planetary crisis in our lifetimes.

But we want to remind you that you can – and should – be hopeful. Here are a few reasons why:

•In 2000, analysts projected the world would have 30 gigawatts of wind energy capacity installed by 2010. In 2015, the world passed this mark by 14.5 times!

•Experts also projected in 2002 that the world would install 1 gigawatt of solar power per year by 2010. Last year, we beat that figure by 58 times over. And this year, we are on track to exceed that prediction by 68 times over!

•The cost of solar energy has decreased about 10 percent each year for the past 30 years, and we’re getting closer to grid parity in more and more markets around the world, which means solar power will soon cost less than electricity from fossil fuels in more and more places around the world!

Then there’s the Paris Agreement. In December, 195 nations reached a historic agreement at the UN’s COP 21 climate conference in Paris, to reduce carbon emissions and put us on a path to a sustainable future. The Paris Agreement marked a turning point for our movement and will have a positive impact on the health of people everywhere and the planet for generations to come.

Ready to learn more about the future of our planet? Watch our Chairman, Al Gore, give his latest TED talk and learn more about the challenges we’re facing, what the world can look like if our world leaders live up to their promises in the Paris Agreement, and why he’s optimistic that we can and will solve the climate crisis.

Thank you for all that you do every day,

- Your friends at Climate Reality

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 06, 2016, 01:11:40 am

Earth Days (2009) - Full Movie
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 12, 2016, 10:25:12 pm

Abigail Mnookin: Why I support the carbon pollution tax
Putting a price on carbon would begin to account for the damage that burning fossil fuels is doing to both people and the planet.
Mar. 11, 2016, 6:55 pm by Commentary

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Abigail Mnookin, who is the membership coordinator of Brattleboro Time Trade, an instructor at the Vermont Wilderness School, a regular commentator on Vermont Public Radio, and serves on the board of Food Connects. In addition, she now works with 350Vermont on their Mother Up! campaign, organizing parents for climate action.

Unprecedented drought in California, widespread flooding in South America, staggering snow in Mexico, shipping in snow for Alaska’s Iditarod dog sled race, sap running unexpectedly in Vermont in January. Although these are strange weather patterns, they’re becoming the new normal in an era of human-caused climate change.

It’s easy to feel powerless and think that nothing we do makes any difference. But as the mother of a young child, I must believe we can mitigate the worst effects of climate change; that the world we give her is one of promise and possibility.(

There’s no simple solution or easy fix. But one important step in the right direction is to put a price on carbon pollution. In Vermont’s current legislative session, the House Natural Resources Committee will continue to review carbon tax proposals, and I hope they move these bills forward.

The carbon pollution tax is supported by Energy Independent Vermont, a growing coalition of diverse organizations, including Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, Vermont Energy Investment Corp., and recently, the Vermont Council on Rural Development. Their bill consists of a three-part plan. Put a price on carbon pollution. Help Vermonters save energy and save money by increasing funding for programs such as low-income weatherization.

Cut taxes for Vermonters and Vermont businesses.

The proposed changes would not only de-incentivize consumption, but also incentivize efficiency and public transportation. Even more notably, under one proposal, 90 percent of the revenue would be returned to Vermonters in the forms of rebates and other tax relief. This will help ensure that low- and middle-income people don’t unfairly carry the tax burden.


As activist and author Bill McKibben recently stated: “When it comes to climate change, the essential problem is not one group’s preferences against another’s. It’s not — at bottom — industry versus environmentalists or Republicans against Democrats. It’s people against physics, which means that compromise and trade-off don’t work.”
McKibben was speaking of the need to keep 80 percent of fossil fuels in the ground. But the same logic applies to Vermont’s proposed carbon pollution tax.


Putting a price on carbon would begin to account for the damage that burning fossil fuels is doing to both people and the planet. It isn’t the sole solution or silver bullet to our climate woes. But it’s a necessary step that’s proven to decrease consumption, and Vermont has an opportunity to demonstrate political will by leading the way.

After all, our future — yours, mine, and our children’s — depends on it. (

Abigail Mnookin will be hosting an informational meeting about the proposed Carbon Pollution Tax at her home in Brattleboro on Tuesday, March 29th at 7pm. Contact her at if you’d like to attend.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 20, 2016, 03:53:08 pm

The Coasts of Western Europe Face an Oceanic Pounding
Posted on Mar 19, 2016
By Tim Radford / Climate News Network


The latest study examined open-coast sites across Scotland, Ireland, England, France, Portugal, Spain and Morocco. The researchers found that, along exposed coastlines in France and England, the beaches had taken a hammering. For every one metre strip of beach, there had been sand and shingle losses of up to 200 cubic metres.

Beaches change according to tide, season and weather. But, overall, while the waves take sediment away, they also shift in new material from further along the coast. It’s the natural pattern of erosion.

But the logic of the latest study is that the extreme violence of individual storms, and the seeming increase in storm frequency, could result in dramatic changes. (

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: Three Part Article (

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART TWO (

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART THREE (

Propagandized Response to the science predicting the above:

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 01, 2016, 06:52:05 pm
Sea level rise is already happening. How bad ( can it get?  ???

Published on Mar 18, 2016

Everyone’s always talking about sea level rise!
  (  (   Between dwindling glaciers and melting ice caps, what’s the worst we can expect for our shrinking shores? Watch us hop on the Climate Scientist Hotline to investigate — and get our feet wet in the process.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 01, 2016, 07:22:12 pm
Climate Change: What Happens WHEN, not if (thanks to Fossil Fuel Industry Profit Over Planet ( , The World Warms Up By 4°C?

The Runaway Greenhouse is in full force BEFORE 4°C. Consequently 5°C and above happens (as it did 55 million years ago in the PETM) NEXT.

Published on Dec 3, 2015

With forests burning, rivers vanishing and continents carved up by toxic oceans, a world where global temperatures have risen by six degrees would be a bleak one - and almost no environment could sustain human life.

What the Earth would WILL look like if WHEN all the ice melteds

Published on Feb 18, 2015

We learned last year that many of the effects of climate change are irreversible. Sea levels have been rising at a greater rate year after year, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates they could rise by another meter or more by the end of this century.

As National Geographic showed us in 2013, sea levels would rise by 216 feet if all the land ice on the planet were to melt. This would dramatically reshape the continents and drown many of the world's major cities.


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 15, 2016, 04:15:18 pm

I agree it looks bad. But consider that, though it's taken a LONG TIME here in the U.S.A, the consent of the governed is on the ropes. That means regime change is imminent. Let us hope for a peaceful transition. The present system is incapable of regaining credibility, never mind the consent of the governed. So, it will fall.


I've long leaned in the direction of left libertarianism, decentralism, anarchism..., but now I lean even further that direction, doubting that we should have any kind of "representation" at all.   If we must have so-called "representational democracy" a while longer, I prefer for it no longer to be corrupted by money.  So I do support Bernie's campaign, for example.  But only because somebody will be president rather than nobody.


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 17, 2016, 08:48:49 pm
Senator Sanders Tells it like it is at the Vatican

How Market Economies Disconnected from Morality SELF DESTRUCT.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 24, 2016, 07:17:43 pm
A Young American Reminds Us How Badly We Are Failing Children on Climate Change

Posted on Apr 23, 2016

By Sonali Kolhatkar


Tonatiuh views the government’s priorities as seriously distorted, saying, “We have messed-up values at such a systemic level that we justify the destruction of our planet with a paycheck. We justify threatening our children’s future with the amount of money in our pockets.”

He’s right.
Setting aside climate skeptics, most of our leaders in government and finance who acknowledge the role of humans in warming the planet reason  ;) that it would cost too much money to transition away from fossil fuels immediately. ( (

Tonatiuh, who is wise beyond his years, dismisses this destructive pragmatism with a quick retort: “If we subsidize renewable energies the way we do fossil fuels, we can power the world.” (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 25, 2016, 02:48:50 pm
04/21/2016 04:00 PM   

Activists Cheer As Fracking Pipeline Canceled  ;D, Threatened NY State to Boston News

Activists cheered when Kinder Morgan made a surprise announcement - it dropped plans for a natural gas pipeline they have been fighting that would stretch from Pennsylvania to Boston.

 The 419-mile Northeast Energy Direct (NED) Pipeline threatened dozens of communites, watersheds and forests along the way, along with air and water pollution. Compressor stations were also planned for three counties in NY. 

Fracking NED pipeline  (graphic at link)

Kinder Morgan is North America's biggest pipeline operator and at $3.3 billion, NED was its largest planned investment. Its debt has grown to over $41 billion as falling demand has crushed expansion needs from the oil and gas industry.
 The company says it "suspended" the project because it couldn't get enough long-term commitments to buy the gas. "We think that's only part of the story. We are the other part," exclaims the activist group, Stop NY Fracked Gas Pipeline.

"This is another nail in the coffin for fossil fuel usage in the USA and beyond," says Robert Connors and Becky Meier, leaders of the group. Construction was set start in January 2017.

 "This is a project that no one wanted, and this is a fitting end to the story," says Judith Breselor, a legislator in NY's Rensselaer County. "Virtually everyone was against it in our town," John Clarkson, Town Supervisor of Bethlehem told TimesUnion. The town passed a resolution against it in February.

This is just one pipeline activists are work hard to prevent. Calls are on-going to stop the Constitution Pipeline. 

Read our article, The Other Keystone: Constitution Pipeline in NY State.

Message to fossil fuelers in general and frackers in particular:

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 25, 2016, 06:18:39 pm
04/25/2016 12:44 PM     

Wow! Another Fracking Pipeline Goes Down  (, UnConstitutional  ;D Pipeline  ( News

Last week, activists cheered when Kinder Morgan cancelled the 419-mile NED natural gas pipeline planned from Pennsylvania to Boston and then, in more fantastic news, the 124-mile Constitution Pipeline was denied its permit.

NY State's Department of Environmental Conservation denied the Constitution Pipeline the water quality permit it needed to move forward.

Constitution Pipeline would have carried fracked gas from Pennsylvania through NY, where it meets up with pipelines that go to Canada, threatening some of NY's most treasured, protected areas - endangering 270 lakes, rivers and wetlands, clearcutting 1000 acres of forest. It would have been forced on countless landowners.      (

Constitution Pipeline (graphic at link)

"Today's decision is further indication that we have finally begun to turn the corner on old dirty fossil fuels and take a step toward a clean and renewable future. The wisdom of the DEC, the leadership of Governor Cuomo, and the determination of New York's beautiful grassroots movement have come together to fight against greater fossil fuel proliferation and the catastrophe of climate change.
This state continues to lead the nation by limiting fossil fuel infrastructure and making clean water, air, and food a priority," exclaims actor Mark Ruffalo, who serves as a Catskill Mountainkeeper trustee.

Across the US, activists are fighting every planned pipeline, LNG plant and fossil export infrastructure. Methane emissions are up over 30% since fracking began in earnest in the US.  >:(

In an interesting admission, a fracking executive    ( during a recent seminar that they avoid drilling near big homes where wealthly people live, because they have the resources to fight back,"  reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 


Under Governor Cuomo, NY State banned fracking, vetoed a LNG plant and is now blocking fracking infrastructure.

At the same time, NY raised its sights to 50% renewable energy by 2030 and is beginning to implement "Reforming the Energy Vision," hailed as the most aggressive policy in the country.   

Read our article, New York State Says Goodbye to Coal, Hello To Green Economy.


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 28, 2016, 08:00:39 pm

Technology  |  Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:54am EDT

Related:  Environment 

Radical action needed to decarbonize world energy supply: report

LONDON  |  By Nina Chestney

Reuters/Carlos Barria     
More radical action is needed to decarbonize the world's energy supply and improve energy efficiency to keep the global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius, the Energy Transitions Commission (ETC) said on Wednesday.

The ETC is made up of global experts from energy companies, the investment sector, public and academic institutions and foundations and aims to identify ways to change the world's energy systems to low-carbon sources.

The ETC commissioned consultancy Ecofys to analyze the national climate plans of 17 countries and regions which account for 78 percent of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.

Those countries are China, United States, India, Russia, Japan, Iran, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, Argentina, Vietnam, Nigeria, Ethiopia and the European Union.
The plans, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), are the building blocks of a landmark deal reached in Paris last December to limit the rise in global average temperature to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius this century.

To keep below 2 degrees, the share of low-carbon energy sources in the global energy supply mix needs to rise at least one percentage point a year and energy productivity needs to grow at a minimum of 3 percent a year, the report said.

"The 17 INDCs analyzed show an increase in the use of low-carbon energy of only 0.4 percentage points per year and improvements in energy productivity by just 1.8 percent per year, far below what is required," said Adair Turner, chairman of the ETC.
"A far faster transition is needed to achieve the 'well below' 2 degree goal. We must focus not only on decarbonizing power, but also on taking the carbon out of other energy supply and dramatically increasing global energy productivity improvement," he added.

Last week, 175 nations took the first step of signing the Paris Agreement but scientists have said current INDCs are not enough to keep warming below 2 degrees.

(The online version of this story corrects the spelling of "decarbonize" in the headline)

(Editing by Susan Thomas)


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 28, 2016, 08:20:34 pm
Workers face 'epidemic of heat-related injuries' due to climate change

(  Major UN report warns heat stress suffered by factory and field workers will devastate health and reduce productivity.  (

Arthur Neslen

Thursday 28 April 2016 06.19 EDT  Last


Workers in fields and factories face an epidemic of heat-related injuries that will devastate their health, income and productivity as climate change takes hold, a major UN report has warned.

Productivity losses alone could rise above $2tn by 2030, as outdoor employees in many regions slow their pace, take longer breaks and shift their work to cooler dusk and dawn hours.

The effects of heat stress brought on by a warming world are already evident among the 4 billion people who live in the tropics and subtropics, says the report, Climate Change and Labour, which was jointly produced by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), UN Development Programme and the World Health Organisation.

In west Africa, the number of very hot days each year has already doubled since the 1960s, with an increase of around 10 sultry days each decade.

Matthew McKinnon, the manager of the UN’s climate vulnerable support forum, told the Guardian that increased incidence of heat stroke was only the most dramatic evidence of the problem he encountered on a recent trip to Ghana.

He said: “Teachers were complaining that it was too hot to teach children in schoolrooms which had no air conditioning. The children were also exhausted. We had truck drivers who were complaining that the rates of tyre bursts was increasing a lot because of the heat. Farmers too were worried that they had to spend too much time in open fields in the hot season.”

Around 2% of daylight hours are predicted to be shaved off the working day in west Africa, south Asia, and 10 regions in Asia, Africa and Latin America by 2030, potentially creating an epidemic of heat-related injuries.

“If temperatures climb beyond 2C, it would really be a problem on that scale in the tropics and sub-tropics,” McKinnon said.

And hold Exxon and all the other oil and gas corporations RESPONSIBLE for the Climate Damage THEY CAUSED with Penalties and Fines to be used to finance the TRANSITION to 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY.  (


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 28, 2016, 08:37:54 pm

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 29, 2016, 03:22:35 pm
I share quite a few traits with these millenial doomers.  I too am a millenial and our family moved alot struggled financially and I being the middle child to two sisters and an often absent father found myself an introverted loner very early on. 

I had and have a very strong disposition to doomerism and seeing the world through a melancholy "we are all dust" type of viewpoint.  Though current events makes doomerism seem plausible if not likeky I've personally realized that my initial long bout with peak oil fatalism was a projection of a mindset I am very prone to more than it was any hard facts.

The point to consider here Roamer is just WHY do all these Millenials have these feelings and sensations in the absence of "hard facts"? ???  :icon_scratch:  Are they all being "fooled" like you contend you were by Peak Oil Doomer Pundits without "hard facts"?  WTF are "hard facts" anyhow?  All you really get anywhere is spin, and you have to figure out from that spin what the truth really is.

The early crowd of Peak Oil pundits got numerous things wrong, mainly timeline issues and how it would play out economically.  Some of us were not fooled by this spin, but it was common in the community.  What they did not get wrong though was the overall trend, which continues playing out to this day.

You are bummed by the fact that because you bought into the spin of some of the Peak Oil pundits, you ended up self-sabotaging your possible career as an engineer. Collapse didn't come fast enough, and you could have been making good money inside the industrial society if you hadn't bought that spin.  But you did, so here you are now.  This goes along the lines of Live With It.  You made that decision then, and now you play the hand left that you were dealt.

Thing is here, as these millenials demonstrate with their emotions and their personal experience, the Peak Oilers weren't really "wrong", they just didn't have the mechanics of the downspin figured quite right.  Neither though does the EIA or World Class Geochemists have this figured correctly, if they did they could tell you what the KSA will do here as things spin further downhill.  They are just as clueless as most of the bloggers out there, with the exception of a few like myself and Steve. :)

The timeline on this remains difficult, but MANY people of MANY generations now are becoming aware of what is ongoing, if not in a "factual" way, then in an emotional one. It is OK that you are upset and feel betrayed by those who called an End of Times too early, but they were not really wrong, and you were not really fooled.  It is reality that the Industrial Civilization is ending.  Now you have to figure out how you can live with that.


The "minimum" BPD of oil required to "keep us all from dying and/or returning to the caves"  ( ( that represent a part of MKing's religion and the basis of all fossil fueler "supply and demand" fantasies ( )  is a particularly pernicious, as well as now proven to be INACCURATE, segment of those "hard facts" that Roamer bought into (and I never did).

To Roamer's credit, he saw the folly of kicking the energy can down the road by quoting from that book "Too Smart for Our Own Good".  (

As JD said here recently, (paraphrased  ;D) there is no hope for a viable civilization if we do not have a technology that rejects the religion of "required constant growth for a healthy economy" baloney. (

Amory Lovins, who I have quoted extensively for about 3 years now, gets that. There is a way WITHOUT a growth economy and WITHOUT fossil fuels.

But I am still not convinced that we will take it. There is too much "greed is good" religion in our "civilization" for a reasonable fellow like myself to give "civilization" a snowball's chance in hell of doing the right thing. (

Here's to well insulated snowballs.  (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on April 29, 2016, 06:12:33 pm
Five of the seven youth petitioners with their attorney, Andrea Rodgers, after the hearing today. Photo credit: Our Children’s Trust

Massive Victory for 7 Kids in Climate Change Lawsuit in Washington State     (

Our Children's Trust   (| April 29, 2016 2:30 pm

Today, in a surprise ruling from the bench in the critical climate case brought by youths against the State of Washington’s Department of Ecology, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill ( ordered the Department of Ecology to promulgate an emissions reduction rule by the end of 2016 and make recommendations to the state legislature on science-based greenhouse gas reductions in the 2017 legislative session.

Judge Hill also ordered the Department of Ecology to consult with the youth petitioners in advance of that recommendation. The youths were forced back to court after the Department of Ecology unexpectedly ( withdrew the very rulemaking efforts to reduce carbon emissions the agency told the judge it had underway. This case is one of several similar state, federal and international cases, all supported by Our Children’s Trust, seeking the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate.

“For the first time, a U.S. court not only recognized the extraordinary harms young people are facing due to climate change, but ordered an agency to do something about it,”
Andrea Rodgers, the Western Environmental Law Center attorney representing the seven youths, said. “Ecology is now court-ordered to issue a rule that fulfills its constitutional and public trust duty to ensure Washington does its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the planet.”

In granting the youth a remedy, Judge Hill noted the extraordinary circumstances of the climate crisis, saying, “This is an urgent situation … these kids can’t wait.” The court discussed the catastrophic impacts of climate destabilization globally, including the impending loss of polar bears and low-lying countries like Bangladesh. The court explained that while it had no jurisdiction outside of Washington state, it did have jurisdiction over the Department of Ecology and would order the agency to comply with the law and do its part to address the crisis.

“It was absurd for Ecology to withdraw its proposed rule to reduce carbon emissions,”
petitioner Aji Piper, who is also a plaintiff on the federal constitutional climate lawsuit, supported by Our Children’s Trust, said. “Especially after Judge Hill declared last fall that our ‘very survival depends upon the will of [our] elders to act now … to stem the tide of global warming.’ I think Ecology should be ashamed by its reversal of potentially powerful action and today, Judge Hill issued a significant ruling that should go down in history books. Our government must act to protect our climate for benefit of us and future generations.”

After a landmark November, 2015 decision, in which Judge Hill found that the state has a “mandatory duty” to “preserve, protect and enhance the air quality for the current and future generations” and found the state’s current standards to fail that standard dramatically, the Department of Ecology nonetheless unilaterally withdrew its proposed rule to reduce carbon emissions in the state in February, just months after Judge Hill specifically underscored the urgency of the climate crisis.

“This case explains why youth around this country and in several other countries, are forced to bring their governments to court to secure a healthy atmosphere and stable climate,” Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust, said. “Despite clear scientific evidence and judicial recognition of the urgency of the climate crisis, Washington and most governments across the U.S. and other countries are failing to take correspondingly urgent, science-based action. That failure unfairly consigns youth to a disproportionately bleak future against which they can only reasonably ask the courts to step in to address this most time sensitive issue of our time.”

Related cases brought by youth to protect the atmosphere are pending before other U.S. courts in the federal district court in Oregon and in the state courts of North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Massachusetts and Oregon.

“This is a massive victory,” petitioner Gabe Mandell said.  (

Agelbert NOTE: Expect the Fossil Fuel Industry ( Crooks and Liars to bring in their ethics challenged lawyer jackals. Fossil fuelers DO NOT CARE about future generations.  (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 01, 2016, 10:00:34 pm

DISobedience (  or DEATH by Fossil Fuels  (


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 01, 2016, 10:23:11 pm
OK!   (
After numerous tweaks and revisions, I finally have my Tombstone design basically complete.  I may add some more text or other features, but the basic structure and inscribed designs are now in place.

The Tombstone comes in 4 parts, a Yellow Granite Pedestal cut as a flat inward angled Hexagon, a Black Granite Capstone cut as a Tetrahedron, a Machined Aluminum Cylinder Faraday Cage that fits in the Pedestal Base, and a Machined Aluminum Sphere that fits in the Capstone.  Both are hollow and machined to screw together in 2 parts, Water and Air Tight.

Here is the Assembly Diagram for the RE Tombstone:

[smg id=3487 type=preview align=center caption="RE Tombstone Assembly"]

Each of the faces of the Tetrahedron that are exposed have important Geometric and Astronomical  information inscribed on the faces.  Each side of the Pedestal has 1 of 6 Commandments engraved on it.  The Upper Face also has reference angle lines inscribed for use as a Sun Dial.  The whole arrangement needs to be oriented so it is level and the back tetrahedral edge faces towards True North, at least if the Tombstone is in the Northern Hemisphere which is most likely.

South Face

This face has the Octagonal SUN☼ Symbol, "RE" at the top and then Astronomical Charts of my Birth Date and Death Date as a Corporeal Homo Sap in this iteration at the bottom. Each of the SUN☼ "rays" is a Golden Rectangle. The Commandments on the Pedestal visible from this perspective are

"Save As Many As You Can"
"Money is the Root of All Evil"

[smg id=3488 type=preview align=center caption="RE Tombstone Front"]

North-East Face

Viewed from 60 degrees NE, the face features a Pentagram engraved to show the Golden Ratio, φ = (1 + √5) / 2 ≈ 1.618
The Commandments visible from this perspective are:

"Greed is Punishable by Death"
"The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few"

[smg id=3489 type=preview align=center caption="RE Tombstone Back Right"]

North-West Face

Viewed from 60 degrees NW, the face features a Golden Rectangle inscribed, which also demonstrates the Golden Ratio φ = (1 + √5) / 2 ≈ 1.618.  There is still a lot of Blank Canvas on this face, so I will probably add something.  Probably a Codex of some sort for future Alien Historian-Archaeologists to be able to decode the information.  The Commandments visible from this perspective are:

"You can only use Energy that is replenished Daily by the SUN"
"You are Personally Responsible as a Steward of the Earth

[smg id=3490 type=preview align=center caption="RE Tombstone Back Left"]

Inside the 2 Faraday Cages I will have 128GB Memory Chips with everything I ever wrote that I still have a record of, as well as all the Audio & Video recordings.  They will also contain Micro Computers capable of reading these chips with small display screens.  There will be diagrams to show how to make a small battery to run them on around 5V.  Also Locks of my Hair  :icon_sunny: encased in Polyurethane to preserve my DNA.  Also Text on Paper in case that system craps out, although that of course will be limited to around Biblical Length.

In order to preserve everything inside the Faraday Cages, when they are sealed there will be Oxygen Absorbers to prevent oxidation of the materials inside.

Absolute Size and Materials here are still a ???.  Having the Stones cut as I would like with the close tolerances necessary for everything to fit together correctly may be prohibitively expensive, same with having Machined Aluminum Faraday Cage Sphere & Cylinder custom cut.  Going on the Cheap, it will have to be done using Basalt Reinforced Concrete for the Pedestal & Capstone, and stock metal containers like Aluminum or Stainless Steel Water Bottles for the Faraday Cages.  Utilizing the latter method with Portland Cement, I think I can do this for $2000 or so.  Having the Granite Stones cut this way, probably $20K.  Depends what funds are available when I buy My Ticket to the Great Beyond.

OK, now that I have this done, I'm sure many of you Diners find the GARGANTUAN EGO that would come up with something like this to be repulsive.  :icon_sunny:  However, most people do want a to have a Stone memorializing their life and a Plot to Rest for all Eternity, the whole Cemetery Bizness is built around that.  All I did was to take the whole idea to its Logical Conclusion, given current technology anyhow.

Will I actually build this Tombstone?  WTF Knows?  However, it was a GREAT exercise in learning how to use Sketchup!  I'm getting pretty good with it now, which is good because so far I can't get my old Simply 3D program to run on any of the computers I still have working.  I'm also due to lose the Full Sketchup Pro features in about 7 days, and will only have Sketchup Make (Google's Free Version) to work with.  That means losing access to the library of pre-designed components that make it a lot easier to draw something up in 3D.  However, there is just NO WAY I am going to fork over around $700 to Google for a license for Sketchup Pro.  That Dog Just Won't Hunt.



I like it. Your messages are CFS (Common F'n Sense  ;D) that need to be remembered, respected and lived, if we humans are to have any future whatsoever.    ( (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 07, 2016, 05:15:07 pm
( The Real Community Bank (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 12, 2016, 07:50:53 pm
An electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS) is a computer-based navigation information system that complies with International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations and can be used as an alternative to paper nautical charts.
In Double ECDIS Failure what good is a Sextant? ( ???

May 11, 2016 by Editorial l

Mariner taking a reading with a sextant

By Jaquelyn Burton (Coeval, Inc.) ECDIS is becoming ubiquitous – and that is a good thing. However, as we move towards more and more vessels relying wholly on ECDIS and heavily on its integration with GPS, some new problems are of growing concern. At a time of an ever-increasing amount of automation, the U.S. Navy is going back to teaching celestial navigation after an extended period of its absence – also a good thing. But as was brought up in a discussion with former colleges – what good is a sextant if you have a double ECDIS failure?

Right now to be considered fully ECDIS compliant (see Solas Chapter V Regulation 19) the vessel needs to have at least one redundant ECDIS system (two independent ECDIS computers, databases, and screens.) If they meet this requirement, then are they not required to carry paper charts. They are only required to have valid and corrected ENC’s for their planned voyage.

In all, this is not a problem. I have sailed on many fully ECDIS compliant vessels, all of them for the same company. Almost all of the time everything goes well; install the cells that were requested, load the corrections, and continue with passage planning. However not all nations will provide their paper chart Temporary & Preliminary Notices to Mariners (T&P NM) corrections within their ENCs, therefore the responsibility of finding them lies with the mariner. I wrote about such issues in Slipping Through The Safety Net.

There are times when a single failure happens, and the systems need to be rebooted, generally while installing updates or other system maintenance. It is rare that a failure is long lasting, or that it would render the ECDIS system affected to be out of service for an extended period.

 But, things do not always progress as planned. It is possible to experience a double failure, when both the primary and secondary ECDIS’s fail simultaneously. Equipment never fails on a beautiful day in the open ocean with near perfect visibility – everything fails in narrow channels, in inclement weather, or under pilotage. For that, Murphy’s Law is reliable.  :P

If the ECDIS fails in the open ocean, it is not the worst case scenario – the vessel is clear of hazards and there is time to strategize, to make plotting sheets, and to verify your position. In open ocean there would normally be a chance to contact your company’s DPA and have them contact  your chart provider to send PDF’s of the paper chart. These can then be taped together for use to sail for the nearest port for ECDIS repairs. And perhaps the delivery of paper charts to get through the voyage before repairs can be made. If the failure occurs in shallow waters and it is not safe to proceed then sometimes it is best to wait at anchor for charts to come. This all depends on your company’s emergency plan for ECDIS Failure.

But, if you lose satellite communication, and have no paper charts the double failure could be a disaster. Being able to determine your position by GPS or even celestial is great, your position is known. If you don’t have a list of your planned waypoints that have already been checked for hazards and under-keel-clearance, then the position becomes less helpful.

 It is still possible to make a plotting sheet and to track your positions, to layout DR positions, but if you don’t know where the hazards are relative to the ship’s position, then you might as well be back at the start of modern navigation.

“In 1530, the cosmographer Reiner Gemma Frisius proposed a method based on the difference between the time at the port of departure, retained aboard ships by mechanical clocks, and the local time measured with astronomical instruments. Each hour of difference equaled fifteen degrees of longitude, and each degree of longitude was equivalent to a continuously varying distance from the Pole to the Equator.”

Once the problem of Longitude was solved – at least approximately, then the age of plotting hazards and the construction of useful navigational charts began. Sure some vessels made it to their destination, but many were lost in the effort to explore, to survey, plot and drop depth soundings, making up the base for later surveys and the charts we use now.

There were more backups for GPS and the satellite navigation systems, but they are not in use anymore. The use of systems such as LORAN-C  and DECCA (along with cancelation of plans to upgrade transmitting stations to eLoran) were taught and tested on even after the U.S. Navy abandoned the instruction of Celestial Navigation, and as transmitting stations were being shut down. Now in the event of failure or blockage of GPS type systems, ships will be sent back to the 19th century sailing solely on DR (dead reckoning) and celestial positions and then putting that data into their 21st century ECDIS systems.

Some skills such as constructing plotting sheets on blank paper are only being mentioned in passing, but they should occasionally be done in practice. Maintaining skills that would be needed in an emergency to accomplish the task of navigating safely. The same applies to the ability to navigate by the use of a sextant, and to know the names of at least a few of the stars – they are skills that were frequently used fifty years ago but unfortunately, are falling out of frequent practice. Not only do these skills need to be maintained, but they should be actively practiced, and the necessary equipment for them such as the chronometer should be kept corrected and in a working condition. (

While we are always moving forward with the use of automation and new technologies – we always must keep prior methods, skills, and contingencies in mind. Problems happen, things break down, equipment fails. Even now the prospect of computer viruses and threats of hackers could create problems with ECDIS and Integrated Bridge Systems. The sea is not a safe place, and while you cannot plan for all possible problems – many what if scenarios should be outlined ahead of time, and preparations made to deal with those problems should they occur.

Be safe – find out more about us at ( training for the #modernmariner. (

Agelbert NOTE: LORAN was used by aircraft too, way back when I worked airplanes. It was a form of radio triangulation of position. It sucked. I would routinely identify an airliner coming into radar airspace from a long flight over the ocean nearly 80 miles off the airway centerline.  :P Considering the airway was technically only 100 miles wide, it was a bit embarrassing to the pilots.  :-[  I would save them the trouble of trying to get back to the centerline by clearing them to proceed direct to the approach fix of the airport about 200 miles away (as long as they did not have head on traffic, of course  8)). The LORAN use for aircraft was called OMEGA. It was lousy but it was better than DR (dead reckoning).

Satellite based GPS was a great improvement.   ( Computerizing the chart display sounds great. But I think it would be prudent to keep teaching sailors celestial navigation and how to use a sextant.  ;)
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 18, 2016, 08:49:30 pm

Historic Victory: 4 Teenagers Win in Massachusetts Climate Change Lawsuit

Our Children's Trust | May 17, 2016 3:18 pm

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found in favor of four youth plaintiffs, the Conservation Law Foundation and Mass Energy Consumers Alliance Tuesday in the critical climate change case, Kain et al. v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

Kain v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection hearing on Jan. 8.

The court found that the DEP was not complying with its legal obligation to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions and ordered the agency to “promulgate regulations that address multiple sources or categories of sources of greenhouse gas emissions, impose a limit on emissions that may be released … and set limits that decline on an annual basis.”

“This is an historic victory for young generations advocating for changes to be made by government. The global climate change crisis is a threat to the well being of humanity, and to my generation, that has been ignored for too long,” youth plaintiff Shamus Miller, age 17, said.

“Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has recognized the scope and urgency of that threat and acknowledges the need for immediate action to help slow the progression of climate change. There is much more to be done both nationally and internationally but this victory is a step in the right direction and I hope that future efforts have similar success.” (

In 2012, hundreds of youth petitioned the DEP asking the agency to comply with the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) and adopt rules reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, but that petition was denied. As a result of DEP’s reluctance to comply with the GWSA, youth filed this case arguing that the DEP failed to promulgate the regulations required by Section 3(d) of the GWSA establishing declining annual levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

Massachusetts is not on track to meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal of 25 percent below 1990 levels—a fact that is directly related to DEP’s failure to issue the required regulations. The plaintiffs are working to ensure that Massachusetts is complying with the law and doing everything necessary to protect their constitutional and public trust rights to clean air, a healthy atmosphere and a stable climate system.

“In agreeing with the youth plaintiffs in this case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court joins growing global judicial recognition of youth’s rights to demand that their governments act in accordance with the urgency of the climate change crisis,” Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust, said.

“Youth around the country and internationally are bringing their governments to court to secure their rights to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate. Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court called Massachusetts to task and underscored the need to take significant action now, so youth are not unfairly consigned to a disproportionately bleak future should we fail to address the most important and time sensitive issue of our time.”

This win follows two other recent landmark wins in youth-led lawsuits against the federal government and the state of Washington.

Watch Eshe Sherley explain why she was involved in this lawsuit: (at link below) (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on May 28, 2016, 06:38:07 pm
05/24/2016 04:08 PM     

Ontario Moves On Climate, Providing a Model for All News

As Ontario enshrined its climate plan into law, Environment minister Glen Murray said it "marks the start of the next chapter in Ontario's transformation to an innovative and prosperous low-carbon economy."

Canada's most populous province will spend over $7 billion over the next four years to implement its 57-page Climate Change Action Plan. It contains about 80 policies, each with a price tag, for 2017-2021. The big goal is to cut greenhouse gas emissions 15% by 2020, 37% by 2030 and 80% by 2050, from 1990 levels.

They've already shuttered all coal plants and by 2030, fossil fuels, including natural gas   ( , will not be allowed for heating  ( ;D . New building codes require all new homes heated by geothermal or electricity by 2030, and incentives will encourage efficiency upgrades in existing buildings. All homes sold must first have an energy audit. Rebates for electric vehicles will help meet the goal of 5% of all vehicles sold by 2020 and 12% by 2025.

Much of money needed to implement the plan will come from the province's cap-and-trade program, which starts next year.  It will be linked with the Western Climate Initiative, which consists of California and Quebec. A new Green Bank will finance many programs.

What Ontario will look like in 2050, taken from the Climate Change Action Plan:


According to The Globe & Mail:
•$3.8 billion in grants, rebates and other subsidies to retrofit buildings

•Up to $14,000 in rebates to buy an electric vehicle and up to $1000 for a home charger; subsidies for lower income families to get older cars off the road and free overnight electricity to charge vehicles at public outlets.  Funding will also help schools switch to electric buses and trucking companies to cleaner trucks. The regional rail network will be enhanced, as will bicycle infrastructure, such as separte bike lanes and parking at train stations. Total cost: $1.1 billion.
•Gasoline and diesel will have to have 5% lower lifecycle emissions by 2020. Natural gas will have to be derived from more renewable sources, such as biogas.

•$375 million for cleantech R&D, about half of which is for a Global Centre for Low-Carbon Mobility.

•$1.2 billion to help industry buy more energy efficient equipment and other measures to reduce emissions.

•$174 million to make the government carbon neutral through building upgrades, telecommuting, and carbon offset purchases.

"By 2050, we envision Ontarians will be using less energy and the energy we do use will be from low-carbon sources.
Communities will be climate-resilient, complete and compact. More people will choose electric or other zero-emission vehicles and transit to get swiftly and efficiently where they need to go. Agricultural lands, natural areas and ecosystems will be better protected for the benefit and enjoyment of all, including First Nations and Métis peoples who rely on our shared natural environment for sustainment and spiritual benefit.

"Ontario that will be employing new ways to reduce waste while ensuring that more of the waste produced is reintroduced to the economy. Industries will be thriving while generating fewer or zero emissions. Businesses and innovators will be creating world-leading clean technologies and products that drive new economic growth, productivity, and job creation. We must do it. We can do it. And we will do it, together," says Murray. 

Learn more:

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 07, 2016, 03:55:18 pm

Imagine a world where oil, coal and nuclear energy have been phased out and carbon emissions have therefore been steadily declining for decades. RMI's programs are driving toward that vision, proven possible by 2050 in our flagship synthesis Reinventing Fire in 2011.

While our mobility transformation program is working to reduce oil consumption in the U.S. by half by 2050, our trucking and shipping programs are tackling other pieces of the oil puzzle.

The U.S. trucking industry and the world’s maritime shipping industry already emit enormous amounts of greenhouse gases today, and their emissions are projected to grow rapidly.

With your support, we can change  this. (


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 07, 2016, 08:13:57 pm
Former Energy CEO David Crane Envisions a Future without Fossils

by Sarah Parsons - June 01, 2016

“No one’s actually making money from coal-fired power plants in the United States right now,” said David Crane, former CEO of NRG Energy, one of America’s biggest power companies.

That may seem a strange sentiment coming from a man who led a Fortune 200 company owning more than a dozen coal-fired power plants. But then again, Crane is far from your typical energy exec.

During Crane’s 12-year run as CEO, he tried to transform NRG—then America’s fourth-largest carbon emitter—into a firm focused on wind, solar and nuclear power. The company made strides in that direction, but Crane was ultimately let go earlier this year.

“I was trying to turn a company from brown to green, from centralized to distributed, and wholesale to retail,” he told corporate leaders on May 24. “I was trying to do three transformations at the same time. That was probably a couple of bridges too far.”

Yet even after that setback, Crane remains dedicated to reforming the U.S. power sector.

Crane shared his views at WRI’s MindShare event, a two-day conference that brought together sustainability directors and other business leaders from our Corporate Consultative Group. During a dinner conversation with WRI President and CEO Andrew Steer, Crane offered a blunt take on how corporations can help put the United States on a sustainable energy path.

Caption: David Crane (left) addresses questions from Andrew Steer (right). Photo by IA Photography (at article link)

Change the Utilities

According to Crane, one of the biggest hurdles to scaling up solar and other renewables is utilities’ reluctance. They’ve built their business models on fossil fuels, and because of current grid design, consumers can’t go elsewhere. In short, the principles of the free market don’t apply to utilities.

“There’s no possible way that a company that doesn’t have to compete for customers has the same customer service mentality as one who does,” Crane said. “The problem with reforming utilities is there’s nothing you have to offer them that is better than what they have now.”  (

While Crane pointed to energy models such as distributed solar as the next generation in the power business, other experts in the room saw a role for corporate leadership in working with utilities to expand the share of renewable power. The new Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance (REBA), for example, is a coalition of more than 60 major companies looking to buy large amounts of affordable, renewable power from local grids. “REBA really makes the demand for renewable energy from fast-growing sectors visible and brings it to utilities that are willing to have a conversation about how their business model needs to change to respond to this demand,” said WRI Energy Director Alex Perera. “This is a very powerful forcing mechanism for utilities.”

“I think of us as a significant energy consumer,” said Bill Weihl, sustainability director at Facebook, one of REBA’s members. “We want to move a lot faster than the reform process can, and I think some of that involves working with utilities.”

Create Competition within Industries

There’s also a role for stoking competition within industries. Crane recalled when the Philadelphia Eagles committed to install solar panels on their football stadium. Not two months later, the owner of the New York Giants approached Crane, who was still with NRG. “He said, ‘David, I’ve spent my whole life in football, and all I know is I want to beat the Philadelphia Eagles,’” Crane said. “’I want to beat them on the field and I want to beat them off the field. Can you get solar panels on our field before them?’”

Crane envisions similar competition in other industries, such as fast food.

Unleash Corporate Sustainability Officers

Crane was ultimately hopeful that we’re moving toward a cleaner energy future—as evidenced by the growth of solar and electric transport—but said we need to pick up the pace. Corporations have the power to be responsive and affect change—even more quickly and efficiently than governments. That’s why Crane thinks corporate sustainability officers have the most important and exciting jobs now.

“If you can find one champion [in your company], if you can get one of those people on your side, that’s good,” Crane said to the room full of sustainability officers. “There’s a huge opportunity to say within your company, ‘We have a chance to lead on this!’ As sustainability officers, we can really make an impact, so when it’s all done you can look your kids in the face and say ‘I did everything I could and we were successful."
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 09, 2016, 08:36:42 pm
Why Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party is our only hope

Ruminations on the (s)Election cycles in the USA, where we are at and what that means about our future.

The idea of Neocon Russia hater Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State for the Clinton Administration is about as perfect a recipe for a war with Russia (that nobody with a brain wants) as any nightmare scenario can envision.

That is an argument which defends Trump's foreign policy is preferable. Avoiding war always is.

But I've seen this political scam played before. The first part of the scam is to convince the voting public that the candidates for the two corporate friendly parties represent the only available choices. The idea here is to fool people into thinking one party is left wing and the other is right wing.

Each election cycle, since the corporations want more corporate run government (i.e. fascist), not less, the nominally "left" wing party known as the Democratic (LOL!) Party, moves the ideological goal posts to the right. As of 2016, Hillary Clinton is farther to the right than Bush was in 2000!

This creates a problem for the perception managers. Clinton has to "look left wing liberal" somehow. So, the candidate for the right wing party has to be so far right, complete with storm troopers and rampant racist remarks, as to appear to the right of Clinton.

Observe how Trump was built up by the press for over a year when most people wanted nothing to do with him. He is the evil clown that the press will now proceed to mercilessly beat up.

The Empire wants two things:
1. Corporate Business as Usual favoring the 1% oligarchs.
2. No restraints on fossil fuel industry pollution and war profiteering.

They get that from a Clinton Administration or a Trump Administration.

The differences are cosmetic. If Trump won, he would immediately tone down the rhetoric and sign the TPP. If Clinton wins, she will sign the TPP job destroying horror, put the brakes on clean energy programs, give the Frackers a four year pollution pass, castrate the EPA worse than Reagan, both Bushes, Bill Clinton and Obama put together, and create price shocks in fossil fuels from deliberate fabrications about the "threat" of war from Russia.

Although Trump would also be an absolute horror for domestic policies, Clinton, because her foreign policy, unlike Trump's, might get us into WW3, may be an existential threat to our country.

The only chance this country has is for a Green Party President Jill Stein. With Sanders supporters, and due to the fact that there are now more people outside the corporate parties than in them (unlike when Ralph Nader ran), Dr. Jill Stein would gain the White House and usher in a period of peace and clean energy based prosperity.

Otherwise, this country, and possibly the world, is toast.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 11, 2016, 05:26:26 pm
Natural Capitalism
While traditional industrial capitalism primarily recognizes the value of money and goods as capital, Natural Capitalism extends recognition to natural capital and human capital. Problems such as pollution and social injustice may then be seen as failures to properly account for capital, rather than as inherent failures of capitalism itself.

The fundamental assumptions of Natural Capitalism are as follows:[3]

1. The limiting factor to future economic development is the availability and functionality of natural capital, in particular, life-supporting services that have no substitutes and currently have no market value.

2. Misconceived or badly designed business systems, population growth, and wasteful patterns of consumption are the primary causes of the loss of natural capital, and all three must be addressed to achieve a sustainable economy.

3. Future economic progress can best take place in democratic, market-based systems of production and distribution in which all forms of capital are fully valued, including human, manufactured, financial, and natural capital.

4. One of the keys to the most beneficial employment of people, money, and the environment is radical increases in resource productivity.

5. Human welfare is best served by improving the quality and flow of desired services delivered, rather than by merely increasing the total dollar flow.

6. Economic and environmental sustainability depends on redressing global inequities of income and material well-being. (

Message to anyone who says the above is "pie in the sky" or a way to confiscate money from "productive job creators" :

FU  ;D

Homo SAPS WILL NOT SURVIVE if we do not STOP organizing our economy around the abstractions of neoclassical economics and accountancy and INSTEAD, totally organize our economy around the biological realities of nature.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 15, 2016, 06:50:49 pm
How We Get to a 100% Renewable Energy Future

Richard Heinberg | June 15, 2016 12:20 pm

I spent the last year working with co-author David Fridley and Post Carbon Institute staff on a just-published book, Our Renewable Future. The process was a pleasure: everyone involved (including the twenty or so experts we interviewed or consulted) was delightful to work with and I personally learned an enormous amount along the way. But we also encountered a prickly challenge in striking a tone that would inform but not alienate the book’s potential audience.

As just about everyone knows, there are gaping chasms separating the worldviews of fossil fuel promoters, nuclear power advocates and renewable energy supporters. But crucially, even among those who disdain fossils and nukes, there is a seemingly unbridgeable gulf between those who say that solar and wind power have unstoppable momentum and will eventually bring with them lower energy prices and millions of jobs and those who say these intermittent energy sources are inherently incapable of sustaining modern industrial societies and can make headway only with massive government subsidies.

We didn’t set out to support or undermine either of the latter two messages. Instead, we wanted to see for ourselves what renewable energy sources are capable of doing and how the transition toward them is going. We did start with two assumptions of our own (based on prior research and analysis), about which we are perfectly frank: one way or another fossil fuels are on their way out and nuclear power is not a realistic substitute. That leaves renewable solar and wind, for better or worse, as society’s primary future energy sources.

In our work on this project, we used only the best publicly available data and we explored as much of the relevant peer-reviewed literature as we could identify. But that required sorting and evaluation: Which data are important? And which studies are more credible and useful? Some researchers claim that solar PV electricity has an energy return on the energy invested in producing it (EROEI) of about 20:1, roughly on par with electricity from some fossil sources, while others peg that return figure at less than 3:1.

This wide divergence in results of course has enormous implications for the ultimate economic viability of solar technology. Some studies say a full transition to renewable energy will be cheap and easy, while others say it will be extremely difficult or practically impossible. We tried to get at the assumptions that give rise to these competing claims, assertions and findings, and that lead either to renewables euphoria or gloom. We wanted to judge for ourselves whether those assumptions are realistic.

That’s not the same as simply seeking a middle ground between optimism and pessimism. Renewable energy is a complicated subject and a fact-based, robust assessment of it should be honest and informative; its aim should be to start new and deeper conversations, not merely to shout down either criticism or boosterism.

Unfortunately, the debate is already quite polarized and politicized. As a result, realism and nuance may not have much of a constituency.

This is especially the case because our ultimate conclusion was that, while renewable energy can indeed power industrial societies, there is probably no credible future scenario in which humanity will maintain current levels of energy use (on either a per capita or total basis). Therefore current levels of resource extraction, industrial production and consumption are unlikely to be sustained—much less can they perpetually grow. Further, getting to an optimal all-renewable energy future will require hard work, investment, adaptation and innovation on a nearly unprecedented scale. We will be changing more than our energy sources; we’ll be transforming both the ways we use energy and the amounts we use. Our ultimate success will depend on our ability to dramatically reduce energy demand in industrialized nations, shorten supply chains, electrify as much usage as possible and adapt to economic stasis at a lower overall level of energy and materials throughput. Absent widespread informed popular support, the political roadblocks (
to such a project  [/color]will be overwhelming.

That’s not what most people want to hear. And therefore, frankly, we need some help getting this analysis out to the sorts of people who might benefit from it. Post Carbon Institute’s communications and media outreach capabilities are limited. Meanwhile the need for the energy transition is urgent and the longer it is delayed, the less desirable the outcome will be. It is no exaggeration to say that the transition from climate-damaging and depleting fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is the central cause of our times. And it will demand action from each and every one of us.

You can help by visiting the Our Renewable Future website (, familiarizing yourself with the issue, sharing your thoughts and spreading the word with friends, family, colleagues and allies.

Rob Brown: Great column. To have a future, humanity has to embrace renewable energy. We may never get to 100% renewables but, unless targets are set, progress will not be made. A number of countries have reached the 50%+ barrier on renewable power. These countries have been steadily reducing CO2 emissions and other types of pollution for decades. Sweden is a good example.
agelbert > Rob Brown

"To have a future, humanity has to embrace renewable energy. "

Exactly right.  (

And Amory Lovins has shown how to do that. The Post Carbon Institute's insistence that a 100% Renewable Energy powered civilization, in order to be sustainable, requires a lower energy use is true. BUT, their attempt to equate a lower total energy use to an obligatory lower standard of living is flawed because, as Amory Lovins painstakingly proves in his peer reviewed work titled Reinventing Fire, Renewable Energy plus energy use efficiency improvements can shave over 80% of current energy demand off of our civilization without any lowering of our standard of living.

Richard Heinberg portrays this 'type of energy use' argument as two sides of a polarized, and irrational, debate. It's not. Those defending unsustainable dirty energy have conclusively been proven to be, not just wrong, but an existential threat to our biosphere.

Richard Heinberg fails to point out the fact that political roadblocks to 100% Renewable energy have zero basis in science, both from an energy density happy talk for fossil fuels point of view, and climate cause and effect. It is those vested interests in a dirty energy status quo who don't want to hear the facts, not those advocating a 100% Renewable Erengy transition.

This is not, as Heinberg claims, about what "people want to hear" about the transition to Renewable Energy. This is about, as he points out without sufficient emphasis, the FACT that any dirty energy scenario is not optional to a 100% Renewable energy scenario, PERIOD.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 17, 2016, 09:21:25 pm
China's big investment to fix environmental wrongs shows both people and nature can win

June 16, 2016   

A village in the Wolong Nature Reserve in China's Sichuan Province is nestled closely with the reserve's biodiversity-rich mountains. Credit: Sue Nichols, Michigan State University

China's massive investment to mitigate the ecosystem bust that has come in the wake of the nation's economic boom is paying off. An international group of scientists finds both humans and nature can thrive—with careful attention.

The group, including scientists who have done research at Michigan State University (MSU), report on China's first systematic national accounting of how the nation's food production, carbon sequestration, soil and water retention, sandstorm prevention, flood mitigation, and biodiversity are doing, and what trends have emerged. The work, which spans from 2000-2010, appears in this week's edition of Science magazine.

"To achieve global environmental sustainability and enhance human well-being, effective government policies can play crucial roles," said co-author Jianguo "Jack" Liu, Rachel Carson Chair in Sustainability and director of MSU's Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability (CSIS).

The paper notes that China's effort to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty since the 1970s came at a high cost of environmental degradation, including deforestation and erosion that resulted in devastating flooding. The National Forest Conservation Program (NFCP) and the Sloping Land Conversion Program, which started around 2000, paid farmers and households in critical areas to restore forest and grassland—delivering alleviation of poverty in addition to environmental benefits.

In roughly the first decade, the programs cost $50 billion dollars.

The researchers examined a staggering amount of data from all of mainland China—satellite images, field studies, historical records and more.

They found that food production and carbon sequestration were the ecosystem services that increased the most, while the programs contributed most dramatically to carbon sequestration, soil and water retention and sand fixation. They found varying gains and losses depending on what part of the country they looked at. Sometimes, there were tradeoffs—such as food production and soil retention.

This big-picture look adds to a body of work published in the past few years documenting successes in parts of China. In March, the book "Pandas and People —Coupling Human and Natural Systems" published by Oxford University Press reported the conservation policies have helped recovery of habitat for the world-famous endangered giant pandas.
In March 2013, two parallel papers in the online journal PLoS ONE examined gains in human well-being linked to ecosystem services in Wolong Nature Reserve of China—a new approach to quantifying and understanding the benefits that can be reaped by conservation policies.

Some results of this new paper also validate what have been reported across China. In March of this year, for example, several scientists working with CSIS published a paper in Science Advances reporting significant recovery in China's forests covered by the NFCP, although they used a somewhat different method. The authors state that this sort of aggressive and robust scrutiny of the wins and losses that come in the wake of sweeping policies already has paid off, allowing China to better target areas for more conservation efforts.

The new Science paper notes that continuing to improve understanding of how people benefit when conservation programs succeed is important to future success.

And the findings hold value beyond China's borders. (

"The results of the China Ecosystem Assessment (CEA) show that improving ecosystem services and economic growth can co-exist," the paper says. "Analyses using model simulations in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia also show that it is possible to increase the provision of key ecosystem services with economic growth through intelligent policy design, although ecosystem services can decline without proper policies in place."

Liu noted that sustainability science continues to demand the holistic approach applied to the CEA, and the increasing use of an integrated framework of telecoupling, which examines socioeconomic and environmental interactions across distance to better understand far-reaching consequences.

"It is hopeful that the experiences from increasing China's ecosystem services can help address China's enormous environmental challenges such as air pollution, water pollution, and resource shortages," he said. "They may also offer useful insights into environmental and poverty problems in other parts of the world."

Explore further: Tallying the wins and losses of policy

More information: Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital, Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2295

Journal reference: PLoS ONE search and more info website Science search and more info website Science Advances search and more info website

Provided by: Michigan State University search and more info website
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 17, 2016, 10:27:31 pm
Catholic orders take their lead from the pope and divest from fossil fuels    (


our Australian Catholic organisations have announced they are completely divesting from coal, oil and gas in what they say is the first joint Catholic divestment anywhere in the world.

The move comes as prominent Jewish rabbis, Muslim clerics, Anglican bishops and other religious leaders call on the Australian government to protect the Great Barrier Reef, stop approving coalmines and remove subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, in an open letter published by the Guardian.

 Divesting from fossil fuels: open letter from religious leaders in full (
The divestment announcement – the first by any Catholic organisation in Australia – and letter were coordinated by the multi-faith group the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change, in partnership with the environmental group

It comes a year after Pope Francis, in his second encyclical, Laudato Si’, called on all people – not just Catholics – to take “swift and unified global action” to protect the environment and stop global warming. It is part of Laudato Si’ week, in which Catholic organisations around the world discuss their role in tackling climate change.

At the time the papal intervention was labelled “explosive” and “the most astonishing and perhaps the most ambitious papal document of the past 100 years”.

The four Catholic orders publicly divesting are: Marist Sisters Australia; Presentation Congregation Queensland; Presentation Sisters Wagga Wagga; and the Passionists – Holy Spirit Province Australia, NZ, PNG and Vietnam.

We have a stark choice: protect the global commons or give in to special interests

Thea Ormerod, the president of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change, told the Guardian it was a significant step for Catholic organisations to publicly announce they were divesting from fossil fuels.

“They’re often happy to make lifestyle changes, to take responsibility in their own congregations for a lighter carbon footprint,” she said. “But going out and saying what they’re doing is a bit against the culture of the organisation. The nature of the organisation is quite different – it’s a private spirituality.”

Ormerod said her organisation had been working with Catholic groups – as well as other faith groups – encouraging them to take a public stance, treating environmental issues the way many religious groups have approached Australia’s detention of asylum seekers.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 19, 2016, 06:14:52 pm
700-year-old West African soil technique could help mitigate climate change

June 16, 2016

A farming technique practised for centuries by villagers in West Africa, which converts nutrient-poor rainforest soil into fertile farmland, could be the answer to mitigating climate change and revolutionising farming across Africa.

A global study, led by the University of Sussex, which included anthropologists and soil scientists from Cornell, Accra, and Aarhus Universities and the Institute of Development Studies, has for the first-time identified and analysed rich fertile soils found in Liberia and Ghana.

They discovered that the ancient West African method of adding charcoal and kitchen waste to highly weathered, nutrient poor tropical soils can transform the land into enduringly fertile, carbon-rich black soils which the researchers dub 'African Dark Earths'.

From analysing 150 sites in northwest Liberia and 27 sites in Ghana researchers found that these highly fertile soils contain 200-300 percent more organic carbon than other soils and are capable of supporting far more intensive farming.

Professor James Fairhead, from the University of Sussex, who initiated the study, said: "Mimicking this ancient method has the potential to transform the lives of thousands of people living in some of the most poverty and hunger stricken regions in Africa.

"More work needs to be done but this simple, effective farming practice could be an answer to major global challenges such as developing 'climate smart' agricultural systems which can feed growing populations and adapt to climate change."

Similar soils created by Amazonian people in pre-Columbian eras have recently been discovered in South America - but the techniques people used to create these soils are unknown. Moreover, the activities which led to the creation of these anthropogenic soils were largely disrupted after the European conquest. (

Encouragingly researchers in the West Africa study were able to live within communities as they created their fertile soils. This enabled them to learn the techniques used by the women from the indigenous communities who disposed of ash, bones and other organic waste to create the African Dark Earths.

Dr Dawit Solomon, the lead author from Cornell University, said: "What is most surprising is that in both Africa and in Amazonia, these two isolated indigenous communities living far apart in distance and time were able to achieve something that the modern-day agricultural management practices could not achieve until now.

"The discovery of this indigenous climate smart soil-management practice is extremely timely. This valuable strategy to improve soil fertility while also contributing to climate-change mitigation and adaptation in Africa could become an important component of the global climate-smart agricultural management strategy to achieve food security."

The study, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, entitled "Indigenous African soil enrichment as a climate-smart sustainable agriculture alternative", has been published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Environment can be found  here. (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 22, 2016, 07:33:53 pm
Let Gratitude Overflow (

This visually stunning short film offers an inspirational message: If we only open our eyes, there is so much to be grateful for.

 "You think this is just another day in your life. It's not just another day. It's the one day that is given to you today. It's a gift. It's the only gift that you have right now. And the only appropriate response is gratefulness" says the narrator in this unique video.

 If we remember that we have so much to be grateful for, then we can rally more courage, strength and empowerment -- and then we can move more mountains!

 --Bibi Farber

 This film was made by Louie Schwartzberg, see ( (

Agelbert NOTE: This is a beautiful and moving video. All humans are one family and it is our responsibility as self aware beings to preserve the beauty of the biosphere and its life giving function.

Unfortunately, expect the biosphere math challenged apologists for fossil fuels to cherry pick certain portions of the above video in order to claim that we should direct our gratitude to the fossil fuel industry for being the "savior" of civilization.  (

"The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under equitable rules of access to all common property resources.

It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective protection of essential common property resources of all to feed the financial interests of a few.

These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment, denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political behavior.

It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but scorned for what it is – simple thievery." —George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center founder

"The rich executed a coup d’état that transformed the three branches of the U.S. government and nearly all institutions, including the mass media, into wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate state." -- Chris Hedges

I celebrate the beauty of our God given biosphere and recognize the value of human ingenuity.

However, I am not blind to the damage our "civilization" is visiting on the biosphere. The polluters are not content with getting away with multi-species murder with the aid of a corrupt government and legal system; they want us to be grateful to them too.

I am grateful for good people and God's bounty, not greedy, disingenuous polluting liars.

"The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on June 24, 2016, 08:32:19 pm
U.S. On Track To Achieve 2030 Emissions Goals In 2016  :o    (

Jeff McMahon ,  Contributor
I cover green technology, energy and the environment from Chicago.  Full Bio Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
“Yes, you read that correctly: The U.S. could achieve the 2030 emission cuts this year,”

“Common sense can recognize that coal-laden trains from Wyoming, or even gas fracked from shale fields, will struggle to compete with direct-delivered breezes and sunshine as renewable technologies cheapen,” according to Rice University Prof. Daniel Cohan. Photographer: George Frey/Bloomberg (at article link)

A dramatic slump in coal production has pushed U.S. carbon emissions so low that, were the trend to continue, the U.S. would achieve its 2030 emissions goals this year, according to one professor’s analysis of data from the Energy Information Administration.

Coal production has plummeted 29 percent in 2016 compared to the same period last year, crushed in part by cheap natural gas, which emits about half as much carbon. Unless coal rebounds, the U.S. could achieve a 32 percent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels, according to Daniel Cohan, an assistant professor of environmental engineering at Rice University.

That happens to match the final goal set for the year 2030 in the Clean Power Plan (CPP).

“It’s still conceivable to meet CPP this year, depending on the weather and how much further natural gas prices rise,” Cohan told me via email.

EIA doesn’t expect that to happen.

The agency forecasts a colder winter and rising natural gas prices  ;), which would make coal attractive again to power producers.
But the notoriously fossil-friendly agency  ( ( may be overestimating coal’s prospects, and Cohan notes that EIA repeatedly lowered its carbon emissions estimates as actual data on First Quarter coal use arrived in recent editions of its Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO).

“We’re unlikely to sustain the Q1 trend, which benefited from warm weather and cheap gas. But I’m skeptical of EIA’s forecast of a Q4 rebound, given that its STEO’s have been consistently overestimating coal use. A rebound would have to overcome coal plant retirements, coal mining bankruptcies, and the possibility of another warm winter.”

In its June Outlook, the EIA noted an unusually large stockpile of coal left on hand at the end of last winter:

“Warmer-than-normal temperatures experienced throughout the United States in March 2016 (and the winter as a whole) and coal’s continuing loss of market share to natural gas for electric power generation contributed to the increase in coal stockpiles,” the document says.

In addition to warm weather and low natural gas prices, Cohan credits ”a broad array of emerging and cheapening technologies” for transforming power markets, including inexpensive renewables and increasing efficiency.

In scrutinizing EIA’s data, Cohan noticed its emissions estimates were increasingly approaching the Clean Power Plan goal. He realized that if the coal rebound fails to materialize, the goal could be attained.

“Yes, you read that correctly: The U.S. could achieve the 2030 emission cuts this year,” Cohan wrote in a blog post he penned for Bloomberg Governance.

Even if the U.S. doesn’t achieve its 2030 goal this year, the EIA’s more conservative estimates still bring the country most of the distance. Carbon emissions had already fallen 15 percent from 2005 to 2014, the last year for which reliable figures are available. EIA estimates another 4.5 percent drop across 2015 and 2016.

Cohan thinks recent emissions will fall more than 4.5 percent, because the EIA tends to overestimate coal use, and overestimate the cost of renewables. Those EIA estimates also cover energy emissions in all sectors of the economy. Focusing just on the power sector covered by the Clean Power Plan, the cuts are more dramatic, according to Cohan: a 12 percent decline in power sector emissions from 2014 to 2016, adding up to a 25 percent decline from 2005 to 2016.

“If we end up just a few percent away from the 2030 target this year, it becomes tough to argue that CPP is unattainable or too costly,” Cohan said.

It could be argued, however, that the Clean Power Plan is unnecessary, because its long-term goal has come into view while the regulation remains idled in a court-imposed stay of execution. But without the Clean Power Plan, there’s nothing to prevent a protracted coal rebound in the future that could wipe out the emissions gains.

EIA’s longer term Annual Energy Outlook forecasts an ongoing rebound in coal consumption,” Cohan said, ”if the Clean Power Plan is not implemented  (”

Agelbert NOTE: WHY does the EIA prepare forecasts that EXCLUDE the Clean Power Plan? BECAUSE, as Forbes contributor Jeff McMahon says, the EIA is a NOTORIOSLY fossil-friendly agency. The EIA will dream up every excuse it can to DELAY the transition to 100% Renewable Energy. Remember that when you read any of their published stats and charts.   

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 07, 2016, 11:18:49 pm
Watch: Four and a Half Minutes of N. Atlantic Lighthouses in Storms  :o

June 2, 2016 by gCaptain

According to the uploader this footage is all of lighthouses in the Iroise Sea off northwest France. Special shout out to anyone who can name all them.

Agelbert NOTE: Global warming will severely exacerbate ocean wave activity. This is just a taste of what is to come.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2016, 03:44:07 pm
Why is logging dying? Blame the Market

By George Wuerthner On June 22, 2016 · In Forest Service, Logging, Public Land Management

Environmental regulations and endangered species protections are not at fault for Western logging’s decline.

Note: the opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of High Country News, its board or staff. If you’d like to share an opinion piece of your own, please write Betsy Marston

Critics of public lands like to say that timber jobs declined and mills closed over the last 20 years because environmental protections such as the Endangered Species Act and other laws made the cost of logging skyrocket. This complaint is repeated so often it is usually stated as unqualified truth.

If you believe the rhetoric, the way federal lands are managed has been the problem. If only there were more private owners of the land, local economies would prosper, and there would be stable, long-term stewardship.   (

If only that were true. But if you compare the mostly private wood-products industry in the state of Maine to the West’s experiences on public land, you find that environmental regulations had little to do with the demise of logging.

Ninety percent of Maine is forested, and more than 93 percent of the state’s land is privately owned, mostly by large timber companies that sell trees to the wood-products industry.

If private lands lead to prosperity and healthy landscapes, Maine should be the poster child for the country.  And unlike the West, Maine, imposes minimal regulations on private landowners. There are also almost no listed endangered species in Maine to harry the timber industry.

Yet today, the forest-products industry in Maine is a shadow of its former self. In 1980, there were 25 pulp and paper mills in the state. Today, two-thirds of those mills are gone. Since 1990, the state has lost 13,000 of its approximately 17,000 paper-industry jobs, including more than 2,300 in the past five years. The decline continues. Associated wood products companies in Maine have also seen a decline – everything from wood furniture, wood flooring and clothespin producers have closed up shop.

The decline in both employment and production in Maine was caused by the same forces that drastically cut forest industry jobs in the West: foreign competition, which brought in cheaper wood products, technological advances and new automation that allowed computers instead of people to run machinery. High energy prices and labor costs also played a role as plastic :P and steel moved in to replace wood.

Think about the brightly colored plastic Adirondack chairs for sale at Home Depot now replacing the wooden chairs on which they are modeled. Instead of wood rafters, steel-beam has replaced two-by-fours in some construction, and so forth. The decline in newspapers and print materials has also dramatically altered demand for pulp production. All of these factors are affecting the West’s wood industry as much as they affect Maine.

These days, most of the new sawmills and pulp mills built in the United States are in the South. Trees grow faster there, and unlike the Western United States, they can reach harvestable age in a decade or two. To the timber industry, the longer you have to wait to cut trees, the higher the risk. Your trees might die in a forest fire, a beetle outbreak or some other natural event. So locating your mills in places where you can grow a tree to merchantable size quickly is a smart business practice.

Furthermore, most of the Southern timberlands are flat and accessible year-round. In the steep mountains of the West, road construction costs are far greater, and snow limits seasonal access.

So that’s the picture: The decline of the Western wood products industry – like that in Maine – occurred because of economic realities that favor other regions of the globe. Blaming environmentalists, endangered species protection, or environmental regulations is easy. But blame fails to explain a changing world, or help us understand its nuances.

Unlike Maine, the West has an alternative. Its abundant public lands – in particular its wilderness areas, national parks and monuments – provides the foundation for another future for the region. While not all the changes that come with the “new” economy are welcome – take sprawl and increased impacts from recreational users – they can be managed if we make intelligent choices.

The West boasts iconic wildlands like Grand Canyon and Yellowstone national parks, the Owyhee Canyonlands and the Gila Wilderness.
In the end, federal ownership and protection of wildlands and open spaces is far superior   ( to the Maine model  ( ( of private ownership and maximized profits.

Our model gives us the chance to manage forests sensibly, and it offers at least some potential for a more sustainable future for Western communities.

George Wuerthner  (
is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News. He lives in Bend, Oregon, and is an ecologist who has published 38 books about Western environmental issues (

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 19, 2016, 09:30:48 pm
Agelbert Observation: Given the trajectory of our "civilization" The Theory of Devolution, seems to have more going for it than the /theory of Evolution.   (

Organic life, we are told, has developed gradually from the protozoan to the philosopher, and this development, we are assured, is indubitably an advance. Unfortunately it is the philosopher, not the protozoan, who gives us this assurance.  Bertrand Russell

"Human nature is bad. Good is a human product . . . A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles." —Sun Tzu

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished, unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” ― Voltaire

We are a banker constructed Imperialist nation, ruled by a consortium of global psychopaths, hell bent on destroying the very planet itself in their selfish quest for money, power and the control of all of us. At this rate the human race may not even be here for the 22nd century.

Isaiah 1:23 Your leaders are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loves gifts, and follow after rewards: they deny justice to the fatherless, neither does the plight of the widow come to them.

Isaiah 56:11 ...they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his district.

Romans 16:18 ...they serve their own belly; and by GOOD words and FAIR speeches deceive the minds of the simple.

Jer 9:5 ...they exhaust themselves in greed. Their habitation is in the midst of deceit...

Proverbs 22:16 they oppress the poor to increase their riches, and they give to the rich...

Psalm 26:10 In whose hands is mischief, and their right hand (priority) is full of bribes.

Psalm 5:9 There is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is truly wicked; their throat is an open tomb; they flatter with their tongue.

Psalm 12:2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbor: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.

Amos 5:7 They turn justice to bitterness, and neglect whats right in the earth 5:12 they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor from what's right.

2 Peter 2:18 they speak great swelling words of pride, they manipulate using the desires of the people, through much wantonness... 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption...

Isaiah 59:14 judgment is turned away backward, and justice stands far off: for truth is fallen.

1Timonthy 6:5 Perverse men of corrupt minds, destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness...

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: a mind they have exercised with greedy practices; cursed men.

Ezekiel 33:31 ...they come to you as the people come ...they hear your words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goes after their greed.

Jeremiah 9:3 they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth; they proceed from evil to evil, and they don't know God ...they deceive every one, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and exhaust themselves in greed. Their habitation is in the midst of deceit; because of deceit they refuse to know God ...their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaks deceit: he speaks peaceably to neighbors, but in his mind he lays their wait. Shall I not visit them for these things? says the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?

Proverbs 28:11 The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that have understanding will search him out.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on July 28, 2016, 07:32:29 pm
I spend my time writing about the economy, but the climate data hits me right in the gut

Greg Jericho

I love my graphs and get carried away by data, but if the world keeps warming like this, talking about GDP and housing affordability will all be rather quaint. (

Full article with eye opening grapics, irrefutable charts and data:

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 01, 2016, 08:37:50 pm

"In the last 40 years, our way of life has reduced the plant and animal population on this planet by 40 to 50%. We will die in a world that is HALF as flourishing with plants and animals as the world we were born to." - Kathleen Deen Moore, Writer and Senior Fellow, Spring Creek Project



"If God treats you well by teaching you a disastrous lesson, you never forget it". Ray Bradbury
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on August 01, 2016, 10:54:36 pm
Here's a video that is 100% accurate, if a bit melodramatic. Worshippers of fossil fuels are in total denial about the totally suicidal situation we find ourselves in. Peak DEATH is what we should be concerned with, not Peak oil.

Published on Jun 17, 2016

Part One of Two. Next is Oxygen. What can I say. We f#*ked up bad. We tried to warn you, but not scare you. Should have worried less about scaring folks.

Methane (part one) and Oxygene (part two). One we are getting too much of. The other, we are losing. We have warned of the melting methane threat, but we had no idea. The words "abrupt", "catastrophic", and "collapse" have now entered the lexicon of Climate Change discussions. While trying to soft peddle the threat, we underestimated the feedback loops and runaway affects of secondary gasses and effects. Yes, the human body CAN take an average increase in temperature of a few degrees - but our food sources (grains and rice) cannot. Many scientists are done warning the public. They are saying "Good Bye". Seriously. This is not a joke or a sensationalist grab for attention. We blew it, big time.

Next we are going to look at the unexpected consequences and the effects on our atmospheric oxygen - which NASA tries to placate the public with "greener earth due to increased CO2!", yea, all better. But it's not. Notice the words "on land" in their report. But we don't get the bulk of our oxygene from land or plants on land. We get it from the oceans. And they are dying just as fast as other planetary systems. Sorry. But I'm just the messenger.

To VIEW ALL SOURCE MATERIALS please visit our playlist on Environment/Nature Published on Jun 17, 2016

Part One of Two. Next is Oxygen. What can I say. We f#*ked up bad. We tried to warn you, but not scare you. Should have worried less about scaring folks.

Methane (part one) and Oxygene (part two). One we are getting too much of. The other, we are losing. We have warned of the melting methane threat, but we had no idea. The words "abrupt", "catastrophic", and "collapse" have now entered the lexicon of Climate Change discussions. While trying to soft peddle the threat, we underestimated the feedback loops and runaway affects of secondary gasses and effects. Yes, the human body CAN take an average increase in temperature of a few degrees - but our food sources (grains and rice) cannot. Many scientists are done warning the public. They are saying "Good Bye". Seriously. This is not a joke or a sensationalist grab for attention. We blew it, big time.

Next we are going to look at the unexpected consequences and the effects on our atmospheric oxygen - which NASA tries to placate the public with "greener earth due to increased CO2!", yea, all better. But it's not. Notice the words "on land" in their report. But we don't get the bulk of our oxygene from land or plants on land. We get it from the oceans. And they are dying just as fast as other planetary systems. Sorry. But I'm just the messenger.

To VIEW ALL SOURCE MATERIALS please visit our playlist on Environment/Nature

Thanks, and best of luck in the next few years. Remember: Life's a Gas.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on October 02, 2016, 09:44:52 pm
09/30/2016 01:21 PM 

Will US Give Up Great Gains Made on Renewable Energy? News

Under President Obama, the US has become a world leader on clean energy (say goodbye to this if Trump is elected).

 Amazing gains on wind, solar, LED lighting and electric vehicles have all taken place since he took office in 2008.   

23 states now use renewable electricity as a primary energy source
, says the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).   

Revolution Now, Accelerating Clean Energy, an annual report on this progress from the Department of Energy (DOE), shows how much costs have dropped since 2008 - 94% for LEDs; 73% for batteries; 54% for distributed solar PV; 64% for large-scale solar; and 41% for land-based wind energy.

Last year, over two thirds of new US electric power came from wind and solar PV.

Offshore Wind   

The first (tiny) offshore wind farm in the US is built! off the coast of Rhode Island.

As of 2015, the Interior Department has auctioned 14.6 gigawatts-worth of offshore leases on the east coast. A major 194-turbine farm is moving forward for NYC and many others are in the early stages of development.

Earlier this month, DOE released a National Offshore Wind Strategy (, with a goal of producing 86 gigawatts - enough electricity for 23 million homes. Offshore wind farms would serve population centers along our Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Great Lakes and Hawaii.

Over the next five years, DOE and Interior will support development of improved turbine designs, siting and safety guidelines, and facilitate cooperation among federal agencies to accelerate the process.

Leading Cities

Over the summer, Salt Lake City formally committed to reach 100% renewable energy by 2032 and to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2040 under Climate Positive 2040. 

It joins a dozen cities with a 100% commitment, including San Diego (by 2035) and San Francisco (by 2020). Sierra Club's "Ready for 100" campaign plans to sign 50 cities up by the end of this year. 

Going Forward

 In 12 years, batteries that store energy at utility scale will be as widespread as solar panels are now, revolutionizing the way people use energy, says Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

 And in 15 years, renewables (including hydro) will overtake fracked gas, becoming the dominant energy source in the US!, they project.

This transition to a clean energy economy will drive economic growth for decades, create well-paying jobs and increasing household incomes, concludes NextGen Climate America's report, "Economic Analysis of U.S. Decarbonization Pathways."

If we really want to bring manufacturing back to the US, this is the way to do it. Homegrown companies will produce the parts, equipment, and products for deep decarbonization technologies. 

By investing in clean energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the report shows that over 1 million jobs would be created by 2030 and nearly 2 million by 2050.   

It would be the saddest thing I can think of for us to turn back the clock by electing a president and congress so stuck in the fossil past. 

Read our article, Knock, Knock,  Are You Aware the US Can Run on 100% Renewable Energy?  (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 03, 2016, 09:05:38 pm
Before the Flood

Published on Oct 30, 2016

Join Leonardo DiCaprio as he explores the topic of climate change, and discovers what must be done today to prevent catastrophic disruption of life on our planet.
➡ Subscribe:
➡ Get the soundtrack on iTunes:
➡ Discover your climate impact:
➡ Learn more & take action:

Act Now #BeforeTheFlood:
For every use of #BeforeTheFlood across Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram between October 24 – November 18, 21st Century Fox and National Geographic will together donate $1 to Pristine Seas and $1 to the Wildlife Conservation Society, up to $50,000 to each organization.

About Before the Flood:
Before the Flood, directed by Fisher Stevens, captures a three-year personal journey alongside Academy Award-winning actor and U.N. Messenger of Peace Leonardo DiCaprio as he interviews individuals from every facet of society in both developing and developed nations who provide unique, impassioned and pragmatic views on what must be done today and in the future to prevent catastrophic disruption of life on our planet.

Get More National Geographic:
Official Site:

About National Geographic:
National Geographic is the world's premium destination for science, exploration, and adventure. Through their world-class scientists, photographers, journalists, and filmmakers, Nat Geo gets you closer to the stories that matter and past the edge of what's possible.

Before the Flood - Full Movie | National Geographic

National Geographic

Science & Technology

Standard YouTube License

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 04, 2016, 02:10:23 pm
Climate| Nov. 04, 2016 09:35AM EST

Washington Voters Step Up, Pass the Nation's First Carbon Tax  ( 

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

In the article body it explains that the new Carbon Tax will enable a DECREASE in the the sales tax  ;D, plus up to $1,500 for a Working Families Tax Credit for low-income families.  (

Full article:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 06, 2016, 03:39:19 pm
Only a radical change in how Americans (and others) live can reduce carbon emissions.  A carbon tax will do next to nothing in reducing carbon consumption but it will send the message that it is OK to pollute if you can pay for it.  It will also send the message that since it is now taxed we don't have worry about carbon in the atmosphere any more.

I will not be voting for this well meaning but simple minded proposition that would cost me seventy five bucks a year just to drive.  The way the machinery of society works it could soon be a mark of status to conspicuously consume carbon just because you have the money to do so.

Typical American bullshit thinking economic manipulations can fix everything.  This is lip service and liable to interfere with effacious solutions which actually can make a difference.

I expect grief from Agelbert about this and I don't care.


"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

-- President Lyndon B. Johnson, Feb. 2, 1965


"God always forgives, but the earth does not. Take care of the earth so it does not respond with destruction,"

 -- Pope Francis, at a UN conference in Rome, Nov. 19, 2014

Seems I am not alone, my greatest objection is the burden would be cleverly shifted to the poor.  - K-Dog

From: (

Vote NO on I-732
Initiative 732 has divided groups committed to fighting climate change. It would reduce carbon pollution by taxing it and cut other taxes by a similar amount. Although it’s well-intended, puts a strong price on carbon emissions, and tackles an incredibly urgent problem, it has some serious flaws that have generated strong opposition from many progressive groups that are committed to reducing carbon pollution. Opponents have several concerns:

    Although I-732 is supposed to be revenue neutral, drafters inadvertently created huge additional tax breaks for companies like Boeing so it would cost more than it will bring in. A recent state budget analysis has determined that these tax breaks would cost taxpayers approximately $797 million over six years. As a result, I-732 would blow a giant hole in the state budget at a time when we are already failing to adequately fund schools, health care, and other essential services.
    It fails to invest any carbon tax revenue in clean energy sources. Increasing our use of clean energy like solar and wind power is a critical part of fighting climate change, as well as decreasing our use of fossil fuels. In addition, it fails to limit carbon pollution or to enforce the carbon pollution reductions already required by law.
    I-732 proponents failed to engage communities of color and workers – the ones disproportionately impacted by climate change -- in developing an approach to provide an economically just transition away from fossil fuels. The result is an initiative that does not adequately address their priorities and faces strong opposition from groups representing communities of color and labor unions.

I-732 supporters argue the urgency of fighting climate change compels us to act immediately and that we can’t afford to wait for a different proposal. Although we are highly motivated to reduce carbon pollution and appreciate the sentiments of the initiative's supporters, I-732’s flaws are serious enough that we – like most statewide environmental groups - cannot support the proposal.

We look forward to working with a wide range of advocates to create and pass a stronger plan to fight climate change in the near future.
Fuse WA, Washington State Labor Council, OneAmerica Votes, Front and Centered, Puget Sound Sage, Progreso, Children's Alliance

Other groups that do not support I-732: Washington Conservation Voters, Washington Environmental Council, Sierra Club

Beware Greeks bearing gifts.


If it is NOT really a carbon tax, but a scheme to put the burden of paying for pollution on the poor, then I am in agreement with you.

But we cannot avert our eyes from the fact that the unsustainable status quo of energy source exploitation already puts the burden of most of the health downsides from fossil fuel and mining pollution on the poor. The S.C.C. (Social Cost of Carbon)_ is disproportionately born by the poorest in the USA and in the rest of the world.

K-Dog, you and I don't see eye to eye on some issues like the level of police racism, but we are generally on the same page as to the environmental destruction going on. I apologize for berating you in the past on the social Cost of Carbon. I am way to passionate for my own good on that subject.

The problem with pricing carbon is that the most powerful energy lobbies want to game the carbon tax so that we-the-people pay for the cleanup. So, yeah, it's just like them to call something a "carbon tax" that is nothing of the kind and is elitist instead of egalitarian.

But that doesn't take away the problem. The problem is that pollution is degrading the biosphere. So, in a sane world, you recognize that you are in a hole, and you stop digging.

Which means, ANYONE that uses polluting energy should pay for ameliorating the effects of that pollution proportionately. But the fossil fuel industry does not want to hear that because they use much more fossil fuels than they advertise in their exploitation of fossil fuels, be they coal, oil or gas. This is the dirty little (actually it's HUGE) secret to their gamed ERoEI numbers. Fossil fuels, when all the energy inputs are computed, are energy return negative. It's only because of their massive "subsidies" that they can claim a competitive product.

What I am saying is that, in a sane world, you and I would NOT pay anything for fossil fuel welfare queen "subsidies" (as we do NOW 24/7), but would pay X Carbon Tax on a fossil fuel product such as gasoline or "natural" (fossil, not from truly natural methanogenic life forms) gas and such ONLY if we are in the business of extracting fossil fuels for refining and marketing.

THEN, the fossil fuel industry can only sell the product at the correct price. But, if TPTB want to pass the buck from the fossil fuel industry straight to us, then it is obviously a scam every bit as heinous as the present "subsidy" structure.

The status quo is not sustainable. Reality will out. The poorest are already paying the highest price for the biosphere degradation for short term fossil fuel profits.

We can transition rationally and equitably or we can transition with a cascade of collapse events forcing the polluters kicking and screaming to stop polluting. Those are the only two futures that are realistic.

I think you would prefer a rational transition.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 13, 2016, 08:58:07 pm
Abrupt Climate Change * The Hard Truth * Scientists * Guy McPherson Eric Rignot (NASA) & more 
Marc Haneburght

Published on Oct 9, 2016

Over and over the solution to abrupt climate change always needs to be in a way to keep this "heat engine" (check my other video with Professor Tim Garrett) of industrial civilization going. All civilizations have failed before us, and this, the most destructive civilization of all, will for sure. There is no solution to death. Most people forget that only Mother Nature could give us a solution, if any. One solution is like Mike Sliwa said, "stop controlling".

There is no controlling Mother Nature. YES, there is a solution for abrupt climate change, "to help and let Mother Nature be". I think the message from Dr. Guy McPherson is the best way going forward in dealing with this subject, and as he says, "some species might make it thru the bottle neck of extinction, and you can help".

If there is a solution it will NOT be done by us Humans but by Mother Nature alone, without our interference. If there is a 0.001% chance of a solution, it will again be only this, "to let Mother Nature be and help Mother Nature do it's own thing in any possible way and see what happens". I personally don't see any way out of this predicament, Mother Nature is in charge of us all. But if you can't live without a solution, then i recommend helping the living planet. If you want a goal going forward in life, i recommend following and maybe joining the green resistance movements and helping the species that surround you (check my other video "A Last Stand" featuring Derrick Jensen). This is not about the future of civilization but about the future of the living planet. Don't be hubris like the rest of the population. Let us be nature's warriors. All of us will die at some point, there is no escape. Thanks for watching.

Produced by Marc Haneburght.

Science & Technology

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 21, 2016, 10:13:10 pm
Paul Douglas  ( Lays Out A Faith-Based Approach To Climate Change

November 20, 2016 3:30 PM

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Paul Douglas is reaching out as a man of faith and a meteorologist to talk to evangelicals about climate change.

The former WCCO chief meteorologist has co-written a new book titled “Caring for Creation,” and it aims to show readers a faith-based response to the global environmental problem.

Douglas, who was a guest on WCCO Sunday Morning, said his book in an attempt to reframe the discussion about climate change into something beyond just the science, which he describes as undeniable.

“You can pile on the science, but at some point, people tune out the science,” Douglas said. “But if you frame this under the guise of clean energy, energy freedom, energy security…it’s framing the story in a way that resonates and appeals to peoples’ faith.”

Douglas says that Christians, as stewards of the Earth, have a moral obligation to do something about climate change and the threat it poses to the world. (

“In Matthew, Jesus said, ‘What you did not do for the least of these you did not do for me'”…Those with the least, the poorest among us, are the first to feel the impacts [of climate change],” he said.

Effects such as rising sea levels, flooding and water shortages could cause massive, global migration, dwarfing the current refugee crisis in Europe.

“We ignore [climate change] at our peril,” Douglas said. “I ask people, Do you love your kids? They say, Of course I love my kids. I say, well, do this for your kids and their kids…They are going to wonder what you did.”

“Caring for Creation” is available at bookstores and


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 22, 2016, 06:03:33 pm
Spectacular Scenery and Prudent Advice for Humanity.
EARTH - One Video you NEED to see
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 23, 2016, 01:21:07 pm

Teenagers Take the US Government to Trial Over Climate Change News

Wouldn't it be amazing(
 if teenagers (  could derail Trump and the GOP's fossil fuel agenda?

In a huge victory (, 21 teenagers who filed a climate change lawsuit against the federal government will have their day in court.

They are suing the government for not taking effective action on climate change - which requires an end to the production and combustion of fossil fuels - claiming this violates their constitutional rights to life and liberty.  They want the court to order President Obama to immediately implement a national plan that lowers atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 ppm by 2100.

Three fossil fuel trade associations ( joined the US government to fight the case. In April, a federal judge rebuffed their calls to dismiss the case and this month, another federal judge refused again to throw the case out.

That means, the teenagers and the federal government will go to trial over climate change.

Climate scientist James Hansen and the Global Catholic Climate Movement, which includes Pope Francis, are also parties to the lawsuit.

"Youth stand together (, and even as the seas are rising... so are we," says 17-year-old, Victoria Barrett.

"My generation is rewriting history. We're doing what so many people told us we were incapable of doing: holding our leaders accountable for their disastrous and dangerous actions. I and my co-plaintiffs are demanding justice for our generation and justice for all future generations. This is going to be the trial of our lifetimes," says 16-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Martinez. 

In her decision in favor of the plaintiffs, Oregon District Court Judge Ann Aiken notes, "Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environmental law and the world has suffered for it."

"Now we must ask the court to require the government to reduce fossil fuel emissions at a rate consistent with the science," says Dr. James Hansen.

 Since the Obama administration is on its way out and can't implement any strategy without facing reversal from a Republican majority, we hope this case can apply to the new government when it takes over.

Lawsuits filed in every state will also move forward
, demanding state legislatures take science-based action on climate change. They have already won cases in Washington State and Massachusetts.

For similar cases across the world, read our article: Momentum Builds for Court Action on Climate Change. '
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on November 24, 2016, 01:16:12 pm
Agelbert REMINDER to those who will be "offended" (because they are supporters of the President Elect) by the hard truths stated in the article below:


TOPICS: Democracy & Government

TAGS: 2016 election, donald trump, hillary clinton, media criticism
Democracy & Government

Farewell, America ( (

No matter how the rest of the world looked at us on Nov. 7, they will now look at us differently.

By Neal Gabler | November 10, 2016

The sun sets behind the Jefferson Memorial in Washington. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

America died on Nov. 8, 2016, not with a bang or a whimper, but at its own hand via electoral suicide. We the people chose a man who has shredded our values, our morals, our compassion, our tolerance, our decency, our sense of common purpose, our very identity — all the things that, however tenuously, made a nation out of a country.

Whatever place we now live in is not the same place it was on Nov. 7. No matter how the rest of the world looked at us on Nov. 7, they will now look at us differently. We are likely to be a pariah country. And we are lost for it. As I surveyed the ruin of that country this gray Wednesday morning, I found weary consolation in W.H. Auden’s poem, September 1, 1939, which concludes:

BY Neal Gabler | November 8, 2016

“Defenseless under the night
 Our world in stupor lies;
 Yet, dotted everywhere,
 Ironic points of light
 Flash out wherever the Just
 Exchange their messages:
 May I, composed like them
 Of Eros and of dust,
 Beleaguered by the same
 Negation and despair,
 Show an affirming flame.”

I hunt for that affirming flame.

This generally has been called the “hate election” because everyone professed to hate both candidates. It turned out to be the hate election because, and let’s not mince words, of the hatefulness of the electorate. In the years to come, we will brace for the violence, the anger, the racism, the misogyny, the xenophobia, the nativism, the white sense of grievance that will undoubtedly be unleashed now that we have destroyed the values that have bound us.

We all knew these hatreds lurked under the thinnest veneer of civility. That civility finally is gone.

We all knew these hatreds lurked under the thinnest veneer of civility. That civility finally is gone. In its absence, we may realize just how imperative that politesse was. It is the way we managed to coexist.

If there is a single sentence that characterizes the election, it is this: “He says the things I’m thinking.” That may be what is so terrifying. Who knew that so many tens of millions of white Americans were thinking unconscionable things about their fellow Americans? Who knew that tens of millions of white men felt so emasculated by women and challenged by minorities? Who knew that after years of seeming progress on race and gender, tens of millions of white Americans lived in seething resentment, waiting for a demagogue to arrive who would legitimize their worst selves and channel them into political power? Perhaps we had been living in a fool’s paradise. Now we aren’t.

This country has survived a civil war, two world wars, and a great depression. There are many who say we will survive this, too. Maybe we will, but we won’t survive unscathed. We know too much about each other to heal. No more can we pretend that we are exceptional or good or progressive or united. We are none of those things. Nor can we pretend that democracy works and that elections have more or less happy endings. Democracy only functions when its participants abide by certain conventions, certain codes of conduct and a respect for the process.

No more can we pretend that we are exceptional or good or progressive or united. We are none of those things.

The virus that kills democracy is extremism because extremism disables those codes. Republicans have disrespected the process for decades. They have regarded any Democratic president as illegitimate. They have proudly boasted of preventing popularly elected Democrats from effecting policy and have asserted that only Republicans have the right to determine the nation’s course. They have worked tirelessly to make sure that the government cannot govern and to redefine the purpose of government as prevention rather than effectuation. In short, they haven’t believed in democracy for a long time, and the media never called them out on it.

Democracy can’t cope with extremism. Only violence and time can defeat it. The first is unacceptable, the second takes too long. Though Trump is an extremist, I have a feeling that he will be a very popular president and one likely to be re-elected by a substantial margin, no matter what he does or fails to do. That’s because ever since the days of Ronald Reagan, rhetoric has obviated action, speechifying has superseded governing.

Trump (  was absolutely correct when he bragged that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn’t care. It was a dictator’s ugly vaunt (, but one that recognized this election never was about policy or economics or the “right path/wrong path,” or even values. It was about venting. So long as Trump vented their grievances, his all-white supporters didn’t care about anything else. He is smart enough to know that won’t change in the presidency. In fact, it is only likely to intensify. White America, Trump’s America, just wants to hear its anger bellowed. This is one time when the Bully Pulpit will be literal.

The media can’t be let off the hook for enabling an authoritarian to get to the White House. Long before he considered a presidential run, he was a media creation — a regular in the gossip pages, a photo on magazine covers, the bankrupt (morally and otherwise) mogul who hired and fired on The Apprentice. When he ran, the media treated him not as a candidate, but as a celebrity, and so treated him differently from ordinary pols. The media gave him free publicity, trumpeted his shenanigans, blasted out his tweets, allowed him to phone in his interviews, fell into his traps and generally kowtowed until they suddenly discovered that this joke could actually become president.

Just as Trump has shredded our values, our nation and our democracy, he has shredded the media. In this, as in his politics, he is only the latest avatar of a process that began long before his candidacy. Just as the sainted Ronald Reagan created an unbridgeable chasm between rich and poor that the Republicans would later exploit against Democrats, conservatives delegitimized mainstream journalism so that they could fill the vacuum.

With Trump’s election, I think that the ideal of an objective, truthful journalism is dead, never to be revived.

Retiring conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes complained that after years of bashing from the right wing, the mainstream media no longer could perform their function as reporters, observers, fact dispensers, and even truth tellers, and he said we needed them. Like Goebbels before them, conservatives understood that they had to create their own facts, their own truths, their own reality. They have done so, and in so doing effectively destroyed the very idea of objectivity. Trump can lie constantly only because white America has accepted an Orwellian sense of truth — the truth pulled inside out.

With Trump’s election, I think that the ideal of an objective, truthful journalism is dead, never to be revived. Like Nixon and Sarah Palin before him, Trump ran against the media, boomeranging off the public’s contempt for the press. He ran against what he regarded as media elitism and bias, and he ran on the idea that the press disdained working-class white America. Among the many now-widening divides in the country, this is a big one, the divide between the media and working-class whites, because it creates a Wild West of information – a media ecology in which nothing can be believed except what you already believe.

With the mainstream media so delegitimized — a delegitimization for which they bear a good deal of blame, not having had the courage to take on lies and expose false equivalencies — they have very little role to play going forward in our politics. I suspect most of them will surrender to Trumpism — if they were able to normalize Trump as a candidate, they will no doubt normalize him as president.


Cable news may even welcome him as a continuous entertainment and ratings booster. And in any case, like Reagan, he is bulletproof. The media cannot touch him, even if they wanted to. Presumably, there will be some courageous guerillas in the mainstream press, a kind of Resistance, who will try to fact-check him. But there will be few of them, and they will be whistling in the wind. Trump, like all dictators, is his own truth.

What’s more, Trump already has promised to take his war on the press into courtrooms and the halls of Congress. He wants to loosen libel protections, and he has threatened Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos of Amazon with an antitrust suit. Individual journalists have reason to fear him as well. He has already singled out NBC’s Katy Tur, perhaps the best of the television reporters, so that she needed the Secret Service to escort her from one of his rallies. Jewish journalists who have criticized Trump have been subjected to vicious anti-Semitism and intimidation from the alt-right. For the press, this is likely to be the new normal in an America in which white supremacists, neo-Nazi militias, racists, sexists, homophobes and anti-Semites have been legitimized by a new president who “says what I’m thinking.” It will be open season.

This converts the media from reporters to targets, and they have little recourse. Still, if anyone points the way forward, it may be New York Times columnist David Brooks. Brooks is no paragon. He always had seemed to willfully neglect modern Republicanism’s incipient fascism (now no longer incipient), and he was an apologist for conservative self-enrichment and bigotry. But this campaign season, Brooks pretty much dispensed with politics. He seemed to have arrived at the conclusion that no good could possibly come of any of this and retreated into spirituality. What Brooks promoted were values of mutual respect, a bolder sense of civic engagement, an emphasis on community and neighborhood, and overall a belief in trickle-up decency rather than trickle-down economics. He is not hopeful, but he hasn’t lost all hope.

For those of us now languishing in despair, this may be a prescription for rejuvenation. We have lost the country, but by refocusing, we may have gained our own little patch of the world and, more granularly, our own family. For journalists, Brooks may show how political reporting, which, as I said, is likely to be irrelevant in the Trump age, might yield to a broader moral context in which one considers the effect that policy, strategy and governance have not only on our physical and economic well-being but also on our spiritual well-being. In a society that is likely to be fractious and odious, we need a national conversation on values. The media could help start it.

But the disempowered media may have one more role to fill: They must bear witness. Many years from now, future generations will need to know what happened to us and how it happened. They will need to know how disgruntled white Americans, full of self-righteous indignation, found a way to take back a country they felt they were entitled to and which they believed had been lost. They will need to know about the ugliness and evil that destroyed us as a nation after great men like Lincoln and Roosevelt guided us through  previous crises and kept our values intact. They will need to know, and they will need a vigorous, engaged, moral media to tell them. They will also need us.

We are not living for ourselves anymore in this country. Now we are living for history.

Neal Gabler is an author of five books and the recipient of two LA Times Book Prizes, Time magazine's non-fiction book of the year, USA Today's biography of the year and other awards. He is also a senior fellow at The Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, and is currently writing a biography of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Agelbert NOTE: Great article, but, unlike the author, many millions of Americans, like myself, KNEW about this suicidal trajectory, of which the ubiquitous racism is but one symptom of America's moral decay.

Neal Gabler is a good man of principle. He is clear on what is right and what is wrong. However, as the reality of the WAY things REALLY are in the USA struck him like a kick in the groin, Neal Gabler's surprise is evidence that he was a victim of white privileged liberal wishful thinking. None of the following was a surprise to me and millions of other Americans of mixed ancestry that know the score.

If there is a single sentence that characterizes the election, it is this: “He says the things I’m thinking.” That may be what is so terrifying. Who knew that so many tens of millions of white Americans were thinking unconscionable things about their fellow Americans? Who knew that tens of millions of white men felt so emasculated by women and challenged by minorities? Who knew that after years of seeming progress on race and gender, tens of millions of white Americans lived in seething resentment, waiting for a demagogue to arrive who would legitimize their worst selves and channel them into political power? Perhaps we had been living in a fool’s paradise. Now we aren’t.

I have been warning about it to deaf ears for over a decade.  ( (  (

Also, unlike Neal Gabler, I dated the final nail in the coffin of American Democracy much earlier than this election. (

I dated it to when THIS GUY had the nomination for VP stolen from him so the Truman party hack could do the bidding of the M.I.C. when Roosevelt died.
But, you know what? The abysmally stupid and morally corruptive embrace of greed, xenophobia and racism is the LEAST of our worries as a people in this perfect storm of Wall Street 'dial a reality' that so many fools and knaves wish to celebrate.

Below please find, America TODAY:
Like Goebbels before them, conservatives understood that they had to create their own facts, their own truths, their own reality. They have done so, and in so doing effectively destroyed the very idea of objectivity. Trump can lie constantly only because white America has accepted an Orwellian sense of truth — the truth pulled inside out.

BUT, THIS is America in the NEAR FUTURE:


Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 05, 2016, 06:09:58 pm
You’re Buying a Home. Have You Considered Climate Change? ???


So you want to buy a home in a global warming zone.   ( (

Wait, you weren’t thinking of it that way? You didn’t even realize it or think to check? Well, it’s time to adjust your outlook. (

That was my conclusion, at least, after reading my colleague Ian Urbina’s recent article about climate change and the residential real estate market. No one knows when (or if) a panic may set in among insurance companies, lenders or home buyers — one that causes prices to fall and never recover in vulnerable areas. But given that homes are the most expensive thing that many of us ever purchase, it’s foolish not to consider the long-term implications of owning one in a growing number of increasingly damage-prone places.

This is also an area of financial life that is ripe for mistakes and delusional thinking. Buying a home involves an enormous amount of money, and few people do it often enough to be experts. Given the realities of climate change, the process is now set against a backdrop of radical uncertainty about the very ground you will live on and the air you will breathe. Throw political uncertainty into the mix and — well, good luck keeping your head on straight.

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 11, 2016, 04:43:48 pm
Dec 6:-BREAKING: Unbelievable, Our PLANET EARTH is UNSafe "World"? ??? ASTEROID ATTACKs.   :o
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 12, 2016, 10:26:05 pm
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 18, 2016, 03:12:50 pm

David Fleming & Dark Optimism

Posted on December 7, 2016, by Radio Ecoshock


How can we go on living with impossible problems?    ???        (

Green writer David Fleming influenced the UK Green Party, the Transition Towns movement, & new economics.

Fleming passed away in 2010, leaving an unpublished dictionary for our survival.

Writer & editor Shaun Chamberlin picked up the torch for his friend & mentor, with 2 new books on Fleming’s work: “Lean Logic” and “Surviving the Future”. UK’s Greg Moffitt, host of talks with Chamberlin.

Listen to podcast at link below:
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 18, 2016, 04:30:18 pm
Published on Nov 23, 2016

Could Brexit Lead to the Rediscovery of Culture Grounded in Place? 19th Sept 2016, Trinity College, Oxford University.

Jonathon Porritt and Shaun Chamberlin discuss Brexit and the launch of the late Trinity alumnus David Fleming’s extraordinary books 'Lean Logic: A Dictionary for the Future and How to Survive It' and the paperback 'Surviving the Future: Culture, Carnival and Capital in the Aftermath of the Market Economy'.

The full event from which this footage was taken is available at:

A different set of highlights from the event, focused on collapse and post-growth economics, can be found here:

Event poster, including info on speakers:

More information on David Fleming's books, including reviews and how to order:

Schumacher College Earth Talk: Rob Hopkins and Shaun Chamberlin discuss David Fleming and the launch of his posthumous books,
'The Late Dr. David Fleming: Community, Place and Play', 12 October 2016:

An August 21st 2016 written interview with Shaun Chamberlin on David Fleming, Brexit and the books:


“David Fleming was an elder of the UK green movement and a key figure in the early Green Party. Drawing on the heritage of Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful, Fleming’s beautifully written and nourishing vision of a post-growth economics grounded in human-scale culture and community—rather than big finance—is both inspiring and ever more topical.”
~ Caroline Lucas MP, co-leader, Green Party of England and Wales; former Member of the European Parliament

"David Fleming predicts environmental catastrophe but also proposes a solution that stems from the real motives of people and not from some comprehensive political agenda. He writes lucidly and eloquently of the moral and spiritual qualities on which we might draw in our ‘descent’ to a Lean Economy. His highly poetic description of these qualities is neither gloomy nor self-deceived but tranquil and inspiring. All environmental activists should read him and learn to think in his cultivated and nuanced way."
~ Roger Scruton, writer and philosopher; author of over thirty books, including Green Philosophy

“I would unreservedly go so far as to say that David Fleming was one of the most original, brilliant, urgently-needed, underrated, and ahead-of-his-time thinkers of the last 50 years. History will come to place him alongside Schumacher, Berry, Seymour, Cobbett, and those other brilliant souls who could not just imagine a more resilient world but who could paint a picture of it in such vivid colours. Step into the world of David Fleming; you'll be so glad you did.”
~ Rob Hopkins, cofounder of the Transition Network

Learn from Dr. David Fleming's wisdom:

Dr. David Fleming - Nov 2006 - "Lean Energy: A Practical Guide to the Energy Descent"
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on December 21, 2016, 02:41:36 pm
December 21, 2016

New Trump Picks to Bring Public Lands and Environmental Regulations to the Corporate Slaughterhouse

Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director Kieran Suckling says ''dark days'' are ahead with South Carolina Republican Congressman Mick Mulvaney as head the Office of Management and first term Republican Congressman Ryan Zinke Budget as Department of Interior.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2017, 08:56:37 pm

Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 14, 2017, 05:28:54 pm
Yes, this IS the right place for this video. Past may be prologue. The Evil that brought the following events to the world is still there, and stronger than ever.  :(

JFK and the Unspeakable Jim Douglass
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 14, 2017, 08:36:54 pm
Agelbert Note: The USA IS a National Security State.

"A democratic National Security State is an Oxymoron."

JFK and the Unspeakable, Why He Died and WHY it Matters

Author Jim Douglass speaks at the 2009 Coalition on Political Assassinations conference in Dallas. November 22, 2009.

JFK was fond of this poem:


I Have a Rendezvous with Death

Alan Seeger, 1888 - 1916

I have a rendezvous with Death   
At some disputed barricade,   
When Spring comes back with rustling shade   
And apple-blossoms fill the air—   
I have a rendezvous with Death
When Spring brings back blue days and fair.   
It may be he shall take my hand   
And lead me into his dark land   
And close my eyes and quench my breath—   
It may be I shall pass him still.
I have a rendezvous with Death   
On some scarred slope of battered hill,   
When Spring comes round again this year   
And the first meadow-flowers appear.   
God knows ‘twere better to be deep
Pillowed in silk and scented down,   
Where love throbs out in blissful sleep,   
Pulse nigh to pulse, and breath to breath,   
Where hushed awakenings are dear...   
But I’ve a rendezvous with Death
At midnight in some flaming town,   
When Spring trips north again this year,   
And I to my pledged word am true,   
I shall not fail that rendezvous.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 14, 2017, 09:48:53 pm
JFK was asked one day what the thought of the movie, "Seven Days In May". He said it could happen in the USA under certain conditions, but not on his watch.
JFK, Obama, and the Unspeakable

Eric Herter

Published on Jul 26, 2015

Religion professor James Douglass tells why Jack Kennedy was killed -- the Bay of Pigs, the fight with the US steel industry, the Cuban missile crisis, and, especially, Kennedy's secret correspondence with the supreme enemy, Russian Premier Khrushchev, about their mutual desire to avoid nuclear disaster by ending the Cold War.

Douglass contends that the same forces within the US government that killed Kennedy are present still, and that their removal of JFK gives strong warning against initiating a non-war economy and a foreign policy based on cooperation and peace.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 15, 2017, 01:43:52 pm
The Horror of the Iraq War, One Hundred Years From Now

Cora Currier

AFTER SADDAM HUSSEIN, after the U.S. invasion, after the Islamic State, what will Iraq ultimately look like? The future of Iraq, its borders, economy, religious and cultural identity, is a matter of constant speculation for foreign policy experts.

Now there’s a literary response, in the form of a new collection of short fiction, Iraq +100: Stories from a Century After the Invasion. In the book, Iraqi writers who are inside the country and outside it imagine their homeland one hundred years from the fateful month of March 2003, when the U.S. invasion began. Iraq +100 is a fine example of critical dystopia, a genre that the writer Junot Diaz recently described as “not just something that is ‘the bad place.’ It is something that maps, warns, and hopes.”

Iraq +100 was edited by Hassan Blasim, the author of a chilling, excellent book of stories called The Corpse Exhibition, which was published in 2014. Blasim is perhaps the best-known of the writers in Iraq +100. Almost all of the stories in The Corpse Exhibition include a fantastical element, but they are dark and grotesque, and the violence in them is surreal only until you think of what Iraqis have endured in recent decades. In the title story of The Corpse Exhibition, master assassins compete with one another to construct the most elaborate and impressive public displays of the bodies of their victims, describing maiming, splaying, and dismembering as an art form. Those and other stories made for grisly satire not far removed from real atrocities committed by U.S. troops and sectarian militias, and a queasy preview of the theatrical violence of executions carried out by the Islamic State, which swept through Iraq after Blasim’s book came out.

In his foreword to Iraq +100, Blasim writes that ancient precedents like the Epic of Gilgamesh or A Thousand and One Nights notwithstanding, there is a limited tradition of fantasy and science fiction in Iraqi and Arab literature. Blasim believes that alternate currents of religious fundamentalism and war wiped out interest in the speculative and the magical; he hopes to revive it, and with it, visions of a future where Iraq is less, rather than more, dystopian.

“From the Mongol Hulagu to the American Hulagu, George W., this once great seat of learning has been destroyed and pulverized,” he writes in the foreword. “Our modest project…tries to imagine a Modern Iraq that has somehow recovered from the West’s brutal invasion, in a way that Iraq didn’t recover from the Mongol one, in the blink of an eye that is 100 years.” In an afterword, Blasim’s publisher notes that many of the works in Iraq +100 were finished before the rise of the Islamic State. He hopes that the stories don’t already sound naïve.

Blasim’s entry in the collection, “The Gardens of Babylon,” tries to explain in broad strokes what happened in a century: its protagonist lives in a techno-utopia, a domed city in Federal Mesopotamia established after Iraq’s oil dried up, with the help of Chinese investments and global revolution in clean energy. In this pleasant future, a man whose job is to write plots for virtual reality “story-games” uses hallucinogens to spiral into a bizarre wartime story of an exiled translator and his father and a plot to blow up an oil pipeline. The nested stories are a literal example of going to the future in order to recall the most difficult parts of the present.

Most of these stories don’t sound naive. If anything, they are darker and narrower than what the project seemed to wish for. In the stories collected in Iraq +100, the U.S. invasion and the war that followed are always a preoccupation, a backdrop of violence and destruction of culture.

A few of the stories follow Blasim’s example into full-on futurism, with mixed results. There’s one where alien invaders rule the world and farm humans for food, full of expository tangents that are the hallmark of unconvincing sci-fi. The better ones are more tightly tied to real history, even when fantastical. Some of the pieces may suffer, however, from uneven work by seven different translators; most of the stories were originally written in Arabic.

The opening story, “Kahrama,” by a writer called Anoud, is a dark and clever satire that imagines a woman who escapes from her warlord husband to become something of a celebrity refugee before her international benefactors lose interest in her case. In “The Corporal,” by Ali Bader, an Iraqi soldier in Saddam Hussein’s army who was shot in the head by an American sniper gets sent back to earth and has a hell of a time explaining himself to the shining city of love and peace that has replaced his native Kut.

In many of the stories, there is a subtext of fear of what will have been forgotten, through negligence or official edict, even when what there is to remember can also be awful. One tale, by Diaa Jubaili, is told from the point of view of a statue of an Iraqi worker installed in a foreign museum in a hall of monuments to dictators, having been mistaken for Saddam. Others recoup history, even when it is troublesome: there’s one story about a secret underground city of forgotten religious sites, and another where a man keeps tapes of songs in languages that have been banned.

I couldn’t get thirteen years of horrible news stories about Iraq out of my head while reading Iraq +100, couldn’t evade the contemporary context. In Bader’s story about the officer shot in the head, the time-traveling corporal can’t get anyone to believe him when he explains how bad it was. The writers collected here seem to have a similar message for the present, asking their readers: can you believe in the possibility that it may get better, and can you live with the possibility that it could even be worse?
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 22, 2017, 04:40:28 pm


World's First Floating City to Combat Rising Sea Levels

Agelbert NOTE: The problem with this technofix is the giant poisonous, fish killing, fossil fuel industry caused elephant in the room called Ocean Acidification. In addition, there is the issue of the massive increase in wave height and ocean storm activity from the ongoing acceleration of global warming.  That floating wall depicted in the animation is not going to be enough protection. (

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: Three Part Article (

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART TWO (

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART THREE (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on January 23, 2017, 02:58:45 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Cloudhopper is a "give Trump a chance" fellow who just cannot seem to find nuttin' negative bout' Trump.  (  He can give detailed, and mostly accurate, chapter and verse on Obama's police state and empire expanding policies. YET, he don't see dat problem wid' Trump. He's either a victim of cognitive dissonance or a bold faced liar propagandist.

ex-guest > agelbert  • 6 hours ago   

Looks like you can chew gum and rub your tummy at the same time, unlike cloudhopper.
agelbert > ex-guest  • 17 minutes ago   

Thank you. I am part of the reality based community. I therefore have no choice but to objectively observe and report on the devastating trajectory we are on.

I will not be able to avoid further impoverishment due to Trump's empathy deficit disordered Cabinet.  :(

But Trump is NOT going to be able to talk his way around the economy cratering effects of Catastrophic Climate Change that his policies are severely accelerating and exacerbating.

THIS is coming as we speak. It WILL severely damage the infrastructure and GDP of the USA and make a laughing stock of Trump's Fossil Fuel Industry CORRUPTED, Climate Denying Cabinet.   

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART 1 of 3 (
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on February 12, 2017, 09:28:50 pm
The End of the World As We Know It (part 1)

Published on Dec 20, 2016

Dr. Guy McPherson is an award-winning professor of conservation biology and an acclaimed author. This two-part show covers his presentation at The Waypost in Portland on August 8, 2016 of a synopsis of the current peer-reviewed research on Earth's recent phase of rapid warming. His conclusion about the risk to humans from habitat loss in the next 10 - 15 years due to abrupt climate change is dire. He answers questions about the impact of humans on the environment. This is an information-packed, entertaining and impactful talk. Not for the faint of heart!

This show was taped by PC Peri and produced/edited by Barb Greene with help from Dan Handelman. Special thanks to Alisa Christensen for inspiration on editing.

For your information, the chapter breaks we assigned for this video are:

Part 1: 0:00 Opening Credits 1:15 Dr. Guy McPherson: Civilized life is a lie 2:58 Historical predictions of disaster 7:22 What does this look like? 12:20 Who cares? 23:50 Global temperature rise & the great dying 27:22 End credits, part 1

You can use these times to find a particular section if you want to jump to a certain portion of the show.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on February 12, 2017, 09:43:06 pm
The End of the World As We Know It (part 2)

Published on Dec 20, 2016

Dr. Guy McPherson is an award-winning professor of conservation biology and an acclaimed author. This two-part show covers his presentation at The Waypost in Portland on August 8, 2016 of a synopsis of the current peer-reviewed research on Earth's recent phase of rapid warming. His conclusion about the risk to humans from habitat loss in the next 10 - 15 years due to abrupt climate change is dire. He answers questions about the impact of humans on the environment. This is an information-packed, entertaining and impactful talk. Not for the faint of heart!

This show was taped by PC Peri and produced/edited by Barb Greene with help from Dan Handelman. Special thanks to Alisa Christensen for her inspiration on editing.

For your information, the chapter breaks we assigned for this video are:

Part 2: 0:00 Opening Credits 1:15 Dr. McPherson: It's too late, Baby, now 4:26 Pursue a life of excellence and love 5:47 Create 10:17 Question and Answer: Buddhism offers a way forward 11:35 Q&A: Right action 15:33 Q&A: Can we incentivize right action? 18:13 Q&A: What if we hadn't used fossil fuels? 19:15 Q&A: Do governments know? 23:01 Q&A: Where might humans survive? 27:15 End credits, part 2

You can use these times to find a particular section if you want to jump to a certain portion of the show.
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 06, 2017, 01:27:08 pm

How and Why Collapse Happens

Posted on March 2, 2017, by Radio Ecoshock

We take our civilization for granted. But it’s fragile and pushing way beyond sustainable limits. How and why do civilizations collapse? In this program, we’ll hear from specialists who studied the end times of the Indus civilization of India and Pakistan, and the Maya of Central America. Then we’ll wrap up with a tough solution for our tough problems: a new book outlines how we could use World War Two style mobilization to save the climate and the ecosphere from their developing collapse. Our three guests are Cameron Petrie, Takeshi Inomata, and Laurence Delina.

You are tuned to the Radio Ecoshock special on collapse – how, why, and how to avoid it. That’s three interviews. Let’s get going. (

Download or listen to this program in CD Quality (57 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB) at link below:

Agelbert NOTE: The way things are going right now, Tomorrow IS Yesterday (on extinction STEROIDS!).  :P

Dateline 2024: The Triumph of 8 years of Trump's Successful Deregulation of the Fossil Fuel Industry
Title: Re: Future Earth
Post by: AGelbert on March 30, 2017, 08:34:20 pm

Business News | Wed Mar 29, 2017 | 7:34am EDT

Daimler accelerates electric car program (

Mercedes-Benz owner Daimler (DAIGn.DE) is accelerating its electric car program, it said on Wednesday after announcing that it had failed to cut fleet emissions in Europe for the first time since 2007.

Daimler put its emissions numbers down to customers increasing preference for sports utility vehicles (SUVs), which tend to be more polluting than sedans, making it more difficult for carmakers to hit a European target for each new car to produce no more than 95 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer by 2020.

The company said it expects Mercedes-Benz Cars to bring more than 10 new electric cars to market by 2022 through 10 billion euros ($10.8 billion) of investment, having previously aimed to achieve the target by 2025.
Daimler has been set a goal of achieving a European average fleet emissions level of 100 grams for Mercedes-Benz Cars, including its Smart brand, by 2020.
Last year the average fuel emissions remained at 123 grams for Mercedes-Benz Cars, the same level as in 2015. It is the first time since 2007 that it has failed to cut average pollution levels despite the introduction of more fuel efficient engines throughout its range.

Daimler also said it is expecting record sales volumes for the Mercedes-Benz Cars division in the first quarter of the year.
"The positive sales trend continued in March," Daimler said in a statement ahead of its annual shareholder meeting.

The company also reiterated its full-year group sales and earnings targets. The car and truck maker expects a slight increase in earnings and a significant rise in sales of Mercedes-Benz Cars.

(Reporting by Ilona Wissenbach and Edward Taylor; Writing by Victoria Bryan; Editing by Christoph Steitz and David Goodman)

Agelbert NOTE: The Daimler move is just the tip of the Renewable Energy Iceberg that has just been reenergized by Trump behavior. ( 

You see, Mr. Trump, this is the way Germans respond when you insult them. They don't just get mad, they get a lot more than "even".


They KNOW your stunt of presenting a bill for NATO services owed by Germany had NOTHING to do with reality. They KNOW that your masters, the Fossil Fuel Fascists (plus the nuke puke power plant cheerleaders) have been trying to undermine and discredit Germany's tremendously successful transition to Renewable Energy for DECADES.


The Germans get it (finally!). The US Gooberment is OWNED by the Fossil Fuel Fascists, of which Trump is the latest tool/fool.   :P

Therefore, the Germans will now make the massive transition they have already made look like small potatoes. WHY? Because it is now a matter of national pride, not simply Renewable Energy. And everybody knows how single minded the Germans can be when the issue is National Pride. Making Germans angry is never a good idea.

As I predicted last November, when fascists come to power, they shoot themselves in the foot by going quickly into overreach mode. Trump, on several fronts, not just foreign policy, has just destroyed his political future and SHORTENED the future of the polluting energy bastards that own him. Right wing crazies never learn, thank God!  :D 

The fossil Fuel Fascists and Nuke Pukes in the USA will rue the day they insulted the Germans.

From your lips to God's ear. And not a moment too soon.

( Surly. (

The fossil Fuel Fascists and Nuke Pukes in the USA will rue the day they insulted the Germans.

From your lips to God's ear. And not a moment too soon.

I wish that were true but all they are doing is to try and get as much as they can for themselves.  Having done that they will not rue the day.  They are not willing or trying to learn a lesson.  The only thing they are willing to learn is anything that supports their agenda and nothing else.

Sharks with a conscience they are not.

True, they don't have a conscience. But they can, despite their pretense of not doing so, count the environmental costs they plan to saddle we-the-people with. They KNOW the S.C.C. (Social Cost of Carbon) FAR exceeds the cost of a rapid transition to Renewables, despite the gamed numbers coming from the Heritage Foundation of Right wing rats and assorted fossil fuel fascist lackeys.

Yes, they can try to strangle Renewable Energy by in-your-face corruption like making it "illegal" (They are trying that in Wyoming   :evil4:) or just high "fees" or whatever to keep the fossil fuel welfare queens afloat a while longer. 

But there is simply NO WAY that they can pretend all costs NOW upon us and increasing every year from global warming can be ignored. It's too late to save the polluters from a LOT of grief from we-the-people, no matter how hard the Trump Wrecking Crew tries to pass that buck onto anyone but them.

ADD to that a tsunami of CHEAP solar, wind AND e-cars from Germany, China, etc. (and so on) and it's CURTAINS for fossil fuel fascist political power.  :icon_sunny:

Yeah, it'll get real bad here. Yeah, it's probably too late to avoid a massive collapse with BILLIONS of dead people. But the conscience free cretins, despite all their slick propaganda efforts, WILL HAVE A BULLSEYE painted on their backs for as long as they live.  :emthup:

I recently answered a confused fellow who is still sitting on the fence in regard to Global Warming and how burning fossil fuels is causing Catastrophic climate change.

"The trouble I have with the whole "climate change" discussion is why this warming trend is bad."    (

I answered:
It's BAD because most of the effects HAVE NOT been felt. IOW, the OCEAN is a HEAT TIME BOMB that we do not have the technology to handle.

Also, the greening of latitudes near the poles will NOT compensate for the browning near the equator BECAUSE over 80% of all the land species in the biosphere (BOTH flora and fauna) occupy the tropics.

Finally, ocean acidification, if not stopped by a MASSIVE international effort to prevent more CO2 pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, guarantees MOST of the shell forming species (which happen to be food for ALL of the larger fish species we eat) will die along with most of the Oxygen producing algae (ocean phytoplankton), which now provides HALF (or more) of the Oxygen we get. That's right, at least HALF of all photosynthesis comes from ocean algae, NOT land based plants. And then there's the deforestation on land... Do you get the picture?


The ocean CANNOT continue that massive absorption of CO2 for more than another decade or so before saturation is reached, acidification causes massive phytoplankton and shell forming species die offs. AND THEN MOST OF THE HEAT GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE ATMOSPHERE (as opposed to a mere 2.3% now).

If anybody thinks the oceans will continue to buffer our giant carbon pollution, they are living in la la land (or work for the fossil fuel industry — but I repeat myself).

EVERY POLITICIAN, be they a Democrat or Republican, that takes a nickel from the fossil fuel industry should be THROWN OUT IN 2018, OR SOONER.

In January of 2017, NASA released data confirming that globally, 2016 was the hottest year on record -- the third consecutive year this record has been broken. Even more disturbing, in the last three years alone global temperatures rose 0.4°C: an extreme acceleration of planetary warming that has been unmatched in 136 years of record keeping.

According to the reinsurance giant Munich Re, the US had more floods in 2016 than any year in recorded history with 19 different floods swamping the nation. (

Trump will HAVE TO deal with gargantuan level extreme climate events that hurt RICH PEOPLE, not just most people, at a rate we have never experienced, PERIOD. If the insurance companies will accept eating those costs when they KNOW the gooberment helped exacerbate them by ignoring hard scientific evidence, they are stupid. Insurance companies are MUCH smarter than fossil fuel fascists. Trump's wrecking crew will soon collapse.

Speaking of collapse, I saw a video that you will enjoy. It's an excellent collapse compendium, so to speak. I'm sure you know about many of Guy McPherson's biographical details, but it's still good viewing. It's too bad the Doomstead Diner isn't included in the collapsnicks mentioned. I think the DD has been a big part of the collapse-a-sphere.  :icon_mrgreen: 

Documentary: Somewhere in New Mexico Before the End of Time       (