Maybe we'll have to close down Los Angeles. Evacuate all the people and shut the place down. Permanently. Phoenix? Gone. Las Vegas. Gone. Millions displaced. Not enough water to sustain urban populations. Global warming. Well, maybe not. We can always just be hopeful.
Major coastal cities in the East. Gone. Too much water. Melting glaciers. Rising sea levels. Just pack up and leave. Permanently. Well, maybe not. We can always build seawalls like they did in the Netherlands. Maybe that would work. Maybe. And Florida. Forget about it. Underwater.
Warming oceans are breaking the food chain. Fish stocks in some of the best Atlantic areas are being depleted. It's hard to make a living as a fisherman. Much of that is simply due to overfishing. Not so off the coast of Oregon though. "Dead Zones" have been discovered. No fish; no nothing. Not good. The cause? Global warming.
The Everglades? Severely threatened by too much development. Major environmental catastrophe. Plus, a severe drought in southern Florida. More fires; more smoke in the air; less water.
The Amazon Rain Forest. Cut down. Polluted with oil and oil companies. It's not the indigenous population; it's big oil.
So, now what? Will the American political process come to the rescue? Do our candidates have a message to turn things around?
Let me tell you how I analyze what's going on. I'm no environmental expert. I can't accurately quantify the risks we face. Like most Americans, we have to assess the situation with the limited knowledge we have. We listen to the candidates; we think of possible solutions; we make a judgment.
Is it possible that all this global disaster stuff is being way overhyped? I suppose it's possible. Most of you don't believe it is and neither do I. We can see humongous chunks of polar glaciers crashing into the sea. We read article after article about the coming extinction of polar bears. We know most fish contains dangerous levels of mercury. We know the West is facing a severe water shortage and that things are getting much worse. So, no, I think what we know is very real. I think things are, and will be, much worse than many of us can even imagine.
Now, if you're onboard with the seriousness of the crises with face, what would be the reaction you would hope to see from anyone running for office? It seems to me we should expect to hear some things that can be implemented starting TODAY. It seems to me that at least some of those things should not be "politically popular." Because, if all we're hearing are things that are politically popular, I become very skeptical very rapidly. Some medicine is bitter to swallow and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
I've heard statements from Obama, Hillary, Kerry and Klobachar in the last few days. "Clean" coal. Gotta have it. One slogan was "25 by 25". That one came from Senator Klobachar. The idea is to get 25% of our energy from renewable sources by the year 2025. Everyone's all excited about alternative fuels. New industries, new jobs, better environment. We love 'em. Wind, solar, biomass ... nice ... Well, I'm all for that.
Talk about dead elephants though. No one seems to want to discuss whether we can afford to wait for these new technologies. Will 25 by 25 let us keep LA? How about New York City? And even if we achieve 25 by 25, that still means we're pumping 75 by 25 into the air. Can we afford to be getting 75% of our energy from the burning of fossil fuels for another 18 years? Know what they answer when you ask them that little question? Crickets ... No one asks; no one answers ...
Looking at the environmental disaster we face, the "sweet little programs" we're being sold seem woefully inadequate. If we're talking about major breaks in the food chain, severe global warming that threatens agriculture, hundreds of millions of people being dislocated from there homes and communities, shouldn't much stronger remedies be offered? Why is no one calling for massive sacrifices? Why is no one calling for restrictions on energy usage? Why is no one calling for mandatory conservation? To be fair, some are. But candidates and other politicians? Are they willing to talk about mandatory lifestyle changes and restrictions on industry? If you're supporting a candidate who is tackling this crisis head-on, please post some info in this thread.
Which transitions us to the next disturbing point. Globalization is a power structure that seeks to replace the autonomy of worldwide governments with a central government run by the corporations and for the corporations. Citizens of the world are disenfranchised. Any country trying to pass laws that interfere with global commerce (e.g. re: pollution, pesticides, workers' rights) can be overruled and penalized. What one country in the world, more than any other, has wielded the most power? What one country acted or could have acted as a tempering power against unrestrained global corporate control? Yes, the US, of course.
Now, if you were trying to strengthen the hand of global corporations, would you seek to strengthen the US or would you seek to weaken the US? My answer is that you would try to weaken the US. People look at the miseries bush/cheney have created and they talk about their incompetence. If their objectives for this country were to better the lives of Americans, then they have certainly been incompetent. But if their conduct has been treasonous, if their mission has been to take down America to allow global corporatism to prosper, then they've been anything but incompetent. What say you to that?
And what about the loyal opposition? Returning to their environmental policies, which side are they on? Critics of some Democrats call them "corporatists". Are they? What would calling for severe conservation measures and severe restrictions on industry and on development indicate? Would those doing so be fairly exempted from being called corporatists? I think they would. How about those who have not done so? Does the label fit them? Have they sold us out to sources of money funding their campaigns?
I just wanted to explain a little about how I feel when someone posts about "Hillary's bump in the polls after the NH debate." Maybe we should talk about more pressing matters here in our great DU forums. There's far too much at stake to waste time with such garbage.
Here's an article, one of seemingly millions, to get the ball rolling:
source:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/0... /
With snowfall diminishing at “statistically significant” rates, spring runoff coming earlier and a dead zone the size of Rhode Island in the ocean off the Oregon coast, senators were told Wednesday that global climate change is already being felt in the West. Dam operators, water district managers, farmers, conservationists and scientists all predicted mounting problems as scarce water supplies dwindle further in an area stretching from the Pacific Northwest to the desert Southwest.
“The warming in the West can now confidently be attributed to rising greenhouse gases and are not explained by any combination of natural factors,” said Philip Mote, head of the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington. Mote said some models show temperatures in the West could rise by 6 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming years. Signs of climate change, such as lilacs blooming earlier in the spring, are just a “harbinger of changes to come,” he said.
Among other things, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources water and power subcommittee learned:
-Spring snow pack already has declined at nearly 75 percent of all weather recording stations in Washington, Oregon and California, and the spring runoff is coming two weeks earlier than in the past.
-Southern California is experiencing its driest year on record, and Lake Mead, which supplies water to large parts of the fast-growing Southwest, could be empty in 10 years.
-By some estimates, populations of Pacific salmon in the Northwest could drop between 20 percent and 40 percent by 2050, with even greater losses in California and Idaho. Western trout populations eventually could fall by more than 60 percent.
-A dead zone of “very low dissolved oxygen” has appeared every year in the Pacific Ocean off the Oregon coast since 2001, and unlike other ocean dead zones, pollution or other human activity isn’t believed to be the cause. Instead, some scientists say there may be a “fundamental change” occurring in the ocean off the West Coast, changes that may involve wind patterns “modified” by climate change.
- Tens of thousands of irrigated acres will fall out of production as water supplies tighten, and tensions over water supplies will only be exacerbated as the effects of climate change deepen.
“These changes will force us to adapt how we manage irrigation and agriculture, our hydropower system, salmon recovery, municipal water supplies and flood control,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who chaired the hearing. “We need a real strategy to keep our region strong and to respond to any impacts we observe.”
While all of the witnesses said more scientific modeling was needed to provide a more focused picture of climate change effects on specific regions in the West, Cantwell seemed impatient that federal, state and local agencies might not be doing sufficient planning.
