Democrats & Liberals Archives

Gore's Nobel Prize

While accepting the Nobel Prize, Al Gore has made yet another rousing speech to get all people on Earth off their butts and DO something to prevent civilization - all civilization - from collapsing and disintegrating because the Earth is heating up from the vast amount of CO2 being emitted constantly by burning carbon fuels, such as oil, coal and gas.

Gore's speech was a call to action:

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

Individual action will not do. Collective action is what is needed. Gore did not specifically say so, but collective action in the U.S. requires Republicans and Democrats to cooperate. And why shouldn't they? Protecting ourselves from the greatest threat to humanity we have ever faced is not a Democratic idea and it's not a Republican idea. It's a sane idea any thinking person would latch onto.

But whatever the U.S. comes up with it cannot by itself solve the problem. U.S. must work together with countries around the world, all of which are spouting CO2. Yes, 6.6 billion people are filling our atmosphere with "global warming pollution." Not to worry. The solution may come, Gore says, from any one of these billions of humanity:

This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun's energy for pennies or invent an engine that's carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.

This, it seems to me, is the heart of the problem. How do we "expand the possibilities inherent in all humanity"? Here we are about 195 countries at war. Some countries that supposedly are at peace, use cutthroat competion to gain power over the others. Other countries are being ripped apart with ethnic, status and religious differences. Still other countries are at war with each other. And let's not forget the terrorist organizations.

Somehow, we must get all this humanity working as one in order to reduce CO2 emissions. For this we sorely need leadership. Not the kind of leadership that wins wars, but the kind that motivates a diversity of people to work together to destroy the enemy.

The enemy of all mankind is global warming. All minkind must heed Gore's call and organize to defeat it.

Posted by Paul Siegel at December 10, 2007 5:25 PM
Comments
Comment #240475

Paul, I watched the latter half of his speech. It was a very good speech. He obviously targeted it to the intellectuals, analysts, and government heads of the world, as his language and phrasing were obviously way over the heads of the much of the common folk in the world. But, given the setting, it was appropriate. And I agree with you, what he had to say was vital. Time is running out to make a humane difference, and it will take an enormous effort, sacrifice, and political will to ratchet up the ‘Can Do’ mindset around the globe.

I also thought it was most appropriate for him to single out China and the U.S. as the lynchpins to the effort, by virtue of their being the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

New industries, new entrepreneurial endeavors, and new insights will spring up in most geographic ares of the globe if the political will is there to foster it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 10, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #240479

St. Gore as usual has fired up the “man-made” global warming hoax believers. Please tell me when it’s too late for the world to save itself as I eagerly await the end of all this nonsense. Of course, it will be replaced with some other nonsense that requires vast spending at the expense of working Americans and giving up of more freedom. Maybe “silent spring” can be revived or the “population bomb”. Surley the liberal freedom haters will conjure up some pending world catastrophe that the fruit cakes will take as gospel. I can hear it now, a consesus of the scientific community, wishing to keep their funding today declared a global emergency about…(fill in the blank).

Posted by: Jim at December 10, 2007 7:09 PM
Comment #240482

New industries, new entrepreneurial endeavors, and new insights will spring up in most geographic ares of the globe if the political will is there to foster it.

Ah, was right there with you until you added the ‘if the political will is there to foster it’.

Still, we’re both on the same page here, I think. The solution wil come through humanity, finding and implementing solutions is what we are good at.

Maybe “silent spring” can be revived or the “population bomb”.

Well, Bird Flu, Aids and Mad Cow are still being used… I just wish people would quit using fear (this goes for BOTH sides of the aisle and especially the media) to motivate the ignorant.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 10, 2007 7:30 PM
Comment #240493

I see a parallel here to the little Ice Age back in the 1400’s. Paired with the Black Plague (AIDS?), it triggered Europe to look outward for new ideas and technologies as it had to make due with fewer people (BP) and less land (had been lost to lowered temperatures)

Maybe global warming will trigger more international exchange and some technological revolutions. Or maybe I’m just seeing things, since my World History just got done covering the little ice age.

IMHO Gore is making this bigger than it is, and the little ice age analogy assumes that, since it was hardly a threat to Western civilization. And I wouldn’t know anyway. Hopefully someone does.

Posted by: Silima at December 10, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #240494

The root of the problem is seated in population growth. Both China and India understand this. They are struggling with this. We have our own issues with the Mexican population spilling over into ours. We can talk all day about renewable resources, but unless we control population growth, we are doomed to increased resource daminishment and expanding conflict.

We need to begin to deal with the root issues.

Posted by: googlumpugus at December 10, 2007 9:29 PM
Comment #240498

googlumpugus

the earth isn’t even close to being overpopulated.
if you look at the globe most of the land masses aren’t even developed. there may be overpopulation in certain places such as cities and other large metropolitan areas. look at a map of the united states. the majority of the population lives in concentrated areas. i remember hearing somewhere that you could house entire worlds population in the state of texas if you put each family in a modest 3 or 4 bedroom house.

Posted by: dbs at December 10, 2007 11:45 PM
Comment #240501

dbs-
There’s more to population than land area. You need water, sanitation, food, and other needs met.

jim-
As I recall, the DDT referred to in in Silent Spring was a problem. Our national bird was in danger of kicking the bucket. The population bomb might not have been so well-founded, but there are plenty of societies that have overstretched their means and found themselves in deep trouble. No civilization has immortality.

Hell, take a look at Atlanta. Do you think folks will be able to maintain towns and cities there long term, growing economies if they’re deprived of something as basic as water?

We can talk about freedom all day, but we’re not free from the consequences of our actions, even if we bite, kick, vilify and bludgeon others to get what we want. We’re also not free from our human needs, especially given all the modern requirements we pile up on top of that.

You can talk about freedom in the name of all these luxuries you consider birthrights, but plenty have done the same and become prisoners of their excesses, victims of the consequences of their own actions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 11, 2007 1:10 AM
Comment #240504

dbs,

the earth isn’t even close to being overpopulated.

Geographically, no.

But on overall resource consumption, we are:
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=overshoot

Or we find new unexploited resource soon, or we reduce our resource consumption or humanity will shrink…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 11, 2007 2:39 AM
Comment #240506

Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize was good for America. I am proud of Al Gore today; I will make fun of him again tomorrow, but today he is my golden boy

Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2007 5:04 AM
Comment #240507

He’s been right before.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 11, 2007 9:08 AM
Comment #240513

Dr. Chin of the World Health Organization had a comparable speech this week on the interaction between disease and climate change. Where new tropical areas are created, tropical diseases will be introduced like Malaria where resistance could make it ebb and peak with very lethal consequences.

Where heat alters predation and migration, disease spreading populations of certain animals and insects can create disease prone human populations such as a resurgence in the Hanta virus in the Southern US if rodent populations increase dramatically as they did in the early 1990’s. Black Bear are migrating from Mexico into the S. U.S. causing only minor problems at this point, but that could change if rain fall patterns change in the mountains of Northern Mexico.

A hundred million people each year are infected with diseases which arise only in certain locations on the globe defined by climatological and environmental conditions. Global warming will incorporate vastly larger areas of the globe with those conditions affecting population centers with diseases only rarely seen previously.

Areas once predominantly locked in ice, will see the rise of diseases never experienced before as the land thaws and the plant and animal populations alter population densities as a result. It is not just expanding tropical areas that will be affected. Newly created deserts can become safer disease zones, but then, there is the very high costs of desert adaptation to be dealt with as in Nevada where the cost of water will one day in the not too distant future rise to levels unaffordable by many if not most, causing a dramatic population shift.

Its not a political issue. Its an ignorance issue. Like the Londoner’s who died off en masse as a result of ‘bad odors’ emanating from the Thames. Ignorance kills just as permanently as diseases for which cures elude. The pace of evolutionary resistance to drugs increases for certain diseases as average seasonal temperatures increase. This is a threat the W.H.O. considers enormous.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #240514

stephen


“There’s more to population than land area.”

i see, so just for the sake of argument lets say that 70% of the land on the planet is undeveloped. are you telling me that there are no untapped resources such as water, animal, and plant resources for food that exist in these undeveloped areas? the only problem i see is too many people crammed into metropolitan areas where the constant need to increase infrastructure to accomodate population growth becomes nearly impossible. a 1 square mile area can only be configured to support so many people, therefore making the the goal of many who think we should all live in high density mixed use living type of arrangements shortsighted. we have a long way to go before we could ever overpopulate this planet. you just have to be willing to admit it requires more land use in the form of city, town, and suburbs being built to accomodate the added population growth, and the biggest obstacle to that is the enviormental lobby who don’t want us to develope anymore wild lands.

Posted by: dbs at December 11, 2007 11:46 AM
Comment #240515

dbs,

It doesn’t matter if the land is developed or not if you can’t feed the population. Arable land is at a premium planet wide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land

“Of the earth’s 148,000,000 km/sq (57 million square miles) of land, approximately 31,000,000 km/sq (12 million square miles) are arable; however, arable land is currently being lost at the rate of over 100,000 km² (38,610 square miles) per year.”

Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #240516

david


“Its an ignorance issue. Like the Londoner’s who died off en masse as a result of ‘bad odors’ emanating from the Thames. Ignorance kills just as permanently as diseases for which cures elude.”


people aren’t dying en masse because the global temp has increased a degree or two, and we don’t know for sure there really is a long term trend here. londoners died because they were literally sh*#ting in thier drinking water supply. you’re comparing apples and oranges here.

Posted by: dbs at December 11, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #240517

What really bothers me is that people who SAY they want to do something about global warming are actually talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Delegates and activists that flew to Bali (because they were SOOOO concerned about global warming) caused an average of 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide. This total is the equivalent of 20,350 mid-sized cars. Here.

Activist say that we MUST have alternative energy…but when we try to take advantage of alternative energy, it’s a totally different story.

Noooooo…we can’t have clean energy, because it might ruin our VIEW.

Those who promote the use of clean, renewable energy need to get with the program. Implement clean, renewable energy sources and quit being hypocritical. By blocking this technology, all you are doing is increasing our dependance on carbon based fuels.

Start being part of the solution…NOT part of the problem!

Posted by: Jim T at December 11, 2007 12:08 PM
Comment #240519

Jim T

i think this says it all.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Posted by: dbs at December 11, 2007 12:16 PM
Comment #240522

By the way…

Al Gore took the train (instead of a motorcade)from Oslo airport to help keep down CO2 emissions. He even bragged about it.

Al and Tipper’s luggage, however, got a ride in a Mercedes SUV. Their LUGGAGE is more important than global warming.

Yeah. Way to go, Al. Save the planet.

As I said here before…NEVER let global warming get in the way of personal luxury.

Posted by: Jim T at December 11, 2007 12:34 PM
Comment #240532

We can’t win the war against global warming by finding fault with each other and by pointing out what we conceive to be hypocrisies of other people. As I said before the only way to win is by getting EVERYBODY to work together to solve this probelm that is faced by the entire EARTH.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at December 11, 2007 2:14 PM
Comment #240534

Hooray for Gore.

I was wondering about the Bali thing myself. You would think they could have chosen a more central location for this conference to minimize travel. Plus it seems a bit indulgent, no? Ideally they would use videoconferencing.

dbs,

However personally virtuous Bush may be (and he does have his own 747), the impact of his political positions is millions of times greater.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 11, 2007 2:17 PM
Comment #240537

Jim T
So Gores lugage used fossil fuel to travel. Congratulations. You have proved beyond doubt that global climate change is a myth.Now we need a thread about US education problems,especially our failure to teach critical thinking.


dbs
It was a reaction to warnings of overpopulation that led to mostly stable population rates in most of N.America and Europe,and Japan.If you were to travel to many countries in Africa,Asia,the Middle-East,S.America and Mexico you would see the problems first-hand.
Some of the problems associated with global warming are starting to build for Ca. water supplies. The Sierra snowpack is declining because more of the precipitation is falling as rain and the melt is starting sooner. This means more flooding and less capture of water supplies in existing resivors for Ca cities. This is a state where even at low growth rates the population is expected to double in 50 years.If this trend continues we will have to double the resovior system. This will cost us taxpayers a lot of money but it is irrespobsible not to make these investments soon.A little personal investment,not some feared,drastic life style changes can help. Maybe replace light bulbs with CFLs when they burn out. In Ca you can get a rebate on their purchase so they are almost free. Maybe plan a trip to the grocery store around the same time you pick up the kids to use less gas. Maybe,when you buy a new car,opt for one that gets better mileage instead of the one that gives you more power than you need etc. Most of this stuff also saves money.It is not so hard to conserve.

Posted by: BillS at December 11, 2007 2:26 PM
Comment #240538

Wow, dbs, your comment indicates mine went right over your comment’s head. That, or your comment’s reference position hasn’t a clue why miasma is a fairly well known historical reference.

Yes, it was from human waste, but, it was thought to have been the bad air causing the widespread death, with enormous expenditures to treat the air. My reference to the miasma was to highlight by example how ignorance is the enemy of minimizing the catastrophe’s our contributions to global warming are creating.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2007 2:30 PM
Comment #240539

woody

“I was wondering about the Bali thing myself.”

i think they call it hypocracy.


“(and he does have his own 747),”

i think they call it airforce one woody, and all presidents have traveled on it since the 707s were retired. here’s a better one. why does nancy pelosi have to have a 757 when a G5, or other private jet would be sufficient?

Posted by: dbs at December 11, 2007 2:31 PM
Comment #240541

David

it isn’t that it went over my head. it’s that the illness can be proven to be linked absolutely to the contamination of the water with fecal, and other harmful bacteria. it’s an exact science. the theory of man made global warming isn’t. i was quite aware of your linking of ignorance of the true cause in both cases. i’m just not convinced that absolute proof exists in the case of man made global warming.

Posted by: dbs at December 11, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #240542

paul


“the only way to win is by getting EVERYBODY to work together to solve this probelm that is faced by the entire EARTH.”

this a true statement paul, but before we get to that point we also all have to agree there’s a problem in the first place. unfortunately this is a major sticking point.

Posted by: dbs at December 11, 2007 2:47 PM
Comment #240543


Al Gore will probably not acheive Sainthood until our great, great grandchildren are running the world.

Posted by: jlw at December 11, 2007 2:52 PM
Comment #240544
why does nancy pelosi have to have a 757 when a G5, or other private jet would be sufficient?

Congratulations, dbs. You’ve identified a Democrat who is contributing to the problem, so now you are entitled to ignore it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 11, 2007 2:59 PM
Comment #240546

woody


“You’ve identified a Democrat who is contributing to the problem, so now you are entitled to ignore it.”

HUH ? you brought up the plane thing woody, i didn’t. i’m not ignoring it if i don’t believe it’s a problem. the key here is agreeing there is a crisis, and then not do anything about it. that would be ignoring it. you can’t ignore something you don’t believe in.

Posted by: dbs at December 11, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #240549

BillS said:

“Jim T
So Gores lugage used fossil fuel to travel. Congratulations. You have proved beyond doubt that global climate change is a myth.Now we need a thread about US education problems,especially our failure to teach critical thinking.”

Sorry you didn’t understand my point. Please, allow me to explain it.

The High Guru of the Church of Global Warming should be an example to all…living life as “green” as possible. Wouldn’t you say?

Now, here’s a question to answer. “Would it have been “greener” to take their luggage WITH them on the train? Or would it have been “greener” to let a gas guzzling SUV shuttle their luggage?”

If…and I do mean IF…we are to come together and “save our atmosphere” from the evil CO2, don’t you think the High Muckity-Muck would be a little less hypocritical?

Let me let you in on something.

When Al Gore first started selling his “snake oil” global warming bill of goods, all I had to do is to remember his book about saving the trees.

Stop and think (I know you all were edjamakated in a government…make that “Wet Nurse You From Cradle To Grave-ment…school…so I know it’s going to be a stretch).

1.) Al Gore writes a book about not cutting down trees.

2.) They have to cut down trees to publish his book about not cutting down trees.

Huh????

What???

That is why I knew from the get-go that Al Gore doen’t believe one iota in the “snake oil” that he’s trying to sell us.

Either that…or he just doesn’t give a damn.

Some leader, huh?

Posted by: Jim T at December 11, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #240550

Watch the FULL SPEECH here:

Al Gore’s Acceptance Speech part 1
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=96dd1d38-4d5d-46fa-8f6f-144af49544f5

Al Gore’s Acceptance Speech part 2
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=fc4808ee-fc89-4fbd-97ac-3944c6269f86

and please, critique the message of Al Gore if you must but the personal and partisan attacks have got to end.

Posted by: Paul D at December 11, 2007 3:58 PM
Comment #240557

Jim T
I rest my case.

Posted by: bills at December 11, 2007 6:40 PM
Comment #240563

bills, yes he did prove your point didnt he.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 11, 2007 9:57 PM
Comment #240568

When true fascism emerges again in Western Civilization it will be a creation of the Left, not the Right. The goal of controlling your life from womb to the tomb, and everything you do in between, will increasingly be realized under the guise of ‘public health’ and ‘climate change’. Totalitarianism marches on. Never mind that the human addition to the carbon pool is about equal to adding a tablespoon of water to a full bathtub. The issue here in the end is not ‘climate change’ but control (and wealth redistribution), pure and simple. The tool has been found and currently it is a blunt instrument. But it is being sharpened and will increasingly be used to govern how much you consume, purchase, build, travel, eat and eventually things like how many children you can have without penalty.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at December 12, 2007 2:19 AM
Comment #240569


I think that it is safe to say that anyone who has to travel, especially intercontinental distances, is going to find that it is very diffucult if not completely impossible to do so without contributing to global warming under current conditions.

No matter what we do with reguards to global warming, we are going to have polluting airliners for a long, long time. Probably until we have nuclear fusion powered, anti-gravity saucers. I doubt our abillity to develop a rubberband that can be wound tight enough to propel a 747 across the Atlantic Ocean, not to mention what would happen to a stewardess that got caught up it the rubberband while trying to serve cocktails.

Leaving global warming completely out of the picture, We have known for several decades that it was in our best interests to develop alternatives to foreign oil. Unfortunately, our politicians, both Democrat and Republican, found it extremely difficult or should I say impossible to go against the wishes of some of their powerful corporate sponsers.

Only now are we starting to see politicians developing a spine and a willingness to start doing something about the problem. This is due in part to public opinion reguarding the potential threat from global warming and in part to public opinion about fighting oil wars.

The American people might not be well educated and they might be suckers for politicians that send home lots of bacon but, they are not stupid. A majority of the people have pulled their heads up out of the sand, they are taking a good look at what their government has been doing and they don’t like what has been going on. Contrary to the minority that still has is head in the sand, the American people are smart enough to know that an overwhelming scientific concensus about global warming means that the scientists are probably right and the majority is prepared to make the changes necessary to combat the potential worst case senarios concerning global warming.

Posted by: jlw at December 12, 2007 2:58 AM
Comment #240571
Totalitarianism marches on.

I hope humankind end will comes first.
And at current rate, I’ll granted.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 12, 2007 3:08 AM
Comment #240574

David, “The goal of controlling your life from womb to the tomb, and everything you do in between, will increasingly be realized under the guise of ‘public health’ and ‘climate change’.”

We have been hearing these so far unfounded charges of a vast left wing conspiracy to take away our rights etc. for years. Can you name names of people and/or organizations and show proof of these charges or does this aspect of the arguement against climate change remain a vague fanatasy of the far right wing nuts that the talk show propaganda ministers use to keep the dittoheads in line?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 12, 2007 8:54 AM
Comment #240577

David H. said: “The issue here in the end is not ‘climate change’ but control (and wealth redistribution), pure and simple.”

I never met a wealthy person living alone on a deserted island with no contact with any society. Could it be because there is no such thing as the concept of wealth outside of society? If society as a whole is required to produce wealth (and it is), then, it logically follows that wealth should support that society which created it.

The fallacy of the Right’s argument is their assumption that individuals create wealth apart from the society. It simply isn’t true. Rights to private property are a good thing provided, as in our U.S. Constitution, that the society that underwrites the creation of wealth is not undermined by that wealth controlled by individuals. Hence, the founding fathers in their wisdom granted the Government, both the role of protector and defender of the society and its future, as well as the means to tax wealth to fund that role.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 12, 2007 10:21 AM
Comment #240578
The fallacy of the Right’s argument is their assumption that individuals create wealth apart from the society.

Often they said wealth is created from nothing, even. Oh, I love such stupid claim.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 12, 2007 10:30 AM
Comment #240590

Paul,

While accepting the Nobel Prize, Al Gore has made yet another rousing speech to get all people on Earth off their butts and DO something to prevent civilization - all civilization - from collapsing and disintegrating because the Earth is heating up from the vast amount of CO2 being emitted constantly by burning carbon fuels, such as oil, coal and gas.

Yeah right, Paul. And, in that same speech, he refered to the skeptics as Holocaust Deniers. Also, how’s his “carbon” footprint in all this?! Nice leader you have there.


Posted by: rahdigly at December 12, 2007 1:52 PM
Comment #240600

rahdigly and friends,

Here is a little quiz for you all.

Q: Mary is an abolitionist, but owns a slave. What does this prove about the morality of slavery?

A: Nothing.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 12, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #240623

Take this Little Global Warming Quiz and see how you do.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 12, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #240639

Woody,

You are right, your setup says nothing about the morality of slavery. It does, however, say a great deal about the integrity of Mary. She, along with many others, including Mr. Gore, are demanding that we do as they say, not as they do. Typical zealot.

Posted by: Old Grouch at December 13, 2007 10:11 AM
Comment #240693

It is a mark of the twisted nature of the environmental message of some that even as they suggest hypocrisy amongst the supporters of measures against global warming, they are using the specter of CO2 emission as a means to bring about their shame.

Let’s be honest here: we can’t put the cart before the horse. What kind of alternatives are possible at this moment, given our current technology? Do we expect Al Gore to swim or catch a sailboat to this meeting, taking weeks or months to travel to his destination?

Do we expect rich people in large houses to have the same electric bill, the same carbon footprint as somebody living in a smaller house?

Do we expect supporters of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to suddenly develop the technology here and now and use it?

The sick joke of all this is that the climate contrarians are quite happy to live with the status quo, and it’s the easiest damn thing in the world to do, right up until the point where fuel prices and the repercussions of their energy sources take their toll on their lifestyles.

They are, to put it plainly, using the movement’s own environmental conscience against it.

Their mistake is this: we know about the problem. We also know that even if we use our coal resources, we will still be confronted with a limited energy reserve that we will one day have to grow beyond. We can talk of clean coal, but clean coal still means you got to take out the impurities and put them somewhere, and that makes it more expensive. Even Nuclear fuel has a limited supply, unless we figure out nuclear fusion, in which case three quarters of the planet’s surface will be covered by it.

The real issue is the next step beyond these fuels. America has been coasting on its old technology quite long enough. It’s time we lead the world again, and this time, base our infrastructure on renewable energy. With renewable energy, our electricity needs can be met without overloading the atmosphere with carbon emissions, and whether your house is big or small, the carbon emissions will be the same.

This country used to dream big, used to value responsiblity and a degree of self-sacrifice for society as a whole. Now, instead, we insist getting every for nothing, and getting it whenever we want.

I the policies of the past are no longer viable, and the attitude that keeps them up has never been viable, and will never be viable. It’s a gospel of wishful thinking, from the requirements of natural resources required to sustain it, to the long term consequences of our behavior.

Either way, whether we’re looking to avoid a fuel crisis as cheap fossil fuels become a thing of the past, looking to cut carbon dioxide emissions or both, we are not well-advised to wait until the economic and environmental consequences of our policies are right on top of us to start trying to change things to suit our situation.

A stitch in time will save nine. Solving the problem of sustainable, renewable, non-fossil-fuel energy is a task we should start now, rather than wait until later. We’ve wasted enough time under our fossil-fuel friendly president as it is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 13, 2007 9:36 PM
Comment #264552

Thank you for your effort on fighting agenest malaria . But my comment is its time to use other morden means like SOLAR PESTE KILLERS coz everybody has access to sun light , given a chance and support i would be the PIONEERE .Am fedup of malaria especially on our continent.

thanks

MATOVU JACKSON

Email hkelectronics@yahoo.com
tel, +256754069885.

Posted by: matovu at September 26, 2008 3:31 AM
Post a comment