For several days I’ve been pondering how to write something interesting or insightful about Obama and What It All Means—something that hasn’t been written a hundred other places. (The internets are choked with Obama-related profundity right now.)
In the end, though, profundity is not what’s needed. Obama did plenty of that on the trail, and the very fact of his ascension to office speaks for itself.
Instead, what’s called for is some bluntness. The Obama presidency is in a political vise grip, squeezed between two facts:
- The dire situation described by the fourth IPCC report is, by all indications, an underestimate. We are careening toward catastrophe, and to avoid it we’ll likely have to virtually eliminate U.S. carbon emissions by 2050, while also engineering a whole range of difficult international agreements. If we don’t, it’s not exaggerating to say that unprecedented human misery will result, potentially putting at risk the very preconditions of human civilization.
- There is nothing close to the public or political support necessary to pass the kind of sweeping policies necessary to eliminate America’s emissions. The U.S. political class, to say nothing of the public, is nowhere near understanding or internalizing the implications of fact No. 1. By and large climate change is still viewed as a nagging, marginal, far-off problem to be addressed to the extent (and only to the extent) that it doesn’t cause any economic dislocation.
This is just another way of rephrasing Gore’s famous warning that the politically possible falls well short of what’s necessary. The politically possible has moved forward considerably with Obama taking office, Pelosi running the House, Waxman running the Energy Committee, Markey running the Energy Subcommittee, and competent professionals in charge of executive branch agencies. But it is still far, far short. Even many people in the green world don’t really get the existential urgency involved.
Over the next four/eight years, Obama (with help from many others) will bridge that gap, and we’ll have a shot at a prosperous green future. Or he won’t, and our children and grandchildren will inherit a world filled with unthinkable suffering.
That’s it.
Comments
View as Flat
biodiversivist Posted 3:30 am
22 Jan 2009
As a career politician, he should know. When you look back on the politics he played, and how many times even he sold out the environment in the name of political gain, he understands as well as anyone. Obama's support of corn ethanol is nothing more than more of the same.
But the game isn't over yet. The public's mindset is changing as it did over civil rights. Although, according to the Onion piece:
Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job
...we continue to give the worst jobs to blacks. The political system will be "forced" to give us what we want eventually. We wanted Obama and we got him.
As with civil rights, it's a matter of convincing and educating the public. The ads seen here on Grist pointing out the fact that clean coal does not exist is an example of that, although ads to that effect here is preaching to the choir. Corn ethanol is as bad as coal per BTU. We need some ads to point that out as well along with lots of other things.
For example, near zero energy homes would free up natural gas to displace coal. Solar panels on enough homes would "force" utilities to shut down coal power plants in favor of the natural gas ones which can be stopped and started on short notice as will be needed. They will also be "forced" to develop a smart grid. Politicians, utilities, they will all have to be "forced" by the general public. Unless government can be bought off by the utilities to make grid tied solar panels illegal, that is.
Politicians are the tail, "we the public" are the dog. Let's wag it.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Billhook Posted 3:45 am
22 Jan 2009
Nor has it even built a strong protest movement (I saw '68).
Nor has it even got the media addressing the issue as it deserves.
Others may wish to persevere with that strategy, but it seems long past time to me to lead with the moral imperative for stringent action now.
Getting the impacts of climate destabilization on poor Africans into the awareness of wealthy populations could I think be a major step forward, since, (and I'd repeat) at IPCC AR4's launch it was forecast that some African nations will lose 50% of their former food production, by 2020.
The scale of famine there, which our pollution is going to cause, is not easily imagined.
So, if Americans (& others) are to wake up really fast to the scale of what must be done, I'd urge that the president make his very first trip abroad into Africa, including Kenya & Tanzania, (and invite a small excellent press corps).
There are in those countries a good range of both the prototypes of appropriate technologies and farm & forestry practices, as well as the frightful impacts of a destabilizing climate and the cruel suffering that this generates.
The US president will need a new sort of authority to address the climate issue at home and in the UN:
I think he'd better go and get it.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 4:38 am
22 Jan 2009
Your position (which is widely shared enough, I think, to be considered majoritarian among environmentalists) mystifies me. If we are dependent upon the Obama administration to avert climate catastrophe and our role is to "help" then we might as well throw in the towel now, because the very clear message of the Inauguration was that President Obama meant what he said as candidate Obama: energy is about jobs, independence from oil imports and, oh yeah, climate too.
Nothing on display in the last few days would indicate that this President feels any strong responsibility to bring hard realities before the nation - certainly, not on a 4 year timeline. If he did, then climate would have had some central place in the Inauguration story.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the President would have had to announce new programs, shift gears or even ruffle any feathers. But we should certainly have seen more than a stray mention in the Inaugural speech and... well, that was it, wasn't it? Why didn't The President attend LCV's event installing solar panels at a DC school, instead of sending Sec. Chu? Why was there no sober aside in any public statement, or in the Proclamation about pulling the nation together, as a start on the long haul of refocusing the nation? Why has none of the language been changed since the campaign? The only new take on climate has been Secretary Chu's refreshingly straight talk, but one Secretary does not an Administration make.
The items people are enthusing about in posts and emails, like the White House web site and the fact that climate was mentioned at all in the Inauguration, are about the least that could have been done. Think about it. If the transition team had set out to downplay climate, what else could they have done?
Ken Ward
ken[at]brightlines.org
Permalink
Jay Alt Posted 5:06 am
22 Jan 2009
Obama will talk compromise and independent posters here will gripe. Not compromise on the science and ultimate goals, and we can't waste money on projects that won't help enough. But get ready for some cellulosic ethanol, unclean coal (sequestration projects), nuclear power and limited offshore drilling on the table. In return, proponents of those ideas must buy into conservation, wind power, solar thermal, HVDC grid and other renewable plans.
EPA mandates may get us started, but we need national legislation to motivate the world to agreements. (or alternately to use as a lever and pry stubborn China, etc into helping)
Who'll awaken the minds of the unengaged public, helping them to pay attention and change behavior? It won't be scientists, their warnings are easily ignored. And not Gore, who has no traction with this group. Nor even the efforts of bloggers of goodwill. Having an articulate President helps but not for all; some will still write it off as mere politics. Messages with moral resonance are needed. What else for the US where so many attend (and claim to attend) church? Legislators always pay attention when they hear from congregations. Many churches and faiths are and will be addressing this.
Then we'll need to move our asses faster than Shakira to get the generational work started.
Permalink
Peter B. Meyer Posted 5:20 am
22 Jan 2009
-- No, I'm not suggesting the that findings - underestimates - from the IPCC be muted at all or that they respond to the realities of inaction.
-- the connection is inherent in the question posed: choosing between the two alternatives - the rock OR the hard place - as the locus where one is to be crushed.
If we shift the metaphor a bit, it's not a matter of whether the upper or lower jaws is the one that bites first -- it's a question of how to get out of the jaws themselves. But we've been told there's no escape - no other route ...
... but there is! First steps down one path were described in part earlier this week in the Gristmill, Does the long green conflict with going green?
The political will appears hopeless to generate because the choices are presented as "either ... or" and not as "both ... how." The evidence that the latter is preferred is clear in politics: the "both" solution avoids immediate conflict.
But the political solution is dismissed a matter of finding compromise positions - that's easy. We cannot negotiate a compromise with greenhouses gasses and solar emissions - we have no common ground.
Thus we must pursue efficiency - complementarity as far as it can be stretched and avoidance of conflicts. The conflicts are often between the economists' "substitutes" that can take each other place to some as provide the basis for compromise.
Complements, on the other hand, can do for more for the parties involved if all are pursued simultaneously. Searching for them and working to improve their complementarity is our logical choice of action, when caught in the jaws of IPCC declared needs for action and citizen resistance to change induce by political action.
Efficiency is a dirty word in the eyes of many -- and has certainly been neglected by Washington leadership in this century. But what w eneed noiw are the most efficient initiatives possible that will both satisfy citizens' concerns for economic recovery with the planet's need foe ecological recovery from too many human-caused stresses.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 5:50 am
22 Jan 2009
And Democratic environmental corruption has already begun, as well. Trading private clearcut lands for beautiful timbered government forestland on Mount Hood for commercial development by a Democratic multi-millionaire campaign contributor is NOT a good way to start the new Congress.
Selective use of the "precautionary principle" is also NOT a good move by radical preservationists.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
JeffB Posted 7:14 am
22 Jan 2009
I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that any expectation for there to be national action on climate change is an unrealistic expectation. We are in the unfortunate situation where a significant portion of the public at large believes science to be politicized. This is reflected in results from a 2008 Gallup poll which indicate that 70% of Democrat respondents believe climate change over the past century to be due to human activities but only 40% of Republicans to have the same belief. Importantly, this is a decline from 52% which was the response for Republicans in 2002.
http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues ...
With over half of Republicans doubting climate change (and I'd expect that the most of the doubters are from the Republican base which have disproportionate influence on a congressman's position), we should expect continued intransience in Congress. This will most likely happen in the Senate were Senate rules make it easy to stall controversial legislation.
So what is the most likely outcome....
I'd expect the Obama administation to take steps addressing climate change where only executive action is permitted. We can also expect legislation on climate change to be incorporated in omnibus legislation which is difficult to stall. Most importantly, I expect the Obama administration to make it easier for progressive states like California to take action. So look for the states to take the lead.
Permalink
Darrell Posted 7:25 am
22 Jan 2009
The right solution -- that I hope can achieve wider and quicker political support -- addresses all of Global Warming, foreign oil dependence and Peak Oil, and appropriate economic stimulus investment.
See LA Visions for a visualization.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 7:35 am
22 Jan 2009
None of this stuff matters and how can people not be more cognizant or the political realities that effect everything in our society. All the environmental knowledge or passion you can muster means nothing unless you know how to forward your agenda.
Hopefully I believe Obama is very astute politically and the action he took on day one concerning lobby reform reaffirms my confidence in this man. I am waiting anxiously to see if he takes his cause of lobby reform to the people and forces lobby reform on the legislative branch.
Money in freezers people, revolving door from government to corporation back to government as a lobbyist.
Walls Street Lobby just raided the treasury, took trillions with no oversight and then set themselves up to fix what they themselves broke. These are the same people Obama will have to beg to get his economic recovery money. Every alternative energy part of the program is in direct conflict with the interest of Big Oil, Big Coal and the Automotive industry. 14,000 lobbyist roaming the halls of the legislature stuffing cash in freezers, campaign coffers and blind trust. Most of the people Obama will have to get his legislation by will be a corporate lobbyist as soon as they leave government. Trent Lott quit a year early to avoid the new rules on the wait time before you can come back in as a Lobbyist. Dick Cheney was the Haliburton CEO, who was a former secretary of defense, who become a vice president that helped Haliburton get billions in no bid contracts in Iraq.
Go wet your fingers and stick them in a light socket repeating LOBBY REFORM, LOBBY REFORM, LOBBY REFORM each time you stick your finger in the socket. I feel that shock therapy will be the only thing that snaps all of you out of your co2 stupor.
Unless Obama gets real meaning full lobby reform he will not be successful with any of his agenda. Your dire predictions about the fate of the planet mean nothing to the Exxon Lobbyist or the Congressman stuffing the cash in the freezer.
Lobby Reform First
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Bobhenry Posted 7:57 am
22 Jan 2009
and possible solutions so that they are easily
understood by the American people.
1. Water-supplies in certain areas are short or
polluted. What does the future hold? What is the
answer?
2. Food-agriculture needs both rich soil and water.
will America continue to feed itself or will farmers continue to yeild to financial pressure to
sell their land. They need government support and incentives to increase agriculture.
3.Fisheries stocks are depleted. Will future generations have fish? By establishing 25% of our fishing grounds in U.S. teritorial waters as Marine sanctuaries where fishing and traffic are prohibited, pressure will come off species, and
regeneration should occur providing future generations with a stable food supply.
4. Air quality. by engaging in a massive program
of energy conservation, construction of wind farms, low head hydro-electric (with fish ladders), use of residential solar vs. Large
solar farms by utilities, electric and clean alternate energy vehicles, electric railway network and transit with a goal of 75% replacement within 10years of all fossil fuel
power plants, 50% of all vehicles on the road today 10years completion in 20 years.
This to me is the type of program the Obama administration should persue. It is partial & If interested parties add to this, comment on it, tweak it then maybe gristmill can put together a proposal to send to the President. Keep it simple.
Permalink
Bobhenry Posted 8:15 am
22 Jan 2009
a small town with little people who finally get fed up because they "get mad as heck and
aren't gonna take it anymore". In the town I lived in we had local politicians who wanted to play with the big Kahunas at the state and federal level pretty much ignoring, insulting the townspeople. Eleven of us decided to do something about it. We recalled the entire leadership of the town. 92% of the people voted & 78% recalled. This works at the state level and there should be a way to recall congress and Senators. The message here should be. You play with lobbyists, and do not act in the interests of the American people...your out.
No more corporate lobbyists, corporations are not citizens. Interests representing citizens should be fine as long as there is no quid pro quo.
You are correct big oil, coal, wall street, and others do have Obama in a pickle. He needs us to pick on the Congress or we will hear silence.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 9:03 am
22 Jan 2009
finally a convert, If Obama will use his grassroots organiztion to push for lobby reform and we quit sending back the bought and paid for politicians we will change the system.
One America as the man said, cross over to vote, vote indepemdent ticket even. Vote the person dedicated to taking back government from the corporations and giving it back to the people.
We have to change this corpocracy.
Most on this blog understand the environmental issues far better than I but fail to realize you can't seperate the environmental from the political.
As distasteful as it is in a politically driven system you have to know how to work within that system to get your agenda forwarded. We have either two choices combine all our economic recourses and every environmental group as one, contributing to hire us some lobbyist and buy us some politicians. This is itself problematic for it is not within the character or the heart of most the people on this blog to admit to themselves that their government really works this way. Also the corporations will out money you even if we could organize to fight the machine by using their own tactics.
The founding fathers left the work incomplete. They devised a checks and balances system that worked at the time but could not see far enough into the future to see how the multinational corporation could take over government. Jefferson warned about it when he warned about the unwarranted influence of the merchant class "Multinational Corporations". He never got the safeguard into the constitution that would protect us form it.
Our representative style of government that we hold up as the model to the world is but a shadow of its former self. It has become a corpora.
If we could ever obtain lobby reform the next thing on the agenda would be to get referendums on the national ballot at the times we elect our elected representatives to government. This was not within the technology of colonial times but in the computer age voting on specific issues on the ballot as they do in California is well within the realm of the doable.
The power elite will never allow this for this would directly put power back in the hands of the people. If you had polled 1000,000 workers from all over the country and ask them if they thought giving tax breaks to corporations for taking their jobs over seas was a good idea how many do you think would vote for it. Their representatives did and it is not within the scope of this blog piece to list you over 100 other things the people would have voted no on but their representatives voted for.
I believe Obama will work for lobby reform and ask the grassroots organization he put together before the election to help him with it. He was so smart not to do as most and disband his organization after he got in office.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 10:05 am
22 Jan 2009
As David wrote above, a major primary part of the obstruction is Americans' ignorance of the urgency of the climate issue - and this is not merely the result of lobbyists' conduct.
Consider the handling of an earlier peril, that of US inaction in WWII while Europe & Asia burned, when FDR faced an American Nazi Party with 800,000 members (including tycoons such as Ford). Then, rather than using law against them the president used policies to squeeze Japan to the point that its attack was inevitable.
Whether or not the warning was hidden is secondary - once the attack went in, Nazism, despite all its high grade propaganda, faced the wrath of America.
In the present case, while informing and motivating the American people might perhaps be aided by lobby reform, it cannot and will not be the primary means of winning their engagement.
Other, novel, means must be applied ASAP.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 10:43 am
22 Jan 2009
Bill,
Educated masses do not have the power of corporate lobbyist. When considering the Medicare Prescription Drug program for seniors who by in large are more aware politically than any other segment of the population. The vote in greater numbers and are courted harder by politicians. ARRP and other organizations keep them informed. The Drug Pharmaceutical lobby got a provision in the bill that does not allow the government to do competitive bidding for the drugs. Do you know how much this would have made in savings. Now this program is an unfunded liability railed against by middle of the road and conservatives alike. The people understood the program, they voted for the politicians who sponsored the bill and the politicians who voted for it. Yet the representatives sold them out when the negotiations went behind closed doors with the lobbyist.
One or two well placed lobbyist are worth more than a million votes. Once you cast that vote have lost all influence in the representative government and the corporate lobbyist is the only one with the ear of government. Bush feigned a willingness to support the program just as he did for wanting to help Social Security by placing it in the markets. The republicans have hated all the entitlement programs since their inception so if SS had went under with Wall Street and Medicare goes under because of the way he set it up they are as Happy as Roosevelt was when he cut the rubber and oil off from Japan and forced them into WWII. This still does not disolve the influence of the corporate lobby in government.
Lobby reform demands requires transparency in government in order to be lobby reform. Transparency in government helps prevent lobby induced provisions that kill otherwise good legislation. The legislation stays clean and come out the back end the way it was introduced. The mass transit portion of Obamas recovery bill is already being tweaked by lobbyist before it is even introduced. A working sheet with some figures that would provide 30 billion for mass transit has already had 10 billion skimmed off on some worksheets for new Highway construction. More highways for oil consuming cars the environmentalist are trying to do away with and the extra 10 billion would save a lot in oil consumption and pollution.
Lobby Reform or most of the recovery money earmarked for alternative energy and mass transit will be wasted on non alternative and non mass transit projects. Of course you may have been one of the people who thinks buying Wall Streets toxic Assets by money borrowed from China the tax payer will have to pay back is a good idea. Outsourcing is a neat lobby created word that really means there goes your job and the corporate lobby got that sold. Legacy Cost is another antiseptic innocuous term that means there goes your retirement and health care but the Automotive Corporate lobby has sold that to the educated.
Lobby Reform or wasted billions and very little alternative energy or mass transit. Co2 reduction legislation, its laughable.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 11:03 am
22 Jan 2009
You had no real corporate lobby in 1941. Ike did not start warning about the industrial military complex influence until 1961. The 30 or so Oil companies of the 50's were not organized into two or three multinational comglomerates until much later.
The multinational corporation lobby did not start yielding its full power until Reagan and George I's New World order of global corporate dominance.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
ids Posted 12:29 pm
22 Jan 2009
As in this story on LaHood in Transportation
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/22/9416/56130 a total gristwash neutral nothing, when it's clear from here http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009299.html to here http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-we ... he is a hack. The fact is that the existential urgency of the dirty elite is all too comfortable with status quo, aren't you?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:53 pm
22 Jan 2009
They actually like milder winters and slightly warmer summers.
They don't know what's good for them.
But Poppa Gore does. He wants everyone to pay to make it cold again. He also wants everyone to drive a car with two engines. Because it's more efficient to drive a car with two engines.
You are now living in the Hansen Economy!
Permalink
randino Posted 10:00 pm
22 Jan 2009
Call me a green version of Big Daddy in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I am storming around my house crying "Mendacity! Mendacity!"
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:12 am
23 Jan 2009
When you get enough scientist on board to convince the Fox Network co2 is causing global warming you may have a chance at stopping it. Don't go ballistic over me using Fox Network as an example, a little humor there, and yes I know very little.
You get my drift when you get mainstream media on board the battle is won and they will have to have the preponderance of truth.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:06 am
23 Jan 2009
Are there any indications that Mr. Obama understands this situation? Are there any indications that anyone in his brand-new administration understands this? I don't know that I understand it, and I read this blog nearly every day.
Have you ever procrastinated when a big deadline approaches? I know if I have a big analysis, report or presentation due with a crushing deadline, I have a tendency to find a million little distractions; dishes that must be done, laundry folded, desk straightened, really can't do another moment's work without a full system defrag (you get the picture). The more difficult and draining the task, the closer the impending deadline, and the more these habits tend to kick in.
Trust me, I'm a great believer in deadlines. I almost never miss one - I just know that there is likely to be a certain amount of prevarication before I actually settle down to the task at hand. Perhaps this is just me, but I tend to think there is something of human nature in it; a tendency to focus on smaller, achievable tasks in the face of an overwhelming and urgent task.
Consider Mr. Obama's new To Do List:
1. Fix economy
1a. Bail out mortgage, financial and auto corps
1b. Ensure housing for citizenry
1c. Ensure jobs for those who want them
Design national healthcare system
Design national energy system
Iraq War
Afghanistan
Rebuild international relations
Save planet from impending climate doom
There are plenty of others that probably haven't even made the list yet: a secure national food system, education reform, Social Security, and (hopefully!) abolishing the Patriot Act.
The President is obligated to the will of the people, after all, and humans are a notoriously short-sighted bunch. Right now, the 'people' want a roof over their heads, food on the table, and financial security, which includes a thriving employment market, healthcare that is not crippling, and some form of reasonable expectation for retirement. And, oh yeah, let's save the planet. But not at the expense of the above.
We know all this, of course, we discuss it all the time. Perhaps it is simply a matter of immediacy. The immediate threat to the citizenry is housing, jobs, healthcare, and national security. These tasks have the priority, and until someone can convince the President that the global climate crisis should take priority over those issues, it will remain a backseat issue.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 2:19 am
23 Jan 2009
Well stated, I have wasted a lot of blog space trying to say just what you put in print.
What he said!
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 2:30 am
23 Jan 2009
Not sure this is doable without lobby reform, as Pompey noted.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
kmp Posted 3:30 am
23 Jan 2009
And, thanks Pompey Road, for the compliment.. but that would be "what SHE said." :)
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 5:51 am
23 Jan 2009
I am not one of the chowder heads that thinks someone from the other 53% of the population can not have some answers or provide some direction. Just got carried away and did not think about KMP being gender specific to other than the other 47%.
Obama does have a full plate including all of the above and I am in over my head in another thread trying to mention the above when they write their letter to Obama trashing the Air Forces CTL program. Plus the fact the fuel has already been tested in B-52's by the Air Force and people in the Pentagon have staked their reputation and carriers on it. The industrial Military Complex sitting right next door to the president and most days right in the same room with him. All the members of and heads of Defense and finance committee's in the legislative that have a vested interest in seeing this CTL program advanced plus the coal corporation lobby. And the mentality is we will just write a letter and Obama will shut down the Air Force CTL program. They take no heed of the complicated interconnected web spun by the Industrial Military Complex or the power of the corporate lobby.
Luckily Obama as I said kept his grassroots organization together and has asked input on the agenda and I believe we can finally start work around the powerful interest and lobby in Washington that dominated all discussion.
I do not agree with CTL but would not have attacked it as a coal hater just wanting to kill it for the sake of killing it. Especially since it is already out of its testing phase and has so many powerful people connected to it.
I would have wrote the letter demanding all of the Economic Recovery funding possible for BTL, Bio To Liquid Fuels in the alternative energy portion of the recovery money. When I had a viable BTL I would then as the president as Commander in Chief to order the Air Force to test it. If it is as efficient cost won't matter to the military.
Better yet I would ask UPS to test it in their package/partial Air Fleet. I think this is what he was talking about in his call to service. You can't just dump this stuff on his plate you have to help him work it through the system.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 12:49 am
25 Jan 2009
........It is so refreshing to be able to acknowledge and begin to address the formidable, human-driven global challenges that are looming ominously before the family of humanity on the horizon.
Let us hope that the confederacy of dunderheads who have been providing terrible leadership during these earliest years of Century XXI have not done insurmountable damage to the global economy, moral authority, the environment and Earth's body as fit place for habitation by our children and coming generations.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1 ...
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
http://www.panearth.org
Permalink
tagshow Posted 8:15 pm
18 Jun 2009
has asked input on the agenda and I believe we can finally start work
around the powerful interest and lobby in Washington that dominated all
discussion.Credit Card Terminal| Point of Sale .
Permalink