Comments cosmoss has made

  • There is no profit in protecting the environment.

    Put the price on carbon and the profit motive may for once become an unstoppable force preserving the planet instead of destroying it. It would be refreshing to watch those who want those resources fight a rich and powerful opponent instead of a bunch of dirty hippies for a change.

    Nope...that's not going to work...carbon ranchers will want to spend the money on something that degrades the environment...the impact gets shifted elsewhere.  Money equals access to energy/natural resources.

    If forests and other wildlands everywhere are valued for the carbon they store, it means that loggers, ranchers, and agribusiness everywhere will for the first time have to include environmental costs in their bottom line calculations -- and not just move their operations to an area with loose environmental protections. That will have a major side benefit, shifting production into areas where it does the least environmental harm.

    Areas where it does least environmental harm? What exactly does that mean?  If all natural areas of the world are valued for the carbon they store...guess what...the would mean the devaluation of all currencies and the end of the growth economy.  Carbon ranchers don't want to be paid worthless dollars.  

    The real issue is that the Earth and all its resources are at the mercy of human consumption.  Humans are going to consume and consume until there is nothing left to consume.  Forget all you policywonking...it's not going to work.  On Bali conference could end deforestation overnight posted 1 year, 12 months ago 5 Responses

  • scary stuff

    ...and who said the dollar was losing value.On Civilization ... posted 2 years ago 7 Responses

  • Hawaii?

    Hawaii's economy is almost entirely dependent on the tourist industry which is entirely dependent on fossil fuels to function.  They have to import practically all their goods from several hundred miles away.  How could they not be last?On How oil-intense is your state's economy? posted 2 years ago 10 Responses

  • Don't forget humanure!

    I might add that human excrement will also be our new money.  We will need to start composting our humanure and using it as fertilizer rather than contaminating our water supply with it.  The dollar bills will end up in our compost just like our poop.  They can help balance the carbon to nitrogen ratio.  On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

  • lose lose


    Why does Grist.org actually think endorsing Hillary makes any difference at all?  If the majority of Grist readers and environmental activists don't agree with Hillary's politics, then the result is that Grist ends up looking silly and loses credibility.  And Hillary doesn't benefit from a Grist endorsement.  It's a lose lose proposition.  
    On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

  • What's the cut-off?

    Just curious...

    In order for a presidential candidate to be invited to participate in the Grist forum, is there actually a cut-off for the amount of square footage allowed for one's personal home?

    If, for example, John Edwards owned a 50,000 square foot compound, would that be permissable?

    Or maybe the cut-off is at 100,000 square feet?On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

  • Game over

    DR wrote:

    It matters not a whit what "Grist" wants, or what I want, or what you want. What matters is what can happen in reality. The reality is that Kucinich isn't going to be president. Pretending he is counts, yes, as moral onanism.

    At this point, the planet cannot afford anything but a radical agenda.  What matters is what the earth wants and all it non-human inhabitants want.  It doesn't matter what the populace wants.  

    Hillary would only enable the perpetuation of the elitist game which she is a part of as she is beholden to all the corporate interests which have funded her campaign.  

    Game over.On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

  • heckling the hypocrites

    Nucbuddy,

    huhh?  I'm vegan, have spent that last 7 years living/working in/on ecovillages/organic farms, use my folding bicycle as much as possible, don't own a car, used composting toilets for 5 out of last 7 years.  

    yeah, i'm a hippie of sorts but also have a college degree in business adminstration from 10 years past.  i don't smoke pot...i'm just making a point that burning a harmless weed can put you in jail, but burning tons and tons of fossil fuels which can potentially lead to the extinction of all planetary species is culturally acceptable.  It is so TWISTED.  

    For whatever reason DR asked Dennis Kucinich about how he would address global equity issues.  Give me a break.  The guy lives in a 1600 square foot house and he's a vegan.  Why do you need to even ask him?  The guy is already walking the talk more than any other politician.  Edwards is the one I would go after.  That guy has black and white pinstripes written all over him.  

    DR and the rest....  I really respect your work at Grist.org and would give you a big hug if I had the opportunity.  But I like to heckle.

    By the way, did you know DR also stands for Dancing Rabbit, that groovy ecovillage in NE Missouri? On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

  • How to address global equity

    David Roberts wrote:

    I asked Kucinich about global equity -- how the rich world could shield the world's poor from the effects of climate. He didn't have much of an answer. In general, I found Kucinich relatively light on specifics. I'm not sure we learned anything from him we couldn't have gotten from his public remarks thus far in the campaign.

    What kind of answer were you expecting?  It seems like Kucinich addresses that issue already: reducing personal carbon footprint, taxing rich and reinvesting in green technology, phasing out coal, building public transportation infrastructure.  signing on to international treaties that impose limits on CO2 emissions, etc...

    Personally, I think the best way to deal with this problem would be to police carbon footprints the same way we police other things.  Why is it that a person can smoke a little marijuana and get put in the slammer, but burning loads of polluting fossil fuels is culturally permitted.  It is totally backwards.  I say put the recklessly consuming ignorant rich in the slammer (that includes Edwards).  No passes for the politicians.  Let's put them in the slammer, give them composting toilets, let them grow their veggies in the recreation yard using their composted shit, send them on monitored dumpster-diving expeditions via bicycle to local stores for all their other necessities, only allow daylight lighting, sweaters and exercise to keep warm.  Maybe, allow a little natural gas for cooking and canning.  We wouldn't allow any electronics, but would make available a full library of books on permaculture and spiritual development.  

    After doing their time (5 years minimum), the probation period would include mandatory community service where ex-cons would have to speak publicly about their experience in the slammer, and specifically address the issue of climate change, sustainability, and global equity.

    i'mm dead serious...On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

  • what do the environmentalists want?

    i'm sure that the antibiotics and hormones break down in the composting process to some degree.  i think composting the animals is probably the best thing you could do with them.  you are returning the organic matter directly to the earth, letting the microbes work for you in the decomposition process.  it would be good though if the composting animals were isolated as much as possible from streams and aquifers.  

    we humans also get buried in the earth and we're not exactly pure of toxic substances.  chemo patients?

    i'm vegan so of course i'm not a fan of animal farming but I am a fan of composting.On Practice of composting animals raises red flags for greens posted 2 years ago 8 Responses

  • counterintuitive

    it seems counterintuitive to use nuclear power to convert oil shale into liquid fuels to power internal combustion engines when electric car technology exists.  

    as they same in that article, it will take 20 years for any kind of significant production to come from oil shale.  by that time, we could have converted on our entire vehicle fleet over to electric technology.  

    anyway, it is questionable whether or not human civilization will remain intact in 20 years.  i'm betting on total meltdown in 5 years or so.  On We have $100-a-barrel oil due to speculation and fear posted 2 years ago 54 Responses

  • The high cost of unconventional sources of oil

    Yes, you are correct but the cost of converting the unconventional oil into usable energy is tremendous, especially when you consider the ramifications for climate change.  

    Huge US Reserves of Oil Shale Hold Promise, But at High Cost

    "The reserves are very large," said Boak. "The potential to build them up is perhaps less, in that it takes a good deal more work to get the oil out of the ground. You are essentially cooking a rock that is not ready to produce oil yet."

    One of the biggest problems he sees is the enormous amount of electricity that will be needed to heat the shale and the carbon dioxide the power plants could produce.

    "Most of the CO2 is coming from the power plants that are built to heat the rock underground," said Boak. "So, if you have a different approach, if you use nuclear, if you can establish renewable energy, then maybe you have less of a CO2 problem, but the amount of energy is really large."

    "My estimate was to produce three million barrels a day, you would have to have four times the current installed wind capacity of the entire U.S. [United States]. So it is a lot of electricity if that is what you are using to heat underground," he added.

    http://voanews.com/english/2007-11-12-voa57.cfmOn We have $100-a-barrel oil due to speculation and fear posted 2 years ago 54 Responses

  • Current oil prices will soon be considered CHEAP

    Energy crisis is on horizon, expert [Simmons] says
    AUTHOR: PEAKED PRODUCTION MEANS OIL PRICES TODAY ARE CHEAP
    When you fill up your car to go to work or to grandma's house for Thanksgiving, consider an expert's grim warnings about the world's supply of oil and other energy sources.

    The world has passed its peak production of oil, and people must come to grips with approaching shortages and an urgent need for conservation, said Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker in Houston. He delivered a lecture at the University of Kentucky last night and spoke with the news media beforehand.

    Simply put, the world needs 88 million barrels of oil a day to carry on as usual, he said. But the production of global crude oil is 73 million barrels a day, with natural-gas liquids meeting the remaining needs.

    But the supply of oil will keep dropping until it reaches 40 million barrels a day by 2030, he said.On We have $100-a-barrel oil due to speculation and fear posted 2 years ago 54 Responses