CAN WE EXAMINE THE NEED TO SAVE EARTH'S ECOLOGY AS WELL AS THE MANMADE ECONOMY?

In light of the increasing number of emergent and convergent, human-driven challenges that appear before the family of humanity on the far horizon, I believe it is vital for the climate blogging community  to come together and, if only for a few moments, "get real" about what our species is doing, here and now, in these early years of Century XXI, to extirpate biodiversity, degrade the environment, dissipate Earth's resources and threaten the very existence of life as we know it.  

Once the economy has been bailed out, I would like the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us, the ones with hundred of millions of dollars in their priviate bank accounts, who are so adamant and urgent in their appeals to save the economy, to turn their attention, energy and vast wealth to the task of saving Earth and its environs from ruination.  

After all, what is the point of choosing to save the economy now if that choice means we could inadvertently ravage the Earth, upon which any manmade construction, even the colossal global economy, depends for its existence?

What kind of economy can function without adequate resources and ecosystem services only the Earth provides?  

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php

The only climate blog I really read on a regular basis is Beyond Zero Emissions, because it is the only one willing to take a radical stance on the matter.

We don't need to stabilize at 450ppm or so, which is what most climate blogs in Romm's list seem to be okay with. We need to go much further. We need to go beyond zero emissions.

450 ppm sets just a limit on the maximum amount of fossil fuels that we can burn.

Essentially it means we can burn oil and natural gas (not oil-shale / tar sands), but no more coal.

450 ppm is noway close to an ecologically acceptable limit. With sustained forestry and biomass, this should be brought down to 350 ppm in the next 100 years.

We should use 4th generation nuclear power in this endeavour. Jonas, your friends on the beyond-zero-emissions are net yet in tune with Dr Hansen's message. Their energy plan has lots of natural gas. It can be done for probably Victoria, Australia but not for the whole earth.

One world. Think global.

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.