Author Topic: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein  (Read 60577 times)

Offline scared_person

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,770
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #200 on: August 14, 2012, 02:29:03 pm »
I read the OP for the first time just now. If the author truly believes the only way to keep the planet habitable is the end of capitalism then she has one choice - Violent revolution. There is no other way that could bring about the changes she believes are required.

Also she asserts that climate change deniers deny climate change because they understand that the only way to stop climate change would be the downfall of capitalism, yet she makes the same assumption but from the opposite side of the political spectrum. I don't think she makes a convincing argument that the only way to avert disaster is her way.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #201 on: August 15, 2012, 01:19:20 am »
I started a bit of guerrilla gardening and land share growing because I didn't expect to be able to get any land of my own or an allotment. When I went on the waiting list for an allotment I was told it could be up to 6 years before my number came up. 3 months later I got an allotment. Sometimes the general negativity of anyone involved in bureaucracy is enough to put people off even trying.

If anyone is interested in growing your own food and being slightly less dependent on global agri-business then there are lots of ways to do it. It's also not as much hard work as I was told it was going to be.

Fair play - Is one of the things I would like to have going on here but for the 25C daytime temps and severe lack of rain. Cacti are cute and all, but feed people the do not! The UK is perfect for allotments and greenhouses. I know of lots of people back home who make approx one third of their dietary nutrition through food grown with an allotment and small greenhouse. Doesn't take a lot of work to keep ticking over either.

I think the problem comes with the next step - going all 'The Good Life' style, and becoming self sufficient. Is about an acre/acre and a half to supply all of a families nutritional needs through the year? Is not something I am totally au fait with. You need an animal with milk and probably some chickens for hen eggs. Maybe near a river/ocean/lake for marine protein. Isn't possible for all of us.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 04:18:33 am by RojoLeón »

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #202 on: August 15, 2012, 01:21:37 am »
http://tribune-democrat.com/latestnews/x1555260990/Record-heat-drought-point-to-longer-term-climate-issues

Record heat, drought point to longer-term climate issues

By Peter Whoriskey The Washington Post

OTTUMWA, Iowa — Driving by a boat ramp one Saturday morning last month, a local man noticed some white spots on the Des Moines River. He stopped to have a look.

Turns out the spots were fish bellies. The undersides of dead sturgeon formed glistening constellations in the muddy brown water.

In all, about 58,000 dead fish were along a 42-mile stretch, according to state officials, and the cause of death appeared to be heat. Biologists measured the water at 97 degrees in multiple spots.

"I've never seen anything quite like it," Justin Pedretti, who owns a farm near the boat ramp in Bonaparte, Iowa, and first reported the fish kill.

Under the most wide-reaching drought since 1956, and torched by the hottest July on record dating from 1895, the United States has been under the kind of weather stress that climatologists say will be more common if the long-standing trend toward higher U.S. temperatures continues. Most immediately affected are the nation's water sources and the people and crops that rely on them.

The flow of the Mississippi River has slowed — at times rivaling 40-year-lows — allowing saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico to seep far up the river channel, threatening community water supplies at the river mouth. Likewise, across the nation's middle, many communities have invoked water restrictions to protect shrinking supplies. The lack of rain has sizzled the nation's corn crop, too, with agriculture officials reporting last week that the overall yield is expected to drop 16 percent from last year.

Scott Lakin, owner of a family farm in Indiana, was already dealing with the drought harming his corn crop. But his wife recently called with the discovery that the weather woes were striking much closer to home.

"I heard the washing machine making sounds — it wasn't filling," Marcy Lakin said. "Then I checked the faucets and couldn't get even a drip."

The well was dry. The water table in the area had sunk to new lows, and like other homeowners in Parr, Ind., they were without water. When they sought out a well-driller to try to find water, they found that drillers across the state were booked for a week.

Six of 35 observation wells in the state have hit historic lows, said Mark Basch, chief of the state water rights department.

The Lakins, with two kids, have gone almost two weeks without water.

"I think you could say it's been a trying summer," she said. "Everybody was looking for water."

In 1895, the first year of such records for the nation, the average July temperature in the contiguous states was 72.1 degrees.

Since then, average temperatures have been rising, if slowly, according to U.S. records, climbing at the rate of 1.24 degrees per century.

This year, average temperatures spiked to 77.6 — even above the long-term trends, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week.

At the same time that temperatures have spiked, setting records in places as far-flung as Lansing, Mich., and Greenville, S.C., the country has been hit with a spreading drought. In early August, 62 percent of the contiguous United States was under moderate to exceptional drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

The heat and drought feed on each other, worsening conditions, scientists said. When the ground is wet, the water absorbs the sun's heat and expends it in evaporation; when the earth is dry in a drought, the ground simply warms up.

The rising temperatures and spreading drought this year are consistent with what can be expected with the warming of the climate, said Jake Crouch, a climate scientist with NOAA.

"Any given year in the future could be above or below that rising trend," Crouch said. "But if the current trend continues, the chances of years like this become greater."

The Midwest is particularly vulnerable to large swings, according to federal scientists, in part because it is farther from the oceans, which help to moderate temperatures.

"There is a high degree of confidence in projections that future temperature increases will be greatest in the Arctic and in the middle of continents," according to the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Maybe the broadest and most easily measured casualty of the weather has been the nation's corn crop, one of its largest. With the losses, corn futures last week rose to all-time highs.

But the extreme weather has also aroused unusual challenges.

The Mississippi River has fallen so low that the American Queen steamboat, which had been on its way from Louisville to Vicksburg, Miss., had to stop this month in Memphis, according to wire reports. That left 240 passengers to finish the trip by bus.

In Plaquemines Parish, La., at the mouth of the Mississippi, government officials are preparing to have fresh water brought in on barges, something they haven't had to do since 1988, during a historic drought, said Guy Laigast, director of the parish's emergency preparedness. The problem is the growing salinity of the Mississippi as it runs by Plaquemines. Some saltwater seeps in from the gulf regularly when the river is low. But this year, the saltwater has seeped about 88 miles up the river, rendering it unusable for some towns.

In Kansas, along Big Creek, which is running dry, the drought has put communities at odds with one another. Upstream, Hays is keeping its wastewater to water a golf course, a park and a soccer complex. This has angered downstream neighbors, who say public wells are running low and there's no water for their cattle.

"Everyone out here is hurting. There is no two ways around it," said Doug Langhofer, water superintendent in Russell, Kan., one of the communities downstream.

Across the country, scientists are beginning to register the stress that higher temperatures have placed on the environment.

On the night of the fish kill that Pedretti reported on the Des Moines River, state biologist Mark Flammang was called to the scene.

"We've had fish kills before but never to that extent," he said.

Often, he said, fish kills come when the oxygen content in the river goes low. But the measurements he took that night suggest to him instead that it was probably the unusually warm water.

Another fish kill in the Des Moines River happened just two weeks ago, and again the water temperature was high. This time, it was about 92 degrees in places, and it claimed about 13,500 fish, mostly river carpsuckers and channel catfish, he said.

Where those temperatures stand in terms of the river's history is difficult to know because there are few, if any, consistent records. But Flammang and locals familiar with the river think those temperatures were well above normal summertime averages.

"The water normally has a chill to it," said A.J. Bower, 26, who runs a local Web site for enthusiasts. But "the heat is killing the fish. You can tell it's not supposed to be that warm."

"Mother Nature," he said, "is kicking our butt."

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #203 on: August 15, 2012, 02:28:07 am »
I read the OP for the first time just now. If the author truly believes the only way to keep the planet habitable is the end of capitalism then she has one choice - Violent revolution. There is no other way that could bring about the changes she believes are required.

Also she asserts that climate change deniers deny climate change because they understand that the only way to stop climate change would be the downfall of capitalism, yet she makes the same assumption but from the opposite side of the political spectrum. I don't think she makes a convincing argument that the only way to avert disaster is her way.

I've read the article several times. I took home different ideas than you did, but that is just me.

I don't think she asserts that the only way to stop catastrophic climate change is via violent revolution. I think, having read much of her other work (which I wholeheartedly recommend) that she is a very caring and compassionate, motivated and smart woman. For starters, the kind of violent revolution you describe would be catastrophically destructive to the host planet - it would accelerate the devastation and perhaps outweigh any possible gains for planetary ecology. I think if you put her on the spot and asked her, she would vehemently rule out any kind of violent resistance.

As for the position that some people resist the concept of climate change because of the inherent cognitive dissonance between their continued living standards being unsustainable (and also harmful to others): I think this rings true, does it not? The logical fallacy where you look at the overwhelming scientific consensus and the issue, and know deep down what that entails for your first world living standards: You either bury your head in the sand or accept the validity of the argument.

I don't think there was anything too drastic in what she proposes either - certainly, there is some bitter medicine for most of us first worlders to swallow. But compared to complete destruction? Maybe what chemo/radiation treatments are to oncology, compared to crossing you fingers and hoping for the best are to aggressive metastatic cancer.

Here are a few graphics to illustrate where we are at as consumption to population.





http://persquaremile.com/ Looks like an excellent blog and some high quality ideas and information regarding one of the big elephants in the polite society room. Overpopulation/overconsumption.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #204 on: August 15, 2012, 02:58:46 am »
Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere

http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012.pdf

If you were one of the concerned elite and had aspirations along the lines of wanting to save the planet, what might you be prepared to do to save us all. There were plenty of interesting responses in the Hiroshima thread, referring to the necessity of mass murder via atomic fireball, versus the larger scale bloodshed following largescale invasion of the main Japanese island group. It is instructive to see that so many are happy to profess that they think it was a necessary evil. How far would we go to save the planet then?

So what about 'runaway man made climate change', or 'catastrophic overpopulation', or 'deforestation', 'ocean acidification', 'mass arable soil toxicity/potable water contamination',..

What might the great and the good suggest is the way forward to protect the future against the demands of the present.

http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2012/study-predicts-imminent-irreversible-planetary-collapse.html

Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

Using scientific theories, toy ecosystem modeling and paleontological evidence as a crystal ball, 21 scientists, including one from Simon Fraser University, predict we’re on a much worse collision course with Mother Nature than currently thought.

In Approaching a state-shift in Earth’s biosphere, a paper just published in Nature, the authors, whose expertise spans a multitude of disciplines, suggest our planet’s ecosystems are careering towards an imminent, irreversible collapse.

Earth’s accelerating loss of biodiversity, its climate's increasingly extreme fluctuations, its ecosystems’ growing connectedness and its radically changing total energy budget are precursors to reaching a planetary state threshold or tipping point.

Once that happens, which the authors predict could be reached this century, the planet’s ecosystems, as we know them, could irreversibly collapse in the proverbial blink of an eye.

“The last tipping point in Earth’s history occurred about 12,000 years ago when the planet went from being in the age of glaciers, which previously lasted 100,000 years, to being in its current interglacial state. Once that tipping point was reached, the most extreme biological changes leading to our current state occurred within only 1,000 years. That’s like going from a baby to an adult state in less than a year,” explains Arne Mooers. “Importantly, the planet is changing even faster now.”

The SFU professor of biodiversity is one of this paper’s authors. He stresses, “The odds are very high that the next global state change will be extremely disruptive to our civilizations. Remember, we went from being hunter-gatherers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth’s history.

“Once a threshold-induced planetary state shift occurs, there’s no going back. So, if a system switches to a new state because you’ve added lots of energy, even if you take out the new energy, it won’t revert back to the old system. The planet doesn’t have any memory of the old state.”

These projections contradict the popularly held belief that the extent to which human-induced pressures, such as climate change, are destroying our planet is still debatable, and any collapse would be both gradual and centuries away.

This study concludes we better not exceed the 50 per cent mark of wholesale transformation of Earth’s surface or we won’t be able to delay, never mind avert, a planetary collapse.

We’ve already reached the 43 per cent mark through our conversion of landscapes into agricultural and urban areas, making Earth increasingly susceptible to an environmental epidemic.

“In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren’t there,” says Mooers. “My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the earth’s history are more than pretty worried. In fact, some are terrified.”

— 30 —

Backgrounder: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

Coming from Chile, Canada, Finland, the United Kingdom, Spain and the United States, the authors of this paper initially met at the University of California Berkeley in 2010 to hold a trans-disciplinary brainstorming session.

They reviewed scores of theoretical and conceptual bodies of work in various biological disciplines in search of new ways to cope with the historically unprecedented changes now occurring on Earth.

In the process they discovered that:

Human-generated pressures, known as global-scale forcing mechanisms, are modifying Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and climate so rapidly that they are likely forcing ecosystems and biodiversity to reach a critical threshold of existence in our lifetime.

“Global-scale forcing mechanisms today “include unprecedented rates and magnitudes of human population growth with attendant resource consumption, habitat transformation and fragmentation, energy production and consumption, and climate change,” says the study.

Human activity drives today’s global-scale forcing mechanisms more than ever before. As a result, the rate of climate change we are seeing now exceeds the rate that occurred during the extreme planetary state change that tipped Earth from being in a glacial to an interglacial state 12,000 years ago. You have to go back to the end of the cataclysmic falling star, which ended the age of dinosaurs, to find a previous precedent.

The exponentially increasing extinction of Earth’s current species, dominance of previously rare life forms and occurrence of extreme climate fluctuations parallel critical transitions that coincided with the last major planetary transition.

When these sorts of perturbations are mirrored in toy ecosystem models, they tip these systems quickly and irreversibly.

The authors recommend governments undertake five actions immediately if we are to have any hope of delaying or minimizing a planetary-state-shift. Arne Mooers, an SFU biodiversity professor and a co-author of this study, summarizes them as follows.

“Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly. More of us need to move to optimal areas at higher density and let parts of the planet recover. Folks like us have to be forced to be materially poorer, at least in the short term. We also need to invest a lot more in creating technologies to produce and distribute food without eating up more land and wild species. It’s a very tall order.”



I mean, fuck. What would lower population quickly - the list of scenarios with desirable yields would make the Nazi party go green with envy. The conclusions above are inherently contradictory - moving to high density populations areas creates more pollution and reduces overall efficiency. But, to stop climate change, what must be done - it remains a question even if you find answering it unpalatable.

Violent revolution, is counter productive: It will make things much worse short and long term. Very unpredictable outcomes.
State intervention will see massive corruption and fascistic controls over personal freedoms - the net gains might not actually be worth it.
Democratic intervention globally might do it but would be a hard slog and might take too long.
Some kind of other path, where a religious movement or other collective idea sweeps people into action.
Aliens or 'god' tells us to get our shit into gear. (seem likely?)
In no particular order: Financial collapse, mass famine, pandemic fatal disease/flu/plague outbreak, hydrocarbons running out and corresponding industrial collapse, etc..

The above will work to varying degrees or other. Might not be at all desirable. Are we going to be allowed to potter along like this indefinitely, or will some concerned elite help protect mother nature and help take our destinies out of our hands?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 03:00:58 am by RojoLeón »

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #205 on: August 15, 2012, 04:28:19 am »
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/a-how-to-guide-for-depressed-young-environmentalists/261065/

Why Young Environmentalists Still Have Hope

When it comes to climate change, it's not surprising that many millennials have settled into a fatalistic stupor. But there are ways to make a difference -- and they're already working.

Ten years ago, I was between my sophomore and junior years at Yale, and on a journey that would profoundly alter the course of my life. I was spending the summer in India, and had decided to hike to the Gaumukh glacier, the source of the Ganges River that rests at the far end of a massive ice sheet deep that extends into the Himalayas.


On the way up, my guide, Anand, and I encountered a barefoot man in an orange robe--a reminder of the fact that we were headed to the holiest place in India. The Ganges accommodates some 450 million people who come to its banks to drink, eat, farm, bathe, and worship. For thousands of years, the great river has been at the center of Indian political, economic, and spiritual life.

Closer to the glacier, we encountered a different kind of sight: a white plastic tent with a satellite dish beside it. Nearby, we found a scientist sitting on a boulder. A quarter century earlier, he told us, we would have been standing on the glacier. It had been retreating for years. As soon as 2030, he said, Gaumukh could disappear altogether.

That fall, I took a leave from college, determined to do something about the insanity of global warming. I would never return, choosing instead to co-found the Energy Action Coalition and grow it into the world's largest youth advocacy organization working on the climate crisis. As we won thousands of small victories, getting cities, college campuses, and companies to begin reducing their carbon footprints, I and those around me felt empowered -- confident that we would prevail in the greatest challenge of our generation.

Then came 2008. After the election, we saw an opportunity to win both federal climate legislation and to secure an international climate deal in Copenhagen. When both went down in flames, many climate activists (myself included) fell into a kind of depression.

Fast forward to 2012. We're living through the warmest year in American history. Wildfires and droughts are plaguing the West, prompting experts to warn of a looming food crisis, and Bill McKibben's tour-de-force Rolling Stone piece "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math" has been viewed 1.2 million times in two weeks. The listervs I'm on are filling up with huge threads with subject lines like, "I'm scared."

What happened? What do we do now? I and many other members of the millennial generation have spent the past few years developing answers to these questions. The good news is that we now know a great deal about what works, and we know what we need to do.

First, it's important to recognize that this not only a dangerous time, but also a time of immense opportunity. We are living in a world of dueling exponential curves. On one hand, there are the hockey stick slopes, the terrifying and skyrocketing lines of environmental degradation and carbon. But not far behind is another wave of fast-growing curves representing a solution set that could sustainably feed, shelter, and power the planet.

In his Rolling Stone piece, McKibben mentions that Germany recently met nearly half its noonday power demand with solar energy. What he didn't mention was that as recently as 2000, solar power comprised only 0.01 percent of Germany's power supply. A similar story of renewable energy growth has played out around the world. Late last year, the International Energy Agency came out with a stunning revision of its forecast for the future energy mix of the planet, saying solar could produce most of the world's power in less than 50 years. In the U.S., the rate of uptake of wind and solar technologies has blown expert predictions out of the water.

Taking note of new realities, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory recently issued a statement that would have been unimaginable five years ago: "Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country."

So how do we, as a generation that will be grappling with these issues far into the future, ensure that the good curves win out?

1. Support local fights to keep fossil fuels in the ground

McKibben calls for turning our full attention to fighting fossil fuel companies. To this I would add that we need to double down on local campaigns targeted at specific mining or energy development projects. Why? Because they work. On the ground, surrounded by friends and family, fighting both for our planet and the places we love, we're already finding our power.

With little fanfare, grassroots groups around the country have turned the tide on fossil fuel development. They have been supported by smart national groups like the Sierra Club, 350.org, and the Energy Action Coalition. To take one example, the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign has supported volunteers across the country as they've successfully fought to halt two thirds of all proposals for new coal-fired power plants put forth since 2001. The campaign is now aiming to close all of the nation's 530 existing coal plants by 2030.

Going forward, special attention needs to be paid to the areas with the biggest concentrations of hydrocarbons -- places like Wyoming's Powder River Basin, Alberta's Tar Sands, Appalachia, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the Navajo and Hopi Nations' Black Mesa. There are dozens of well-organized groups on the ground, many of them indigenous led, that are starved for funding. Focused efforts to fund these groups and help them develop and finance clean economic alternatives could go a long way towards keeping the fossil fuels they live on top of under the ground, where they belong.

2. Keep funding innovation

We must also ensure that the government continues to back energy innovation. In a recent NY Times piece, David Leonhardt highlighted government-driven clean energy innovation as the silver lining of the past decade. Even while efforts to put a price on carbon have failed, smart funding policies at every level of government have been remarkably successful in building out a clean energy system. Yet the same funding that has driven this build out is now drying up.

As Leonhardt notes, government funding is critical for clean energy because the basic research that has already brought down the cost of wind and solar, and which stands to create the next generation of breakthrough technologies, is often initially unprofitable. Similarly, a 2011 report from the American Energy Innovation Council argued for a strong government role in driving energy innovation. "We know the federal government has a vital role to play in energy innovation.... There are no excuses," write the authors. "If the United States fails ... we will have lost an opportunity to lead in what is arguably the largest and most pervasive technology sector in the world."

What is particularly notable about this report is the list of names affixed to it. It includes some of the most prominent entrepreneurs and capitalists of our time--people like Bill Gates, John Doerr, Ursula Burns, Norman Augustine, and Jeff Immelt. Titans of industry in every industry but fossil fuel are ready for America to take part in the clean energy revolution. They know it's going to require strong government support. That means it's going to take the support of all of us.

3. Lead by example

Speaking at a New York League of Conservation Voters annual gala fundraiser several years ago, I asked the audience members how many had gotten energy-efficiency work done on their homes, or powered some area of lives with renewable energy. Fewer than 5 in 500 raised their hands. It's not enough to fight our current system, or to develop next generation technologies -- we have to rapidly deploy every solution we already have. And we do have many of the tools we need. It's time to start to picking them up and build.

On the renewable energy front, leading by example means delving into ways to reduce our own dirty energy footprints. When the climate debate first heated up, solutions in this area pretty much came down to "change your light bulbs." This is no longer the case. Declining costs and the invention of "solar leases" have made it possible for millions of Americans to go solar with little or no upfront cost. Many more are getting involved with community-scale renewable energy projects. Still others are investing in energy retrofits that will pay back huge financial dividends over time.

It's also essential to start putting our collective savings toward building a clean energy future. Many of us invest the money we save for our children's futures in funds that are heavy on the same companies that are putting their future at risk. Again, while we didn't used to have many options on this front, the world is changing fast. With a little thought, it's possible to do well for your family while also doing good for your community and the planet. We need leaders in every walk of life to prove this principle.

So, do the most revolutionary thing you can: build. Take your money out of the banks and stocks that support coal and invest it in impact funds, credit unions, renewable energy projects, and bonds projects for your community. You'll find that many dedicated people have spent the better part of the past few decades building tools that make it easy. And put up a solar array on your own roof, or join together with the people building a community wind project. States without good community energy laws are becoming fewer and further between; across the country, entrepreneurs are building businesses to meet the demand they already see for renewable energy.

Fight, fund, build. It's that simple--and that difficult. We may be young and scared, but we have power. We are making progress. Now is not the time to slow down

Offline scared_person

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,770
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #206 on: August 15, 2012, 11:08:27 am »
I've read the article several times. I took home different ideas than you did, but that is just me.

I don't think she asserts that the only way to stop catastrophic climate change is via violent revolution. I think, having read much of her other work (which I wholeheartedly recommend) that she is a very caring and compassionate, motivated and smart woman. For starters, the kind of violent revolution you describe would be catastrophically destructive to the host planet - it would accelerate the devastation and perhaps outweigh any possible gains for planetary ecology. I think if you put her on the spot and asked her, she would vehemently rule out any kind of violent resistance.

As for the position that some people resist the concept of climate change because of the inherent cognitive dissonance between their continued living standards being unsustainable (and also harmful to others): I think this rings true, does it not? The logical fallacy where you look at the overwhelming scientific consensus and the issue, and know deep down what that entails for your first world living standards: You either bury your head in the sand or accept the validity of the argument.

I don't think there was anything too drastic in what she proposes either - certainly, there is some bitter medicine for most of us first worlders to swallow. But compared to complete destruction? Maybe what chemo/radiation treatments are to oncology, compared to crossing you fingers and hoping for the best are to aggressive metastatic cancer.

I'm not saying violent revolution is what she advocates; she doesn't really discuss how her sociological, economic and political changes could be achieved. I'm just saying that violence would probably be the only way I think they could be achieved.

If such drastic (to those in charge at least) measures are required in the timescale she suggests then to my mind you'd be better off building yourself an ark now. Such change in world governance is not going to happen in our lifetimes.

I'm not arguing with her conclusions of what needs to be done, simply the likelihood of it being possible.

Offline jonjosuso

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
  • YNWA
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #207 on: August 16, 2012, 11:50:03 pm »
Thanks for this Rojo

Currently researching (soon to write) my MSc dissertation on climate change denial, some of these links look very interesting

Will come back once I've read some ;)
FSG please eBay Linda's black gloves and we can buy Kuyt back.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #208 on: August 17, 2012, 12:31:16 pm »
Thanks for this Rojo

Currently researching (soon to write) my MSc dissertation on climate change denial, some of these links look very interesting

Will come back once I've read some ;)

:wave What angle are you tackling this from? Good luck with it.

Offline jonjosuso

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
  • YNWA
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #209 on: August 17, 2012, 01:10:39 pm »
:wave What angle are you tackling this from? Good luck with it.

Briefly summarized pal...

Title: Analysing the potential impacts of climate change denial

Abstract: Counting the costs of a generation of corporate funded misinformation, denial and deceit. Discussing the fossil fuel industry's influence over both government policy and public conversation

Chapter one (av 4000 words): Dismissing the myths - Putting forward the definitive scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change and the potential devestation of positive feedbacks

Chapter two (av 4000 words): The history of denial - Briefly highlighting the history of corporate funded denial, from tobacco, through acid rain, right up to climate change. Exposing various key moments in time when the denialists were heard over the scientists and analysing why and how this happened.

Chapter three (av 4000 words): Analysing the potential economic, environmental, societal and subsequently moral (looking at intergenerational justice mainly) costs of denial and therefore unabated climate change.

Conclusion (1000-2000): The biggest fraud of all time is more likely than not going to result in the greatest single disaster in advanced human history, as the positive feedbacks start acclerating at uncontrollable pace, first agriculture will collapse under extreme drought and floods, followed by the economy as whole, while 100million+ refugees search for new homes as sea levels rise while drinking water becomes the most precious commodity (extreme scenario from a range of examples)

Any feedback, from anyone, would be great :) It's due in 28 days and I am currently at 0/15,000 words and the season starts tomorrow!!
FSG please eBay Linda's black gloves and we can buy Kuyt back.

Offline gordonchas

  • Jilted John was right.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,240
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #210 on: August 17, 2012, 02:37:52 pm »

Any feedback, from anyone, would be great

Would that be positive feedback only? Or are you open to negative feedback?

Offline jonjosuso

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
  • YNWA
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #211 on: August 17, 2012, 02:46:02 pm »
Would that be positive feedback only? Or are you open to negative feedback?

Negative is arguably better :)

I am in contact with various academics, not only my tutor and also various people in the DECC and DEFRA so I am unlikely to change much regardless of what I read on an internet forum but I find every conversation about this worthwhile, as I tend to pick up something, however minimal.

So, shoot!
FSG please eBay Linda's black gloves and we can buy Kuyt back.

Offline gordonchas

  • Jilted John was right.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,240
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #212 on: August 17, 2012, 03:08:48 pm »
OK. I really don't like the use of the word "denial" in an academic paper. I can't think of a sceptic who denies the reality that the climate changes - this is the central reason for their scepticism. "Denialist" is an emotive smear.

Also, if you're looking at how sceptics are funded you need to compare their level of funding with the funding that has been provided to attempt to prove the case for human induced change.  You also need to look at the funding provided by oil companies to both sides of the debate, for example the support of BP and Shell to the CRU.

Offline jonjosuso

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
  • YNWA
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #213 on: August 17, 2012, 03:40:44 pm »
OK. I really don't like the use of the word "denial" in an academic paper. I can't think of a sceptic who denies the reality that the climate changes - this is the central reason for their scepticism. "Denialist" is an emotive smear.

Also, if you're looking at how sceptics are funded you need to compare their level of funding with the funding that has been provided to attempt to prove the case for human induced change.  You also need to look at the funding provided by oil companies to both sides of the debate, for example the support of BP and Shell to the CRU.

Thanks for this gordonchas.

The difference between 'denial' and 'scepticism' is debated frequently enough in the literature for me to make my own judgement and 'denialist' is not an emotive smear, in my opinion and I will explain why. To be truely sceptical is to search for truth, to be unconvinced by any current given explanation and therefore try and come to the correct conclusion. True scepticism is a necessary in science. However, throughout the peer-reviewed science, the vast majority (I'm talking 97.5 percent) of climate scietists agree that climate change is anthropogenic and human emissions is the major 'forcing' in this current change of climate. Arguments of previous climate change, ice ages, periods of warming and so forth are all accounted for within these massive scientific documents (see IPCC fourth assessment for more info). The climate has changed before and will change again, however the current warming is unprecedented going back entire historical periods (I believe we can go back 650,000 through ice core data) and can be accurately correlated against rise in emissions.

If you break it down to its most simple elements, burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gases. These remain in the atmosphere for up to 200 years and retain the infra red heat which is released from the Earth after being heated by the sun. The more greenhouse gases we emit, the more the atmosphere warms as more heat from the sun is retained (other arguments about solar variation have also been dismissed within the scientific community). So for anyone who is sceptic about climate change, I advise they spend some time reading peer-reviewed science (ExxonMobil has invested US$20million since 1998 to try and create a piece of peer-reviewed science to argue against anthropogenic global warming and to this date failed, whereas there are hundreds of articles which can show this current warming trend is undoubtedly manmade). After doing the correct research, it is clear to me, that their scepticism should have abated and they will be clear on anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, anyone who remains 'sceptic' or refuses to read the necessary material, can be justly called a denier. Or so I will argue.

Your final point is extremely valid and one I am currently researching. Balance is key in any academic work so again, thanks for that. I would just reccommend taking a little look at Exxonsecrets.org, the webs of funding and denialists is quite revealing. The main thing being, the big names on that list, the world reknowned 'deniers' (or sceptics if you so please) are arguing with no scientific background in most cases (a vast majority are geologists, physicists) in climate science and have published no peer-reviewed science on either atmospheric changes or climate.

Thanks for your reply, I hope mine is useful for your own opinions. I can reccommend a large variety of books which really make the point much better than myself if you so desire.

James
FSG please eBay Linda's black gloves and we can buy Kuyt back.

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #214 on: August 17, 2012, 07:27:38 pm »
Briefly summarized pal...

Title: Analysing the potential impacts of climate change denial

Abstract: Counting the costs of a generation of corporate funded misinformation, denial and deceit. Discussing the fossil fuel industry's influence over both government policy and public conversation

Chapter one (av 4000 words): Dismissing the myths - Putting forward the definitive scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change and the potential devestation of positive feedbacks

Chapter two (av 4000 words): The history of denial - Briefly highlighting the history of corporate funded denial, from tobacco, through acid rain, right up to climate change. Exposing various key moments in time when the denialists were heard over the scientists and analysing why and how this happened.

Chapter three (av 4000 words): Analysing the potential economic, environmental, societal and subsequently moral (looking at intergenerational justice mainly) costs of denial and therefore unabated climate change.

Conclusion (1000-2000): The biggest fraud of all time is more likely than not going to result in the greatest single disaster in advanced human history, as the positive feedbacks start acclerating at uncontrollable pace, first agriculture will collapse under extreme drought and floods, followed by the economy as whole, while 100million+ refugees search for new homes as sea levels rise while drinking water becomes the most precious commodity (extreme scenario from a range of examples)

Any feedback, from anyone, would be great :) It's due in 28 days and I am currently at 0/15,000 words and the season starts tomorrow!!

That covers pretty much everything :) What MSc are you doing by the way? This summer's not been good to students, and the new season doesn't help ;)

I'll have a think but as far as I can see, you've got it covered. Chapter 2 looks particularly interesting in my opinion. Best of luck with it


Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #215 on: August 17, 2012, 07:31:10 pm »

Also, if you're looking at how sceptics are funded you need to compare their level of funding with the funding that has been provided to attempt to prove the case for human induced change.  You also need to look at the funding provided by oil companies to both sides of the debate, for example the support of BP and Shell to the CRU.

In terms of funding, I think it's important to distinguish between funding that support scientific research and funding used to spread misinformation. The latter is very well documented and is a huge hurdle in trying to find solutions to what could well be a very serious problem.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #216 on: August 17, 2012, 08:38:23 pm »
In terms of funding, I think it's important to distinguish between funding that support scientific research that agree with my views (environmental propaganda) and funding used to spread misinformation that disagree with my views (environmental propaganda). The latter is very well documented and is a huge hurdle in trying to find solutions to what could well be a very serious problem persuading the West that it should return to the pastoral idyll that existed prior to the industrial revolution.

Corrected it for you.  :)
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #217 on: August 17, 2012, 08:56:42 pm »
Corrected it for you.  :)

:wave Propaganda... Well at least your sense of irony is intact. That will have to do in the absence of evidence, eh?

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #218 on: August 17, 2012, 09:00:40 pm »


After doing the correct research, it is clear to me, that their scepticism should have abated and they will be clear on anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, anyone who remains 'sceptic' or refuses to read the necessary material, can be justly called a denier. Or so I will argue.


The temp rise between 1910 and 1940 was the same amount and at the same rate as the temp rise and rate as that which took place between 1970 and 2000.

The temp rise between 1910 and 1940 was achieved with hardly any CO2 rise.

So what makes the rise from 1970 to 2000  "unprecedented going back entire historical periods" and "undoubtedly man-made"?

Just so I know like.
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #219 on: August 17, 2012, 09:10:56 pm »
The temp rise between 1910 and 1940 was the same amount and at the same rate as the temp rise and rate as that which took place between 1970 and 2000.

The temp rise between 1910 and 1940 was achieved with hardly any CO2 rise.

So what makes the rise from 1970 to 2000  "unprecedented going back entire historical periods" and "undoubtedly man-made"?

Just so I know like.

The 1910-1940 trend was +0.109 +/- 0.05°C/decade and the 1970-2000 trend was +0.153 +/- 0.058°C/decade.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2012, 09:12:49 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #220 on: August 17, 2012, 09:30:53 pm »
The 1910-1940 trend was +0.109 +/- 0.05°C/decade and the 1970-2000 trend was +0.153 +/- 0.058°C/decade.

Ah!

So you saying that about a third of the late 20th century temp rise was due to man and the rest due to natural variation?
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #221 on: August 17, 2012, 09:38:06 pm »
Ah!

So you saying that about a third of the late 20th century temp rise was due to man and the rest due to natural variation?

And how exactly did you reach this conclusion? I've given you trends to show you that warming at the end of the 20th century occurred at a greater rate than at the beginning of the 20th century. I said nothing about drivers but I'll add this - there's no evidence that the main cause of the early-century warming, i.e. the sun, was also mainly responsible for the late-century warming. The data are clear on this.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #222 on: August 17, 2012, 10:17:33 pm »
The 1910-1940 trend was +0.109 +/- 0.05°C/decade and the 1970-2000 trend was +0.153 +/- 0.058°C/decade.

And how exactly did you reach this conclusion? I've given you trends to show you that warming at the end of the 20th century occurred at a greater rate than at the beginning of the 20th century. I said nothing about drivers but I'll add this - there's no evidence that the main cause of the early-century warming, i.e. the sun, was also mainly responsible for the late-century warming. The data are clear on this.

From the figs you've provided

Natural forcing + negligible CO2 forcing =  +0.109 °C/decade

Natural forcing + CO2 forcing                =  +0.153 °C/decade

would seem to give CO2 forcing being ~ +0.044 °C/decade

Mind you, since CO2 has continued to rise and the temp has flat-lined for the past 14 years what does this say about this (one third) attribution to CO2.

Rather than late 20th century rises being wholly (or mainly)) man-made, it's beginning to suggest that the rise due to a doubling of CO2 is of the order of 1.1°C. Which is what the physics of infra-red absorption suggested in the first place.

Not the 3.5 °C which you would have us believe in.

Feedbacks, feedbacks - it all comes back to feedbacks - or lack of them!
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #223 on: August 17, 2012, 10:59:18 pm »
From the figs you've provided

Natural forcing + negligible CO2 forcing =  +0.109 °C/decade

Natural forcing + CO2 forcing                =  +0.153 °C/decade

would seem to give CO2 forcing being ~ +0.044 °C/decade

Mind you, since CO2 has continued to rise and the temp has flat-lined for the past 14 years what does this say about this (one third) attribution to CO2.

Rather than late 20th century rises being wholly (or mainly)) man-made, it's beginning to suggest that the rise due to a doubling of CO2 is of the order of 1.1°C. Which is what the physics of infra-red absorption suggested in the first place.

Not the 3.5 °C which you would have us believe in.

Feedbacks, feedbacks - it all comes back to feedbacks - or lack of them!

That's the problem when you don't bother with the science - you get the basics all wrong.

First of all, if it were to natural factors alone, we'd very probably be experiencing a period of cooling now. So your little additions make no sense unless you bother to quantify the contribution of the various drivers involved. You've reached the completely wrong conclusion because you haven't bothered with actual data.

As for feedbacks, they are alive and well - atmospheric water vapour levels are rising, ice is melting, methane is being released from permafrost areas and hydrates, etc. The worrying thing is that there's very little evidence of negative feedbacks. It is also wrong to derive any number from short timescales, as some feedbacks operate on longer timescales.

Climate scientists dedicate their lives to understanding what's happening. It's pretty arrogant to think you know better, especially as you don't seem to grasp the most basic aspects of climate science. But you carry on believing you're right, and that it's all about propaganda, without providing a shred of evidence and without carrying out any data analyses. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2012, 11:01:06 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #224 on: August 17, 2012, 11:56:03 pm »
That's the problem when you don't bother with the science - you get the basics all wrong.

First of all, if it were to natural factors alone, we'd very probably be experiencing a period of cooling now. So your little additions make no sense unless you bother to quantify the contribution of the various drivers involved. You've reached the completely wrong conclusion because you haven't bothered with actual data.




Looks to be a fair correlation there. Or does this data not count since it runs against the 'Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming' paradigm?

You seem particularly tetchy re  the magnetic activity of the sun providing a key driver in the climate system.

Cycle 24 is beginning to look very like cycle 5 at the start of the Maunder Minimum. Sunspot activity declining, cycle length increasing (NASA reckon maybe 14 years for cycle 24) and the temps now flat-lining after 150 years of rises since the 'Little Ice Age'.

Quote
Climate scientists dedicate their lives to understanding what's happening. It's pretty arrogant to think you know better, especially as you don't seem to grasp the most basic aspects of climate science. But you carry on believing you're right, and that it's all about propaganda, without providing a shred of evidence and without carrying out any data analyses. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

The deference to authority syndrome. If dedicated scientists say it's right then mere mortals shouldn't use there own scientific knowledge (which I haven't the most basic understanding of it seems) to way up their arguments.

Einstein was probably the greatest scientist of the 20th century. A more authoritative figure would be difficult to imagine. His views on Quantum Mechanics were proved to be wrong.

Lord Kelvin was one of the most authoritative scientific figures of the 19th century and we all know what happened to his comments about 'Science being settled'. 



"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #225 on: August 18, 2012, 12:28:21 am »



Looks to be a fair correlation there. Or does this data not count since it runs against the 'Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming' paradigm?

You seem particularly tetchy re  the magnetic activity of the sun providing a key driver in the climate system.

Cycle 24 is beginning to look very like cycle 5 at the start of the Maunder Minimum. Sunspot activity declining, cycle length increasing (NASA reckon maybe 14 years for cycle 24) and the temps now flat-lining after 150 years of rises since the 'Little Ice Age'.

The deference to authority syndrome. If dedicated scientists say it's right then mere mortals shouldn't use there own scientific knowledge (which I haven't the most basic understanding of it seems) to way up their arguments.

Einstein was probably the greatest scientist of the 20th century. A more authoritative figure would be difficult to imagine. His views on Quantum Mechanics were proved to be wrong.

Lord Kelvin was one of the most authoritative scientific figures of the 19th century and we all know what happened to his comments about 'Science being settled'. 





An apparent correlation based on a comparison between two images? Really? Where is the data analysis, the actual number crunching? That's what you need to make a case. No one's saying that these solar cycles don't have an impact on global temperatures, but they certainly don't explain the recent warming trend.

I'm not tetchy about anything, I simply require evidence. I'm very happy to change my mind if strong evidence means that such a change is warranted. And incidentally, the Earth is still accumulating heat, most of it in the oceans, because there is still an energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation. This is observed by satellites.

No, it's got nothing to do with authority and everything to do with actually carrying out scientific research. Climate scientists have made predictions, tested their hypotheses and analysed observations. Their predictions have been verified. Not only is the Earth warming, only an enhanced greenhouse effect can explain a variety of observations, such as stratospheric cooling and patterns of ocean warming. In other words, there are multiple lines of evidence all pointing in the same direction, so unless someone shows all this to be fundamentally flawed or comes up with an alternative theory, there's no reason to dismiss this body of evidence.

And if we're talking about the past as a guide, there are also plenty of examples where scientists were right but it was is someone's interests to deny their evidence - tobacco and cancer, CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer, sulphur dioxide and acid rain... And when you look closer, you see the same players spreading doubt and misinformation on these issues - Lindzen, for example, doubts the link between second-hand smoking and cancer. We know this because the tobacco industry had to release all their papers when class action was taken against them, so the strategies are well documented.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 02:39:39 am by RojoLeón »

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #227 on: August 18, 2012, 02:55:22 am »
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/only-2-per-cent-of-canadians-dont-believe-in-climate-change-poll/article4482183/

Only 2 per cent of Canadians don’t believe in climate change: poll

Only 2 per cent of Canadians who responded to a new opinion poll believe climate change is not occurring.

The findings are in a survey conducted by Insightrix Research, Inc. for IPAC-CO2 Research Inc., a Regina-based centre that studies carbon capture and storage.

The online poll of 1,550 people was done between May 29 and June 11. The results were to be released on Wednesday.

“Our survey indicates that Canadians from coast to coast overwhelmingly believe climate change is real and is occurring, at least in part due to human activity,” said centre CEO Carmen Dybwad.

Respondents were asked where they stood on the issue of climate change.

Almost one-third – 32 per cent – said they believe climate change is happening because of human activity, while 54 per cent said they believe it’s because of human activity and partially due to natural climate variation. Nine per cent believe climate change is occurring due to natural climate variation.

Two per cent said they don’t believe climate change is occurring at all.

The opinions about the cause of climate change and how to combat it are divided among the provinces and by region.

According to the survey, Prairie respondents are least likely to believe that climate change is occurring due to human activity, while residents of Quebec, Atlantic Canada and British Columbia are most likely to hold this belief.

The survey found 44 per cent of Quebec respondents, 34 per cent of Atlantic Canadian respondents and 32 per cent of those surveyed in British Columbia are likely to believe climate change is occurring due to human activity. Alberta and Saskatchewan came in at 21 per cent while Manitoba was at 24 per cent.

Unlike traditional telephone polling, in which respondents are randomly selected, the Insightrix survey was conducted online among 1,550 respondents, all of whom were chosen from a larger pool of people who agreed to participate in ongoing research. They were compensated for participating.

The survey set quotas by age, gender, region and education to match the general population.

The polling industry’s professional body, the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population.

The survey also found that 51 per cent of Canadian respondents across the country believe fossil fuels will still be used after the year 2050 for electricity production in Canada.

That belief is highest in Alberta at 66 per cent and lowest in Quebec at 37 per cent.

The acceptance of climate change and the extent to which humans are responsible for it has been a politically sensitive issue, most recently in the Alberta election.

Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith’s team started strong in the campaign, but faltered near the end when Smith said the science of global warming was not settled. Ms. Smith found herself booed roundly at a late-stage leaders debate over the issue.

Former Alberta premier Ed Stelmach said Ms. Smith’s refusal to admit climate change exists cost her party a shot at victory. He said voters agreed Alberta would have a big problem selling oil and promoting environmental stewardship on the world stage with a premier who didn’t believe in climate change.

http://128.138.136.233/admin/publication_files/resource-2590-2008.05.pdf

Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a
physicist ‘‘trio’’ supporting the backlash against global warming

This paper identifies cultural and historical dimensions that structure US climate science politics. It explores why a key subset of
scientists—the physicist founders and leaders of the influential George C. Marshall Institute—chose to lend their scientific authority to
this movement which continues to powerfully shape US climate policy. The paper suggests that these physicists joined the environmental
backlash to stem changing tides in science and society, and to defend their preferred understandings of science, modernity, and of
themselves as a physicist elite—understandings challenged by on-going transformations encapsulated by the widespread concern about
human-induced climate change.

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

Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3] Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[4][5][6][7][8] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

Peter Christoff, writing in The Age (2007), said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went on to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."(just a few denier-dinosaurs, roaming the interweb)[13] The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[15] Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.[16]

Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity.[17] However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and the economics of possible responses. Numerous authors, including several scholars, say that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s.[7][8][15][18][19][20][21] On the other hand, some commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral.[22][23][24]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/romney-flack-promoted-climate-denial-behalf-exxon

Romney Spokeswoman Promoted Climate Change Denial on Behalf of Exxon

Andrea Saul is the press secretary and chief spokesperson for Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. But before Romney hired her, Saul worked for a DC-based public affairs and lobbying firm that worked to undermine climate science on behalf of corporations like ExxonMobil, according to a detailed new report from Greenpeace's Polluter Watch project.

While working for DCI Group, Saul worked on anti-climate-science campaigns on behalf of Exxon. That included creating the faux news site Tech Central Station, which was used to promote columns from climate deniers like Willie Soon and Pat Michaels. Saul is listed as the contact person on the archived version of the Tech Central page.

She was also listed as the point person on a press release claiming that there is "no link between increased storm activity and a massive change in global climate" that was released in 2006, several months after Hurricane Katrina. DCI Group also created a video news release downplaying the climate-storm connection, though it's not clear which DCI client paid for that work.

In late 2006, Saul also handled press for group of 17 climate skeptics who were trying to get the American Meteorological Society to weaken its statement on climate change by adding terms like "data uncertainty issues," "natural variability," and "imperfect climate models."

DCI Group also hosted a "strategic discussion on the Clean Air Act" in 2006 that featured a climate skeptics from right-wing think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute as well as a number of Exxon employees, according to a guest list that Greenpeace obtained.

As Greenpeace notes, Saul's "role in shaping Romney's climate and science policy is not known." Romney has always been a bit squishy on climate change, but has only gotten more so over the course of his past two presidential runs. Given Saul's past, it's no surprise the Romney campaign's most mealy-mouthed statements on climate—including "CO2 is a naturally occurring gas" and "he believes it's occurring, and that human activity contributes to it, but he doesn't know to what extent"—have come directly from her.

(Spending money denying the impact of fossil fuel emissions, to save money from the otherwise inevitable state legislation)

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/06/climate-change-deniers-heartland

It's been a tough few weeks for the forces of climate change denial.

First came the giant billboard with Unabomber Ted Kacynzki's face plastered across it: "I Still Believe in Global Warming. Do You?" Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, the nerve center of climate change denial, it was supposed to draw attention to the fact that "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen." Instead it drew attention to the fact that these guys had overreached, and with predictable consequences.

A hard-hitting campaign from a new group called Forecast the Facts persuaded many of the corporations backing Heartland to withdraw $825,000 in funding; an entire wing of the institute, devoted to helping the insurance industry, calved off to form its own nonprofit. Normally friendly politicians like Wisconsin Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner announced that they would boycott the group's annual conference unless the billboard campaign was ended.

Which it was, before the billboards with Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden could be unveiled, but not before the damage was done: Sensenbrenner spoke at last month's conclave, but attendance was way down at the annual gathering, and Heartland leaders announced that there were no plans for another of the yearly fests. Heartland's head, Joe Bast, (Joe 'Camel' Bast used work for big tobacco to deny the link between cancer and smoking) complained that his side had been subjected to the most "uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists," which was both a little rich—after all, he was the guy with the mass-murderer billboards—but also a little pathetic. A whimper had replaced the characteristically confident snarl of the American right.

That pugnaciousness may return: Mr. Bast said last week that he was finding new corporate sponsors, that he was building a new small-donor base that was "Greenpeace-proof," and that in any event the billboard had been a fine idea anyway because it had "generated more than $5 million in earned media so far." (That's a bit like saying that for a successful White House bid John Edwards should have had more mistresses and babies because look at all the publicity!) Whatever the final outcome, it's worth noting that, in a larger sense, Bast is correct: This tiny collection of deniers has actually been incredibly effective over the past years.

The best of them—and that would be Marc Morano, proprietor of the website Climate Depot, and Anthony Watts, of the website Watts Up With That—have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that we're in serious trouble. They've never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp. That's MIT's Richard Lindzen, who has been arguing for years that while global warming is real it won't be as severe as almost all his colleagues believe. But as a long article in the New York Times detailed last month, the credibility of that sole dissenter is basically shot. Even the peer reviewers he approved for his last paper told the National Academy of Sciences that it didn't merit publication. (It ended up in a "little-known Korean journal.")

Deprived of actual publishing scientists to work with, they've relied on a small troupe of vaudeville performers, featuring them endlessly on their websites. Lord Christopher Monckton, for instance, an English peer (who has been officially warned by the House of Lords to stop saying he's a member) began his speech at Heartland's annual conference by boasting that he had "no scientific qualification" to challenge the science of climate change.

He's proved the truth of that claim many times, beginning in his pre-climate-change career when he explained to readers of the American Spectator that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life." His personal contribution to the genre of climate change mass-murderer analogies has been to explain that a group of young climate change activists who tried to take over a stage where he was speaking were "Hitler Youth."

Or consider Lubos Motl, a Czech theoretical physicist who has never published on climate change but nonetheless keeps up a steady stream of web assaults on scientists he calls "fringe kibitzers who want to become universal dictators" who should "be thinking how to undo your inexcusable behavior so that you will spend as little time in prison as possible." On the crazed killer front, Motl said that, while he supported many of Norwegian gunman Anders Breivik's ideas, it was hard to justify gunning down all those children—still, it did demonstrate that "right-wing people…may even be more efficient while killing—and the probable reason is that Breivik may have a higher IQ than your garden variety left-wing or Islamic terrorist."

If your urge is to laugh at this kind of clown show, the joke's on you—because it's worked. I mean, James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who has emerged victorious in every Senate fight on climate change, cites Motl regularly; Monckton has testified four times before the US Congress.

Morano, one of the most skilled political operatives of the age—he "broke the story" that became the Swift Boat attack on John Kerry—plays rough: He regularly publishes the email addresses of those he pillories, for instance, so his readers can pile on the abuse. But he plays smart, too. He's a favorite of Fox News and of Rush Limbaugh, and he and his colleagues have used those platforms to make it anathema for any Republican politician to publicly express a belief in the reality of climate change.

Take Newt Gingrich, for instance. Only four years ago he was willing to sit on a love seat with Nancy Pelosi and film a commercial for a campaign headed by Al Gore. In it he explained that he agreed with the California congresswoman and then-speaker of the House that the time had come for action on climate. This fall, hounded by Morano, he was forced to recant again and again. His dalliance with the truth about carbon dioxide hurt him more among the Republican faithful than any other single "failing." Even Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts actually took some action on global warming, has now been reduced to claiming that scientists may tell us "in 50 years" if we have anything to fear.

In other words, a small cadre of fervent climate change deniers took control of the Republican party on the issue. This, in turn, has meant control of Congress, and since the president can't sign a treaty by himself, it's effectively meant stifling any significant international progress on global warming. Put another way, the various right-wing billionaires and energy companies who have bankrolled this stuff have gotten their money's worth many times over.

One reason the denialists' campaign has been so successful, of course, is that they've also managed to intimidate the other side. There aren't many senators who rise with the passion or frequency of Inhofe but to warn of the dangers of ignoring what's really happening on our embattled planet.

It's a striking barometer of intimidation that Barack Obama, who has a clear enough understanding of climate change and its dangers, has barely mentioned the subject for four years. He did show a little leg to his liberal base in Rolling Stone earlier this spring by hinting that climate change could become a campaign issue. Last week, however, he passed on his best chance to make good on that promise when he gave a long speech on energy at an Iowa wind turbine factory without even mentioning global warming. Because the GOP has been so unreasonable, the president clearly feels he can take the environmental vote by staying silent, which means the odds that he'll do anything dramatic in the next four years grow steadily smaller.

On the brighter side, not everyone has been intimidated. In fact, a spirited countermovement has arisen in recent years. The very same weekend that Heartland tried to put the Unabomber's face on global warming, 350.org conducted thousands of rallies around the globe to show whom climate change really affects. In a year of mobilization, we also managed to block—at least temporarily—the Keystone pipeline that would have brought the dirtiest of dirty energy, tar sands oil, from the Canadian province of Alberta to the Gulf Coast. In the meantime, our Canadian allies are fighting hard to block a similar pipeline that would bring those tar sands to the Pacific for export.

Similarly, in just the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands have signed on to demand an end to fossil fuel subsidies. And new polling data already show more Americans worried about our changing climate, because they've noticed the freakish weather of the last few years and drawn the obvious conclusion.

But damn, it's a hard fight, up against a ton of money and a ton of inertia. Eventually, climate denial will "lose," because physics and chemistry are not intimidated even by Lord Monckton. But timing is everything—if he and his ilk, a crew of certified planet wreckers, delay action past the point where it can do much good, they'll be able to claim one of the epic victories in political history—one that will last for geological epochs.




Online Devon Red

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,641
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #228 on: August 18, 2012, 10:19:20 am »
Einstein was probably the greatest scientist of the 20th century. A more authoritative figure would be difficult to imagine. His views on Quantum Mechanics were proved to be wrong.

This is a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method. He wasn't 'proved to be wrong’; he was one of the founders of an entire field of science. Over time some aspects of his theories have been refined and have evolved according to the best evidence available. This is a good example of how the deniers operate, they would point to one aspect of Einstein’s entire work in the field of quantum physics and say that because this one aspect has now been ‘proved wrong’ his whole body of work is false.

It’s not totally the fault of the deniers, the scientists often don’t know how to deal with modern media. A news programme might have a 5 minute slot on climate change and invite one respected climatologist and one denier to debate. The climatologist would be used to an academic environment where minute detail is important and pointing out any areas of weakness in one’s own research is good practise. The climatologist would probably come across as a bit of an anorak, use a lot of terms and data types not familiar to most people, and the interviewer would pounce on him when he mentions any areas that need further attention. The denier would be much slicker, and would probably have a big colourful graph that shows a couple of lines moving roughly in parallel. He would draw a conclusion from this which would be simplistic and a misunderstanding of the data, but most viewers wouldn’t know this and the interviewer wouldn’t give the climatologist the time needed to explain the data more accurately.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #229 on: August 18, 2012, 03:53:10 pm »
No, it's got nothing to do with authority and everything to do with actually carrying out scientific research. Climate scientists have made predictions, tested their hypotheses and analysed observations. Their predictions have been verified.



This being your definition of verified?
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline jonjosuso

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
  • YNWA
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #230 on: August 18, 2012, 04:02:18 pm »
Corrected it for you.  :)

Your views are really upsetting man. If we are going to sort this out we need everyone to work together.

Can I ask what it would take for you to comprehend AGW? Obviously for my dissertation I have reams of research material, I can piece together a bundle of peer-reviewed science if you like, balanced with no pre determined view just basic figures.

Your example of just providing one graph is a well known tactic of deniers or skeptics. Wherever that graph came from, it probably was set in a context among others, with the general conclusion leading towards undoubtable CO2 forcings. That or it just doesn't take everything into account.

It would mean a lot if you could answer openly and talk to me about this because understanding a citizen who denies anthropogenic global warming (unless you have ties with any kind of fossil fuel company?) is something I'm not only working on my dissertation but possible future career too.

Thanks.
FSG please eBay Linda's black gloves and we can buy Kuyt back.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #231 on: August 18, 2012, 04:48:16 pm »
For what is worth - this isn't the 'Is AGW real?' thread.

FAO jonjosuso: Why don't you start one, making a case for man made climate change/global warming and in turn inviting Deggsie to provide some evidence to back up any of his opinions. Also, there have been several 'climate change' threads before and you could resurrect one of them to continue the debate.

http://www.wpri.com/dpps/entertainment/must_see_video/cows-eating-candy-during-the-drought-nd12-jgr_4323303

Cows eating candy during the drought

MAYFIELD, Ky. (CNN/WPSD) - Ranchers have struggled with skyrocketing corn prices, because the drought has made feeding their livestock very expensive. But one rancher has turned to a very sweet solution.

At Mayfield's United Livestock Commodities, owner Joseph Watson is tweaking the recipe for success.

"Just to be able to survive, we have to look for other sources of nutrition," he said.

His 1,400 cattle are no longer feeding off corn. The prices, Watson says, are too high to keep corn in stock. So earlier this year, he began to buy second-hand candy.

"It has a higher ratio of fat than actually feeding straight corn," Watson explained. "It's hard to believe it will work but we've already seen the results of it now."

Watson mixes the candy with an ethanol by-product and a mineral nutrient. He says the cows have not shown any health problems from eating the candy, and they are gaining weight as they should.

"This ration is balanced to have not too much fat in it," he said.

The packaged candy comes from various companies at a discounted rate because it is not fit for store shelves.

"Salvage is a problem for a lot of these companies and they're proud to have a place to go with it," said Watson.



Most commercial candy sugar is made from corn syrup. This is like mainlining the calories into the cows (without any of the raw carbs, fiber or vitamins to get in the way). How is that a good thing for the cow consumers.

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #232 on: August 18, 2012, 04:54:39 pm »


(the corn crop has pretty much failed nationally (USA) and when you consider how much 'food' comes from corn, one way or another, there is going to be a spike in food prices to come. Estimates are between 6-12 months to fully hit but it won't be happy times)

http://www.iowasource.com/food/corn_0308.html

King Corn
Filmmakers Document the Corn Industrial Complex, from Field to Table

There’s an old adage that the best way to communicate a message is to show someone a problem rather than tell them about it. An excellent example is King Corn, a documentary released last year about the negative impacts of America’s corn-based food supply. Instead of preaching to the audience about the problems, the filmmakers simply show them in an almost understated, yet more powerful way.

King Corn’s premise is simple: two college friends, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, want to know how our food is produced. They discover that corn constitutes a major part of the average American diet, so they decide to grow an acre of corn in Iowa and track where the corn goes.

The things they discover along the way aren’t so appetizing. Ellis puts his hand into a hole in the stomach of a live cow to demonstrate the negative health impacts of feeding corn to animals. A Brooklyn taxi driver describes how he weighed 300 pounds from drinking soft drinks containing high-fructose corn syrup. An auction is held to sell the farm and possessions of the Iowa farmer who befriends Cheney and Ellis and allows them to grown an acre of corn on his farmland.

The film follows Cheney and Ellis over an 18-month period starting in January 2004. They write to Charles Pyatt, a farmer in Greene, Iowa (population 1015), asking if they can plant an acre of corn on his farm. The two travel to Iowa and meet with Pyatt to plan their corn acre. Some of the local folks are amused by the Yale graduates’ plans to try their hands at farming, but the two seem to endear themselves to the locals.

The film shows the month-to-month progress of their acre, from spring planting through fall harvest. The two did all the work with help from local farmers, driving tractors, spraying anhydrous ammonia fertilizer, planting seeds (which took just 18 minutes), spraying herbicides, and harvesting and delivering the corn to the local grain elevator.

A Sympathetic Approach

A film about corn made by East Coast filmmakers could have easily been condescending, but King Corn is respectful and sympathetic to Iowa’s farmers and the challenges they face.

There are interviews with farmers and family members who express concerns about modern industrial agriculture. Rich Johnson, a farmer who runs several large farms in the area, says, “Farms are getting bigger and have to be a good size or you get squeezed out.” There are shots of homes abandoned by family farmers forced to sell out. Another farmer, Don Clikeman, says ruefully, “It makes it easier to farm if you don’t have all these houses in the way.”

King Corn is a coming home of sorts for both Cheney and Ellis. By an interesting coincidence, both have ancestors in Greene. Their great grandfathers, Claire Eugene Cheney and Melvin Ellis, grew up in the area and worked in agriculture. “It’s a coincidence that we became friends and that our ancestors came from this tiny Iowa town,” says Ellis.

How Corn Became King

Tracking the history of corn in American agriculture, the film shows how U.S. Agricultural Secretary Earl Butz, under Richard Nixon, changed U.S. farm policy to one based on increased production, planting corn “fence row to fence row.” Humorous animations using corn kernels and toy farms trace the history of corn from southern Mexico and show how farms got bigger and bigger.

King Corn follows Cheney and Ellis as they visit cattle ranchers and large feedlots in Colorado, where cattle are raised on a corn-based diet and confined in small pens. They travel to Brooklyn and meet Trey Mendez, a taxi driver, who describes his problems with obesity and diabetes from drinking too many soft drinks. They meet university experts in grain and cattle production, such as Loren Cordain at the University of Colorado, who says that a steak from a corn-fed cow contains 9 grams of saturated fat compared to the 1.5 grams from a steak of a grass-fed cow. Finally, they meet an elderly Earl Butz, who remains convinced that his policy shift in the 1970s was for the best.

The film adds humor to lighten a heavy topic. Cheney and Ellis play baseball when not farming. After being denied access to corn-refining plants that make high-fructose corn syrup, the two decide to make it themselves in a kitchen. “It tastes great,” says Cheney, spitting out the homemade syrup. They both sample an ear of corn from their acre. “It’s disgusting,” says Ellis. Later, he slides down a mountain of corn piled outside a grain elevator like a child sliding down a muddy hill.

Too Much Corn?

We learn along with Cheney and Ellis about the problems with America’s corn-based agriculture. “We live in a time when abundance brings too much,” says Cheney.

Ellis says, “Agriculture is growing fast food.”

The film ends on a sad note. Six months after their harvest, Cheney and Ellis return to Pyatt’s farm to find it being auctioned off. The filmmakers ask Pyatt if they can buy their acre, and in the final scene, the two play baseball on their acre, now planted in grass, surrounded by corn.

King Corn leaves the audience to question America’s annual, massive corn harvest, which reached 92 million acres in 2007. Why are we growing so much corn? Why is it so heavily subsidized by the government? Why are we producing so much high-fructose corn syrup if it increases the risk of obesity and diabetes? Why are we feeding cows and other animals corn if it makes them ill and produces less than healthy meat for humans?

By shedding light on the questionable practices of America’s corn-based food and feed supply, King Corn could help to create a dialogue and become a catalyst for positive changes in U.S. agriculture.
Interview with Ian Cheney
On the Making of King Corn
by Ken Roseboro
What was your main motivation for making the film?

 

Ian Cheney: Our goal was to learn how our food was produced. By planting corn and following it through the food chain, we gained a good understanding that a big bulk of our calories comes from corn. Livestock in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are fed corn, and there is corn in many food ingredients and food additives, such as high-fructose corn syrup.

What did you learn in the process of making the film?

Cheney: Our enthusiasm for this crop has taken us too far. We produce an enormous amount of corn. We have harvests that surpass our ability to store it and have to come up with new uses, such as food ingredients.

Cheap corn has enabled our food system to become industrialized and become dependent on CAFOs. It has allowed us to create an unhealthy food environment, one that has been profitable for food processors and for the health care industry. It’s not what anyone intended, but it’s what we’ve ended up with.

Is corn to blame for our current problems?

Cheney: Corn isn’t the problem. It’s a symbol of how industrialized our food system is.

There are good uses for corn if we grow it efficiently, using less fuel and pesticides and no genetic engineering. It will play a sustainable role in our food supply. But I don’t think it’s the right thing to feed cows, and there is no need to create a cheap sweetener from it.

What purpose do you hope the film achieves?

Cheney: Our hope was to suggest that we put real energy into imaging alternatives to this monolithic system we’ve created; that we see a lot of alternatives, such as organic. The growth of organics is a good sign. And creating shorter food chains, so we know where our food comes from, and we can trace it.

What were some challenges in making the film?
Cheney: The biggest challenge was deciding which stories to include. It surprised us that one acre of corn touched as many avenues as it did. We were surprised by the nitrogen fertilizer run-off into the Gulf of Mexico and by the contamination problems caused by genetically modified corn in Oaxaca.
Another challenge was getting access to where food is produced. We were denied access to high-fructose corn syrup plants and slaughterhouses. Herbicide manufacturers ignored our calls.
As a consumer, I feel that I should be able to find out where my food comes from. There is tremendous opacity in the food system between the consumers and food manufacturers. There’s a real desire to keep consumers from the sources of their food. The stories behind our food are not appetizing.

People of my generation, who are five or six years out of college, feel disconnected from farms.

Why did you choose to grow genetically modified Liberty Link corn on your acre?

Cheney: We wanted to grown corn the way most our neighbors were growing corn, and most of them were growing GM corn.

What has been the reaction to the film?

Cheney: We’ve gotten a good response though we haven’t gotten as much flak as we expected. We’re eager for controversy and debate. I think it’s because the film is evenhanded; we’re not pointing fingers.

One complaint is that we don’t offer solutions. It’s a valid complaint; there are solutions, but we don’t have room for them in the film. Our goal was to raise questions.

What solutions do you see to the problems of industrial agriculture?

Cheney: We have to accept the logic of biodiversity, of diversity in the food supply. The answer lies in finding alternatives, many alternatives, and not easy answers tacked onto the end of a documentary. Rather than tacking on a prescription, I would hope that our film helps in bolstering alternatives and creating sustainability.

We should make it profitable for farmers to produce food that is sustainable and ethical and affordable for consumers who want to buy. Instead we make it difficult for farmers to grow this type of food and expensive for consumers to buy it.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/02/business/fi-corn2

Corn is king -- and therefore a growing problem
Increasing dependence on the grain leaves the U.S. vulnerable to drought-induced price spikes in food and fuel.

Corn is a key element of the U.S. food supply. It is what dairy cows eat to make milk and hens consume to lay eggs. It fattens cattle, hogs and chickens before slaughter. It makes soda sweet. As the building block of ethanol, it is now also a major component of auto fuel.

And that may signal trouble ahead.

Economists are cautioning that the nation's growing dependence on corn would make for a double jolt in the event of a drought across the Midwest: soaring prices not just for food but also for gasoline.

Analysts now warn that a "corn shock" might not be far off -- and it could lead to $5 gas and $3.50 eggs as the effects reverberate across the economy.

"We are replacing price volatility from the Middle East with Midwestern weather price volatility," said Michael Swanson, a Wells Fargo & Co. vice president and agricultural economist.

Such a disaster would occur against a backdrop of soaring prices for basic food items and other commodities that are already stressing the economy. Coffee is up 21% to date, platinum 42% and already high oil an additional 6%.

After a torrid 2007, corn prices have risen an additional 20% this year because of global demand for livestock feed, sweeteners and ethanol. The rush by American farmers to forgo other grains to plant cash-producing corn, along with weather problems, has squeezed wheat supplies, pushing the price of that grain up 21%. Soy has risen 25% this year.

Analysts are already simulating what would happen if a drought hit the corn belt. Bruce Babcock, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University, estimates that corn could reach $8 a bushel from $5.46 now.

It could happen as soon as this summer.

"The risk of a drought right now is higher than normal because of the La Nina we are seeing," Babcock said, referring to the cooling of ocean temperatures that often has a drying effect.

As any farmer can tell you, Mother Nature is fickle. The U.S. has suffered four major weather disasters since 1971 that wiped out 21% to 29% of the corn crop at a time.

Periodic bad weather, including droughts, scorching heat waves and cold, cloudy spells at just the wrong time, has reduced harvests by billions of bushels. Previously, these disasters have raised food prices. The next drought will be the first to affect gas prices.

That's because ethanol -- mostly refined from corn -- will make up about 6% of the nation's gasoline supply this year, and that's expected to rise to 10% over the next five years. The amount of ethanol used in California gasoline is expected to grow at a faster rate, reaching 10% by 2010.

But if there were a crop shortfall, the rising price of corn would prevent ethanol distillers from earning a profit, prompting them to slash production, Babcock said.

Oil companies would have to scramble to fill that sudden gap with conventional gasoline. Prices would soar for both fuels, said Philip K. Verleger Jr., an energy economist in Aspen, Colo.

"One way to see this is to look at what happened last year," Verleger said. Industrial accidents and other refining disruptions -- all factors outside the corn belt -- cut U.S. gasoline production about 10% in February 2007, sending wholesale prices soaring, he said.

If there were a crop failure now, the U.S. would try to ease the crunch by sopping up any excess refining capacity overseas.

A slowing U.S. economy would also blunt demand. But such safety valves won't always exist. "Five years from now, this could be a big, big deal," Verleger said.

Farmers are also worried about what could happen in the short term. "A drought would be bad for everyone. The high prices would hurt my customers, and I would have no crop to sell," said Ron Heck, a fourth-generation soy and corn farmer from Perry, Iowa.

Blame oil companies for part of the problem, said Matt Hartwig, spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Assn. in Washington.

"The oil industry has just not made the investment in refineries to keep up with the demand for gasoline," Hartwig said.

As demand for gasoline outstrips refinery expansions, fuel prices will be linked more tightly with the size of the corn crop. "You might see a point where even the threat of a drought could cause gas prices to rise," Wells Fargo's Swanson said.

Lester R. Brown, an author and president of the Earth Policy Institute, sees a different scenario, one with global implications.

He estimates that as long as oil prices continue to hover around $100 a barrel, ethanol distillers could pay up to $7 a bushel for corn and still make money.

However, Brown said, "if the ethanol producers stay in the market, that will disrupt the food supply."

Because of the interrelationships among crops, a major shortfall in the U.S. harvest could tip global grain and soy markets into chaos. It would affect the prices of food made directly from these commodities, such as bread, pasta and tortillas, and food made indirectly, such as pork, poultry, beef, milk and eggs.

If it happened this summer, it would be especially bad because of the current pace of global food inflation.

"The rest of the world is less able to pay high prices for food. What's annoying for us is life-threatening elsewhere," Brown said.

The shortfall would lead to the "politics of scarcity," in which nations would stop exporting their domestic grain and soy crops to keep food prices under control for their own people.

Even without a crisis in America's corn belt, that's already happening, Brown said.

In January, China levied export tariffs of 5% for corn, rice and soybeans and 20% for wheat to keep grains from leaving the country. Russia, Argentina and other nations also are slapping tariffs on grain exports to protect their food supplies.

All of this has contributed to the growing cost of corn and wheat. With wheat prices at record levels, economists expect American farmers to shift some corn acreage back to wheat, a move that could make corn supplies and prices even more vulnerable to the climate.

Here in the U.S., a corn shortfall would also force federal regulators to make difficult choices. Among them: Should they stick to the ethanol production goals outlined in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act or work to free up corn stocks to replenish the domestic and international food supply?

The government could also lift tariffs on sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and start buying up available product.

Regardless, U.S. consumers would be faced with higher prices for gasoline or food, probably both, analysts believe.

"We could see a spike that would raise prices so much in so many places that it could tip the U.S. into a recession," said Darin Newsom, senior analyst for DTN, an agriculture and energy research firm in Omaha.

More research and improved production of cellulosic ethanol -- made from agricultural waste, switchgrass and other nonfood plant material -- would ease dependence on corn, said Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Assn.

But substantial production of such fuel is at least a decade away, according to government projections.

For now, the U.S. will have to hope for good weather, Brown said.

"Historically, we have had a food economy and an energy economy that were for the most part separate," Brown said. "Now they are starting to fuse."

Offline RojoLeón

  • Brentie's #1 fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,773
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #233 on: August 18, 2012, 04:56:04 pm »
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-watson/drought-food_b_1784920.html

5 Ways to Drought-Proof Your Grocery Budget

Food prices are already going up as a result of the terrible drought in the Midwest. Withered corn and soy crops will likely boost the cost of meat, soft drinks, fast food, and processed food more next year. These foods rely on corn and soy, which are usually cheap because they are so productive and because of heavy government subsidies.

But your groceries can still be wildly affordable. In fact, if you eat as much peanut butter as my family does, your grocery prices might even drop soon. My price checks show prices going up since last fall for my favorite spread, which now can cost 50 percent more than usual. But relief is on the way. Last week, the USDA released a report projecting that the 2012 peanut crop will be up 46 percent over last year.

The drought that is scorching soy beans seems to be not so bad for dried beans and lentils, which are mostly grown in states along the Canadian border and in California.

Here in North Carolina, we've had rain nearly every day, so look for good prices on our top crops of sweet potatoes, bell peppers, and cucumbers. On Aug. 10, the USDA projected that North Carolina should produce 32 percent more peanuts compared to last year and winter wheat production should be up 10 percent. Even corn should be up 30 percent and soybeans up 28 percent.

5 Ways to Save

1) Eat low on the food chain to avoid using costly fuel, scarce water.

An easy way to see what foods will cost more in a drought is to look at the energy and water they require to produce. The higher these ratios are, the more your wallet will feel the effects of bad weather.

At a meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science, Cornell professor Dr. David Pimentel reported that "chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1."

Factory farms where cows are fed grain instead of their natural diet of grass are the worst. Pimentel's analysis also shows that eating low on the food chain reduces demand for water:

    "Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters."


2) Avoid processed food.

Processed food is full of corn and soy, the crops most hit by the drought. It's pervasive in the Standard American Diet. For example, when Dr. Sanjay Gupta got a strand of hair tested to see how much corn was in his diet, he found that 69 percent of the carbon came from corn. Dr. Todd Dawson, the University of California-Berkeley who did the test told him (emphasis mine):

    "We're like corn chips walking because we really have a very, very large fraction of corn in our diets, and we actually can't help it because it's an additive in so many of the foods we find on the market shelves."

Can't help it? People who have corn allergies have a rough time of it, but it's easy and healthy to greatly reduce your corn consumption. Celebrate fresh corn in the summer. Eat some corn bread and corn tortillas. But don't bloat your budget or body by swilling down processed food, which as Michael Pollan points out in Omnivore's Dilemma contains corn in about one in four items in a typical grocery store, including frozen yogurt, margarine, packaged cake mixes, Cheez Whiz, hot dogs, and coffee whitener. On the other hand, Marion Nestle writes that corn is a highly-subsidized crop, so any drought-related increase will be to an artificially low starting price.


3) Go organic to encourage drought-resistant farming.

The Rodale Institute's 30-year farming study found that organic fields out-produce conventional ones during droughts.

    "Organic corn yields were 31 percent higher than conventional in years of drought. These drought yields are remarkable when compared to genetically engineered "drought tolerant" varieties which saw increases of only 6.7 percent to 13.3 percent over conventional (non-drought resistant) varieties."

But can we feed the world using green farming practices? You bet, says a United Nations study:

    "Conventional farming relies on expensive inputs, fuels climate change and is not resilient to climatic shocks, notes the study, which is based on extensive review of existing scientific data.

    "It simply is not the best choice anymore today," Mr. De Schutter stresses. "A large segment of the scientific community now acknowledges the positive impacts of agroecology on food production, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation -- and this is what is needed in a world of limited resources.

4) Don't waste food.

Jonathan Bloom, author of American Wasteland, found "Americans waste more than 40 percent of the food we produce for consumption. That comes at an annual cost of more than $100 billion."

Buy what you will eat, feed your freezer, and start a Stoup container if you don't already have one. My book, Wildly Affordable Organic, is full of tips on reducing waste. The website Expendable Edibles has many fun and even wild tips on squeezing the value out of the food you've already bought.

And don't eat more than you need. It's bad enough putting extra food in the trash, but it's worse putting it on your hips. Eat the right amount of healthy food to save money and get healthy.


5) Buy local food, especially if the weather is good in your area this year.

Buying fresh food locally reduces shipping and storage costs. These savings are usually passed on to the customer. Buying locally is also an inexpensive way way to improve homeland security. A diverse and distributed food system will allow areas with food to help feed others stricken by drought, flood, fire, or even frogs. Global warming puts every area at risk and we're doing almost nothing to avoid what Bill McKibben calls global catastrophe. Food riots are expensive.

I fear that so many stories have appeared on the drought that even in relatively unaffected regions shoppers are avoiding farmers' markets and fresh produce. I talked with Clay Smith of Redbud Farm today, who said that even thought so far he's been able to get by with an irrigation system that uses well water, this has been the hottest July on record. But just before the closing bell at the market today, Redbud Farm and many of the other stands had plenty of wonderful fruit and vegetables left to sell.

Same solution, different problem.

I started the Cook for Good project just over five years ago, when I saw that focusing on thrift when shopping for food triggered a number of good side effects. The basic concept continues to help address many major problems we have today, from global warming to obesity to resisting the influence of Big Food. All of these benefits can be yours just by cooking real food. Now that's delicious!

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #234 on: August 18, 2012, 04:57:56 pm »
Your views are really upsetting man. If we are going to sort this out we need everyone to work together.

Can I ask what it would take for you to comprehend AGW? Obviously for my dissertation I have reams of research material, I can piece together a bundle of peer-reviewed science if you like, balanced with no pre determined view just basic figures.

Your example of just providing one graph is a well known tactic of deniers or skeptics. Wherever that graph came from, it probably was set in a context among others, with the general conclusion leading towards undoubtable CO2 forcings. That or it just doesn't take everything into account.

It would mean a lot if you could answer openly and talk to me about this because understanding a citizen who denies anthropogenic global warming (unless you have ties with any kind of fossil fuel company?) is something I'm not only working on my dissertation but possible future career too.

Thanks.

jonjosuso,

I think you misunderstand the basic position of the majority of sceptics.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Global Warming - most certainly. The planet has been warming for the past 150 years as we come out of the 'Little Ice Age'.

Anthropogenic - most certainly. Man has been pumping CO2 into the atmoshere and this, of its self, will give a temp rise of ~ 1°C for each doubling.

Catastrophic - Highly sceptical. This comes from the high positive feedbacks within the computer climate models. Those models make predictions. See above for an example of those predictions.

There is plenty of discussion in published papers and in the blogs about feedbacks. Read and make up your own mind.

Good luck with the MSc dissertation by the way.

"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #235 on: August 18, 2012, 05:17:03 pm »

This being your definition of verified?

Comparing satellite data with projections relating to surface temperatures - splendid effort, but you're comparing apples with oranges. And all this so you can ignore all the predictions that have been confirmed.

And relying on Spencer, who has made countless wrong statements on climate change - tut tut. It's one rule for the likes of Hansen, and another for deniers, eh?

« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 05:24:27 pm by Bioluminescence »

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #236 on: August 18, 2012, 05:19:55 pm »
jonjosuso,

I think you misunderstand the basic position of the majority of sceptics.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Global Warming - most certainly. The planet has been warming for the past 150 years as we come out of the 'Little Ice Age'.

Anthropogenic - most certainly. Man has been pumping CO2 into the atmoshere and this, of its self, will give a temp rise of ~ 1°C for each doubling.

Catastrophic - Highly sceptical. This comes from the high positive feedbacks within the computer climate models. Those models make predictions. See above for an example of those predictions.

There is plenty of discussion in published papers and in the blogs about feedbacks. Read and make up your own mind.

Good luck with the MSc dissertation by the way.



Funny that, because you and other deniers are the only one who have to bring in catastrophic to make your point.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #237 on: August 18, 2012, 06:29:14 pm »
Comparing satellite data with projections relating to surface temperatures - splendid effort, but you're comparing apples with oranges. And all this so you can ignore all the predictions that have been confirmed.




You saying that the satellite temps are wrong? That lower troposphere temps will diverge from surface temps over several decades?





So. Was the comparison of model to reality your idea of verification?
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Offline Bioluminescence

  • Hidden Gem
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,489
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #238 on: August 18, 2012, 06:35:02 pm »

You saying that the satellite temps are wrong? That lower troposphere temps will diverge from surface temps over several decades?


So. Was the comparison of model to reality your idea of verification?

No, I'm saying surface temperatures and tropospheric temperatures are not the same.

The predictions are +0.2ºC per decade. Observed trends are +0.19ºC per decade. I'd say scientists have got it more or less right.

Offline lfcderek

  • Palooka basher Go ed Del Boy lid. Your right to point out wear I am wrong. Deffo more derek than lfc.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,353
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein
« Reply #239 on: August 18, 2012, 07:16:52 pm »
I'll have another crack.

Climate scientists have made predictions, tested their hypotheses and analysed observations. Their predictions have been verified.

Quote
I'm very happy to change my mind if strong evidence means that such a change is warranted. And incidentally, the Earth is still accumulating heat, most of it in the oceans, because there is still an energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation.






Is this then your idea of model verification?
"Don't let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right."
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn`t learn something from him."
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."