Global: Climate Change

How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age

 
New research on the Great Ocean conveyor belt and climatology show How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age. A report in The Independent claims new research also suggests Britain is likely to be plunged into an ice age within our lifetime by global warming. Some reports claim Clima te Collapse is The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare.

Current models of climate change assume a gradual process, but some geoscientists say Sudden Climate Change is the historical norm. While there is a vigorous debate in scientific circles over whether global warming matters, Tony Blair's chief scientist has launched a withering attack on President George Bush for failing to tackle climate change, which he says is more serious than terrorism. While Bush dithers on climate change for the benefit of corporations, New England states confront Bush with climate change plans.

The World Health Organisation recently said 150,000 people died due to global warming in 2000, and the death toll could double again in the next 30 years if current trends are not reversed. Another scientific paper predicted Global Warming to Kill Off 10 per cent of Species by 2050. Global Warming is likely to trigger a potenti al water crisis globally, and Hotter summers, fewer frosts for Australia.

Debates and Actions around and outside the Climate Conference in Milan in December 2003 highlighted the root cause of climate change, the fossil fuel economy. According to a recent report to US Dept. of Energy on Peak Oil, "Peaking will be catastrophic". The lack of action by the United Nations, should make people around the world aware not to depend on states and corporations, but instead to create social-ecological alternatives in our daily lives. Or maybe its time to start preparing for Life after the Oil Crash.

Rising Tide climate Justice Network | Vital Climate Graphics | The discovering of Global Warming

homepage:: http://

add a comment on this article

Look who's finally looking into climate change!

solar roller 12.Feb.2004 02:11

The Pentagon and the corporados have finally discovered climate disruption:

 http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584-1,00.html

can the fucking Whitehouse be far behind?

Interested in Reversing Global Warming

Aaron Vallejo 13.Feb.2004 23:56

Kyoto is trying to reduce global warming. But are we readily wanting to reduce it, no we want to reverse global warming! This is the strategy to do just that.

Eco-effectiveness is the 21st Century design: a tree

We have great things to regenerate.

The filters of the future will no longer be on the ends of pipes,
they will be in our heads.

The design of the 21st Century is being based on the design of a tree. Study the book Cradle to Cradle. The authors write the potential goals of human design on pg 90 “buildings create more energy than they consume, water leaving factories is cleaner than entering, etc”.

Both of which have already been accomplished.
Oberlin College  http://www.oberlin.edu/campusmap/South.htm and Rohner Textile  http://www.climatex.com/en/start_e.html

Here’s an academic journal talking about eco-effectiveness:
 http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-a/37/i23/pdf/1203anastas.pdf

There are magazines on eco-effectiveness.
 http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98oct/industry.htm,  http://www.time.com/time/reports/environment/heroes/heroesgallery/0,2967,mcdonough,00.html,  http://www.noetic.org/ions/HTML/Online|0Library/nsrev/review_archives/issue64/r64holland.pdf,  http://www.greenmac.com/bioneers/McDonough/

The Cradle to Cradle movement does not promote lean production or dematerialization per sa with the intention of reducing the ecological footprint of humanity. That movement is eco-efficiency: do more with less. Eco-efficiency was adopted by business after Rio Conference in 1992.

Eco-effectiveness, Cradle to Cradle, and the Next Industrial Revolution does instead promote re-materialization and the abundance of energy and material used by humans. Here’s the requirement, as long as these materials are designed to be totally safe for air, water and soil and children of all species (biological nutrient) or as safe, perpetually up-cycled material for industry (technical nutrient). When everything is put into either biological or technical cycles we stop mining and logging the Earth for paper and boxes and landfills and incinerators become obsolete.
Because we have eliminated the concept of waste.

We need to do the right things right, instead of doing the wrong things right; we need the correct direction and then we can get on with being efficient at it.

Eco-effectiveness is about a sustaining agenda not a sustainable agenda.

A sustainable agenda is maintenance. To sustain is the maintenance of a system. In our case this would mean the maintenance of a system that balances destruction and conservation. A system that gives better masks to workers, where fossil fuels are using for efficiently, fewer people die from toxins, goal is zero waste. Sounds mostly dark and boring to me.

What I think is exciting is a “sustaining agenda”, a system that regenerates the natural world and society. Where products are good for the natural world, communities and the economy. Where we restore wetlands, grasslands, great forests and people’s hope because we no longer get our raw materials from the natural world we get them from closed loop technical and biological metabolisms. This is where we love all the children of all species for all time. A sustaining agenda would not need masks because the products give people nutrients not cancer, we use the sun, no one dies from toxins and waste can not be conceived because we are working with Nature.

The energy for our economy will come solely from the sun, because every time we use nuclear, fossil fuel we are not working with Nature. Trees do not make nuclear reactors in their trunks. Where we stop trying to reduce global warming. We engage in reversing global warming. However, right now solar collectors are not true technical nutrients, they are working directly on that right now.

The daily solar energy on the Earth is between 5,000 (McDonough 2003), 13,000 (Rifkin, 2003) and 20,000 (Neville, 1995) times more energy than humans presently use every day.

Let's turn Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons into the Celebration of the Commons. We have solar income let's go catch it. On decentralized, massive, slow, quiet, technical nutrient wind turbines (blades length 90m). A cask crop that happened to be flying over head.

One of the authors of Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough, gave a speech to the media in front of Bush II
 http://www.npr.org/programs/npc/2002/020424.wmcdonough.html
Why did we not hear about this?!!

Here are other audios that I have found, if you find any more send them my way please!
 http://talktotara.com/health_mind_body.php under Cradle to Cradle
 http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=378
 http://www.savvytraveler.org/show/features/2002/20020628/interview1.shtml
 http://wpr.org/webcasting/ideas_audioarchives.cfm?Code=hoe under McDonough
 http://www.kpbx.org/news/poverty/mcdonough.htm

Every where you look and see pollution, you see a negative that is under attack because it does not makes as much money. Pollution is about to disappear because this is about business. Study it, critique it, share it. I think we should stop teaching hopelessness.

My favourites:
Lecture explaining the Cradle to Cradle design:
 http://wesley.stanford.edu/Multimedia/lectures/mcdonough.ram

Movie explaining the theory and successful examples:
 http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/11372.php

Radio audio of Cradle to Cradle infront of Bush II:
 http://www.npr.org/programs/npc/2002/020424.wmcdonough.html

The Next Industrial Revolution honours ecology by obeying Nature’s laws, it honours socialism to be fair and equitable, and it honours economy to generate revenue. Where the question of capitalism shifts from “how much can I get for how little I give?” to “how much can I give for all that I get?”

It is time to wage full-scale peace.

Cheers,
Aaron Vallejo

hard to top that comment but.. . .

piet 16.Feb.2004 13:52

lemme mention/point out someone who has dedicated his career and savings to promoting a particularly natural way to influence climate is Don Weaver, he helped an engineer (who only appears to have a rock to grind), John Hamaker, publish his findings on cycles of fluids and fluxes between fluid and solid back in the early 80's; now there is a sequel, both free as pfd at  http://www.remineralize.org - basically argues for a grand boost in biomass by means of distributing the most mistifying motherrock product known to contain minute but essential traces usually carried around by glacier and volcano far and wide; if we learn to tec that sorta naturebuzz they will agree to delegate that bit of their nitgrit biz to us nitwit bozos aweright?  http://poetpiet.tripod.com

read also

neo_cortex@stopimperialism.be 23.Feb.2004 12:54

"Abstract: In 2025 US aerospace forces can "own the weather" by capitalizing on emerging technologies
and focusing development of those technologies to arfighting applications. Such a capability offers the
warfighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to
impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The
purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather modification system to
achieve military objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map."
 http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/report.htm

and:


"The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) will develop new experimental research capabilities and will conduct research programs to exploit emerging ionosphere and radio science technologies related to advanced defense applications."

 http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/haarp.html