Gaia: CLIMATE CHANGE - What is ZPod:Climate Change?

Re: ZPod:Climate Change 101

http://shelivesintheforest.gaia.com — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:09:51 GMT

I am completely for talking about what we can individually and collectively do to mitigate and also adapt to global warming (in the short term, the temperature will rise regardless of what we do now). I believe there are many areas of discussion about this and much to learn. I do not think North America has even thought about the adaptation part of the equation (the scientists in individual countries have, but I haven't heard anything from the politicians).

From being on other blogs and just starting on this one, I have to say that I am completely opposed, now that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has almost completed putting out the four parts of its climate change report, that we are, on this pod, to waste time discussing those scientists or conservatives who have not accepted the basic fact that climate change is "unequivocal" and "anthropogenic" (caused by man).

I do not think it is a useful exercise to try to learn about all the ways that global warming skeptics have of trying to continue the discussion about whether the basic facts are real or not. The media, at least in Canada, have stopped giving equal time to the skeptics. The articles are now about a huge variety of topics about greening businesses or products, or buildings, or..... many other things.

I know this, because I have wasted my time when I come across skeptics, in trying to locate all the sources behind the items they choose to bring forward. There are many, many more important things I could be doing with the time.

What I should be doing (as I do not believe skeptics have any intention of opening their minds to the facts), is just saying to myself: Do I rely on a voluminous report (hundreds of pages long) by the leading scientists around the world (2000+), whether they wrote parts or peer-reviewed it, as scientists do to their research? Or do I listen to one or two individuals who will never give up their opinions. Fact versus opinion. I'm sorry, I have to choose fact.
We do not need to provide rebuttals to each line of questioning of skeptics. They know that we are not scientists, which is what they rely on. Well, there are not generally not scientists and certainly not reputable scientists.

I find there tends to be a disproportionate number of skeptics on many blogs as there should be for society as a whole. Both Americans and Canadians on the whole are aware of the important of global warming. We do not need to convince everyone to change minds that are already closed.

Let's spend time sharing information or reflections or experience among those with open minds instead.

Re: Take action on Global Warming

http://shelivesintheforest.gaia.com — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:53:05 GMT

Until recently (March), my main focus has been on issues of human rights and child poverty. The environment came in a distant third.

Then a co-worker approached his manager, set up a Green Committee for our unit, and I was voluntold to be a member (four on committee). As a member of the committee, in addition to working with the committee about work-related issues and providing information on a shared website for people to look into for more information on greening various habits at home or at work, I thought I should learn more about global warming.

Because looking at global warming involves looking at many related issues, I thought I should become better informed. So I started to draw up a book list and website list for the shared directory at work. Then I began to read the books and look at some websites.

The more I read, the more it home how dire the consequences would be if global warming was not stopped and then reduced. I started to think of it more personally, as affecting my children or their children's lives. As the mother of two sons, I decided that I would do as much as I could do to make sure there was some kind of planet left for them to live on in the future.

Many green ideas cost money. Some save money as well. I decided to switch my electricity provider to one that provides 100% green power. The company is called Bull Frog Power, and for now, it only services Ontario and Alberta residents. It does cost me more, but is it not worthwhile to protect my sons' quality of life in the future? Is it not worthwhile to protect art, literature, music, soccer, civilization or anything people love about the world? (Nature and family and friends are already a given.)

Organic food often costs a bit more. Although, after reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, I wanted to leave the city and go somewhere where everything would not be polluted. Unfortunately, there is no longer such a place in the world. The fact that we have been polluting not only the earth, but also ourselves, came in loud and clear after the book. I became a vegetarian - not because of animal rights but because an organic diet uses much less energy in the world. I also started to buy as much organic produce or products as I could afford. I can't buy everything organic, but I am headed in that direction.

And although I am not an animal rights activist, after reading in various books about agribusiness which seems to have taken over from smaller, family run farms, and what kinds of conditions animals are raised in, as well as the gigantic manure lagoons that are created, it certainly confirms that less meat is definitely the way to go.

In addition to taking steps myself, I have also written to every Member of Parliament and Senator and the Prime Minister and his Ministers in the Canadian government, to tell them that I was concerned about global warming and to ask them what steps they had taken in their personal lives to reduce their carbon footprint.

Even though the Conservative, federal government is doing very little about global warming, I was very encouraged to see what individuals - of whatever party - were doing on their own about global warming. Some bicycle or walk to work; some have bought hybrid cars. Others who must travel by airplane, try to fly home less often and to also purchase carbon offsets. Sometimes you think there are not a lot of people who are working on the problem, but more and more I do not think that is the case.

I don't know where I read it, but somewhere I read that it will not take 100% involvement to do something about global warming. If there is a committed group of about 10%, they can make or influence others to make changes that will fix the problem. That also seems encouraging to me, as I'm sure everyone knows someone or has heard someone discount the importance of global warming or who just doesn't understand yet what impact it will have on their family in the future.

I even received a phone call from an M.P. in a province other than the one in which I live. I was impressed. He was even a conservative, but he did have children and was doing what he could for the environment. We even had a half-hour discussion about environmental issues, and somehow Iraq and Afghanistan and even Darfur got thrown in at the end.

I don't think it is particularly important what someone tackles first about global warming, as long as the first steps are taken. After one change, the others are easier to make. Finally, it is something that is thought about often in all kinds of places.

I can't say my house and my habits are entirely green, but we're working on it. It gives me a lot of satisfaction to do these things, particularly if I am a bit panicked by reading books on the topic. I think a little panick is a good motivator, but too much may cause someone not to think they can have any impact or influence. Doing something provides a balance on one end for the concern at the other.

I am not sure how it is possible to be both very very alarmed by global warming and also to be optimistic. Generally I can keep both perspectives in mind. I am amazed when I think about people like Al Gore and David Suzuki, who have been talking about the environment and the need to take care of it for so many decades, without the kind of changes they may have expected. You have to wonder how many people could get over the disappointment of having a presidency stolen from them, to dedicate his life to continue spreading the global warming message around the world.

I believe he has had an impact and in ways that he may never hear about. The co-worker I mentioned saw An Inconvenient Truth, which then motivated him to approach our manager about a Green Committee. Being a member of the committee and seeing the movie (his copy) has been such a motivator for me. One of the first things the Green Committee did was to organize a showing of An Inconvenient Truth. About 50 people attended. All of this from one person seeing the movie.

One of the quotes that I read recently that I really think is applicable to global warming and getting changes made is from Margaret Mead. She said:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

I hope you will join me in being a member of this kind of group.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://shelivesintheforest.gaia.com — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:19:24 GMT

Newsweek was lazy and irresponsible in giving Lindzen time in the magazine without getting a non-skeptic scientist to respond and refute the skeptic. In fact, at this point, I think it is reprehensible for a newspaper or magazine to continue to fuel the idea that there still is any debate.

The scientific debate was over long ago. Just because a handful of fringe scientists, no longer respected by the regular scientific community, continue to spout nonsense (although as non-scientists it is hard to tell, which is what they rely on), does not mean their ideas should continue to published and thereby give the general public the mistaken idea that there still is a debate within the scientific community.

The legitimate world-wide scientific community, as represented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sponsored by the United Nations and the World Meterological Association, has given us their studied and researched and peer-reviewed and sourced report (called 4th report, but made up of four reports). The summaries are available online. That report is the current state of scientific research and analysis on the topic.

The real discussions now should be what steps people and businesses and governments should be taking to mitigate climate change and also adapt to it as well (as the temperature will still go up for while until what we do from now on can take its belated effect).

There is a website called PR Watch which "outs" quite a few global skeptics by name or by the organization. Here are a couple of articles mentioning Mr. Lindzen:

Hot Wager

Topics: environment | science Source: Guardian (UK), August 19, 2005 Looking to get in on the action? Try the Climate Change Casino.After months of trying, British climate researcher James Annan has finally found a couple of global warming skeptics willing to put their money where their mouths are. In November of last year, warming skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."

Home » Spin of the Day » Apr 04, 2004

Seeing Green Through Rose-Colored Glasses

Topics: environment | rhetoric | right wing Source: Observer (UK), April 4, 2004"From the heated debate on global warming to the hot air on forests; from the muddled talk on our nation's waters to the convolution on air pollution, we are fighting a battle of fact against fiction on the environment -- Republicans can't stress enough that extremists are screaming 'Doomsday!' when the environment is actually seeing a new and better day," proclaimed an email memo sent to the press secretaries of all Republican congressmen. The email -- sent on February 4 -- bases its assertions that "global warming is not a fact" and that other kinds of environmental degradation aren't really happening on claims by industry supported scientists and organizations, including the Pacific Research Institute (a think tank which has received $130,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998), the discredited Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, and Richard Lindzen, a climate-skeptic scientist who has consistently taken money from the fossil fuel industry. The memo, which was obtained by the Observer, was sent by Republican House Conference director Greg Cist. "It's up to our members if they want to use it or not," Cist told the Observer. "We wanted to show how the environment has been improving. ... We wanted to provide the other side of the story."

Another tip: there is no point while George W. Bush is in power giving credibility to anyone on the government's environmental committee (for example, Inhofe, but that is another story) or in any position in the government or related agencies to do with the environment. You'll know why I say that if you read Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s book, Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and his Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy. Kennedy provides incredible detail on how the Bush government has managed to gut almost every environmental law and how it was done. It is a shocking and eye-opening read about what Bush has been up to at least environmentally.

I may be able to find more arguments used by climate skeptics. I saw it this week and when I remember where I saw it, I will post it, too.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://obeilet01.gaia.com — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:27:08 GMT

Anthony, I realized (after the fact) that I made a mistake when I chose to continue with the hammer analogy. To me it is about the same as asking the question, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” It really doesn’t matter. What matters most in this wonderful moment of now is that we, as a species, accept our spiritual nature and the divine power that goes with that spiritual nature. When we do that we are tuned into our inner knowing that ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. Universal intelligence, moving through every part of creation – all Beings everywhere - allows us (when we listen clearly) to know how to accomplish anything we desire. Finding simple, inexpensive, sensible, workable, practical, innovative and safe ways to clean up our environment, feed, house and cloth every individual on the earth, respect our planet and bring her soil, water and air back into vibrant health and more are all possible if we accept that they are possible. Right now many of us use our energy and power through our ego mind. We use it for greed, war, ego power, competition and control. When we decide to use our spiritual energy and power for cooperation, abundance, peace, personal empowerment, education and other positive aspects of our Beingness we can and will, I firmly believe, accomplish things we may currently feel are not possible. Thanks, Willowbei

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:12:48 GMT

Willowbei, Even if we recognize that energy permeates everything, a hammer is still an inanimate object. Remember my explanation, which hearkens to the systemic character of an organism. A hammer need not be any particular size or any precise shape. It is what it is entirely dependent on the person who forges and finishes it. I fail to see how the fact that a hammer may or may not feel "right" sheds any light on the question whatsoever. If I pick up a hammer, a rifle or whatever, that doesn't feel "right," it just means that whoever made it made it badly. It isn't sound in its construction or balanced in the distribution of its weight. In one case, a person shaped inanimate matter well, in another case they shaped it badly. It says nothing of the materials, plenty about the artisan. Frankly, I don't see what could be the meaning of hammers (or whatever) that could be either right or not within your vision of all things being alive. Would it mean some hammers are alive and some aren't? That would be the end of "everything is alive." I wouldn't belabor this if it didn't seem necessary. I still don't think you have absorbed the essence of my critique of the "Gaia" hypothesis, which is that the earth doesn't have the same kind of systemic character as a living organism. The resemblance is superficial and the distinction clear. That being the case, one can only apply the hypothesis with justice metaphorically. One can melt down a hammer and shape it into something else. As with a ball of wax, one could shape it infinitely, separate it into many different shapes and sizes and roll them all back together again. One can't do that with a squirrel.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://obeilet01.gaia.com — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:02:42 GMT

Anthony, This dialogue is getting very exciting. I appreciate you sharing your views. Although I may be a bit naive (in an earthly sense) when it comes to the business of business, I have an underlying belief that we are Beings of infinite possibility, which is one of the things that “What The Bleep do we Know” discusses. I believe, and I hope I never quit believing, that through the infinite power of Universal Oneness we, as human expressions of that infinite and limitless power have, can and will accomplish much more than our human mind wants to think is possible. When we, as a species, accept our infinite power and use that power wisely there is so much we can do that we have thought we can’t do. Miracles happen every day to someone somewhere on this planet. I believe all things are possible. As we accept our true spiritual nature we become more morally and ethically (in human terms) directed. As a species, as a culture, as a group, as individuals we can help create a world that honors life to the fullest. I believe that is part of what Zaadz is about. It is not money that keeps us from producing cleaner power or from “discovering” better ways to feed, clothe and house ourselves and each other, it is our lack of understanding that we are One. Each person that remembers his/her truth about Oneness helps our planet move closer to all Beings remembering the truth about Oneness. OK, I have to say something about the hammer analogy. In terms of Oneness a hammer is alive. In terms of energy a hammer is alive. Have you not picked up a hammer and had it feel “just right”? Have you not picked up a hammer and had it feel “strange” or “not right”. I know I have done that. When we are in touch with our Oneness we can feel the aliveness that is in everything. We know when we resonate with something, be it a house, a car, a person or a hammer. Within our culture we have been taught to disregard our “instincts” (our spiritual connection to all life – Oneness). Some of us are better than others at keeping those instincts in tact. Some of us are working diligently to remember that we have those instincts and how to use them. It may appear that this dialogue has moved quite a bit from the topic of Global Climate Change, but if we think in terms of Oneness and Spiritual Power and our natural way of creating the world in which we live (consciously or unconsciously) it is part of the same thing. When we allow ourselves to realize or Oneness and our interdependence upon each other, as well as our uniqueness and our independence, we begin to understand the we have it within our power to take the steps (and they can be as easy or as difficult as we decided they are going to be) necessary to honor ourselves and our physical world. I guess that is it for today. Thanks

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:12:46 GMT

Willowbei, I'm delighted that you take the opportunity to express yourself about these important issues. It is with regret that I disagree. You fail to make any case against my actual arguments as to whether the earth is properly described as "alive" in a non-metaphorical sense. To say "energy is alive thus everything is alive, in its own way" is just an evasion." You might as well argue that a hammer is alive. Surely there's a meaningful difference in the way a hammer might be thought alive and the way a squirrel might be. There is nothing in what I have written to suggest that we shouldn't behave responsibly with regard to our use of resources and creation of wealth. Whether the earth is "alive" or not, we harm ourselves by ruining the environment we live in. The problem, I submit, is that the choices aren't necessarily so easy. There are always tradeoffs. For example, organic farming has various advantages, but it has disadvantages also. Since we consume organic products almost exclusively in my household I know that one of these is cost. The use of fertilizers and pesticides is problematic but it increases production tremendously. I've heard it argued persuasively that the world could not produce the quantity of food it does if it relied exclusively on organic methods. It is simply not true that "we could easily put as many people to work producing products in a cleaner way." That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make that happen more often, but if there weren't economic advantages to doing it the "dirtier" way, people wouldn't be doing it. That ought to be obvious. You're right in positing that "when the pollution load becomes too heavy ... it won't matter where one works." I'm only saying that it's not a choice of pollution versus no-pollution, it's a matter of working out the tradeoffs. Great economic benefits flow from industry, along with the waste it produces. It's easy for the industrialized countries to tell the others they can't enjoy those benefits. Indigenous people are not the ones cutting down the rainforests Well, they're not the only ones, but traditional slash-and-burn farming is part of the problem today. It was not native people that ran buffalo off of cliffs (that didn’t start happening until the white man showed up). That may fit your dogma about the nature of "the white man" versus "native people," but it's not true. Here's the homepage of a Unesco World Heritage site that basically celebrates this technique as practiced by "native people." We would probably agree that there is an element of hubris in the modern mentality that replaces awe of the universe with the attitude of regarding it as something to be manipulated. I think we would be allies in asking that we recapture or reinforce that awe of the universe where it is lacking. That said, I'll reiterate that good husbandry of resources need not perpetuate the myth of the noble savage. Allow me to critique what you wrote: In general most indigenous cultures realized the wonder of the bounty around them, gave thanks to (whatever creator they recognized) for that bounty and harvested that bounty with great care in order that it should continue. Most indigenous cultures also recognize the vastness of life and respect the life of Mother Earth. This is a vast generalization that imposes a current environmentalist way of looking at things on numberless peoples of the past. Where else does this idea come from? Surely "most indigenous cultures" over the history and prehistory of humanity had no concept of environment per se. They no doubt felt at the mercy of what we would call nature. Sometimes they found abundance, sometimes they starved to death. Living in such conditions would certainly inculcate a sense of awe, but it does not mean that people uniformly used resources wisely. It's just as likely that in many cases population growth resulted in the outstripping of resources leading in some cases to depletion and conflict with other bands/tribes, and in some cases to extinction. It's all too easy to romanticize the simple life of pre-agricultural pre-industrial peoples. A more sober critique appreciates the benefits and liabilities and, as I said, weighs the tradeoffs. Certainly "our precious planet," as you say, "is the future of our survival." We need to conserve our environment, but it won't do to simply say we must "do everything possible." Rather, we have to carefully weigh costs and benefits as we make decisions, realizing that there is no easy answer.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://obeilet01.gaia.com — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:49:23 GMT

Anthony, It is clear that you and I come from very different positions on this whole issue. I accept the quantum physics view that everything is energy and that energy is always changing form. Energy is alive thus everything is alive, in its own way. To speak specifically regarding the earth I feel it is clear that the earth is alive. We see evidence of it every day in the activity of volcanoes, the weather conditions that are constantly affecting us, the shrinking of glaciers and the expansion of deserts. With your opinion that the earth is not alive I can see how you might disregard my views about taking care of our earth. I do not know, because you have not specifically said, if you feel that our earth sustains us or doesn’t sustain us. Over the years it has been proven that organic farming methods increase the health of the soil and the nourishment of the crops grown on that soil (a fact you might choose not to accept, and that is your right). Our consumer economy (see my blog for my essay on money) has created a market for chemicals and built up a huge infrastructure to supply those chemicals to farmers. In this we are not only harming ourselves we are harming our earth. A couple of more comments, please. Indigenous people are not the ones cutting down the rainforests. It was not native people that ran buffalo off of cliffs (that didn’t start happening until the white man showed up). In general most indigenous cultures realized the wonder of the bounty around them, gave thanks to (whatever creator they recognized) for that bounty and harvested that bounty with great care in order that it should continue. Most indigenous cultures also recognize the vastness of life and respect the life of Mother Earth. As far as poor people gaining from working at places that pollute our planet, that is an argument that doesn’t wash. We could easily put as many people to work producing products in a cleaner way and helping clean up the pollution we have created. When the pollution load becomes too heavy upon the planet it won’t matter where one works if one can’t breath to work. Knowing what we know about the pollution we (as a species) have produced it is our moral, ethical and logical obligation to begin rectifying the situation ASAP. You probably disagree with me, but I feel it is important to express what I feel. We need to do everything possible to help our precious planet because it is the future of our survival.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:40:53 GMT

Drake, I'm not sure what kind of elaboration you may be looking for, or what I can provide beyond the succinct but comprehensive characterization I gave. If there is a room "teeming" with people, would you say the room was alive? My point is that the individuals populating that room are self-sustaining organisms but the "room" is not self-sustaining - it's just a space those individuals inhabit. The earth has in common with a living thing that exists in a certain equilibrium but the biostasis of a living thing is self-referent, the equilibrium of the earth is not. It's simply an agglomeration of phenomena whose relations are basicaly accidental. If my liver fails, my system fails. If some specific organism or group of organisms fail on earth they may well be replaced by others without affecting the overall equilibrium of forces. In other words, while the earth-as-living-thing may be an attractive metaphor, it is just that: metaphor, not reality. When tested, this metaphor, as with the case of all metaphors, will eventually fail on some crucial point of analogy.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://magi.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:31:51 GMT

Anthony I was hoping you would expand on your closing sentence:

"The earth teems with life, but it is not alive in the way we are."

Specifically I was looking for the dialectic between how we as an organism are a live and the nature of the Earth's existence.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:15:09 GMT

One of the biggest concerns is that it is not a few that get rich by activities that create pollution but rather that vast numbers of ordinary people will be held in abject poverty if denied the benefits of industry. That's not a trivial argument, especially if (and I say if) human activity is not driving a disastrous change in climate. One can certainly agree with the sentiment that it's a dirty bird that fouls its own nest and, further, that we must cultivate and conserve the resources that we need. However, there are tradeoffs with everything. People always have and always will alter the environment and create waste. I agree we should try to minimize that waste, but at the same time, we shouldn't trivialize the benefits we enjoy from fossil-fuel driven industry. It is surely not true that "indigenous and aboriginal peoples" invariably "knew how to live in a sustainable symbiotic way with the world around them." More often than not they had respect for the forces that they struggled with, though they still created tools to gain an edge against them. Certainly they lived in a "sustainable" way to the extent that they survived for some period, but they often destroyed their environments and had to adapt to changing circumstances or move on. Think, for example, of the extinction of the megafauna of North America, or the fact that some of the continent's inhabitants used to drive herds of bison off precipices, killing more than they could use. But one doesn't need the fantasy of the noble savage to argue good husbandry of resources. The earth is full of diverse organic and inorganic things occurring together within the equilibrium of natural forces. I say equilibrium, but of course it is a dynamic state with some features rather static, many others very dynamic. To hypostasize this into something analogous to a very precisely wrought, self-identified and self-sustaining system such as the human body is fanciful. The earth teems with life, but it is not alive in the way we are.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://obeilet01.gaia.com — Sat, 26 May 2007 19:38:26 GMT

As a person that believes in our ultimate spiritual nature I know that whatever comes about on our precious planet is okay. As a person that believes that we, individually and collectively create our lives I know that each of has had some part in creating the world in which we live. Having said that let me say that we, as a species (especially as a “modern”, “controlling” and “we know batter than nature” representation of our species) have not done all we can to “walk gently upon this earth”. Indigenous and aboriginal peoples, all over the planet, had and have respect for the earth, our mother. They knew and know how to live in a sustainable symbiotic way with the world around them. To me it doesn’t matter if “global climate change”/”global warming” is really happening or not. To me what matters is that I walk as softly as I possibly can (in my current situation) upon this precious earth. Our precious planet is alive just as we are and this earth that sustains us will take the action necessary to heal itself in the same way our bodies take the actions necessary to heal themselves. From my perspective it is important that we act in ways that respect our planet and each other. It is important that we live lives that honor the wonder and glory of the earth on which we remain dependent for physical life. Adding pollution to our air and water are not in the best interest of our planet and are not in our individual and/or collective best interest. A few people may get rich from activities that foster pollution but the damage done to our globe is not in any way justified by physical wealth for a small minority. Let us quit building “muscle” cars. Let us build more public transportation. Let us foster more telecommuting. Let us learn to live a life that is more sustainable. This does not have to mean “giving up” those things that are innately important to living a “good life”. It only means being more conscious about the lifestyles we lead. It means making choices that are healthier for us as individuals, as a society and as a species. To me it doesn’t matter if we, as human beings, have had a significant input into the current change in the climate of the globe or not. Let us stop arguing, stop making excuses, stop procrastinating and start implementing the changes that foster global, societal and personal health. Let us start taking steps to build a world that is sustainable for those who come after us. We know what to do and we know how to do it. Building more six-lane freeways instead of a quality rapid transit system is not the answer. Spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere instead of being conscious about our air quality is not the answer. Self-love and self-awareness are part of the answer. We can do it one person at a time. Thanks, Willowbei

MIT Skeptic Speaks

http://AnthonyODonnell.gaia.com — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:50:31 GMT

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT, takes issue with global warming alarmism and methodologies in "Why So Gloomy?".

Re: Take action on Global Warming

http://my-head.gaia.com — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:17:46 GMT

IT may be the case at long last that our leaders have reached a global understanding that paves the way for a replacement to the Kyota protocol !! ??

Take action on Global Warming

Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:07:57 GMT

Lets stop the talk and do something:

We could all start by doing these things -

Email George W.Bush and ask him why he won't sign the Kyoto Protocol.
Email John Howard and ask him why he won't sign the Kyoto Protocol.

Here are 50 things you can do to be part of the solution:

IN YOUR HOME
1. Recycle everything you can: newspapers, cans, glass bottles and jars, aluminum foil, motor oil, scrap metal, etc.
2. Don't use electrical appliances for things you can easily do by hand, such as opening cans.
3. Use cold water in the washer whenever possible.
4. Re-use brown paper bags to line your trash can instead of plastic bags. Re-use bread bags and the bags you bring your produce home in.
5. Store food in re-usable containers, instead of plastic wrap or aluminum foil.
6. Save wire coat hangers and return them to the dry cleaners.
7. Take unwanted, re-usable items to a charitable organization or thrift shop.
8. Don't leave water running needlessly.
9. Turn your heat down, and wear a sweater.
10. Turn off the lights, TV, or other electrical appliances when you are out of a room.
11. Flush the toilet less often. (If you cut flushing in half, you'll save up to 16.5 gallons a day.)
12. Turn down the heat and turn off the water heater before you leave for vacation.
13. Recycle your Christmas Tree. (Read all the things you can do.)

IN YOUR YARD
14. Start a compost pile.
15. Put up birdfeeders, birdhouses, and birdbaths.
16. Pull weeds instead of using herbicides.
17. Use only organic fertilizers. (They are still the best.)
18. Compost your leaves and yard debris, or take them to a yard debris recycler. (Burning them creates air pollution, and putting them out with the trash wastes landfill space.)
19. Take extra plastic and rubber pots back to the nursery.
20. Plant short, dense shrubs close to your home's foundation to help insulate your home against cold.
21. Use mulch to conserve water in your garden.

IN YOUR CAR
22. Keep your car tuned up.
23. Carpool, if possible.
24. Use public transit whenever possible.
25. On weekends, ride your bike or walk instead.
26. Buy a more fuel-efficient model (such as a hybrid or electric) when you're ready for a new car.
27. Recycle your engine oil.
28. Keep your tires properly inflated to save gas.
29. Keep your wheels properly aligned to save your tires. (It's safer too.)
30. Don't litter our roads and highways. Save trash and dispose of it at a rest stop.

AT YOUR BUSINESS
31. Recycle office and computer paper, cardboard, etc. whenever possible.
32. Use scrap paper for informal notes to yourself and others.
33. Print or copy on both sides of the paper.
34. Use smaller paper for smaller memos.
35. Re-use manila envelopes and file folders.
36. Hide the throw-away cups, and train people to use their washable coffee mugs. Use washable mugs for meetings too.

WHEN YOU'RE SHOPPING
37. Avoid buying food or household products in plastic or styrofoam containers whenever possible. (They cannot be recycled and do not break down in the environment.)
38. Think twice about buying "disposable" products. (They really aren't disposable and are extravagant wastes of the world's resources.)
39. Buy paper products instead of plastic if you must buy "disposables." They break down better in the environment and don't deplete the ozone layer as much.
40. Check the energy rating of major appliances you purchase. Buy only the most-energy-efficient models.
41. Ask questions. Don't buy products, such as styrofoam, that are hazardous to the environment or manufactured at the expense of important habitats such as rain forests.
42. Buy locally grown food and locally made products when possible.
43. Don't buy products made from endangered animals.

PERSONAL EFFORTS
44. Join a conservation organization. Browse the JustGive Guide or search by keyword to find an environmental organization you would like to support.
45. Volunteer your time to conservation projects.
46. Give money to conservation projects.
47. Switch to a vegetarian diet. (Raising animals for food consumes vast quantities of natural resources, including water, land, and oil; destroys habitats; and generates a tremendous amount of water and air pollution.)
48. Convert by example. Encourage your family, friends, and neighbors to save resources too.
49. Learn about conservation issues in your community or state. Write your legislators and let them know where you stand on the issues.
50. Teach children to respect nature and the environment. Take them on hikes or camping. Help them plant a tree or build a birdhouse. Teach them by example.

If we all did just a few of these things then it WOULD make a difference.

Re: ZPod:Climate Change 101

Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:38:12 GMT

if we collectively do it right, ZPod:CLIMATE CHANGE will be one of the most informed forums on Climate Change, holding both opposing views together, while simultaneously promoting awareness of environmental issues and then some more.

Very Aristotelian of you! (Which is a compliment.) I'm so glad you've started this pod. Human-induced climate change is one of the most pressing concerns we face as a species. The pathological nature of human-earth relations underpin most of the inter-human problems that we experience.

Thanks.

Re: ZPod:Climate Change 101

http://coolmel.gaia.com — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:07:25 GMT

well, there are are a number of things you can do.

you can share legitimate sources PRO or CON Climate Change on

Facts, News, Research, Resources, and Intelligent Opinions

you can also choose to articulate your views or your current understanding of the Climate Change issue on

What Does Climate Change Mean To YOU?

you can aslo discuss Climate Change in the

Climate Change Coffee Cooler

you can use this Pod to enrich your own understanding of Climate Change by reading stuff posted by others.

you can also choose to do nothing at all and just lurk on this pod if that's what you feel like doing :)

expounding on what i mentioned previously, the goal of this Pod is to collect as much legitimate information on Climate Change coupled with intelligent discussions of people without getting lost in ZERO-SUM debates.

if we collectively do it right, ZPod:CLIMATE CHANGE will be one of the most informed forums on Climate Change, holding both opposing views together, while simultaneously promoting awareness of environmental issues and then some more.

Re: ZPod:Climate Change 101

http://procrastin8.gaia.com — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:45:35 GMT

I read what you said but was bewildered. What does that mean that we will do?

ZPod:Climate Change 101

http://coolmel.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:47:37 GMT

"In today’s highly interdependent world, individuals and nations can no longer resolve many of their problems by themselves. We need one another. We must therefore develop a sense of universal responsibility . . . It is our collective and individual responsibility to protect and nurture the global family, to support its weaker members, and to preserve and tend to the environment in which we all live."

THE DALAI LAMA

This is a pod devoted to both biased and unbiased discussions about the issue of Climate Change. Facts, hyperlink to facts and research, enlightened and intelligent conversations will be the main contents of this pod instead of ZERO-SUM debates.

The purpose of this group/pod is to be the most passionately informed and compassionately inspired group/pod on the topic of Climate Change, to raise the awareness of not only the general public but of our own awareness as well.