Our Oceans are Under Attack

Shutting off Tap Water: Revenge of the Rainforest

http://www.globalresearch.ca/shutting-off-tap-water-revenge-of-the-rainforest/5434322

Where will its 20 million inhabitants go?

Nobody knows!

Now, imagine a city the size of the State of New York with its 20 million people subjected to the same water-rationing plan. As it happens, São Paulo, capital city of Brazil, home to 20 million, is such a city

Brazil contains an estimated 12% of the world’s fresh water, but São Paulo is running dry.

Fatally, the city’s Cantareira Water Reservoir (water resource for 6.2 million of the city’s 20 million) is down to 6% of capacity, yes, six percent! The city’s other reservoirs are also dangerously low. Perilously, São Paulo’s days of water supply are numbered.


The Atlantic Forest stretches along the eastern coastline of the country. A few hundred years ago, the forest was twice the size of Texas. Today, it is maybe 15% of its former self and what remains is highly fragmented. The forest harbors 5% of the world’s vertebrates and 8% of Earth’s plants. Illegal logging, land conversion to pasture, and expansion of urban areas have put extreme stress on the Atlantic Forest. The same holds true for the giant Amazon rainforest.

Brazil holds one-third of the world’s remaining rainforests. In the past, deforestation was the result of poor subsistence farmers, but times change. Today, large landowners and corporate interests have cleared the rainforest at an unprecedented rate. At the current rate, the Amazon rainforest will be further reduced by 40% by 2030.

Rainforests are the oldest ecosystem on earth and arguably one of the most critical resources for sustainability of life, dubbed “the lungs of the planet.”

National Geographic magazine summarizes the plight of rainforests in a recent article, stating: “In the time it takes to read this article, an area of Brazil’s rainforest larger than 200 football fields will have been destroyed. The market forces of globalization are invading the Amazon.”4

Yes, within 20 minutes, only 20, the Amazon rainforest loses the equivalent of 200 football fields. Americans connect with football. It is one of the biggest revenue-producing sports in history. And, that’s not all; football fields provide a good descriptive tool of dimensions. In fact, 200 football fields are equivalent to the space required for 1,000 stand alone single-family homes, which means the Amazon rainforest loses equivalent to 72,000 stand alone single-family homes, or a small city, per day, everyday, gone forever. That’s a lot of rainforest gone day-in day-out, which ironically provides timber for building houses, but, in point of fact, most of it is burned away. Poof it’s gone, big puffs of smoke into the atmosphere.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-28/hamad-meat-the-hidden-culprit-of-climate-change/5414894

All as scientists warn of the need to move away from dependency on animals as a food source.

When those of us who are concerned by the devastating effects of animal agriculture raise the issue, somehow the focus shifts from saving the planet to respecting personal choice, as if the choice to eat certain foods is sacrosanct.

We have to compromise our personal preferences every day in the interests of public safety. Smoking prohibitions, speed limits, alcohol restrictions, even initiatives promoting recycling and "green" household products all affect our choices.

But, for some reason, requesting people reduce their consumption of meat is taken as a personal affront to their very being. Humans have been eating animals for so long, and in such large quantities, we think we are entitled to their bodies, regardless of the consequences.

Clearly, our dependence on fossil fuels has to change but it is quite remarkable that we actually consider restructuring our entire energy system as an easier and more viable undertaking than simply altering our food habits.

The Guardian's food writer Jay Rayner unwittingly demonstrates this in his reaction to a University of Aberdeen study that found a worldwide adoption of a vegan diet would reduce CO2 emissions by a massive 7.8 gigatonnes. But, rather than take this on board, Rayner chooses instead to shrug his shoulders, declare that "the world is not going vegan any time soon" and condemn "self-righteous vegans" for "making airy proclamations about the way forward when [they] have no power whatsoever to make it happen".

But why don't we have the power to make it happen?

Even if we don't all go completely vegan, surely the takeaway is that everyone should eat less meat and more plants, and not just on Meatless Mondays?

It's easy to point the finger only at fossil fuels because this requires no major personal sacrifice. We can pin all the blame on big corporations, demand policy change, and then feel good about ourselves by declaring on Facebook that we are against dredging the Barrier Reef and we don't support fracking.

But meat is different. Meat means we have to change. It means we have to sacrifice something we enjoy, something we believe we are entitled to. And most of us simply aren't willing to compromise that entitlement, so we pretend that the idea of a worldwide shift to a plant-based diet is simply too ridiculous to contemplate. That's if we even acknowledge the crisis at all.

So we sign petitions and attend demonstrations. Some of us even drive less, take shorter showers, and use eco light bulbs. But nothing it seems, not even the looming threat of environmental catastrophe, could compel a significant number of us to simply change our diet.

 

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...uidelines-herald-healthier-sustainable-future

A panel of scientists appointed by the Obama administration to help advise the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans – have shaped a much brighter future for public health in America and made a great leap toward addressing our country’s chronic disease epidemic as well as its environmental woes.

How did they do this? Essentially by telling America to get meat and other animal products off our plates. “A dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet,” the report says.

But no more. The 2015 report knocks meat off the list of recommended foods and singles out vegetarian diets as one of the healthiest eating patterns. Although much improved, the new report does have some flaws. It continues to promote dairy products and seafood, which have also been strongly linked to chronic disease and environmental devastation. The main message, however, is clear: It’s time to kick our addiction to meat, because it’s killing us – and our planet.

Finally, envision America’s beautiful lakes, rivers and oceans less polluted from factory farm runoff; our landscapes replenished with native animals and plants no longer exterminated because they compete with livestock or feed crops; and newly verdant wild lands and forests, relieved of the pressures of resource-intensive animal agriculture.

This could be our future. Federal dietary guidelines that recognize the lifesaving potential of plant-based foods would empower policymakers and ordinary citizens to tackle so many of our country’s biggest problems, from its leading killer, heart disease, to the collapse of ecosystems across the continent – both of which are overwhelmingly linked to the meat-heavy standard American diet.

As a registered dietitian, I applaud the advisory committee for telling Americans what I’ve been telling my patients for years: Plant-based diets are the key to good health and a happier planet.

 

Report: Solar Will Dominate World Energy Supply in Just 15 Years

We should really feel for those poor fossil fuel barons....not!

http://www.alternet.org/environment/report-solar-will-dominate-world-energy-supply-just-15-years

Deutsche Bank has produced a 175 page report that will have the Koch bros and their bought and paid for minions as well as every oil, coal and natural gas company weeping in their Chevas Regal or Glenfiddich.
The report suggests that solar generated energy will be the dominant source of energy worldwide within the next 15 years. Not only that, but the solar industry will generate $5 trillion in revenue in that time while displacing fossil fuels. Ohhh...I LOVE it!!
The analysts at Deutsche, led by Vishal Shah, state the solar market potential is massive. Even today, at only 1%(130GW) installed of the possible 6,000GW, it still produces $2 trillion annually. They also predict that in the next 15 years, the market in solar will increase 10 fold!

Their predictions are underpinned by several observations. The first is that solar is at grid parity in more than half of all countries, and within two years will be at parity in around 80 per cent of countries. And at a cost of just 8c/kWh to 13c/kWh, it is up to 40 per cent below the retail price of electricity in many markets. In some countries, such as Australia, it is less than half the retail price.

Deutcshe Bank believes that solar demand is going to accelerate in the US and elsewhere thanks to policies that support solar and the constant fall of the price of solar. Indeed they posit that the price of solar could fall below 2c/kWh by 2050.

The other part of this prediction rests on energy storage. The report from Deutsche Bank believes that energy storage, the "holy grail"...or "killer app"... of solar, will be both developmentally ready and cheap enough in five years to make solar more than competitive, even in large scale applications. In fact the cost of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by half within the past year

They estimate the cost of lithium-ion batteries, currently at ~$500/kWh, will decrease by 20-30% yearly! This would bring batteries such as lithium-ion to the point of mass adaptation for commercial use by 2020.
This report doesn't even touch on electric vehicles...and there is a huge variety out there. Cars, motorcycles, commercial vehicles and panel trucks, airplanes and yes..pick-up trucks are finally being sorted. For those who want some eye candy, here's the 2015 line-up of electric cars! http://cleantechnica.com/car-answers/

I REALLY feel for those poor fossil fuel barons....not! Boo hoo ... won't someone please call a waaaaambulance?

http://cleantechnica.com/car-answers/

 

zero point energy for all.!!

 

Why fresh water shortages will cause the next great global crisis

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/08/how-water-shortages-lead-food-crises-conflicts

...

 

The twisted morality of climate denial: How religion and American exceptionalism are undermining our future

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/08/the...an_exceptionalism_are_undermining_our_future/

Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, Americans remain split on climate change. Here's why

Climate change challenges people’s traditional beliefs about God

James Inhofe, the senior Republican senator from Oklahoma and author of “The Great Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” has recently become chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee. As a result, we can expect his committee, and perhaps the Senate as a whole, to proceed on the basis that human-induced climate change is nothing but a twisted fantasy concocted by misguided intellectuals.

Ever since the Western world became Christian, people in our society have regarded nature as God’s exclusive handiwork; and ever since St. Francis, they have regarded it as evidence of His benevolence. Climate change indicates that the entire natural order is turning against us, and that it is doing so because of our actions. God seems absent from this process, either as a controlling force or as a protecting presence. We find ourselves in an empty, fragile environment that we alone must manage. Sen. Inhofe is probably speaking for a significant number of Americans when he declares himself unwilling to accept this: “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

Climate change contradicts America’s heroic image of itself

The most enduring account of ourselves as an American people, which extends nearly twice as far back in time as the founding of our nation, is that we are continually, inexorably becoming more prosperous. This mind-set seems to be how most Americans measure personal success, and what they wish for themselves and for their children. Climate change brings our ethos of continual growth up against a definitive and rather claustrophobic limit. It not only demands different public policies, but different personal aspirations. It suggests that we cannot continue expecting that we will all live in bigger houses, drive bigger cars, own more machines and eat more steak. If ordinary people’s lives are to be improved, it suggests, such improvements will need to be through redistribution rather than growth, something that many conservative Americans find unacceptable.


Climate change demands different lifestyle choices

None of us, in our personal lives, produces much air or water pollution; these problems are created by industrial corporations and can only be ameliorated by them. But each of us contributes to climate change in the everyday, pedestrian manner known as our carbon footprint. We can achieve enormous reductions in the amount of greenhouse gases our society produces by reducing home heating and air conditioning, eating less meat, carpooling or using public transit, as well as taking a variety of other individual actions. But each person’s behavior has trivial effects; significant reductions only occur if we act collectively. This means that changing our behavior is a matter of personal morality. We must commit to changing our lifestyle because it is the right thing to do, and, as in other moral areas, rely on our fellow citizens to act in the same manner in order to produce the general effects on our society that we desire. But environmental ethics of this sort is a new morality; it is separate from, and in certain ways conflicts with, the traditional morality that many conservative Americans believe in. Consequently, they resist it.

 

http://www.alternet.org/environment/video-meet-cynical-pr-hacks-obscuring-truth-climate-change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ii9zGFDtc&t=83

VIDEO: Meet the Cynical PR Hacks Obscuring the Truth on Climate Change

New documentary 'Merchants of Doubt' exposes the spin doctors who insist global warming is a hoax.

It also introduces such noted scientists as James Hansen, who retired after 46 years with NASA to take a more active role in fighting climate change, and atmospheric scientist Katherine Hayhoe of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, who has been a voice for addressing climate change in the evangelical Christian community. But the scientists with the strongest backgrounds and credentials on climate science are often no match for slick PR types.

“Communication is about sales,” says the smooth and engaging Morano, describing his tactics. “Keep it simple. People will fill in the blank with their own—I hate to say bias, but with their own perspective in many cases. You go up against a scientist. Most of them are very hard to understand and very borrrrrrring.”

Merchants of Doubt shows how these deniers skillfully exploit a lazy, compliant media—not just Fox News but also outlets like the New York Times—to present themselves as “the other side,” equally in credibility to credentialed scientists.

“I’m not a scientist, but I do play one on TV occasionally,” says Morano flippantly. “Hell, more than occasionally.”

Among the PR masters Kenner tried and failed to interview is the notorious Rick Berman who has previously been involved in campaigns to convince the public that tobacco and junk food are healthy, and more recently spearheaded a campaign on behalf of fossil fuel interests to discredit environmentalists by trying to dig up personal dirt on them. Berman is also behind a longtime effort to smear the Humane Society of the U.S. and its head, Wayne Pacelle.

 

Yada yada yada

In the USA, the opinions on human induced climate change, are mostly divided along political lines.That means it's a political issue, and not a scientific issue,
and you are not likely to convince your opponents to switch, and endorse your political agenda.
Deal with it.

 

www.newsmax.com/finance

Evidence Leaked That the 'Global Warming' Faction Has Blatantly Lied.
Scientist Confesses: "Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam"






Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTN...te-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/#ixzz3U2JsCDQL

 

So, you're saying facts don't matter and all your denier arguments are based on political opinion.

Koch brothers trickle down apparently works.

 

Everybody should go to this site and see what Yobernacle is using for his source of facts. Google a few names and see what turns up.

 

John L. Casey and climate denial

http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2014/11/tom-luongos-multiple-lies-about-climate.html

An anonymous commentator on my post about Tom Luongo raised the issue of John Casey and his views on climate change. This is a valid challenge, since Luongo apparently got much of his misinformation from Casey.


Casey is a retired engineer, having worked on the space shuttle at NASA for most of his career. Post-retirement, he now describes himself as a climatologist, claiming on his website that he is "one of America's most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts." Luongo parroted that line, word-for-word, without attribution, in his "newsletter."

So, what is Casey's claim to fame in the realm of climatology? That the sun exhibits cycles of activity. No. Really. That is Casey's main thesis from his 2008 paper "The existence of relational cycles of solar activity on a multidecadal to centennial scale as significant models of climate change on Earth." Casey makes the claim that his paper was peer-reviewed but a quick search for the paper title and author on Google Scholar shows that it has never been published anywhere other than his own website. A quick review of his website shows that this is the only formal paper Casey has written on the subject beyond various "Global Climate Status Reports" available for $8.95. Looking at the free summaries of his status reports shows that they're largely a continuation of claims made in his 2008 paper.

http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2014/11/tom-luongos-multiple-lies-about-climate.html

Tom Luongo's multiple lies about climate change


An old friend posted an "article" by Tom Luongo, a former chemist (B.S. from the University of Florida) who now writes the Resolute Wealth Newsletter, on Facebook. Unfortunately, that article is chock full of lies about climate science. Since Facebook comments aren't the best forum for debunking Gish Gallops, I'm taking the liberty of debunking them here.

 

Oh boy, here we go.

edit: Sorry about my "bad start" to the high & mighty commenter who sullied my reputation.

 

Climate sceptics attempt to block Merchants of Doubt film

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...tics-attempt-to-block-merchants-of-doubt-film

Climate denier Fred Singer lobbied fellow sceptics to create a backlash, and proposed legal action, against the film that exposes industry’s role in manipulating US debate on climate change

On screen, the man widely regarded as the grandfather of climate denial appears a genial participant in a newly-released expose about industry’s efforts to block action on global warming.

But behind the scenes, Fred Singer has lobbied fellow climate deniers to try to block the film, Merchants of Doubt, and raised the prospect of legal action against the filmmaker.

“It’s exactly what we talk about in the film. It’s a product of a playbook which is to go after the messengers and attack and try and change the conversation, and try to intimidate, and it is very effective,” said Robert Kenner, the filmmaker.

Since the film’s release, Kenner, and Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor and co-author of the book on which the documentary is based, have come under attack in climate denier blogs, and in email chains.

The backlash appears to have been initiated by Singer, 90, a Princeton-trained physicist who has a cameo in the film.

Merchants of Doubt film exposes slick US industry behind climate denial

Singer dismisses the dangers of secondhand smoking. He also denies human activity is a main cause of climate change. “It’s all bunk. It’s all bunk,” a seemingly jovial Singer says in the film.