The great protest leader and singer Pete Seeger was a great example of an activist. He was once asked in an interview if he ever got discouraged in his work for peace and justice. He said, "There are times I say, What's the use?", then I get up the next morning and try again."
For your consideration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhnPVP23rzo
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
"you can’t say you care about the climate and then go dig up more fossil fuels."Originally Posted by Deb C
A bit extreme; we can't stop that fast. In effect, it's saying he doesn't care; that's not true and is disrespectful.
“An all of the above energy strategy is exactly as sensible as an all of the above foreign policy–I kept waiting for the part of the speech where he’d explain why North Korea and England should be treated the same. "
That's comparing an energy strategy to a horrible dictatorship. You and I agree that the strategy is wrong, but it's a bit extreme to compare him in effect to North Korea. It's just rhetoric that is strident. Now I admit, sometimes such rhetoric might get some attention; I'm just not sure it works, and it is not cognizant of the pressure he's under from a people that won't even vote out an extreme right-wing congress.
I think we do need to ask for faster progress toward conversion, and I am doing it.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-30-2014 at 04:59 AM.
350.org was saying nothing more than most renowned activists have said. Including MLK Jr. and Pete Seeger. But we water down what they were all about as if it was only civil rights. They said the hard things and sang the realities of what was hurting human beings. That's serious shit.
What I see as disrespectful is not an activist making a point through comparisons, but a president who says one thing and his actions say another. That's down right deceitful. So it appears that some would rather criticise those who work tirelessly to affect change, who are actually doing something, other than signing an occasional petition from the comfort of their couch, than hold a president accountable for his actions.
I'm just glad that we have people who are brave enough to see through the facade of a Orwellian words and call it out into the open. It's always those people, the great activists, who get slammed and accused of being radical and extreme, all the while democracy is being chipped away bit by bit.
And to think that Pete Seeger was a member of the 350.org and good friends with Bill McKibben.
Healing Our World 2014 Conference Benefit Concert
Friday evening, February 21, 2014 from 8:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Now preparing for collaborative work with the United Nations, One Earth. One Voice. has gained
support from Kennedy Center Honoree, the legendary folk musician Pete Seeger; Archbishop Desmond
Tutu; leading environmentalist Bill McKibben of 350.org, Larry Schweiger of National Wildlife
Federation; world musicians King Sunny Ade and Paul Winter; Sir Richard Branson; Indigenous Elder
Chief Oren Lyons (Onondaga); among others.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Nothing to see here folks. Just move along to the next discussion about Global Warming and ignore those nasty ole radical environmentalists who are working to save our asses. That Pete Seeger was the worst of the lot.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Show me where Pete Seeger compared Obama to North Korea and said he didn't care about climate change.
MLK Jr. couldn't have said anything about Obama because he was killed in 1968.
What bothers me is that the people don't speak out and act for what is right, and they put stupid Republicans into office which make it impossible for Obama to act.What I see as disrespectful is not an activist making a point through comparisons, but a president who says one thing and his actions say another. That's down right deceitful.
This says it somewhat better:
I think natural gas can be a bridge fuel. He said "if extracted safely." There's nothing wrong with what he said there. But we need to make sure he knows that fracking is dangerous, and that he knows all the dangers and is willing to take action on them.Should we keep destroying the earth or start saving it? President Obama's answer in his State of the Union address was "All of the above!"
As Pete Seeger knew, sometimes we have to answer this question: "Which side are you on?"
The legendary folk singer and activist passed away Monday in New York near his beloved Hudson River.
Obama spoke both of protecting the earth's climate and of his promotion of the destructive practice of fracking. "If extracted safely," he said of so-called natural gas, delving into a realm of fantasy not supported by past experience, "it's the bridge fuel that can power our economy."
We need to be on the other side, Mr. President. We don't have time to be wasting on a bridge between irreversible devastation and serious efforts to protect the earth.
Send a clear message to stop fracking.
Maura Stephens of the Coalition to Protect New York said, "It was very ironic that the day we were honoring Pete Seeger -- a hero of peace and the environment -- President Obama would double down on fracking claims. Seeger has been one of our champions in the fight against fracking in New York State, coming to virtually all of our rallies."
Let's remember Pete Seeger by organizing rather than mourning. We're knee-deep in the Big Muddy, and it's time to reverse direction.
Click here to tell President Obama and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo: Fracking is not a "fuel of the future." Fracking is a fuel that could leave us no future, except perhaps as fossils to power the activities of some future species as reckless as our own.
Please forward this to people you know who don't want a fracked-up future.
-- The RootsAction.org team
The problem, Eric, is that it can't be extracted safely. And the president must know that.
I agree with RootsAction:
"We need to be on the other side, Mr. President. We don't have time to be wasting on a bridge between irreversible devastation and serious efforts to protect the earth.
Send a clear message to stop fracking.
Maura Stephens of the Coalition to Protect New York said, "It was very ironic that the day we were honoring Pete Seeger -- a hero of peace and the environment -- President Obama would double down on fracking claims. Seeger has been one of our champions in the fight against fracking in New York State, coming to virtually all of our rallies."
Let's remember Pete Seeger by organizing rather than mourning. We're knee-deep in the Big Muddy, and it's time to reverse direction."
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
It's a shame that we have to read between the Orwellian lines, isn't it?
""Between the idea and the reality," said a poet, "falls the Shadow."
It's the sugar that makes the poison taste sweet.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/21...on-taste-sweetAnd then there is the question of why the president sounded like a Greenpeace activist when discussing environmental protections, before turning on a dime once again to promote a gas-mining practice called "fracking" that has already done lasting pollutive damage to communities all across the country. There are places in America, right this very minute, where you can light the tap water on fire because of the residue left over by this practice. A number of other countries have banned the process outright, but on Tuesday night, the president of the United States was hats-over-the-windmill thrilled by the prospect of spreading fracking far and wide. "In a fact sheet accompanying the speech," noted The Hill on Wednesday morning, "the White House called on Congress to establish 'sustainable shale gas growth zones.'"
Fracking is not sustainable. I guess that didn't make it into the notes for the speech. Can't imagine why.
Last edited by Deb C; 01-30-2014 at 03:51 PM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Again, a demand with no alternative. If you are going to stop fracking, then what's the alternate plan to provide energy, because the public is going to demand that the lights come on when they throw the switch. Not everyone is sensitive to this issue. In fact, many believe it's made-up. If you add the die-hard deniers to those who aren't willing to suffer, they are a majority. To win, you need a plan that get's the support needed to move ahead. Ranting won't get you there. A better approach was recently offered by the Union of Concerned Scientists. They argue for safe nuclear power, and say how to go about getting it. That's a much better way to address the issue.
Barring another viable alternative, we're gong to have fracking until it proves dangerous. It provides jobs in poor areas, and those locals will fight to the death to get those jobs. Note: they are also the ones directly affected by any leaks, so people in Boston may be OK with them risking their health for natural gas that serves everyone.
And if not fracking, then what? Telling people to keep the thermostat at 60 in the winter and 80 in the summer will get you about ten people willing to do it, and that's simply a waste of time.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
There's lots of natural gas that is not extracted through fracking.
There are a lot of concerns about fracking, and I am dubious that it could ever be safe. Methane being released through fracking is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. And the materials and liquids used in the process pollute the water and air. Gas is released under peoples' homes that pollutes groundwater and water supplies.
So let's hold the president to his word, if he says natural gas must be extracted safely. It likely means he can't support fracking, if he does what he is promising.
You can't say that the statement by the 350.org spokesperson was respectful. But you could argue that being disrespectful is an appropriate strategy. Certainly I am guilty at times too. Being nice doesn't always work, as Judy Collins pointed out in her song. It's a question of what works here. The thesis of 350.org does not rule out a period of transition to renewables, rather than not extracting any more fossil fuels immediately. But that's what the statement you quoted insisted on.
I don't know if exaggeration is a good idea. It does make us look like fools to people like M&L who are not fully in agreement with us. I had the same problem with your quotes about the USA bringing South Sudan into being and such. We are doing some things wrong, in attacking people with drones. But to exaggerate the truth only makes us our case weaker.
Are they talking about thorium? We've been over the nuclear issue before. After Fukushima I don't see how anyone can say conventional nuclear power is "safe."
I do it, in fact my thermostat at 60 all year around, with no air conditioning. Of course, I live in the Bay Area...Barring another viable alternative, we're gong to have fracking until it proves dangerous. It provides jobs in poor areas, and those locals will fight to the death to get those jobs. Note: they are also the ones directly affected by any leaks, so people in Boston may be OK with them risking their health for natural gas that serves everyone.
And if not fracking, then what? Telling people to keep the thermostat at 60 in the winter and 80 in the summer will get you about ten people willing to do it, and that's simply a waste of time.
We are extracting enough natural gas, coal and oil now even without fracking. What we aren't doing is building the new solar plants and windmills that are viable now, on the scale that we could, and should have been doing for 30 years now. And conservation still has a long way to go.
Clean coal is dubious, given the pollution it causes. The Chinese may be developing one answer; the sequestered C02 is used for making soft drinks or other products, according to the Powering the Planet program on PBS. I am really resistant to just sequestering it and devoting acres upon acres of our underground world just to keep C02 there indefinitely, even discounting the vain hope that it won't leak. But if it could be put to use or transformed somehow, now you're talking clean coal-- at least with regard to C02 pollution. But we really need to shut down as many coal planets as we can, and switch to solar power and wind and electric cars much faster. It is a question of political will being the resource in short supply here.
Solar Power Revolution: Countries all over the world are leading the way towards a green economy. Unfortunately lobbying by the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries are hindering progress. Very soon, perhaps even now depending on the cost of electricity in your area, solar technology will be more economically cost effective than traditional forms of electrical production.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-30-2014 at 06:13 PM.
I think possibly some who see some statements as exaggerations would rather just hide their head in the sand instead of facing dire situations.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Nuclear plants can be safe if they are planned well. Putting plants on the coast facing into potential tsunamis was bizarre, to say the least - moreso when the Japanese have experienced them many times. Sited on an inland lake away from tornado ally is ideal. Thorium is also a plus. In any case, the palnts need to be self-quenching, even in the absence of power. All these are doable, though they tend not to be done at times. Making them mandatory will solve that.
Yes, but you are Eric the Green. Like I said, there are a few who will. It's the vast majority who won't.
No, the new gas and oil are due to fracking.
I doubt that clean coal can ever be achieved, but the industry can give it a try if it wishes.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
No doubt that is very true. That does not excuse those on the left from putting out exaggerated statements. It's hard enough just to get the people to face the actual truth.
It's a fool's errand. Nuclear power is much more dangerous; we won't be able to forsee all the dangers, when the process itself is so inherently dangerous. It is much more expensive than solar, wind and other renewables. It is not cost effective, and takes longer to build than solar energy does. Why waste time pursuing a fool's errand? Thorium is worth looking into. But meanwhile, we need to emphasize the energy we know that works, and is cost effective: solar and wind.
What's so bad about 60 degrees? It's a nice temperature. People need to get used to conserving. Americans are a spoiled and greedy lot. But we can change. And if we convert to renewable energy, conservation will not be a burden. It can supply our needs. We have a surplus of Republican idiots, and a shortage of real political consciousness and will. That's all this amounts to. And yet Americans refuse to vote out their extreme right-wing congress. How really stupid and pathetic! That is the nub of the issue; American stupidity at the ballot box, and especially in the red states. And how can Obama and other Democrats act for the future, when he has to keep his eye on the enormous power of the Republicans and their propaganda that deceives an ignorant people, in a system dominated by money and expensive advertising that Republicans keep in place, and Democrats don't?Yes, but you are Eric the Green. Like I said, there are a few who will. It's the vast majority who won't.
But the old oil and gas still being extracted are not due to fracking.No, the new gas and oil are due to fracking.
We need to make sure we know if it can be achieved; support it if it does, and oppose it if it doesn't. We can't just leave it to industry. Government needs to be supported for doing the tasks we need it to do, and that it can do. The reaganoids say government should not be trusted to do anything (unless it's to do the things they like, such as suppressing the people and the world and boosting corporate greed and public ignorance). That is the sole cause of our current decline as a nation.I doubt that clean coal can ever be achieved, but the industry can give it a try if it wishes.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-30-2014 at 06:29 PM.
It's about empowering enough people to make a difference. Governments need convincing that they need to put more money into alternative energy instead of subsidies for fossil fuel corporations. And, there are alternatives, we just don't finance them properly. We are running out of time to wean people off the addiction to fossil fuel.
We need to see that the addiction to oil is killing our planet and us along with it. Education is key. This is why the campuses around the world who belong to Power Shift, are demanding a heavy investment in alternatives, instead of subsidies for corporate fossil fuel giants.
EXAMPLE:
DIVESTMENT AND REINVESTMENT: A BIG WIN IS ON THE HORIZON IN ST. LOUIS
In just three months, St. Louis, the hometown of five coal companies could also be home to the divestment movement’s next big victory. St. Louis is also my hometown, and for over a year now, I’ve been working on the citywide divestment campaign, called Take Back St. Louis. The Take Back St. Louis initiative will change the city charter to end incentives to fossil fuel companies and instead invest money in and open city-owned land for renewable energy and sustainability initiatives.
When I started at the University of Maryland this past semester I joined the campaign to divest my university from fossil fuels as well. I am part of the fossil fuel divestment movement because divestment is an important tactic to make the fossil fuel industry’s public reputation as toxic as their business practices. Once doing business with the fossil fuel industry is seen as morally unconscionable it’s unlikely the industry will be able to continue buying off enough public officials to keep itself in existence.
Many of us have found out through divestment campaigns just how engrained the fossil fuel industry is on our campuses. Despite overwhelming support among students, university presidents and administrations have resisted our demands, caving to the power of fossil fuels.
This is also true in St. Louis, where citizens’ voices are often sidelined and coal corporations hold tremendous power, most notably Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private sector coal corporation. Peabody has a long history of human rights and environmental abuses: for decades Peabody has been involved in the forced relocation of Hopi and Dine (Navajo) people on Black Mesa in Arizona, spent 2013 attempting to shirk paying healthcare benefits to 10,000 retired coal miners, and is by itself responsible for 0.8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, all while aggressively pursuing coal export terminals to China.
More: http://gofossilfree.org/divestment-a...n-in-st-louis/
We don't have time for a slow weaning off of fossil fuels. Just talk with farmers in California who are possibly in for a mega drought. That will have a negative impact on the entire country.
There's a group called Energy Action Coalition. It was started by young people and has become a powerful youth movement that's now part of a global movement called Power Shift. Numerous countries now have these coalitions.
About Global Power Shift: http://globalpowershift.org/about/#Introduction
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Nuclear plants take a long time to build and cost a lot because the anti-nuclear activists throw down every road block to make it that way. Oddly, the same people are now after windmills (bird killers) and high-intensity solar (ovens), so what answer is OK?
I'll spare you the lecture about the inadequacies of intermittent sources, since we've beaten that one to death.
My wife likes it cold, so she agrees. I like it hot, so 80 in the summer is fine by me. It's rare to find anyone who likes both, and not all that many who are even tolerant. Let's admit it, we're spoiled. Nonetheless, the spoiled are the majority.
Actually, they are being treated too, that's why the production shot up so quickly.
No, first it needs to be demonstrated, and no one has to date. Sequestration is a long shot at best. Let the industries that want to use coal spend their money proving the point ... if they can. It would be a good lesson to them.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Preaching to the choir gets you nowhere. You have to sell the apostates, and they are not an easy sell. Focusing on renewables is a good idea, if you have a plan to replace what you kill. Coal is a cheap and easy source, but natural gas is already making it a more expensive option. So your real competition is NG, not coal. Add to that, Ameren is not the most user-friendly utility in the country, so expect a little sabotage ... unless you can convince them your alternative is in their interest.
There is not a consensus in favor of mandates. That's the long and short of it. Without mandates, or the potential at least, cajolery is your only choice.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
About that "bridge" they want to sell us.
"The energy industry boasts that fracking is a “bridge” to renewable energies, but a 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that shale gas development could end up crowding out alternative energies. That's because as fracking spreads, it drives natural gas prices down, spurring greater consumer use, and so more fracking. In a country deficient in regulations and high in corporate pressures on government, this cascade effect creates enormous disincentives for investment in large alternative energy programs." .... Ellen Cantarow
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
Good for the anti-nuclear activists
But it seems obvious that nuclear plants are also costly because of how expensive they are to build and make safe. Of course, there must be tight regulations if they are to be "safe." I don't think they can ever be safe, except possibly for thorium or some advance in fusion. But these will take time too. We can't afford to wait until people are satisfied (especially people who live nearby) that nuclear power is safe. And it is not a renewable resource. Be sure and watch the videos and articles I have linked over the years on this issue.
Some people will object to anything. But the dangers of windmills are just far less.
Here's an article on this:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...kill-birds.htm
It was an old tired argument to begin with. If the sun and wind aren't there in one place, they will be in another, if they feed in to a common grid, and batteries can store power (which they do). And anyway, what's wrong with some power outages compared to a permanent and complete climate "outage" not to mention a permanent shortage because there's no more non-renewable resources left? We need to move to renewables, sooner rather than later. It is happening fast anyway, but anything we can do to speed it up will save more species and more people from the ravages of climate change and pollution. Those countries that do the most will do the best. It's our future. Right now, the USA is not #1, and declining. Why? I'll spare you another rant; I've beaten that one to deathI'll spare you the lecture about the inadequacies of intermittent sources, since we've beaten that one to death.
The majority is always comfortable with the status quo. It may be that people need to change.My wife likes it cold, so she agrees. I like it hot, so 80 in the summer is fine by me. It's rare to find anyone who likes both, and not all that many who are even tolerant. Let's admit it, we're spoiled. Nonetheless, the spoiled are the majority.
I don't know what "treated" means. There are still plenty of oil and gas wells around that don't use fracking.Actually, they are being treated too, that's why the production shot up so quickly.
Yes, but they need to be cajoled and forced into doing so by regulation. I think it's happening; I hope. If you watched the video I linked, they showed that clean coal and sequestration is being demonstrated. No doubt more needs to be done on this before we can say it is a transition fuel.No, first it needs to be demonstrated, and no one has to date. Sequestration is a long shot at best. Let the industries that want to use coal spend their money proving the point ... if they can. It would be a good lesson to them.
Let's hope another election doesn't stop the energy transition in 2016. As the video link I posted said, a policy that changes with each election cycle, and focused only on the next one, will not give us the results we need.
This is the most important change of our time. Let's get on with it, and bypass the doubters and greedy opponents and those whom they have brainwashed. Stay informed.
This is fun. Watching everything self-destruct is the only entertainment, while everyone is yelling at brick walls.
Bring on the lime Jello rivers! Glowing ones!
I'd be interested in what you consider exaggerated statements.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
But wasn't it education that weaned the majority of the public off their addiction to cigarettes? I'd say that it was, and should in theory at least be proof that it could work again. The only issue is that for most fossil fuels are still a necessity, whereas cigarettes never were.
Yup. It's a lot less disruptive to your live to give up cigarettes than to give up being able to go places on demand, having electricity available 24/7, having temperatures a constant 70 degrees indoors, being able to eat bananas and strawberries in January, being able to heat up a quick meal -- our entire lifestyle is dependent on fossil fuels.
It's scary, when you think about it.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
That's exactly what the environmentalists are trying to do all over the world - educate. It was also a lot of education, photos of the cruelty, and the military draft, that awakened the American public to the disasterous war on Vietnam. Apparently, it's not always just one means of education. When dead and maimed soldiers came home, and the media showed that, coupled with the awareness that their sons, friends, nephews, and husband's lives were on the line, was part of America's awakening. Unfortunately, when the reality of what activists are trying to teach don't personnally affect people, it's way harder to open the mind.
As I mentioned in a previous post, California farmers are looking at the real possibility of a mega drought, meaning it could last for years. That experience, plus other natural disasters that continue to escalate, may be a catalyst for people being willing to listen to the warnings and demand alternative energy. Let's hope it's not too late.
There are other countries who are taking Global Warming much more seriously than we do and they are proving it by expanding alternative energy and changing their lifestyles.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
