Climate
change should be "elevated beyond a scientific debate
to a national security concern." |
[Pentagon
Study: "Abrupt Climate Change"] |
|
| Earth Day: April 22 |
| http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/earthday/index.htm |
| Responding to widespread
environmental degradation, Gaylord Nelson, a United States Senator
from Wisconsin, called for an environmental teach-in, or Earth
Day, to be held on April 22, 1970. Over 20 million people participated
that year, and Earth Day is now observed each year on April 22
by more than 500 million people and national governments in 175
countries. Senator Nelson, an environmental activist, took a
leading role in organizing the celebration, hoping to demonstrate
popular political support for an environmental agenda. (from
wikipedia) |
|
Blow
whistlers |
|
|
|
News |
| ABC News: "NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Questions
Need to Combat Warming" |
| http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1 |
by Clayton Sandell and
Bill Blakemore (May 31, 2007)
NASA administrator Michael Griffin is drawing the ire of his
agency's preeminent climate scientists after apparently downplaying
the need to combat global warming. |
|
|
| Select Committee on Energy
Independence And Global Warming |
| http://globalwarming.house.gov |
| Edward J. Markey, Chairman.
This special unique policy committee was established at the request
of Speaker Pelosi in early 2007 to add resources and urgency
to the commitment of this Congress to addressing both the dangerous
dependence of the United States on foreign oil and the looming
threat of climate change to global ecosystems and economies.
|
|
| “Putting Some Heat on Bush: Scientist Inspires Anger,
Awe for Challenges on Global Warming” by Juliet Eilperin,
The Washington Post (January 19, 2005) |
| http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19162-2005Jan18.html |
| Hansen, a lifelong government employee who heads NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, has inspired
both anger and awe in the nation's scientific and political
communities since publicly denouncing the Bush administration's
policy on climate change last year. |
|
|
|
| 60 minutes (CBS) Originally aired on March 19, 2006. |
| http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml |
Rewriting the Science:
Scientist Says Politicians Edit Global Warming Research
- Video- “Rewriting the Science”:
NASA's top scientist studying the climate tells correspondent
Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting
what he can say about global warming
- Video- “Pelley’s Reporter Notebook”:
Scott Pelley talks about Dr. James Hansen, a government
scientist who says the White House is trying to control
his public appearances because of his work on global warming.
|
|
|
|
Multimedia |
| Presentation: Hansen’s court testimony |
| http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/hansen/ |
| Flash presentation based on the August 14, 2006 court testimony
of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute
for Space Studies. (Source: Climate Crisis Coalition) |
|
Further
discussion |
| Blog post: “James
Hansen Increasingly Insensitive” |
| By Patrick J.
Michaels, April 28, 2005 |
It seems that the
longer NASA scientist Jim Hansen studies the climate, the
more insensitive he, or should we say, his interpretation
of the climate, becomes. Climate “sensitivity” is
the change in surface temperature expected for each additional
Watt of energy that is re-radiated onto the earth’s
surface and lower atmosphere by slight changes in the greenhouse
effect. The main cause of these changes in the greenhouse
effect, of course, is the increasing levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. (fragment)
|
|
No War, No Warming, Rise Up!
By Ted Glick, Wednesday 19 September 2007
For months a movement has been developing that consciously and intentionally links the related issues of the war in Iraq and the heating up of the earth that is disrupting the world's climate. On Monday morning, October 22, in Washington, DC, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere around the country, that movement will become visible as large numbers of people engage in nonviolent direct action to disrupt business as usual. We will be calling for an end to this criminal war and strong action to slow, stop and reverse global warming.
These issues are connected, of course, by oil. Everyone who's got their head screwed on straight knows that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was oil. The US government is occupying Iraq both for its oil and to try to turn it into a US-friendly military base from which it can better control the entire region.
Why? It's not just because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and the neocons are motivated by we're-the-rulers-of-the-world ideology. There is actually a perverse logic to what they're doing, particularly given their personal connections to the oil industry.
The US and the world are in a deepening energy crisis. Easily accessible oil and natural gas are getting hard to find, even as the demand for and competition over energy throughout the world accelerate. There is agreement among those who study this issue that we are either right at or very soon will be at "peak oil," a point where as much oil will have been found and used as there is oil still remaining in the ground.
And the big problem is that those remaining reserves are getting harder and more expensive to bring out of the ground. There is a common sense solution to this dilemma. Instead of war in Iraq escalating into war with Iran and who knows where else, the US could lead the world by using its technological know-how and resources to advance a worldwide clean-energy revolution. We could rapidly undercut the appeal of al-Qaeda by withdrawing our troops from the Middle East and promoting, instead, huge solar energy farms in this sun-drenched region of the world. We could help the formerly colonized countries of the Global South who are currently developing their economies by using greenhouse gas emitting coal or dangerous nuclear power. We could help them shift to renewable energy technology to obtain energy via solar panels, wind turbines, the tides or the earth (geothermal).
What kind of world do we face if we don't stand up, if we don't rise up to demand a serious course correction?
A report was put out this spring by the CNA Corporation, a national security think tank, written by six retired admirals and five retired generals, including the former Army chief of staff and George W. Bush's former chief Middle East peace negotiator. In it, in the words of an Associated Press story, they "called upon the US government to make major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming."
The report warned that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger, instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicted.
"Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," former US Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio.
In a veiled reference to Bush's refusal to join an international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the report said the US government "must become a more constructive partner" with other nations to fight global warming and cope with its consequences.
The options before us are crystal clear. Down one road, the one we're now on, lies a cascading series of oil and water wars, climate disasters and ecological devastation. Down the other lies a turn toward peaceful resolution of conflicts, energy conservation, efficiency and a clean energy revolution, and social and economic justice.
Another world is possible, but for it to come about another US is necessary, in the words of the recent US Social Forum. It's a world worth fighting for, a world worth sacrificing for. Our children and their children are counting on us to do the right thing, and to do it now. The clock is ticking, and we need to act as if the future of human society depends upon what we do, because it really does.