Is there a change in the wind? | Good.is renewable energy "People don't like being forced to purchase things they may not want, which is why over half of us are hoping that the Supreme Court throws out the individual insurance mandate in President Barack Obama's health care plan." There's also a worldwide rebellion brewing against being forced to purchase expensive electricity produced by so-called "renewable" sources, now being exacerbated by the availability of very cheap natural gas from shale formations. But, here in the U.S. there are some 30 different statewide "renewable portfolio standards" (RPSs) that also mandate pricey power, usually under the guise of fighting dreaded global warming. RPSs command that a certain percentage of electricity has to come from wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass. Given that this power generally costs a lot more than what comes from a modern coal or gas plant, your local utility passes the cost on in the form of higher bills, which the various state utility commissions are only too happy to approve in the name of saving the planet. RPSs generally do not include hydroelectric power, which produces no carbon dioxide. It's also much more predictable than solar or wind, and costs about the same as the average for gas and coal combined. It's not in the portfolio standards because dams are soooo 20th century, and it isn't a darling of the green lobby, like solar, wind and biomass. But hydro can deliver more juice than solar is ever likely to. One needs to look no further than ethanol as a motor fuel, mandated by the feds. Sold as "renewable" and reducing pernicious carbon dioxide emissions, it actually produces more in its life cycle than simply burning an equivalent amount of gasoline. It also-unconscionably-consumes 40% of U.S. corn production, and we are the by far the world's largest producer of this important basic food. Having seen the ethanol debacle, will the states put solar and wind in thei

Wholesale Global Indoctrination on a Massive Scale | Pat Regan explains how the Scientific Community has fooled the peoples of the world. - ufodigest.com

The question of alleged Man-Made Global Warming (MMGW) is highly divisive to say the least. Like a vicious civil war, it regrettably sets good friends and family against each other. In the following article I shall try to dispel a few popular misconceptions in the sincere hope that greater understanding will develop. Firstly it is vitally important to clarify the crux of the argument; Is the earth's climate progressively changing due to natural causes or is it warming because of human activity?

Cultures on the whole are largely emotionally dependent on the religious world-views that have created them. When we get down to intimately analysing the psychology 'behind' MMGW beliefs, we soon discover we are dealing with a subsidiary of biblical myth (end-time/ messianic ethos). Three quarters of those who 'believe' in it have never identified or acknowledged the big difference between MMGW and climate change. This really is the vital crux of the matter. The 'big difference' I highlight here has unfortunately caught out many good and caring folk who have simply been unmindful to the major difference at hand!The climate has always moved through dramatic cycles and some have been more significant than others. Today we find folks in one area of the planet crying out for drier weather, whilst others say: 'please send the rains this way as our land is parched and dying'. This summer for instance is set to be the second wettest in the UK since records began, according to the Met Office. It never seems to stop raining here. Other lands though are seeing entire woodlands dry up and die. No one is disputing that this is occurring!

The environmental advocate: eco management legislation and Jakarta Indonesia blog


Do We Live On A Doomed Planet?

The big question remains - is this a man-made problem or is it the result of the planets natural evolution? If it is the latter then nothing we can do will modify it because Gaia/Mother Nature is far too dominant, certainly far too commanding for science to find a solution. People who place all their faith in the great God of Science (like most people these days) hold onto their sacred MMGW views like religious fundamentalists hold onto their apocalyptic, Armageddon position. In effect, many Christians believe in 'both' theories of course and unite with the proposal that man is ethically 'accountable' for the demise of the planet through MMGW by his 'sinful' activities.

There is of course, an argument which says that biblical prophecy of the destruction of the earth by fire which has consistently been injected into the minds of nominal Christians makes the idea of 'MMGW' somehow more unconsciously expected. By believing in MMGW millions of Christians throughout the world are confirming the accuracy and validity of their particular religious belief by having science confirm their worst fears. Of course, old Satan gets the blame herein as can be expected. The Horned fellow has misled mankind, they cry, into destruction and this helps to support their messianic faith regarding an anticipated Second Coming following a satanic fall… How ironic this is when you consider that, with the man-made global warming model, modern science which normally despises religion as superstitious extraneous nonsense, is actually reinforcing the Christian world-view and finding it a bulwark of support for MMGW ideas!

Many have become so indoctrinated into a wholesale dependence on science that they have utterly missed the finer points of the debate. They wrongly see science as the 'Great Redeemer' and the only solution to what they erroneously 'think' needs fixing. They have swallowed the idea that intellect is somehow superior to everything else hook, line and sinker! Science is widely perceived as logical yet it invented the 'Bomb', which could annihilate the planet in the first place and is far more dangerous than alleged MMGW. Therefore, if the Bomb was invented by an allegedly rational force then why do the globalwarmists consider science to be so well-judged in essence when depending on it to save us from the spectre of MMGW?

The alarmists appear to think they know 'better' than the gods themselves and place contemporary science 'above' the will and power of the gods. This is typical human vanity brought about by reliance in the indoctrinated credos of both monotheistic and scientific half-truths. Sadly a subconscious 'us against them' mentality has been forged by the alarmists. Anyone who dares to criticise the MMGM belief system is instantly judged to be immoral and perceived as the blasphemous Bad Guy. Nothing could be further from the truth however.

Climate will change yet again when Nature wishes it to do so, regardless of mankind's fruitless hopes and fears. Mankind's subconscious guilt complex, over a naturally changing climate phenomenon, will not modify what is occurring on a grand scale. Humanity may wish it to be different but because we are puny in contrast with the enormous natural forces which power the planet we have to learn, to 'adapt and improvise' towards the new situation at hand. Pretending science can do something about it is a complete illusion but a nice bandwagon for unnecessary funding for the hundreds of thousands of scientists being churned out by the educational system.

The earth, like the greater cosmos, is constantly changing and we must learn to change too. We will never 'ever' have power over the climate or the planet because we are typically reliant upon it for our very survival. Science is deviant and supercilious in many instances. Until the alarmists realise their thinking uses a bankrupt philosophy they will never actually access the entire truth. In many ways this is the core of the matter at hand.

I advocate care and respect for the ecosystem and have been happy to defend it at all cost many times. I have also discovered that most genuine new-age people realise that Nature is in control of the climate (not man). Pseudo-scientific esoteric misinformation on Global warming has trapped many otherwise first-class people in a deceptive world of guilt, wherein man is generally considered to be immoral and a stain on the planet.

Yes agreed, humankind is most certainly not without blame when it comes to outrageous commercial destruction of the environment for profit - but individuals cannot be expected to change what cannot be changed, via a wasteful reliance upon the God of Science.

A reasonable stance might be to try to look at the human species from the outside. So imagine that you're an extraterrestrial observer who is trying to figure out what's happening here or, for that matter, imagine you're an historian 100 years from now - assuming there are any historians 100 years from now, which is not obvious - and you're looking back at what's happening today. You'd see something quite remarkable.
For the first time in the history of the human species, we have clearly developed the capacity to destroy ourselves. That's been true since 1945. It's now being finally recognized that there are more long-term processes like environmental destruction leading in the same direction, maybe not to total destruction, but at least to the destruction of the capacity for a decent existence.

And there are other dangers like pandemics, which have to do with globalization and interaction. So there are processes underway and institutions right in place, like nuclear weapons systems, which could lead to a serious blow to, or maybe the termination of, an organized existence.

How to Destroy a Planet without Really Trying | the question is: What are people doing about it? None of this is a secret. It's all perfectly open. In fact, you have to make an effort not to see it. There have been a range of reactions. There are those who are trying hard to do something about these threats, and others who are acting to escalate them. If you look at who they are, this future historian or extraterrestrial observer would see something strange indeed. Trying to mitigate or overcome these threats are the least developed societies, the indigenous populations, or the remnants of them, tribal societies and first nations in Canada. They're not talking about nuclear war but environmental disaster, and they're really trying to do something about it. In fact, all over the world - Australia, India, South America - there are battles going on, sometimes wars. In India, it's a major war over direct environmental destruction, with tribal societies trying to resist resource extraction operations that are extremely harmful locally, but also in their general consequences. In societies where indigenous populations have an influence, many are taking a strong stand. The strongest of any country with regard to global warming is in Bolivia, which has an indigenous majority and constitutional requirements that protect the "rights of nature."

"The Most Dangerous Moment in History" | The other issue is nuclear war. It's been known for a long time that if there were to be a first strike by a major power, even with no retaliation, it would probably destroy civilization just because of the nuclear-winter consequences that would follow. You can read about it in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. It's well understood. So the danger has always been a lot worse than we thought it was. We've just passed the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was called "the most dangerous moment in history" by historian Arthur Schlesinger, President John F. Kennedy's advisor. Which it was. It was a very close call, and not the only time either. In some ways, however, the worst aspect of these grim events is that the lessons haven't been learned.

And to add a little more, a couple of months before the crisis blew up the United States had sent missiles with nuclear warheads to Okinawa. These were aimed at China during a period of great regional tension. Well, who cares? We have the right to do anything we want anywhere in the world. That was one grim lesson from that era, but there were others to come.

Ten years after that, in 1973, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called a high-level nuclear alert. It was his way of warning the Russians not to interfere in the ongoing Israel-Arab war and, in particular, not to interfere after he had informed the Israelis that they could violate a ceasefire the U.S. and Russia had just agreed upon. Fortunately, nothing happened. Ten years later, President Ronald Reagan was in office. Soon after he entered the White House, he and his advisors had the Air Force start penetrating Russian air space to try to elicit information about Russian warning systems, Operation Able Archer. Essentially, these were mock attacks. The Russians were uncertain, some high-level officials fearing that this was a step towards a real first strike. Fortunately, they didn't react, though it was a close call. And it goes on like that.

What to Make of the Iranian and North Korean Nuclear Crises | At the moment, the nuclear issue is regularly on front pages in the cases of North Korea and Iran. There are ways to deal with these ongoing crises. Maybe they wouldn't work, but at least you could try. They are, however, not even being considered, not even reported. Take the case of Iran, which is considered in the West - not in the Arab world, not in Asia - the gravest threat to world peace. It's a Western obsession, and it's interesting to look into the reasons for it, but I'll put that aside here. Is there a way to deal with the supposed gravest threat to world peace? Actually there are quite a few. One way, a pretty sensible one, was proposed a couple of months ago at a meeting of the non-aligned countries in Tehran. In fact, they were just reiterating a proposal that's been around for decades, pressed particularly by Egypt, and has been approved by the U.N. General Assembly.
The proposal is to move toward establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. That wouldn't be the answer to everything, but it would be a pretty significant step forward. And there were ways to proceed. Under U.N. auspices, there was to be an international conference in Finland last December to try to implement plans to move toward this.

Let's turn to the present. There's an interesting recent history. In 1993, Israel and North Korea were moving towards an agreement in which North Korea would stop sending any missiles or military technology to the Middle East and Israel would recognize that country. President Clinton intervened and blocked it. Shortly after that, in retaliation, North Korea carried out a minor missile test. The U.S. and North Korea did then reach a framework agreement in 1994 that halted its nuclear work and was more or less honored by both sides. When George W. Bush came into office, North Korea had maybe one nuclear weapon and verifiably wasn't producing any more. Lately, for instance, there have been South Korean-U.S. military exercises on the Korean peninsula which, from the North's point of view, have got to look threatening. We'd think they were threatening if they were going on in Canada and aimed at us. In the course of these, the most advanced bombers in history, Stealth B-2s and B-52s, are carrying out simulated nuclear bombing attacks right on North Korea's borders. It's not that there are no alternatives. The alternatives just aren't being taken. That's dangerous. So if you ask what the world is going to look like, it's not a pretty picture. Unless people do something about it. We always can.

source: http://pages.rediff.com/crown-capital-management-jakarta-indonesia/1801744

source: soup.io

"The future of life - and especially of human life - on Earth, shall depend on the direction that we give to the economy today. If our ultimate goal is the continuity of the life of our species we should follow the prescriptions advocated by Georgescu-Rogen: "(...) one day humanity will have to reconcile development with the economic downturn." Otherwise, we will perish "

If we do not change the current economic paradigm it is the very economy that increasingly plays into the abyss of destruction, as Lester Brown remembered, "the economy depends on the environment. If there is no environment, if everything is destroyed, there is no economy."

Regarding this line of analysis, Clovis Cavalcanti tells us that "there is no society (and economy) without an ecological system, but there can be an environment without society (and economy)." "Without recovering the environment, the economy is not saved, without recovering the economy, you don't save the environment," contextualized the U.S. ecologist Berry Commoner (1917-2012).

Side news: ptc management group

In the path of prosperity, modern economies devastated many of the natural resources. In the name of economic growth, industrial activity squandered ecosystems services (responsible for the maintenance of biodiversity), disfiguring nature on several fronts. Arguably, climate has been - and is being - caused by "man-economics." The goal? To make the economy grow exponentially producing in excess to meet the excessive consumption. The result? The environment threatened by excessive consumption. The result of this? Environmental depletion. Unequivocally, economic output implies destruction and degradation of the environment. By itself, it is enough to guide decision-making towards the development of a new economic paradigm geared to ecological orders, not to market-led ideology.While in its conventional models the traditional economy makes it a point to not include the framework or environmental constraints, because the prevailing view of the economic system as a whole extols the praises of the circular flow of wealth, imagining, therefore, an economy as an isolated system, like a human body endowed with only the circulatory system, there is no denying the enormous degree of economic dependence in relation to a finite natural ecosystem (the environment), since the fundamental nature of the economy is to extract, produce and consume.

The relationship of the economy (industrial activity) with the environment is intense. One cannot lose sight that the economic system is an open system that exchanges energy with the environment. In this exchange, it receives prime energy (clean) and returns it in a degraded form (dirty). So, metaphorically, if the economy is a human body, the digestive tract is contemplated here, since it receives from nature and returns matter and energy in the form of waste. Reaffirming that idea, we should remember a passage from Nicholas Georgescu-Rogen (1906-94): "The economic system consumes nature - matter and energy with low entropy - and provides garbage - matter and energy high entropy - back to nature."

Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to subordinate the growth to the limits of the ecosystem, since growing beyond the "normal" is highly detrimental to the environment. Therefore, the new economic paradigm must converge with the ecology, since we depend on this for our own survival. The challenge is unique: produce more (welfare) with less (natural resources). Produce more quality (development), not quantity (growth). Hence the maxim that we are therefore dependent on the environment, thus contradicting the speech of René Descartes (1596-1650) that "we are masters and lords of nature." For this idea of the French philosopher, the economy wasteful of natural resources, managed by "economic man-" would be acting correctly in propagating destruction, pollution and environmental degradation, since to generate wealth is generated before the destruction of nature. | article source