Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:48 AM
Original message
Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded
14 March 2006

US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level.

BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.

The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.

The figures are seen as a benchmark for climate scientists around the globe.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has been analysing samples of air taken from all over the world, including America's Rocky Mountains.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460.stm

Anyone else notice it's getting hot around here. Whew!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Them Republicans who listen to Rush reject/refuse these reports.
They thinks its some kinda Liberal thing. Or, its Cyclic, nothing to worry about...

I tell ya, its frightening how they reject Science. ... but accept Bushies BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. yep... my dad is one of them
and a scientist himself no less.

The mind boggles, really. I just don't get it. :crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. The reason why they are not worried about the environment
is that they are hoping to get rid of all of us useless eaters and then they'll have the whole place to themselves. There will be plenty of resources left then.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
18. They won't survive either. The resources won't exist
if trends continue, then forests and crops will fail and "dead zones" will spread through the oceans-killing off all sea life. 65% of our oxygen comes from sea plant flora, and the rest comes from forests. If you can't breath......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerDittoHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. BBC = anti-freedom Liberals who want gov't to control everything...
Even though if one spent about 20 minutes (literally) looking into global warming and C02, etc., they'd be otherwise convinced.

But don't you know? The TOP (fundamentalist, Republican) Nobel nominated (by other fundamentalist republicans) "scientists" refute this in their recent studies funded by the "people for common sense energy" (aka: EXXON)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. K & R - this is important news. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. ***See also this thread on the failure of arctic sea ice formation:
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 07:03 AM by Nothing Without Hope
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2165158
thread title (3-14-06 LBN): Climate change 'irreversible' as Arctic sea ice fails to re-form
Independent, UK. Excerpt: “Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted. Satellite measurements of the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice show that for every month this winter, the ice failed to return even to its long-term average rate of decline. It is the second consecutive winter that the sea ice has not managed to re-form enough to compensate for the unprecedented melting seen during the past few summers. Scientists are now convinced that Arctic sea ice is showing signs of both a winter and a summer decline that could indicate a major acceleration in its long-term rate of disappearance. The greatest fear is that an environmental "positive feedback" has kicked in, where global warming melts ice which in itself causes the seas to warm still further as more sunlight is absorbed by a dark ocean rather than being reflected by white ice.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
8. I would like to also know the methane levels. There's the fear that this
greenhouse gas will be released increasingly as large tundra areas melt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. Huge areas of tundra are thawing in Siberia with massive release
of methane expected. Methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than co2. The rise in Ocean temps will also start releasing methane now licked up as frozen crystals in the ocean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. All true and all too often overlooked in public discussions of global
warming. As is the potentially very rapid shift in ocean currents, which would have immediate and profound effects on weather and marine life. The Gulf Stream has already shown signs of dangerous weakening.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4485840.stm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x15569

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4582872.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
9. As long as people keep consuming resources,
unsequestering carbon by burning fossil fuels and living in huge houses which consume more energy per capita than is rational, it will continue.

We are the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
10. Arguments of the Ignorant, and willfully ignorant
A FEW THINGS ILL CONSIDERED
By Coby Beck

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

EXAMPLE OF CONTENTS:

ARGUMENTS FROM IGNORANCE

* One warm year is not global warming
* A few glaciers receding today is not proof of Global Warming
* One hundred years doesn't tell us anything
* A warmer climate is a good thing.
* The current warming could be natural
* It was even warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
* Wasn't the Medieval Warm Period just as warm as today?
* We can not reduce fossil fuel usage
* Kyoto would have virtually no effect on the temperature rise
* Why do India and China get a free pass in Kyoto
* There is Global Warming on Mars without any SUV's
* But there is Global Warming on Pluto without any SUV's
* I just read about a record cold snap, this proves there is no Global
Warming
* Even scientists can't agree on the reality of Global Warming
* Ice sheets in the Antarctic are growing so Global Warming isn't real
* Climate is a too chaotic so about predicting where it will go
* Volcanoes emit way more CO2 than people
* Global Warming is just because cities are getting bigger
* We can't even predict the weather, forget about 100 year projections
* Greenland was even warmer than now when the Vikings lived there
* But the Satellites say it's cooling
* So far nothing bad has happened after 100 years of warming, why worry?
* Humans have adapted to all types of climates, we'll manage just fine


SOCIO-POLITICAL/ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS

* Global Warming is a hoax
* The temperature record manipulated
* Climate scientists hide the dominant role of water vapor
* Reducing fossil fuel usage will destroy civilization
* Even if we fully implemented the Kyoto protocol it is not enough
* The US is right to reject Kyoto as long as India and China get a free pass
* The threat of Global Warming is still too controversial to act on


SCIENTIFIC FUD

* The temperature record is so processed it only says what the scientists
want
* H2O far outweighs any CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
* A one hundred year trend is not an adequate sample
* The models are primitive and unreliable
* Glaciers have advanced and retreated before
* Models do not even account for H2O, the most abundant and powerful GHG
* There are many periods with much warmer climates in geological history.
* The current warming is just a part of natural variation
* Current temperatures have not even matched the Holocene Climatic Optimum
* The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm and pronounced as today
* Global Warming on Mars and Pluto is clear evidence that the Sun is hotter
* The ice core records show that CO2 does not lead, but lags temperature
changes
* Ice sheets in the Antarctic growing contradict Global Warming theory
* The climate system a chaotic system and therefore we can not predict it
* Global Warming is an artifact of the Urban Heat Island Effect
* Vikings in Greenland could only happen with the higher temperatures of the
MWP
* Satellite readings are not in line with model predictions, the models are
wrong.
* The environmental effects of the warming so far on the balance have been
good.


PHILOSPHICAL/ARGUMENTS FROM HIGHER PRINCIPALS

* There is no proof that CO2 is what is causing the temperature to go up.
* The models are unproven
* Climate is a chaotic system and can not be predicted
* So polar bears and a few other species will go extinct, humans are all
that matter


CRACKPOTTERY

* H2O is 99% of the Greenhouse Effect.
* Volcanoes emit way more CO2 than people and are causing the CO2 levels to
rise
* GW is caused by undersea volcanoes
* The CO2 increase is a natural response to the MWP
* Geothermal heat far exceeds the Greenhouse Effect
* The CO2 increase is not from fossil fuels
* GW is caused by all the heat produced by more humans and more activity

------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Great reference! Thanks for posting that - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
29. I just added this to my Climate Change file ... thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazzleDazzle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
30. NOT a great reference if you don't post the damn permalink
it takes absolutely no more time than the regular link. Right-click on the timestamp, and choose "copy link location" or whatever. Then come here and paste.

Posting the home page link is like directing someone to this disucssion by giving them the link for the forum: useless after a fairly short period of time.

I'm truly surprised at people -- longtime DUers, too -- who take this lazy assed approach. POST THE DAMN PERMALINK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
12. Yep the real President - AL Gore said this would happen, and things
are gonna go OFF THE CHAIN over the next 45 years - we will see DRAMATIC CLIMATE CHANGE within our lifetimes.

This is very important report, I wish I could nominate this thread a 100 times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Likely in just a few short years....five to seven will be noticeable
to the ecology of this planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. People don't get that it means more than warmer weather
they don't understand what "environmental collapse" could mean to them. They don't consider starvation and wars over scarce resources. It's pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
13. If you buy a fish that you didn't catch in your own backyard,
then you also bought fuel.

We're living in a material world. Until we go back (or until there are few enough humans doing it that it doesn't hurt the planet in an unsustainable way), then there will be global warming.

I predict that we will not change. Over the years, the people I've talked to about this, are all unwilling to change.

Who will take the first cold shower. Who will forego the penicillin. Who will not use novocaine. Who will walk.

I'm going shopping right now. If I don't, I'll die of starvation. And so it goes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Want to make a big impact? Don't eat beef. That's a good place to start:
THE REAL COSTS OF BEEF:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DEVASTATION

Cattle and beef production is a primary threat to the global environment. It is a major contributor to deforestation, soil erosion and desertification, water scarcity, water pollution, depletion of fossil fuels, global warming, and loss of biodiversity.

Deforestation

* Cattle ranching is a primary cause of deforestation in Latin America. Since 1960, more than one quarter of all Central. American forests have been razed to make pasture for cattle. Nearly 70 percent of deforested land in Panama and Costa Pica is now pasture.1
* Some 40,000 square miles of Amazon forest were cleared for cattle ranching and other commercial development between 1966 and 1983. Brazil estimates that 38 percent of its rain forest was destroyed for cattle pasture.2
* Just one quarter-pound hamburger imported from Latin America requires the clearing of 6 square yards of rain forest and the destruction of 165 pounds of living matter including 20 to 30 different plant species, 100 insect species, and dozens of bird, mammal, and reptile species. 3

Soil Erosion and Desertification

* Cattle production is turning productive land into barren desert in the American West and throughout the world. Soil erosion and desertification is caused directly by cattle and other livestock overgrazing. Overcultivation of the land, improper irrigation techniques, and deforestation are also principal causes of erosion and desertification, and cattle production is a primary factor in each case.
* Cattle degrade the land by stripping vegetation and compacting the earth. Each animal foraging on the open range eats 900 pounds of vegetation every month. Their powerful hoofs trample vegetation and crush the soil with an impact of 24 pounds per square inch.4
* As much as 85 percent of U.S. western rangeland, nearly 685 million acres, is being degraded by overgrazing and other problems, according to a 1991 United Nations report. The study estimates that 430 million acres in the American West is suffering a 25 to 50 percent yield reduction, largely because of overgrazing.5
* The United States has lost one third of its topsoil. An estimated six of the seven billion tons of eroded soil is directly attributable to grazing and unsustainable methods of producing feed crops for cattle and other livestock.6
* Each pound of feedlot steak costs about 35 pounds of eroded American topsoil, according to the Worldwatch Institute.7

Water Scarcity

* Nearly half of the total amount of water used annually in the U. S. goes to grow feed and provide drinking water for cattle and other livestock. Producing a pound of grain-fed steak requires the use of hundreds of gallons of water. Producing a pound of beef protein often requires up to fifteen times more water than producing an equivalent amount of plant protein.8
* U.S. fresh water reserves have declined precipitously as a result of excess water use for cattle and other livestock. U.S. water shortages, especially in the West, have now reached critical levels. Overdrafts now exceed replenishments by 25 percent.9
* The great Ogallala aquifer, one of the world's largest fresh water reserves, is already half depleted in Kansas, Texas, and New Mexico. In California. where 42 percent of irrigation water is used for feed or livestock production, water tables have dropped so low that in some areas the earth is sinking under the vacuum. Some U.S. reservoirs and aquifers are now at their lowest levels since the end of the last Ice Age.11

Water Pollution

* Organic waste from cattle and other livestock, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and agricultural salts and sediments are the primary non-point source of water pollution in the U.S.11
* Cattle produce nearly 1 billion tons of organic waste each year. The average feedlot steer produces more than 47 pounds ofmanure every twenty-four hours. Nearly 500,000 pounds of manure are produced daily on a standard 10,000- head feedlot. This is the rough equivalent of what a city of 110,000 would produce in human waste. There are 42,000 feedlots in 13 U.S. states.12

Depletion of Fossil Fuels

* Intensive animal agriculture uses a dis proportionate amount of fossil fuels. Supplying the world with a typical American meat-based diet would deplete all world oil reserves in just a few years.13
* It now takes the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline to produce a pound of grainfed beef in the United States. The annual beef consumption of an average American family of four requires more than 260 gallons of fuel and releases 2.5 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, as much as the average car over a six month period.14

Global Warming

* Cattle and beef production is a significant factor in the emission of three of the four global warming gases -- carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane.15
* Much of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is directly attributable to beef production: burning forests to make way for cattle pasture and burning massive tracts of agricultural waste from cattle feed crops. When the fifty-five square feet of rain forest needed to produce one quarter-pound hamburger is burned for pasture, 500 pounds of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.16
* CO2 is also generated by the fuel used in the highly mechanized agricultural production of feed crops for cattle and other livestock. With 70 percent of all U.S. grain production now used for livestock feed, the CO2 emitted as a direct result is significant.17
* Petrochemical fertilizers used to produce feed crops for grain-fed cattle release nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. Worldwide, the use of fertilizers has increased dramatically from 14 million tons in 1950 to 143 million tons in 1989. Nitrous oxide now accounts for 6 percent of the global warming effect.18
* Cattle emit methane, another greenhouse gas, through belching and flatulation. Scientists estimate that more than 500 million tons of methane are released each year and that the world's 1.3 billion cattle and other ruminant livestock emit approximately 60 million tons or 12 percent of the total from all sources. Methane is a serious problem because one methane molecule traps 25 times as much solar heat as a molecule of CO2.19

Loss of Biodiversity

* U.S. cattle production has caused a significant loss of biodiversity on both public and private lands. More plant species in the U.S. have been eliminated or threatened by livestock grazing than by any other cause, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).20
* Riparian zones -- the narrow strips of land that run alongside rivers and streams where most of the range flora and fauna are concentrated -- have been the hardest hit by cattle grazing. More than 90 percent of the original riparian zones of Arizona and New Mexico are gone, according to the Arizona State Park Department. Colorado and Idaho have also been hard hit. The GAO reports that "poorly managed livestock grazing is the major cause of degraded riparian habitat on federal rangelands."21
* Unable to compete with cattle for food, wild animals are disappearing from the rangs. Pronghorn have decreased from 15 million a century ago to less than 271,000 today. Bighorn sheep, once numbering over 2 million, are now less than 20,000. The elk population has plummeted from 2 million to less than 455,000.22
* The government has worked with ranchers to make cattle grazing the predominant use of Western public lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has long favored ranching over other uses. BLM sprays herbicides over large tracts of range eliminating vegetation eaten by wild animals and replacing it with monocultures of grasses favored by cattle.23
* Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.24
* The predator "control" program cost American taxpayers $29.4 million in 1990 -- more than the amount of losses caused by wild animals.25
* Tens of thousands of wild horses and burros have been rounded up by the federal government because ranchers claim they compete with their cattle for forage. The horses and burros are held in corrals, costing taxpayers millions of dollars per year. Many wild horses have ended up at slaughterhouses.
* For several years, cattle ranchers have blocked efforts to re-introduce the wolf, an endangered species, into the wild, as required by the U.S. Endangered Species Act.


http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/reports/beyond.html#3

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Thanks. I've read that before.
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 11:47 AM by Gregorian
I think you posted it when I read it the first time. And I am very surprised, although it should come as no surprise.



I guess for someone who thinks the way I do, very little is surprising. But the average person doesn't realize how entwined fuel is in almost every part of our lives. Flush the toilet, and you've used fuel. Unless you have a spring that feeds a tank that is at least forty feet above your house. And how many of us have that? So basically, flush the toilet, and a puff of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. It's that simple.

We aren't going to change. As much as I've howled and hollered over the last thirty years. Because this is not news to me. My "truthiness" meter said global warming long before global warming was ever a phrase. I just knew it. I'm mechanic, and it's absolutely impossible for a billion cars to not be impacting the planet in a huge way. And that's just cars.................... Oh well. Enjoy the ride.

Edit- By the way. The first friend I have, just had a child. I don't, and no one I've known in my entire life has kids. We all come from a different planet as the rest of the people here. We know, and we care. But he's fifty, and his mom just died. And his girlfriends father AND brother just committed suicide. So they had a child. He called me with an apologetic voice. But we both understand. However, my point is this- he named him Noah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
14. Rush Limbaugh Calls It "Junk Science"... Says It's Not Real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. All the compelling theories put out about natural fluctuations
or sunspot cycles or Columbian drug lords, overlook the simple fact of the CO2, a known greenhouse gas, that we have put in the atmosphere. (A chart of its increase is worth a 1000 words.) They overlook that one fact and carry on with their fine theories that just happen to let them keep doing what they're doing. Of course, if they're wrong, we and our children will pay a very heavy price for their smug greed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Our children? Hell-WE will pay the heavy price
I guarantee it. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. I Remember Back In His Heyday, He Would Claim...
... that a single volcanic eruption produced MORE CO2 than all the CO2 emissions that have EVER been produced by humans (or something equally silly).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. That spin is annoying.
There is a poster on another forum I frequent who uses that same "humans can't possibly have generated that much CO2, it must be natural because humans don't have that much power over nature" or other such BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hopeisaplace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
22. media types who have the power to influence the public
and say that global warming is junk science, should be arrested for
crimes against humanity :shrug: :nuke: :grr:

(joking of course, but
very maddening to see people in powerful positions be so incredibly
and purposefully obtuse. I can't figure out what they gain by spreading
these lies..the Rush Limbaugh types that is)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Their gain is profits
they refuse to believe that it will ever effect them (and it will), so their focus is on short term profits. Fossil fuel lobbies, the timber industry, the beef industry (see my earlier post) and other all have our reps AND the media in their pockets. If we were serious about our survival and the survival of all life on earth, then were would demand renewable energy, that power plants clean up their act, that forest "management" was responsible, and we would educate the public about beef's impact on climate change, as well as how consumerism as a lifestyle impacts the environment. If people behaved like aware, responsible adults, then profits for the giant corporations that own our media would be curbed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
26. Looks like the runaway greenhouse is well established. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC