Monday, February 19, 2007

rojosramblings

Great, just great! Nothing anyone would do now surprises me and this may be believable. The same administration that shows shell pictures of munitions with English (not Farsee) script on them now is trying to foment a war. And the level of morals this government has shown really makes me believe this is possible.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

rojosramblings

18 Years on, Exxon Valdez Oil Still Pours into Alaskan Waters
Study concludes threat to ecology could last decades.
Tanker's owner dismisses report as insignificant
by Ewen MacAskill


Crude oil is still polluting Alaskan waters almost 18 years after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, according to a study by US government scientists to be published in two weeks.

The study, an advance of which was released on Wednesday, found more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. Researchers say it is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska.

The disclosure came as Exxon Mobil posted the largest annual profit by a US company, $39.5bn (£20bn) yesterday.

Predictions that the pollution would have disappeared by now have proved to be inaccurate, and the damaged ecosystem is struggling to recover. The lingering oil, lying below the surface, affects wildlife and the general environment, and "degrades the wilderness character" of protected lands, the report says.

The scientists conclude: "Such persistence can pose a contact hazard to inter-tidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks, and shore birds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourage subsistence in a region where use is heavy, and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands."

The oil spill in 1989, the worst single incident of pollution in US history, covered 1,200 miles of pristine shoreline.

The slow rate of dispersal means the oil could persist for decades more below the surface near some beaches.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil said yesterday the company would review the findings. "Based on our initial review of the report, there is nothing newsworthy or significant in the report that has not already been addressed," he said. "The existence of some small amounts of residual oil in Prince William Sound on about two-tenths of 1% of the shore of the sound is not a surprise, is not disputed and was fully anticipated."

Mr Boudreaux said Exxon has supported more than 350 independent studies whose scientists have found no evidence of significant long-term impact.

This is right on the heels of the fact that fat bastard himself -- Lee Raymond -- had payed scientists X amount of money to dispute global warming.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasize the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

This story is also from the Guardian.

So here we have the American Leader in alternative energy development, the Bush appointee paying people off to lie about the reality of global warming. Have I gone nuts, or is this an egregious offense to the American public. This should be a major American WTF moment. Yes, letter writing to our congressmen and Senators would be a great. Maybe Wayne Allard will listen here in Colorado. (Ha!)

So let's see - America for all practical purposes, is paying scientists to lie. The government is forcing climatologists to lie if they work for the government, as has been revealed in the past two weeks. This is in direct contradiction to the release of the U.N. report on global warming where it states that it will take centuries for the climate to normalize.

How long will it take the American public to realize we have been snowed by Business and business interests and puppet governments--and Bush wants to appoint people like Lee Raymond as government officials to keep out ideas pure. (oh, excuse me, it is to cut down administrative overhead.)

What an asshole!

rojomojo
rojosramblings

I normally just link top articles but this one is too much:

18 Years on, Exxon Valdez Oil Still Pours into Alaskan Waters
Study concludes threat to ecology could last decades
Tanker's owner dismisses report as insignificant
by Ewen MacAskill

Crude oil is still polluting Alaskan waters almost 18 years after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, according to a study by US government scientists to be published in two weeks.

The study, an advance of which was released on Wednesday, found more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. Researchers say it is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska.

The disclosure came as Exxon Mobil posted the largest annual profit by a US company, $39.5bn (£20bn) yesterday.

Predictions that the pollution would have disappeared by now have proved to be inaccurate, and the damaged ecosystem is struggling to recover. The lingering oil, lying below the surface, affects wildlife and the general environment, and "degrades the wilderness character" of protected lands, the report says.

The study, by experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is to be published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal.

The scientists conclude: "Such persistence can pose a contact hazard to inter-tidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks, and shore birds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourage subsistence in a region where use is heavy, and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands."

The oil spill in 1989, the worst single incident of pollution in US history, covered 1,200 miles of pristine shoreline.

The slow rate of dispersal means the oil could persist for decades more below the surface near some beaches.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil said yesterday the company would review the findings. "Based on our initial review of the report, there is nothing newsworthy or significant in the report that has not already been addressed," he said. "The existence of some small amounts of residual oil in Prince William Sound on about two-tenths of 1% of the shore of the sound is not a surprise, is not disputed and was fully anticipated."

Mr Boudreaux said Exxon has supported more than 350 independent studies whose scientists have found no evidence of significant long-term impact.


This is right on the heels of the fact that fat bastard himself -- Lee Raymond -- had apyed scientists X amount of money to dispute global warming.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

This story is also from the Guardian.

So here we have the American Leader in alternative energy development, the Bush appointee paying people off to lie about the reality of global warming. Have I gone nuts, or is this an egregious offense to the American public. This should be a major American WTF moment. Yes, letter writing to our congressmen and Senators would be a great. Maybe Wayne Allard will listen here in Colorado. (Ha!)

So let's see - America for all practical purposes, is paying scientists to lie. The government is forcing climatologists to lie if they work for the government, as has been revealed in the past two weeks. This is in direct contradiction to the release of the U.N. report on global warming where it states that it will take centuries for the climate to normalize.

How long will it take the American public to realize we have been snowed by Business and business interests and puppet governments--and Bush wants to appoint people like Lee Raymond as government officials to keep out ideas pure. (oh, excuse me, it is to cut down administrative overhead.)

What an asshole!

rojomojo

rojosramblings

I normally just link top articles but this one is too much:

18 Years on, Exxon Valdez Oil Still Pours into Alaskan Waters
Study concludes threat to ecology could last decades
Tanker's owner dismisses report as insignificant
by Ewen MacAskill

Crude oil is still polluting Alaskan waters almost 18 years after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, according to a study by US government scientists to be published in two weeks.

The study, an advance of which was released on Wednesday, found more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. Researchers say it is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska.

The disclosure came as Exxon Mobil posted the largest annual profit by a US company, $39.5bn (£20bn) yesterday.

Predictions that the pollution would have disappeared by now have proved to be inaccurate, and the damaged ecosystem is struggling to recover. The lingering oil, lying below the surface, affects wildlife and the general environment, and "degrades the wilderness character" of protected lands, the report says.

The study, by experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is to be published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal.

The scientists conclude: "Such persistence can pose a contact hazard to inter-tidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks, and shore birds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourage subsistence in a region where use is heavy, and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands."

The oil spill in 1989, the worst single incident of pollution in US history, covered 1,200 miles of pristine shoreline.

The slow rate of dispersal means the oil could persist for decades more below the surface near some beaches.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil said yesterday the company would review the findings. "Based on our initial review of the report, there is nothing newsworthy or significant in the report that has not already been addressed," he said. "The existence of some small amounts of residual oil in Prince William Sound on about two-tenths of 1% of the shore of the sound is not a surprise, is not disputed and was fully anticipated."

Mr Boudreaux said Exxon has supported more than 350 independent studies whose scientists have found no evidence of significant long-term impact.


This is right on the heels of the fact that fat bastard himself -- Lee Raymond -- had apyed scientists X amount of money to dispute global warming.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

This story is also from the Guardian.

So here we have the American Leader in alternative energy development, the Bush appointee paying people off to lie about the reality of global warming. Have I gone nuts, or is this an egregious offense to the American public. This should be a major American WTF moment. Yes, letter writing to our congressmen and Senators would be a great. Maybe Wayne Allard will listen here in Colorado. (Ha!)

So let's see - America for all practical purposes, is paying scientists to lie. The government is forcing climatologists to lie if they work for the government, as has been revealed in the past two weeks. This is in direct contradiction to the release of the U.N. report on global warming where it states that it will take centuries for the climate to normalize.

How long will it take the American public to realize we have been snowed by Business and business interests and puppet governments--and Bush wants to appoint people like Lee Raymond as government officials to keep out ideas pure. (oh, excuse me, it is to cut down administrative overhead.)

What an asshole!

rojomojo

Saturday, February 03, 2007

rojosramblings

I normally just link top articles but this one is too much:

18 Years on, Exxon Valdez Oil Still Pours into Alaskan Waters
Study concludes threat to ecology could last decades
Tanker's owner dismisses report as insignificant
by Ewen MacAskill

Crude oil is still polluting Alaskan waters almost 18 years after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, according to a study by US government scientists to be published in two weeks.

The study, an advance of which was released on Wednesday, found more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. Researchers say it is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska.

The disclosure came as Exxon Mobil posted the largest annual profit by a US company, $39.5bn (£20bn) yesterday.

Predictions that the pollution would have disappeared by now have proved to be inaccurate, and the damaged ecosystem is struggling to recover. The lingering oil, lying below the surface, affects wildlife and the general environment, and "degrades the wilderness character" of protected lands, the report says.

The study, by experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is to be published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal.

The scientists conclude: "Such persistence can pose a contact hazard to inter-tidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks, and shore birds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourage subsistence in a region where use is heavy, and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands."

The oil spill in 1989, the worst single incident of pollution in US history, covered 1,200 miles of pristine shoreline.

The slow rate of dispersal means the oil could persist for decades more below the surface near some beaches.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil said yesterday the company would review the findings. "Based on our initial review of the report, there is nothing newsworthy or significant in the report that has not already been addressed," he said. "The existence of some small amounts of residual oil in Prince William Sound on about two-tenths of 1% of the shore of the sound is not a surprise, is not disputed and was fully anticipated."

Mr Boudreaux said Exxon has supported more than 350 independent studies whose scientists have found no evidence of significant long-term impact.


This is right on the heels of the fact that fat bastard himself -- Lee Raymond -- had apyed scientists X amount of money to dispute global warming.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

This story is also from the Guardian.

So here we have the American Leader in alternative energy development, the Bush appointee paying people off to lie about the reality of global warming. Have I gone nuts, or is this an egregious offense to the American public. This should be a major American WTF moment. Yes, letter writing to our congressmen and Senators would be a great. Maybe Wayne Allard will listen here in Colorado. (Ha!)

So let's see - America for all practical purposes, is paying scientists to lie. The government is forcing climatologists to lie if they work for the government, as has been revealed in the past two weeks. This is in direct contradiction to the release of the U.N. report on global warming where it states that it will take centuries for the climate to normalize.

How long will it take the American public to realize we have been snowed by Business and business interests and puppet governments--and Bush wants to appoint people like Lee Raymond as government officials to keep out ideas pure. (oh, excuse me, it is to cut down administrative overhead.)

What an asshole!

rojomojo
rojosramblings

I normally just link top articles but this one is too much:

18 Years on, Exxon Valdez Oil Still Pours into Alaskan Waters
Study concludes threat to ecology could last decades
Tanker's owner dismisses report as insignificant
by Ewen MacAskill

Crude oil is still polluting Alaskan waters almost 18 years after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, according to a study by US government scientists to be published in two weeks.

The study, an advance of which was released on Wednesday, found more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. Researchers say it is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska.

The disclosure came as Exxon Mobil posted the largest annual profit by a US company, $39.5bn (£20bn) yesterday.

Predictions that the pollution would have disappeared by now have proved to be inaccurate, and the damaged ecosystem is struggling to recover. The lingering oil, lying below the surface, affects wildlife and the general environment, and "degrades the wilderness character" of protected lands, the report says.

The study, by experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is to be published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal.

The scientists conclude: "Such persistence can pose a contact hazard to inter-tidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks, and shore birds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourage subsistence in a region where use is heavy, and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands."

The oil spill in 1989, the worst single incident of pollution in US history, covered 1,200 miles of pristine shoreline.

The slow rate of dispersal means the oil could persist for decades more below the surface near some beaches.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil said yesterday the company would review the findings. "Based on our initial review of the report, there is nothing newsworthy or significant in the report that has not already been addressed," he said. "The existence of some small amounts of residual oil in Prince William Sound on about two-tenths of 1% of the shore of the sound is not a surprise, is not disputed and was fully anticipated."

Mr Boudreaux said Exxon has supported more than 350 independent studies whose scientists have found no evidence of significant long-term impact.


This is right on the heels of the fact that fat bastard himself -- Lee Raymond -- had apyed scientists X amount of money to dispute global warming.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

This story is also from the Guardian.

So here we have the American Leader in alternative energy development, the Bush appointee paying people off to lie about the reality of global warming. Have I gone nuts, or is this an egregious offense to the American public. This should be a major American WTF moment. Yes, letter writing to our congressmen and Senators would be a great. Maybe Wayne Allard will listen here in Colorado. (Ha!)

So let's see - America for all practical purposes, is paying scientists to lie. The government is forcing climatologists to lie if they work for the government, as has been revealed in the past two weeks. This is in direct contradiction to the release of the U.N. report on global warming where it states that it will take centuries for the climate to normalize.

How long will it take the American public to realize we have been snowed by Business and business interests and puppet governments--and Bush wants to appoint people like Lee Raymond as government officials to keep out ideas pure. (oh, excuse me, it is to cut down administrative overhead.)

What an asshole!

rojomojo

Thursday, February 01, 2007

rojosramblings

really additions to my previous post.

This is quite an interesting turn of events. Isn't Australia one of the few countries not working with the Kyoto protocol? The Great Barrier Reef will be dead in approximately 25 years if global warming continues. Do you think this may cause a slight local and probably larger problem in the Pacific food-chain. No, I have no evidence and link for that, but having an area the size of Germany die off may be a problem. We know that there will still be aquatic life around the projected-to-be-dead coral. There will be lots of places to hide. But as acidification continues (the process is not explained in the posted link, but here is a Wikipedia version) You will have a die off of autorophs, heterotrophs and zooplanktons which form the bottom end of the aquatic food chain. This will naturally effect the upper end of the already stressed marine food chain which many humans rely on for food. Sounds like a global catastrophe in the making. Many people (think Japan) rely on the marine food chain.

What strikes me is that the thrust of the article is the financial ruin that the tourism industry will face as people don't come to see the Great Barrier reef. Let me get this straight--people fly to Australia to see the reef. Flying causes a boat load (no pun intended) of CO2 emissions per person, Australia refuses to participate in Kyoto treaty, and we worry about the financial implications.

Am I being callous, or maybe we should be concerned about the hit to the global food chain, or maybe be compassionate about the hundreds of species dead (if you were a polytheistic animist you might be concerned about the spiritual impact of hundreds of dead species on the totality of the world spirit) , or if you were practical you might wonder about human consciousness and why it seems acceptable to kill the world so we can have "more stuff" (please don't get me started--the Denver Rocky Mountain News featured trailer park chic in Aspen where mobile homes are being designed with marble, etc and are going for more than $1,000,000.--more money than brains. this from an economy where the Home Depot ex-CEO gets a $140,000,000 "golden parachute" for failure. Please, please, please let me ruin a company. I'll do it for only $2,000,000. I come cheap.)

Another concern might be the rising sea levels. They are already going up 1" per decade and in a few decades will displace 40% of the population of Bengladesh. But, no, we'll talk about the economic impact, or discuss whether global warming is real or not. That debate is over and should have been for years. The U.S. government has already been implicated in making scientists shut up about the problem. And without making all the necessary connections, oil companies are making record profits (by the way, oil prices are being lowered so alternative and renewable energy prices are not furiously being researched and world residents aren't pissed at Arabs and energy conglomerates. They don't want us to be motivated to change or revolt, just keep consuming), instead of a real world leadership looking at renewable energy we just open more oil and gas leases. Wasn't it St. Reagan (he of trickle down economy fame) who symbolically removed the solar panels from the White House? And yet we trust free marketers and Repubilcans? Doh!

It makes me happy to drive through Iowa and see small towns such as Stuart having their own wind turbines. Or Colorado (yes, the same Colorado with $1,000,000 + mobile homes) passing bills requiring renewable energy of X percent within 10 years.

rojoThis is quite an interesting turn of events. Isn't Australia one of the few countries not working with the Kyoto protocol? The Great Barrier Reef will be dead in approximately 25 years if global warming continues. Do you think this may cause a slight local and probably larger problem in the Pacific food-chain. No, I have no evidence and link for that, but having an area the size of Germany die off may be a problem. We know that there will still be aquatic life around the projected-to-be-dead coral. There will be lots of places to hide. But as acidification continues (the process is not explained in the posted link, but here is a Wikipedia version) You will have a die off of autorophs, heterotrophs and zooplanktons which form the bottom end of the aquatic food chain. This will naturally effect the upper end of the already stressed marine food chain which many humans rely on for food. Sounds like a global catastrophe in the making. Many people (think Japan) rely on the marine food chain.

What strikes me is that the thrust of the article is the financial ruin that the tourism industry will face as people don't come to see the Great Barrier reef. Let me get this straight--people fly to Australia to see the reef. Flying causes a boat load (no pun intended) of CO2 emissions per person, Australia refuses to participate in Kyoto treaty, and we worry about the financial implications.

Am I being callous, or maybe we should be concerned about the hit to the global food chain, or maybe be compassionate about the hundreds of species dead (if you were a polytheistic animist you might be concerned about the spiritual impact of hundreds of dead species on the totality of the world spirit) , or if you were practical you might wonder about human consciousness and why it seems acceptable to kill the world so we can have "more stuff" (please don't get me started--the Denver Rocky Mountain News featured trailer park chic in Aspen where mobile homes are being designed with marble, etc and are going for more than $1,000,000.--more money than brains. this from an economy where the Home Depot ex-CEO gets a $140,000,000 "golden parachute" for failure. Please, please, please let me ruin a company. I'll do it for only $2,000,000. I come cheap.)

Another concern might be the rising sea levels. They are already going up 1" per decade and in a few decades will displace 40% of the population of Bengladesh. But, no, we'll talk about the economic impact, or discuss whether global warming is real or not. That debate is over and should have been for years. The U.S. government has already been implicated in making scientists shut up about the problem. And without making all the necessary connections, oil companies are making record profits (by the way, oil prices are being lowered so alternative and renewable energy prices are not furiously being researched and world residents aren't pissed at Arabs and energy conglomerates. They don't want us to be motivated to change or revolt, just keep consuming), instead of a real world leadership looking at renewable energy we just open more oil and gas leases. Wasn't it St. Reagan (he of trickle down economy fame) who symbolically removed the solar panels from the White House? And yet we trust free marketers and Repubilcans? Doh!

It makes me happy to drive through Iowa and see small towns such as Stuart having their own wind turbines. Or Colorado (yes, the same Colorado with $1,000,000 + mobile homes) passing bills requiring renewable energy of X percent within 10 years.

rojo
rojosramblings

This is quite an interesting turn of events. Isn't Australia one of the few countries not working with the Kyoto protocol? The Great Barrier Reef will be dead in approximately 25 years if global warming continues. Do you think this may cause a slight local and probably larger problem in the Pacific food-chain. No, I have no evidence and link for that, but having an area the size of Germany die off may be a problem. We know that there will still be aquatic life around the projected-to-be-dead coral. There will be lots of places to hide. But as acidification continues (the process is not explained in the posted link, but here is a Wikipedia version) You will have a die off of autorophs, heterotrophs and zooplanktons which form the bottom end of the aquatic food chain. This will naturally effect the upper end of the already stressed marine food chain which many humans rely on for food. Sounds like a global catastrophe in the making. Many people (think Japan) rely on the marine food chain.

What strikes me is that the thrust of the article is the financial ruin that the tourism industry will face as people don't come to see the Great Barrier reef. Let me get this straight--people fly to Australia to see the reef. Flying causes a boat load (no pun intended) of CO2 emissions per person, Australia refuses to participate in Kyoto treaty, and we worry about the financial implications.

Am I being callous, or maybe we should be concerned about the hit to the global food chain, or maybe be compassionate about the hundreds of species dead (if you were a polytheistic animist you might be concerned about the spiritual impact of hundreds of dead species on the totality of the world spirit) , or if you were practical you might wonder about human consciousness and why it seems acceptable to kill the world so we can have "more stuff" (please don't get me started--the Denver Rocky Mountain News featured trailer park chic in Aspen where mobile homes are being designed with marble, etc and are going for more than $1,000,000.--more money than brains. this from an economy where the Home Depot ex-CEO gets a $140,000,000 "golden parachute" for failure. Please let me ruin a company. I'll do it for only $2,000,000. I come cheap.)

Another concern might be the rising sea levels. They are already going up 1" per decade and in a few decades will displace 40% of the population of Bengladesh. But, no, we'll talk about the economic impact, or discuss whether global warming is real or not. That debate is over and should have been for years. The U.S. government has already been implicated in making scientists shut up about the problem. And without making all the necessary connections, oil companies are making record profits (by the way, oil prices are being lowered so alternative and renewable energy prices are not furiously being researched and world residents aren't pissed at Arabs. They don't want us to be motivated to change.), instead of a real world leadership looking at renewable energy we just open more oil and gas leases. It makes me happy to drive through Iowa and see small towns such as Stuart having their own wind turbines. Or Colorado (yes, the same Colorado with $1,000,000 + mobile homes) passing bills requiring renewable energy of X percent within 10 years.

rojo