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

No comments: