I really like what you wrote about shaking hands with the person who grew
your food. The next question might be; if we do not love this planet
enough to stop GHG emmissions will their come a time when the climate will
not be condusive to growing food?
>From: "M&K DuPree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?
>Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:55:17 -0500
>Quote at the end of the article: The point is not whether Gaia is alive or
>not, but rather, whether we can learn to love life enough to save the
>planet. -- Colin Wright
>The challenge to this learning is essentially that most of us are basically
>unplugged from the planet. When was the last time your feet actually
>touched the ground and not concrete? When was the last time you looked the
>grower of your food in the eye and shook his or her hand? How many more
>questions like this can we all ask? Perhaps this article will help us gain
>a bit of motivation to accept the challenge, if for no one else, our
>children. Mike DuPree
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:00 AM
>Subject: [Biofuel] Carbon Freeze?
> > http://eatthestate.org/11-03/CarbonFreeze.htm
> > (October 12, 2006)
> > Carbon Freeze?
> > Recently I've been reading "Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock.
> > Though it sounds like a science fiction novel (and some will critique
> > it that way), it is in fact an impassioned plea for recognizing the
> > depth of the climate crisis and a call to action.
> > Gaia, or the notion of a living planet Earth, was proposed by
> > Lovelock in the 1960s when he was a planet scientist for NASA looking
> > at the inert atmosphere of Mars. It occurred to him that life itself
> > on Earth was manipulating the atmosphere to its own benefit. While
> > the Earth Science community has now recognized that our planet does
> > indeed self-regulate its temperature and composition, it shies away
> > from Lovelock's contention that there is an active, willful component
> > to Gaia.
> > Now Lovelock is back, arguing that the regulating mechanisms are
> > failing; in fact, that Gaia has a fever and is raising her
> > temperature to get rid of us. As anthropomorphic as this notion is,
> > Lovelock at 82 is no crackpot. I recently saw him at the University
> > Bookstore, and he comes across as the genteel but sharp-witted
> > English scientist that he is. As a fellow of the Royal Society,
> > Britain's most prestigious science organization, he is on top of the
> > latest climate science. And unlike most scientists, he feels that his
> > objectivity is not compromised by speaking out.
> > Much of the science in the book is familiar: the hockey-stick-like
> > rise in global temperatures in recent years, the dramatic loss of ice
> > in Greenland and the Antarctic and Arctic, the melting permafrost,
> > etc. But Lovelock adds some new twists and goes beyond the smooth and
> > linear temperature increases that characterize the IPCC predictions.
> > For Lovelock, discontinuities and tipping points in the form of
> > sudden temperature rises will bring irreversible change and add up to
> > a bleak future where humanity itself is threatened.
> > Lovelock advances the notion that the Earth is returning to a new hot
> > state, about eight degrees Centigrade warmer, that will last a
> > hundred thousand years or more. Such an episode did occur about 55
> > million years ago, when massive methane releases overwhelmed the
> > planet. As corroborating evidence that we could enter a new hot
> > state, Lovelock points to his computer simulations that mimic algae
> > growth in the oceans. According to his model, when carbon dioxide
> > levels begin to exceed about 500 parts per million, the ocean algae
> > with their ability to absorb carbon and promote cloud cover become
> > extinct, leading to an abrupt jump in global temperature of around
> > eight degrees. This sort of temperature jump would turn much of the
> > planet into scrub and desert, which together with massive flooding
> > would lead to a catastrophic die-off in the human population.
> > To be sure, these sorts of predictions are speculative at this stage.
> > The new IPCC report is due out next year (and it is rumored to be
> > frightening). But it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that
> > letting carbon dioxide levels rise to 500 ppm would put the lives of
> > billions of people at risk. (Note, according to Paul Roberts' "The
> > End of Oil," that even if we stabilized carbon emissions at current
> > levels--a carbon freeze--we will reach 520 ppm by 2100. If we do
> > nothing, we will hit 550 ppm by mid-century.)
> > Even if we have already passed a point of no return, Lovelock
> > advocates replacing our fossil fuels as soon as possible to slow the
> > temperature increases and to buy us more time. He proposes a range of
> > alternative energies, including nuclear fission, until we can develop
> > nuclear fusion, which is still decades away from feasibility, if at
> > all.
> > Getting off of fossil fuels may be easier than Lovelock thinks. He
> > seems to be unaware of peaking global oil supplies. Retired Princeton
> > geology professor Ken Deffeyes is still sticking to his December 2005
> > prediction for global peak oil. His new evidence? New data from the
> > US Energy Information Administration that world crude oil production
> > peaked at 85.1 million barrels a day last December and then declined
> > to 84.3 million barrels this past June.
> > (www.energybulletin.net/20518.html). A temporary downturn, perhaps.
> > (Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, with his
> > field-by-field analysis, still sticks to his 2010/2011 peak.)
> > Meanwhile knowledge of the coming energy crisis seems scant in
> > Seattle. Portland and San Francisco city councils have already passed
> > Peak Oil resolutions, setting up committees to study how their city
> > will react and prepare for the coming high energy prices and
> > shortages. Energy analyst Matt Simmons thinks the genie is now out of
> > the bottle and peak oil and gas will dominate the 2008 election
> > (www.energybulletin.net/21055.html).
> > Al Gore, well aware of the global warming/peak oil systems crisis,
> > and who has done more than anyone recently to wake up lethargic
> > Americans, is calling for an immediate carbon freeze, followed by
> > steep declines. Gore, who has singled out Ballard as a model
> > neighborhood for carbon reductions, will be speaking in Seattle on
> > Oct. 23rd at Key Arena.
> > The hope is that the challenges of the coming decades will pull us
> > together. The doctrines that the Republicans and neocons are
> > pushing--infinite war, market worship, massive debt to drown the
> > government, a police state--will be wholly inadequate in the new
> > environment. They need to be trashed as soon as possible. New ideas
> > about alternative energy and conservation, about global cooperation,
> > and most of all, about the empowerment of us all to use our
> > collective energies for the public good will be essential.
> > The point is not whether Gaia is alive or not, but rather, whether we
> > can learn to love life enough to save the planet. --Colin Wright
> > _______________________________________________
> > Biofuel mailing list
> > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> > messages):
> > http://firstname.lastname@example.org/
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
Experience Live Search from your PC or mobile device today.
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):