Exposed: The Worldwide Efforts Of The Global Energy Lobby To Kill Progress On Climate Change

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Exposed: The Worldwide Efforts Of The Global Energy Lobby To Kill Progress On Climate Change stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

Huffington Post   |  Katherine Goldstein
First Posted: 11- 5-09 12:05 AM   |   Updated: 11- 5-09 09:29 AM

What's Your Reaction?
Smokestacks

The Center For Public Integrity just released a blockbuster investigative report that details the intense corporate pressure to block an effective global treaty from being reached at the UN Climate Talks in Copenhagen in December, and to halt efforts in individual countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to fierce lobbying behind closed doors, some of the most aggressive tactics deployed by resource giants such as Exxon Mobil, Peabody Coal and other energy and agriculture interests are often the most public: spreading fear and misinformation about the true impact of emissions regulations.

Some examples from the report:

In the poor, but mineral-rich mountains of the eastern United States known as Appalachia, coal millionaire Don Blankenship hosts a rally for "Friends of America" to hear country music and "learn how environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs"...


Around the world the story is the much same. Wherever nations have taken the first modest steps to stave off a looming environmental calamity for future generations, they've triggered a backlash from powers rooted in the economy of the past. Opponents of climate action may have different methods as they pressure different capitals, but the message is consistent: Be afraid that a cherished way of life may be lost. Be afraid that a better standard of living will never be had.

Here's a summary of the full extent of the center's investigation:

Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on-the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental calamity, the investigation found.

The tactics employed have changed over time -- before the Kyoto climate talks, industry lobbyists fervently denied the science behind global warming. Now they generally acknowledge that climate change is real, but attempt to stall and water down any progress in limiting emissions.

The map below breaks down how much each of several major world regions contribute in global emissions. Click on the map for the interactive version on the Center for Public Integrity's website.

Some other fascinating findings from the report:

A commonly repeated mantra in the media is that tensions surrounding the climate talks center on developed countries not wanting to give up certain standards of living, while developing countries fear that regulations will stifle economic growth. In contrast, this study found that "both developed and developing countries are under heavy pressure by fossil fuel industries and other carbon-intensive businesses to slow progress on negotiations and weaken government commitments. The clash cannot simply be framed as one between richer and poorer nations."

The report also highlighted the astronomical amount of money and effort the energy lobby has poured into attempts to stall any meaningful advancement of climate legislation, particularly in the US. "There are now about 2,810 climate lobbyists -- five lobbyists for every member of Congress -- a 400 percent jump from six years earlier."

To read the whole article from the Center for Public Integrity, CLICK HERE.



Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

The Center For Public Integrity just released a blockbuster investigative report that details the intense corporate pressure to block an effective global treaty from being reached at the UN Climate Ta...
The Center For Public Integrity just released a blockbuster investigative report that details the intense corporate pressure to block an effective global treaty from being reached at the UN Climate Ta...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
181
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

The lobbying that goes on between corporations and politicians is the problem. If we made that illegal then we would be in a much better position to actually do something. Until this happen we will never get anything done.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 PM on 11/07/2009
- research I'm a Fan of research 265 fans permalink

Bingo.

Outlaw ALL contributions for the bribery they are.,

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 PM on 11/09/2009

2008 saw what NASA called the Sun’s “blankest year” where 266 of the year's 366 days, there were no sunspots. Sunspot counts for 2009 have been very low, too. This all begs the question: does solar activity have a long-term effect here on Earth? Times of depressed solar activity correspond with times of global cold. From 1645 to 1715, few if any sunspots were seen and Western Europe entered a virtual deep-freeze known as the Little Ice Age. Times of increased solar activity have corresponded with global warming. The 12th and 13th centuries, when the Sun was active, European climate was quite mild. Experts predict that the current solar cycle will peak in 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots. The Sun should remain calm for at least another year. Of course, all this disruption is caused by the lighter-than-air carbon dioxide America has produced in the past few decades. These light gases rise to the sun and disrupt the magnetic causes for sunspots, altering the averages of sunspot activity. The effects on the under developed world is extreme, causing wars, famines and revolutions which disturb the compassionate dictatorships and the order they provide. It must stop! America must be shut down by the Obama Administration, beginning with elimination of the middle class and all its outrageous demands for goods and services. Now, this fits neatly with Al Gore's objectives.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 PM on 11/07/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

"This all begs the question: does solar activity have a long-term effect here on Earth?"

Of course it does, the sun is the source of 99.9% of Earth's energy budget, after all.
Variation in solar output over the nominal 11 year sunspot cycle is around 1.3 watts/square meter from minimum to maximum. This is comparable to what the increase in CO2 produces, around 1.5 watts.

At fist glance this should be enough to nearly offset the effect of the increase in CO2, but remember:
1) solar output averages out over the ~11 year cycle, while the effect of CO2 not just remains constant, but in fact increases as more is added each year
2) the Sun shines on only half of Earth's surface at any given time, while the greenhouse effect is over Earth's entire surface 24/7/365

This helps explain why despite the Sun being it's most quiet in around a century, AND 2008 being a La Nina year, global mean temps remain among the highest in the temperature record. In fact, several surface temperature records were set in 2009.

continued.­...

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 PM on 11/08/2009
photo

What kind of gibberish is this?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 AM on 11/10/2009

And yet even with the reduced solar, 2008 was still hotter than all but one of the 90's.

The 2000's are by far the hottest decade ever, followed by the 90's, which were warmer than the 80's, which were warmer than the 70's.

I'm seeing a trend. Do you?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:04 AM on 11/10/2009
photo

Corperate lobbiests may be partly to blame but i think the failure of resolving the problem of our generation is far more complex than an industry push. According to Yvo de Boer the UN climate chief Copenhagen won't glean any results. I would start to question the ability of mitigation and diplomacy in solving this crisis
http://envirogy.wordpress.com

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 11/06/2009
photo

Although corporate lobbying may be an influence upon climate negotiations they are not the be and end all of climate discussion. Developed and developing countries are coming at this from a different perspective that according to Yvo de Boer UN climate chief cannot be remedied by Copenhagen. Commercial interest and a nation states forward progression financially are so inexplicably linked that the hindrance of business is a real concern for nations not just for the fossil fuel industry.
So is corporate interest the biggest culprit of failed negotiations or has diplomacy failed us in general?
http://envirogy.wordpress.com/

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:36 PM on 11/06/2009
- Cryostatic I'm a Fan of Cryostatic 22 fans permalink

So, when do we stop touting the development of new, cleaner energy sources as moral imperative to save the earth, and start selling the idea that it'll make energy cleaner, cheaper, and better?

People can deny climate change all they like. I'd like to see them deny their desire to have their own gas/energy bills drop. If the end result is the same, maybe it's time to change the message.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:12 AM on 11/06/2009
- slithers I'm a Fan of slithers 23 fans permalink

enviornmentists become climate scientists. they start with a conclusion then set forth to find facts to support it. when government sees an opportunity to take power and create a new tax they start shoveling money for research. everyone jumps on board. now it's a concensus!!! the concensus is - if you want massive government grants you must believe in our religion.

thankfully the gig is up and the public isn't buying it anymore.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 AM on 11/06/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

"enviornmentists become climate scientists. they start with a conclusion then set forth to find facts to support it."

Ahhh, no, this is a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method and an outright slander of science and scientists.

Scientists start with observation and measurement of a physical phenomenon (in this case the measured increase of both global mean temperature and CO2), then develop a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon. They then test the hypothesis using experiment and further observation. If the hypothesis is found wanting it is revised to explain the physical reality and tested again. After sufficient testing and gathering of supporting evidence the hypothesis is published in the scientific literature for other scientists to challenge and test. If the hypothesis passes their challenges and tests and is accepted by most scientists within the field as most likely correct then it is said that there is a scientific consensus. (Look up the common definition of consensus. It is very much part of science.)

it is global warming/climate change deniers that start with a conclusion (global warming is not happening, and if it is it is not caused by humans, and if it is it is not harmful, etc.) and set forth to find any facts, hearsay or unsubstantiated assertions to support it, no matter how flimsy, suspect or mutually contradictory.

The gig is indeed up: there is a strong anti-science tendency among the general public based on ignorance and religious, economic and political ideology.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 11/06/2009
- mattyd123 I'm a Fan of mattyd123 7 fans permalink

Yeah. Economics like this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/6510147/Carbon-traders-deny-sub-prime-crisis-brewing.html

Enjoy your new sub-prime crisis.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 PM on 11/06/2009
- shockmagog I'm a Fan of shockmagog 138 fans permalink
photo

Yes, matty, I agree with you. A direct carbon tax would be much better.

As it says in the article you linked to:

"...Friend­s of the Earth wants carbon trading to be replaced by direct taxation and regulation of emissions production, arguing that the current system only enriches traders and does not drive carbon reductions­."

However, as long as carbon trading is not deregulated as the banking system was, it's what we're driven to by those who don't approve of a carbon tax, or don't even believe Global Warming is occurring.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 PM on 11/07/2009
photo

Exusian, you stated the scientific method very well. Now can you tell me where to find the experimental data (data from experiments, not models) that proves the hypothesis that CO2 is THE primary cause of global warming. Many of the studies I'm reading are finding problems with climate models predicting unending global warming. Water vapor seems to be the predominate greenhouse gas and fluctuates all the time all over the globe. In other words, how do you prove the tail wages the dog?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 11/08/2009
- DocSkull I'm a Fan of DocSkull 19 fans permalink
photo

It is too soon for that false claim. The resurgence of the environmentalist movement and the recognition of the human contribution to global warming is too recent. Also, if we follow out the logic of your scenario, they would have had to convince all the existing scientists, who by your rule would have been prejudice against global warming, to give them passing grades, approve their research, and give them jobs.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 11/07/2009
- zingdaddy I'm a Fan of zingdaddy 2 fans permalink

Please present your facts and sources that back up your opinions.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 AM on 11/10/2009
- Gordon C I'm a Fan of Gordon C 2 fans permalink
photo

What would corporations have to do to be prosecuted for sabotage of our efforts to deal with global climate destabilisation? Not long ago political and business leaders thought slavery was a good business model. That level of ruthless greed is still alive today. What are the FBI, SEC and the CIA doing with this evidence sleeping like they were when the financial corporations wrecked the worlds economy. A group best described as radical fundamentalist capitalist are profiting immensely from what must ultimately be seen as a global environmental crimes against nature and humanity. If destabilising our planets climate is not a global environmental crime, what do our political and corporate leaders think it is?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 PM on 11/05/2009
- Overtone I'm a Fan of Overtone 23 fans permalink
photo

Magnetic generators are slowly moving toward the market that will replace batteries with solid-state devices (no moving parts). Since they reflect new science, the very idea is readily dismissed. However, Hans Coler demonstrated such an invention in 1925 in Germany - and Nobel physicist Werner Heisenberg said in 1927. “I believe we can utilize magnetism as an energy source”.

A new way to use Hydrogen energy is surfacing. It promises to make a barrel of water the equivalent of 200 barrels of oil. BlackLight Power has published papers covering 50 or so experiments describing their work with fractional Hydrogen. Rowan University has independently performed experiments that they believe validate that work, producing far more heat than can be explained by textbook science. The published protocol allows laboratories elsewhere to repeat the experiments. As that occurs, it will become clear that it indicates a new form of energy is available.

That will change the landscape as far as energy is concerned. It has been discovered that Hydrogen’s electron orbit can be made to collapse, becoming a much smaller sphere. A tremendous amount of energy is thus released. The new atoms do not need to burn with an oxidizer to liberate energy. We call this Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbitals - ECHO.

ECHO is expected to make possible a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE. It promises to sip a small amount of water as fuel.

Hard to believe? Of course! Laboratories need to try the Rowan experiments for themselves!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 PM on 11/05/2009
- WillWilson I'm a Fan of WillWilson 13 fans permalink
photo

For readers honestly trying to understand background facts, I've posted a graph of our energy use from various sources over the last two centuries (from the US DOE's 2006 Annual Energy Review) online at:
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=116

the reality of global warming and ecological consequences:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=95

and increasing sea levels:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=125

We use lots of energy, with too many emissions of greenhouse gases, and still have about 300 years worth of coal. Our concern is surviving a changing climate. We depend on the present climate for growing crops right where farms just happen to be. With climate change comes not just warming, but broader variations in things like last frost date, first frost date, and rainfall patterns. Food production depends on these climate measures. As the climate changes, insect pests and plant pathogens find new habitable areas of the globe, perhaps in these agricultural areas. Nobody can predict whether such things will happen, but if they do, and food production fails, I would call that a problem.

So, what is an acceptable risk? How confident are you that no problems will arise? Humans experienced potato famines, changed eastern forests through release of the chestnut blight, and so on. Climate change brings on new risks. Are you comfortable with a 10% risk of agricultural collapse? 1%? 50%? The sooner we find new, fossil-carbon-free sources, the better.

Will Wilson

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 PM on 11/05/2009
- whatbox I'm a Fan of whatbox 5 fans permalink
photo

Will,

I enjoyed reading your blog post on U.S. Energy Use, as well as some of the comments. I agree with most of your positions on energy production and consumption, but (there’s always a “but”, right?) I was puzzled by your stance on PHEVs.

PHEVs and BEVs (battery electric vehicles) are the ultimate flex-fuel vehicles. They can be powered by electricity from solar, wind, waves, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, as well as electricity from coal, natural gas, and oil-fired generating stations.

EVs are extremely efficient (up to 4X more efficient than a comparable internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle), and even when they are powered with electricity that is 100% generated from coal, they still produce lower CO2 emissions per mile than a comparable ICE vehicle. EVs become cleaner as the energy mix becomes cleaner, whereas ICE vehicles emit more CO2, and other pollutants, as they age.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 11/06/2009
- whatbox I'm a Fan of whatbox 5 fans permalink
photo

For some reason the system did not post the middle section of my comment, so here it is again.

Obviously, the more renewable energy that is used to power the EVs, the cleaner they become. As I’m sure you’re already aware, in the U.S. energy mix, coal generated electricity represents about 51% of all the electricity generated (and hopefully that %age will drop rapidly in the very near future). Some jurisdictions, such as the province of Ontario, Canada, are moving to completely eliminate coal from their energy mix (currently at 16%) as early as 2014.

http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/electricity/

With more movement away from coal, and other fossil fuels, the grid gets cleaner, and the case for EVs gets better.

Another thing about using electricity for transportation: At the present time, demand for electricity drops dramatically overnight. However, we cannot just turn off coal-fired power plants when demand drops for several hours. The plants keep running, and keep burning coal. Most of the electricity generated overnight is wasted. Electric vehicles can be programmed to charge overnight, and thus use electricity that might otherwise be wasted.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:51 PM on 11/06/2009
- whatbox I'm a Fan of whatbox 5 fans permalink
photo

Obviously, the more renewable energy that is used to power the EVs, the cleaner they become. As I’m sure you’re already aware, in the U.S. energy mix, coal generated electricity represents about 51% of all the electricity generated (and hopefully that %age will drop rapidly in the very near future). Some jurisdictions, such as the province of Ontario, Canada, are moving to completely eliminate coal from their energy mix (currently at 16%) as early as 2014.

http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/electricity/

With more movement away from coal, and other fossil fuels, the grid gets cleaner, and the case for EVs gets better.

Another thing about using electricity for transportation: At the present time, demand for electricity drops dramatically overnight. However, we cannot just turn off coal-fired power plants when demand drops for several hours. The plants keep running, and keep burning coal. Most of the electricity generated overnight is wasted. Electric vehicles can be programmed to charge overnight, and thus use electricity that might otherwise be wasted.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 11/06/2009
- whatbox I'm a Fan of whatbox 5 fans permalink
photo

Finally, many of the early adopters of EVs have installed PV solar panels on their homes and run their vehicles completely off electricity generated by solar, which has to be the cleanest way to provide personal transportation (other than bicycles).

All I'm saying is “please don't be too quick to dismiss EVs”. They are clean, quiet, and very efficient. They don't have to be "coal-fired cars".

Btw, here's a link to a similar (to yours) post that I made last week:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/28/jim-inhofe-abandoned-by-f_n_336607.html?show_comment_id=33685204#comment_33685204

All the best,

Chris.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 11/06/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

The shills here who deny climate change are helping corporate lobbyists because they afraid of losing some "cherished way of life." What is so frightening about green technologies? The subsidies they may get from government are a friction of what the coal companies and Exxon receive.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 PM on 11/05/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 78 fans permalink
photo

say rp..

i haven't seen anyone here of note deny that the climate changes.

the argument continues to be 1) how much do humans really influence cc..

and 2) how much control if any do we have over cc.. EVEN IF we influence it.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:01 AM on 11/06/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

I guess I should always include the word "anthropog­enic." Also, I meant to say "fraction" and not "friction.­" So many typos! Fumes, how is your golf game, below 100 yet! My swing would make you cry! I'm terrrible at golf!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:10 PM on 11/06/2009
- DocSkull I'm a Fan of DocSkull 19 fans permalink
photo

The IPCC concludes that human actions have caused more than half of the global temperature increases and it goes without saying that we have control over what we do.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 11/07/2009
- Gordon C I'm a Fan of Gordon C 2 fans permalink
photo

What if the cherished way of life is a big big lie. Monster homes, Monster vehicles, and monster ecological and energy footprints are unsustainable and criminal negligence of the impact.. Corporate tobacco sold big Big lies and manufactured an epidemic of illness, cancer and death. supposidly inexpensive energy from coal is a big Big lie because politicians are permitting those corporations to dump the cost of mercury contamination, the cost of mountain top destruction, of destroying rivers, of destabilising our planets climate, the deaths and illness from smog on you and your community. Cheep energy from coal is government accounting fraud of the impact corporations are having on our planet.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 11/06/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Gordon, you are very right. The costs of cheap energy are enormous. It is like buying really cheap food for children in an effort to save money. Eventually they develop health problems and have problems with obesity. Look at Detroit! They fought for years producing energy efficient cars with higher mileage. What happened? They all eventually almost went out of business. Thanks for your reply!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 PM on 11/06/2009
- Aneesia I'm a Fan of Aneesia 6 fans permalink

Kind of lets you know what lobbyists are for......b­ribery in America. Business in America is mostly screw the people, let's line our own pockets while we can.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:52 PM on 11/05/2009

Oil, coal, timber, and other fossil fuel companies have declared war on the world. We must make bribery illegal in order to reduce their power significantly. EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON MAKING BRIBERY (PRIVATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE) ILLEGAL!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 11/05/2009
- Rojellio I'm a Fan of Rojellio 2 fans permalink

Dont allow your Congressman to behave unethically. Start there. Hold their feet to the fire.

IMHO Congressman should not be allowed to raise campaign funds in Washington DC, or while Congress is in session. Lobby & PAC donations would have to be made at the Congressman's local district office, while Congress is not in Session. What this would do....... Lobby's and PAC's would hire a shady local lawyer to deliver the check, this creature would effectivly function as a "temp lobbyist". The first day Congress is out of session, Armored Trucks and a Police Escort deliver the "temp Lobbyists" to the Congressional Office. The "temp lobbyist" would then cross a picket line, consisting of protesters like yourself.. and right wingers like myself. It would be more civilized than the current system.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:10 AM on 11/07/2009
- sheila I'm a Fan of sheila 41 fans permalink

It is not that hard to counter any "standard of living" propaganda with basic economic programs that will both boost renewables, increase democracy AND clean the earth up. Feed in tariffs, which are per-kWh payments can be made to real people (including people in Appalachia) for producing more clean electricity on their homes and business rooftops than they consume. This will create huge numbers of jobs, improve property values, prevent eminent domain, preserve viewsheds and functioning ecosystems, clean the air and prevent global warming, all while increasing the democracy, reliability and security of our electrical grid.

This is a Libertarian, Republican, Democratic and Green solution, with something for everyone but Big Energy, and aren't we pretty much done opening our veins for them anyhow? Unless we fight HARD to get loan programs for efficiency upgrades and solar panels, coupled with feed in tariffs, we are gonna see Chevron, BP, Goldman Sachs, Bechtel, Pickens and all these other Big Energy mercenaries bleed us dry not just with Big Oil and Big Coal, but also with Big Wind and Big Solar, which are almost as bad.

Time to stand up for our rights and tell Big Energy of ALL types "Don't Tread On Me! Pay me fairly for producing clean energy and feeding it into the grid, and stop monopolizing our electricity, ripping us off and killing our planet!"

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 11/05/2009
- valkyrie607 I'm a Fan of valkyrie607 106 fans permalink
photo

Oh, but we're supposed to not listen to the evidence for global warming, because those presenting it stand to somehow gain financially if we take action to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Now I'm confused. It seems like other people stand to gain financially if we DON'T take action.

Oh, how will I ever know what to do?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 PM on 11/05/2009
- shockmagog I'm a Fan of shockmagog 138 fans permalink
photo

I suppose actually THINKING would be the next logical step.

Your sarcasm is duly appreciated, however.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 PM on 11/06/2009
- freshmind I'm a Fan of freshmind 10 fans permalink

Water, land pollution, over fishing and hunting that does drive some species to the brink of extinction is what we need to work on, not reducing CO2.

Not only that, how about we figure out how to get off this rock in case nature decides to end our reign.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:45 PM on 11/05/2009
- coveark I'm a Fan of coveark 38 fans permalink
photo

Actually it all should be taken care of........­..........­..........­.no ships for us like in Wall-e.

If we manufactured the bare minimum of products..­..........­....went back to reuseable glass and simply outlawed the indescriminant use of plastics..­..........­..........­.....there would probably be more than a century of cleanup and revival work to keep our whole planet busy......­..........­....

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 11/05/2009
- GuyRC I'm a Fan of GuyRC 7 fans permalink
photo

What is the point of protecting species if the ecosystems that support them collapse? And how is reducing hunting and fishing going to avert coastal inundation and agricultural collapse?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:32 PM on 11/05/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect