I'd like to see those things, too, sometimes. That doesn't mean I didn't read their findings and think of a book that's already been written for almost every one of their scenarios, is all.

lol...

An easier hydrogen extraction process

I'm certainly no expert on these things but it sounded good to me.

quote:

part one of the Tar Sands Action came to a close yesterday, with 243 people sitting in and risking arrest to stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This was by far the largest day of action, and a historic statement to President Obama. Protestors stood in the DC heat for over four hours in solemn opposition to the pipeline and the development of the Alberta tar sands.

really the us activists are doing great work on this.

check http://www.tarsandsaction.org/

they've got the biggest civil disobedience action in decades going on.More oct 7 and 8.


People in alberta are just nice friendly folks who think the environmental issue with the tarsands is birds landing on the tailing ponds. Not that canadians are looking the other way while the equivalent of 200 aushwitzes is going down in their name. That would be if say a billion people were dependant on the great coral sea not dying.

The Canadian Youth Delegation has publicly apologized for the actions of the Canadian government and their negotiators at Durban, publishing an apology letter in a local newspaper.

link

Are the Tarsands Genocide?


If the tarsands continue as is an act of gonocide will occur. ?

The amount of carbon to be injected into the air will be enough to raise global temperature by 2 degrees? link

This will kill the great coral sea which provides food for a billion people.LINK

The Canadian People will have blood on their hands that will mark them for generations.

Killing a billion people is like 200 aushwitzes. (Aushwitz was a german concentration camp in ww2. 5 million jews were gassed)

But they wouldn't die. They'd be put in camps on the beach and fed rice and beans shipped from overseas..

Fish farms can be developed enough to provide fish for everyone.

The Genocide quip is inflammatory.

The people would be fine. The ecosystem and the animals on the top of the chain would suffer. Dolphins,sharks,whales, big gropers that eat lots of little fish,They are the victims.
'


Need to shut up about the Tarsands being genocide.

quote:

After U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing said there are an "infinite number of pathways to stay below 2 degrees C," activists commented that "it's surprising the U.S. is managing to avoid every single one of them":

HA!

so http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/ta...s-and-global-warming this page says the tarsands put 80 million metric tons into the air each year.

But this page says it's 1.7 million metric tons of carbon per degree celsius warming up. That means you'd need 10 tarsands projects for 170 years to raise the temp even one degree.

I think this last source is sketchy..

solid state energy generation


we arent talking carbon free cars but it may mean cell phones you never charge

charging electric cars as they drive
http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3701

http://grist.org/list/this-lam...ore-co2-than-a-tree/

algae street lamp absorbs 150x more carbon than a tree

Inhofe’s Stunning Admission To Maddow on Global Warming: ‘I Thought It Must Be True Until I Found Out What It Cost”

By Joe Romm on Mar 16, 2012 at 11:35 am
Senate’s top denier pushes myth enviros far outspent industry in climate fight

Did you see the big smack down last night between MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)? The dean of disinformation mostly just repeated his well-worn falseshoods about global warming, which Maddow shot down.
But there was one remarkable admission from the former Chair of the Senate Environment Committee:
“I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.”
In short, learning about the (supposed) high cost of the solution is what turned him from a believer in climate science to a denier.
Yes, you always have to take what Inhofe says with a grain of (smelling) salt, but this admission confirms what many of us have been saying for years (see Krauthammer (6/08): ”The real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science”). As the NY Times explained about a 2008 denial conference, “The one thing all the attendees seem to share is a deep dislike for mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases.” If you can’t abide the cure, you’re much more likely to deny the disease.
The journalist Michael Kinsley famously said, “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.”

http://www.enn.com/climate/article/44179

By 2050, global average temperature could be between 1.4°C and 3°C warmer than it was just a couple of decades ago, according to a new study that seeks to address the largest sources of uncertainty in current climate models.

http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3726

The epa finally drew a line in the sand. Most gas and oil fired electricity generators are ok but the coal boys aren't going to be happy. They'll have to spend any profits from cheap fuel on carbon capture.

I was going to post this in bad news, as it has been severely under-reported, but it fits here better.

Methane rising from the Arctic

If high temperatures are really releasing methane clathrates, then activism will not get us anywhere (which was my own position), as we are already locked in the runaway train. It is adaptation and palliation what we should be focusing into.

Then we have a totally contrary view:

Lovelock: I was an alarmist

Just when he is going to be proven right (though I agree his apocalyptic "a few breeding pairs" was alarmist). "Millions, maybe billions will die" is more accurate, but "Billions will live" sounds better.

I have a buddy wants to build an earth shelter up at my ranch. I may let him. I mean things usually work out but just in case.
Of course he's insane and believes in planet x so Im just using him cause he's a carpente and will do the work in fear. Free fear is good.

Psychophant your pov is radical but that's the only sane way to be I think.

Radically motivated to act on this information.

quote:

Originally posted by lithos:

quote:

After U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing said there are an "infinite number of pathways to stay below 2 degrees C," activists commented that "it's surprising the U.S. is managing to avoid every single one of them":

HA!

Well, there are an infinite number of pathways to avoid the infinite number of pathways which will stay below 2 degrees C.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=24655

They'll be growing pineapples in Chicago at this rate.

http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3778

ereaders lose but this article assumes they're only used once like a newspaper. 5 years in Id like to see the numbers

quote:

even the more efficient iPad2 has more than double the emissions over a 5 year period.

ya but is you live in BC where the electricity is 90% hydro electric that's wrong.and e-readers like dos computers will stay around for a long time. We're not playing video games we're reading text.

No it all writer.