Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Global Warming Walk: Five Qs&As with Bill McKibben

by Meteor Blades Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 03:50:03 AM EST

I sure wish I were in Vermont this week. I could join writer/environmentalist/deep thinker Bill McKibben and whoever else shows up for a four-day walk seeking to kindle federal action against global warming.

Billed as "The Road Less Traveled, Vermonters Walking Toward a Clean Energy Future," the march will begin Thursday noon at Robert Frost's old writing cabin near Ripton, stop in cities along the way for Conversations on the Green, and end 43 miles up the road in Burlington. Knowing McKibben's work and the kind of people he attracts, I imagine those are going to be eye-opening conversations for participants and bystanders alike, a traveling teach-in, if you will. You can get a taste of this in my five-question interview with McKibben below.

Many, I know, downplay the value of a public demonstration, even public action of any kind outside the realm of lawsuits and legislation. Sooooo '60s, they say. Doesn't work anymore. If it ever really did. I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps the reason people say this comes from their being so comprehensively saturated with a megamedia caricature of the era. They don't believe most or any of what the megamedia tells them about the times they themselves live in, but they accept as gospel what's been told them regarding one of the periods of greatest social change since the Civil War.

The public intellectuals and other activists who spurred that change worked inside and outside the governing system, using whatever megaphone seemed proper at the moment to capture public attention and increase the pressure on public policy. What you mostly hear about that era today is the media-mediated version, a distorted fraction of the story. That's not my way of trying to sanctify the "protest" movements or say that we made no mistakes, no strategic blunders, or engaged in no counterproductive activism. Surely, we did more than enough of that and were paid for it with half-victories and outright defeats, some of them long-lasting. But, please, most of the focus, even most of the public events, had nothing to do grubby street demonstrations.


Rather, in every case, the change process began with bits of information transmitted among family, neighbors, classmates and work peers. These conversations led to little groups which made phone calls, worked for candidates, vigiled, lobbied, wrote, did research, and organized public events dedicated to spreading the message of change to others who would themselves spread the message. The organizing got bigger, the conversation wider, the building of political clout more coherent and powerful. Then came the changes ... or not.

That is what the Vermont march is about. Talking forcefully in public with an eye toward changing public policy. An  essential catalyst. As McKibben notes in my interview with him, he's thinking the noise from the "The Road Less Traveled" - along with Al Gore's film and other actions - will spread nationwide, virally, and "assemble a crowd under the noses of the media." In the old days, this depended on word-of-mouth. It still does. But now it's word-of-mouth amplified with broadband and other accouterments of wwwLand that neither the government nor the megamedia have (so far) reined in.

It was 16 years ago that I read McKibben's The End of Nature. Together that year with the resurrection of Earth Day on its 20th anniversary, his book spurred me to - as Mister Bush would say - spend some political capital and pressure my bosses at the Los Angeles Times to underwrite a syndicated weekly package of environmental articles called Earth Matters. It lasted at the Times as long as I did, 12 years.

Enhanced with McKibben's signature eloquence, The End of Nature  was the first popular book to demonstrate that one species, allegedly the smartest species ever to appear on Earth, had reached a critical threshold, a point of irrevocably changing the planet's environment, including its atmosphere. A decade and a half later, more people are paying attention, but, as McKibben points out in his invitation to join the walk:

...leadership has been sorely lacking: even as the science around global warming has grown steadily darker, the political appointees at the head of the Environmental Protection Agency have declared that in their eyes carbon dioxide is "not a pollutant." The Congress has decided that all legislation addressing this issue must pass through a committee chaired by a man, James Imhofe, who calls global warming "a hoax." And so--in this warmest year on record across the United States--we walk to ask that this logjam be broken. Our hope is that just as in the past Vermont has spurred action on other issues, so too this example will lead others across the country to increase the pressure.

Here are McKibben's answers to my five questions:
Meteor Blades: Why Vermont? Wouldn't a walk and talk along the route from Baltimore to DC have more impact?

McKibben: Well, the short answer is that Vermont is where I live, and so, where I can organize. But the great hope is precisely that if we can make some noise up here the idea will spread quickly to other spots.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's yet to be a real large-scale protest movement that gets spread virally in the Internet age (although the Seattle WTO protests owed part of their potency to the fact that this then-little-understood medium helped organizers assemble a crowd under the noses of the media). In fact, even in the last few weeks I've had emails from around the country asking for advice.

Anyway, though I suspect our [Vermont] legislators would mostly vote the right way anyway on global warming, we want them to understand that their constituents need them to be champions on this issue.

Meteor Blades: I know you were an early adopter of hybrid car technology. And I suspect your house is heavily insulated and the refrigerator filled with locally grown food. But one attitude I've encountered time and again is that solving global warming is such a huge issue that nothing individuals can do will make a difference, so why bother?  Any advice on how to break through the stubbornness?

McKibben: It's hard to break through that idea because, frankly, there's a deep mathematical logic to it. Individual action is a kind of calisthenics before the big event, which must be political. Only the kind of massive change that can be brought about through national (and, even harder, international) policy will really suffice to reduce the flow of carbon into the atmosphere. So the key is summoning political will - and the very act of coming together in a march, say, to demand that kind of action will help us to start feeling politically powerful again.

I wrote the very first general book about global warming, way back in 1989, and I've been working on it ever since. The science has grown grimmer in the past few years as we understand just how fast we're unhinging the Earth's system. There remains time to do something about global warming (not avert it, but keep it from getting any worse than it has to be), but we need very quickly to seize that moment. And I think that right now - because of Katrina, because of Gore's movie, because of our hot summer - is the best opening we've had in two decades.

Meteor Blades: If you rubbed a compact fluorescent bulb and the Eco-Genie popped out to offer you one wish - passage of a single piece of narrowly focused global warming legislation - what would you ask for?

McKibben: I think the rapid phase-in of a 40 mpg average for new cars. Because the technology is there to do it easily, because it would demonstrate to us that the change in our sacred lifestyles will be very small at first - and because it will give everyone the added benefit of saving some money on gas. Unless you drive a hybrid, you can't believe the number of people who sidle up to you at a gas station and ask some longing questions about exactly how far it goes on a tank of gas.

And after that I'd work my way down Energize America 2020's list of policies. I just wrote an overview article for Sierra magazine on our energy situation, and described that joint effort as the single most impressive package of energy policy anyone has yet concocted.

Meteor Blades: Some people, including long-time environmental critics, are saying that nuclear power can, at the very least, provide a transition that will buy us time to come up with other technologies to reduce or eliminate human-made greenhouse gases. Do you agree?

McKibben: Here's what I think: nuclear power is a potential safety threat, if something goes wrong. Coal-fired power is guaranteed destruction, filling the atmosphere with planet-heating carbon when it operates the way it's supposed to. I don't mean to minimize the danger of a reactor; I do mean to use that danger to highlight the awesome peril posed by our conventional means of generating electricity. (And there are 150 new coal plants on the books in some stage or another).

That said, nuclear power is not where I'd turn first, or second, or even third. The reason is economics - without massive government subsidy it doesn't work because it's an inherently expensive technology, rather like burning twenty-dollar bills to generate electricity. All the econometric modeling not paid for by the nuclear industry itself makes clear that if you spent a billion dollars on a nuclear plant and a billion dollars on some conservation program, you'd get three or four or five times the carbon bang for your buck. So - before nuclear power, efficient appliances, heavy-duty insulation, real attention to mass transit, and also an all-out commitment to renewables, especially wind, which are much closer to cost-competitive. And no one ever spent the night worrying that a terrorist was about to smash their wind tower, spreading dangerous wind particles in every direction.

Meteor Blades: What kind of useful advice does a small-town/rural family like yours have for us urban dwellers?

McKibben: City dwellers, depending on how they live, are already the greenest Americans. New York City, because it's the least car-dependent city in the country, is our environmental champion in many ways. I think the biggest changes are needed where the majority of Americans live - i.e., the suburbs, a landscape that only sprung up because of cheap energy, and which will take real work to transform. The kind of semi-intact small towns and local economies that Vermont and some other rural places still possess are useful models - at least, that's one of the theses of my next book.

But the real lesson, and the one I hope this march will highlight, is that the technology we need above all is the technology of community. Vermont still has town meeting government - we're reasonably good at talking with each other. It's one reason lots of experiments have come out of this state: the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s, for instance, or for that matter, the Dean campaign. It's not that we're so liberal (we have a conservative governor; we've lost more people per capita in Iraq than any other state). But I think we're still pretty good at community, which is the underlying necessity for a more efficient and happier country. At root, dealing with global warming will mean sanding the edges off of some of America's hyperindividualism - and perhaps that will be just a little easier out in the country.

Most of us can't be in Vermont over the Labor Day Weekend. Right now, many are desperately ensconced in getting more Democrats into Congress and getting rid of the likes of California Representative Richard Pombo and Montana Senator Conrad Burns. But, as McKibben points out in his August 24 Op-Ed, Finally, fired up over global warming:

We've lobbied hard in state houses and city halls to get local action for change. But it's not adding up to anywhere near enough - and the reason is clear. Washington, unlike every other capital in the developed world, simply won't do anything.

{snip}

It's not as if changing the party in power will automatically change the outcome, either. The Clinton administration did little to tackle climate change; most Democrats would probably be all too willing to sign onto some limp compromise like the bill introduced in 2003 by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, even though the march of science in the years since it was introduced makes clear the inadequacy of its minuscule cuts in carbon. If we lock into some weak regimen now, it may be years before Congress will take up the issue again.

In other words, once we get those new Democrats elected, we need to make them pay attention and do something - soon - about what could be the most transformative issue of our age. That will take a lot more leg work.

If you're in the neighborhood, stop by and walk with the Vermonters for a while. If you can't, click on the donation tab at their Web site and send them some sugar. Whether you can or can't do either of those, send an e-mail to your family and friends with a link to McKibben's Op-Ed or to this Diary.

Display:
"And no one ever spent the night worrying that a terrorist was about to smash their wind tower, spreading dangerous wind particles in every direction"

a good soundbite

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 04:52:08 AM EST
Thanks for this interview, MB.  I wish Bill McKibben great success in his campaign.

I love Bill McKibben, who is a smart and sincere guy, but he is biased in his information when it comes to nuclear power.

The nuclear industry has a better safety and fatalities record per gigawatt-hour than any other large-scale source of electricity.  Perhaps one day he will join Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, whose founding members include James "Gaia" Lovelock and Hugh Montefiore (was on the board of Friends of the Earth, UK).

As for the cost of nuclear power, it is important to take a comprehensive view. See:

http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseus.htm

ENVIRONMENTALISTS FOR NUCLEARTM is in favor of all clean energies including, before anything else, energy conservation and renewables. But biomass requires energy to produce it, and all cultivable surfaces available on Earth would not suffice to replace oil. Wind and solar power are intermittent, unpredictable and dilute, therefore they simply cannot replace oil and gas to power our cities and industry. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity and coal is the greatest polluter (+15,000 persons continue to die in coal mines each year), nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable solution. Nuclear is safe, clean, reliable, competitive, produces very little CO2 and no sulfur or nitrogen oxides. Because uranium is a million times more compact than fossil fuels &endash;and the minuscule amount of nuclear waste produced is confined&endash; nuclear energy has zero impact on the ecosystems. It can replace our dwindling supplies of oil and gas. In fact, there's no choice: it's the only way our civilization can survive the end of oil and gas. Those who pretend the contrary are dreamers or mistaken, but certainly not environmentalists.

Bruno Comby, President of EFN - Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, www.ecolo.org

To replace the energy produced by one 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant taking up a third of a square mile, you need 40 square miles of wind turbines or of solar panels.  

Let's have everything--nuclear, wind, and solar.  All forms of emissions-free energy are subsidized at present and will have to continue to be if we are going to get anywhere in the battle against accelerated,catastrophic global warming.

In the US alone in 2005 nuclear power avoided emissions of 700 million tons of carbon.  There has never been a single documented death from nuclear power in the US. The National Cancer Institute did a large study of cancer rates around nuclear plants and facilities and found no increase in cancer that could be attributed to them.

by Plan9 on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 10:35:28 AM EST
I will never believe anybody who tells me:

In fact, there's no choice

Also, about the "zero impact on the ecosystems", I guess they don't think heating river water qualifies.

"nuclear power is safe", but Iran should not use it.

I would also like them not to believe they have a property right on what environmentalist means.

When you equate nuclear electricity generation and avoiding Co2emissions, you imply that electricity consumption would have been the same without NP, and that fossil fuels would have been used. Both assumptions are questionnable.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 03:23:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
for crossposting this here. It disappeared disappointingly quickly from dK.

As I wrote over there,


Bill McKibben has been a big fan of Energize America, and he has had kind words about it on various occasions, for which I am most grateful. I think he will mention it in his Sierra magazine piece (he interviewed me a while ago). I must admit I did not know him before his review of Crashing the Gates (the best single article on DailyKos so far), but I've been much impressed by his work since.

So thanks MB for this diary, and kudos to all for that march.




In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 12:37:05 PM EST
...almost always have a struggle at Daily Kos, the more so given that we've got 10 1/2 weeks until what some see as a watershed election coming up.
by Meteor Blades (Meteor Blades) on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 02:53:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
greatly inspiring, mb, muchos gracias.

it'd be fun to do something like this in europe too!

if the energy policy is an 800 pound gorilla, then an awakened and activated public is surely an 8000 pound one.

iraq runup sure brought out a lot of people.

plan 9, i respect your tenacity and conviction, but why do you assume we can nuke-power our way to anything sustainable?

it may only take up a square mile or so, but what about the high--security that will have to encircle it, complete with sinister night-time deliveries and thug-goon armies?

even if the alternative is 40 sq miles per equivalent output, you could have park or farmland underneath, no need for draconian security, NO POLLUTION, and no fears for our children!

so if you think of the QUALITITIVE factors, how can you argue for a solution that only solves the problem QUANTITIVELY, and actually only pretends to, as there are no insurance companies that will touch this industry, and the hidden costs of security, downwind health      problems, and good land being cut off from other uses, conducive to public health and safety, (such as recreational or nutritional) are lost to the plutocracy, who will continue to screw the customers through centralised control, price-fixing, and all the other costly shenanigans one can predictably expect from these profiteers.

they have a history of lying to the public, and not only about safety.

they always cost w-a-y more than projected and are butt-ugly.

last but not least!

bechtel boondoggles=greed and evil passed on to unwitting generations, just so we can keep our bright shiny lie going a little longer, with ever-diminishing civil liberties.

and we have the nerve to castigate iran!

this nuclear option is the real koolaide, and if we don't show a better way to 'make' energy, then how do we expect the arab street to stop hating us for our hypocrisy, as we ramp up our nuclear industry, while fobidding them theirs.

i find it staggering (and deeply suspicious) that ecologists of note have taken this option to trumpet about.

it is so wrong-headed, it makes me despair that we are really on a 'ship of fools'

why is there no mention of (terrorism-free) conservation in plan 9's post, when intelligent approaches to that alone would probably halve our reckless consumption, starting with CAFE and moving right along sharpish to eco-building design, ans swiftly over to solar rooftops and greener fuels for home heating, be it methane, biodiesel, or coppiced woodland?

so many megawatts, so little time...

         

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 02:05:18 PM EST
I highly recommend that everyone interested in this topic take a look at the September 2006 Scientific American special issue.  Great articles on the whole range of solutions.

The terrible reality is that electricity consumption is expected to increase 160% by mid-century.  And the terrible reality is that most of that new electricity is going to be made by burning coal--and not cleanly, either.  China is building about one coal-fired plant a week.

There is no incentive in the US for utilities to build coal gasification plants or plants that sequester carbon.

Why will coal be the answer society chooses?  Because people accept the risks of coal, which kills 24,000 prematurely every year in the US alone.  Because only coal, nuclear, and hydro offer reliable around the clock electricity that does not need a backup.  And in the US we only get 5% from hydro--shrinking, too, because of drought.

Until the US decides to invest in a big way in R&D for ways to store renewable energy, then the new electricity will be from coal and, if we are fortunate, nuclear.

As for terrorists blowing up nuclear plants, it really is not possible unless they get their hands on thermonuclear weapons.  I am sure they would prefer to use them on cities instead.

by Plan9 on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 03:20:03 PM EST
it's not so much terrorists blowing up nuke plants i worry about, it's their stealing plutonium through bribery or such, and then using it on cities.

if there were no coal or uranium, and we had to MAKE DO on whatever else we can cobble together, what would happen?

yes it would take extraordinary governance, the likes of which is rarer than diamonds in the dust right now, but if enough of the populace educate themselves and take responsibility for their eco-footprint size, i feel certain organisational systems will emerge (see sven), and work to creat the benefits of order out of the pot pourri of chaotic choices that remain unexplored or repressed, as we continue to support leviathans' drunken staggering towards an historical precipice, squawking or dumb, as the case may be.

if coal can be burned cleanly and still be affordable, then so be it.

if the nuke industry can be shown to be transparent, responsible and self-supporting, rather than the secretive, treacherous, and duplicitous self it's hitherto revealed, then maybe...

but meanwhile every day not addressing a future that works on the basis of sustainability and maximim quality of life for the greatest number, AND CAN CLEAN UP ITS OWN MESS AS IT GOES ALONG, is another day wasted in chatter, as the titanic orchestra tunes up for the last waltz.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 09:26:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Very good diary, MB, full of a practical, positive spirit, whether it's you recalling the much-maligned old days, or McKibben talking about the walk and local democracy. To assemble a crowd under the noses of the media, those words carry some weight.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 03:39:10 PM EST
LA Times have a special multimedia report on the state of the oceans. This is not exactly (or entirely) global warming, but the scale human impact is shocking.
by das monde on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 07:04:35 PM EST
Vermont generates most (1/3) of her electricity by nuclear power plants, and gets a big chunk of the remainder (1/4) from Canadian hydroelectric plants. Most houses are heated by oil, and wood stoves are popular. Hardly a paragon of environmentally friendly power generation...
by asdf on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 09:40:08 AM EST
...for the large-scale mitigation of greenhouse gases that are being emitted on a catastrophic scale?

In the real world, wind and solar, admirable as they are, account for less than 1% of our global energy.  The most ambitious goals for wind as stated by realistic proponents indicate that if all goes optimally we can  hope to receive 20% of our power from wind by mid-century.  That's a lot, and let's do it. But that leaves 80%. Without nuclear power, most of that percentage will come from fossil fuel combustion.

Without nuclear power we cannot avoid greenhouse gases on a large scale and still meet present and future electricity demand, even with a great deal of conservation.

There are 440 nuclear power reactors worldwide, and in 12,000 reactor years there has only been one serious accident.  That took place at the worst-run, worst-designed, party-hack-operated reactor in the old Soviet Union.  The dispersal of contamination would not  have occurred in other countries, like the US, Japan, western Europe, etc., because the reactors must always be in containment buildings with thick concrete and steel walls.  Chernobyl had no containment building.  It's the stupidest thing imaginable.  But then I would not drive a Soviet-made car or fly in a Soviet-made airliner either.

Unlike the fossil fuel industry, nuclear power has to contain and shield and isolate its waste, which is small in volume.

Vermonters should be praised for getting so much of their electricity from two emissions-free sources, nuclear (which Gov. Howard Dean found safe) and hydro.   And I would bet that Vermonters are better at conservation than most people.  Even if they like to have wood fires.

by Plan9 on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 10:11:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nothing wrong with wood fires so long as you replant the trees.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 10:23:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Other than the extra cancer deaths caused by the particulates, and the extra CO2 emissions caused by having to transport a fuel with low energy density, and the factory farming of timber, and the associated GM trees...
by asdf on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 10:29:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm on the anti-nuke side. Here's why.

If you live anywhere in the U.S., the front page story on your newspaper yesterday was the story about a tragic airplane crash, where 49 people were killed. Note, however, that there was NO MENTION of the 100 or so (40,000 annual) automobile deaths that same day.

There is a fundamental issue at play here that has to do with people's perceptions of danger and control. Travel by car, the most dangerous thing you can do outside of sleeping with a revolver under your pillow, is something that practically everybody does on a daily basis. What they get excited about is airplane crashes and nuclear power plants: Less dangerous, but more dramatic when something goes wrong.

Arguments about average death rates of coal burning versus nuclear reacting are meaningless because one is considered a routine hazard of life while the other is a special case. If you want to change this, you're going to have to do some DNA modification. Just look at what we do to ourselves in the air travel business as a result of a couple of thousand lousy deaths by terrorism--the equivalent of a few weeks of car travel.

You ask what my plan is for saving us from global warming? Answer: None. It isn't going to happen.

Global climate change means that the climate will change and lots of people will have to move away from the coast. But it will take quite a while before people believe it. For example, why is New Orleans being rebuilt in its same location? Why are all political parties supporters of the automobile economy? Why are all western countries (with one huge exception) decommissioning their nuclear plants instead of building new ones? Why did the original Green party start in Tasmania as an anti-hydroelectric power organization?

What we (globally) will do is burn coal for the next 100 years. That is a pretty obvious and easy conclusion to draw. "Save the earth from global warming" is utopian dreaming. Unfortunately.

by asdf on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 10:25:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you anti-nuke, or just stating that you think that coal will win against nuke because it will face less opposition?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 10:39:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If anyone actually cares, I am personally anti-nuke. That position is within a broader view that the earth has several orders of magnitude more people than it should, and the real problem is gross overpopulation.

Realistically, since we humans are so incapable of thinking ahead, coal will win the energy race, as will avian influenza, AIDS, and other "natural" population control mechanisms.

by asdf on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 08:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It would take only a few years to get to 20%, or even 30-40% with a bit more investment in the network, using only wind, if a big large scale plan was put in place.

France switched to nuclear completely in 20 years. Wind is so much easier.

It's not because it hasn't been done on that scale yet that it cannot be done.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 10:38:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Great--then let's have half or more renewables, some hydro, and nuclear. (We say from our view on Mount Olympus, as we direct the doings of mortals!)

But, as you have pointed out, wind farms face resistance from the public just as nuclear plants do.

The US polls are indicating a more favorable attitude about nuclear power.  In areas where there are more nuclear plants, and therefore cheaper electricity, and people are used to smaller bills and to the presence of the plants, over 80% of people polled are in favor of having new plants built.

On dark days, I think as asdf does--that the political will is missing to do anything sane about energy and global warming.  Check out the article on renewables in the current Scientific American.  R & D funding has dropped in the past 25 years--just when it should have been ramped up in a major way.

by Plan9 on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 11:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
aaah, the voice of pragmatic sanity....

the problems are lack of vision and will, rather than logistical, imo.

as for not being able to avoid global warming, i agree that's the way it looks, it remains to decide to believe it or not...

ymmv

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 01:38:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries