Better Educated, Revisions Underway

Now that I'm refocusing on this blog and other global warming work, I can report on some of my recent findings. If you've been a loyal reader and read the post about my proposed solutions and their accompanying individual posts, you may want to re-read some of those if this quick summary isn't clear. I am no longer endorsing the REDD program as it is currently used, but could if it were changed to ensure the decisions are made by the forest inhabitants. Here is another, more brief, article explaining some dangers of REDD.

As for biochar, the same caution applies. Done correctly, using only waste products from the local region, it has potential to play a small role. So we ought to employ it. Every little bit helps. But the big boys want to grow mega-plantations of fast-growing, maybe even genetically modified, trees. We need more trees, yes, but we need diverse forests that reach maturity, not ones intended to be clear-cut.

And when it comes to 4th generation nuclear, ugh. If people aren't willing to change, or rather, if there never is enough daring leadership to encourage them to change, so that the only choice is between wind turbines off every coast and along all windy ridges with road access or an occasional 4th gen nuke plant (like five in the whole country), well, I'd have to further educate myself, but for now I think the risk of a few nuke plants (again, ONLY if they were 4th gen) would get my vote. "Even in you own backyard?" I can hear you (and my own mind) asking. What horrible choices! That is why I'm for conservation and low-tech and shrinking economy and negative population growth first.

Which brings up a point. All this research and thinking has made it very clear to me what I believe we ought to be asking for. And just the other day, Dr. Glen Barry, of the Ecological Internet summed it up very well when responding to the announcement that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ruling that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases "may endanger public health or welfare," a finding that opens the door to future regulation of such emissions under the Clean Air Act:

"We are thrilled to see President Obama dismiss President Bush's years of criminal climate science obstruction, and to rejoin the world of civilized nations making public policy based upon ecological science, and needs of Earth and her humanity. We encourage the President to follow through with rigorous efforts to immediately begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including phasing out the use of coal and tar sands, ending old forest logging, committing further to energy efficiency and renewables, and resisting the siren song of industrial agrofuels."

I'm convinced that we need daily large numbers of people telling their elected officials that unless they endorse the rapid phasing-out of coal mining and tar sand extraction and logging of mature forests, we will work very hard to organize for a candidate who will.

I highly recommend reading "Hoodwinked in the Hothouse," PDF here, which summarizes many of the false "solutions" and why they are so dangerous. We must tell Obama over and over and over that cap and trade is unacceptable, that we'd rather reduce per captia consumption to European levels (about 50% of ours), that subsidizing agrofuels is a horrible use of taxpayer money, and that we want a return to vibrant local economies.

I have contacted 7 or 8 of my top groups and asked about volunteer opportunities. When I have responses, I will post them.

I am also working on drafts of a couple different letters, which I will also share when I have them complete.

So I hope to be posting again in a week or less.