Changing our mental climate: We must alter our ways now
by Don Ross, Community Perspective
Aug 29, 2010 | 2310 views | 67 67 comments | 9 9 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Community Perspective

I recently returned from a seven-month, winter bike ride from Fairbanks to Washington, D.C. I rode, impelled by the urgency of reigning in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, motivated by the way of peace, which is the way of love. See www.rideforteplanet.blogspot.com. To get involved, see www.350.org. 

In Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 97 percent of the climate researchers published in the field say man-made climate change is real. (“Target Atmospheric C02: Where Should Humanity Aim?” by James Hansen, Makido Sato et al. in Proceedings of the National academy of Science.)

I spoke with those who still believe climate change is part of a natural cycle and not human caused. It lets you off the hook for doing anything about it, if that’s your belief. There are those, of course, who just don’t know or are misinformed. But it’s also convenient if your motives are money-driven and you choose to ignore all the costs to the common good from continuing our addiction to burning fossil fuels. It’s the “what’s-in-it-for-me?” mind-set that places human needs above all other considerations that must change.

Climate has changed in the past but has occurred over the course of centuries, allowing living systems to adapt. The changes we are experiencing now are occurring over a relatively few decades — too short a period of time for plants, animals and humanity to readily adapt.

Riding south through Canada, I was struck by the sight of so many dead trees. I had seen this earlier on the Kenai Peninsula but had no idea it was happening across vast areas of the Yukon, into Alberta to southern British Columbia. Later, I saw a lot more in Colorado. The winters are no longer cold enough to kill the spruce and pine bark beetle infestations causing widespread dying of trees.

Trees are the lungs of the planet, producing oxygen we need to breathe and absorb carbon dioxide. The oceans absorb some carbon dioxide but are becoming more acidic, stressing coral reefs and shellfish fisheries, with consequences for long-term productivity. Acidification in some Alaska waters is already cause for concern. 

Climate science is complex, but our understanding and ability to model it is better than any time in history. Perceived deficiencies in data are not a rationale for doing nothing.  The present global mean of 385 parts of carbon dioxide per million parts of atmosphere is already in the danger zone. Positive feedback might set in motion dramatic climate changes that cannot be controlled if humans push the climate system far into disequilibrium. The possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects practically is eliminated with continued growth of greenhouse gas emission for just another decade.

Everything is connected, and separation is an illusion in our quantum mechanical universe. (“Spontaneous Evolution,” by Lipton and Bhaerman.) We are part of a greater field called the source, universe, all-that-is, God. No structure or thing exists apart from it. Another way of putting it is, we are all one. What we give to another, whether ourselves or other living things, returns to the self individually or collectively because of our interconnectedness.

A “four-alarm fire” is raging on the planet and we are sleep-walking through it. Quantum mechanics acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. We have created a kind of hell on Earth through our misperceptions. Perpetuating the war way and continuing our polluting, plundering and poisoning way of life on the planet is a prescription for extinction.

The good news is people are waking up. I met some of them and was greatly encouraged. A new consciousness is arising. We must change our perceptions if we are to meet the many challenges facing us. If we are to survive as a species on this planet, it will be through strategies and ways of being that foster cooperation and sharing for the greater good, not perpetuating competitive strategies that benefit a relative few at the expense of the many — whether human or the environment.

If your heart’s desire is to end the “madness,” make it your intention to do so by acting on your highest thought aligned with universal values of love, compassion, honesty, integrity, courage and kindness. All thought is creative, actually arranging the particles of matter called reality through our conscious and unconscious beliefs. As improbable as it may seem, it’s through the power of our intention and acts of kindness multiplied a million-fold and more that will end the “madness” and create a new Earth. It is time.  

Don Ross, aka Peace Rider, is a longtime Fairbanks resident and Bush air service pilot.

Comments
(67)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Invictus
|
September 05, 2010
The latest fuel is thorium --

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years
Invictus
|
September 05, 2010
ckn -- clearly, the SM-1A reactor is obsolete. The new reactors have more than fifty years of experience/R&D to build on.
ckn
|
September 05, 2010
"Designed to produce 1.5 megawatts of electricity and 45 million BTUs of heating steam per hour, the Army's SM-(stationary, "medium" power) 1A nuclear reactor operated from 1962-1971. When the reactor was decommissioned, approximately 48,304 curies of radiation were left encased within the reactor. Although the Army said that the entombment structure was designed to last for 150 years, major structural damage had already developed by 1990 in the form of a 3.14 inch crack along the south side of an inner wall and numerous cracks along the east wall."

http://www.akaction.net/pages/critical/ftgreely.html
Invictus
|
September 05, 2010
Glad to oblige, claudius. I believe that Fort Greely was nuclear powered - at least, for awhile. Can anyone confirm?:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/4273386

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0330/Nuclear-power-Obama-team-touts-mini-nukes-to-fight-global-warming

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
claudius5545
|
September 04, 2010
@Invictus - You said, "I'm in favor of emplacing mini-nuclear power plants in the remote villages. These would ensure 100's of years of cheap and virtually maintenance free energy."

Could you elaborate on that? Is that technology available, safe, and stable? Certainly the Navy has been using nuclear power generation for decades, but does that offer possibilities for civilian use? I'd be interested in whatever info you can provide or point to.
Invictus
|
September 04, 2010
I think you're putting words into Dr. Kramm's mouth, Txak. It's a bad habit.

Nevertheless, you're bad habit aside, I am also in the "all of the above" camp. Where appropriate, wind and solar can serve to augment more reliable sources of energy.

I completely disagree with your assessment of what is destroying our rural villages. If anything, diesel generators and fossil fuels have enabled rural villages to exist and function beyond the Stone Age. My experience in the rural villages is that a lack of constructive employment, alcohol, drugs, and cronyism are major factors in destroying the village (or tribal) cohesion. All contribute to an erosion of "face" or true pride (earned) and a sense of loss of self, or with some, an attainment of false pride (un-earned & entitled) which is very damaging to the self and to loved ones.

I'm in favor of emplacing mini-nuclear power plants in the remote villages. These would ensure 100's of years of cheap and virtually maintenance free energy.
Txak
|
September 04, 2010
Americans have the tendency to be very "black and white", very "either or". Nature isn't like that. Nature, and global climate, is very complex and, yes, it is all interconnected.

The choice isn't "use fossil fuels" OR "use renewable energy". And, yes, Mr. Gramm, I do know that much energy is lost in heat as you transform from one type of energy (e.g. solar, wind) to another (e.g. electrical) and so no transformation from one type of energy to another is perfect, which is why we need to attack this problem in a multi-faceted, intelligent, and creative manner. I refuse to believe that Americans are not smart enough to solve this problem!

We need solar, wind, geothermal, hydro-kinetic, AND fossil fuel usage to provide energy to interior residents. Reliance on fossil fuels is destroying rural interior Alaskan communities. If we could reduce the reliance of interior Alaskans on fossil fuels to heat their homes, there would be more money available to buy fossil fuels for snow-gos or to pay for supplies to be barged or flown in.

Hence, the determination to make this an either-or argument, destroys your credibility. You further reduce, rather than increase, your credibility by acting like you know so much in comparison with other bloggers. I have no doubt that you have a lot of knowledge in physics, and so on, but you obviously lack the ability to organize and brainstorm broad and new solutions to the problem(s) we are facing. Or, perhaps, you just don't want to. Instead, you hang on to the old, tired belief that we MUST be wholly dependent on nonrenewable fossil fuels for everything we do.
ChenaSteamer
|
September 04, 2010
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
just-saying
|
September 03, 2010
I think Mr. Ross probably meant to say "reined in" rather than "reigned in" -- but, maybe not?

.
Invictus
|
September 03, 2010
Sorry ckn -- looks like I conflated you and claudius. My error, my apology.
triproad
|
September 03, 2010
I too am a Bush air service pilot, although I really don't know what that term means. Commuter Pilot would be an actual definable definition of what I do. And after 20 years of flying over this great state I can honestly say that I have not seen the proof of G.W. that so many environmentalist claim to have seen after one or two short flights. Not saying it isn't there, I just haven't seen it.

So, you want pain and misery in the bush, you want poverty and despair in the bush that would rival Africa? Then triple the price of fuel. Pilots who actually provide goods and transportation to bush Alaska know how vital this service is. We don't risk our lives for the money because the money's just not that good. We do something important and without fuel it just wouldn't happen.
ckn
|
September 03, 2010
You lost me on that one, Invictus. I've been staying out of your little bout with semantics.
Invictus
|
September 03, 2010
ckn -- Ross's opinion column was pure policy, not science. Ross is not a scientist, he's an air-taxi driver. Now that you've become uncomfortable with your position on "subsidies", you want to change the subject.

If you still hold to your definition of "subsidy", you must understand that the fossil fuel producers are being "subsidized" with their own money.

Has the light switched on in there?
ckn
|
September 02, 2010
I know it shouldn't surprise me, but it does surprise me at how these threads always devolve towards the trivia. I'm still hoping that Gerhard_Kramm will help me to understand some of the basic science which, I "think" this thread is ultimately based on. But, I could be wrong...
Invictus
|
September 02, 2010
I think you're dead wrong on this, claudius. the subversion of words leads you to think that taking less money from someone is the same as giving that entity money. That is some strange logic. Does not fly with me.

If you were to truly understand the meaning of the word, you would understand that you, me, and the oil companies factually, subsidize the government with our tax payments. If you can get your head around this, the world will change for you.
claudius5545
|
September 02, 2010
When the government gives ExxonMobil $1Billion, whether it's a reduction in tax, a reduction in royalty payments, a "depletion allowance", a sweetheart deal on leases, or an outright grant, it's a subsidy, and Exxon gets all of them. And when they do, the shareholders get bigger dividends, senior executives get more compensation, and taxpayers are out $1Billion. That's not semantics, that's arithmetic.

The variances that disturb you are the result of those interpretations of what constitutes a subsidy.

Out of all those $Billions in "subsidies", however you care to define them, how much does Exxon actually put back into R&D? And how much of that R&D is actually funded by government grants, again paid for by taxpayers?

Trying to split hairs on what is a subsidy and what isn't is creating a distinction without a difference. Is Exxon richer? Is the taxpayer poorer? That's a subsidy.
Invictus
|
September 02, 2010
BTW, claudius, aren't you disturbed by the broad variance in the amounts of "subsidies" given in your citations? Which one is right? Again, it's purely aribitrary & capricious semantics. In my book, it's meaningless blather.
Invictus
|
September 02, 2010
Those "subsidies" are in the form of depletion credits and tax incentives. IOW, they allow the producer to keep more of its earned money to re-invest in R&D. I don't consider these to be true subsidies. It's not welfare and it's not granted funds. I suppose this is just a matter of semantics. I wish that words were meaningful.

As I previously said, if you believe that being allowed to keep some of the money you earn to be a "subsidy" -- we are all being subsidized by the fed govt.
claudius5545
|
September 02, 2010
@Invictus - "The oil industry as a whole receives up to $113 billion per year in direct federal subsidies, according to experts. The 2005 Energy Bill is a prime example of how political dollars translate into legislation. The Energy Bill, in effect until 2010, authorized $4 billion in federal subsidies to the oil and gas industry."

http://askville.amazon.com/explain-subsidy-oil-producing-firms/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=182382

"Amount of public funds spent worldwide subsidizing the oil and gas industry from 2000 to 2007: at least $61.3 billion

Rank of the U.S. among providers of aid to the global oil industry during that time: 1

Amount of subsidies the U.S. provided to the industry worldwide: $15.6 billion"

http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/05/oil-industry-subsidies-a-gusher-of-another-kind.html

Invictus
|
September 01, 2010
claudius -- those are not subsidies in the true sense of the word. Where are the grants given directly to the fossil fuel producers? Tax breaks are not subsidies. If this is so, everyone of us is being subsidized by the fed govt and the word becomes meaningless.
Newsminer.com encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Comments are not pre-approved by News-Miner staff. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.