Friday, November 16, 2012

What To Do About Global Warming

Chad wants to know what I think should be done about global warming.  I sound fairly doom and gloom here I know and I think Chad may be thinking about a biblical type response.  If we are already screwed like I seem to imply, isn't the best answer to eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die?

My personal opinion is that this is true for a lot of people.  For people that live in some poorer countries, their fate is basically sealed.  They are dead, and it will be a painful death.  How many are we talking?  Tough to say, but my guess is millions will die.  This is not a prediction, just my own vague sense of what will happen.  Obviously this could be wrong.  But I think millions are already lost.  If we collectively made the decision today to do everything we could to stop this, we would still lose something on the order of a few million.  You can't just put the brakes on in an instant.  We've developed some momentum and I think that momentum will kill a lot of people.

The question we are addressing now is how many do we want to see die?  Tens of millions?  Hundreds of millions?  A billion?  How many species should we drive to extinction, often not knowing what the consequences will be?  This is the question we answer with our inaction.  We could continue down this path long enough that a billion people would die.  If we finally do decide to take action, what would our response look like?

In my opinion one form it could take is like what the US did in response to WWII.  From the top down the entire population was mobilized striving to achieve the same goal.  Victory in this war.  This is like a war too.  Environmental catastrophe that could kill us too, not just the poor, if it continues apace.

During WWII our government directed industry.  They told them exactly what they would produce and what they would pay their workers.  They told people exactly how much they could eat.  They limited consumption so that the maximum amount of resources could be directed towards the war effort.  For us to beat this back I can't think of any other way to do it.

The capitalists will of course flip out at this notion, tell you it's un American, tell us that it's a limit on freedom.  It is a limit on freedom.  Your freedom to ruin the environment is killing people today, so that freedom would have to be constrained.  Republicans think that will be a miserable existence, but all the data show (and I know Republicans don't care for data or facts) that you really don't derive happiness by fulfilling these needs that capitalism creates for you.  You're actually not happier in a larger house, with a bigger car, and with that boat.  Generally speaking losing these things won't make you less happy, provided your basic needs are met.

Returning to a command economy is pretty radical of course, as was the war effort.  But if there's another way to tackle this problem I'd love to hear it.  We do have to cool this planet and it doesn't really seem like there is profit in that, so it won't be done following free market principles.  We also do have to get people to consume less, because it is that consumption and the energy required to produce those goods that creates the gasses that are going to kill and have already killed so many.  How can this be achieved without something like the WWII war effort?  Profit seekers want that consumption to continue, and there's no other way I can see to compel them to back down except government.

Here's what I see happening.  As in the war the government will have to direct a segment of our population to work on meeting basic needs.  Food, health care, shelter, and clothing.  To minimize the number of people required to do this we have to ask people to go shake hands with their neighbors and learn to share.  Instead of everybody living in their home like it's an island, why not share our things?  Instead of buying a new flat screen TV, why not figure out how to within your community share the many that already exist?  Develop community gardens.  Raise chickens in the community so as to lessen the burden on those working to provide the basic needs.  This frees up others to work to cool this planet.  We obviously need the climate scientists to continue to monitor the situation.  We need people planting the kind of vegetation that will absorb the greenhouse gases.  We need people working on renewable energy.  Perhaps we should be spreading cotton sheets across vast swaths of land, particularly land near the equator, to counter act the loss in polar ice and repel solar radiation.

Unnecessary consumption that further contributes to the problem really needs to be halted.  We of course have military equipment all over the world burning fossil fuel and an astonishing pace.  We have speedboats, RV's, off road vehicles, etc.  Leisure devices that contribute in a major way to the problem.  Hey, I love 4 wheelers and motorcycles.  I don't want to give this stuff up.  But we must make choices for the sake of ourselves and our children.  We are driving the planet to drought and extinction.  Is the joy of your yacht really worth the future of your children?  We have to get organized and we need to focus in this goal to achieve it.

One difference between this effort and the war effort is GDP would drop.  On capitalist thinking that is of course bad.  You need GDP to increase forever.  But pursuing that goal is exactly what got us into this state of affairs.  We have to think in terms of need.  I know conservatives hate that, but that's the path to success.  It's got to be about meeting needs, not accumulated the largest collection of wealth.  That goal, inherent to capitalism, is in fact the poison that is killing us.


Chad said...

Appreciate the time you took to answer my question.

What if people do not comply with your gov't take over? I find it fasinating that your only solution is government.

Obviously you realize that the most likely outcome in that scenario you drummed up will be total choas and anarchy. I am not going to live by the hand of the government and neither will a lot of people. Civil War would be the most likely people eliminator as we protect our property, food and family. Whats ironic and interesting here is that as I read your note I started to think about what I would do then expanded to think about what group of people/political class would be the most prepared to align myself with. Not that it shocked me, but it was real obvious that the conservative class seems to be in far better position to survive a dooms day scenario. We are the primary gun owners (multiple guns), we understand hard work, we can hunt, fish and live off the land because we do it for fun. We know how to feed our family off script, we have a stronger family dynamic overall or should I say more family to fall back on who are like minded. We own a lot of the things you talked about like off road vehicles, RV's, the oil companies are mainly dominated by conservatives, big money (although it may be irrelevant in a total collapse) and Conservatives tend to own a lot of land and property as well. In that kind of scenario - it could be really rough going for the Liberal class out there.


Jon said...

I'm open to alternative solutions. I'm really not a fan of big government. But I just see this as a feasible means of addressing the issue, like government was a feasible means of addressing the Nazi threat, and the threat here is similar.

Of course it's not anarchy. Anarchy is kind of the opposite of what I'm suggesting.

What to do with people that don't comply? I think you use force to compel them to comply, just like was done in WWII. Was that such a bad thing? I don't like it of course. I think use of force always comes with a presumption against. In other words we should always require that any use of force justify itself. And the justification here is kind of like the justification for me grabbing my daughter's hand before she walks into a busy street. There is real danger here and so I will stop her.

I think if today our government was beholden to people instead of corporations, and (go with me on a hypothetical for a moment) suppose most people thought like me and believed that effective action was required to halt this catastrophe, then I think the oil companies would have no choice but to comply. Oil companies naturally rely on our military. They rely on the stock exchange, which only functions with government. It's interesting that capitalist fans have no idea how critical the government is for them to function properly. I'm sure a lot of capitalists didn't like being told what to do in terms of building tanks and bombers, but they fell into line and we got through it. I'm not necessarily saying no more profits. Let the government subsidize them into alternative energy areas, like solar and wind. There's plenty for them to do. There's plenty of money to be made. And keep in mind, even CEO's of fossil fuel companies have kids. They don't want to have to take their guns and 4-wheelers and try to hunt the few remaining deer that are alive, scraping by an existence. This is a much better alternative even for them.

People are waking up. I have been recently somewhat surprised to see so much frank discussion about global warming as I move about. Just yesterday I saw a huge special edition Time Magazine that is entirely devoted to this issue. So often in the past I've seen this sort of "on the one hand we have all scientists, but let's be sure to give both sides a hearing and also get the opinion of some quack that works for oil." It wasn't like that. From what I could see it was more along the lines of what I'm saying. Looming catastrophe is a given. We're not even going to talk with the denialists any more than we are going to talk with flat earthers. We don't have time for that. How do we address this?

Just a glimmer of hope I guess. Not sure it will be enough.

Chad said...


I really have little to offer in such a scenario. Its evident that there would need to be leadership and direction of some kind. To implement something like that today/right now I would bet my life that there would be anarchy for sure - I'd be one of those guys. With that said if part of the world caught fire because it is a 150 degrees and Florida hits 120 with regularity - you'd get my attention for sure.

I guess when your suggesting using force to make American's comply it begs the question - would you be willing to use force to make other countries comply as well? We are obviously off the reservation here, but would you be in favor of pushing a little red button to wipe out entire countries in that case?

Your a big history guy obviously and I just continue to go back to what history tells us and that is mother earth (or God) is going to do what she (He) is going to do. The earth was covered by water then it was on fire basically then it was covered by ice mostly - all before a single human took a gasp of air. I am certainly no scientist pal, but to think that we have any control over the earths natural flow here is a little tough to swallow whole.

Chad said...

Food for thought - what if our existence on this earth actually has slowed down some of the natural cycles of earth? What if our man made pollution (for a lack of a better word) helps keep earth's balance by forcing the environment to react to us? We've come to a point were we save animals/wildlife/flowers and other oranisms that might otherwise have gone extinct.

Ah hell - we'll be long gone before anything happens. Lets be somewhat honest here - eventually in a million years if we last that long we will run out of real estate to bury people. There won't be enough resources on this earth to survive.

Examinator said...

I think that both of you are being a might too simplistic in your assessments of the consequences of AGW(sic) .

What is reasonably well understood is that prosaic USA will on the scale of things not suffer that much from the actual damage from climate change, at least in the short/intermediate time frame.
Yes there will be more severe weather events. Not necessarily more weather events per se. Some of the severe ones may become more intense.
Some areas will become less productive as in storm damage and too hot weather at the wrong times causing crops to fail, damaged and destroyed.
What is going to be significant is the flow on from the rest of the world.
Many 3rd world countries will face crop failures that will exacerbate food shortages experienced by the average US resident. But for them without export $ then they can't buy in food staples . The net result will be 10s -100s of millions under famine conditions = similar numbers of internally displaced and refugees.
This will have some unfactored/talked about results.
Failure of US food production both for export $ and internal consumption
Failure of rural loans .reluctance of investors to invest (too long a lead time...not enough profit, too risky)
unemployment will rise dramatically.
Food shortages in western countries from 3rd
Failing western countries investments in 3rd world countries
National debt repayment defaults
Demand for manufactured goods would reduce both internally and externally
Perhaps governments (China) reallocating labor to internal food production from export companies and western joint ventures. This might happen by secondary actions. Reallocation of priorities and resources, costs.
US domestic demand would drop and more unemployment.
More migration to the US etc.
Ultimately the whole edifice of Capitalism as we know it would collapse
Add to this three of the major countries that would be horrendously effected would be
Pakistan, from both internal 100s of millions internally then add a few 100 million refugees from Bangladesh (in a flood in Pakistan last year 200 million people were affected internally). Pakistan is a fragile country now the added pressure of rolling disasters would move the country further to wards religious zealotry invading Afghanistan or India
India similar sources now reverse the direction
China will be dramatically effected and goodness knows how it will respond
All three are in danger of under stress, being radicalised and they have Nuke bombs.
In these countries their motivation will them become survival and CO2 emissions will be the last thing on their minds...they will aggravate ACC.

Examinator said...

God if he/she / they know what will happen in the middle east.
The over riding point I'm trying to make is that the US is so busy with worrying about the niceties whose has power over the cotton bud to clean the nation's naval it's missing the melanomas surrounding.
By ignoring ACC's effect on the rest of the world given the interconnectedness of it, it isn't a matter of Armageddon but slow lingering and painful demise of life as we know it.
Believe it or the US will ultimately suffer more than say a self sustaining culture in the mountains of PNG..their culture and 'spirits' (religious beliefs) will still stand.
Chad's idea of chaos will reign if the governments (don't start acting in the interests of the people as opposed to the few rich and corporations) law enforcement would mean nothing to the desperate poor.

he should ask him self the question if every one decided to disobey a government and all went libertarian (aka everyone for them selves) ….how would he feed his family? would he get food gas even ammunition for his weapons?

Chad I grew up in the jungles of PNG and often fed myself from bush foods BUT those jungles have gone due to illegal logging. The species I knew don't exist anywhere else. So even if We could get back We'd be hand to hand competing with all the local natives who had relied on the cities...I don't like my chances.
It seems sensible to me to stop the problem now.Survival trumps niceties like liberty and the law. Dickensian England taught us that.

4tomic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
4tomic said...

Not with a bang but a whimper."

I agree a bit with everyone here. I also find Examine's predictions a bit too hauntingly likely.

I'm convinced that the solution needs to start with a broad cultural shift. We also need to radically change our economic structures and corporate structures. Both systems need to work to eliminate externalization of costs and promote 7th generation thinking.

As it stands, the corporate structure is both designed and required to be systematically psychopathic and suicidal. The mass "race to the bottom" that we see with companies like Monsanto, Walmart... hell any company (actually a few are taking steps to change the corporate structure to be long-term and community oriented, such as Facebook).

There is no answer that doesn't entail short-term sacrifices, and it would be certainly hard to convince developing nations that they missed the "pollute all you want" boat and need to sit still. It would also be hard to convince religious types like my dad, who believe Jesus wouldn't let the world be destroyed and the end is coming soon anyways (that said, I did convince him to trade his Xtera for a Leaf).

A government mandated solution would require a massive shift in public perception and culture, otherwise it'd never get off the ground. The war enjoyed this support, Global Warming doesn't yet and won't anytime soon if the media and politicians continue to treat it as a non-issue.

Ken said...

Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants? If you guessed "none of the above," you'd be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn't even clean up its own garbage! In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals -- enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity.Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. This polluter literally gets away with murder because of sovereign immunity.

By turning to government for environmental protection, we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house -- and a very large hen house it is! Governments, both federal and local, control over 40% of our country's land mass. Unfortunately, government's stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it.

Ken said...

Trusting the same government who has to get its nose in every other country's business , has a hard time delivering the mail on time, and who has a dismall track record ending poverty is not the solution. The war on the environment would be a bigger failure than the war on drugs.

Jon said...

Ken, I can't disagree with your claim, but I think if we were to ask why they do that my answer is that government simply has been captured by profit seeking corporations. What are the two most profitable industries today? Oil and finance. What lobbying groups are the most powerful. These are probably 2 of the top 3, maybe the Israel lobby in the mix for the top spot. And so what does our government do? Bail out banks, prosecute none of the Wall St criminals and also do everything necessary to halt progress on global warming initiatives. It's not like these are popular positions. In fact Bradley Manning sits in jail today because he has revealed things our government has done that our government simply doesn't want us to know they've done. There's no security threat. They simply want to keep us in the dark about the fact that while they said one thing regarding climate summits they were doing back room dealing with China to make sure the disaster continues apace for profit.

So yeah, government gets captured by concentrated power. Corporate power. But given the enormous strength of corporate power what conceivalbe mechanism could ever be invoked to check that power? Because that's what is need to forestall climate disaster. Hey, I agree with you about government. But the answer is not to just walk away and let corporate power continue unchecked. Government is at least theoretically susceptible to public pressure. It's happened before. There have been amazing successes. And frankly I see no other path to saving the lives tht will otherwise be lost. We can't just consign all these people to death. We hve to at least try. It may not work. Corporte power isn't going to relax it's grip on our government without fight. But we hve to try anyway. There's no other alternative.

By the way, USPS is awesome. Critiques are based on riduclous lies and half truths. It's an awesome service. In the Constitution as well by the way. They say it loses money. Total lies. Republicans imposed an insane burden on them requiring them to fund their pension funds out something like 75 years in advance. So funding pension obligations for people not yet born. Republicans gave them only 10 years to do it. So it's like an annual $8 billion hit. They still could do it if Republicans would relinquish money they had overpaid into their prior pension fund, but they won't allow it. It's obvious they just want to destroy it so certain rich people can insert themselves in the revenue stream. They'll turn it into crap just like they've privatized and turned the whole third world into crap.

4tomic said...

Hehe, I do see some of Ken's logic here. Actually I was thinking about how the war-time efforts of the U.S. often did a good amount of damage long-term.

Ken points out the nuclear waste issues, like the "Hanford Site" (something everyone should read-up about). I point out corporate issues like Anaconda's work ANYWHERE (but see Butte, Montana's copper lake for a solid example), who are in bed with the government. So would giving the government more power help? Again, not without a major change in larger systems and culture.

Let me give a more specific example; corn subsidies. Corn subsidies were started by the department of defense as part of the Vietnam war effort. The military realized that corn was a cheap source of energy, so they decided to use it to fuel their soldiers in the war. To prevent market depletion, they created corn subsidies to get more farmers growing corn and insure the prices stayed low through the war and that they could keep bulk producing corn-based foods for the soldiers.

A great example of government involvement to fix a catastrophe. But during the war, food corps also started to take advantage of the cheap prices of corn. Schools like MIT found alternative uses for corn (acetic acid, artificial sweeteners like Aspartame, corn alcohol, corn syrup, maltodextrin, MSG, and my favorite the highly unnatural natural flavorings). The companies turned around and made these into products (pretty 95% of what you buy outside the fruit and vegetable section), most of which are linked to causing obesity. At the same time the corn became the primary feed of livestock (and this practice produces the ecoli that is dangerous to humans).

When the war ended, the corps begged the government to keep the corn subsidies going, which they did. And that's why it's so cheap to eat at McDonalds, or eat chips, or eat most of the unhealthiest food. It's not because the food is cheap, this food is actually very expensive to make and grow (financially and environmentally), but it's because the public is paying for the products in their taxes or with the general environment. The tax money we pay goes to feeding the biggest and most damaging food industries corn (and also other industries pharmaceutics, oil, cotton, tech innovations, etc). Which is a huge crime when you total the amounts, because much more money is going to support the rich than is going to support the poor (through social security, welfare, etc).

If we stopped subsidizing corn, gas, and started charging people fairly for their environmental impact, then junk food would be a luxury item. And our environment would also be in much better shape.

So like Chad and Ken argue, a government mandated solution could actually do more harm than good. That said, I think if we shifted more power to make choices about the environment to local governments and local democratic processes, then practices of abuse would end. Even stanch conservatives will often be very aware of and vocal against the environmental degradations occurring in their own backyards.

The next step that I see is changing the systems in place that make polluting a profitable business (subsidies being one of many), which means challenging the corpacrocies in place and also how and who the federal government supports and works for.

4tomic said...

I should clarify one fact : corn subsidies are in themselves are only a small piece of the pie (like 1.2% of what we spend on welfare). My statement about taxes going more to the rich are more when you look at the whole pie of subsidies, especially R&D subsidies.

And unlike corn, some of the results of these subsidies aren't so obviously negative, and a few are probably even great to have.

Sorry, just want to clarify some the grey areas in my position.

Jon said...

4tomic, think for a moment about why Republicans prefer more local government control. Takes about 5 seconds of thought. Local governments are easily bullied by corporate power, and Republicans are in the business of serving the needs of corporations. Federal government has problems. But if there were no federal government BP wouldn't bother to stop the leak. There's no threat to their profits because local governments in Louisiana aren't going to have the power to stop anything. Florida and other states could come in, but the fragmentation makes it more difficult. So polluting is now more profitable.

This is not a hypothetical thing. This is exactly what BP, Shell, and Chevron do all over the third world. They dump oil like crazy. Nigeria is subject to the equivalent of one Exxon Valdez every year, and this has been going on for 50 years. Why does BP urgently stop a leak in our Gulf, but when similar things happen in the Amazon or Africa they do nothing? Pollution is unprofitable here because we have a federal government that still does have some teeth. Go anywhere in the world where the governments lack teeth and the pollution is out of control. That's exactly what we should expect.

Take a look at fracking. Halliburton has no trouble buying off the local governments in Wyoming. It's the EPA that comes in and threatens them. Yeah, they try and beat the EPA back, and they succeed sometimes. They got Bush and Cheney to exempt them from the Safe Water Drinking Act. They got Bush and Cheney to block EPA oversight so the public cannot know what these companies are putting in the ground. Like the housing derivatives market it's a big black hole. The public is barred from learning about what they are doing which could affect us. OK, it's a travesty. But it is harder for them to bully the federal government in this way. They succeed sometimes, but not always. A strong federal government is the only way to stop them. It has failed in the past. No doubt. But I see no other way that has any hope.

Chad said...

Ken's got skillz.

JC is big on history except when that negative history is a result of gov't.

Finally policy that actually is fiscally responsible - a gov't program that actually provides a service that must raise money to fund its own pension - what a novelty. With that said, walk into any USPS store and you will quickly realize it is far from a well oiled, competitive driven organization. UPS/Fed Ex really works for your business and adds ton of value. USPS employees - a like all gov't employees - are not go getters. They are just there doing as little for as much as possible with the heavy hand of gov't pensions and union support to guarantee they make high wages and a nice pension.

My UPS experiences feel like a well oiled machine. From point of entry to exit they take care of their customers.

Examinator said...

You are perfectly correct in that Business wants smaller weaker governments so they can bully.
A perfect example it The 'life science' (very sic)corporation (read Chemical Corps) and their actions in India.
What they did was to patent the genes of indigenous rice and corn to preclude India from doing their own genetic modified crops without some control.
India tried to stop the corps from selling their GM corn. so the corps put pressure on the US government and took India to the WTO.
They won and then started selling their modified corn through dealers with extraordinary bonuses.
The farmers were basically illiterate peasants so conning them was easy.
Many farmers borrowed from these dealersto buy this new wonder corn
Then two things happened two monsoons failed so the corn cost more to produce i.e. they had to use the corps chemicals(even though there were much cheaper legal identical versions available.
being poor farmers they used to keep some of their crop for next year BUT
the Corporation demanded licence fees they simply didn't have.
As a direct consequence of this many farmer lost their land (their only means of supporting their family. Not surprisingly there was a local pandemic of SUICIDES and subsequent family destitution( literally on the streets) . There were well over 1000 by the time you multiply that by the average number of children the number is nearly 7000 people not accounting the flow on and multi generational homes.
The chemical companies blamed the agents... the Indian Govt claimed that the drought resistant GM chemical ready corn didn't suit the area the Corporations denied this and hired the best lawyers to defend themselves and looked like winning on a technicality in the agency agreement.

If one thinks about this Vertical Marketing technique being used world wide the numbers of poor peasant who are going to be effected by Corporate Profit manipulation of capitalism. There may well be a link between the Failed Monsoon rains and AGW. it doesn't take a genius to see that these sort of manipulation of Capitalism is simply going to create more victims more quickly. The flow on of that is truly disturbing.
No let look at the company's claim that they need to vertical market to get their development costs back.
By vertical marketing I mean they make profits all the way along the chain.
-they make the seed
-they control the availability of alternative seeds in the market by exclusive deals and buying up smaller local seed companies. then either not stocking alternatives or making them to expensive or unreliable delivery.
We are talking here about small lot farmers who are lucky if they have an animal to pull the plow. They walk or maybe a old motor cycle so to go long distances to get seed is very difficult.
- they contract that the farmer must use only their chemicals (albeit more expensive)
- they demand licence fee or have suicide genes in the corn.
- they can test neighboring crops for their genes i.e. wind/insect pollination then demand licence for that crop even though the incident may be small.
The distorting of Capitalism is clear if the product i.e. the seed can't be self supporting (profitable to sell) then it's simply not market ready or is too expensive.
Now there is some evidence to suggest that the corn is self sustaining without cross subsidising, (necessitate vertical marketing). The truth is that this way the company can now sell their chemicals at near now out of patent extortionate price.
Keep in mind it is this industry caused Bopal.... to me an US national shameful event.

Chad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Examinator said...

See if you can get your head around this one to combat AGW !
Personally it frightens me.

4tomic said...

Yes, smaller governments do get weaker, but they also become more democratic and work for more informed populations. If the national government decides to change how public schools are run, the story is lost in the mass media and there is nothing the minority of informed can do to change it. If my local district administrator decides to make a change, I can go talk to him/her in person, I can promote it locally, and the local media is typically more quick and receptive to run the story. That's huge.

I see the corporate problem as separate. How corps run needs to be corrected either way (and democrats aren't much less pro-corporate than the GOP, though they may act it). Corporations need to have their rights hacked down (i.e. they are not people).

Anyways, it's not like the big government hasn't been bought. They only act when they have no choice (i.e. BP) and they are often undermining state environmental wants and interests for the corps that can afford to buy out the winning party. And yes, the dems aren't really any less corp-serving than the GOP, though their rhetoric might be slightly different.

That said, in my vision the government would be protecting basic rights and enforcing a base level of cleanliness and sanity. They would also be using their power to representing states in cases like the BP oil spill, or negotiate medicinal prices, etc...

The most successful environmental projects and activist movements I've seen are local. This also goes for the most environmentally conscious companies.


A quick note on my thoughts about how to fix the environment/society. I think if everyone had a hindu-like belief about the world we'd be better off.

If big business-men believed they'd be reincarnated, most likely as a poor African or Asian, they might do more about poverty. If they believed they'd be living on the earth for as long as it were around, they might do more about insuring it stays in good condition. Right now they just believe themselves immune to the consequences of their lifestyles.

4tomic said...


Yes, the chemical corps and gene patenting corps were horrible in India. But they really are doing the same thing in the U.S. and all across the rest of the 3rd world. I'm sure they are doing the same practices in Australia too. India was heavily targeted early on because the mass of the market (1.1 billion people) meant huge profits.

I'm actually working in India with a company that helps locals patent the crops for community ownership. So yes... I've seen it.

Anyways, the corps distort the GMO crop activism as being a health choice (though they are actually less nutritious) to hide the fact that it is actually morality choice. It's just a mechanism for corps to control and in-debt farmers.

Jon said...

Interesting video, Ex. Certainly scary. Not advocating what that guy did, but his point is interesting. Doing nothing, which is the current strategy is scary too. What horrible choices these are.

Examinator said...

Watch this
Global warming in action

Examinator said...

Watch this
Global warming in action