In the Middle Ages sinners bought indulgences from the Church. This saved them from years in Purgatory. But "carbon neutral" is something new under the sun. The greedy rich now get to buy off their crushing damages to the planet by making donations to some mysterious Super Fund; this is called being "carbon neutral. "
The catch: the irreparable damages, the drastic climate changes, the loss of Mother Earth as we know her, don't get the carbon-neutral reprieve. There is no time unless all carbon emissions are stopped or drastically reduced immediately. This is fact-checked Science, folks, not to mention discoverable by heroes like Lonnie Dupre and Eric Larsen who saw first-hand the drastic harm to the Arctic last summer. Polar bears drowning, ice caps melting.
There is no time to waste. Shut down all the coal-fired plants and the nuclear ones too. Carbon emissions aren't the only way to destroy the planet and even peaceful nuclear uses can cause untold harm, as in Chernobyl, the death toll of which is incalculable because nobody knows what winds blew where.
There are plenty of renewable energy sources, notably wind and water and sun. Use them.
And for each and every person, what are you doing to reduce your carbon emissions footprint? Your poisonous waste footprint? Make a list, if you please.
True is shivering with cold to save electricity, and turning out lights and stumbling in the dark. He is actually driving the speed limit! to save on gas as well as perhaps preserve the life of some deer along the highway. He travels by car as little as possible, only for essential work and chores.
He lobbies for mass transit options (except by air) that move lots of folks for minimal damage. Trains, ships, buses... in Europe people have these choices.
True's challenge: What are YOU doing to reduce your carbon and planet-poisoning footprint? Do you accept and approve of Minnesota Power's coal-fired plant, touted as a model that reduces SOME toxic emissions but doesn't address the fact that coal is the big "sinner"?
Here's a story to read, if you like:
Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green? - CommonDreams.org - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
True,
I agree 98% with you, I take exception with your resistance to nuclear. Nuclear is clean, safe, and extremely efficient. Chernobyl is simply a reminder to take every precaution; outside of Chernobyl nuclear has proven safer than any currently used technology, coal kills consistently and hydro technology has also been more fatal. The nuclear waste problem is also overstated, most power sites can safely contain virtually all nuclear waste. I am green, but a nuclear green, wind farms cause me more concern and solar technology cannot supply sufficient resource. Conservation is still the best option, if everyone switched to compact fluorescents the energy saved would reduce the energy demand enough to eliminate the need for new power plants as well as pay for the cost of safely disposing the additional mercury they bring.
Hi, fast,
It's always a pleasure to hear from you and I agree with 90 percent of what you say.
In the mid-90's I did extensive research on the subject of long-term storage for spent nuclear waste from the cities-based Excel Energy (then called NSP). Believe me, this stuff will virtually NEVER break down, not for centuries anyway, and there is no cask safe or strong enough to contain it. This is the ultimate in toxic waste.
But, rather than debate this issue I would like to suggest an article I recently read in The Nation that could make the need for toxic nuclear waste disposal moot. In fact the other green technology is powerful beyond our wildest dreams, and much improved over early days when people worried about birds getting caught in windmills or hydro dams killing fish.
Check this out: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/parenti.
Post a Comment