Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Nechung Oracle on Global Warming
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
The State Oracle of Tibet, on his visit to the US, has spoken about our interdependence and the problems of global warming:
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=60,4489,0,0,1,0
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=60,4489,0,0,1,0
0
Comments
I have ideas. But I also have a huge gap in knowledge, which primarily exists because humankind's collective understanding of physics is so limited. I am working on theoretical ways to solve the problem long term.
Leave the self-doubt behind, dear Brigid. Your lifetime is now, this moment. The love and support you give not only through this cite but in your everyday life is the most good you can do for this planet and for humankind. Exclamation point. :poke:
Ven. Thupten appears to be saying that actions taken in one area by both climate change and human deforestation have effects far beyond the immediate area. The loss of the Tibetan ecosystem will be disastrous for the wider ecology.
Looking into environmental issues, no matter what the issue happens to be, is a crystal clear illustration of interconnectedness and interdependence and you don't have to be a Buddhist to appreciate the importance of it.
Hey, Quest! Long time no hear! Thanks for the kind words. Very nice to see you around. Hope you're enjoying life out there in Cali.
Now, as for the other problems, for some reason, The people of the US are afraid of nuclear power, which would greatly reduce the amount greenhouse gases being emitted into our atmosphere, vast deserts, where the sun shines almost constantly, where we could put acre upon acre of photo voltaic power generators, and a million other small ways we could gain cleaner energy,many of which are actually far more cost effective than the current ways of generating power. Mr. Gore, if you truly do care, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up.
Actually, the acre upon acre of photo voltaic cells sounds like a great idea, and I hear property in Nevada is cheap, who's with me for a corporation to build such a power plant?
Mr. Gore will NEVER put his money where is mouth is, he would rather use the tax dollars from you and I and the tuition fees from our children.
Read the following, see his actual speakers contract, and then tell me he is such a boon to mankind.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html
Now, see what other great things he has been doing here:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22090734-5001031,00.html
PS:
Most property in Nevada is owned by the Federal Government.
I used to work for Greenpeace and had to educate myself on all the campaigns they were working on so I could discuss and counter any arguments put forth by individuals who did not have the right information. I got a better education during two years at Greenpeace than four years at university. I know quite a lot about environmental issues. I also know when a conversation is going to be futile and/or frustrating so I'll catch you later on a different topic.
:tongue2: :winkc:
Oh, BTW, you I respect, so at least tell me you have sources other than GP. Them I have no respect for whatsoever.
The biggest problem the US faces in nuclear power is what to do with the waste. Waste from full cycle is still an unresolved problem. Our Nevada-boy Harry, now in a position to make even more noise, is committed to preventing Yucca Mountain. Committed? There's an idea!
Nuclear Waste is nasty....... I worked on safety analysis & emergency management for the Fort St. Vrain, Colorado, nuclear power plant D&D. Nasty! Nasty! Nasty!
Greenpeace is to science like Al Gore is to dynamic leading model citizen
Anyway, nuclear power is a solution if the waste issue can be dealt with.
Palzang
But there is a lot of fair and reasonable information online if you stay away from corporate and governmental propaganda and extreme militant eco groups. I don't know what your issue is with Greenpeace but I think that if you do some research on the organization you'll find it to be a very well resourced, fair and quite powerful independent lobby group. But I will not engage in any environmental debates. I've been there, done that and have the acid reflux to prove it.
Nuclear site worker accused of stealing secrets.
I do want to add this: Greenpeace merely annoys me. A group like PETA downright pisses me off.
And just out of curiosity, what are your credentials concerning the study of climate change and how is it that you can be so sure Al Gore's science is so wrong when most of the world's scientific community is in full agreement with him?
Here's another article I couldn't help noticing today because I've canvassed Port Hope for Greenpeace and I've spoken to many families who worked at Cameco. This article hardly describes the ramifications of finding uranium in that soil particularly since the last time I was in Port Hope, the Cameco uranium refining plant was situated right on the banks of Lake Ontario beside a little children's park complete with swings, monkey bars, slides and lots of little hillocks covered in thick green sod. I doubt they've moved the plant. I hope they've moved the playground.
Seriously, Greenpeace annoys me sometimes because they seem determined to impede human advancement sometimes. It's groups like PETA that piss me off because they are the penultimate hypocrites, pouring red paint over someone's coat because it's animal fur, but then using treatment drugs that were developed using animals, or are derived from animals.
But I must take issue with your last post. You're not seriously equating the use of life saving medications with the wearing of fur for fashion are you?
I personally prefer a good synthetic microfleece over actual fur for Colorado winters, and I have a really good parka for the really bad storms. You won't ever see me wearing a fur coat because I consider it downright tacky. Heck, if you like the caveman look, do it right and let the fur mat for the life of the coat.
Not only has Greenpeace never been "directly involved in ecoterrorism", the name is GreenPEACE and they take that very seriously. The organization was founded (in Canada in 1972, by the way) upon the Quaker principle of "Bearing Witness" which I'm sure Arctic would explain much better than I could but essentially means if a person witnesses a crime the witness has a moral obligation not to turn their backs on it or remain silent about it but to bring it to the community's attention so something can be done about it. That's what Greenpeace does, they bear witness to environmental destruction caused by large corporations (and governments) by filming it and bringing it to the public's attention in order to show the public what the corporations and governments don't want us to see. Hand in hand with the general public and other environmental groups Greenpeace creates change, some of it mind boggling in scale, in the world for the better.
Greenpeace, in short, is the largest and most effective environmental activist/lobby group in the world. Here is a tiny smattering of some of the things they've been able to accomplish over the last 35 years:
1982 After at sea actions against whalers, a whaling moratorium is adopted by the International Whaling Commission.
1983 The Parties to the London Dumping Convention call for a moratorium on radioactive waste dumping at sea. As a result of Greenpeace's repeated actions against ocean dumping, this is the first year since the end of the second world war where officially no radioactive wastes are dumped at sea.
1985 French nuclear testing in the South Pacific again becomes the subject of international controversy, particularly following the sinking of Greenpeace's ship, the Rainbow Warrior, by the French Secret Services. (Which caused the death of a Greenpeace photographer who was asleep on board at the time. He was married with small children.)
1988 Following at sea actions, and submissions by Greenpeace, a world-wide ban on incinerating organochlorine waste at sea is agreed by the London Dumping Convention.
1989 A UN moratorium on high seas large-scale driftnets is passed, responding to public outrage at indiscriminate fishing practices exposed by Greenpeace.
1991 The 39 Antarctic Treaty signatories agree to a 50-year minimum prohibition of all mineral exploitation, in effect preserving the continent for peaceful, scientific purposes.
1992 Worldwide ban on high seas large-scale driftnets comes into force.
1992 France cancels this year's nuclear tests at Moruroa Atoll, following the Rainbow Warrior visit to the test zone, and vows to halt altogether if other nuclear nations follow suit.
1994 After years of Greenpeace actions against whaling, the Antarctic whale sanctuary, proposed by France and supported by Greenpeace, is approved by the International Whaling Commission.
1995: Greenpeace actions to stop French nuclear testing receive wide international attention. Over seven million people sign petitions calling for a stop to testing. France, UK, US, Russia and China commit to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
1998: A historic accord, the OSPAR Convention, bans the dumping of offshore installations at sea in the North-East Atlantic. The Convention also agrees on the phasing-out of radioactive and toxic discharges, as proposed by Greenpeace.
2000: Further to Greenpeace's April-May expedition exposing pirate fishing in the Atlantic, an import ban is adopted on all bigeye tuna caught by FOC vessels in the Atlantic.
2000-2001: An ever increasing and significant number of European retailers, food producers, and subsidiaries of multinational companies guaranteed to keep genetically engineered ingredients out of their products due to consumer pressure. Thanks to its consumer networks in 15 countries, Greenpeace tests products, collects information about food products and policies and exposes contamination cases.
2001: Greenpeace lobbying, together with earlier expeditions to the Southern and Atlantic Oceans exposing flag of convenience (FOC or "pirate") vessels, are instrumental in the adoption of an "international plan of action" to combat illegal fishing in international waters.
2001: A historic agreement with logging companies is reached on the conservation of Canada's remaining coastal rainforest and approved by the government of British Columbia. This follows years of campaigning by Greenpeace, most recently targeting the trade and investments of companies involved in logging the endangered Great Bear Rainforest.
2001: After years of negotiations and pressure from Greenpeace, a global agreement for the elimination of a group of highly toxic and persistent man-made chemicals (Persistent Organic Pollutants or POPs), became a reality in May 2001 when a UN Treaty banning them is adopted.
February 18, 2004: The Stockholm Convention comes into force following years of lobbying by Greenpeace and other environmental organisations. A key feature of the Convention calls for the elimination of all Persistent Organic Pollutants. They include intentionally produced chemicals, such as pesticides and PCBs, as well as by-products such as cancer-causing dioxins that are released from industries that use chlorine and from waste incinerators. More
June 10, 2004: Publishers of 34 Canadian magazines pledged to shift away from paper containing tree fibre from Canada's ancient forests thanks to ongoing pressure from the Markets Initiative coalition, of which Greenpeace Canada has a key role. The coalition has similar commitments from 71 Canadian book publishers including the Canadian publisher of Harry Potter, which printed the Order of the Phoenix on AFF paper in June 2003. Greenpeace Canada's work to protect its forests also encouraged Cascades, as the second largest producer of tissue products in Canada to commit to an Ancient Forest-Friendly purchasing policy.
June 17, 2004: Consumer power scored a victory following the announcement from electronics giant Samsung that it plans to phase out hazardous chemicals in its products. Seeing its brand-name products graded red - as containing hazardous chemicals - on the Greenpeace database, prompted the company to do the right thing on dangerous chemicals. More
June 22, 2004: Unilever, Coca Cola and McDonalds promise to phase out climate-killing chemicals in their refrigeration equipment. In 1992 Greenpeace launched Greenfreeze with the help of two scientists who pointed out how to avoid HFC's altogether. We found an old fridge factory, appealed to our supporters to pre-order enough units to finance a refit, helped build the market and Greenfreeze was born. Today there are over 100 million Greenfreeze refrigerators in the world, produced by all the major European, Chinese, Japanese and Indian manufacturers. More
September 1, 2004: Ford Europe announce a reversal of the decision to scrap its fleet of fuel efficient electric Th!nK City cars, and instead investigate sending them to eager customers in Norway. Pressure applied by Greenpeace and web-based cyberactivists convinced Ford to Th!nk Again. When charged by electricity from renewable sources, these cars help fight the biggest threat to our planet: climate change. More
October 29, 2004: MQ Publications (MQP) in the UK becomes the first UK publisher to publicly announce its collaboration with the Greenpeace Book Campaign. MQP has committed to phasing out paper that is not 'ancient forest friendly'. Their next five books, including 'The Armchair Environmentalist' will be printed on 100 percent recycled paper. They have also publicly challenged all UK publishers to follow suit. More
March 22, 2005: Photocopy giant Xerox agrees to stop buying timber pulp from StoraEnso, the Finnish national logging company which is cutting down one of Europe's last remaining ancient forests. Following pressure by Greenpeace cyberactivists, the company agrees a new procurement policy, ensuring that suppliers do not source timber from 'old-growth forests, conservation areas or other areas designated for protection.' More
April 29, 2005: Sony Ericsson announces that it will be phasing toxic chemicals out of its products. This is the result of the thousands of participants in our online action to pressure electronics companies to come clean. Sony Ericsson joins Samsung, Nokia and Sony as electronics companies who are phasing toxic chemicals out of all their products. More
May 31, 2006: Despite heavy lobbying by the nuclear power industry, Spain has confirmed that the country's 8 operating plants will be phased out in favour of clean, renewable energy. Spain joins Sweden, Germany, Italy and Belgium as the fifth European country to abandon nuclear power. More
June 26, 2006: Dell becomes the latest company to promise to remove the worst toxic chemicals from it products, closely following the move of its rival HP. Both companies have been pressured by us to make their products greener and help tackle the growing mountain of toxic e-waste. More
February 15, 2007: In a major blow to the UK government's plans to reinvigorate nuclear power, the High Court rules their decision to back a programme of new nuclear power stations was unlawful on the basis that they had failed to adequately consult citizens and groups who oppose nuclear power as a dangerous distraction from real solutions to climate change. More
March 7, 2007: The New Zealand government announces cancellation of proposed coal-burning power plant Marsden B. Greenpeace and local activists had mounted a four-year struggle which involved a nine-day occupation, high court challenges, protest marches, a record numbers of public submissions, Surfers Against Sulphur, public meetings, and a pirate radio station. More
May 2, 2007: Apple announces a phase-out of the most dangerous chemicals in its product line in response to a Webby-award winning online campaign by Greenpeace and Apple fans worldwide. The campaign challenged Apple to become a green leader in addressing the electronic waste problem. More
They're doing absolutely everything possible to protect our planet, your planet, from massive polluters and dumpers and exploiters and they're doing it peacefully, directed by that original Quaker principle of Bearing Witness. (Greenpeace has been a victim of violence but it has never instigated violence in all its 35 years).
So after reading this small lists of accomplishments can you tell me what, exactly, they're doing that annoys you?
Thank you, Boo, for such a detailed history of an organisation to which I have belonged since the "Save the Whales" days of the '70s.
Okay, fur for fashion and fur for the Inuit are two completely different things and PETA doesn't have an Inuit campaign. And there's no jealousy behind it either.
PETA targets idiotic, uneducated, uber wealthy people who wear fur for one reason and one reason only; status.
They also don't use red paint these days, if they ever did. They use flour. That's all. And the one I saw made me cheer like a crazy person. After Paris Hilton says on TV "I'm an animal activist, you know..." she shows up at some fashion event wearing fur and PETA was there and hit her and the designer who designed her fur piece with a flour bomb and it was SO great!!! They even did it outdoors so as not to make a mess inside. That was a great one. Even Paris was laughing.
And you're not going to get any sympathy from me about how cold the Colorado winters are, southern man. I live in the TRUE white north so don't even bother. You might take some advice from the Inuit and wear only Caribou hide with the fur on the outside because its amazingly waterproof and light but warm and nothing synthetic has so far been able to beat what they wear. But then you'd have to kill the Caribou and stuff...so I don't know if your into that being a Buddhist and all. But there you have it.
But they never speak out against violent methods to furthering their cause. The "Animal Liberation Front" barely falls short of a terrorist organization and has had connections with PETA in the past. And PETA has euthanized animals in the past! This has to be the ultimate hypocrisy! Not to mention that the VP has diabetes and takes meds for them (animal testing was used to get those meds). If this lady was really concerned with animals and principle, she wouldn't take the meds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Documentary_film
"annoys ....."
For me it is their taking an extreme view that does not avoid extreme behavior, rhetoric and questionable actions and behavior.
My dealings with Greenpeace were all personal when living in Florida but mostly in Colorado. It was the dealings with their "agents", "supporters", "members", "campaigners", as college/university under and upper level students.
They always presented that they (both as individuals and the organization) knew so much more, were better educated, were smarter and more savy then us common folk.
As simple-minded commoners and residents, we should just shut-up and support them blindly with our dontations (minimum amount of $25 please); our signatures on petitions, etc.
Two of them were sent away from my front door without my signature AND a minimum donaiton once. What was discovered immediately thereafterwas the someone "keyed" the side of a car parked in my driveway.
They came every spring and summer door-to-door, in violation of local ordinances, and each time they treated me like a fool. Glad you find them so helpful, also very glad they don't canvas where I live now.
Karma means that whatever we do, with our bodies, speech, or minds, will have a corresponding result. Each action, even the smallest, is pregnant with its consequences. It is said by the masters that even a little poison can cause death, and even a tiny seed can become a huge tree. And as Buddha said: “Do not overlook negative actions merely because they are small; however small a spark may be, it can burn down a haystack as big as a mountain.”
Okay, I have spent a LONG time responding and then changing my response to this. I am mixing too much of my opinions and emotions in with it. I will try to be brief and to the point.
*The movie is sensationalist, mixing fact and emotion.
*Al Gore's narrative glosses over much of the scientific data in what I think is an effort to make it easier to understand quickly. I don't think this does credit to the complexity of the data.
*The solutions Gore poses are not final. We do not fully understand this matter. We have only been on this planet a short time and only have a limited record of the planet's history. We are not omniscient and cannot completely predict the effects of any of our actions. Yes, we cause climate change, but we must constantly continue to question how, why and what is natural.
*Although each breath we take impacts this planet, it is ego-centric to believe we are in control. Just as we impact, we are also impacted.
And at its simplest, my point is only: never stop questioning. If your answer does not lead you to more questions, then it has taught you very little.
Really? I guess all those Doctors (Ecologists, Climitologists,; NOAA, USGS, NIST) I work with that keep telling me they have more data to collect an analyze aren't scientists, or as smart as a political hack..........
Ok, whatever they say ...........
Remember, Greenpeace annoys me. They work for good causes, and overall have had some good results. But, local chapters and affiliates (mainly the Sierra club of NorCal and Southern Oregon) have been a thorn in my side since I was a child. Being from the Pac Northwest, I remember the economic devastation of the Spotted Owl controversy and then Pres. Clinton prohibiting logging in all federal forests. Greenpeace was a major player in all that. My family was strongly affected by the economic downturns caused by it. It's one of the reasons I ended up in military service. I couldn't get a decent job in my home town. I'm not against preserving the environment, but in this situation it was proven that Spotted Owls didn't need old growth forests for habitat (which in NorCal almost all old growth forests are Redwood forests and protected as is) and for other logging the state and all localities have laws regulating the cycles of logging that are more than sufficient to protect wildlife habitat, simply because these laws protect future logging jobs. In California, it is required to plant seven new trees for every tree cut down, and the minimum logging cycle is fifty years, meaning that after an area has been logged to the legal maximum, only enough trees for fire safety can be logged for fifty years after that. Clear cutting is only permitted for a certain percentage of timber land, and those are all determined by the US Forestry Service and the California Department of Forestry, which is set for firebreaks.
Now, the Paris Hilton thing with flour, that's just funny.
Globally, Greenpeace has done some good things. But sometimes locally, they get out of hand.
To all,
If you think the petty little things you've brought up on this thread deserve criticism more than the radical destruction of the planet that sustains your life by government and corporations, then keep on criticizing. And if somehow we're able to get the planet back on track you will have contributed what, exactly? (Rhetorical question because I couldn't care less what the answers are.)
If you are interested in learning more about protecting the environment while helping the local economy, you should read Green Phoenix, by William Allen. It uses a specific example in Costa Rica (what is now Guanacaste Conservation Area) to illustrate how we can protect AND restore the environment while providing jobs and sustainability. Basically, the people that live in the area are the people that work on the project. Daniel Janzen, the man with the plan, didn't bring in specialist, he hired the locals and taught them how to do all the work that needs to be done there. This protects the environment and the local economy, both in sustainable, long-term ways. The book makes an important point, which I am sure you would agree with: people that live in an area are as much a part of that environment as the trees or birds are, so you cannot reasonably protect that area without protecting the people that live in and off of it as well. What Janzen has done in that area is not without critique, but I think it is a very pragmatic plan. I would really recommend that you or anyone interested in protection and reforestation read this book. I know it had a significant impact on my own thoughts.
Palzang
The ego of the Tree Huggers Worldwide is so inflated and gross that they truly believe that without them, Mother Earth is doomed. That they must make HER healthy again, and we all will perish along with Earth without their activism is the ultimate in ego trips. The "..I couldn't care less.." is so indicative of the snobbery in the Tree Hugger Bark Eater Mentality, you must have been a great addition to their "causes" and their "campaigns."
I have more faith in Mother earth than in you, Greenpeace, Gore, and a whole hoard of University elitists. Mother Earth will do just fine, even if she has to give the human race the dinosaur treatment. Clear the air so to speak.
Unfortunately, for some areas, the damage has already been done, and cannot be easily fixed. Now, if Greenpeace were to raise millions for the construction of a UC system university in Redding, that would go a long way towards undoing some of what was done in the nineties.
Let's talk about a group I do like, which I believe is a group called The Animal Welfare Society(I don't remember for sure). They don't pry their way into things and try and shut them down because they don't like them, they just make sure that the animals involved are being treated as humanely as possible for each situation. If this is the group I'm thinking of, they pay Animal Welfare Officers out of their own pockets in various cities who work closely with LE to protect the well-being of animals. I remember seeing something on the Animal Channel once, where one officer was inspecting the corrals at a rodeo. She said something about not personally liking rodeos, but some people do, and as long as the animals were being cared for according to the law, she saw no reason for rodeos to be part of American entertainment.
The Animal Welfare Society
There are a lot of organizations out there quietly doing great work in so many areas. It's a good thing to remember, though, that a lot of these groups benefit from the wider publicity gained by the bigger groups because they raise awareness and the smaller groups just don't have the funds for that kind of publicity or advertising. So good or bad, the bigger groups can act like that annoying ad you see on TV all the time, the one that drives you crazy, but the one you never forget either. Publicity can be a dirty little business but they know the public sometimes needs to be knocked over the head a few times before it takes notice.
I forgot to say thank you for being the gentleman you are.