Wars are bad for the environment, bad for the economy (the real economy, not the corporate looting of the gravy train for as long the rest of us can bear the expense), and can be quite nasty for mental and physical health. In an era of "peak everything," more wars are in the offing among powerful nations bent on grabbing all they can of what is left instead of finding innovative ways of creating more health and happiness with less stuff--and especially with less wasting of stuff.

With a little luck, maybe we can learn to be peaceniks while we are mainstreaming environmentalism. In fact, it seems that we can't have the former without the latter, as I see it.

Happy Earth Day, all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The reason I don’t agree is denial. This society in America is so far buried into denial that it cannot see its anal sphincter from being too close. As for the mental part of Environmentalists, I concede the point. Those I have spoken to are all Mental. God is going to save them you see. They have this thing called the rapture or rupture or some such nonsense that is going to save them and fry my family, friends, my Children, all in hell and me too of course while they (Gods Angels I suppose) are at it.

Well, I am so sorry author, but I think your wagon has not a full load of bricks. I have been chased around like a tunnel dweller by a Christian with a flamethrower for years over my claims of global warming. I have been attacked verbally for speaking of the release of new biologic enemies by deforestation. Men and women who are supposedly adult have told me with serious mien: “God will get you for this you atheistic prick!”

Well son, I will tell you now, there must be something seriously wrong with me because I find I definitely will cross the street to urinate them out if they are on fire.

Thanks for reading

Nightstallion

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One Military, Media, Banking,
Industrial Conglomerate
Rules the EARTH.
50% of the Wealth belongs to one family.
95% of America is owned by less than 1%
The Numbers are staggering.
The Economic pump has lost its prime.
It is going down in a Ball of Flames.

The question is?
Will you be dragged down too?
That is their plan.
History repeats it self until
You decide to jump off the wheel.

Take the best of what we know and
Start over.
The Micro Democracy Revolution.
Survival Mother Earth on a Global Scale.
Let's see who can survive?
Using the least amount of resources?
Creating the smallest amount of pollution?
Leaving the smallest foot print?
Supplying our own needs, natural organic foods and renewable Green energy resources.
This is the Contest.
Survival Earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is accompained by an ad that reads "Clean Coal" by americaspower.org, which is a front for the coal industry.

There is NOTHING clean about coal.

I am writing from Hazleton, PA, which used to be a coal-mining center that fueled late 19th and early 20th century industry in the eastern U.S. There is nothing pretty or environmentally friendly about what coal mining does to the earth. The landscape is a wasteland of holes and slag heaps and underground mines that regularly "subside." No one will clean up the mess, ever. Nor is there anything healthy about "black lung disease" suffered by miners and people who breathe coal dust. And there is nothing environmentally responsible about the carbon, sulfur, and mercury produced when coal is burned.

So, AlterNet, why are you publishing nominally proenvironment articles while at the same time you accept advertising money from the coal industry? Your readers would like to know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look, if you think that giving us this kind of BULLSHIT lecture on being environmentalists is gonna do jack shit, you're sadly mistaken. I'll tell you the best ways to be environmentalists and actually be proud of it:

1. Stop these wars for oil and end the war on drugs. It's time to overturn the 71 year ban on Cannabis and put its 25000 industrial uses to work. Talk about a biofuel that doesn't cause global warming and is good for a real economy. Since the current "market" is petroleum based all the way, it's RIGGED, not "free".

2. Quit supporting either the Republicans or Democrats. Both parties have been subsidizing Big Oil, Coal, and Nuclear for decades and they don't give a flying fuck about the health and well being of the people let alone the environment. Can you get either party to shift the subsidies away from Big Oil, Coal, and Nuclear and use it to build and maintain an energy infrastructure built on alternative renewables such as solar, wind, geothermal, hemp, etc ...? Not until you allow 3rd party progressive independents such as Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan, etc ... to replace these two corrupt parties in Washington. And again, the lopsided subsidization of fossil and nuclear energy over alternative renewables that have been proven to be both economically and ecologically beneficial also shows that the current market is RIGGED, not "free".

3. I don't see any so-called "liberals" or "progressives" addressing the issues of public transportation gone bad. Instead of taking bribes from Big Auto and Big Oil in the name of keeping oil artificially "cheap", why not make public transportation not only affordable but also better quality? Having travelled to big cities across the country and noticing the OBSCENELY high bus and rail fares despite the infrastructure not improving, don't you think it's time they quit bullshitting about newly painted trash bins and instead focused on repairing their creaking and rusty infrastructure? Raising the fares and yet allowing higher frequencies of mechanical/electrical failures and accidents sure tells me that something's way off. And what about those OBSCENELY high bus fare rates and their purposely limiting their routes thereby forcing more people to drive their autos to work? When you see public buses with fewer than 10 people on it or even a "NOT IN SERVICE" sign on it struggling through thick traffic, you'd be better off joining me in calling for these bus services to get their god damn motherfucking routes reformed so that more customers can come on board and actually be relieved.

4. Why not call for more suggestions to reward people who are frugal? I mean let's face it. Most companies don't give you any trade up program for say your old pc, tv, radio, etc ... so of course more petroleum is being burned to make more of garbage electronics that end up in the land fill the next year every time a slightly better version comes out. And let's talk about recycling and reusing. My wife and I reuse our plastic bottles that we'd save from our bottled juice drinks. I sure as hell don't mind making my own orange juice for example and filling it up in my old small plastic bottle time and again.

Look, for over 50 years, it's been the same doom and gloom talk which does nothing to convince people to save and push for better. All this leaves is the impression of "So what?" It's time to think differently and push for the better just like I've been doing all along so let's cut all this doom and gloom BULLSHIT talk out and cut to the chase, shall we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We must Nationalize the American Oil Industry if we do this there may be hope if not nothing will really change to the degree many hope for..!

We could create an economic boom by cutting costs by 30-35% and then still have $50-60 Billion every year to put towards alternate energy and new technologies..!

Why subsidize the Oil companies with up to $15 billion when they are earning $94-96 billion per year and pushing America down on it's knees for the sake of their own unbridled greed and profit for profits sake..!

This is the Manhattan type project our elected lame pathetic officials speak of..

I've written much of this and so will not bother going into detail here once again it is simple this is the future and now we are laboring under a 19th century robber baron model which is killing our economy..effecting almost every company and now inhibiting commerce while my plan will greatly enhance commerce..and move us as a failing nation into the future along with Single Payer Health Care..

Of course these candidates will not support either since they are "change" Candidates..change who gets the gravy maybe, but that's about it..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The magazine Mother Earth News has many great articles on how to live more simply, cheaply and with sustainability.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Or maybe haven't considered.

We will need a whole new financial system. Our current debt based leveraged banking is entirely based on ever increasing growth to create our money. Without ever increasing growth the money supply stagnates then contracts. A contracting money supply means recession then depression while somewhere along the way a financial panic ensues throwing the whole economy into turmoil without a way out.

In order for a smooth transition from a growth economy to a sustainable economy money must be created without borrowing. This is very doable, it is already authorized in our Constitution.

The real battle will be to bring the banking industry into line. Currently they enjoy the biggest welfare program the United States ever granted, fractional reserve banking, whereby they can loan by leverage many multiples of their real worth. They will fight tooth and nail to keep this massive subsidy with the massive amounts of money they can create.

Without reforming our monetary system a sustainable economy is doomed to bankruptcy. The wrath of the populace that doesn't understand how their money is created will revolt and blame the concept of a sustainable economy for the problems that fractional banking causes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is highly unlikely that most people, let alone Americans, will become environmentalists until they are forced back onto the land. At that time, they'll have no choice, though there won't be much of an environment left to defend.

Everyone recognizes that global warming is a huge, serious problem. However, that has not changed anyone's habits. People still commute long distances to work, needlessly consume fuel and pollute the air to shop for unnecessary garbage, etc. Instead, people are demanding that everyone else, such as politicians, change things, as if some magical technology will solve global warming -- it won't.

People won't change until they're forced to, at which time most of the damage will already be done. Changes to less harmful lifestyles are better late than never, but exponentially better early than late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was going to comment on the lack of conversation about Hemp-The Wonder Plant!, so thanks for beating me to it, max. There is virtually nobody in the media, alternative or otherwise, talking about the single most important thing (of many), that can save the planet, (starting in as little as 14 weeks). If Hemp-The Wonder Plant! were legalized, and community farms could grow it freely, local economies would begin to heal along with their air, as the biomass repairs carbon damage done by petro products.

Hemp-The Wonder Plant is an incredibly prolific, clean alternative to most everything we need as humans. It'll take a lot of people to fill the jobs we'll need to create superior food, fuel, textiles, paper, medicine, and building materials (to mention a few!).

This pseudo oil crisis may be a time when ordinary folks will listen to reason about this miracle plant. The US spends billions (of our money) on nutritionally-void corn and soybean subsidies that should be going to Hemp-The Wonder Plant! instead. The billions wasted on tracking down, arresting, convicting, and incarcerating drug-users should be invested in H-TWP! farms instead of prisons as well.

So max, I wholeheartedly agree that the number one way to heal the planet is to stop the drug war and the war for oil. We need to put a quarter of OUR money into Hemp-The Wonder Plant! production, another quarter into other alternative energy and local food production, and another quarter into education, health care, and infrastructure. We'll use the last quarter to start paying back some of the debt. Using the next five years of the drug/oil war budget, as well as farm subsidies, on Americans rather than Corporate Amerika will do the world a world of good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

or at least until the fertilizer hits the air impeller.

People are just too stupid or too stubborn to do what's good for them until long after the usual solutions are failing to work. The fact that we still pretend the airline industry can function with $120/barrel oil (today) is proof of that even if we eliminate the Homeland Security silliness.

There are some indications that global warming is going to get seriously hazardous this year. Hopefully I'm wrong. You folks in large cities might want to have a functional bicycle with panniers handy. I wouldn't want to be stuck in LA or NYC with gas at $10/gallon and food prices doubling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can argue and discuss and blah blah blah and the reality will still be that there are too many people for too few resources and the various environmental pressures will return us to our basic animal survival instincts. It's a dog eat dog world now and it will become even more so. This seems to be part of our evolution as a too big brained too quickly evolved species. We are capable of not being aggressive and selfish however that's a minority group. When push comes to shove most of us will shove back because it's easier than changing so that all may live. We are not separate from each other we just think we are and so greed rules.
We all need to calm down and really consider just what it is we really want from each other and if we decide to cooperate then life on planet earth may be better than it has ever been.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global warming? Sure we are spinning into the sun. You can't stop it. The greenhouse gases cannot increase ocean temperatures. If the ice caps melt then there will be more rain and more cloud cover.
Fresh water is abundant. The places that are running out is desert dry areas. It happens.

Rising cost of food? No one eats corn or rice. They are not that nutricious anyways. Wheat and rice are bleached out for most people and phony vitamins are added. Dogs eat rice and corn and so far dog food hasn't increased very much. Pigs, cows and chicken still cost the same. Eggs have increased but eggs are not that healthy anyways. Potatoes. That is what feeds the world and if they don't eat that then they eat soybeans. Yummy.

Toys are not toxic unless you eat them. Don't eat toys.

Oil is expensive because of 401k investments and people hedging their bets that oil will go up. Watch how someone shoots a gun in Nigeria refinery how quickly it's reported and how the prices fluctuate upwards. But that has been a regular occurence for over 20 years.

Pollution. We have been the cleanest we have ever been since 1970. We can't stop someone from throwing a plastic bottle out the car door in Cairo.

Consumption. We are conserving and the world is getting wealthier. You got me on that one.

Corporations. No one listens to Ralph Nader anymore or else they would vote for him in the next election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted November 10, 2007.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/67478/

If the governments promoting biofuels do not reverse their
policies, the humanitarian impact will be greater than that of the
Iraq war.
............article continues..................

In principle, burning biofuels merely releases the carbon they
accumulated when they were growing. Even when you take into
account the energy costs of harvesting, refining and transporting
the fuel, they produce less net carbon than petroleum products.
The law the British government passed a fortnight ago -- by 2010,
5% of our road transport fuel must come from crops -- will, it
claims, save between 700,000 and 800,000 tonnes of carbon a
year. It derives this figure by framing the question carefully. If
you count only the immediate carbon costs of planting and
processing biofuels, they appear to reduce greenhouse gases.
When you look at the total impacts, you find that they cause more
warming than petroleum.

............article continues..................

At this point the biofuels industry starts shouting "jatropha!" It is
not yet a swear word, but it soon will be. Jatropha is a tough weed
with oily seeds that grows in the tropics.

Grow jatropha not tobacco! It won't make a difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Related Stories
European biofuel plans could spell disaster
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/
cws/article/opinion/32383
Related Links
EMPA Technology and Society Laboratory
Environmental Impact Assessment of Biofuels, Zah et al (PDF)
Science
Editorial
Jan 9, 2008
The hidden costs of biofuels
While biofuels have been touted by some as an ideal replacement
for fossil fuels, as so often happens, the situation is more
complicated than it appears at first. There is a wide variety of
methods and raw materials available for making the fuels; while
some of the resulting products can cut greenhouse gas emissions,
this isn’t necessarily the case when all factors are considered. And
many other environmental issues can come into play, not to
mention social and economic factors such as food prices and land
use.
......................continues...................
According to an analysis of the EMPA report in Science, it shows
that the economically most important biofuels, namely US corn
ethanol, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and soy diesel, and
Malaysian palm-oil diesel, have greater aggregate environmental
costs than do fossil fuels.
......................continues...................

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you, George Monbiot, for a fine article. Regardless of the details, you
made it very clear where biofuels stand. "The law the British government passed
... 5% of our road transport fuel must come from crops -- will ... save between
700,000 and 800,000 tonnes of carbon a year." A huge and highly uncertain effort
will supposedly save a microscopic 800,000 tons of carbon a year. This is
political magicianship at its finest, misdirecting you from the fact that such a paltry
quantity is irrelevant. The public may be lulled into thinking that something is
being done and that all will be well. The Political magicians have fooled the
innumerate public but they cannot fool nature. Such a tiny change makes not the
least dent in our path to the extinction of so-called humans. Compare the 800,000
tons per year to the 4,000,000 tons per year saved by converting ONE 1000
megawatt coal fired power plant to nuclear. If the British government were
sincere about cutting carbon emissions, they would start with converting coal fired
power plants to nuclear. EACH conversion of a coal fired power plant would save
4000000/800000 = 40/8 = 5 times as much carbon as this biofuel law.

Now don't try to tell me that nuclear power is too dangerous. In the first place, the
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? It means that, if we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON,
EVERY PERSON will be DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS.
EXTINCTION means NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. Not even the
worst possible nuclear war, a "general exchange" between the United States and
the old Soviet Union could achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. In fact the
simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticed in the
geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

In the second place your paranoid fears of nuclear power are just that, paranoid,
irrational, crazy, the product of mental illness, ignorance and coal industry
propaganda. And yes, I know something about things nuclear. I am a physicist
with experience in the Army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects. So, do I need
to post 10 more posts to prove it or will you read my posts on past articles before
making a fool of yourself?

Please also read my past posts on the subject of the extinction we are headed for in
something like 200 years if we don't stop burning carbon. And yes, I like wind,
solar, hydro and geothermal energy. Is there a need to repeat once again that they
are inadequate to meet our needs with current technology and current prices?

PS: To be a "fossil" fuel it has to contain fossils if it is a solid. Coal contains
many fossils, mostly of plants. Oil is a liquid, but oil shale should contain fossils.
Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel. There is no guarantee of finding fossils
anywhere near a uranium mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

11:10 25 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/
dn12346-renewable-energy-could-rape-nature.html

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/
2007/07/renewable-energy-bad-nuclear-power-good.html

Phil McKenna
Ramping up the use of renewable energy would lead to the "rape
of nature", meaning nuclear power should be developed instead.
http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?
action=record&rec_id=14671&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or
So argues noted conservation biologist and climate change
researcher Jesse Ausubel in an opinion piece based on his and
others' research.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/
mg18925361.500-interview-be-green-think-big.html
Ausubel (who New Scientist interviewed in 2006) says the key
renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass,
would all require vast amounts of land if developed up to large
scale production – unlike nuclear power. That land would be far
better left alone, he says.
Renewables are "boutique fuels" says Ausubel, of Rockefeller
University in New York, US. "They look attractive when they are
quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large
scale, the fallout is going to be horrible."
Instead, Ausubel argues for renewed development of nuclear. "If
we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is
increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear
power."
'Massive infrastructure'
Ausubel draws his conclusions by analysing the amount of energy
renewables, natural gas, and nuclear can produce in terms of
power per square metre of land used. Moreover, he claims that as
renewable energy use increases, this measure of efficiency will
decrease as the best land for wind, biomass, and solar power gets
used up.
Using biofuels to obtain the same amount of energy as a 1000
megawatt nuclear power plant would require 2500 square
kilometres of prime Midwestern farm land, Ausubel says. "We
should be sparing land for nature, not using it as pasture for cars
and trucks," he adds.
Solar power is much more efficient than biofuel in terms of the
area of land used, but it would still require 150 square kilometres
of photovoltaic cells to match the energy production of the 1000
MW nuclear plant. In another example, he says meeting the 2005
US electricity demand via wind power alone would need 780,000
square kilometres, an area the size of Texas.
Part of the land used in Ausubel's calculations is for storage and
transportation: "Any renewable energy supply needs a massive
infrastructure, including steel, metal, pipes, cables, concrete, and
access roads."
...........article continues............

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I notice fewer arguments in favor of biofuel since food riots
began, not counting maxpayne.
That is a form of progress. Many posters are now aware that we
cannot replace fossil fuels with biofuel. Why did it take food
riots to convince them? They should have listened when I
said that 2 or 3 more Earths would be needed to replace fossil fuel
with biofuel. Hemp is no better than other biofuels because
plants, including hemp, have a very low efficiency of converting
sunlight. Plants are less efficient than solar voltaics by ~20 times.
Will something analogous happen with wind and solar power?
Hopefully without too many deaths? And hopefully before it is
too late to stop global warming because of too many thresholds
having been crossed. The food riots are a great lesson. Food
riots WILL happen in the USA if global warming is allowed to
continue. Wind and solar power are not adequate to put an end to
burning fossil fuel. I hope wind and solar power advocates come
to their senses soon enough. EFFECTIVE action has to be taken
immediately to stop the burning of coal first, because coal is the
biggest single source of CO2. People who advocate solar, or
wind power are playing into the hands of the $100 Billion/year
coal industry because the coal fire must be kept burning to even
out the variability in wind and the lack of sunshine at night. Of
course, the coal industry keeps putting up front web sites and
funding books claiming that nuclear power is dangerous. Nuclear
power is the safest. I do not have a financial connection to the
nuclear industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]