markwayne (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} markwayne) wrote,@ 2007-01-31 00:05:00 |
|
Barbara Boxer's "global warming" agenda
Dear Barbara,
Your continued opposition to the most atavistic of Bush Administration policies is a welcomed -- though sadly rare -- turn from the corporatized politics of power and war. Thank you.
However, the list of "global warming solutions" on your website falls
far short of what scientists generally feel is needed to lessen the
catastrophic consequences of anthropomorphic climate change that is
certain to occur, possibly within our lifetimes.
Space here doesn't permit a complete explication. Briefly my point --
which I believe can be effectively articulated within current political
milieu -- is this:
The Kyoto protocol, generally regarded by scientists as the absolute
minimum necessary to AVERT CERTAIN CATASTROPHE, sets emission standards at 7% of
1990 US levels by 2008-2012.
We're not going to make it by changing the light bulbs and turning the
heat down in government buildings.
Three big changes are, unfortunately, unavoidable:
1) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: a multi-level (local, regional, national)
efficient transportation system for goods and people
2) CLEAN COAL BURNING PLANTS
3) GOVERNMENT SPONSORED CONVERSION TO RENEWABLE RESOURCES: home and
industrial conversion to solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power sources is
necessary.
The alternative is a massive reduction in the habitable surface area of
the earth, large-scale human population die-off, with complete
extinction an outcome that one cannot rule out.
Please consider this as you form your agenda.
PS -- "Climate change" is preferred to "global warming" since "warming"
is only one scenario which can lead to the death of large numbers of
human beings.
Sincerely,
Mark W.
____________
Addendum:
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 08:59 -0600, Misguided Sod wrote:
> Kyoto was a joke....bounced by the Senate 95-0. Check your facts, stoops.
I know that you like to go out of your way to XXXX the XXXX of Power --
your sycophantic adulation of the self-serving and demented Bush
administration more than proof sufficient -- but some of us folks are
under the delusion that, well sometimes, politicians don't make the best
decisions, your "95 senators" opposing Kyoto notwithstanding.
And you should be ashamed of your own two-faced misrepresentations as
"caring" about "the environment" and not supporting Kyoto -- at the very
least. I'm sure your opposition stems from some misguided sentimentality
for what you perceive to be "capitalism" -- incidentally NOT our mode of
production here in the good old USA. Save it. I've ignored your last
point-by-point to Obama's stances (who can suffer another Dexter
Diatribe on the "sanctity of life" from someone who actively supports
and encourages the wanton destruction of human life in Iraq and God
knows where next, perhaps Iran?).
Kyoto is the bare minimum acceptable adjustment the human race can make
according to most climatologists. Prove me wrong. You can't -- just like
you were wrong about WMD, June 30, 2005, "democracy promotion" and all
your other positions gleaned from the Office of the Vice-President's
"talking points."
And you still haven't addressed the question posed in the Chicago
meeting 2005: if abortion is made illegal, and a woman declares she
intends to have one, what are you going to do? Put her in a
straight-jacket and force her to term? (I suspect you've never read
Atwood's "Handmaiden's Tale.")
You have no answer for this. Like so many of your other positions,
conceived as they are in the dark, stinking loam of your own mind,
ideological to the core, disconnected from reality and unconcerned with
how they affect real, normal people -- not the Ultra-wealthy ilk that
you choose to align yourself with ideologically. Those two-faced,
pusillanimous prevaricators who preach "life" from one corner to their
admirers while paying for abortions of their interns and other acolytes
and bribing their way to political "success."
Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong, so often?
Markwayne
Dear Barbara,
Your continued opposition to the most atavistic of Bush Administration policies is a welcomed -- though sadly rare -- turn from the corporatized politics of power and war. Thank you.
However, the list of "global warming solutions" on your website falls
far short of what scientists generally feel is needed to lessen the
catastrophic consequences of anthropomorphic climate change that is
certain to occur, possibly within our lifetimes.
Space here doesn't permit a complete explication. Briefly my point --
which I believe can be effectively articulated within current political
milieu -- is this:
The Kyoto protocol, generally regarded by scientists as the absolute
minimum necessary to AVERT CERTAIN CATASTROPHE, sets emission standards at 7% of
1990 US levels by 2008-2012.
We're not going to make it by changing the light bulbs and turning the
heat down in government buildings.
Three big changes are, unfortunately, unavoidable:
1) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: a multi-level (local, regional, national)
efficient transportation system for goods and people
2) CLEAN COAL BURNING PLANTS
3) GOVERNMENT SPONSORED CONVERSION TO RENEWABLE RESOURCES: home and
industrial conversion to solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power sources is
necessary.
The alternative is a massive reduction in the habitable surface area of
the earth, large-scale human population die-off, with complete
extinction an outcome that one cannot rule out.
Please consider this as you form your agenda.
PS -- "Climate change" is preferred to "global warming" since "warming"
is only one scenario which can lead to the death of large numbers of
human beings.
Sincerely,
Mark W.
____________
Addendum:
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 08:59 -0600, Misguided Sod wrote:
> Kyoto was a joke....bounced by the Senate 95-0. Check your facts, stoops.
I know that you like to go out of your way to XXXX the XXXX of Power --
your sycophantic adulation of the self-serving and demented Bush
administration more than proof sufficient -- but some of us folks are
under the delusion that, well sometimes, politicians don't make the best
decisions, your "95 senators" opposing Kyoto notwithstanding.
And you should be ashamed of your own two-faced misrepresentations as
"caring" about "the environment" and not supporting Kyoto -- at the very
least. I'm sure your opposition stems from some misguided sentimentality
for what you perceive to be "capitalism" -- incidentally NOT our mode of
production here in the good old USA. Save it. I've ignored your last
point-by-point to Obama's stances (who can suffer another Dexter
Diatribe on the "sanctity of life" from someone who actively supports
and encourages the wanton destruction of human life in Iraq and God
knows where next, perhaps Iran?).
Kyoto is the bare minimum acceptable adjustment the human race can make
according to most climatologists. Prove me wrong. You can't -- just like
you were wrong about WMD, June 30, 2005, "democracy promotion" and all
your other positions gleaned from the Office of the Vice-President's
"talking points."
And you still haven't addressed the question posed in the Chicago
meeting 2005: if abortion is made illegal, and a woman declares she
intends to have one, what are you going to do? Put her in a
straight-jacket and force her to term? (I suspect you've never read
Atwood's "Handmaiden's Tale.")
You have no answer for this. Like so many of your other positions,
conceived as they are in the dark, stinking loam of your own mind,
ideological to the core, disconnected from reality and unconcerned with
how they affect real, normal people -- not the Ultra-wealthy ilk that
you choose to align yourself with ideologically. Those two-faced,
pusillanimous prevaricators who preach "life" from one corner to their
admirers while paying for abortions of their interns and other acolytes
and bribing their way to political "success."
Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong, so often?
Markwayne
