 |
|||
|
|
|
 Power Shift vs. The Powers That BePosted on Apr 20, 2011By Amy Goodman More than 10,000 people converged in Washington, D.C., this past week to discuss, organize, mobilize and protest around the issue of climate change. While tax day tea party gatherings of a few hundred scattered around the country made the news, this massive gathering, Power Shift 2011, was largely ignored by the media. They met the week before Earth Day, around the first anniversary of the BP oil rig explosion and the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, while the Fukushima nuclear plant still spews radioactivity into the environment. Against such a calamitous backdrop, this renewed movement’s power and passion ensure that it won’t be ignored for long. Rallying those attending to the work ahead, environmentalist, author and founder of 350.org Bill McKibben said: “This city is as polluted as Beijing. But instead of coal smoke, it’s polluted by money. Money warps our political life, it obscures our vision. ... We know now what we need to do, and the first thing we need to do is build a movement. We will never have as much money as the oil companies, so we need a different currency to work in, we need bodies, we need creativity, we need spirit.” The organizers of Power Shift describe it as an intensive boot camp, training a new generation of organizers to go back to their communities and build the movement that McKibben called for. Three areas are targeted by the organizers: Catalyzing the Clean Energy Economy, Campus Climate Challenge 2.0 and Beyond Dirty Energy. The campaigns cross major sectors of U.S. society. The move for a clean-energy economy has been embraced by the AFL-CIO, seeing the potential for employment in construction of wind turbines, installation of solar panels and, one of the potentially greenest and oft-ignored sectors, retrofitting of existing buildings with energy efficiencies such as better insulation and weatherproofing. On April 18, tax day, thousands held a “Make Big Polluters Pay” rally, targeting the fossil-fuel and nonrenewable-energy industries. The demonstrators gathered in Lafayette Park, a traditional protest square wedged between the White House and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As Bill McKibben said, the Chamber “spends more money lobbying than the next five lobbies combined. It spent more money on politics last year than the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee combined, and 94 percent of that went to climate deniers.” The protests also targeted BP’s offices, just after the BP shareholders meeting was held last week in London. There, security officers blocked the entrance of a delegation of four fishermen and -women from the Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast areas heavily damaged by last year’s oil spill. Diane Wilson, a fourth-generation fisherwoman, was arrested for disturbing the peace. “That was pretty outrageous,” she said. “They had disrupted our lives down there. But just appearing at the door of a BP general assembly, and we’re disrupting the peace.” Advertisement Will Obama proceed to deliver $80 billion in loan guarantees to build more nuclear power plants in the United States? He claims he’s against tax cuts for the rich, but what about public subsidies for oil, gas, coal and nuclear, among the richest industries on Earth? We recently built new studios from which to broadcast the “Democracy Now!” news hour on public television and radio around the United States. Ours is the greenest TV/radio/Internet broadcast facility in the nation, receiving the top rating, LEED Platinum (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), from the U.S. Green Building Council. The medium is the message. We all need to do our part in pursuit of sustainability.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller. © 2011 Amy Goodman  Previous item: Starship Amerika Next item: The New Corporate World Order New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
Say ‘Hi-Ho!’ as They Strip-Search You
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By loneagle, April 26, 2011 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Zenbow:
I wouldn’t call nuclear alternative energy. That gives it too good a rating. Next
thing you’ll be wanting to call it green. I would agree there is probably no more
effective way on the planet to wash or neutralize radioactive material than to
dump it into the air and sea. All that wave action, sunlight, swirling currents,
ups and downs and temperature changes, and smashing against the shore.
What could do the job faster or better? Man hasn’t come up with any way much
less a better way to deteriorate radioactive material. Hmmm. Should he, do you
think, before he plunges ahead where there is the certainty there will be more
accidents?
Bury it you say, way down there where nobody cares out a sight out a mind no
problem. One question would be, might there be a tipping point? Should we
care? We do know for example that the glaciers are melting, and it’s not
slowing down and is accelerating in fact, and it’s quite possible they are melting
due to the effects of burning fossil fuels. And we may even have hit the tipping
point on that already. Do you think there might be a tipping point for unstable
radioactive matter on the planet, a point at which reactions begun may be
unstoppable? And if so, how close do you figure we ought to come to the
tipping point before we back off? Just in case.
And then there’s, did we quit in time? Might take centuries of the planet
washing itself to find out.
Can you wait?
Now we mustn’t forget, dumping radioactive material into the ocean or the air
isn’t just Japan’s ocean and air, it’s all of ours and everybody’s. It’s kind of like
all of our bloodstream, and we’d all be on the same drug. How intimate. No
control group. The fact we’ve dumped radiation into the biosphere before and
had not catastrophic results means what? Nothing to be concerned about? We
don’t need no stinking biohazard suit and no fucking respirator then?
Do you?
We have the capability to live gently on the planet and it wouldn’t be awful.
Report thisHow much more damage do we need to do before we get with it? Nuther coupla
generations? What?
By ZenBowman, April 25, 2011 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment
Ha! If anything the MSM have been the primary fearmongers that prevent investment in alternative energy, particularly nuclear. As Lafayette pointed out, France has been running for years on nuclear energy with no incident.
The only thing Fukushima demonstrates is that we should be careful when building nuclear plants in earthquake/tsunami zones. By the way, the amount of deaths caused by the meltdown is trivial compared to the number of deaths caused by the earthquake and tsunami itself.
Report thisBy loneagle, April 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The big exclamation mark here is the lack of MSM
Report thisreporting on this and other protest events or on the
“sustainable energy” concept in general. Which can
only mean there is and has been collusion among the
bigwigs to frame and control the argument. But we
already knew that of course. The degree to which
they, the corporate and financial bigwigs, have been
so enormously successful in this thus far is as
surprising to them as anyone. They had thought
there’d be more resistance, more regulatory slapping
of their greedy hands, that open season on limos,
Escalades and luxury yachts would have begun
already. They expected it, and have been so
emboldened by success and lack of punitive action
that they have lost even more respect for the rank and
file than they had, if you can believe that. The fact
that no one stops them fortifies them that we the
people, the working and middle class, must deserve
what we’re getting. Or not getting. Even though
there’s awareness among the wolves as well as the
sheep that we can’t go on chewing up and unbalancing
the biosphere the way we do, the headlong rush
continues, the voices of sanity, the words of wisdom
alas, don’t get the big microphone. The “experts”
trotted out by the one-voice corporate main stream
media, tell us don’t worry, there’s plenty more ruining
of the planet can be done before we have to quit.
Meanwhile, dread in the dead of night is on the rise.
The haves know very well that current practices are
not sustainable, and hence are grabbing all that can
be grabbed before the jig is up.
By Lafayette, April 21, 2011 at 8:21 am Link to this comment
FUTURE ENERGY GENERATION
The Energy Information Agency has produced the forecast of electricity generation by source, which can be found here.
One will note that the key fuel-source for future needs will be Coal, Oil and Natural Gas for close to 40% of our needs. Meaning the most polluting forms of energy in terms of CO2 emissions will continue irrespective of current arguments regarding brutal climate change as a consequence.(Or, as Hollywood would put it, Chicago under a 50 feet of snow in winter and 25 feet in summer.)
Nuclear power, if we are lucky, will remain steady at about 10%, where it is today. Renewable sources are predicted to rise to a bit less than 15%.
That’s all folks! End of discussion. The powers that be have decided we “do nothing”. (Better yet, let’s all stick our heads in the ground until the discussion blows over.)
Report thisBy Lafayette, April 21, 2011 at 1:44 am Link to this comment
BACK OFF WITH THE POLEMICS
For forty years, four decades, 75% of France’s energy needs have been provided safely by Nuclear Energy. Not one death can be attributed directly to a catastrophic accident (meaning human failure or environmental hazard) - as in Tchenobyl or Fukushima).
There have been accidents but in no greater frequency than Other Energy Generating Plants (such as petroleum of gas or coal). In fact, as regards carbon emissions, Nuclear Energy is far, far “cleaner” than coal thus diminishing air pollution.
No, I am no forgetting the storage of combustible waste, the worst of which (since there are different categories of toxicity of such waste) is buried so far underground as to have no impact on human life.
I would like to see a cogent argument, supported by numbers and justifications of the numbers, that indicate clearly that “Renewable Sources” can assume completely and for future energy needs, the very heavy lifting that currently is produced by Nuclear Energy.
Fukushima is:
* An older design that has been in service for decades and for which the international energy authority had suggested multiple times should be replaced and updated with newer technology,
* This same agency has warned the Japanese government of the particular danger in the tectonic plate structure offshore from Fukushima.
The Japanese government did not react to those warnings and thus decided by inaction to assume the consequences of a major disaster as has happened. (The US is not the only country run be dimwits.)
The Japanese, as is their nature, demonstrated consummate hubris as regards their Nuclear Energy Plant. Fukushima indicates that, in zones of known minimal seismic activity, that Nuclear Energy is a risky option that requires an advanced anti-seismic construction technology. Which, strangely enough, the Japanese have developed and employed in their construction of skyscraper office buildings. (Notably after the Kobe earthquake.)
Unless, or course, you want a windmill in every back-yard in America. Then watch people start complaining of illnesses from low-frequency noise.
MY POINT
There is NO magic-wand when it comes to alternative energy sources. Except perhaps this: We should not be thinking that it is an inexhaustible and relatively cheap source that suits are standard of usage including vast wastage. Let’s adopt the habit of using energy wisely - in the car, in the home, in our workplace.
POST SCRIPTUM
The debate nonetheless continues as well it should. That debate is typified by the arguments given here. The question of “security” is certainly germane. But it should be made in light of comparative alternative sources, which are not entirely without danger either.
And neither are they as easily implementable as they are purported to be by their protagonists. Especially in a country that thinks its energy needs are supplied as a gift from heaven.
Nuclear Energy is amongst the wiser options available on the table. It is complementary with and not replaceable by Renewable Energy Sources.
[Myself, I have installed geothermal heating for my residence and am fully satisfied with the payoff as regards the investment. The cost of using Nuclear Energy provided electricity to drive a Heat Pump heating the house is certainly worth it.]
Report thisBy prosefights, April 20, 2011 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
Real motivation for altenergy?
From: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:27:09 AM
Subject: Re: comments please
Hello Bill,
I got your email and telephone interview and all is correct.
If there is any thing else that I can help with, please let me know.
The wind continues to blow and I continue to make money from it.
Michael Spiller
Sunsmiths Ltd Co
505-281-8104 Home / Office
505-252-9227 Cell
http://www.sunsmiths.com
http://www.prosefights.org/unmineable/unmineable.htm#scholle
Report thisBy HarlowMarlowe, April 20, 2011 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment
How to Start the REVOLUTION:
1. STOP paying your taxes: Local, State, Federal
2. STOP paying your bills: Electric, Gas, Credit Card, Mortgage,
so-called health care insurance (SCAM of EPIC PROPORTIONS)
3. WITHDRAW ALL MONIES FROM BIG BANKS NOW
4. STOP EVERYTHING and MOVE RAUCOUSLY TO THE STREETS of
WASHINGTON DC
WE MUST STOP THESE CRIMINALS…WE MUST ORGANIZE AND DO
Report thisTHIS ON THE LARGEST SCALE POSSIBLE.
By Anarcissie, April 20, 2011 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
I meant reversible by human choice. Going by the apocalyptic rhetoric which has attended the issues, one would think it was not.
Report thisBy JPSayles, April 20, 2011 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment
“Money warps our political life, it obscures our vision”
We can kick the corporations out of politics for 1/1000th our federal revenue, here’s how…
Political Finance Reform dot org
Report thisBy hurryevolution, April 20, 2011 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@Anarcissie
Depends on what you mean by reversible. Once we finish killing ourselves or run out of non-renewable fuels, the natural climate cycles will eventually be reestablished (they operate on 10s to 100s of thousands of years).
Report thisBy SteveK9, April 20, 2011 at 10:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Nuclear energy remains the most effective response to climate
change.
The Fukushima reactor design was 50 years old and the
Report thisreactor was 40 years old. It withstood a magnitude 9
earthquake (10X the design basis of the plant). The backup
systems were knocked out by a 45-foot tsunami. No one was
killed by radiation and no member of the public health has
been or will be affected. Even the plant workers are very likely
to see no health effects at all (Robert Gale). In hindsight,
relatively simple measures could have been taken (moving the
diesel generators, etc.) that would have prevented the
destruction of the reactors and release of radioactivity. One
can fault TEPCO or not, but this does not change the fact that
nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel.
By MarthaA, April 20, 2011 at 10:11 am Link to this comment
I was surprised to learn that the U.S. has 110 nuclear facilities across the nation. Where will the waste be disposed of since it has a life span of 250,000 years? It would seem that such a hazard would not be stored on earth, maybe the moon, but not earth.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, April 20, 2011 at 9:43 am Link to this comment
Apparently large scale solar generation of electricity will cease to be a fraud or an unreachable vision when it is made into some kind of monopolistic vehicle for corporate profit.
Since the rich will cook along with the poor if things get hot enough, I imagine something along those lines will be done about global warming, if the anthropogenic theory is correct and if the present trends are reversible.
Report thisBy prosefights, April 20, 2011 at 8:24 am Link to this comment
Large scale solar generation of electricity is a fraud I was told by a liberal arts educated vice president of a large wall street investment bank several years ago.
That investment bank was reported to have lost $24.1 million of the well over $1 billion lost by investors in the Eclipse Aviation bankruptcy.
http://www.prosefights.org/unmineable/unmineable.htm#scholle
Report this