Why Al Gore and the IPCC Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

Environmentalists winning the Nobel Peace Prize, have we reached the point of waging war over arable land and other resources?


By: Ringo Bones


Today, anti war protestors in America carry signs that read “No Blood For Oil”. In a few years time if we don’t do anything to protect our environment, those signs will read “No Blood For Safe Drinking Water” and believe me, that is NOT a “romantic” notion for the “warmongers” in Capitol Hill or the Pentagon. Will the elected GOP / Republican Party politicians authorize an invasion and occupation of Brazil in order to save the Amazon rain forest 10 years from now? I just hope that the worlds powers-that-be will heed the advice of the IPCC and Al Gore to do their part in limiting the impact of climate change.

Growing up in the 1980’s, there isn’t a day that goes by without hearing news coverage about the swiftly declining state of our environment. From major man-made disasters like the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker running aground, to the burning of the Amazon rain forest. I always wondered why the world’s governments have waited 20 or so years in tackling our planet’s various environmental problems.

Now in 2007(better late than never), Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri with the 3,000 or so scientists from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC were awarded for this years Nobel Peace Prize. They were awarded for their “heroic” efforts in spreading awareness on the dangers of climate change, global warming and the sea level rise. Since the announcement, a number of “influential people” namely Captains-of-Industry and some politicians have doubts whether the Nobel Committee's decision to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC because these two don’t deserve the prize. Some of them said that Al Gore is nothing more than a slick showman while the IPCC –to them - deserve a prize for being a well run organization but not the Nobel Prize for Peace.

Well, that’s those “influential people’s” decisions. To me Al Gore and the IPCC truly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Because what the two are essentially doing is laying out plans to limit the impact of climate change on the global economy. IPCC and AL Gore just laid out the groundwork on how future conflicts caused by climate change will be reduced in scale and / or will be even eliminated. Just as Muhammad Yunus deserved his own Nobel Peace Prize because he laid out the groundwork for tackling the root cause of extremism and militancy namely poverty and the lack of income generating opportunities.

I’m just glad that those “influential people” that criticized Al Gore and the IPCC for receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace were not around during my time in high school. Those people would had been over me when I nominated the Afghan Mujahedin as Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” in 1987 for their valiant efforts of resisting Soviet occupation. I even convinced my teacher and a classroom full of people on my case. This was a class project that gained a life of it’s own after President Corazon Aquino became Time magazine’s “Person of the Year”. Mind you this was before I got hold of Osama bin Laden’s or General Abdul Rashid Dostum’s dossier, or knew which from which. Perfect tense doesn’t necessarily mean perfect sense when it comes to history.

Live Earth 2007: An Exercise in Hypocrisy?

Despite the cause’s altruism, are private-jet-flying-I-got-more-than-one-very-fast-car-driving Rock/pop stars good spokespersons for saving the planet?


By: Vanessa Uy


It’s almost tantamount to choosing Paris Hilton as a spokesperson on moral turpitude awareness, but ever since the inception of Live Earth, I’ve always questioned the logic behind the cause’s raison d’être (or more accurately it’s self-parodying stance). Everyone knows that Rock/pop stars are the epitome of Western style capitalist avarice and conspicuous consumption. This little incident of “cognitive dissonance” hasn’t stopped Kevin Wall, Live Earth’s founder from executing this concept – with Al Gore’s blessing of course. For an event that’s billed as “The Greatest Show on Earth to Save the Earth” or “The Greatest Pop Music Event in History” with a mission to spread the message of protecting our environment an estimated audience exceeding 2billion people worldwide. The event will never be free from controversy despite of the organizers’ purchase of “Carbon Offset” funds and the use of environmentally friendly transport like biodiesel powered buses, will biofueled private jets be on offer in the future? As Al Gore unveiled the “7 Point Pledge” in the Live Earth event as a sort of a “checklist” for anyone interested in reducing their “carbon footprint.” Cynics will be saying and thinking that the audiences are more interested in the “acts” than the message Live Earth is trying to get across, but is it right to dismiss the worth of Live Earth?

Ever since the very first Woodstock back in the summer of 1969, Rock/pop stars had always proven their worth in spearheading social revolutions aimed in changing our world for the better. Back in the “Summer of Love”, Rock/pop stars made average suburban white folks more aware of the plight of African-Americans, Dr. Martin Luther King’s message, and the Vietnam War. These “celebrities” provided a platform of informed choice with universal appeal especially to impressionable teenagers. The “Secret Policeman” concert of the early 1980’s where Sting fused his humanitarian concerns with his Rockstar persona for the very first time and quite successful at it even until now. Sir Bob Geldof’s “Live Aid” of 1985 made more young people aware back then in that pre-internet era on the extent of the Ethiopian famine than the traditional news providers ever could. Then came the series of look-how-caring-we-are causes like “A Very Special Christmas” album compilations for the benefit of the Special Olympics.

Basing on this historical track record, I think Rock/pop stars are more successful in earning/generating money/funds for charity than convincing the powers-that-be to end wars and torture. It’s quite sad that convincing “Westernized” people around the world to abandon their pursuit of avarice and conspicuous consumption is almost as futile as convincing the global powers to end all on-going wars around the world. And let’s not forget Live Earth is not the first musical event with an environmental platform. Who among us can still recall the 20th Earth Day TV special back in April 1990 where Bette Middler pleading to all people around the world to be more “Earth Friendly.” Or the Seattle- Music- Scene-movie “Singles” where a bumper sticker reads: “Think Globally, Act Locally” lends a “Dadaist” environmental message in the movie. But earth friendliness never became popular to the 1990’s “Alternative- Grunge-Seattle” music scene. Apparently the “Dadaist Message” was deemed to subtle because the SUV and “cheap” gasoline were the lasting legacy of Clinton-era America. Another environmentalism-driven music scene is “Lilith Fair” but was and always been perceived by the majority as an “alternative lifestyle” venue for American women. And lets not forget that the “Rockstar” lifestyle and excess knows no bounds like the recent incident of Al Gore's son in an “unlawful joyride” with a hybrid car, a Toyota Prius no less.

In spite of it all, to me, any form of spreading awareness on the plight of our environment and what we –the ordinary people- could do in our part to save it should be embraced with open arms because it’s a way a lot better than doing nothing. Rock/pop star fronted causes might work only on “charity cases” but the moral pressure they exerted back in the 1960’s ended the US Government’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict, Civil Rights are no longer a dream but a working reality, but it took time. I think everyone around the world is beginning to realize that environmentalism only works when poverty is reduced to zero, and if the global peace and order situation takes a radical turn for the better.

Wither Air Travel

Even though air travel produce only 3% of the industrial world’s total carbon dioxide output, why do environmentalists continue to vilify it as the main culprit of global warming?


By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy


Having seen “The Ethical Man” series of documentaries on the BBC’s world service, both of us had always wondered why air travel receives a disproportionate amount of vilification by the world’s environmentally conscious populace. Is it because of the current reality that biofuels won’t work (they’ll freeze) at the high altitudes frequented by commercial air traffic? Or is it because that the ownership of “private jets” -the perennial (30-year-old?) aspiration- of the ultimate status symbol never goes out of fashion? If these environmentalists hate air travel for these reasons, are they willing to boycott Mid-East oil in order to solve the turmoil in Iraq and put an end to the Bush Administration/Oligarchy’s and Al- Qaeda’s raison d’être? Or should we be asking the question: “Is there an alternative to air travel?”

Since -at present- politics beat environmental concerns, in our opinion there will never be an alternative to air travel unless the worldwide peace and order situation undergoes a radical turn for the better. Land based mass transit systems –like bus and rail- are easy prey for Taliban-style insurgents armed with assault rifles and man-portable artillery. Sea travel fares no better, remember the Achile Lauro incident more than 20 years ago? Even the US Navy’s USS Cole, was seriously damaged by an Al-Qaeda operative sailing a “floating firecracker.” Since 99% of the world’s terrorist organizations don’t have yet the capability to shoot down commercial planes flying at 30,000 feet, then flying is still-for the foreseeable future- the safest way to travel. Even if it’s not quite environmentally friendly.

The 2008 US Presidential Elections are looming on the horizon. Does every one of these presidential candidates need to hop on their individual private jets just to go from one Presidential Debate venue to another? Maybe these presidential candidates do a “carpooling” equivalent on their private jets. Security protocols could still be maintained while reducing the candidate’s carbon footprint. It would be quite hypocritical if these presidential candidates say they are pro-environment yet they use their private jets as if they are bicycles.

The world’s politicians should stop procrastinating when it comes to conflict resolution. Unless they have a vested interest in a “carbon intensive” industry, a more peaceful world means a less energy-intensive world.

Rock Against Global Warming

Will Al Gore score another “first” by holding a Rock concert like “Live Earth” to spread awareness on the dangers of global warming?


By: Vanessa Uy


Al Gore is indeed a pioneering figure. He’s the first politician to use his influence to spread awareness on the possible harm global warming can cause to our planet and to our civilization. Despite of the Bush Administration/Oligarchy’s stance on the contrary, Al Gore successfully influenced most of the world’s policymakers to legislate climate protection laws.

“Live Earth” is a Rock concert slated across seven continents to spread awareness of global warming to the next generation. As of June 20, 2007, Al Gore was reportedly meeting with Madonna to strike a deal for a performance highlighting the seriousness of his efforts.

In the past 20 years, Rock concerts for a cause like Sir Bob Geldof’s “Live Aid” - were held for famine relief and humanitarian efforts for Ethiopia and various “needy” parts of Africa. As does the 2005 “Live 8” as a form of moral pressure to keep the powers-that-be in the Gleneagles G8 to make serious of their sincerity to make poverty history not just in Africa but for the rest of the world.

If it succeeds, “Live Earth” could go down in history – as the 1969 Woodstock does- as a unique musical event. I hope “Live Aid” does to our environment as the 1969 Woodstock did to a generation of young people back then i.e. a revolutionary cultural advancement. Back then Jimi Hendrix made white suburban white teens more aware of Dr. Martin Luther King’s message. Which artist or performer will do the same for the urgency of current environmental causes on this coming “Live Earth” concert?

Paradise Lost: Global Warming Threatens Tuvalu

Al Gore has been warning us in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” about “climate change refugees,” Tuvalu can be a case in point.


By: Vanessa Uy


If you want proof on the realities of global warming, look no further than Tuvalu. This small Pacific Island nation of about 12,000 inhabitants have already been trying to cope with the effects of sea level rise caused by global warming. Sea- water is already seeping into vulnerable parts of Tuvalu’s ground water table, damaging the nation’s corn and sugarcane farms. As the world’s 4th smallest nation, Tuvalu’s 25 square kilometer land area is principally composed of 9 atolls that barely rises more than 4 meters above sea level. Even during the normal high tide cycle threaten this country with sea- water encroachment, let alone during storm surges of tropical cyclones. Even back in 1989, the UN identified Tuvalu as a nation most likely at risk when global sea levels rise.

Economically, not so much has changed since Tuvalu was granted independence by Great Britain in 1968. Despite having signed a trade deal with Australia and New Zealand back in 1980, the average annual income hovers at around US$1,000 a year. If industrialized nations won’t do their part to combat global warming, Tuvalu’s citizens might become the first batch of “climate change refugees” in search of a new homeland. The two closest nations that have the resources to provide sanctuary to Tuvalu’s citizens if the sea level rise gets worse are Australia and New Zealand. Since Australia and New Zealand has stringent immigration laws which require anyone applying for citizenship should earn on average US$12,000 a year to be safely admitted, or has a bank account with an average daily balance of US$10,000. Unless Australia and New Zealand will amend the rules regarding their immigration policy, this rules out the majority of Tuvalu’s citizens.

Maybe it’s time for the West to give back what they have taken from the Pacific Islanders during the last 500 years or so of oceanographic exploration and colonization. Even during World War II, the Pacific Islanders were instrumental in making possible the Allied victory against the Imperial Japanese expansion. There’s more here at steak than electoral votes when the politicians of industrialized nations adopt a stronger stance on climate protection which might not be popular to the “industry lobbyists.” Or do the world’s top polluters need to wait for international opinion to exert moral pressure.

Is There an Alternative to the Heiligendamm G8?

With the somewhat failed promise of the Gleneagles G8 back in 2005 on African aid, will the current G8 be better?


By: Vanessa Uy


Aside from Sir Bob Geldof’s and Bono’s anti-poverty campaigns, nobody today seems to remember – or feign interest – about the hollow rhetoric of the Gleneagles G8. With its failed promise to provide a 50 billion dollar- a- year aid package for Africa. Do we really need an alternative to G8? Since it’s inception back in 1975, G8 – or was it called G7 back then – has always been perceived globally as a “promise formulating” rather than a “problem solving” summit.

Groups who are opposed to G8 range from riot inciting “anarchists” who are not that far removed from your typical European “soccer hooligans”, to legitimate anti-G8 groups like ATTAC, Justice Now, Interventionist Left, and the most famous of them all: Greenpeace. ATTAC with its battle cry of “The world is not for sale!” appeal to those who are disenfranchised with the overly bureaucratic organizations like G8. To me, G8 is a fundamentally flawed organization due to its extremely limited legislative powers. Especially now, with the vastly differing views on how to tackle climate change between the United States and the European Union.

As the United States continues to “hog” the Heiligendamm G8’s proceedings with rhetoric on the justification of the Bush Administration’s “Missile Defense Program” that has increased the tension between Washington and the Kremlin not seen since Cold War days. An alternative summit has started in Rostock to discuss issues that the powers-that-be of the G8 summit are too squeamish to discuss like AIDS, global poverty, fair trade, and human rights to name just a few. Organized by Tillmann Günter, the Alternative Summit 2007 in Rostock serves to empower cause- oriented groups who are voicing their concerns that the global powers- that- be seem – or choose – to ignore.

How Legitimate is G8 2007?

This year’s G8 summit concerns primarily on climate protection issues, but there are other pressing issues that need discussion too.


By: Vanessa Uy


The 2007 incarnation of G8, dubbed “G8 Plus 5” has very lofty goals that it promises to achieve. Formulating a binding agreement on climate change protection and a cap on greenhouse gas emissions are on the top of the agenda won’t be easy. And the issue of sustainable development and “carbon credits” need more than good intentions to formulate a binding resolution that the global community would find equitable. The somewhat esoteric issue about “hedge funds” should also be discussed by the conference. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has shown concern over the issue of “hedge funds.” She even proposed a code of conduct on “hedge funds” and a discussion on minimum private quotas. If all goes well, this could make globalization more equitable for the world’s poor.

Germany’s current G8 presidency might result in a significant progress on climate protection issues because Germany-like most of the European Union-is staunchly pro environment and probably the only ones with the political will to meet the 2012 Kyoto Protocol targets on greenhouse gas emissions. This caused howls of protests from the US and China who perceives that Angela Merkel’s pro environment policies-like the rest of the EU states-undermines the economic well being of American and Chinese industries.

While anti-globalization activists defend their view that the G8 lacks legitimacy because it puts first the interests of rich industrialized countries like the US above those of the needs of developing nations. This is the reason why every annual G8 summit draws in it’s fair share of angry demonstrators and activists. And “G8 Plus 5” will be no different because it takes more than good intentions to solve the pressing problems of global warming and extreme poverty.

11th Hour: Last Call to Stop Global Warming

With the box office success and political impact of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” will Leonardo Di Caprio’s “11th Hour” do the same.


By: Vanessa Uy


Another “environmental opus” coming you’re way via the 60th Cannes Film Festival. I just hope that the hype generated by these two environmentally conscientious works doesn’t downplay the seriousness surrounding the issue of climate change and/or global warming. I haven’t yet seen “11th Hour” in it’s entirety, but the trailer suggest it’s about those pro-Bush/pro-Republican climatologists who kept the proof of global warming from reaching the policymakers on Capitol Hill. The film is a very thorough explanation of the world’s policymaker’s current mad-dash to formulate laws to lessen the impact of global warming. Even my friends who served during the 1991 Operation: Desert Storm predicted that by the year 2000, cars will be run by something other than gasoline as they witnessed first hand the carnage caused by the industrialized world’s lust for petroleum.

Climate Change Threaten German Beer Festival

The effects of climate change are more insidious than we presently realize; even beer is threatened by global warming.


By: Vanessa Uy


If you think that global warming can’t possibly affect those traditions-no matter how trivial-that we hold dear, then you’re wrong. When spring arrived early in the heart of Europe this year, most Germans greeted the strange phenomena with much rejoicing and fanfare. But a warmer climate could threaten a much- loved German staple: beer. Whether you believe that the ancestral home of beer is Germany or Ancient Egypt, you should be concerned on how global warming and climate change can affect your cherished “brew.” The type of barley that is used to brew traditional German gourmet beer has not weathered very well to Europe’s increasingly warmer climate. Looks like ski resorts are not the only casualty of global warming.

A decline in barley harvest was noticed in Germany during the past few years. There was also a noted decline in the general health and well being of the kind of barley that is traditionally used in preparing German beer. Where this leads to can only be assessed by on going research on the warming climate’s effects on the barley crop.

Compounding the threat of climate change on Germany’s beer culture is the European Union’s heavy-handed approach in granting financial subsidies. The EU hand these out like their going out of fashion to farmers who comply to their current mission du jour. Crops that can be used to produce bio fuels like the rape plant whose rape seed oil can be easily converted to bio diesel are heavily subsidized. This “free-money” diplomacy can easily make small-scale German farmers to choose “favored” crops as opposed to barley.

Methane Hydrate: A Blessing or a Curse

A huge reserve of methane found under the sea could ease our current energy problems, or send our planet into a runaway greenhouse effect.


By: Vanessa Uy


Studies show that the amount of methane hydrate that’s currently found under of all the Earth’s oceans is probably twice as large as our current reserves of other fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas combined. Even though all of this methane hydrate has the danger of escaping into the Earth’s atmosphere increasing the effects of global warming, it also has the potential of easing our current energy shortage. Also, methane is the cleanest carbon based fuel in current use.

The mysterious phenomena of deep-sea methane hydrate deposits, is being currently under investigation by marine geologists all over the world. Methane hydrate can also be found in the permafrost layer of the soil in Arctic regions, but deep-sea deposits are more concentrated therefore more economical to mine. Methane hydrate is made up of frozen water or ice that contains large amounts of methane gas trapped in its crystal structure. The chemical process of hydration also contributes to the relative stability of methane hydrate crystals. On extremely rare occasions, methane hydrate fields can suddenly out- gas in huge eruptions. This could explain why some ships mysteriously sank without a trace in the Bermuda Triangle, even on calm weather conditions.

Chemists, geologist and other scientists have now joined forces to study of methane hydrate crystals from its stability aspect to the economics of harvesting it as a source of methane fuel. Certain deep sea beds are now being studied whether the relatively high water pressure of the deep ocean or the relatively low temperature of just a few degrees above freezing are factors that affect the occurrence of methane hydrate crystals.

One of the few research vessels that’s currently studying the phenomena of methane hydrate deposits is the Hamburg-based Meteor. Meteor is a German science vessel that is specially equipped with an autoclave corer that can reach 2000 meters below to extract the methane hydrate seam. This autoclave corer enables her to maintain the ambient water pressure that surrounds the methane hydrate deposits-usually 180 bar- as these samples are brought to the surface to be collected. Then the other samples of methane hydrate are stored in a cryogenic fluid like liquid nitrogen for further analysis in land-based laboratories.

Marine Geologist Gerhard Bormann of Marum Bremen University with a team of chemist and engineers run the research ship Meteor. They are currently involved in the feasibility study of mining methane hydrate from the ocean’s dept without exacerbating the effects of global warming by allowing the methane to leak into the atmosphere. Japanese scientists are also involved in formulating efficient and economical ways of extracting deep-sea methane hydrate deposits.

By melting methane hydrate crystals in the lab, scientists found out that the “frozen” methane expands to 160 times its volume as a gas. Even though by weight, a typical piece of methane hydrate crystal is just made up of 10 to 15 percent methane by weight.

A Hotter France

A majority of French citizens view the 2003 Paris heat wave as a definite sign of global warming, but some politicians think it’s a load of hot air.


By: Vanessa Uy


As the 2003 Paris heat wave claim the lives of the elderly, it sparked a national crisis over the governments apparent inaction to mitigate such a tragedy. Even the neighboring countries have criticized the French government’s poor planning and pitiful response when faced with such a tragedy. Even the installation of air conditioning units on old people’s homes will only exacerbate the effects of global warming on a later date.

Global warming is also wrecking havoc on the French ski resorts especially in the Pyrénées Region. This stop- gap measure of using a battalion of energy hungry snow machines will only exacerbate the effects of global warming in the long run.

Several promising solutions include adopting a “greener” architecture both figuratively and literally. A number of environmentally conscious French citizens had upgraded the thermal insulation of their homes to save heating bills during the winter. This also has another positive effect of lessening the amount of heating fuel to be burned thus minimizing carbon dioxide emissions. Also rooftop gardens can have a cooling effect especially during the summer months. Plants like bamboo has a very effective cooling effect on its surroundings. The electricity saved can also lessen the “carbon footprint” of individual homes.

Fear and Loathing on the World Community’s Efforts for Climate Protection

Now that there’s a consensus that global warming is primarily caused by our industrial activities, should we be optimistic about a solution that serves everyone’s interests.


By: Vanessa Uy


Have you noticed that anything designed by a committee is seldom aesthetically and functionally pleasing? I hope that this fate doesn’t befall the well-intentioned actions of the Global Community / Powers-That-Be to limit the impact of our industrial processes on our climate. Believe me, I’m all for establishing resolutions to limit the generation of greenhouse gasses that’s causing global warming that would eventually cause a catastrophic climate change and sea level rise. But chances are, the United States will have the loudest voice on formulating policies to solve this somewhat intransigent dilemma because herein lies the true extent of the complexity of the task at hand. But first, lets take a look back on the United States Government’s track record on how might they deal with this problem.

During the end of the 1960’s, the gravest threat to the Global Community was the all-out nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the then Soviet Union. The Nixon administration at that time was in a unique position to declare a détente or and end to the “Cold War” and the ability to enforce it. Sadly, the U.S. Administration at that time was extremely reluctant to reformulate the “canon” of their “interests” and foreign policies. This was immortalized in that famous Richard M. Nixon quote; “Peace in our time with honor.” A lot of people will argue that it was a good thing because the almost imminent all-out nuclear exchange was postponed indefinitely. But as time went on, this flawed foreign policy has created Al-Qaeda and despotic Persian Gulf Heads-of-State.

If the U.S. Administration’s involvement in formulating laws that are of benefit to the Global Community in tackling catastrophic climate change is still based on a 40-year-old “canon” that protects U.S. interests in maintaining their Military-Industrial-Complex above all else would probably result in two scenarios. One, it would be doomed to fail; two, it would create more problems that it intends to solve.

Maybe, we should take solace on what Abraham Lincoln said about slavery more than a hundred years ago. He said that the institution of slavery was “formulated on both injustice and bad policy.” This is much like our present “agricultural subsidies” that only benefit the rich and powerful. Policymakers really should think carefully on how they should formulate solutions to protect our climate that not only benefits the poor but also rich industrialists can live with.

Most “common folks” that I know have been doing their part in protecting our planet. Some of them for more than thirty years by reducing energy consumption and recycling in order to conserve our dwindling natural resources. Let us just hope that when run-of-the-mill politicians use their heavy handedness on environmentalism, Russian Literature buffs won’t be saying: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

How Real Is Global Warming

By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy

Since the runaway blockbuster success of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and a well-founded case of “Republicans” suppressing evidence on global warming since the mid-1990’s, is everyone ready to heed the warning signs?

We’ve been always fascinated by the concept behind the “Einsteinian Dictum.” It’s Albert Einstein’s suggestions to scientists when presenting their scientific theories and laws to the general public. Einstein says “Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.” On presenting their ideas on global warming to the public, “simple as possible” is fast becoming “we don’t get it” unless you’re a climatologist with a minor in chaos theory. The earth’s climatic system is quite complex that at present there are still some aspects of it that we don’t understand. The good news is that more and more people are well informed of the issues on taking care of our climate. The bad news is that a lot of people, including climatologists and policymakers under the tenure of the industrial-political-powers-that-be, can quite easily refute the existence of global warming using the complexity of the earth’s climate as an excuse.

One aspect of this confusion is the natural “greenhouse effect” that keeps the global average temperature to within 25ºC. This is caused by the small amount of carbon dioxide gas (200 parts per million) that’s naturally present in the earth’s atmosphere. This traps the infrared or heat component of the sun’s radiation that reaches us. Without this, our global average temperature would be about -30ºC. The main culprit of global warming is the dramatic increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere due to our industrial processes being run by burning fossil fuels.

Global warming that’s caused by the increase of greenhouse gasses, primarily carbon dioxide, was first described by Dr. Roger Revelle back in 1957. Revelle was concerned about the vast quantities of carbon dioxide venting into the earth’s atmosphere as a by-product of our industrial processes like electricity generation and/or transportation. Revelle wrote that, ”Mankind is inadvertently conducting a great geochemical experiment.” As the world’s climatologists continue to gather data during the intervening years, recently, a large majority came to an alarming conclusion. It was assumed that Earth’s climatic system was resilient enough to absorb shocks and respond to human influence in a steady, gradual way has come under question. One prediction by climatologists that’s being suppressed by the industrial-political-powers-that-be is that the climate can suddenly – within a century or less – flip into an entirely different mode, a “climate change.” In fact, the climatologists argue using evidence recently collected from the polar ice caps and ocean sediments shows that it has already occurred in the past.

Due to the lack of concrete findings from the scientific community, our policymakers are forced to adopt a wait- and-see approach, which is being criticized by the experts as a dangerous naïveté. A number of qualified weather experts are challenging the present existence of global warming that’s being caused by the increase of greenhouse gas emissions. Reid Bryson, a prominent professor of meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, has stated that the global warming predictions are based on flawed data. If anything Bryson and others claim, that the worldwide climate over the past 50 years is getting colder, not warmer. Kenneth E. F. Watt, professor of zoology and environmental studies at the University of California at Davis, points out that the urban "heat-island" effect known since 1952 is the reason why the data we have at present that points to global warming is suspect. Another critic is James Goodrich, one time chief climatologist for the state of California, points out that the use of urban temperature records for monitoring long-term climatic trends skews the results that would validate the existence of global warming.

Despite the credible experts probably with vested interests from the industrial-political-powers-that-be, an- albeit less vocal majority of the scientific establishment in the United States tends to accept the existence of global warming. One of them is James Hansen of NASA, has been recommending immediate congressional action since the mid-1980’s, to slow down the degradation of the earth’s atmosphere, and set targets for global reduction in the burning of fossil fuels.

As Vanessa and I viewed Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” a movie which is a critique-backed-by-scientific-data to the policymaker’s inaction in taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We can say that we are now better informed and thus have a more realistic perception of the big picture. Using the worse case scenario projected progression of global warming, we can conclude that the Kyoto Protocol’s target and timetable of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is unrealistic. It’s a “catch 22” of the industrial world’s reluctant to develop and adapt non-carbon based alternative sources, and the long term effects of the greenhouse gasses from industry even if we suddenly stop generating them.

And even if you don’t believe that global warming exists, you should know that the “American Foreign Policy Du Jour” affects us all. The U.S. Government’s dependence on foreign oil and reluctance to develop and adapt alternative energy sources is a sign that it’s okay for them to “reward bad behavior” to despotic Middle-Eastern States that are the primary producers of petroleum. This petroleum dependence is the source of revenue of these repressive regimes that threaten geopolitical stability.