The Hurricane Sandy “Frankenstorm”: Proof of Climate Change?

Given that President Obama and Governor Romney never discussed about climate change and global warming during three of their 2012 US Presidential Debates, will “Frankenstorm” Sandy cramp their respective plans for the presidency?

By: Ringo Bones

If you are still “relatively young” or who have kids who are currently between the ages of 5 and 8, chances are you’ll going to be concerned about the state of the Earth’s climate by the time when you or your kids turn 65. But is the decision of the two political parties of the 2012 US Presidential Election candidates not to discuss global warming and climate change related issues already start to bother you?

As news of Hurricane Sandy – after the devastation it caused around the Caribbean – as it prepares to pounce on Florida now start to make everyone wonder if global warming and climate change factors have contributed into this hurricane being dubbed as a “Frankenstorm” by the press, it already placed a damper on the West Coast presidential campaign trail schedules for both Democrats and Republican parties. Though Hurricane Sandy is still classified as a Category I storm as of October 26, many residents in the Florida panhandle are already concerned of it becoming a repeat of Hurricane Katrina.

Ever since as far back as the days of US President Ronald Reagan, climate change and global warming issues had always been a politically contentious one since if most incumbent leaders in the industrialized West chose a more carbon neutral path of energy generation and transportation technology and infrastructure, it would put a serious dent on the profit earnings potential of multinational crude oil extraction companies. Sadly, the world’s biggest multinational crude oil extraction companies are also the main campaign underwriters of politicians – not just in the United States – but also in the rest of the industrialized West. Thus making a less carbon intensive future for the rest of us nothing more than a pipe dream as “Big Oil” chose to spend millions on suppressing scientific findings that climate change and global warming are primarily caused by dirty coal and crude oil burning.  

Global Warming: Politics Over Science?

When a scientist is convinced by his own verifiable scientific data that global warming is real, will this finally mobilize the global community in formulating solutions? 

By: Ringo Bones 

The conservative Evangelical community in America – who has the significant political clout to make the US government somewhat reluctant to join the global community to formulate solutions to move away from coal and crude oil energy use – has always viewed for over a generation now that global warming and greenhouse gasses generated by fossil fuel burning industrial activity does not have a scientifically verifiable connection. With faulty scientific research largely funded by Washington D.C. based focus groups and lobbyists beholden to Big Oil and Dirty Coal based corporations, the conservative Americans even resorted to manipulating organized Christian dogma to discredit any scientific research and anyone pointing to the connection between carbon dioxide rise in our atmosphere and global warming during the Dubya Bush administration. Fortunately for us who believes in reasoned argument over demagoguery, even tenured research scientists beholden to Big Oil and Dirty Coal corporations had finally seen the light. 

A physicist from the University of California in Berkeley and author of Energy For Future Presidents by the name of Professor Richard Muller had finally seen the “scientifically verifiable light” of his results that global warming is caused by the industrialized world’s own greenhouse gas producing industrial activity. Prof. Muller used to be a tenured climate researcher of Charles Koch – a representative of the primarily conservative mouthpiece who will readily use Holy Bible based organized Christian doctrine demagoguery to achieve their own economic and political ends at the expense of our own environmental well being. Prof. Muller recently had a change of heart on his stance on global warming when his very own scientific results proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that human industrial activity that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses is responsible for global warming. 

As with what former US Vice President Al Gore experienced during his An Inconvenient Truth documentary, Prof. Muller says that it was a shock to me how the carbon dioxide levels rise curve exactly fit – as in correlates – to the temperature rise exactly; As if all this warming over the last 250 years has been caused by carbon dioxide generated by human industrial activity. Muller also says that if current trends continue – as if we humans won’t take steps to move away from dirty coal and crude oil burning industrial activities – temperatures here on Earth will soon be higher than anything experienced by homo sapiens throughout history. Even though Muller has hopes that we can eventually transcend from the problems caused by global warming citing that we humans are an infinitely adaptive species, he also says that adaptation is disruptive and initially hurts – especially to the economically disadvantaged who will, unfortunately be the ones to experience the worst effects of coastal flooding due to sea level rise. 

Is the Climate Change Issue Getting Too Political?

From cabinet ministers conducting official meetings in odd places to elected global warming deniers getting an ego boost from leaked e-mails purported to reveal global warming as a hoax, is the climate change issue becoming too political?


By: Ringo Bones


Maybe it was the news about The Maldives’ cabinet ministers conducting one of their official meetings 5 meters underwater in scuba gear to highlight the dangers of a sea level rise caused by global warming back in October 16, 2009. Or was it the iconic Nepalese cabinet ministers meeting in the Mount Everest base camp to highlight the dangers of global warming endangering the Himalayan freshwater supply by accelerated glacial melting that lasted just 5 minutes due to hypoxia concerns. Or was it the leaked e-mils purportedly to prove that climate change, global warming, and all that environmental claptrap are nothing more than Marxist-Leninist socialist propaganda out to destroy the White Anglo-Saxon Christian way of life. Whatever it is, it seems like politicians now have the loudest voice when it comes to the climate change issue and its subsequent resolution.

Probably the most damaging to the scientific validity of the overly politically driven climate change debate was those leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia. Where climate researchers Professor Phil Jones and Professor Kevin Tremberth managed to embroil themselves in a climate change scandal over the use of “value-added data. Not surprisingly, the issue of the leaked e-mails suggesting that climate change is a hoax was enthusiastically embraced by that famous climate change and global warming denier Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Boosting the ego of a known climate change denier is probably the last thing everyone on the planet earning less than 25,000 dollars a year of getting a fair deal out of the on-going UN-sponsored Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Given that the coal and crude oil lobbyists of America had managed to fund a “mercenary science” team to deny the existence of global warming for over 30 years due to their almost inexhaustible warchest. Making their demagoguery pass off as legitimate science in the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill. Thus making climate change deniers like the famed Republican Senator of Oklahoma manage to make the consensus of the final agreements reached in the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen tailored more to suit industry. Making the people who live on less than a dollar a day living in climate change prone regions victims of the political demagoguery of Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and their ilk.

Even though the UN-IPCC still defends that the science done on climate change and global warming during the past 20 years still has a valid data. I just don’t think that is still enough to convince the politicians at Capitol Hill to formulate effective measures to tackle the problem of climate change by the world's leading producer of unnecessary greenhouse gases – the United States of America. Worse still, the crude oil and coal lobbyists of America even successfully achieved to make global warming denial a part of Evangelical Christian canon during the Bush Administration, making the global fight against climate change an uphill battle – both literally and figuratively.

Earth Hour: Symptoms of Our Bad Energy Policy?

Does a call to suspend our electrical energy use for one hour can mean a vote against the policy maker’s bad and environmentally unsustainable energy policies?

By: Ringo Bones


Saturday, March 28, 2009 has been earmarked as this year’s Earth Hour as the 80 or so countries around the world pledge to make a stand against global warming. Whatever time zone your country belongs to, when it hits 8:30 in the evening, you have the option to show your solidarity to protest against our policymaker’s bad and environmentally unsustainable energy generation policies. By switching off your domestic lighting – or other high-powered electrical appliance – by one hour, you can vote in favor of our environment and the adoption of alternative energy programs. But is this all in the end just an exercise in futility?

During the 2008 US Presidential Elections, the American people voted for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party due to their more environmentally friendly energy policies. Americans probably got fed-up with the strong-arm lobbying tactics of the coal and crude oil / petroleum industry in Capitol Hill that the voting results of the 2008 US Presidential Election’s showed a “green theme”. Politicians who promised environmentally sustainable energy policies won over those who favored profits and short-term gains. If this trend continues, then this year’s Earth Hour could be an overwhelming success.

Even though I have a 10,000 watt-capable solar photovoltaic / rechargeable lead-acid battery power generating system. It only serves as an energy bill saving measure. Since our local mains electricity is still unfortunately 100% coal-fired – or other forms of greenhouse gas generating fossil fuels. Even though it is – according to the utility company – clean coal technology, it doesn’t produce acid rain anymore (?). There are still concerns that it produces billions of tons of carbon dioxide annually that our local electricity consumption’s contribution to global warming and climate change can’t simply be overlooked.

As the energy conservation side of curbing our civilization’s greenhouse gas generation, Earth Hour could serve to remind us about the inconvenient truth behind our strives for an ever more convenient lifestyle using our current carbon dioxide emitting infrastructure is not doing our planet any good at all. Even the hype behind carbon capture and sequestration now looks suspect if we won’t take steps now in outgrowing our greenhouse gas emitting technological infrastructure.

The Hidden Dangers of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration

In an effort to stave-off global warming due to the excessive carbon dioxide by-product of coal-fired power plants, is carbon dioxide capture and sequestration really a sensible environmental solution?

By: Ringo Bones

The relative abundance and cheapness of coal means we’ll be using this fossil fuel for a few centuries more given our current use for electric power generation. But they do have one serious drawback: excessive carbon dioxide output. Given that carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas generated by our industrial processes – namely electricity production. Science has recently devised a scheme to allow us to generate cheap electricity from burning coal while “supposedly” avoiding the harmful consequences of the global warming effects of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide via carbon dioxide capture and sequestration.

The concept is by no means an ideal solution even though most coal-fired power plants built after the year 2000 are already doing it, but is carbon dioxide capture and sequestration – usually shortened in the mainstream press as “carbon capture and sequestration”. Especially when injecting the gas underground or deep into the ocean floor for long-term storage (hopefully forever) really good for our environment?
Though global warming is primarily caused by excessive carbon dioxide being dumped into our atmosphere as a by-product of our current industrial activity. The gas can only do harm when it is in our atmosphere. Devise a method to capture it from the flue gases of the coal-fired power plant’s chimney and store it somewhere away from our atmosphere is one brilliant solution to minimize our contribution to global warming. Power loss aside, is carbon dioxide capture and sequestration absolutely safe for our environment?

A reminder of what can possibly go wrong in carbon capture and sequestration schemes is the Lake Nyos tragedy that occurred in Cameroon back in August 21, 1986. A Limnic eruption of the crater-lake of Lake Nyos resulted in the sudden release of a large cloud of carbon dioxide gas. The incident caused the suffocation of 1,700 people inhabiting on several nearby villages’ downhill from the lake and also resulted in the death of 3,500 head of cattle and other livestock. Though not completely unprecedented, it was the first known large-scale asphyxiation caused by a natural event.

Even though the capture of the carbon dioxide gas by-product from the coal-fired power plant’s flue gases via amine-based separation solvent is a proven technology. Regenerating the solvent for the next cycle after extracting the carbon dioxide gas and its transport and storage into a supposedly safe long-term storage area requires energy. The solvent separation and regeneration part usually from the coal-fired power plant itself, so it is an energy intensive process resulting in the generation of extra amounts of carbon dioxide gas.

Then there’s the problem of where to store the sequestered carbon dioxide. The site selected for long-term storage should be geologically stable or there will be a repeat of the Lake Nyos incident to those people living downwind and downhill from the storage facility – given that carbon dioxide is 1.5 times denser than air. Plus detectors that trigger alarm bells when carbon dioxide gas levels in the atmosphere rises to lethal levels are not exactly cheap – nor are they commonly available.
Given our future energy demands are likely to increase, using carbon capture and sequestration to offset the carbon dioxide being thrown into our atmosphere by the new coal-fired power plants is an exercise in futility. Geologically stable sites for long-term carbon dioxide storage are not exactly dime a dozen and the increasing output of carbon dioxide by coal-fired power plants are only going to increase in the future if the coal lobbyists get their way.

For our long-term future, carbon dioxide capture and sequestration from coal-fired power plants should only be seen as a stop gap measure. Before we can develop energy sources and electricity generation schemes that doesn’t generate excessive amounts of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that will surely exacerbate the effects of global warming.

China’s Coal Dilemma

China has recently been building coal- fired power plants at a rate of one a week, does this make the country at risk for more powerful typhoons?


By: Vanessa Uy


Diminishing crop yields due to shifting rainfall patterns in rural China’s urban migration rate has increased in the past few years. This urban migration demands an expedient improvement of China’s urban infrastructure namely electricity generation. This is reason number one why the Chinese Government is building coal- fired power plants at a rate of one a week to meet the rising energy demands. China can afford this since they have an abundant supply of coal, but are there any hidden dangers?

If China's many coal-fired power plants keep on dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it can only exacerbate the effects of global warming. And a warmer planet would not be of China’s best interest because it can result to more powerful typhoons. It’s a well-known scientific fact that typhoons get their energy from the heat stored in the ocean water. The warmer the ocean, the more powerful the typhoon. And since most of China’s urban centers are not very far from the world’s sea- lanes. They could expect flooding caused by storm surges. Surely, an environmentally friendly solution must be sought.

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.

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.

Oil Companies versus the Kyoto Protocol

Majority of petroleum companies at present doesn’t agree on the Kyoto Protocol’s plea of carbon dioxide sequestration, but that’s about to change.


By: Vanessa Uy


The Kyoto Protocol is seen as Bolshevism by most of the existing petroleum companies who don’t have the fiscal incentive to find an effective and low cost method of storing the carbon dioxide by-products of oil and gas extraction process. The emphasis here is on the effective method of carbon dioxide storage/sequestration since future legislation might impose stiff fines on the companies who aren’t in line with the Kyoto Protocol.

Natural gas is by far the cleanest fossil fuel in current use, but it contains up to 10% carbon dioxide as it is extracted from the well/mine. Today, only a handful of environmentally conscious petroleum companies extract this carbon dioxide that’s mixed with the natural gas and return the carbon dioxide back to the mine in sandstone formations underground so that it won’t contribute to global warming.

The Insala Gas Plant in Nigeria has been doing carbon dioxide capture and storing them back underground since 2004. That’s way before precedents are agreed upon by the Kyoto Protocol. Although petroleum companies that does this on a voluntary basis are still the exception rather than the rule. Norway’s STATOIL also practices carbon dioxide capture/sequestration of their petroleum extraction by products and they posses the most sophisticated underground carbon dioxide storage facility to date as recognized by the IPCC, the inter government panel on climate change.

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.

How Green is Nuclear Fission?

After hearing the news from the BBC and Germany’s DW-TV that the EU is strongly considering building fission-type nuclear power plants to lessen carbon dioxide emissions prompts everyone to ask: How green is nuclear fission?


By: Vanessa Uy


This is by far one of the most controversial proposals of the European Union: Evaluating the idea of increasing the number of fission-type nuclear power plants to meet the European Unions growing demand for energy while limiting the carbon dioxide produced by this activity. Even since commercial use of nuclear energy began in the 1950’s, scientists are already concerned that there comes a time in the future that carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels can increase the green house effect causing global warming. The Chernobyl nuclear plant incident back in April 26, 1986 caused the cancellation of any proposed nuclear power plants due to safety concerns.

Commercial fission-type nuclear power plants have always been targeted by picketing and protesting environmentalists for all the good reasons; radioactive wastes. This is one of the inevitable by - product of generating electricity via nuclear power and they can stay dangerously radioactive for up to a million years. “Radwastes” need a safe storage space where they can’t cause any harm for that length of time. Also, fission-type nuclear power plants generate excess heat and this is usually released in nearby large bodies of water wreaking havoc on the local estuarine ecosystem.

Nuclear power plants have their obvious benefits ever since Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” spoke of the dangers of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere via industrial processes causing global warming. Day by day, nuclear fission gained legitimacy because it doesn’t generate carbon dioxide once in full operation. A very attractive process despite concerns on safety, radioactive waste storage and the threat of terrorists and rogue states acquiring weapons grade material.

Another problem that the experts haven’t discussed or are reluctant to is that the mining and refining of uranium or other similar fissionable material is very energy intensive. I’d be amazed that there is a nuclear fuel refinery in existence that uses renewable energy like wind or solar (photo voltaic or thermal) to process pitchblende and similar ores into yellow cake concentrate to uranium slugs.

“What about breeder reactors?” They can continually generate their own fuel so radioactive wastes will not be a problem and the energy intensive refining of uranium would be minimized. But, and it’s a very big one: the problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that gets recycled back into fuel is plutonium which is very easy to use as a weapons grade material. The problems of terrorist groups and rogue states probably stymied the widespread use of breeder-type reactors. These breeder-type nuclear fission reactors can only be found in easily defended and secure sites and the ones found in the US, Japan and France are the only ones freely talked about in the press.

Breeder reactors are green and eco-friendly in its own way, but like the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre implies in his philosophical views: “Hell is other people.” If you want to know more about the carbon cycle and view detailed diagrams check out “enviropedia.org.uk”.

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

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.

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

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?


By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy


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.

Are Evangelical Christians Killing Mother Nature

The proof is provided via BBC’s World Service broadcast on the 14 of May 2007. Looks like people like me are not “that-kind-of-crazy” anymore.


By: Vanessa Uy


At first, it’s kind of hard for me to tell if this is legitimate news broadcast or one of those Tom Clancy novel-made-for-TV-type things. As every Tom Clancy fan can attest the character driven nature style of his works, this particular BBC news broadcast made Dr. Thomas Ice of Liberty University look and act like the “main villain” on “The Sum of All Fears.” Dr. Thomas Ice unabashedly expressed his views on a legitimate news broadcast that Global Warming and other environmental concerns of recent times are just “Hollywood-left-wing-propaganda.” Is Dr. Ice trying really hard to throw out of the window the concerns of the majority of “Rational Americans” want to achieve. The “Rational Americans” want to tell the rest of the world that not all Americans are not egotistical narcissists who want all of the planets natural resources only for themselves. Maybe, Dr. Ice doesn’t want all of America to be environmentally conscious because this is an important stepping stone in establishing a meaningful dialogue between the Islamic World and the West.

Even before the post- September 11, 2001 backlash, the impoverished peoples of the Islamic World has been left “holding the bag” so to speak due to the insensitive energy intensive lifestyles of the more-money-than-sense-Evangelical-Christian-powers-that-be making self-serving policies on Capitol Hill. Even though they are still a minority, they can easily trick Rational Americans like they did in the 2004 US Presidential Elections. The Evangelicals doctrine of greed, exploitation and unbridled materialism are one of-if not the- main reason of the proliferation of misery and suffering in the Islamic World. And I’m beginning to wonder why Osama Bin Laden didn’t specifically mention these people on his “Fatwah.”