How about we just get a President who recognizes there's an issue? I know Jimmy Carter really loused up "conservation" with his sweater speeches, but, geez, it sure would be nice if we could get the President to speak from his bully pulpit to get people to conserve a little.

I stopped off at the local convenience store. As I walked in, there was a woman sitting in her parked car, complete with Bush/Cheney sticker, running her engine. I went into the store, walked around trying to figure out what I wanted, paid, came out, AND THERE SHE STILL WAS! I was sooo tempted to pull my little hybrid, complete with Clark08 sticker, up next to her and knock on her window! But, I really didn't think that would help things.

There are so many EASY things we can do to conserve. We should start with that. It just seems like there's the green side which makes everyone feel like they're evil schmucks for not sitting around freezing to death in winter and sweltering in summer--who's going to listen to that? Nobody wants to hear that. So, they turn it off and we get NO conservation, no admittance that there is a problem.

There's a happy place in the middle. We have to find it. Some people here know this, but not everyone that I work (now I consult--hours are better) for a major oil company. The guy in the office next to me and I both drive hybrids. When I first got mine in 2001, I went to a picnic at my boss's boss's house. The VP of Research for said major oil company was THRILLED with my car. He took it for a ride.

The number one thing we have to do is realize there's a problem and stop feeling guilty about it but DO SOMETHING about it!

You know how we have an obesity problem here in America? Get our fat butts moving instead of sitting in a gas guzzling SUV, and watch the pounds come off.

But the right wing nuts demonize conservation as if it's bin Laden's tool to get us. Funny thing is, if we conserve gas, guess what we do? We give the bin Ladens of the world less leverage over us!

in the name of OIL ALMIGHTY. Sometimes I think we're doomed.

Bush Waives Saudi Trafficking Sanctions [whatta guy!]

WASHINGTON, (AP) --

President Bush decided Wednesday to waive any financial sanctions on
Saudi Arabia, Washington's closest Arab ally in the war on terrorism,
for failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in
prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers.

http://tinyurl.com/8rcjk

The real problem is not global warming, it is a lack of systems thinkers and systems thinking. We can not solve tomorrows problems with todays solutions. We must begin to use the tools of system dynamics to understand the system nature of the problem and the long term impacts and best leverage points for change if we are to make a positive impact on the future.

That was 13 years ago! The greed of our present leader and his cohorts have certainly put this issue on the back burner. Hurricanes coming in at the 4 and 5 level should get the intelligent people thinking. It's way past time to get working on this issue!

When is it time not to rebuild? Katrina and now Rita are extreme cases. But the Jersey shore gets whipped around all the time. It's a microcosm of the problem. When do we just give up and say land isn't inhabitable?

There is no more important issue, in my humble opinion, and the country may finally be ready to listen

"George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up."

Here in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area in Texas, there is very limited mass transit. Most folks have no choice but to drive their car to work, which could be 30 miles away. We may have the land mass to live any where we want to live, but the consequences of that is the overuse of individual cars on the road, adding to pollution and global warming.

We have to get over the idea that because we are the richest country in the world, we are entitled to live our lives as we choose. We have one planet - that's it! So, we are in this together - anyone who doesn't see that will reap the consequences along with the rest of us.

We must elect responsible representatives in our government. It is now a matter of survival of the planet.

there doesn't seem to be much that each individual can do to make much of a difference. I mean, thanks to Rush Limbaugh and others of his sorry ilk, most of the country doesn't believe there IS such a thing as global warming, and, if there is, so what? We'll just rapture up out of the way.

In order to make a difference, it has to come from the top down and since we're being held hostage by a big oil mentality, that's at least 3 years away, when we can finally throw these heartless nin-com-poops out of power. The best chance, right now, for any change comes from altering the balance of power in the 2006 elections and replacing the anti-science crowd with Dems who may (or may not)take this issue seriously. I just saw a poll and environmental issues was way down on the list of items to worry about - something like 10th on a list of 10. It should be #1; without engendering care for our resources and showing some common sense in utilizing fossil fuels, there will be NO more planet. Maybe the rapture folks are right.

Right now, we're building houses, cities, and engines that should not be allowed to exist. The trend to move to desert cities that have no water, is growing. (It's warmer - who cares is we can't get a drink of water.) We're rebuilding high rises on the coastal barrier islands to replace ones that just got crushed by a hurricane; we put cities, such as Tampa, Miami, Las Vegas, New Orleans, etc, in places that should have been left in the hands of Mother Nature. Our little kids are given gas-powered ATV's to hurtle through the woods; then they graduate to gas-powered racing boats, 375 horsepower sports cars, and watching idiots circle a race course at over 200 miles per hour - burning fuel at an enormous rate all the way. And, yes, the onslaught of Drive-Ins, for everything from coffee to church services to funerals, wastes a tremendous amount of fuel and contributes greatly to the global-warming effect.

I'm rather pessimistic about the whole thing and have little hope that things will change in the near future; I fear for the future of my grandsons.

I would like to see some national print media, such as National Geographic or USA Today, produce an issue or series visually demonstrating what computer models predict the effects of global warming will have on our coastal areas, glaciers, the giant ice shelf in Antartica, islands in the Pacific, Miami Beach, (hell, all of Florida) the animals in the north, the animals in the Southern Hemisphere that are going blind due to excessive ultra-violet rays coming through the ozone hole, and the flora and fauna changes right here in the dear Midwest. (A hundred-years vision - or a hundred years nightmare?) I've photographed the sky one evening change from being perfectly clear to cloud-covered due to all the jet contrails at 35,000 feet. People getting home for dinner. Perhaps all the repubs and people who think this is all junk science should be forced to spend some months living in thoses areas so they can experience first hand the changes that are already taking place. Fat chance. Not until they can drive there. I don't know what the answer is.

My guess is that it's already too late. We don't seem to be able to respond to anything unless it's a catastrophe - and with global warming, it's a slow and deadly process. However, it will end up being a catastrophe.

Why?

I remember two years ago, when we had the blackout in the northeast, looking at my air conditioner poking out there in the hot sun and thinking, "I can't believe we're having a blackout precisely BECAUSE of all the free energy beating down on us!" It's ludicrous!

The world is always going to be ruled by people who want to rule the world.

General Clark,

I really appreciate this post & I fully believe & accept the validity of Global Warming.

The logic is not hard to follow.

The implications are terrifying.

But it feels almost futile -- despite the Asian tsunami, Katrina & Rita -- to even broach the subject. Why?

We still have people living in some crazy superstitious world -- and I'm sorry to say, many of our current LEGISLATORS are in this camp -- who are arguing about the validity of evolution itselfas if this were Victorian England and not 2005! The very people who take advantage of our media communications to spread their propaganda round the world don't even believe in science, apparently!

And as for leadership, and LACK of leadership- Again and again and again we see the Vicious [fossil energy] Cycle provided by our so-called leaders rather than the Virtuous Circle we should be fiercly advocating for both in our economy and morality, in our economic morality, if you will!

One million people displaced by Katrina alone. Now times THAT by a hundred... Seeing doesn't even seem to be believing at this point.

Thank you for your clear-headed fact-based engagement on the subject of global warming. We need more science, less denial & people just have to be made to understand that we MUST hold ourselves & our human institutions to a higher standard of leadership. If we don't, Mother Nature will.

I also agree with the importance of global warming as an issue. I don't know how to categorize it but its importance is indisputable. I think that we need to make our views known in the national discussion on the topic. We can do that by writing letters to the editor, op/ed pieces, and raising the issue on talk shows. We need to do more than talk to each other.

Here is a way to assure that your local newspaper prints your letter. Wait until there is an article on global warming in your local newspaper. Write a letter That Day commenting on that specific article. Keep your comments to 100 words or less. Don't "scream."

Right wingers may not believe in global warming, but they sure believe in their money. We need to make an economic case, not an environmental one.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/1027

but isn't the obvious to many....that Global Warming is a national security issue!

And considering that Bush's jury is still out on whether Global Warming is "real" science or not, we will have to make up for so much lost time once you get into office, it ain't even funny! In fact, I cry about it often.

What is this administration doing for the good for our children's future? Again, the obvious answer........Not a damn thing!

=============
"decent wages, education and health care for every American is "not just an opportunity, but a right."--Wes Clark

In my opinion, what we need is someone who will challenge this nation to solve our dependency on dirty energy - make it a Manhatten Project/Apollo type of challenge. A real commitment with defined goals, sufficient funding, and application of the best and brightest minds. There are so many promising technologies out there that lack the resources to just prove or disprove their viability, much less bring them to fruition. We need to make oil companies realize they should become energy companies or be left with dwindling product and profits. Prompt them to invest their huge profits in R&D to find tomorrow's energy cash cow. Get the public behind it by making it part of the so-called "War on Terror". Please do something besides drilling for more oil in Alaska.

General Clark -

I hope that you have the opportunity at some point to talk with Dr James Hansen about this subject. He is the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (in NYC at Columbia University) and I was priviledged to do some studies with his team over 20 years ago.

Here is a blurb describing their current mission:

Current research, under the direction of Dr. James Hansen, emphasizes a broad study of Global Change, which is an interdisciplinary initiative addressing natural and man-made changes in our environment that occur on various time scales (from one-time forcings such as volcanic explosions, to seasonal/annual effects such as El Niño, and on up to the millennia of ice ages) and affect the habitability of our planet. Program areas at GISS may be roughly divided into the categories of climate forcings, climate impacts, model development, Earth observations, planetary atmospheres, paleoclimate, radiation, atmospheric chemistry, and astrophysics and other disciplines. However, due to the interconnections between these topics, most GISS personnel are engaged in research in several of these areas.

A short paper expressing some of his thoughts about the global warming debate is:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

I was interested (appalled) to see James Baker next to Jimmy Carter at the summit. Was Baker there routing for his home team of Chevron and the boys*?

*plus of course Condi

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." Churchill

I am thinking I should invest in a liveaboard boat instead of a house. :D http://www.livingaboard.com/

Off the top of my head.....

Our communities must have town hall meetings to encourage our citizens to work together to find out what we are doing wrong in our own communities that lends a hand to global warming.

Our government and the citizens must dialogue about solving problems we have concerning transportation. Can we build better more efficient systems nationally and within our municipalities? We can no longer allow the automobile industry to continue designing and selling cars that destroy the environment. The automobiles must be affordable. But we must end the reliance on automobiles for transportation. Surely there is a way to affordably and cleanly make it easy for all of us to get from neighborhood to neighborhood, community to community, state to state without only driving everywhere? The air transportation is going to become extremely expensive for everyone with the price of fuel going up.

We must force industries to solve industrial processing systems, and insist that they are efficient and environmentally clean. How many products are they producing and putting on shelves that are truly unnecessary and are pollutants? Proctor & Gamble is just one example of corporate greed and undesirable pollutant products.

May I also suggest that we insist on different packaging of consumer items that are environmentally friendly? It shouldn't take petroleum produced over-packaging to get to a product bought off the shelf. Let's encourage merchandisers to talk about selling their products without all the fancy packaging, and have them promote green-clean products in their advertising? I can't believe how much trash is accumulated just because of over-packaging products. My 98 year old great grandmother in the late 70s used to say, "Merci, merci, so much trash. We never had so much trash." She would be amazed if she saw the wasteful packaging today.

What happened to conservatism? We need to reorder our lifestyles and help ourselves. What is the role the consumer plays into so much of the problem of Global Warming? It's time we all took personal responsibility and stopped blaming everyone else. We need to create positive incentives to make everyone feel personally responsible. How about more Green Advertising?

We must think about giving people incentives and environmental reasons to consider solar power again, wind power, and it's crucial that our scientific community dialogue and research ways to utilize our oceans. Seems to me the oceans could be utilized safely for electric power generation technology. Some scientists are talking about solar power satellites. I have concerns about trashing our space with so many satellites and more that we put into that environment, but again scientists can determine if this is a viable way to generate energy. Thinking and doing... vital that we get real studies going on all of this and act on it. We can't put it off anymore. We should have been utilizing everyone "in the know" years ago. I suspect this current administration will never extend a helping hand. I guess we need to encourage the outside sectors to climb on board, with or without Mr. Bush.

Another area of concern I have ... we can all use a helping hand to clean up environmentally dangerous toxins in homes and landfills.

What about the methane induced environments, i.e. cattle ranches. The beef industry is huge. Ozone depletion, deforestation, faulty irrigation, corporate greed, and junk science ... we have work to do.

Clean water! Toxins going into our water reservoirs, into the ground, is a threat to our health. I almost forgot something important. What about cleaning up our oceans? Many culprits destroying our marine life, our coral reefs, etc.

We need the help of governors, mayors, business leaders and members of the scientific community to outline all the things we can do. If they are not outspoken, if they are numb to the fact that they need to clean the environment, then I fear that our citizens will never take the issue of Global Warming serious. And for crying out loud, let's give our high school and university kids an incentive to care about the future of our planet and encourage them to think about what they can do to stop Global Warming.

I know you know all of this already. I haven't offered any new ideas. But these are just a few of the issues that concern me.

I would rather spend my life searching for the truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. -- John Victor Ramses

Science fact not fiction, solar power satellites are the only practical means of our species' continued existence, let alone progress.

Milestones in the technological and consequent social advancement of civilization have been marked by the development of new and efficient sources of power. Making and controlling fire gave Homo erectus an evolutionary advantage over all other species. Harnessing beasts of burden allowed hunters and gatherers to settle into Neolithic villages. The backs of slaves bore the growth of ancient civilizations. The invention of waterwheels and windmills helped turn Medieval Europe out of the Dark Ages. Steam powered the Industrial Revolution. Petroleum fuels the Automobile Age, and electricity energizes the Information Age.

To maintain, let alone increase, our prosperity, we cannot quit developing new sources of energy. Fossil fuels are dinosaurs, sooner rather than later doomed to extinction; they are the biggest contributors to the Greenhouse Effect running amok and local air becoming a muck; and they are the ultimate source of war and terror in and from the Middle East. Nuclear fission and fusion have proven too expensive, complex, and dangerous to be practical, even in a world without terrorists. Wind-, tidal-, geothermal-, and ground-based solar-power are too limited by geography and technology to contribute significantly to existing, let alone, future energy needs.

The only dependable source of power for the advancement of civilization is space-based solar power. For decades, scientists and engineers -- supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations at home and by other governments abroad -- have developed the architecture of such a system. According to these plans, astronauts and astrorobots would construct massive satellites in high orbit around the Earth, where the sun shines continuously and intensely. The materials required -- metals, silicon, and oxygen -- are the most plentiful elements in the crust of the Moon, where they would be mined and, again using proven technologies, catapulted from the surface, far more efficiently and less expensively than if launched from the Earth, with over twenty times the gravity to overcome. Each satellite would bear fifty square kilometers of photovoltaic surfaces -- the "leaves" for the "photosynthesis" of our green planet -- safely and cleanly producing as much power as ten nuclear power plants. The enormous quantities of energy generated would be sent down to Earth in the form of high-density radio waves, captured by antennas in secure areas, and converted into electricity fed into our power grids.

Of course, a project this ambitious would require an investment in capital, labor, and leadership as great as the mobilization for a world war. Cooperation between nations, in both the public and private sectors, as successfully employed in the Intelsat and Inmarsat satellite consortia, would be an essential component -- as well as a welcome benefit -- of this project, enhancing not only prosperity here on Earth but also security in this ultimate "high ground". Even petroleum-exporting countries could benefit from significantly increased supplies of energy, as could be used to affordably desalinate seawater and make deserts bloom; petrochemicals would continue to serve as valuable sources of carbon for plastics and other manufacture.

The only thing to dwarf this initial investment would be its ultimate profit: The sun sends our planet some 20,000 times as much power as the entire industrial world consumes; harvesting even a fraction of this supply would yield trillions of dollars' worth of energy (in today's dollars) every year, in perpetuity. Such a profitable program based in space could also represent the first step on a manned mission to Mars and beyond, only then technically and economically feasible.

And who can foretell what secondary benefits might arise? Our manned missions to the Moon produced profound advances, including computer technology that eventually transformed every aspect of modern life. Each dollar that has been invested in the space program has returned at least three dollars to the economy as a whole -- a "multiplier effect" on par with education spending and twice as great as military spending.

The alternative -- not meeting our world's ever growing needs for energy, or attempting to do so by means that would destroy the very environment in which we must live -- comes at a cost in terms of lives, liberty, and property that cannot be calculated or borne.

Ironically, there is no issue more down-to-earth than the development of space-based solar power. With it, the economy and humanity of the world will flourish in ways we dare only imagine; without it, the economy and humanity of the world will perish in ways we dare not imagine.

The future is inevitable and largely in our hands.

--Douglas Drenkow
http://progressivethinking.home.att.net/envt/envt21.htm

Douglas Drenkow is a researcher, writer, and political commentator living in the greater Los Angeles area. His essays appear regularly in http://www.CommentsFromLeftField.com; http://www.OpEdNews.com; http://www.GordonTalk.com; and his own site, http://ProgressiveThinking.home.att.net

Has a petition in support of the Restore Scientific Integrity to Federal Research and Policy Making Act (S. 1358).
here
"Countless policy and legislative decisions affecting the health and safety of the American public and the environment rely upon transparent, independent scientific information. Over the past several years, however, science has been suppressed, manipulated, and distorted by political appointees at an unprecedented level, threatening our nation's unparalleled scientific legacy and capacity...."

The world is always going to be ruled by people who want to rule the world.

I think we have to come to the recognition that we live on a small planet and that there is no longer an opportunity to do whatever you want. We need to first engage in dialogue which the Bush has been unwilling to do. And we need to face the truth which the government has failed to do. We need to recognize that without cooperation, without dialogue, without putting our heads together to formulate solutions, we will be hastening the demise of our planet. I don't think our current leaders either get this or care. In terms of solutions, Vice President Gore enumerated a viable system of establishing credits that could be exchanged and traded with third world nations so that there is fairness for all--especially the third world countries who have not as yet modernized or become energy over users. We need to consider moving quickly to alternative energy sources, consider only those businesses that are energy conservers and accept only new products that can be recycled. There are many small steps that we can begin to take such as taking measures to conserve the rain forests that will allow us to come back from the edge. But it begins with attitude and commitment; without either, we are doomed to more of the same. Clearly, in a government that fails to realize its obligations to the people, the only solution is to replace the powers that be and start over again. As the first step, we need to form a non-political counsel of elders whose commitment is only to the public good. That is something I would like to see in my lifetime. And of course, the process would be speeded up if we could get the force of the media behind the effort. Their inability to come forward and push for reforms is disappointing; but one suspects that it is the product of the strong arm tactics of the government to keep the media docile and disengaged.

Les Aaron

I hope someone from the automotive industry can put this to use.

Several years ago, returning from Aspen, I filled up my little 4 cylinder 75 hp Dodge Colt in Glenwood Springs, at an altitude of @ 5700 feet. I headed east, through the Rockies, Denver, and into eastern Colorado and Nebraska on I80. This car usually got around 30 - 35 mph on the highway and held about 13 gallons. As I proceeded into Nebraska, about 300 or so miles from Glenwood Springs, I thought about filling up for gas, but noticed the gas gauge seemed to be stuck at half full. So I kept on driving - and driving and driving. Finally, I pulled into a station - it might have been Kearny or Grand Island, (now we're talking about 2000 feet above sea level) but it was at least 500 miles from my start - and filled up the tank. To my amazement, I found that I had gotten somewhere over 75 mpg on this particular drive. Don't know why, but I surely wasn't rolling downhill all the way, since to get to Denver, one has to go both up and down mountains.

Anyway, the next year with the same car, I duplicated the effort. Since I'm no engineer, I wonder if something with the air pressure at high altitude, thin air, or whatever, when I filled up the car and going to a lower altitude made the gas "thin out" or something so I got this tremendous mileage. I also wondered if this could be duplicated, reproduced and controlled in everyday cars. (The next tank of gas was back to the normal @35 mpg range.) Anyway, there's a process here that seems worth investigating. I'm just don't have the knowledge or background to do it. Anyone?

Why not?

Agree with Donjo. Need leadership from the top. I hope that the Dems in general, and Wes Clark specifically, continue to press this issue. The inertia on this matter is daunting, and our lazy, corporate media is no help. Recently, our local officials eliminated a county gas tax to reduce the price at the pump. For them, it's an issue of price gouging, why shouldn't the issue be framed differently, that of raising taxes to devote to improving mass transit, developing alternate, cleaner sources of energy, etc.

It is good to see people starting to discuss the larger issues. Global warming is a symptom of a world without long-range planning. The built in assumption is that the people of the earth require "growth".
Continual growth is a mathematical impossiblility. We are already using more in resources than can be replaced. What is needed is a transition to a steady-state society. Many such societies existed in the past. The population was balanced with the natural environment.
Here is a link to my short essay on the subject. It is just a first pass designed to elicit ideas from others.
No Growth

In addition the link below leads to a series of general essays on the broader question of goals for the 21st Century as well as what the impediments to adoption, and what are the steps to implementation.

I've yet to find a forum willing to disucss planning as opposed to the fretting over events of the moment. Bashing one political party or the other doesn't accomplish much either, other areas of the world face the same issues even with totally different political structures.

-- Policies not Politics Robertdfeinman

Blutodog

We should first fight for more conservation of energy. Forcing or encouraging an increase in the gas mileage of all autos / trucks should be a top priority for the Feds. but it's not because the present Admin. is owned by the OIL cartels and have no interest in lowering the world's addiction to OIL. Plus, the Demos are spineless jellyfish so we can't expect them to do anything. The battle is lost right now . I hope the oil states along the gulf enjoy Rita because they're the one's promoting her growth and well being. Counter productive yes but they'd rather put their faith in Jesus then science so screw em.

The United States has a pretty unique attitude towards climate change. Although Bush isn't interested in the subject at all, he doesn't necessarily deserved all our blame for not joining the Kyoto Protocol. Only 2 Senators supported the resolution to join the Kyoto climate treaty. Inter-governmental panel on climate change reports suggest that the Kyoto treaty will old help address anthropogenic climate change to a very limited extent. Delaying warming trends by ten years possibly.

None the less, I thought creating any international treaty about something as complicated as climate change was admirable and that the United States could probably join the treaty and pretty much avoid any significant economic problems related to the treaty. Alas, most of the United States population does not agree.

It would be nice to see NASA's budget significantly increased so that the agency could pursue climate study more intensely. Currently, NASA's cimate study funds are being diverted to planning for a future mars mission. In addition to more resources for the agency, charging it to perfect new energy technology and implement energy policy might also be a good idea. The National labs should be part of any iniative to deal with climate change as well.

Sadly, it will probably take a future crisis before our country can come to consensus on climate change.

Katrina, and now Rita, have brought to light the fact that global warming affects security by reducing the money the federal government has available to fight wars as well.

200 billion and counting for Katrina. It seems we'll spend about the same amount of money on Katrina as on the Iraq war. Our deficit is unbelievably high now.

Hurricanes seasons will continue like this years, and even get worse, according to the top scientists in the field. If FEMAs budget will increase by a few hundred billion dollars, does that leave us with any money to fight wars?

Thanks General for shedding light on some other security consequences of global warming that I wasn't aware of, the politically destabilizing consequences. Let's also not forget the fact that, since America is causing a quarter of the human induced greenhouse gas emissions, more and more we might see nations deciding not to import goods and services from us as retaliation for our irresponsibility. This will harm the economy and the federal budget even more with lowered tax revenues.

once again you have made me think "outside the box" with regard to an issue that faces not only our nation but the entire planet.....Global Warming. While my family and I are extremely energy conscious, most people I know are not. By addressing it in this way.....as a national security issue.....perhaps we can get more people to pay attention. But this will be no easy feat.

Americans have become a complacent society. Its going to take a real leader to make them understand what a pickle we're in with regard to the environment. Many folks do not like to trouble their beautiful minds with thoughts of a scientific nature. So this issue must be taken to them where they live in order for it to have an impact.

I must confess that I cannot suggest a magic formula for doing this. However, I do think that one way we can begin is by emphasizing the implications in our schools. It is a dilemma that is going to have an even greater impact on the future of our children, so if we teach them about it now, hopefully they will be more cognizant of what the future holds and will be prepared to deal with it from a position of knowledge, as opposed to ignorance.

I don't approve of political jokes.....I've seen too many of them get elected.

I think the first and most important thing that has to happen is we need leadership in this country (and around the world) that allows people to focus on what we all have in common rather than keeping the focus on issues to further divide us.

As long as political leaders keep pushing issues to promote fear and division, there will always be many who will view suggestions and ideas from "the other side" as something to be ridiculed, ignored and fought against without ever stopping to think if it's something that would benefit all.

I fear with the current state of our electronic election systems, our ability to elect leaders who will work for the common good is pretty slim... instead those who support and uphold the corporate advantage will get the most votes - ensured by those controlling the vote counting.

As long as the big money of big oil rules I'm afraid promotion of energy conservation will always be a back burner issue for them. It is up to us as individuals to do what we can to conserve and hope that our example will inspire others to do the same. In so many ways, we really are on our own.

We can also support through donations and getting the word out organizations like The Apollo Alliance.

http://www.apolloalliance.org/

Thank you for your continued service to our country and us General Clark. Your inspiration enables me to carry on every day doing what I can in my own small ways.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest places if you look at it right.
--Hunter/Garcia

_____________________________________________________________________

Religion is (w)Holy dependent on faith, while science is wholely dependent on facts, but Bush has merged the two into holely matrimony, and that's why America is doomed for failure, since it slicks over the real issues, like his oil and energy policy.

It's our basic human ethics that must shape science policy "for the common good." But, how can we better assure that scientific facts and integrity are properly and effectively incorporated into science policy, especially when applied towards programs that deal with energy, global warming and climate changes - all national security issues.

Imo, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are the manisfestation of Bush's failure in leadership: (1) to support science-based research that promotes alternative renewable energy resources; and (2) to apply science-based research models that best prepares America from the potential economic and political impact of global warming. Real science must be incorporated into government policy. Unfortunately, Bush's vision for science in America is impaired, and he's still praying that it aint so.

_____________________________________________________________________
"Debate, Dialogue, Discussion, Disagreement - that's not wrong -that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it!" - Gen. Wesley Clark (US Ret.)

"Clark is dead on in his analysis about the devastating effects of global warming ... too many think their biggest worry will be that it will be a degree or two hotter at their summer picnics ... global warming will be no picnic ... reports show a massive increase in worldwide diseases, droughts and famine, global war and political disruption not to mention the loss of hundreds of species and cultures ...

but again, why can't Clark take his case to the next level??? ... the reason we have problems with global warming is that we continue to burn fossil fuels ... and the reason we continue to burn fossil fuels is, as John Kerry correctly pointed out in his 7/29/05 speech:

'The bottom line is the Administration's energy policy works for Saudi Arabia, it works for big oil and gas companies, but it doesn't work for the American people.'

Clark needs to clearly identify that our current policies that cause global warming are driven by the pure greed of big oil and corporatism and a government willing to cater to them ... Clark understands and articulates the depth of the problem very well but weakens the potency of his own argument by failing to 'out the enemy' ..."

General Clark, please address this response, and "out the enemy", if you will?

Thank you, sir.

General Clark, what do you think the top few things the federal government (Congress and/or the President) should do about global warming?

I have shared this with Wes Clark, General Myers, General Schoomaker, General Gilbert III (Dep. Dir. for QDR), many media & politicians.
[color=green]Silence is the feedback I rate.[/green]

[color=red]Senator Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Gov. Dean, and retired Gen. Clark
Wake Up the Ethics of Responsibility - Create a new Federal Law in 2004!!!
Copy Hand Given To Democratic Presidential Candidates in 2003: [/red]
[color=blue]2004 – Replace Selective Service System -> Participatory Citizenship Internet Network
This legislative proposal below would be revised for the 21st Century needs and conditions.
Challenge Congressional representatives to a new bill towards Participatory Citizenship!
www.USAFREEDOMCORPS.gov - - - - - - - - - - - - - Example of Federal Internet Portal Site.[/blue]
Humble suggestions by Peter P. Jesella, unemployed clinical philosopher

HR 1730 – 1979/80, HR 2230 – 1981/82 voluntary service, enhanced mandatory registration./
By then Congressman Paul N.‘Pete’ McCloskey-Menlo Park CA, formerly U.S. Marine Corps.

1. The Selective Service System will be replaced by the National Service System and all persons (male and female) will be required to register within 10 days after their 17th birthday.

2. Information on service opportunities (today by way of a Federal Internet Portal Site) will be made available to all persons between their 17th and 18th birthdays.

3. All registrants will have the option of serving in a civilian capacity for one year or in the military service for two years or more, and will be allowed to defer such service until the age of 23.

4. At the age of 18, persons will have the right to elect:

a. Two years of military service, which will entitle them to four years of educational and training benefits paid at the base monthly rate provided to Vietnam-era veterans (those enlisting prior to January 1, 1977; 38 U.S.C. 1651), but adjusted to account for cost-of-living increases since that time;

b. Six months of active duty, followed by five and one-half years of Reserve obligations;

c. One year of service in a civilian capacity; or

d. None of the above, in which case they will be placed in a military lottery pool for six years of draft liability. If military manpower requirements are not filled during this period, these individuals might be required to serve two years of active duty and would also incur a four-year Reserve obligation. They would be entitled to two of educational and training benefits.

[color=yellow]5. If voluntary enlistments are not adequate, then and then only would one be subject to possible conscription.
6. The Civilian Service Corps (Americorps) would be operated by a National Youth Service Foundation (Corporation for National and Community Service) as outlined below.[/yellow]

a. A National Youth Service Foundation would be established by law. This would be a quasi-public organization and would receive appropriations from Congress.

b. The Foundation would be operated by a 19-member Board of Trustees with 12 of its members to be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the following persons to serve as ex-officio members: The U.S. Commissioner of Education, the Administrator of the Office of Youth Development, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training, the Director of Action, the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, the Director of the National Park Service, and the Executive Director of the National Youth Service Foundation, who will also be appointed by the President.

c. An Advisory Council would be created to advise the Board of Trustees on broad policy matters. It would have 24 members with at least eight under 27 years of age at the time of appointment.

d. Present federal programs providing opportunities for youth service would remain in effect. These include the Peace Corps, VISTA, Teacher Corps, College Work Study Program, Job Corps, and the various youth programs funded by CETA.

e. The Foundation would invite units of state, regional, and local governments to submit applications, outlining plans for the employment of individuals in National Youth Service activities within specified guidelines. The Foundation would support such applications on the basis of merit.

f. The Civilian Service Corps would have two major options: community service and environmental service. Community service applicants would interview for a wide range of local community service projects sponsored by public agencies or private non-profit organizations. Those who wished to travel in search of community service projects would do so at their own expense and would register with the local National Service System agency, and no special provisions would be made for them.

g. Most sponsors of the environmental service option would be federal, state, or local agencies. Most environmental projects would require travel costs as well as expenditures for supplies and equipment. Such costs would be the responsibility of the sponsor, not of the foundation. When lodging and food were provided by the sponsor, it would be entitled to reimbursement by the grantee from whose jurisdiction the participant was recruited.

October 16, 2003
General Richard B. Myers, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
# 2E872 The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318

Peter Jesella
136 Courtyards East Windsor, CA 95492

Dear Chairman Myers:
I look forward to hearing your talk, in San Francisco, October 19, before the World Affairs Council, and hope my questions to you are asked. It is this reason why I am contacting you, to provide you a chance to be aware of my concerns, some of the recent replies from the current Administration and a few from the past.

It would be a great honor if a few seconds would be available for me to shake your hand, wish you the best in these challenging times, and know that you will, like Counsel to the President Alberto R. Gonzales and Asa Hutchinson, Under Secretary Dept. Homeland Security, give my views appropriate consideration and to share with the proper policy staff for their review. I realize that the format of your appearance will be similar to the presentations I witnessed by Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Secretary Tom Ridge, that it is unlikely that I will be able to approach you, but if I ask maybe there will be found an exception.

I served in the U.S. Air Force, in the medical field, for four years, thirty years ago I was stationed at Wright-Patterson AFB during the Yom Kippur War, and witnessed history in the making, regarding the massive airlift of military hardware to Israel, Defcom 3, B-52 bombers ready to attack the Soviet Union, gasoline lines, the growing power of OPEC, conversation with these B-52 crews as I collected blood from them during a blood drive.

These events made me realize that the Persian Gulf would become a strategic concern for the U.S. supply of commercial oil, but also that our concept of national security would need to change by debating the merits of a decentralized Energy Conservation Corps the equivalent of the can-do attitude found in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Since 1979, I have advocated on and off for legislation introduced into the Congress, by former Marine, Congressman Paul N. ‘Pete’ McCloskey that would have modified the Selective Service System into a National Service System, HR 1730-1979. At that time I had extensive conversations and writings with my Congressman Norm Mineta, about my deep fears of the U.S. going to war in the Persian Gulf, he was not very supportive, letter attached to this fax. Current Secretary of Transportation.

In April 1983 President Reagan asked the Department of Defense to response to my concerns about Congressman Panetta’s bill to establish Select Commission on National Service, and I received the enclosed letter from Lawrence J. Korb, Assistant secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics, who indicated to me, “Defense Department is concerned that voluntary service programs might compete with military recruiting. The seriousness of such civilian voluntary service programs and the participation rate on the part of young men and women will be affected by the compensation and benefits offered. The proposed legislation does not address the impact that these programs might have on military recruiting. While, due to the above factors, we do not support the enactment of the proposed legislation, be assured of our commitment to the goals outlined in your letter of creating the psychological/political climate that will allow for a comprehensive movement towards obtaining a balance in appropriations and revenue.” Letter included in this fax, and I also include a letter from former Director of the CIA William Colby from 1982, “hope that your efforts to communicate the importance of this matter are well received in the circles which are able to make the needed moves ahead on this important subject.”

Today I read over the Internet from ABC News, “Morale is really important because it’s the people who get the job done,” said Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, “We often focus on the high-tech piece of our business, and the equipment and so forth. But in the end, it’s the individual soldier, sailor, Marine, Coast Guardsmen that make the difference.” Myers said.

I believe that the morale in this nation could be improved, that rebuilding democracy in Iraq is a noble goal, but rebuilding participatory citizenship and democracy in the United States is a national imperative. I ask you to again look at Congressman McCloskey’s legislation with modifications for the 21s Century. Such a program could be lean, effective, and accountable by making the most use of the Internet technology that is now being developed for increased productivity in this nation, increased national security in this nation.

The key “psychological/political climate” that this legislation would create as law, and why it needs to be considered a modification to the Selective Service System is that it will require a national debate over the need for mandatory registration program, but with clear understanding that it is still a volunteer participation be it in active military service, reserve duty, community service, or civilian reserve duty.

The key to this legislation was having both males and females register at 17, be encouraged to think, explore, and discuss their role as future voting-age citizens, and at 18 indicate any interest in volunteering for these various programs. Of coarse military service, and other challenging activities like forest fire fighting should have sufficient compensation compared to other important but less threatening activities like working with gangs.

I hope you can review this letter, look forward to your speech, and the possibility saying hello. I am sorry for the late arrival of this material, but in December 2002 I wrote to you and about 50 other Pentagon military and civilian officials, and got two replies one from the Selective Service System, copy included in the fax, and one from DARPA, which acknowledged my interesting proposal, but I have misplaced this letter. You and all the civilian officials in the DOD that I contacted did not reply.

Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns in your very bush life,
To A Better Future, Peter P. Jesella

Included in fax:
12/13/2002 Selective Service System, Richard S. Flahaven
12/16/2002 White House Counsel to the President, H. Christopher Bartolomucci
01/21/2003 U.S. Department of Justice, Asa Hutchinson
04/18/1983 Assist. Sec. Defense, Manpower Reserve Affairs and Logistics, Lawrence J. Korb
01/19/1982 Former Director of the CIA, William E. Colby
12/20/2002 Director of the Peace Corps, Gaddi H. Vasquez
1979-1980 One page outline of HR 2206, “The National Service Act”, 81-82 HR 1730.
1981? Two pages from Congressional Budget Office on cost and numbers.
01/15/2003 FEMA, Director Joe M. Allbaugh
08/11/1980 FEMA, John W. McKay, Director Intergovernmental and Consumer Affairs
09/19/1979 Congressman Norman Y. Mineta, current Secretary of Transportation
03/05/1980 Department of Energy, James S. Kane, Assoc. Director for Basic Energy Sciences
05/07/1980 Spartan Daily, San Jose State University, Student’s Alternative to War, Energy Corps Proposed.
07/09/1980 San Jose News, 2 goals: Youth Corps and solar power.

Total 17 pages faxed, sorry for the clutter, and unorganized presentation.

President Clark said, "...problem that many people are just starting to think about: the impact of global warming on national security policy."

I read that and I wanted to SCREAM!

What is the impact of global warming on national security? NEW ORLEANS AND THE REST OF THE GULF COAST! That's the answer!

Are people only now starting to think about this?! I know, Wes, you and some others have been talking about it for some time, trying to warn people who won't listen. So this rant is addressed to the knuckle-heads who have not been listening: WAKE UP, DAMMIT! What have you been d